The Answer To Feminism Is Not Gynocentric Traditionalism

Dysfunctional Gynocentric Cultural Values Must Go


Black Pigeon Speaks (BPS) did a video recently titled, “ONLY Patriarchy Builds Nations * / & other UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS”[1]. The video raised a number of pertinent factors to consider in what makes developed civilisations sustainable and in this article I will provide my thoughts on that and where Western society went wrong. As the societal consequences from decades of feminism become more and more apparent, there is a push in some corners of society for a return to gynocentric traditionalism[2].  The answer to feminism is not returning to promoting gynocentric traditionalism, by encouraging chivalry and infantilising women. Gynocentric traditionalism allowed feminism to gain traction in the first place. We got to where we are because we treat men as expendable and we do not hold women accountable for their actions and treat them like they are children. These dysfunctional gynocentric cultural values, have allowed the feminist trojan horse to take over society and have led to the marginalisation of men and boys. This marginalisation of men and boys, will eventually trigger socioeconomic collapse, or the “Fempocalypse” as Karen Straughan coined it[3].


As BPS’s video addresses, there is an obvious need for the population of a country to reproduce and developed nations are at risk of dying out because of fertility rates falling below replacement levels. However I would add that investment in survival of the civilisation is just as important. There is no point breeding if there is no properly functioning civilisation, economy and infrastructure etc to support the survival of the population. Men are required for that to a much larger degree than women and always have been. Men are responsible for designing, innovating, building, maintaining, running and leading civilisation and no amount of feminist social engineering over the last 50 years has changed that. Indeed in one of BPS’s other videos[4], he cites research on how only men pay taxes and how this covers what women as a group take out of the system. He is not the only one to point that out either. Even female consumer spending is substantially fuelled by income earned from their male partners and the result of male dominated industries and male driven economic activity and taxes, ensuring the viability of the female dominated service sector and public sector. There is much less money for women to spend and welfare to use, without men participating in the economy.


Like the low fertility rate, a silent time bomb is growing every year from the decades of neglect of boys in the education system and the epidemic of fatherlessness. We can see from the plethora of research available, the enormous costs of fatherlessness[5] and the boy crisis in education[6]. These problems are going to have serious economic, financial and social consequences in the coming decades. Male unemployment and crime will skyrocket. These problems will eventually implode our economies into a depression, governments will default as fewer men will be in a position to pay taxes and social cohesion will erode from widespread crime, poverty, broken families and substance abuse. Society will come apart at the seams socially and economically.


We have seen what happens to societies when large numbers of men become disenfranchised. It does not end well for the society in question. Revolutions and civil war originate from such conditions and it is something to be avoided. Our civilisation runs because of men. If even one percent of men walked away from society for a day, we would have serious problems. If all men walked away from society for one day, it would collapse. Men are not expendable. It is quite the opposite and we are going to pay an enormous price as a society, if we fail to acknowledge men actually do have value. Feminism, the epidemic of fatherlessness and the boy crisis in education, have all grown in large part precisely because we treat men as expendable and do not care about the consequences that comes from marginalising men and boys. To treat men as expendable is to treat civilisation as expendable. Without healthy,  productive and well-adjusted men that can make use of their potential, there is no future for civilisation.  As I have mentioned before, even if we see men as machines, we understand the need to look after those machines to keep them working for us. If you don’t replace the oil in your car, it won’t last very long. Men are not machines, men are human beings. Looking after them properly requires more than basic parental investment. Men and boys must be treated with respect and compassion.


MGTOW is about men living life in their own way and refusing to be expendable. That is a good thing. Why? Because men have value to society and if men value themselves then they protect society and themselves from wasteful sacrifice of male potential. Men going their own way is not antithetical to civilisation. It is quite the opposite. Western civilisation was based around recognising the rights and freedoms of the individual for very good reasons. It is what made the West the success it became. Valuing individuality and respecting the rights and freedoms of the individual, is the basis of a free market economy and a free society. It generates tremendous economic prosperity and drives scientific and social progress and innovation.  These Western principles of valuing individuality and protecting individual rights and freedoms, is a very MGTOW concept. It is the group identity of the feminists and far left, that is antithetical to MGTOW and advanced civilisation. Men naturally contribute to civilisation without coercion. It is literally in our DNA to invent, build, explore, discover, maintain, repair, protect and provide. We find it naturally fulfilling, we do it without coercion.


What MGTOW is about, is applying men’s natural gifts and desires to do these things, in ways that are authentic to the man. If anything, MGTOW boosts the prosperity of society by preventing the huge waste that comes with treating men as disposable and preventing men from being exploited and used by a parasitic, corrupt and unsustainable gynocentric social system. MGTOW can instead freely apply their gifts and abilities in ways that are genuinely positive for society and for themselves (These are not automatically mutually exclusive things). There are countless men throughout history that have contributed to the advancement of their society enormously and did not get married or have children. Sir Isaac Newton, Orville and Wilbur Wright, Nikola Tesla, Ludwig van Beethoven and Adam Smith, are just a few of these men. Their scientific discoveries, intellectual and social contributions and technological breakthroughs, still have lasting impacts many years after their deaths on Western civilisation and the world. Getting married and breeding offspring is not the only contributing factor to the continuation of civilisation. Contributions to a civilisations scientific and technological knowledge base and intellectual capital, can be just as important and arguably be an even greater factor in ensuring the longevity of civilisation.


If we are going to give women equal rights as a society, then they must be held equally accountable. Otherwise it creates an imbalance that destroys society. Having reciprocity between the sexes is critical not just for individual relationships, but also for society. Treating men as expendable, provides no resistance to groups like feminists emerging and treading on men’s rights and marginalising men and boys. When men are regarded as expendable and you give women equal rights with no accountability, it does not take a genius to predict feminist groups will emerge and take advantage of that and they have.


By marginalising men and boys and treating them as expendable, you also reduce fertility rates below replacement levels. When fewer and fewer men have the finances and work status to meet the hypergamous expectations of women, thanks to the impacts of growing up in fatherless households, the boy crisis in education being unaddressed for decades and feminist initiatives like female hiring quotas, fewer and fewer children will be produced. When men are treated as expendable and put through the divorce and family court extortion and exploitation pipeline and women have no obligation to be accountable in relationships and roughly half of marriages end in divorce (the majority of which are initiated by women), many men will understandably start deciding not to marry and have families.


If we want a sustainable and prosperous society, we must recognise the value of men and boys and stop treating them as expendable, we must hold women equally accountable to men and encourage individuality over groupthink and identity politics. The parasitic feminist welfare state has to go too, which is something Stefan Molyneux has recently spoken about[7]. Like a parasite, it feeds off male taxpayers and supports female lack of accountability and eventually destroys society. If you regard men as expendable and don’t hold women accountable, such a parasitic system will emerge. These dysfunctional values must go if we want civilisation to continue.


Jordan Peterson Is Not A Messiah For Men


Unfortunately it is quite often the case that social critics of feminism, ignore the destructive influence of gynocentrism in our culture and society. Whilst I agree with a lot of what Jordan Peterson has to say, he is not the Messiah for men he is made out to be and has a number of serious flaws in his reasoning that cannot be ignored by the men’s movement or the MGTOW community. He is very big on self-responsibility (which we all are in the manosphere), except when it comes to women and girls taking self-responsibility and accountability for their actions toward men and boys. He remains dead silent on that. Responsibility for Jordan appears to be conditional based on your sex being male.


Even in the Cathy Newman interview[8], Jordan starts the interview off talking about man-children and then spends the remaining 85% or so of the interview talking to an adult woman and explaining to her that women’s choices have consequences. Despite having a first-hand example right in front of him in that interview, that the problem in society is not men not taking responsibility, but women not taking responsibility for their own actions and choices, he continues to wilfully ignore the elephant in the room like most traditionalists. As Alison Tieman once said[9], “we need to stop blowing smoke up women’s asses”. Exactly! We have to stop shielding women from accountability as a society if we want real change. Men in particular need to stop doing that.


His remarks about MGTOW both before and after the half-hearted apology he gave[10], expose his own gynocentric programming. Jordan is a traditionalist. If men are not protecting and providing for women, getting married and raising children, then they are suddenly man babies. There is no scope in Jordan’s gynocentric worldview for men to go a different path in life. There are plenty of men like myself for instance, that have full-time jobs, are independent and self-sufficient. We are men that have chosen not to get married or have children by choice, because of the pathological and predatory nature of the gynocentric societal system we live in. Apparently we are all man babies if we don’t follow his version of what a man is. It has never dawned on Jordan that perhaps taking responsibility involves acknowledging the substantial risks divorce, family court, domestic violence, sexual harassment and sexual assault legislation, feminist policies and the metoo climate, really present to men and not recklessly ignoring or downplaying these risks. That taking responsibility involves making smart and informed decisions and mitigating avoidable and substantive risks from these predatory elements of our gynocentric social system. That perhaps not producing a child in a world that does not respect fatherhood and wilfully ignores major social and economic problems, might be a responsible decision to make until those issues are recognised and addressed. That perhaps supporting men’s organisations, individuals and communities attempting to address these imbalances and who shed light on these issues, instead of pretending they don’t exist, might be taking responsibility and the initiative. It has not dawned on him that the greatest form of responsibility, is to take ownership of your own life and set your own direction in life. That being responsible means being brave enough to go your own way and not take the easy way out by conforming to what someone else’s ideal is of what you should do with your own life.


It also is interesting Jordan does not apply his own principles of what a male adult is to the plethora of childless, unmarried single women out there. It never dawned on him, that perhaps men might be avoiding women to increasing degrees, because there is something wrong with women and this culture. Jordan will scrutinise men, feminism, politics, the left and the culture, but never or rarely the elephant in the room- female behaviour and the collective in-group bias of women[11]. We literally have had hundreds of thousands of women in the streets protesting the election of Donald Trump over the last two years, with vagina hats on their heads, because a candidate with a vagina did not get elected President. I am not a sycophant of Trump, but I find the two year temper tantrum after his election tiresome. Jordan Peterson frequently skirts and avoids criticising or discussing the role of women in creating multiple generations of fatherless children and how women do to a substantive degree use the legal system as a weapon against men, particularly in divorce, family court and false allegations of rape, domestic violence and sexual harassment. It is the old saying in action, “to learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise”.


Quite often in his interviews, talks and lectures, he shows a reverence for femininity and has great difficulty by his own admission when speaking with Camille Paglia in their interview[12], in holding women accountable for their actions toward men (particularly crazy women). He is all for men taking responsibility, as long as men make choices with their lives that fit his traditionalist worldview. He does not seem to encourage men to take responsibility in standing up for themselves against women who mistreat them. He appears to be stumped on how men should take self-responsibility in their interactions with women. On how men should deal with crazy women and how to simply learn to say no to these women, call them out on their bullshit, stand up for themselves and walk away from them.


His simplistic view that MGTOW are just not attracting women and therefore there is a problem with these men and they should work on it, is a strawman he is fully aware is false. MGTOW won’t bow to gynocentrism and Jordan does not understand how men could not put women at the center of the universe, therefore there is something wrong with them. Jordan is aware of the heavy bias against men in family court and divorce and then counters that by saying not all women are like that[13]. Yeah that is right, but not all women have to be like that for the risk to be too high for many men to not choose marriage and family. Not all areas of a minefield have mines, but you only have to step on one to end your own life. The numbers on divorce and family court outcomes etc are not trivial, they are substantial. The consequences can range from financial servitude and imprisonment by your ex-wife, right up to men taking their own lives. Something tells me that if we reversed the sexes, Jordan would have no qualms in discouraging women from getting married and having children. Taking precautions to protect yourself from a predatory gynocentric social system (metoo, VAWA, college campus policies, divorce and family court etc), is not just smart, it is taking self-responsibility. Once you don’t follow Jordan’s gynocentric pathway to what a man is, self-care and taking responsibility for your own well-being as a man, does not appear to be what Jordan has in mind regarding responsibility.


Jordan simply cannot comprehend men going their own way and deciding what to do with their own lives, beyond the traditional gynocentric pathway. Like Christina Hoff Sommers, Jordan speaks a lot of truths, but he says a lot of things that are seriously flawed too and frequently omits valid and well warranted scrutiny of the supposedly “fairer” sex in the problems facing the relations between the sexes. We should not be ignoring that in the manosphere. Paul Elam[14], Karen Straughan[15],  Peter Wright[16], Stardusk[17] and others have called him out on these erroneous opinions and omissions. I would strongly encourage people to watch and read all of that criticism of Peterson which I have linked to this article, before they blindly follow every word he says. I like the guy mostly, but I do find his wilful ignorance and selective application of his own principles where they conflict with gynocentrism very irritating. It is the “playing it safe” strategy of so many social critics these days. Criticise easy targets everyone agrees is wrong with the culture and then ignore the difficult problems like gynocentrism. Men and boys deserve better.


A Return To Chivalry Is Not The Answer
Last week we had the mainstream media in Australia go into meltdown over remarks made by Senator David Leyonhjelm, in response to comments allegedly made by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. I will not be discussing that in this article, as it has already been discussed in a previous AVFM article linked here[18]. What I was more interested in was observing and discussing the ease with which the mainstream media on both sides of the political spectrum, were quite willing to quickly condemn Senator Leyonhjelm for his comments and almost entirely let Sarah Hanson-Young’s alleged comments go without scrutiny. There were exceptions. This week Senator Cory Bernardi has also spoken out[19] against Sarah Hanson-Young’s commentary in Parliament and had quite a few things to say about her conduct in the senate. As the saying goes, “people in glass houses should not throw stones”.


One response though that was particularly intriguing, came from columnist Miranda Devine in her article, “Leyonhjelm shows women lose in post-chivalry world”[20] . Her article which I have read requires a subscription to access, her interview on the article is linked here[21] for those that do not have access. Like Jordan, there is a lot of what Miranda says I agree with, however I do not agree with her comments regarding male chivalry and her criticism of David Leyonhjelm. I am not a supporter or opponent of David Leyonhjelm, but I don’t blame him or condemn him for responding in the way he did. It is about time that a politician stood up to the pervasive misandry in our governments. In her article, Miranda warns women that the senators remarks were a glimpse into what future society is going to look like, in a world without male chivalry. Miranda goes on to explain how chivalry is a tradition that takes advantage of men’s protective instincts and uses them to serve the supposedly “weaker” sex. Chivalry is indeed a tradition of male service to benefit women without reciprocity. It places women above men. It is a tradition that encourages one standard of accountability for men and a lower standard of accountability for women toward the opposite sex.


Women might be physically weaker than men, but the last time I checked they have all the same rights and privileges men do in Western society and some people make solid arguments they actually have more. Women are quite capable of being just as vicious verbally and socially as any man and many would probably argue they are more capable. Women are not the fragile powerless snowflakes some people would have men believe. Women and girls are excelling at every level of education over men and boys and doing quite well in the workforce. They enjoy a multibillion dollar international feminist empire that puts their interests ahead of everything else in numerous sectors of Western society. This exclusive support for women and girls pervades the mainstream media, academia, legal system and education system, politics, private industry, government policy and public health just to name a few areas. We even have entire government departments devoted to women and girls. There is no comparable set of organisations or level of support for men and boys. I think I speak for a lot of men and boys, when I say we are getting sick and tired of women and girls pretending they are weak and vulnerable creatures when there is a wealth of evidence to the contrary.


Chivalry is a bigoted tradition that enabled the very demonisation of men and boys that Miranda later discusses in her article, to go on unchecked and without opposition for decades. If women in politics or in the mainstream media want to make bigoted generalisations about the opposite sex, then shielding them from the consequences with chivalry is not the answer. All it does is keep the cycle of demonising the male half of the population growing and growing without opposition. If you make bigoted remarks about the opposite sex, then you are not the victim and that suddenly does not change when the person making the bigoted remarks happens to be female. Chivalry does not have a place in a modern society where women have equal rights and freedoms to that of men. If you make bigoted remarks against men, you do not get to play the victim because the men around you respond in a manner you do not approve of. Several years ago Miranda Devine discussed a concept called, “Female Entitlement Mentality”[22]. It takes a sense of entitlement to expect men to behave like gentlemen toward women that act like bigots. Indeed Peter Wright wrote an article[23] discussing a research study showing the link between entitlement in women and their disposition to support chivalry in men. Women have no place lecturing men about acting like gentlemen, when feminist lecturers write articles in the Washington Post titled, “Why can’t we hate men?”[24]. It is time for women to get off their pedestal and start taking accountability for their own words and behaviour. If you want men to be respectful toward you, then be respectful toward them. Two thousand years ago, a man called Jesus spoke of a simple concept to treat others the way you would like to be treated.


I certainly think women have it in them to empathise with men, accept accountability for their own choices and for their behaviour and words toward men. Karen Straughan’s own blog is called, “owning your shit”[25]. The name says it all regarding accountability. There are plenty of other examples of women displaying these qualities I have come across both online and in my personal life. A more recent example for instance popped up on my YouTube feed over the weekend. Her name is Sydney Watson. Here are two videos of hers for people to look at regarding recent events in Australia concerning men and feminism, link[26] and link[27]. Of course there are the Honey Badgers, Janice Fiamengo and numerous other women.


I am not buying the idea women can’t overcome gynocentrism, anymore than the false assumption men cannot overcome gynocentrism. Sure there are challenges, but gynocentism can be overcome provided it is recognised as a problem by society and a pathology that should be discouraged. As I explained in my article on normalising gynocentrism[28], gynocentrism is so common because we have normalised it. Encouraging women that go against the gynocentric grain of the culture and holding women and girls accountable for their words and actions toward men and boys, would be a key step in the right direction in reducing gynocentrism in society. We most likely are never going to completely eliminate gynocentrism to absolute zero, just as we will never completely eliminate obesity. We will always have a residual level of pathological behaviour in society because human beings are imperfect. However we can reduce gynocentrism by a considerable degree from its present levels and make it far less common and a fringe behaviour rather than a normal behaviour in society. We have the behavioural control to do that as discussed in my earlier article, but only if we recognise gynocentrism for the pathological set of behaviours it is and we make an effort to reduce it.


I am certainly not suggesting Miranda does not have empathy for men, she has spoken[29] at an international men’s conference. Like Jordan there are a lot of things I like about Miranda and agree with her on. However I am not going to remain silent when I see gynocentric double standards being encouraged and I do not care who it is from. Male chivalry toward women is a tradition of gynocentric double standards. Dr. Warren Farrell had a famous saying, “women can’t hear what men do not say”. As long as men remain silent for fear of offending women, absolutely nothing is going to change and that silence will contribute to gynocentrism remaining normalised in the culture. So start speaking your mind to women if you are a man and stop self-censoring, because it is about time men found their voice. That is why A Voice For Men exists. Use the platform. Calling men and women out on their gynocentric bullshit is not spreading hate, it is generating powerful and badly needed cultural change and demanding an end to hypocrisy and sexist bigotry.



[1]  ONLY Patriarchy Builds Nations * / & other UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS. Black Pigeon Speaks. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[2] Traditionalism vs. traditionalism. Peter Wright & Paul Elam. A Voice For Men. (Accessed July 2018).

[3] Fempocalypse!!. Girlwriteswhat. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[4] Research Shows ONLY MEN Pay Taxes. Black Pigeon Speaks. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[5] The Consequences Of Fatherlessness. National Center For Fathering. (Accessed July 2018).

[6] The Boy Crisis: Why Our Boys Are Struggling and What We Can Do About It. Dr. Warren Farrell & Dr. John Gray (2018).

[7] DEATH BY WELFARE. Stefan Molyneux. FreeDomain Radio. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[8] Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism. Channel 4 News. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[9] Tucker On Single Motherhood w/ Dr. Warren Farrell | HBR Debate 8. Honey Badger Radio. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[10] Jordan Peterson – I Regret Calling MGTOW Pathetic Weasels. Bite-Sized Philosophy (Taken from the original interview prepared by Transliminal Media). YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[11] Gender Differences in Automatic In-Group Bias: Why Do Women Like Women More Than Men Like Men? Rudman, Laurie A.,Goodwin, Stephanie A. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 87(4), Oct 2004, 494-509

[12] Jordan Peterson – Men Can’t Control Crazy Women. Bite-Sized Philosophy. Original source: Jordan B Peterson. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[13] Jordan Peterson responds to MGTOW backlash. Davie Addison. Original source: Rubin Report. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[14] Jordan Peterson Steps In It (MGTOW). An Ear For Men. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[15] Response to Jordan Peterson’s comments on MGTOW. Karen Straughan. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[16] The Gynocentrism Of Jordan Peterson. Peter Wright. A Voice For Men. (Accessed July 2018).

[17] Jordan Peterson | The Responsible Man. Stardusk/Thinking Ape. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[18] A man takes a stand. Mark Dent. A Voice For Men. (Accessed July 2018).

[19] Bernardi on Sarah Hanson Young. Liberal Democrats (Australia). YouTube. (Accessed July 2018). Original source: 2GB.

[20] Leyonhjelm shows women lose in post-chivalry world. Miranda Devine. The Daily Telegraph. July 4th 2018 (Accessed July 2018).

[21] ‘Sarah Hanson and the greens are demonising men’ | Miranda Devine on David Leyonhjelm | Today. News Bite Global. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018). Original Source: Sunrise – Channel 7 Australia

[22] Women believe they live in the age of entitlement. Miranda Devine. The Daily Telegraph May 20th 2012. (Accessed July 2018).

[23] Can women be chivalrous? Damn right they can. Peter Wright. A Voice For Men. (Accessed July 2012).

[24] Why Can’t We Hate Men? Suzanna Danuta Walters. The Washington Pos. June 8th 2018. (Accessed July 2018).

[25] Karen Straughan

[26] WE NEED TO TEACH MEN NOT TO RAPE?. Sydney Watson. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[27] 4 REASONS WHY FEMINISM IS FULL OF HYPOCRISY. Sydney Watson. YouTube. (Accessed July 2018).

[28] The Normalisation Of Gynocentrism. Peter Ryan. A Voice For Men. (Accessed July 2018).

[29] ICMI’17 Miranda Devine – Feminism’s Final Salvo. An Ear For Men. (Accessed July 2018).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s