Author: Peter Wright
Some
may
be
surprised
to
see
an
article
asking
this
question
appearing
on
A
Voice
for
Men.
Published
in
the
interests
of
discussion.
Unlike
our
opponents
we’re
not
afraid
to
look
in
the
mirror.
–Ed.
In
2013
I
introduced
the
terms Men’s
Human
Rights
Movement (MHRM) and Men’s
Human
Rights
Advocacy (MHRA)
to
an
audience
raising
awareness
about
men’s
issues,
and
since
that
time
the
phrase
has
come
to
enjoy
a
small
place
in
the
lexicon.
The
phrase
MHRA
was
partly
introduced
to
indicate
a
different
ideological
accent
to
that
of
Men’s
Rights
Activists,
of
which
the
following
are
a
few
stand-out
points
(note,
these
are
generalisations
which
don’t
apply
to
all
MRAs):
Another
advantage
of
adding
the
word human
in
Men’s
Human
Rights
Advocacy
is
that
it
better
qualifies
that
the
rights
being
sought
are
human
rights
as
differentiated
from
“patriarchal”
or
other
rights
imputed
to
the
movement
by
feminists
and
other
bad
actors
who
wish
to
malign
the
movement.
The
MRM
is
characterized
by
feminist
critics
as
a
regressive
misogynist
enterprise
aiming
for
the
revocation
of
women’s
liberties
and
wanting
women
to
be
“essentially
barefoot,
pregnant
and
back
in
the
kitchen.”
This
caricature
has
been
generated
by
individuals
who
feel
threatened
by
the
idea
of
men
seeking
to
improve
their
lives.
Since
coining
the
MHRM
over
a
decade
ago,
the
shorter
‘MRM’
label
has
become
increasingly
identified
with
belief
in
natural
gynocentrism.
Therefore
the
differences
between
MHRA
and
MRA
can
be
increasingly
summarized
as
non-gynocentrism,
vs.
advocacy
for
natural
gynocentrism
respectively:
MRAs
frequently
see
themselves
as
working
within
a
natural
gynocentric
system
to
help
men
get
a
reasonable
deal
within
its
woman-centering
parameters,
whereas
the
MHRA
position
abandons
the
belief
that
humans
must
function
within
a
gynocentric
system
of
relationships.
I’ve
checked
the
science
used
by
gynocentrism
advocates
and
it’s
thoroughly
flawed
–
Pretentious
appeals
to
Robert
Briffault
and
his
non-existent
‘law’;
the
claim
that
humans
are
returning
to
hypothesised
older
layers
of
our
genome
shared
with
gynocentric
gorillas
and
lions
(pre
Mutual
Mate
Choice
models);
or
the
claim
that
an
increase
in
infanticide
at
the
hands
of
women
indicates
they
are
evolutionarily
more
important
than
children
or
genes
to
successful
reproduction.
All
of
these
arguments
and
more,
including
the
examples
of
men
going
down
on
one
knee
to
propose,
or
women’s
hypergamy,
can
be
better
explained
by
a
culturally
driven
rise
of
gynocentric
narcissism.
Even
the
argument
about
women’s
ova
and
wombs
being
sufficient
for
propagating
the
human
species,
with
just
a
few
men
required
as
seed
banks,
is
an
unscientific
fantasy
of
the
narcissistic
mind.
Progeny
of
wombs
stand
little
chance
of
survival
without
the
infrastructure
built
by
legions
of
men,
even
incel
and
bachelor
men
whose
contributions
to
building
infrastructure
are
equally
vital
for
infant
survival.
We
could
say
that
men,
collectively,
are
one
giant
paternal
investment
that
cannot
provide
the
necessary
survival
infrastructure
if
they
were
significantly
reduced
in
numbers.
What
do
we
think
would
happen
to
world
survival
infrastructure
today
if
the
male
population
were
reduced
to
10%
of
the
current
number?
I
would
hope
the
answer
to
this
is
obvious.
The
high
numbers
of
people
invested
in
these
fallacies
include
mindless
meme-followers,
narcissistically
inclined
women,
male
sycophants,
and
grifting
institutions.
To
check
whether
these
believers
are
promoting
the
theory
due
to
memetic
and
psychological
investment,
ask
yourself
if
a
woman
promoting
natural
gynocentrism
theory
is
showing
signs
of
narcissism?
Equally,
if
a
man
promotes
natural
gynocentrism,
ask
yourself
if
he
is
also
showing
signs
of
trained
sycophancy?
Perhaps
we
could
put
it
this
way:
does
“gynocentric
MRA”
sound
like
an
oxymoron
to
you?
It
should.
Because
it
is.
And
on
that
basis
that
I
find
myself
more
reluctant
to
use
the
label,
though
I
should
underline
that
I
speak
for
no
one
but
myself.
Put
simply,
I
cannot
in
good
conscience
support
gynocentrism
as
a
cornerstone
of
a
men’s
movement
–
that
would
be
like
accepting
the
married
state
is
essential
to
living
the
MGTOW
life.
I
will
add
that
not
all
MRAs
“believe”
in
the
natural
gynocentrism
theory,
even
if
many
do,
but
a
sufficient
majority
has
influenced
the
understanding
of
how
far
we
should
take
Men’s
Rights
Advocacy
without
infringing
on
supposedly
sacrosanct
models
of
gynocentrism.
Lastly,
I
like
many
MRAs
who
care
about
and/or
have
pity
for
men
and
boys
–
this
is
not
an
attempt
to
dismiss
their
positive
contributions
nor
an
attempt
to
create
needless
division.
The
above
thoughts
are
long
percolated,
and
I
share
them
only
on
the
offchance
that
it
makes
some
small
difference
in
the
narrative
–
perhaps
being
of
assistance
to
a
few
men
and
women
who
are
seeking
a
way
out
of
the
maze
of
Victorian
era
myths.
See
also:
Original Story on AVFM
These stories are from AVoiceForMen.com.
(Changing the cultural narrative)