Author: Peter Wright
We’ve
all
heard
it
before
–
the
claim
that
we
must
accept
gynocentrism
as
the
default
setting
of
the
human
species
and
for
human
relationships
because
Robert
Briffault
said
it
was
true
a
century
ago.
Only
problem
is
that
he
didn’t
say
that
at
all;
its
a
fabrication
by
people
who
have
attempted
to
con
us
into
thinking
gynocentrism
is
the
incontrovertible
basis
of
human
existence.
Briffault’s
law,
as
stated
in
his
book
The
Mothers,
is
this:
“The
female,
not
the
male,
determines
all
the
conditions
of
the
animal
family.
Where
the
female
can
derive
no
benefit
from
association
with
the
male,
no
such
association
takes
place.”1
Many
have
embraced
Briffault’s
Law
and
applied
it
to
human
relationships
in
a
way
that
Briffault
didn’t
intend.
Briffault
applied
his
law
strictly
and
explicitly
to
non-human
animals
in
a
chapter
titled
“The
Herd
And
The
Family
Amongst
Animals.”
In
the
section
describing
his
‘animal’
law
he
qualifies
that,
quote
“There
is,
in
fact,
no
analogy
between
the
animal
family
and
the
patriarchal
human
family.
The
former
is
entirely
the
product
of
the
female’s
instincts,
and
she,
not
the
male,
is
the
head.”
The
chapter
is
five
pages
long.
In
it
he
mentions
tigers,
elks,
lions,
zebras,
gazelles,
buffaloes,
deer,
monkeys,
beavers,
lions,
birds
and
other
animals,
and
only
references
humans
briefly
in
order
to
contrast
human
behavioural
patterns
from
those
of
animals.
Briffault
says:
“There
is
in
fact
no
analogy
between
that
[animal]
group
and
the
patriarchal
human
family;
to
equate
the
two
is
a
proceeding
for
which
there
is
no
justification.
The
patriarchal
family
in
the
form
in
which
it
exists
today
is
a
juridic
institution.
Whatever
external
and
superficial
similarities
there
may
be
in
the
constitution
of
the
human
and
of
the
animal
family,
there
is
one
profound
and
fundamental
difference.
The
patriarchal
family
is
founded
upon
the
supremacy
of
the
male
as
‘pater
familias,’
as
head
of
the
family.
This
is
not
the
case
in
the
animal
family.
it
is,
on
the
contrary,
entirely
the
product
and
manifestation
of
the
female’s
instincts;
she,
and
not
the
male,
is
its
head.
We
may
occasionally
find
the
male
employed
in
foraging
for
the
brood
and
for
the
mother,
while
the
latter
is
lying
quiescent
in
charge
of
her
eggs
or
brood;
but
there
is
nothing
in
those
appearances
to
justify
us
in
regarding
the
animal
family
as
patriarchal;
on
the
contrary,
the
conduct
of
the
group
is
entirely
determined
not
by
the
male
but
by
the
female.”1
Most
of
what
Robert
Briffault
says
is
factually
incorrect
by
today’s
standard
of
knowledge.
But
what
we
can
say
without
any
doubt
is
that
he
never
applied
his
“law”
to
humans.
Therefore,
let
us
apply
Occam’s
razor
to
this
monumental
con-job
that
has
been
disseminated
in
the
manosphere
and
beyond.
While
we
are
at
it,
why
not
apply
the
razor
to
those
people
who
insist
that
you
adopt
this
and
other
bogus
arguments
for
natural
gynocentrism;
they
are
not
genuinely
interested
in
men’s
liberation.
*
*
*
Original Story on AVFM
These stories are from AVoiceForMen.com.
(Changing the cultural narrative)