Author: Vernon Meigs
Those who allegedly care about men and their issues just as often feel the need to appeal to gynocentrism by saying how natural it is, so the need arises to eviscerate that notion once again. It’s time to remind everybody in the friendliest way I can of the following: you can’t fight gynocentrism by defending it, you can’t call gynocentrism a problem and a fundamental human feature at the same time, and you certainly shouldn’t be demanding to be “thanked” for claiming we are a gynocentric species if you want society to be rid of it. It’s time once again to get your priorities straight.
Let’s first start by reminding ourselves why we are even a part of the movement discussing and concerning ourselves with men’s issues. We have taken a good look at the cruelty, the violence, the hypocrisy, the double standards, the disrespect, disregard, derision, and all-around unfair treatment towards men and boys, and we wish for a fairer world for malekind. Plenty of us have been on the receiving end of any and all of those behaviors.
We recognize what the problem is, which is of course gynocentrism. We recognize how gynocentric society regards men – as disposable, good only for serving women (and otherwise useless), that they must live and die to that end, and anything wrong that happens to the society is to be blamed on men. We recognize how gynocentric society expects men to act – in deference to women, on their knees for women and looked down on by them, and to take on accountability in women’s stead.
Needless to say, gynocentrism is a longstanding social pathology. We are fighting it for a reason, in the hopes of attaining the goal of a fair world for men and boys. We are fighting it to rescue and advocate for men’s whole, intact spirit and body.
Imagine, then, those who say that they are pro-men and care about their issues but also turn around and say that gynocentrism is natural.
Mind you, to say something is natural is to say it is there for a fundamental reason. It is to say that it is right. It is to say it is crucial to existence then and now. And ultimately, it is to say that it is anywhere from futile to evil to wish to fight and eradicate gynocentrism.
Again, imagine “pro-men” people arguing for natural gynocentrism. Imagine the defense of the disposal of males, the double standards, and the lack of accountability on the part of women. Imagine justifying the throwing of men into wars to die senselessly, the practical hatred towards fathers, the disregard of boys’ welfare compared to girls, and everything else that is part and parcel to gynocentrism. Imagine all of this, “because biology, because evolution.”
With men’s advocates like this, who needs feminists?
For a closer look at natural gynocentrism fallacy look here and read. A related phenomenon, possibly synonymous with natural gynocentrism, is bio-gynocentrism. Long story short, those with natural-gynocentric or bio-gynocentric thought processes advocate that a deification of women is natural, reasonable, moral, and scientific. The deification of women entails the breaking of men, or at the least keeping them at lower tier.
I’ll reiterate: they think that treating men like unworthy garbage and women like untouchable goddesses is proper.
If I were a feminist, I’d be jealous of the natural gynocentrist’s capacity for misandry. We’re looking at a complete tradcon version of the He For She campaign, only more effective; it actually dupes enough men into advocating for it while allowing them to think that they’re doing masculinity and malekind a favor. Why didn’t Emma Watson think of that?
Drawing heavily on arguments from biology and evolution, and just like any blue pill evolutionary psychology peddler, the natural-gynocentrist argues from innateness and instinct. More clearly, they posit that regarding women as holy treasures and their reproductive organs as gold is something men can’t help because it is “hardwired” into men to do so. It is an innate tendency they cannot escape.
The argument from innateness basically amounts to the following: not only is it innate when you experience a gynocentric thought, it is innate that you act on it. In other words, this parallels the thought processes of the likes of Sam Harris who say that free will is an illusion. But aside from bordering on utter nihilism, the only motive one has for making the case that free will is an illusion is to make people believe in its absence and thus quashing any expectation of real human freedom. The case to be made, ultimately, is materialism; that we are nothing but a collection of atoms and nerve impulses firing. One way or another, we’ll always be slaves to something.
The argument for natural gynocentrism is the appeal to the notion of complete and utter mindlessness of the male of the species. It argues that not only are males stupid, but they are terminally and helplessly stupid. We should be deeply concerned that anybody in our own movement would insist on such a position.
In effect, the natural gynocentrism fallacy is a materialist argument. It is most certainly not a moral argument as morality deals with the realms of volition and intellect. Innateness is not a moral argument. In fact, innateness is an illusion. By this I mean: the notion that you are inborn with self-destructive habits due to evolutionary outcomes is a flat lie. It is, instead, a social habit. This is what is properly referred to as programming. As with any programming, it can be unlearned, de-programmed.
And that is the real story of humanity: rising above programming, and being more than just atoms and nerve impulses. Humanity evolved into an existential being, and with it came a means of life beyond mere instinct.
But that is a key problem with the argument for natural gynocentrism. It largely ignores, if not downright dismisses, the volitional aspect and moral burdens that come with humanity.
For comparison, the evolutionary psychologist’s obsession with the notion of sexual dimorphism as applied to homo sapiens is such that the similarities between the sexes, if acknowledged at all, are sufficiently downplayed.
This is despite the fact that the human male and female are way more monomorphic than they are dimorphic. The monomorphism is enough that men and women have the same capacity of volition and agency as individuals. Why are men obliged to then be vassals to the women who are in turn non-accountable? The answer should be obvious: social conditioning. This was never natural; to say it was a cruel trick is a vast understatement.
And just like turning a blind eye to the vast indication of monomorphism and zeroing in on the less prominent dimorphism of the human sexes (relative to other mammals), the natural-gynocentrists blindfold themselves from the aspect of free will in humankind and instead focus on the biological impulses that all men and women have the capacity to exert a good degree of will over to self-govern.
This is not an argument that all people actually do this; goodness knows it’s only too easy to not control your life than to control your life. But to just say “Oh, it’s biology you can’t help it” is no more right than to give females a disproportionate pass for committing wrongs. More to the point, if we recognize that humanity is not helpless to impulses and instinct, at least more than we do today, we can be better masters over ourselves. And in this goal the mongers of natural gynocentrism and the apologists of our ancestral disposers of malekind are not helping matters in any way.
Advocacy for men is best taken the form of appealing towards the spirit of men and boys, and towards their free will, which feminists and traditional gynocentrists are hellbent on quashing in practice. Advocating against men’s free will does men no favors as it directly appeals to the notions of male hopelessness, futility, and resignation to the disposability we thought they were protesting.
I can already hear the counterargument. “But, men used to be thanked and honored for their disposability! We just need to return to thanking men for servicing women!”
Tell me something…why is male disposability right? Who is sick enough to be so gratified that men die or become broken? What about men are you concerned about which led you to a movement advocating for them? Are you concerned that they don’t get cheers and a slap in the back before they get screwed over in family courts? That nobody asks them “are you all right?” while being murdered by vigilantes over a false accusation?
Perhaps, with the injustices in your life courtesy of gynocentric society, you are coping in the wrong way. Instead of admitting that none of this was right and this never had to be, you are wanting justification that it ever happened at all. You sound like an American who can’t bring himself to admit that he was violated at age zero with a knife and had his foreskin sliced off and instead you wish to continue the tradition on your own son “because it’s always been done”.
In closing, it’s pretty easy to see that the vast majority of women who allege to be concerned about men and their issues to fall into natural gynocentrism fallacy. Clearly, the benefits to women in the natural-gynocentric and evopsych scenarios are abundant. Too often, their appraisal of men is in the form of being grateful for their sacrifices. They seem to be thrilled with the notion that men dispose themselves for them. It takes a strong moral mind with dauntless concern about men as ends in themselves to be a female advocate for men, and at this point I can perhaps count them on one hand.
Why do the men fall into natural gynocentrism fallacy? The answer is the same as I’ve given in my writings about bio-gynocentrism. It’s the attempt to romanticize male toil and death to heroically become a lowly benefactor for their precious goddesses. It’s the attempt to get on the good sides of non-accountable women to discover the canned answer to “What is a good man?” Ultimately, I think it’s a man giving into his sense of hopelessness, going nihilistic black-pill and saying “Yeah, I’m a disposable man. Please thank me!”
What they refuse to acknowledge is that they aren’t saying it for themselves, at least not only. If they indulge in the notion of male disposability, it is liable to affect other men going forward and make them disposable too. They are no asset to the men’s movement, but the opposite.
As someone most eloquently put it, anti-gynocentrism is the only anti-feminism that matters. If you aren’t anti-gynocentrist, perhaps you’re a natural-gynocentrist. You can’t be both. Go impress feminists and out-He-For-She them somewhere else, but not here.
Original Story on AVFM
These stories are from AVoiceForMen.com.
(Changing the cultural narrative)