Perversions Of Gynocentrism

Chivalry And Feminism Go Hand In Hand

Gynocentrism perverts everything it comes into contact with and the first casualty is the standard of behaviour between men and women. Sydney Watson recently did a great video1 on men helping women and the ridiculous feminist concept of benevolent sexism. In this article I will be discussing her video and exploring the connection between chivalry and the success of feminism. I will also be discussing benevolent sexism further and what is missing for men in our gynocentric society, as part of my series on exploring the nature of gynocentrism. Chivalry has been around in Western culture for far longer than feminism and is one of the major contributing factors to the rise of feminism in society and its successful and rapid spread through our institutions, corporations, politics, academia, media, law and policy etc.

The chivalrous deference that men in power have shown toward women and their eagerness to prioritise female well-being, often at the expense of everything else, has been absolutely critical to the rise, spread and success of feminism in Western culture. The willingness of men and boys as a group to not just tolerate, but actively support feminist measures that prioritise female well-being over their own well-being, without any reciprocity, is a product of the gynocentric tradition of chivalry that has been ingrained in our culture for centuries and passed down from generation to generation. Without men in power and men as a group deferring to the demands of feminists and women as a group and feminists deliberately exploiting the gynocentric tradition of chivalry, feminism would have never been able to gain traction.

Chivalry2 is what gynocentric traditionalists (not all traditionalists are gynocentric) do not want men and boys to unlearn. What they fail to understand, or perhaps do not want to understand, is that it is chivalry that allowed feminism to emerge, grow and quickly spread throughout society like a virus and gain a stranglehold in our institutions etc. Feminism was a power grab by a substantial fraction of the female population, to enshrine gynocentric double standards into law, policy, media, academia, businesses and our institutions and normalise those double standards in the culture.

Chivalry was what gave feminism the opportunity to successfully execute a bloodless coup of our societies. Chivalry was the accelerant that facilitated the rapid spread of the feminist firestorm through every branch of society, without any resistance from the men supposedly in power. We could eliminate feminism tomorrow, but as long as chivalry remains in our culture, it will simply re-emerge a few decades later under a different name. I would actually go further and argue that as long as chivalry remains in our culture, feminism will never be defeated.

As long as men defer to women and men in power and in men general are prepared to prioritise female well-being over male well-being, without any reciprocity for men and boys, feminism will keep succeeding on every front with their agenda until society collapses. Calls by gynocentric traditionalists for men to be more chivalrous, are nothing less than calls for more gasoline to be thrown into a burning building. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, is called insanity. It is gynocentric insanity to be promoting chivalry in the modern feminist society we live in.

Feminists are of course all too happy to keep exploiting chivalry to their advantage and like gynocentric traditionalists, they also encourage and promote chivalry when it suits them. HeForShe and White Ribbon for example, are nothing less than an attempt by feminists to blatantly exploit chivalry for their own benefit. We could go through example, after example, after example, of this same strategy being employed by feminists- Set a victim narrative or damsel in distress narrative where women and girls are in need of male assistance, instill guilt and shame in men and then engender a sense of duty in men to save the day, be the white knight and redeem themselves (of course even when men do what feminists say, they are never forgiven for their sin of being male), then ostracise any man or woman that questions your narrative and label them a misogynist. Wash, rinse, repeat. It is the same feminist strategy every time and on every occasion our male politicians fall for it and so does most of the rest of society. Exploiting chivalry from men and boys, has always been a core element of feminism’s success. It is the fuel that keeps the feminist fire burning.

The prime distinction between gynocentric traditionalists and feminists, is they exploit chivalry to fit an agenda that is different. Both exploit chivalry, just for different ends. Both are different sides of the same gynocentric coin and are in conflict over the male resources they want to exploit. It is a gynocentric tug of war between two gynocentric factions of society that want to exploit men for different goals. Neither group has an ounce of concern for male well-being, except to the extent it serves female interests.

So why is it exactly that feminism has been able to rely so heavily on chivalry to gain traction in society? Chivalry in its modern form is one-sided. There is no reciprocal set of responsibilities and duties expected from women and girls, in relation to how they treat men and boys. It is all one-way traffic, which makes chivalry the perfect fuel to drive a one-sided and bigoted agenda of female supremacy under the banner of feminism. Whilst chivalry has diminished somewhat in the culture over the last several decades, it still remains socially enforced to a substantial degree in modern society. Indeed a number of women in the media3 have been doing their very best to promote chivalry.

This is about women wanting to have their cake and eat it too. They want the rights and opportunities of men, but not the responsibilities, obligations and sacrifices expected of men and they want to keep the traditional privileges women have enjoyed for centuries. They want to be treated as equals when it suits them, but they want special treatment like they are aristocracy when equality does not suit them. This is female entitlement mentality. The same women arguing men should act like gentlemen from the 19th century, bristle at the very mention of women acting like ladies from the 19th century. That right there is the problem- Lack of reciprocity. The one-sided gynocentric face of chivalry in the modern era.

To Defeat Feminism Chivalry Has Got To Go

Chivalry in its modern form is gynocentric bigotry. It is a one-sided code of socially enforced behaviour for men and boys to treat women and girls as a group with a special level of care and respect, simply because they are a female, with no equivalent efforts expected to be made by women and girls toward men and boys in return. Men and boys are expected to act like gentlemen and women and girls can act in any manner they please toward men and boys. Like other forms of bigotry, chivalry has no place in a society that claims it is against discrimination and for equality.

If we are ever going to defeat feminism, then chivalry will need to go. Men in power have to start saying “no” to the demands of feminists and putting their principles ahead of the approval of feminists, female voters and female media commentators. Men in general are going to have to learn to set boundaries with women and stand their ground and not cater to the demand’s women make that conflict with their values. Men in general need to learn to say “no”4 to unreasonable demands by women and feminists. This might sound simple and yet for many men they cannot bring themselves to say that simple word when it really matters. What would we call a relationship when you cannot say no to a group or individual? Slavery and dictatorships come to mind.

Society is not a patriarchy, that is feminist projection (so much of feminist ideology in general is projection). Modern Western society more accurately resembles a matriarchy by proxy, with feminists ruling from behind the throne and the men in power acting as feminist servants. These men in positions of authority, regularly and eagerly implement the feminist female supremacist agenda on feminists behalf, without a whimper of resistance and throw men and boys under the bus for approval from feminists and female voters.

All that is required for this to stop, is for men (and particularly men in positions of authority) to stop kowtowing to women, find their balls and say the word “no” to the next unreasonable demand made by a screeching feminist harpy. Men place far too much value in concerning themselves about winning and maintaining the social approval of women and far too little value in striving to be the best version of their authentic themselves and winning the approval of others on authentic grounds that are true to themselves. That is the distinction between a man with integrity and a man on a leash that follows the social whims of women and feminists. That needs to change and if we want to begin that change, then we need to stop teaching young boys a one-sided chivalrous code of behaviour. We need to stop teaching boys that deferring to women and prioritising female well-being at the expense of male well-being, without any reciprocity, makes them a “man”.

Of course men are not the only group that need to change if we want an end to chivalry and to defeat feminism. There will also have to be a big shift in the attitude of women as a group toward men. We live in a culture that fosters female entitlement mentality5, as Miranda Devine termed it. Women to a significant degree are raised from childhood to expect chivalry and a one-sided set of obligations men have toward women. There is no reciprocal set of obligations given to girls on how to treat men and boys. Boys and girls learn from a young age that boys do not hit girls, but rarely if ever are girls told not to hit boys. This is despite boys and girls reporting similar levels of intimate partner violence when they date6. That is just one example of many that I can give of the lopsided gynocentric messages children get as they develop into adults.

Paul Elam has recently done a video7 examining the link between how we raise girls in modern society and how that then fuels the culture of female entitlement that leads to feminism. Children are not stupid. If girls are taught and see the adults around them expecting men to treat women specially simply because they are women and the reverse is not expected for women on how they treat men, then of course it will foster a sense of female entitlement and female superiority they will carry through to adulthood.

Both men and women are involved in perpetuating the cycle of gynocentrism from one generation to the next and teaching girls this sense of entitlement. The result of this cycle is an epidemic of female narcissism. Dr. Tara Palmatier spoke about this social trend of female narcissism8 in her talk at the first international men’s conference in Detroit in 2014. Peter Wright has recently discussed9 how gynocentrism in women is a form of situational narcissism in women’s relations with men and compares the characteristics of gynocentrism in women with narcissistic personality disorder.

Female entitlement mentality is indeed a pathology and it is narcissistic, but in this feminist culture we glorify it as a sign of female empowerment. That will also need to change if we want to see an end to chivalry and by extension, an end to feminism. Female entitlement mentality is not something to be proud of or something we should be normalising in the culture as a sign of female empowerment. All it does in the long term is foster resentment and bitterness between the sexes and drives them further apart, which in turn hastens the social breakdown and collapse of society. Neither sex benefits from female entitlement mentality in the long term.

Sex Differences And Limitations

In Sydney’s video she discusses the reality that males and females are different and each sex has their own unique set of limitations and vulnerabilities and that there is nothing necessarily wrong about men helping women in that context. I would absolutely agree. The sexes have co-evolved over millions of years of natural and sexual selection, to develop unique and complementary sets of traits to perpetuate the lineage. This has been a feature of not just human evolution, but also the evolution of our ancestors. It is certainly correct to state that men helping women based on real limitations, is not immoral and it is not gynocentrism. Where it becomes gynocentric bigotry, is when men help women based solely or partly on the fact they are female and not because of some real limitation and where no reciprocal efforts are expected or made by women in return.

There is a distinction between being kind, compassionate, respectful and generous toward your fellow human being and applying such principles selectively based on the sex of the individual. This is why I developed a diagnostic definition10 of gynocentrism to delineate between being authentically generous and compassionate and gynocentric bigotry. If you are a man that sees a woman that clearly needs help with her shopping bags and you want to assist them, so be it. Good on you! However, if you are the sort of man that sees a man clearly needing help moving a fridge onto a truck and won’t help them simply because he is not female, don’t ask me to respect that. Imagine for a moment if this double standard was reversed or based on racial grounds. What would we call it? Make no mistake chivalry in the modern era is bigotry, gynocentric bigotry to be exact.

Feigning Female Vulnerability

Dr. Warren Farrell in the Myth of Male Power11 wrote that, “Men’s greatest weakness is their facade of strength, and women’s greatest strength is their facade of weakness.” In our gynocentric culture it is often the case that female vulnerability and limitations are exaggerated and in some instances just made up, as a means to garner special treatment for women and girls. As mentioned, the feminist victim narrative is critical to their standard strategy of getting their agenda implemented. In sharp contrast, it is often the case in our gynocentric culture that male vulnerability and limitations are dismissed. So whilst I agree with Sydney that real limitations between men and women exist and that men helping women where these limitations is exist is not automatically a bad thing, we need to look at those limitations in an honest way and without the gynocentric glasses on. We should seriously look at male vulnerabilities and limitations as well and not just glaze over them.

We also need to take an honest look at how we react to those limitations of women and men and make sure we react in fair and balanced manner. For example, if we are going to lower physical entry standards for the military, then we should be basing that decision on solid evidence that it will make our military more lethal by allowing higher quality recruits to be retained. Furthermore, we should be applying those standards across every recruit and not just female recruits. If the reasoning for lowering entry standards is to increase the number of women serving in the military to appease feminists and win female votes at the expense of national security and such standards will be selectively applied to female recruits only, then we are not reacting honestly or fairly to the physical limitations of women.

Benevolent Sexism Doublethink

I discussed benevolent sexism in my earlier article on diagnosing gynocentrism and how we need to look at the intent that is driving the behaviour before we make claims men helping women is sexist against women or conversely that it is gynocentric. Indeed that was precisely the same point Sydney raised in her video discussing benevolent sexism. Using feminist logic, it can be successfully argued that numerous feminist initiatives where men are helping women, like White Ribbon, HeForShe and others, actually hurt women and are examples of benevolent sexism. It could even be argued that feminism itself is benevolent sexism. Such claims are clearly false obviously.

To claim men helping women is sexism against women, implies that the intent driving that behaviour is malicious and that such acts are done with the intent to harm women rather than help them. If that was indeed the case, then we would expect the attitude that such men express toward women would be negative and that their stated reasons behind their actions would betray a similar negative view of women and a clear intent to do them harm. Yet we do not see this, we see the opposite. Instead we often see such men talking about women (undeservingly I might add), as if they are some superior or special class of human being. We often see such men arguing women are kinder, gentler, morally superior or should rule the world etc. The goals or reasoning behind the actions of such men is often explicitly and emphatically stated to be to benefit women and not to harm them. Only someone that has a deep-seated mistrust and hatred of men, would assign negative motives in such a context and in light of these facts.

Benevolent sexism contradicts itself and is gynocentric doublethink. If it is sexism, then by definition it is not benevolent. Such terms exist because feminism cannot tolerate men being viewed in a positive light by society, if men are to accept their own exploitation. If men are doing things to benefit women, then that clearly runs against the feminist narrative of male oppression of women and against the feminist propaganda to instill perpetual guilt in men and boys. It is hard to demonise men and boys in the eyes of society, when they are trying to help the people they are accused by feminists of oppressing!

What Is Missing For Men

Sydney points out in her video that men are in a no-win scenario, where any action they take will lead to shaming and ostracism by feminists. I addressed this in my article on normalising gynocentrism12, where I discussed learned helplessness in men. Feminism seeks to dehumanise men and encourage men to give up on themselves, so that gynocentric bigotry can be normalised in the culture and men will accept it. This is precisely why pleasing feminists and women in general, should not be the core priority of any man. You cannot win by kowtowing to feminists or women, you just make things worse for yourself and also worse for society by pandering to female entitlement. Living life in your own way, in an authentic manner, according to your own principles and forming your own identity and setting your own direction in life, is the only path left for men to take and that is a good thing. What I have just described is men going their own way (MGTOW)13. MGTOW is a good thing, because perhaps now men will finally start taking care of themselves, standing up for themselves in their relations with women and demanding fair treatment from society and from women and not just rolling over and allowing their own exploitation.

Sydney is correct that men need a purpose or something to do and I would argue this is also true for women. People need a direction in life to give it meaning. For much of human history men have been assigned their purpose by society, just as women have been. Only recently has society become technologically advanced enough and by extension prosperous and safe enough, for the sexes to have the opportunity to assign their own purpose based on individual interests (As Dr. Warren Farrell has pointed out, men were not the oppressor, the harsh environmental pressures on human survival for most of human history and prehistory was the oppressor). Everyone needs a direction in life and that is important for men in particular, because men get their primary sense of fulfillment from taking action, undertaking challenges and accomplishing things. Men need an outlet to actively express their natural masculine talents.

However men must be given the right as women have been given, to assign their own purpose and not be lectured to on what a “real man” is by women or by other men. Yes men have an innate tendency to protect and provide, but that does not translate to men having an innate tendency to be a disposable workhorse for women and society (I am not implying that is what Sydney meant, but often in this gynocentric culture those innate drives in men can be deliberately twisted to mean that).

It is not that men need to be needed either, it is deeper than that. This is about respect. Men need to be respected for what they do for themselves, for others and for society as a whole. That includes men being respected for what they do for women and reciprocal compassion, help, respect and generosity being shown toward men by the supposedly fairer female sex. The feminist message that men have been receiving for the last 50 years and in particular the last 20 years, is that there is nothing men do that is respectable and nothing that women should do for men in return for what men do for women. Masculinity is framed as toxic and as a disorder.

We live in a world where panels of women can have televised debates about whether or not the male half of the human race is obsolete and get support from the mostly female audience for the absurd claim men are obsolete. You can listen to Karen Straughan’s critique on that disgusting bigotry here14. Women can even write books, articles and be interviewed about such bigoted opinions and have such ideas promoted and celebrated by the mainstream media. Women can write hateful articles titled, “Why Can’t We Hate Men?”15 and get it published in mainstream newspapers. Boys are now being told by society that the future is female16 and are being indoctrinated to feel inferior because they are male. The list is endless. Imagine for a moment if this was happening to women and girls. Men and boys are not suffering from a purpose void. This is a void of respect. This society has no respect for men and boys. Masculinity is continuously attacked and men and boys are constantly demonised and disrespected, despite all the amazing things they do for women and society on a daily basis.

Men and boys are internalising the message that they are not worthy of respect and nothing they do or contribute is worthy of respect. The large drops we are seeing in boy’s academic achievement and motivation in education, the claim young men are failing to launch (which is really nowhere to land) and the male suicide epidemic etc, are all symptoms of the widespread reality men and boys are being starved of respect. Men going their own way is simply that and nothing more (despite what some disingenuous people claim, it has nothing to do with hating women). MGTOW are men taking a stand to value and respect themselves, in the face of a society that encourages them to hate themselves.

MGTOW is about going your own way in life, by having the self-respect to live life according to your own principles and identity and with no regard to what this hate filled society has to say about it. Men have the right to set their own direction and find their own purpose in life, pursue their own happiness and decide for themselves how to live their own lives. Men are going their own way in increasing numbers and it is about time! If gynocentric traditonalists, feminists or men or women want to complain about MGTOW choosing to avoid marriage and to a lesser extent relationships, then they might want to look at what they can do to make marriage and relationships less toxic and healthier for men.

Marriage is no longer marriage, it is a slave contract for men. That is what feminism has done to marriage. If you think I am being hyperbolic I am not. Just ask the tens of thousands of men in US prisons that cannot make alimony and child support payments to their ex-wives, because the alimony or child support that is set by the courts exceeds their actual income. Just ask the tens of thousands of fathers that kill themselves after being alienated from their children and losing everything from divorce. Here are just two disgusting examples linked here17 and here18, illustrating how perverted marriage has become. There are so many other stories that can be shared and I would encourage men to leave their story in the comments section below this article if they like. The institution of marriage is rotten to the core. The bias men experience in divorce and family court and during the course of marriage itself is systemic and deeply tipped against men.

We all know roughly half of marriages will end in divorce and that most divorces are initiated by women and it is little wonder why when the scales are tipped so heavily in women’s favour. Whilst the nature of the misandry of marriage varies from country to country and from state to state, the common theme is one of male servitude to women and female entitlement. The sayings, “Happy Wife Happy Life” and “The Ball And Chain” did not emerge from nowhere. Marriage in the modern era is a gynocentric perversion of the original marital contract between the sexes, which feminists happily tore up and rewrote to unilaterally benefit women at the expense of men (no fault divorce, family courts, VAWA etc).

Relationships have gone down a similar path of gynocentric perversion of catering to female entitlement, which has been accelerated with the metoo movement. MGTOW is not the problem, the degradation of marriage and relationships is the problem. MGTOW is about choosing your own path in life and not kowtowing to what society or women demand men do with their own lives. Perhaps if marriage was reformed, relationships became more balanced and respect was shown again to men, fathers and masculinity, more MGTOW would freely choose to get married and have relationships on their own accord without social coercion and shaming.

Something tells me though that the gynocentric traditionalists and feminists will continue to double down and shame men for going their own way and daring to passively resist their own exploitation. Newsflash- These men stopped caring about what society thinks of what they should do with their own lives long ago and indeed for many of them the shaming was what drove them to discover MGTOW, or was the last straw that drove them to adopt a MGTOW pathway. MGTOW are the men that are prepared to say no to feminists and women, set boundaries with women, reject chivalry and stand up for themselves. They are the sort of men that can help bring about the end of feminism and that scares the shit out of the feminist mainstream media, because these men are not getting back in line and bowing their heads.

Society needs to get over its reluctance to honestly examine the actual reasons why MGTOW are avoiding marriage and relationships. Society needs to start making serious efforts to correct the numerous systemic imbalances and double standards that feminism has enshrined into our legal system and culture and address the pervasive culture of female entitlement. Until that happens, shaming MGTOW will just help increase the social phenomenon and contribute to its growth. MGTOW is now the only pathway for men to follow. Once men become aware there is no way to please women and society by pandering to female entitlement, they go red pill and then MGTOW in rapid succession.

Like I said, society has a void for respect for men and boys. Men walking away from a gynocentric society that hates them and disrespects them at every turn, is that predictable even a six-year-old could have told us this would be the result 20 years ago. This has nothing to do with men wanting women back in the kitchen or under the thumb of men and everything to do with respecting men and restoring fairness and reciprocity to the social contract between the sexes.

This gynocentric society will reap what it has sown until the imbalance between the sexes is corrected and society is prepared to confront the elephant in the room- its own gynocentrism.

References:

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un09DRXZt2U

[2] https://gynocentrism.com/2013/07/14/the-birth-of-chivalric-love/

[3] https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/rita-panahi/equality-is-essential-but-so-is-chivalry/news-story/8bbcfae72c86ea6325818377b7ff3990

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F0kNTMSTKU

[5] https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine-women-believe-they-live-in-the-age-of-entitlement/news-story/e4a1b901c0e55baa2517887ff8bbb072

[6] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6216015/New-study-finds-boys-report-physical-violence-girls-young-peoples-relationships.html

[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUZXLUaICH8

[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxSTwlOz4P4

[9] https://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/why-is-it-always-about-her-gynocentrism-as-a-narcissistic-pathology/

[10] https://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/diagnosing-gynocentrism/

[11] https://www.amazon.com.au/Myth-Male-Power-Warren-Farrell-ebook/dp/B076HVLZGH

[12] https://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/the-normalisation-of-gynocentrism/

[13] https://www.mgtow.com/

[14] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaO3THnOHhA

[15] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.534074468575

[16] https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/real-men-dont-write-blogs/201703/memo-our-sons-and-grandsons-the-future-is-female?page=1

[17] https://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/family-courts/i-am-chris-mackney-and-i-have-something-to-say-from-the-grave/

[18] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAs8S0LxNRE

Advertisements

Diagnosing Gynocentrism

When we discuss men’s issues in the manosphere, the term “gynocentrism” is often attributed as the primary causal factor driving the marginalisation of men and boys in society. Understanding the nature of the force men are fighting, is a critically important step in developing effective strategies and possible solutions to the numerous issues men and boys are facing in society. Peter Wright at Gynocentrism.com[1], defines and describes gynocentrism and discusses its cultural origins and biological underpinnings on his website.

 

Gynocentrism manifests itself in relationships and the culture in many ways. However, this is not always obvious. One of the powerful characteristics of gynocentrism, is how subtle it is and how easily gynocentric bigotry can be disguised and hidden from our perception. Society is complex and often there are a multitude of variables involved in any activity, practice or set of behaviours etc. Gynocentrism can blend in with these other variables and the complexity of society can help push it into the background of our perception. The biological drivers of gynocentrism[2], also play a role in masking it from our perception. Gynocentrism is the product of superresponses to sexual and emotional superstimuli and these responses undoubtedly filter our perception, as well as produce the behaviours that give rise to gynocentrism. Intense cultural conditioning also plays a major role from cradle to grave, in training the brain to filter information through a gynocentric lens (the blue pill perspective). The gynocentric mobius strip is a readily observable social phenomenon.

 

As a result of these factors, there are examples in society where gynocentrism is obvious to many people (like radical feminism) and there are many examples where gynocentrism is not so obvious. There are also examples where an activity can be mistaken to be non-gynocentric and vice versa. It can often take years to train perception in adults to a point where gynocentrism can be readily identified (taking the red pill) and overcome the years of cultural conditioning and the acquired biological short circuits (the superresponses and positive feedback loops) that drive gynocentrism.

 

Gynocentrism is a slippery beast and defining it has been the subject of discussion in the manosphere (please see Paul Elam and Alison Tieman’s talk on this subject linked here[3]). If we are to slay the gynocentric dragon, then we must first develop a refined definition of gynocentrism and diagnostic criteria for identifying it in society and relationships. It is important to define problems as precisely as possible, so we can develop effective targeted solutions. This article will be the first in a series of articles exploring the nature of gynocentrism. In this article I will present a refined definition of gynocentrism and provide a simple set of diagnostic criteria for identifying it in society and relationships. I will provide practical examples of the operation of this definition and criteria, then discuss whether certain aspects of the culture are gynocentric and then describe a model of measuring the intensity of gynocentrism in the culture.  It is my hope that this article and the following series of articles, will assist people in the manosphere in explaining what gynocentrism is to people unfamiliar with the concept and in relation to men’s issues. Solving a social problem requires spreading an awareness of the problem and this in turn requires properly identifying what it is.

 

What Is Gynocentrism?

 

I define gynocentrism as the following: The set of elements of society and relationships that are directed by the intent to prioritise female well-being over male well-being, based solely or partly on the sex of the intended beneficiary(ies) being female and for which there are no equivalent efforts made to provide corresponding commensurate benefits to males.

 

I define well-being as the quality of the overall condition of the life of an individual or group, that is based on taking their mental and physical health and life satisfaction into consideration.

 

The diagnostic criteria that must be met for an element of society or relationships to be considered gynocentric are the following:

  1. The element must be driven by the intent to prioritise female well-being over male well-being.
  2. This intent must be solely or partly based on the sex of the intended beneficiary(ies) being female.
  3. There must be no equivalent efforts made to provide commensurate benefits to males for instances where female well-being is prioritised over male well-being.

 

Evaluating an element of society or relationships against these three criteria, requires some investigation to confirm the intent driving it and whether that intent is based on the sex of the group or individual that is meant to benefit from it. Quite often this information is overtly virtue signalled (like policies advocating female hiring quotas or domestic violence campaigns). On other occasions it is not and gynocentrism has to be identified through careful observation of the element in question and through a process of elimination.

 

The core belief that gynocentrism is associated with is female superiority. It is also associated with female entitlement mentality[4]. Gynocentrism is a form of bigotry based on sex and is not a morally justifiable aspect of society or relationships. For those people that have doubts, please substitute “male” with black people and “female” with white people in the definition of gynocentrism, or simply reverse the sexes. Those individuals that appeal to nature to justify gynocentrism, should look up what a naturalistic fallacy is. We can appeal to nature to justify rape and that does not morally justify it or mean that we should accept it. Gynocentrism is not defensible and should not be normalised in the culture. I called myself “theantigynocentrist” for this very reason and because I wanted to make it abundantly clear exactly what I am fighting against. Feminism is the political manifestation of gynocentrism and is just the tip of the iceberg of the problem I am standing up against. There are those that would prefer men just stop at feminism and not question anything beyond that. Heaven forbid men get the idea in their heads that they deserve to be treated fairly (The scene from Oliver Twist asking for more comes to mind. How dare men ask to be treated fairly! The horror.). Some so-called “antifeminists” are worried the gravy train of exploiting men might stop if men look beyond feminism and go to the root of the problem.

 

Armed with this refined definition of gynocentrism and the diagnostic criteria described earlier, it becomes possible to identify gynocentrism in society and relationships in a tangible way. What gynocentrism is and is not, can be illustrated with the following examples:

 

Example 1.

A man and a woman are both involved in a car accident. The woman is critically injured and at risk of death without immediate medical treatment and the man is walking around conscious with a few scratches and is in a stable condition. The woman is treated first.

This is not an example of gynocentrism. The paramedics prioritise the woman’s well-being over the man’s well-being, as the woman is objectively in greater need of immediate medical assistance and the man is not.

 

Example 2.

A man and a woman are both involved in a car accident. The man is critically injured and at risk of death without immediate medical treatment and the woman is walking around conscious with a few scratches and is in a stable condition. The woman is treated first, as the paramedics mutter women and children first.

This is gynocentrism. The paramedics prioritise the woman’s well-being over the man’s well-being, even though the man is objectively in greater need of immediate medical assistance.

 

Example 3.

A family celebrates Mother’s Day and then celebrates Father’s Day later in the same year.

This is not gynocentrism. There is a corresponding day for male parents.

 

Example 4.

An organisation celebrates International Women’s Day and does not celebrate International Men’s Day.

This is gynocentrism. There is no corresponding day of celebration for men at this organisation.

 

Example 5.

A company decides to implement a female hiring quota for their board that requires 50% of positions to be given to female candidates. The number of applicants is 90% male.

This is gynocentric. Female candidates are prioritised over male candidates and this is because they are female.

 

Example 6.

A company decides to implement a female hiring quota for their board that requires 50% of positions to be given to female candidates and 50% of positions to be given to male candidates. The number of applicants is 90% male.

This is gynocentric. Whilst men are given a corresponding benefit, this benefit is not commensurate with the benefit given to women. 90% of the applicants are male and yet only half of the positions are available to those men.

 

Example 7.

A company decides to implement a multifaceted policy to boost gender diversity on their board. The company develops a mentoring network for senior female managers to mentor younger women and offers them secondment opportunities in higher positions. An equivalent mentoring network is set up for men and the same secondment opportunities are offered. The company makes changes to provide equal amounts of maternity and paternity leave to male and female employees. Flexible work hours, subsidised childcare located at the workplace and the option to work remotely from home three days of the week, is provided to both male and female employees.

Whilst there might be other problems with the feasibility of this policy, it is not gynocentric. The intent driving this policy does not prioritise female well-being over male-wellbeing. The benefits given to women and men are balanced and the aim to prioritise gender diversity is not skewed in favour of either sex. However, the initiatives in this policy may increase female representation at senior managerial levels and have a flow on effect at board level.

 

Example 8.

A man and a woman with equal salary go out for dinner on a date. During the date the woman repeatedly makes it known they expect chivalry from the man. Despite desiring to pay half the bill, the man pays the entire bill to gain female approval and bows to the pressure to conform.

This is gynocentric. The woman’s well-being is prioritised over the man’s well-being because she is female.

 

Example 9.

A man and a woman with equal salary go out for dinner on a date. During the date the woman and the man chat and have a great relaxing time. The man has a generous character and enjoys giving gifts to people. Out of his own personal desire and generosity, he pays the entire bill. He feels very happy about this and suffers no detriment to his health and does not put his finances in jeopardy. The benefit to his well-being in his individual case, is commensurate with the benefit to the woman’s well-being.

This is not gynocentric. In this case the man is acting in an authentic manner that makes him happy and improves his well-being and his well-being is not given a secondary priority. Not all men will react the same way to the same situation. What may decrease one man’s well-being, may actually increase another man’s well-being. Men must be their authentic selves (provided they do not harm others, including themselves, unless in self-defence).

 

Example 10.

A man and a woman with equal salary go out for dinner on a date. During the date the woman and the man chat and have a great relaxing time. The man has a generous character and enjoys giving gifts to people. Out of his own personal desire and generosity he pays the entire bill. They go out on further dates to expensive restaurants and the man continues to pay the whole bill on each occasion. He also buys his date expensive jewellery every month. The man starts to fall into debt and starts to default on payments. He becomes stressed and depressed.

 

This is gynocentric. In this case the man may be getting some short-term satisfaction out of being so generous, but in general his life satisfaction and mental health are declining because of the growing debt he is accumulating. The net result is that his well-being (or the quality of the overall condition of his life) is in decline.

 

There is nuance to life and these examples demonstrate that there is nuance to gynocentrism. What may appear healthy on the surface may actually be unhealthy and what may appear an unhealthy behaviour to some people, may be actually healthy for that particular person. These examples illustrate why it becomes important to define concepts along lines that reflect what they are intended to describe. The central recurring principle driving the discussion facing men’s issues is fairness. Is it fair that men receive far lower funding for their health than women and yet have significantly shorter lifespans and generally have a higher disease burden? Is it fair that we have engineered our entire education systems to cater to the needs of girls over the needs of boys? Is it fair that women receive considerably shorter and more lenient sentences for committing exactly the same crimes as men, even after controlling for other variables? In many respects, men are simply demanding to be treated fairly and not to be treated in a discriminatory fashion simply for being male. Men are demanding an end to gynocentrism.

 

Is Chivalry Gynocentric?

 

As has been discussed on many occasions in the manosphere, gynocentrism has been around longer than modern feminism. Romantic chivalry[5] is often cited as an example of historical gynocentrism and indeed it is. But why? It is not the actions alone that pedestalise women, that make chivalry gynocentric. It is the fact that chivalry is also a series of socially enforced expectations that men are expected to live up to, whether they want to or not. Chivalry is a code of behaviour that is still part of our culture and enforced to some degree, even today. What individual men personally desire to do is not taken into consideration and therefore their well-being is treated as secondary to female well-being. If some men desire on their own accord without social pressure, to do things like pay a bill for a dinner and if this makes them happy to a degree that their well-being benefits to the same degree as their female counterpart (provided it is not pathological like in example 10), then that is not gynocentric. What might make some men unhappy, may make other men happy and vice versa. This is a critically important distinction to make.

 

Chivalry is gynocentric because it puts men’s wishes and their well-being secondary to women’s. It is not the respectful and generous actions directed toward women on their own that define chivalry. It is theoretically possible for a small fraction of men to be generous toward women in relationships because they are women, with no reciprocal generosity shown by the women and yet objectively increase their own well-being to the same degree as their female counterpart. It is not likely, but it is possible (perhaps an example could be men into female domination, whatever floats their boat). One man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Who am I or anyone for that matter, to tell a man what is in his best interests unless I have clear objective factual evidence to the contrary? With that said, men should certainly decide for themselves, but not lie to themselves like in example 10.

 

To clarify this point further, if a man decides to be generous exclusively toward women and this selective behaviour extends beyond the relationship, then that is gynocentric even if his well-being objectively benefits to the same degree as the woman. He is placing the well-being of women above the well-being of men in his social sphere, because they are women and he is making no equivalent effort to provide commensurate generosity toward men. Even if he derives happiness from being exclusively generous toward women simply because they are female, the overall effect of his behaviour in society, is that women’s well-being in his social sphere is elevated above men. He is contributing to gynocentrism, reinforcing gynocentric double standards and causing social harm.

 

Is Benevolent Sexism Gynocentric?

 

Feminists are often quick to rebut instances where supposed sexism benefits women and instead claim they actually hurt women. It is correct to point out that elements of society and relationships can bring both benefits and costs to women’s well-being. Indeed, this was an important point in the discussion Paul Elam and Alison Tieman had about the nature of gynocentrism. To determine whether something is gynocentric, we must consider the impact on well-being in a holistic sense. That is why I defined well-being in an overall context. We also have to consider the intent behind the element of society or relationships in question, rather than just considering the outcome. That is why intent forms part of the refined definition of gynocentrism. One could make a valid argument that female hiring quota’s actually reduce female well-being[6] inevitably over the long term, or that protecting women at the cost of their freedom hurts women. However, the intent of such policies and practices is clearly to prioritise female well-being over male well-being. Intent matters. To borrow a line from feminists and flip it-Gynocentrism hurts women too. Similarly, one could make the argument that taking only women off a sinking ship against their will because they are women (there actually were some women[7] that would not leave their husbands on the Titanic, even as officers tried to force them to do so), is an example of benevolent sexism. Whilst women may indeed experience great emotional distress from such practices, there is no question that the intent is to prioritise female well-being in an overall sense over male well-being and in this case save as many women as possible.

 

Are Traditional Relationships Gynocentric?

 

Like romantic chivalry, traditional relationships can be gynocentric. But are they always? If a man and a woman have a traditional division of labour and traditional roles and both the man and the woman’s well-being are given equal priority and are both enhanced by the relationship to the same degree, then that is not gynocentric. If however the woman’s well-being is prioritised over the man’s well-being, then that is a gynocentric relationship. Traditional relationships can certainly be gynocentric, but not just simply because they are traditional. It is because they can be lopsided to elevate the well-being of women above the well-being of men. Please see this classic MGTOW video[8] on the subject of gynocentrism and traditional relationships and commensurate benefits by Barbarossa. Can traditional relationships be balanced to benefit both male and female well-being? Yes. Provided men have the self-respect to demand it and women have the integrity and level of respect for men to accept nothing less. It is worth noting that a relationship does not have to be traditional to be gynocentric. Relationships where the female is the breadwinner, or where both partners work full-time, can be just as gynocentric and often even more so.

 

Is Male Disposability Always The Result Of Gynocentrism?

 

In different contexts in our society, male life and well-being is treated as disposable and in many instances gyoncentrism plays a role in diminishing the societal concern for male suffering. However, it is not the only factor that contributes to male disposability in society. Greed and the psychopathy of numerous tyrants and regimes can attest to that. Sometimes historical accounts of invading armies killing all of the men in a community and raping all of the women, is given as an example of gynocentrism. Remember that intent matters. Are the actions of the invading armies driven by the intent to prioritise female well-being over male well-being, solely or partly on the basis of a group being female rather than male? In some instances that may indeed be the case and in other instances that may not be the case. An invading army may kill all of the men in a community because they want to remove the military threat of a counterattack, rather than simply because they are not female or because they want to prioritise female well-being. Female well-being may not be the priority they have in mind that is inspiring their actions, when they spare the women and then rape them. Human evil comes in many forms. Gynocentrism is just one expression of evil, but it is not the only form of evil. Yes, real sexism against women and girls does exist. Female infanticide does happen in some societies on a significant scale and genocides of both men and women do occur. Some companies do carelessly produce products that leach endocrine disruptors that impair the health, development and onset of puberty, of not just boys, but girls as well.

 

The Gynocentrism Index

 

So far we have looked at gynocentrism at the micro level. The same definition of gynocentrism is also applicable at the macro level of society and entire nations. However, it is also useful at the macro level to develop metrics that quantify such concepts so we can measure and analyse them. We often hear about the so-called “gender inequality index”[9]. In this article I would like to propose a basic model for a gynocentrism index, that could be measured for each country or a given population just like the gender inequality index.

In our society gynocentrism manifests itself along five major dimensions between the sexes. These include the following:

The empathy gapMore concern is shown for females than for males[10]. Female interests, needs, wants, perspectives, happiness, safety, health, wealth and welfare etc is prioritised over the males. Entire government departments are set up to address these matters and billions of dollars spent on them. Even in education where women and girls are thriving relative to men and boys that are struggling, virtually all of the initiatives and policies in education are focused on supporting female learning and academic achievement.

The accountability gapFemales are held to a lower standard of accountability than males[11]. The sentencing gap between males and females[12] that commit the same crimes and after controlling for other variables, is six times greater[13] than the sentencing gap between black people and white people (yes you read that correctly). This lack of female accountability, is particularly pronounced when it comes to their behaviour toward males. Whilst there is a great social taboo toward males committing acts of physical and sexual violence against females, female physical and sexual violence against male victims is either dismissed or excused. A woman cutting off a man’s penis[14] is even laughed about on national TV.

The reward for effort gap– Females receive more reward for their efforts. A number of businesses and government organisations are implementing, or have implemented female hiring quotas and introduced lower entry standards exclusively for female applicants. Some businesses actually now pay women more superannuation[15], simply because they are women (yes you read that correctly-more super for women because they are female). Contrary to popular opinion, there is also evidence of discrimination in hiring favouring women in a number of instances[16], even in STEM fields[17].

The women are wonderful effect– Mainstream media, entertainment, ads, academia, schooling and politics, are constantly saturated with messages promoting female superiority and overt misandry[18]. Books and news articles like, “The End of Men: And The Rise of Women”[19] are abundant and are a daily feature in society. Boys in school are having particularly bad experiences with this phenomenon and I would encourage people to read this article[20] and watch this video[21] of the accounts of two boys experiencing this in school. This has been going on a long time. The women are wonderful effect is systemic in our society, culture and relationships and has profound impacts on how we perceive men and women and boys and girls and how we treat them.

Greater female in-group biasResearch has demonstrated[22] that women have an in-group bias that is 4.5 times stronger than men. Women show a bias favouring other women over men and men also show a deference to women. Men are “othered” in our gynocentric society. The female in-group bias is why millions of women will go on a “Women’s march” on the street for 2 years in a row, simply because someone with a vagina did not become US President. It is also one of the key reasons why feminism has become such a powerful force in society. You may have heard the phrase, “Because I am a woman” given as some justification for gynocentric double standards and outright bigotry. You may have heard the phrase or come across the mentality, “Believe the woman” from the female metoo# mob and their white knights, that want to dispense with due process and the rule of law. That is gynocentrism and female in-group bias talking.

 

In gynocentric societies women are treated with more empathy, have less accountability, receive more reward for their efforts (if they put any effort in at all), are treated and spoken about with reverence as men’s superiors or betters and women display a substantially stronger in-group bias than men do. These gaps are most likely correlated with each other. If women are treated with more empathy in a given society, then they will also be treated with less accountability, receive greater reward for their efforts and the women are wonderful effect and female in-group bias will be stronger.

 

These five dimensions can be measured. For example, we could measure the empathy gap by comparing the disparity in funding for men’s health versus women’s health after accounting for the death rate and disease burden. The accountability gap can be measured by looking at the sentencing gap between men and women, after controlling for relevant variables. The reward for effort gap could be measured by counting the number of affirmative action hiring programs that target female applicants to meet female hiring quotas. The women are wonderful effect could be measured by examining the number of instances in mainstream media and entertainment material that women are portrayed as or implied to be superior to men. The relative size of the female in-group bias, could be measured through existing psychological tools. These examples are by no means an exhaustive list. Numerous other sources of data could be added to this list and used in the analysis to calculate a gynocentrism index.

 

Once a proper and agreed upon scientific methodology, formula and model is developed to calculate a gynocentrism index from the data and a comprehensive amount of data is collected, then studies could be conducted. I have little doubt such studies would produce fascinating results if they were done. This is the sort of conceptual framework and analysis that is inevitably is going to be required to solve the huge problems facing men and boys. It would interesting to plot such a gynocentrism index against national IQ, national sex ratios (particularly the operational sex ratios), age and cultural demographics, population density, education levels, rates of fatherlessness, crime rate, GDP per capita, over time and even the gender inequality index.

 

As long as gynocentrism remains unanalysed and masked from society, then society will continue to rush towards the gynocentric abyss and an inevitable fempocalypse[23]. The first step in the process of solving a problem, is identifying that there is a problem and the second step is understanding precisely what that problem is. Gynocentrism is in many ways like a virus. The immune system of society has to be trained to identify the pathogen that is destroying it. Developing an effective vaccine requires identifying the antigens of the virus that trigger an immune response. Developing a refined definition of gynocentrism, diagnostic criteria to screen for it and analytical methods of measuring and examining gynocentrism, are the first few steps in that process. The scientific method should form the basis of any research into this social phenomenon, if we are to develop an accurate model of the problem and design an effective solution from that model. Feminist ideology has given us numerous examples of what happens when facts, evidence and science are ignored. We should consider those examples as a warning of what not to do.

 

If any serious investigation and academic research is going to be made into gynocentrism, the scientific method will need to be restored in the social sciences at the universities (particularly in the psychological sciences) and the feminist ideological bloc that has taken them over will need to be removed. Substantial political, media and financial pressure will need to be applied on our universities to achieve this. So much of government policy, law, journalism, education, employment and industrial relations policies etc, is based on faulty feminist research coming from the social sciences of the universities. If the decay of academic research is not resolved, then society will need to collapse before it can return to a sustainable paradigm.

 

Men and boys are not an inferior group of people and are equally deserving of respect, empathy and love. Societies that do not accept that, do not deserve them.[24]

 

References

[1] https://gynocentrism.com/

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VygKQV-hEpY

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4MsX7Vc_kI

[4] https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine-women-believe-they-live-in-the-age-of-entitlement/news-story/e4a1b901c0e55baa2517887ff8bbb072

[5] https://gynocentrism.com/2013/07/14/the-birth-of-chivalric-love/

[6] https://www.forbes.com/sites/datafreaks/2014/10/16/gender-quotas-in-hiring-drive-away-both-women-and-men/#84858af12350

[7] https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/she-would-not-leave-her-husband-and-went-down-with-titanic.html

[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySMVtRmQl1Y

[9]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Inequality_Index

[10] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKJ8x9ut1hU

[11] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsI7OAomhY4

[12] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002

[13] https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx

[14] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ApuFjkBx7I

[15] https://www.news.com.au/finance/superannuation/radical-proposal-to-force-bosses-to-fork-out-extra-super-for-women/news-story/0174c968cf2cf1901c62eaaf9c282230

[16] http://behaviouraleconomics.pmc.gov.au/projects/going-blind-see-more-clearly-unconscious-bias-australian-public-service-aps-shortlisting

[17] http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360

[18] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhm_HZ9twMg

[19] https://www.amazon.com/End-Men-Rise-Women/dp/1594488045

[20] https://www.avoiceformen.com/men/boys/generation-z-boys-in-modern-britain/

[21] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eLG3FF8RQ8

[22] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

[23] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w__PJ8ymliw

[24] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64nFPc93idc

A Declaration Of Values

On the 25th of August, I attended the March For Men in Melbourne, Australia and I wanted to write about some thoughts from that day. There has been a lot of media spin both before and after the march and I felt it necessary to set the record straight and explain why from my own individual experience, men and women like me were marching.

 

It was a great day, we had great weather and hundreds of people came to show their support and march. There were also the violent and disruptive protestors from the universities (hosts for their protest are listed as: National Union Of Students LGBTI, National Union Of Students Women’s Department, Books Not Bombs and Campaign Against Racism and Fascism) and a heavy police presence required to protect my own personal safety and the safety of others attending the march. The March For Men was about showing men that they matter too, that men have particular issues that need to be addressed and are worthy of support and that both men and women can stand together to support men.

 

I attended the march for many reasons. I wanted to show my support for men and for the individuals that stuck their necks out on my behalf to make this march possible. I marched for my own rights and also for the men I have personally known that have committed suicide or attempted it. I marched to make the point that I should be able to march freely in support of men in a democratic and developed country.

 

I marched because if nothing is done to address the serious and growing issues facing men and boys, then sooner or later civilisation will collapse under the weight of these problems. This is the Fempocalypse Karen Straughan has discussed. I am talking particularly about the multi-decade impact of not addressing the boy crisis in education and not addressing fatherlessness and the serious long term social and economic consequences that will unfold as a result over the next 20-30 years. Alison Tieman was correct when she said at the 2018 International Conference On Men’s Issues, that these issues affecting men and boys will eventually impact everyone. Men, women, boys, girls, men’s rights activists, feminists, governments, the private sector and the wider public alike, will all be negatively impacted. There will not be a single corner of society unaffected from letting men’s issues remain unaddressed and continuing to let them grow.

 

The main reason that I marched though, was to declare my values and march for them. My participation was in quite a literal sense about me walking the talk. I have supported the men’s movement through my writing and also through my donations. But when the opportunity came to March For Men, nothing was going to stop me, not even the feminist protestors that we ended up outnumbering 3 to 1. I am a man going his own way and I also support the men’s movement and individuals and groups that support men. I do not hate women and I am not a male supremacist or a Nazi. I am not a racist or a bigot. All the feminists could do was throw these labels at us and strawman to the max. They have no argument and no defence for their appalling behaviour.

 

This is what I believe in, just to make it clear. I believe that men and women should be held to the same standard of accountability and are worthy of the same level of compassion. I believe that men and women’s lives are of equal value and that both men and women are equally deserving of respect. I believe that the true value of a human life is based on the irreplaceable and unique nature of each individuals mind and body. There will be no one else like you or me on the face of this Earth again. I believe that people are at their best when they can freely be their own individual self and take responsibility for setting the direction of their own lives and make their own choices. I make my decisions and form my opinions based on facts and I do not blindly follow ideology. I consider myself an individual first and I think for myself. I am a man that goes his own way and sets his own direction in life according to his own values. I do not let other people dictate to me who I am, what to think, what to do with my own life or what choices I should make. That is what MGTOW is about, it is about going your own way and not someone else’s way. The fact some people interpret that as hatred of women, shows you how terrified some people in society are with men making their own decisions and thinking for themselves. No one has the right to dictate to another person who they are and what to do with their own life. No one.

 

I firmly believe that men and women are naturally driven by our biology to be together. We are a pair bonding species and the sexes have co-evolved together. Men and women are really two halves of one biological unit to perpetuate the genome. Our species and our civilisation has the best chance of survival and prosperity, when men and women maximise working together as partners and supporting each other. I believe one key measure of the health and future prosperity of a society, is how well men and women treat each other. The degree of antagonism between men and women will determine the rate at which society declines.

 

If one sex suffers then both do eventually and so do the children. Cooperation between the sexes is not something that is hardwired to always occur and antagonism between the sexes is not something that is hardwired to always occur either. Society has to actually be structured around and based on functional values that foster cooperation between the sexes and discourages antagonism. There is nothing to be gained in the long run from feminism demonising men and boys, except decades of needless and avoidable suffering for not just men and boys, but women and girls as well. Our civilisation is going to pay a heavy price for marginalising the male half of society. The nuclear family is an essential building block of developed civilisation and it is dependent on maintaining strong, fair and healthy relations between men and women, based on mutual trust and respect.

 

These are ideas, values and principles that the far-left feminist protestors do not want to accept and vehemently oppose. They claim to be for equality and yet will not let men and women come together to show support for men and the issues they face. It has never been about equality for feminists. They want female supremacy and they want to impose their agenda on everyone else. They are not interested in reason or facts. This is about power and control. At no point during the entire march, did any of these protestors attempt to listen or have a civil discussion with any of us. Instead they decided to be disruptive, violent and blow horns.

 

Why do I have to be concerned for my personal safety when attending a March For Men? I was not at a Nazi hate rally. I was at a march that simply was showing support for the male half of the human race. That was all the march was for. Why was a heavy police presence required to protect my personal safety? Why does men and women showing compassion for men, attract violence and hatred from feminists who claim to be about equality? What does that say about the state of the society men and boys have to live in?

 

What I saw from the protestors resembled a cult of brainwashed individuals. Feminism is a hate movement and if people doubt that then they can read this Washington Post article from one feminist professor titled, “Why Can’t We Hate Men”. This is hardly an isolated incident of a feminist academic openly expressing a hatred for men and boys. There are numerous other examples of this. So it is hardly surprising that the people protesting the March For Men came from the universities, when there is such a misandric and bigoted feminist presence at these supposed institutions of “higher learning”. Our universities have indeed become “institutions of higher indoctrination”, as Studio Brule described. If people doubt that this is a problem, then watch this video. What happened on Saturday at the March For Men, has happened before at other events attempting to discuss men’s issues all over the world. Feminists from the universities have regularly attempted to disrupt any discussion of men’s issues in not just Australia, but also Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom, just to name a few places. As Prof. Janice Fiamengo said at the University of Ottawa 4 years ago, “It’s the signature of a totalitarian ideology to attempt to quash dissent”. It is indeed! Much of what feminism claims to be fighting against is projection. They are the fascists. Feminists are the ones that are out to violently disrupt men and women from peacefully discussing and marching for men’s issues. Feminists are the authoritarians.

 

Feminists tried to shut us down. They tried to use violence, aggression and fear to prevent us from attending and marching for men and they failed. They will continue to keep failing and they will continue to get more and more bigoted, hateful and desperate as time goes on. But in the end it will amount to nothing. People are starting to wake up to them. Reasonable and sensible people are starting to see feminism for what really is- a female supremacist hate movement. The only thing feminists accomplished at the March For Men, was to make themselves look like hypocrites and bigots.

 

I wanted to close this article by thanking all of the organisers I did not get to personally thank. I did get a brief moment to thank Sydney Watson and Rob Tiller personally for what they have done over the last few months. It was good to meet them in person. Although there was not enough time for me to tell them who I am and what I do and although I have to keep my identity private for personal and professional reasons, I was happy to at least let them know in person how thankful I was that they have stood their ground and done what they have.

 

I said this to Rob Tiller and I will say it again, I am a pretty private and quiet guy and I do not go out to marches on a regular basis, but for this march I really wanted to come and show my support. It was the least I could do and I am glad that I did. As I said to you at the march, thank you again for having the courage for standing by your values and for taking a stand and for helping support this event. It was disgraceful what happened to you, but it is their loss. The truth on domestic violence needs to be told and the stance you have taken both before and since, is so badly needed right now, particularly in Australia and is an incredibly brave thing to do given the level of feminist thought policing when it comes to domestic violence. It is not something I will forget and I was happy to donate some money to you under my actual name a few months back.

 

As for Sydney Watson, I knew I was right about you when I first cited your work in one of my articles and you have not disappointed. It takes an exceptional individual to do what you did and organise this march in the feminist capital of Australia and take all the shit you did from the mainstream media and from our local feminist university mob. You had my respect before you organised this march and now you have my admiration. Your values reflect my own. You are a courageous woman and set an excellent example for people to follow. I will definitely be supporting you further on Patreon.

 

It is important that men see that there are women who care about men and it also important that those women see that men value that quality in women. This is particularly important when many men and boys, including myself, go to work, go to school, turn on the TV and on a daily basis get barraged with hateful messages simply for being a man or a boy, or worse experience discrimination and marginalisation because of our sex being male.

 

It is entirely possible for men and women to rise about feminism and the gynocentric aspects of our culture. I do really believe it is within our grasp as a society to treat men and women with equal compassion and respect and also to hold men and women to the same standard of responsibility and accountability. It will be men and women working together in solidarity, that will generate the social change required to make that possible. Whilst I know the path forward will be a long one, as long as we stand up for our values and support each other in doing so, I am confident that given time we can rise above gynocentrism and feminism as a society.

 

On a practical note, the seeds of the feminist cancer on society are the universities. Reforming the universities and removing hateful feminist ideology from these institutions as Hungary has recently done, is going to be critically important to the future survival of Western civilisation. Our future journalists, teachers, policy makers, law makers, academics, lawyers, mental health professionals, HR professionals, politicians and business leaders come from these institutions. The spread of feminist ideology through our institutions, governments and major corporations has been facilitated by the feminist control of the universities and their indoctrination of students that go off to work in those areas. If we are going to stop feminism from doing further damage to society, then the universities have to be taken back. That must be a top priority. I have seen the problem myself when I was still a university student years ago and I saw it on Saturday. It has a solution, but pressure will have to be applied for the universities to change. Feminism has to be ripped out of university.

 

For those that would like to see what happened at the March For Men I have linked the video here. The talks start at the 41 minute and 46 second mark.

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.

 

References:

[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 http://owningyourshit.blogspot.com/

[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).

The Normalisation Of Gynocentrism

I would like to recognise the contributions of Paul Elam and Peter Wright in providing the foundational works in Chasing The Dragon and Slaying The Dragon published on A Voice For Men, that inspired this article. To quote Sir Isaac Newton, “If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

 

Civilisation is based on the capacity of human beings to control and manage their instinctual and emotional responses and behave in an intelligent manner. The degree to which that capacity is eroded by lack of self-awareness, lack of cultural wisdom, lack of discipline, fatherlessness and superresponses to superstimuli, is the degree to which civilisation will decline, regress and then implode. This ancient understanding that natural impulses can be destructive when taken to extremes, was known thousands of years ago. As discussed in Paul Elam and Peter Wright’s article, “Slaying the dragon”[1], this understanding was a major foundational element of many religions and addressed in cultural mythology, such as the seven deadly sins of Christianity and the story of Odysseus resisting the Sirens call. This ancient wisdom was recognised as key not just to the well-being of individuals, but also to the survival of civilisations over history. It is important to note that fathers have played a major role in teaching children to postpone gratification and regulate their instinctual and emotional impulses, as we have seen from Dr. Warren Farrell’s research[2] into the boy crisis. Unsurprisingly and predictably, fatherlessness has been one of the main factors driving the decline of Western civilisation.

 

There is a distinction between pathological behaviour and instinct. Just because a behaviour is driven by instinct, does not then make the behaviour healthy or biologically optimal to Darwinian fitness. Overeating is driven by instinct and can kill you before you reproduce (and even prevent you from finding a mate in the first place). There is also a distinction between gynocentrism and human instincts. Gynocentrism is not itself an instinct but rather a product of human instinct, emotional impulses and cultural conditioning. Gynocentrism is a set of complex and pathological behaviours that arise from a superresponse to superstimuli associated with sex, neoteny, the parental brain and pair bonding. See the article, “Chasing the dragon”[3] for more information.

 

Many animals and especially human beings, have a capacity to regulate and control their behavioural responses to instinctual and emotional impulses from the lower areas of the brain. We have a well developed prefrontal cortex and other areas of the cerebral cortex, that have been shown in neuroscientific research[4] to keep our behavioural responses to instincts in check. Whilst we may have no control over feeling our primal urges, we do have control over whether we decide to act on them and base decisions on them. We may experience anger, fear and sexual attraction, but we can control whether or not we act on our instincts and impulses. It is a scientific fact we have the capacity to control our behaviour and override our instinctual impulses. It is also a readily provable fact and the reason why we have a legal system. We recognise people have self-control over their decisions and actions.

 

People go on hunger strikes and die from it, despite having a hunger instinct and survival instinct. There are numerous other examples of people overriding their survival instinct. Extreme sports, stunts from escape artists and countless acts of bravery in war being such examples. There are numerous examples of people overriding their sexual instincts too. There are heterosexual men that remain celibate their entire lives in the clergy on purpose. There are even in this hypersexualised culture, sizeable communities of people that still practice sexual abstinence before marriage. We have enormous control over our behaviour. People do not see attractive people and then jump their bones and immediately have sex with them in public (we call that rape by the way, which is a crime)!

 

We have self-control and it is considerable in it’s power. It is worth considering that in the context of gynocentrism and the underlying superresponse to superstimuli. Whilst the superresponse leading to gynocentrism may indeed be strong, so is our ability to regulate our own behaviour. In fact our ability to control our own behaviour, can be that extreme it can actually kill us. It is also the case that through self-discipline, training and neuroplasticity, we can actually strengthen our neurological capacity to regulate our behaviour even further. Fathers play a key role in developing that neurological capacity in children, through teaching them to postpone gratification. We certainly have the capability to overcome gynocentrism.

 

The literal interpretation of free will might be an illusion, but self-control does exist and we have parts of the brain dedicated to exercising self-control. The fact the neurological process of self-control may in part lie beyond our conscious awareness, does not negate the fact we can and do regulate our behaviour and suppress our instincts and emotional impulses very often. It is what makes Homo sapiens, “sapien” or wise. Our ability to postpone gratification of our instincts and impulses and control when, where and even if we choose to satisfy them, is one of the major traits responsible for allowing our species to do what no other animal on this planet has done- create civilisation.

 

The assumption (which is precisely what it is), that gynocentrism is some insurmountable and hardwired instinct and behaviour we are slaves to, is complete and utter nonsense. That is not to say gynocentrism is not difficult to overcome or that it is not a powerful force within society. But it is not an omnipotent force either. It does not matter how many times it is said, there will still be some people that will call you a denier of biology if you dare to make the claim gynocentrism is not an immutable part of human behaviour. All of human behaviour is biological in part. Not just gynocentrism. Stating that gynocentrism is biological, certainly does not then automatically mean that it is immutable and insurmountable.

 

Gynocentrism is a pathological set of behaviours driven by instincts and emotional impulses, just like overeating and obesity is driven by the hunger instinct. It does not automatically follow that the instincts and emotional processes that are involved in gynocentrism, will invariably and always produce gynocentrism. Just like it does not always follow that the hunger instinct will lead to overeating and obesity, or that the sexual instinct will lead to rape.

 

Gynocentrism is merely one of many manifestations of the sexual instinct, desire to pair bond, our emotional response to neoteny and our parental brain. The same general emotional response to neoteny drives millions of people daily to dog videos on YouTube. The same parental brain is active when raising children. The reason why gynocentrism is so common in society, is because unlike obesity and other addictive and pathological behaviours like smoking, we do not shame people for it or discourage it or teach people about the harms it will cause. People understand the risks of overeating, obesity and smoking and people are discouraged from doing it by wider society (with the exception of the fat acceptance people). People go to jail if they indiscriminately act on their sexual instincts.

 

We normalise gynocentrism and actually encourage it. Imagine if we normalised and encouraged smoking again? Gynocentrism is common because we normalise it in the culture. The culture at large reinforces and conditions us from a very early age, to train our instincts and emotional responses to produce gynocentric behaviour. Contrary to the opinion of some armchair evolutionary biologists, gynocentrism does not enhance the capacity of the species to perpetuate itself. Exhibiting indiscriminate deference to addressing the needs and wants of women and girls above everything else (the definition of gynocentrism), actually causes the complete opposite. It leads to extinction. It is not really hard to imagine how lopsided and imbalanced priorities could lead to dysfunctional and suboptimal outcomes in a complex system like society. The only reason why gynocentrism has not yet caused mass calamity, is because gynocentrism like obesity was kept at bay for most of human history from getting too big of a problem. Thanks to the imperative and focus we had to maintain on our survival as a community and as individuals and the limited means of communication over most of history, conditions simply did not permit gynocentrism to grow to a point where it threatened the survival of society. Only fairly recently over the last few centuries and particularly over the last 50 years, has that changed and these changes have allowed gynocentrism to mushroom.

 

Once survival became less of an issue and safety, prosperity, nutrition and human health improved by many orders of magnitude and society became mechanised and women gained control over their fertility, the constraints on gynocentrism growing beyond a certain threshold were removed and societal focus began to shift more and more from survival to a gynocentric lens. Combined with these changes were communication technologies that allowed superstimuli to have an unprecedented mass effect on the population. The printing press, television, computers, smartphones, the internet and so forth, have allowed superstimuli to have much greater effects on conditioning human behaviour and the psychological development of children than ever before. Marketing in particular has made multibillion dollar industries out of exploiting superstimuli.

 

As a result of these changes, gynocentrism has rapidly grown over the last few centuries and particularly the last 50 years. We now have runaway gynocentrism. Eventually like a runaway train approaching a cliff, runaway gynocentrism will destroy civilisation if society does not find the brakes in time. We have in my estimation about 20 years before we reach that cliff and society runs off the rails into the abyss. It is now a race against the clock to wake as many people up from their hypnotic daze as we can.

 

We can see right now the fertility rates plummeting in every developed nation, thanks to constantly pandering to the needs and wants of women and girls. Social scientists are calling it the “demographic winter”[5]. Pandering to the princess culture and female entitlement mentality (as Australian columnist Miranda Devine calls it)[6], does not produce offspring. Societies that succumb to runaway gynocentrism die out. Of course there are also long term consequences building from decades of neglect of boys needs in the education system and the epidemic of fatherlessness, that will threaten the social cohesion and economic prosperity of a number of developed nations in the coming decades. Not only will gynocentric societies shrink and then die out, they will descend into poverty, crime and civil unrest before they disappear.

 

Gynocentrism is widespread because we consider it to be normal and the culture reinforces it as a good thing. Imagine how much more common obesity or gambling addiction would be if the culture normalised and encouraged overeating and gambling? Imagine how much more common overeating and obesity and gambling and gambling addiction would be if you were encouraged to overeat and gamble from birth? Why do we consider gynocentrism to be normal? There are ten reasons or causes for this:

 

The Influence Of Women

Part of the reason gynocentrism is normal, is because it is encouraged by women. A casino does not want to discourage you from gambling your life savings. Women generally speaking, do not want to discourage men from getting married despite being fully aware of the biased divorce and family court process. There is no incentive for women to discourage men from gynocentrism and every incentive to do the complete opposite and they do. The difference between gynocentrism and the casino example, is that women constitute half of society and also raise you from birth and casino’s do not. The food industry as powerful as they are, are not half of the population and are not your mother. When you consider the role of women in men’s lives as mothers, sisters, wives and girlfriends and the fact women generally are part of the most important and intimate relationships men have in their lives, it is not difficult to see how gynocentrism can be spread and become normalised in society if women promote it. When women constitute the voting majority and control the majority of consumer spending, it is not hard to see how gynocentrism can become mainstream in the economy and in politics. That is especially true when women exercise an in-group bias, which research studies[7] report is the case. On top of those realities is the fact men can and do white knight for female attention and approval. The enforcement of women’s desires on the rest of society, through female control over legions of male simps, politicians and corporations, cannot be overlooked in normalising gynocentrism in the culture.

 

The Change In Family Structure

The change in family structure over the last fifty years, has also played a major role in the normalisation of gynocentrism. We learn the gynocentric social mode of behaviour to a significant degree from our childhood upbringing in the household. When boys and girls are raised to adopt and expect male chivalry, then it is likely that behaviour will be exhibited by them when they get older. When boys and girls are raised with the message it is never okay to hit a woman, but never told the message it is never okay to hit a man, they internalise that double standard. Over the last fifty years there has been dramatic changes in family structure. Many children are now being raised in fatherless homes from birth, or have been alienated from their fathers through divorce and family court. The lack of an adult male influence in the home combined with a lack of men in the education system, exacerbates gynocentric double standards being internalised in children and future generations. We also know the important role fathers play in teaching boys and girls to regulate their emotional and instinctual impulses, through teaching them to postpone gratification. We are now starting to see the impact of fathers being removed from the family, in the declining social behaviour of wider society. We now have groups of young people and political movements fuelled entirely on emotional impulse and the abandonment of reason and evidence (SJW’s, university campus feminists, Black Lives Matter, Antifa, the women’s marches etc being examples). We are living in a post factual world, where what feels good is more important than what is true. This is what happens in a fatherless society and it will eventually lead to societal collapse as it gets worse.

 

The Prosperity Of Modern Civilisation

A subtle reason for why we consider gynocentrism to be normal, is because the prosperity of modern civilisation cushions society from the consequences of it in the short term. Our current debt based monetary system and welfare state, combined with major advances in technology, allows society to pass on the costs of ignoring major social problems onto future generations. It takes years, decades and in some cases centuries, before the severe and long-lasting consequences of gynocentrism hit individuals and society. So society does not learn very easily to do draw a link between gynocentric behaviour and the consequences of such behaviour. You do not immediately feel the consequences of divorce and family court when you marry a female psychopath. Economies do not feel the burden straight away of large numbers of unemployed men arising from decades of inaction on addressing the boy crisis in education. Societies do not feel the consequences of fatherlessness straight away either or the long-term consequences of social witch-hunts like metoo#. Universities do not immediately feel the financial consequences of lawsuits against them from men falsely accused of rape, resulting from university policies enacted from the Dear Colleague letter.

 

Virtue Signalling

Gynocentrism is also normalised because on the surface it appears to be good behaviour, feels good and is therefore encouraged by the culture. However when considered with more thoughtful and detailed examination, it can be seen that this is not the case. White knighting appears to be a noble act on the surface, but not when we look into the details of what is going on. Human beings are prone to surface thinking, simple heuristic thinking and emotional bias. Marketing is so successful because it takes full advantage of these biases and cognitive shortcuts human perception employs to make sense of the world (see the elaboration likelihood model[8] for more info and check out the central versus peripheral route to persuasion). What may look and feel good and righteous on the surface, is not always the case.

 

The Proliferation Of Gynocentric Superstimuli And Mass Communication

Of course it is also predictable that gynocentrism will be normalised when our environment is swamped with superstimuli, that trains our brains through conditioning over many years to operate in a gynocentric mode. This consistent exposure has long term effects on the brain through neuroplasticity. When gynocentric superstimuli is all you are exposed to every waking hour from birth until death and there is so much social pressure on you to conform to gynocentric social norms, it is predictable gynocentrism will be normalised in the society in question. We have a plethora of laws against broadcasting violent ads, shows and movies and against promoting gambling and yet nothing like that for gynocentrism. When you combine gynocentric superstimuli with modern communication in the form of the internet, television, computers and smartphones, you have the perfect delivery system to condition society and normalise gynocentric behaviour.

 

The Gynocentric Mainstream Media

Following on from the previous section, the mainstream media plays a key role in normalising gynocentrism. The gynocentric vomit coming out daily from major news outlets is constant. We have articles titled, “Why Can’t We Hate Men?”[9] from the Washington Post and “The End Of Men”[10] from the Atlantic. Imagine for a moment if we substituted men with Jews in such articles. Such material would not look out of place in Nazi propaganda. Men are being dehumanised by the media and the media are spreading outrageous bigotry that would never be tolerated if the sexes were reversed. The media has shown time and time again, they are pushing a gynocentric and female supremacist narrative onto society. They have ceased being news outlets and now essentially spread feminist and gynocentric man hating propaganda. The media does shape the attitudes and beliefs of society and also shapes politics and propaganda does work as we have seen from numerous examples throughout history. We are fortunate now to have alternative media finally rising up against this hatred of men, to challenge it directly. AVFM is one example of this. However the mainstream media has had a multidecade headstart on the alternative media to shape society and still has considerable influence, despite their falling subscriptions and viewers.

 

Reductionism

There is a reductionist bent in society to not look at the bigger picture. We often fail to see the connection between things and how things are interrelated in society. There is a tendency to assign responsibility or consequence to one thing, person or cause. This feeds not just into normalising gynocentrism, but into letting other problems in society grow too. Society is a system and systems theory would help enormously in understanding and correctly dealing with societal problems, particularly social problems. Taking a wholistic and systems approach to understanding the world, can be far more effective than perceiving the world solely through a reductionist lens. Take school shootings for example. We could prevent such tragedies from occurring if we bothered take a wholistic systems based perspective on the problem. Instead of blaming it all on toxic masculinity, how about we look at fatherlessness and mental health. As society becomes more and more connected, taking a wholistic systems based approach to addressing social problems is going to be more and more relevant.

 

When we examine the behaviour of men and women in society, it is often solely discussed and framed along gynocentric lines by the media and by the culture. We look at men’s behaviour toward women in isolation from women. We do not even consider women are agents in society and we fail to see how the behaviour of men and women toward the opposite sex, feedback on each other. The feminist narrative on domestic violence is one such example of this. Domestic violence is often reciprocal in nature[11] and yet we do not hear on the reciprocal nature of domestic violence. When we hear about men’s violence toward women only, its causes are framed along the lines of power and control by the feminist Duluth model. No other cause or factor is apparently at play in contributing to men’s violence. The role of alcohol, substance abuse, poverty, mental illness and abuse during childhood, is all overlooked and ignored.

 

When society fosters a reductionist perspective on looking at the world and does not consider a wholistic or systems perspective, it encourages gynocentrism to grow and spread. Gynocentrism is by its nature reductionist. Having a one-dimensional perspective of relating everything solely to how they impact women and girls, is much easier to spread and normalise in a society that is highly politically polarised and has a general reductionist mindset to looking at the world that is encouraged by ideologues in the media and academia. Even in biology and the sciences, we can see how reductionism holds back progress in understanding the natural world. Systems biology[12] is a rapidly developing interdisciplinary field at the forefront of life science research, that aims to go beyond a reductionist perspective, correct this limitation in scientific knowledge and develop a more accurate wholistic systems understanding of biology.

 

Biology is complex and is composed of multiple systems at multiple levels, from cell signalling pathways all the way up to entire ecosystems. When we examine what is required for evolutionary success and for genes to be successfully passed on from one generation to the next, it is not as simple as saying it is all about reproductive success. Reproduction is essential, but so is survival. An organism must survive to reproduce and it’s offspring must survive to successfully mate, otherwise it would be as if the offspring were never produced in the first place. Reproducing once may not be sufficient either and an organism may need to survive long enough to mate multiple times, to ensure they produce enough offspring that survive to sexual maturity and pass on the genes. An organism must develop a strategy in investing energy, resources and time in survival versus reproduction, that is optimised to their environment and biology, to guarantee evolutionary success.

 

Evolutionary success is far more complex than simply just reproducing. If that were not the case and reproduction was really all that mattered, then the only life that would have evolved on Earth would have been asexual microbial life. There are selective advantages for species that reproduce more slowly, but have a more complex biology that can better adapt to, tolerate, manipulate and extract resources from the local environment. These selective advantages are partly what gave rise to the proliferation of multicellular life[13]. Think for a moment about the thousands of lineages that have continued their existence today, because of the civilisation and technological advances men have created and been responsible for. Think of the billions of people alive today because of the intrinsic value men have provided to society. There are entire lineages that would have been extinguished long ago and billions of people that would not have been born, without the intrinsic value men have provided in creating the advanced civilisation we enjoy and modern technology.

 

Simply reproducing, especially for a slowly reproducing species like Humans, is simply not enough to ensure evolutionary success. That is why men have been sexually and naturally selected, to develop traits to enable them to provide, protect, discover, explore, invent, build, maintain, repair and fight for society. It is not as simple as saying one man can reproduce with ten women, therefore men are disposable. Biology is far more complex than that. Notice no one seems to consider how one man can change the world and lead to an extra couple of hundred million people existing and passing on their genes. Think of the impact a handful of men in society have had on civilisation over the last two centuries and by extension the evolutionary success of the species. Think of how many less people there would be without electricity, machinery, antibiotics, modern medicine and modern agriculture that men were mostly responsible for. How many family genetic lineages have continued existing because of these technological advances by men and have avoided termination as a result?

 

Successfully passing on the genes is not solely about sexual intercourse. Biology is more complex than that. Many other things have to occur before and after sexual intercourse, to ensure genes are passed on successfully. The value men bring to the survival of the community and to society is unique. Despite what feminists claim, women really cannot do everything a man can do or just as well (Women are not inferior. Men and women just have different strengths.). Men remain the majority of our leading scientists, thinkers, inventors, political and business thinkers etc, despite all of the feminist social engineering to artificially lift women up. Human adult males are also not immediately replaceable either, especially talented and gifted men. It takes roughly 18 years before they reach physical maturity (25 years if we are talking about the brain) and a great deal of parental investment compared to other animals. Our failure to recognise that treating men as disposable is to treat civilisation as disposable, will eventually lead to the implosion of civilisation. Even if we consider men as machines, we all recognise what happens when you do not look after your car and do not change the oil. Either we unlearn the cultural belief men are disposable, or we can watch society start falling apart. Adopting a wholistic systems perspective and going beyond a simple reductionist mode of thinking, would help us unlearn the erroneous cultural belief men are disposable.

 

Gynocentric Authority, Institutions And Herd Mentality

Much of the influence in what shapes social behaviour comes from the top of society and from authorities like the government and institutions like university. Gynocentrism has been normalised in part because we have practiced it for centuries and our key institutions, leaders, celebrities and elite practice it, endorse it and impose it on the rest of us. We even enshrine gynocentrism into law. There have been a number of psychological studies since WW2 showing how easily people blindly follow authority and rules (the infamous Zimbardo Stanford prison experiment[14] being one such example) and how powerful institutional environments and rules are in shaping group and individual behaviour (that partly explains a lot about how Nazism came to power and how millions of people were exterminated without anyone speaking out against it). The power of the herd mentality of human beings to follow authority and a minority of individuals, cannot be understated. Many people simply do not think for themselves and this reality allows a minority of people like feminists, to easily control large groups of people once they hold positions of authority in institutions and government.

 

Slavery was considered normal for centuries by our leaders, authorities and institutions and was widespread, as was barbaric punishment and torture. Only in the last two hundred years or so and after wars and huge political movements and massive legal reform, have slavery and inhumane punishment been mostly abolished and outlawed. People had the same arguments about slavery being natural and inevitable in the past, as people do today about gynocentrism. Just like back then, the arguments today about gynocentrism being inevitable, do not have substance when you examine them more closely. This is the naturalistic fallacy in action. The fact gynocentrism has natural or biological underpinnings, does not then mean it is morally acceptable, desirable, inevitable or a healthy expression of human behaviour.

 

The education system out of all of the institutions, plays a key role in normalising gynocentrism. Many boys and girls in school can now go through most of their education from kindergarten to postgraduate education, with few male teachers. The influence of feminist ideology is now present at the primary or elementary level and has been present at the university level for years. The education system has now essentially become a system of feminist indoctrination and gynocentrism. This sort of environment does have impacts on the behaviour of children and the adults they will become. Like the changes in family structure, the feminisaton of the education system has played a major role in spreading and promoting gynocentrism in society.

 

Former KGB agent and defector Uri Bezmenov, warned in an interview more than 30 years ago[15], about the feminist and marxist takeover of our institutions and the ideological subversion of Western democracy. He made some very eerie predictions that help explain today’s society. Controlling the education system is key. He discusses the four stages of the takeover of society by the far left in the interview (demoralisation, destabilisation, crisis and normalisation). He explains the first stage which is called demoralisation. This involves indoctrinating multiple generations of students in far left ideology in the education system. From there these people infect the government, academia, corporations and our institutions and then spread far left ideology within these organisations. He explains how the brainwashing occurring in the education system, corrupts people’s perception to the point where they cannot make logical sense of information. After years of indoctrination, their thinking is bounded within an ideological framework and they cannot see beyond that framework. Sound familiar? It should. Uri was explaining what modern Western society would become 30 years ago. Think of all the revelations that have come out on the working environments of employees in the tech sector and in academia and the disruptive and violent protests on university campuses.

 

Gynocentric Superorganisms

Related to the previous reason behind why gynocentrism is normalised, is the influence of superorganisms on society and how they have succumbed to gynocentrism. MRA blogger Angry Harry, did an excellent series looking at the impact of superorganisms on human behaviour and how powerful they are in shaping it (See Angry Harry’s MRA corner on AVFM and check out the 4 part series titled, “Those Who Rules Over Us”)[16]. Superorganisms in the social context can be thought of as entities comprised of thousands, sometimes millions and even billions of individuals, that appear to mimic the properties of a living organism and wield enormous influence on society. Religions, governments, corporations, institutions and cities are examples of superorganisms. People in this context can be considered cells of these superorganisms. If we look at human civilisation as a superorganism, the slogan “feminism is cancer” is quite fitting.

 

Gynocentrism can be thought of in the context of superorganisms, as the underlying germ of a disease of the superorganism. It infects healthy human cells of the superorganism and then spreads throughout the superorganism. Eventually the superorganism succumbs to gynocentrism and then infects other superorganisms. Feminism could be considered a vector of the gynocentric germ that helps it spread, like how a mosquito is a vector of Malaria. Superorganisms as Angry Harry explained, have enormous influence over our society and the individual behaviour of people. Corporations, governments, religion and institutions shape the way of life for billions of people. Gynocentrism has infested many of these superorganisms and turned them into gynocentric zombies. These infected entities can and have inflicted terrible damage on society. Think of the impact feminist infested universities have had on society. Think of the impact the gynocentric legal system has had on the nuclear family, fathers and the lives of men. Think of the impact the feminised education system has had on the boy crisis in education. Think of the impact the gynocentric bias of the tech sector has had on the information that the public is exposed to and their censorship and filtering of alternative non-gynocentric viewpoints.

 

Learned Helplessness And The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Of Gynocentrism

Men and boys in today’s society to a substantial degree, are exhibiting signs of learned helplessness. Many men and boys have essentially been conditioned to accept that gynocentrism is normal and inescapable. Once men and boys internalise that dangerous false belief, they accept their own marginalisation and disposability every day and in doing so enable gynocentrism to have almost complete dominance over society. Learned helplessness has been linked to depression[17] and is no doubt a major factor driving the epidemic of male suicide. Learned helplessness fuels a self-fulfilling prophecy. If men and boys believe there is no other way to live, then gynocentrism becomes inevitable and this fate then reinforces the belief that gave rise to it. Beliefs can be very destructive things when they go unquestioned, despite leading to highly destructive outcomes. Men going their own way (MGTOW) is a pathway out of gynocentrism for men. It involves unlearning pathological gynocentric beliefs and daring to believe there is another way to live. Whilst it may not be easy to go against the social current of society, it is possible and once the rewards of going your own way become clear, it becomes easier and easier and easier to go your own way. We are social creatures and part of overcoming learned helplessness for men, involves abandoning concern for social ostracism, particularly from women and learning how to identify and manage the risks that a predatory gynocentric society presents, so you can live life in your own way and avoid entrapment and attack.

 

Men and boys are punished for performing and exhibiting their natural masculine nature and at the same time ridiculed for failing to perform and demonstrate a masculine nature. At the same time that men are told they must live up to the hypergamous expectations of women to earn more money than their female counterparts in order to be worthy of a relationship with women, they are cast as privileged oppressors and blamed for the gender pay gap if they do earn more money than women. Men are told they are losers if they do not perform and then are told they are privileged oppressors when they do perform. Women will write articles about “where are all the good men” and then write other articles about the gender wage gap and how we need female quotas in upper management and corporate boards because of male privilege. It is a double bind. Men have no escape from social ostracism if they follow external societal pressures and succumb to herd mentality and social pressure to conform. Such men must accept the message from society they are inferior, violent, privileged and evil oppressors. MGTOW is the healthy alternative. MGTOW involves finding your own way in life, independent of what the culture or society or women expects of you or what they think of you. MGTOW is the only way out for men from the gynocentric prison society has been turned into. To borrow a line from the Shawshank Redemption you either, “get busy living or get busy dying”.

 

The biases in human perception, thinking and behaviour discussed, combined with the changes in family structure, the proliferation of superstimuli with mass communication and the influence of gynocentric institutions, media and authority figures, keep the silent killer that is gynocentrism from being detected and addressed by civilisation and by individuals. To fight this, we need to develop greater self-awareness in society and awareness of what gynocentrism is and the harms it can and does cause. We need organised resistance to gynocentrism to emerge at the individual level of men going their own way and at the collective level of a well-funded and well organised men’s movement to tackle institutional and legalised gynocentrism. Either we address gynocentrism, or the harsh forces of natural selection will remove gynocentric behaviour from the human evolutionary lineage, or worse put the entire human race into the fossil record. For the superorganisms of society, they either rid themselves of gynocentrism or look forward to bankruptcy or collapse. For the individual man, you either overcome gynocentrism or you suffer for it and in some cases lose everything, including your life.

 

It is our choice, we can either do this the easy way or the hard way individually and as a society. It takes discipline to recondition ourselves out of bad habits and develop the self-awareness to recognise and stop bad behaviours. It does not happen overnight. Websites like AVFM, men’s discussion and support groups and male friendly life coaches and mental health professionals, can help with that process. MGTOW helps in a big way in overcoming gynocentrism. MGTOW or men going their own way, is grounded on the fundamental principle of self-control. You cannot go your own way without it! MGTOW and its continued growth is direct proof it is possible for men to overcome years of gynocentric programming, instinctual and emotional impulses and take the red pill. But like I said nothing happens overnight. That goes for individual change and also for societal change. Just because change is slow, does not mean change is impossible or will not eventually lead to profound shifts in people’s lives and the way society functions. Every journey begins with a single first step. It is time men broke free of their psychological bondage and dared to recognise and accept their true intrinsic value, in the face of a gynocentric society that would prefer they did not.

 

It is not just biology at play when we are talking about gynocentrism. Social, political, institutional, economic, informational and cultural factors, are also involved in normalising the social pathology we call gynocentrism. We are indeed living in the matrix of gynocentrism. Most people are still asleep in the matrix. We need to stop normalising gynocentrism by addressing the ten causes responsible for its normalisation discussed earlier. MGTOW and a well funded and organised men’s movement, would go a long way to achieving that objective. We are at a critical period in human civilisation where we need to move beyond outmoded gynocentric ways of thinking and behaving, if we expect civilisation to survive. Technology cannot be uninvented and we cannot return to a traditionalist path. Simply ending feminism will not be sufficient to advance society either. Gynocentrism has now become an unsustainable problem for society.

 

Tens of thousands of years ago when we humans transitioned from a hunter-gatherer existence to primitive civilisation, the dynamics between the sexes changed. Now we face a similar challenge to change those dynamics again, as a result of rapid technological change over the last two centuries. Dr. Warren Farrell has in the past described the need for a gender transition movement, to recognise and address this reality. The Kardashev scale[18] lays out the stage of technological advancement of civilisations. Human civilisation is currently undergoing a transition from a type 0 civilisation, to a type 1 civilisation in which we control all of the energy available on the planet and coming from the parent star (currently we can only make use of a fraction of the energy available). Technologies of a type 1 civilisation include: nuclear fusion and renewable energy on a large scale, the capacity to produce large quantities of antimatter etc. Some of these technologies we have obtained, some we are on the cusp of and other technology is quite a while away.

 

In several decades if everything goes right, we may have a permanent, sizeable and self-sustaining settlement on Mars. All of this civilisational advancement, requires a society that remains socially stable, free, safe, educated and prosperous enough, to permit the required technological progress to occur and to ensure the technology is not used to destroy ourselves. The relationship between men and women forms the backbone of the family and the family forms the backbone of society. Gynocentrism is now threatening to destroy the backbone of the family and of society. We need to wake up, otherwise the future for humanity is looking bleak. External threats like nuclear weapons appear to be well recognised. The same does not seem to apply for gynocentrism and the scale of the threat it poses for the continued existence of human civilisation. This needs to change.

 

References

 

[1] Slaying The Dragon. Peter Wright & Paul Elam, A Voice For Men (2018).-https://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/slaying-the-dragon/

[2] The Boy Crisis: Why Our Boys Are Struggling and What We Can Do About It. Dr. Warren Farrell & Dr. John Gray (2018)- https://www.amazon.com/Boy-Crisis-Boys-Struggling-About/dp/1942952716

[3] Chasing The Dragon. Peter Wright & Paul Elam, A Voice For Men (2016).- https://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/the-supersizing-of-gynocentrism/

[4] Self-Control And The Human Brain: The Neuroscience Of Impulse Control. Elana Glowatz, Medical Daily (2017)- https://www.medicaldaily.com/self-control-and-human-brain-neuroscience-impulse-control-408348

[5] Demographic Winter – the decline of the human family (Full Movie) Rick Stout. Acuity Productions. YouTube (Accessed 2018)-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZeyYIsGdAA

[6] Women believe they live in the age of entitlement. Miranda Devine, The Daily Telegraph (2012)-

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine-women-believe-they-live-in-the-age-of-entitlement/news-story/e4a1b901c0e55baa2517887ff8bbb072

[7] 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- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

[8] Elaboration likelihood model. Wikipedia (Accessed 2018)-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaboration_likelihood_model

[9] Why Can’t We Hate Men? Suzanna Danuta Walters, The Washington Post (2018)- https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.604b61ea305f

[10] The End of Men. Hanna Rosin, The Atlantic (2010)-https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/

[11] Partner Abuse State Of Knowledge Project (PASK) FACTS AND STATISTICS ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AT-A-GLANCE (Accessed 2018)- https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/domestic-violence-facts-and-statistics-at-a-glance/

[12] Systems Biology. Wikipedia (Accessed 2018)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology

[13] How did life become Multicellular?-Mysteries of Life #2. Ben G Thomas. YouTube (Accessed 2018).- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddsA0Egyb_I&feature=youtu.be

[14] Stanford Prison Experiment. Wikipedia (Accessed 2018)-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

[15] Uri Bezmenov: Deception Was My Job (Complete) G. Edward Griffin. American Media. All West Video. The Reality Zone. YouTube (Accessed 2018)- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4

[16] Angry Harry’s MRA Corner (Accessed 2018)- https://www.avoiceformen.com/angry-harrys-mra-corner/

[17] Learned Helplessness: Seligman’s Theory of Depression (+ Cure). Positive Psychology Program (2018)- https://positivepsychologyprogram.com/learned-helplessness-seligman-theory-depression-cure/

[18] Kardashev scale. Wikipedia (Accessed 2018)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

Men, Women And The Importance Of Individuality

Hello and welcome to my site, this will be my first article. What is given below is an article based (with some minor changes) on a YouTube comment I wrote in response to Paul Elam’s excellent video: “So, You Really Want To Compete With Men”. The response resonated with a lot of people and is worth reflecting on at a time in history where we seem to have completely lost perspective on the duality between the sexes and become lost in identity politics and forgotten the value in being an individual. 

Men and women have co-evolved to develop different but complementary biological roles in the continuation of the genome. The male role is based contributing to the survival of the species and the female role is based on contributing to the reproduction of the species. The division of biological function is a recurring pattern seen in complex life and greatly enhances the ability of a species to adapt to the environment and make efficient use of the resources in that environment. This is a key reason for why we have multicellular life. The sexual division of the reproduction and survival imperative, combined with the social organisaton in our species, is one of the greatest contributors to our success as a species.

The different biological roles of men and women have produced different sets of traits, abilities and strengths in the two sexes. But the interesting thing about this pattern is it has emerged through co-evolution between the sexes. The differences between the sexes are causally linked together through sexual selection and natural selective forces. They also are expressed and develop in direct proportion and in relation to each other, thanks to sexual selection, Fishers principle and the fundamental requirements of sexual reproduction in our species of requiring at least one male and one female to produce one child.

It does not make sense to measure men and women by the same yardstick and come out with the conclusion one sex is biologically superior to other, for these reasons. Men and women are measured biologically by different yardsticks. Yardsticks that have co-evolved together in direct proportion with each other, into different but related measures of biological value. It is somewhat like measuring a tiger against a whale and saying one is superior to other. The two animals evolved in completely different evolutionary contexts, with different selective forces acting on them. We used to recognise this reality in our culture. We used to recognise that men and women both had a different but equally valuable contribution to the species. We saw the ridiculousness in the man vs woman paradigm. We do not expect tigers to breathe and swim under water and whales to chase prey on land, so why are we expecting it would be any different with women operating in the male role?

The yardsticks themselves are by no mean’s monolithic either, the reproductive and survival imperative can be fulfilled by employing a variety of abilities and strategies by each sex and this is aided by our large brains and ability to communicate through language and record information and pass on past knowledge. The environment can also vary the types of abilities and strategies employed. Consequently the social dominance hierarchies of each sex, particularly for the male sex are multiple in number. There are multiple alpha’s to some degree for each sex because we actually have multiple hierarchies for each sex. This combined with the cooperation within our species, particularly among males (and there is research to show women select for cooperativeness and altruism in men), has enabled civilisation to form and thrive.

With that all said, the value of a human life goes far beyond simple biological value. The true value of human life for me at least, lies in the unique consciousness, personality and physical form of every individual. Your mental and physical fingerprint is distinctive. It is our uniqueness as individuals that gives us value, because we are all irreplaceable. It is the source of human love. It is why we miss our relatives and partners when they are gone. All of their individuality is what we cherish about our loved ones. There will never be another Stephen Hawking again, there will never be another me again or another Paul Elam or you again. That is how we must define our own self-worth if society is to continue existing and not self-destruct. We have to stop confusing external standards of value that are required to run civilisation (like money), with our own intrinsic value or self-worth. One standard of value is merely a tool to organise society by and the other defines the meaning of our life.

We have to celebrate and realise the irreplaceable value of our own individuality. That is why arts, sports, intellectual pursuits and creativity is so critical to our society. The music, painting, writing, acting, sports, discoveries, theories, inventions and creativity of human beings, is an expression of our own individuality. It is not money that makes us whole, it is being able to express our individuality and sharing it with others. That is why the left are invading the arts, sports and STEM fields etc. They want to crush individuality and make it all about group identity. The recent Star Wars movies are merely one example of many I can name. When a woman earns a Nobel Prize we should be talking about the individual, not about the fact she is a woman and vice versa.

Western civilisation reached it’s current greatness due intellectual enlightenment and the renaissance. During and since that period of time we have celebrated and valued individuality, we have enshrined individual rights into law and the arts, sciences, sports and engineering have exploded with achievements and major developments as a result. It is through valuing individuality and the intrinsic unique value of each individual, that society has flourished. We have accomplished more as a species in the last 400 years, than the previous 180,000 because of this very fact. Cultures that value individuality and integrate that into the outputs of society, will always triumph over cultures that do not.

This is why identity politics, feminism etc are so destructive. Primitive tribalism will do nothing except to destroy Western civilisation and bring on a new dark age. These ideologies that foster group identity, rob people of their intrinsic self-worth and replace it with someone else’s idea of what they think is their value as human beings. You are valued by someone else’s approximation of how well you measure up to their view of group identity. If you are female you are valued by feminists on how well you measure up to their version of the ideal female, screw your individuality. Is it any wonder then that women are reporting they are more miserable and less happy than decades ago? Once that system of control by identity politics is in place and in people’s minds, like a drug addict and a drug dealer, you can condition them to obey you to obtain self-worth, like a dog getting treats. This is perhaps why the left is so vicious, they are like rabid dogs looking to obtain self-worth from their ideological masters, by competing with each other on who can virtue signal the loudest and the best and be recognised as resembling the ideal person of their group.

The only way this will stop, is by training men and women to consider themselves as individuals, encouraging a strong sense of individual self-determination and self-direction and contrasting it with the miserable lives of those that subscribe to group identity, to show everyone the benefits of being an individual. Men going their own way (MGTOW) is playing a key role in that process for men and boys and liberating men from living by someone else’s view of what their value is as a man. Your value as a man, a boy, a woman or a girl, comes from your unique expression of human consciousness and individuality etc, it does not come from an artificial ideological construct on the left or the right side of the political spectrum.

Know thyself and be yourself.