In November 2017, Kathy Gyngell published an article in The Conservative Women titled “The Silence of the Males”. I wrote a response which I never published. Since TCW have just re-published Mrs Gyngell’s original piece, I take the opportunity to finally publish my response.
In the context of the ongoing Parliamentary pogrom, Kathy Gyngell notes “The Silence of the Males”. She asks: “Where’s their protest? Will they not speak out even in self-defence?”
Only Mrs Gyngell’s surprise surprises me.
“Is it their innate chivalry? Do they not like contradicting women? Or are they genuinely scared?” she further asks.
Yes, yes and yes.
As regards fear, there are many examples of men being sacked for voicing even the mildest of heretical opinions. There is a reason why men’s rights advocates “live on the internet”, often using pseudonyms, or are older men and safely retired.
Male privilege is indeed a myth. So is male power. It always was. Except for a very few.
What is power?
Is the muscle-bound oaf powerful because he can, briefly, intimidate you? Do the truly powerful typically sport the finest physique? Yet feminists, obsessed with domestic and sexual violence, conflate muscles with power. Or they pretend to do so. Misdirection?
Is the family man working a 55 hour week to support a family actually just a bully – a wielder of patriarchal control through ‘financial power’ as feminists insist? Or is this more misdirection? Are bullies noted for giving gifts to their victims – persistently for years?
Then what is power?
Power is the ability to impose your will on others.
The war lord, or criminal gang, may impose their will on others by violence. But this power strategy is used infrequently and has largely been neutralised by the rise of State power. The law modifies people’s actions, to a degree, and the State can impel compliance since it wields the credible threat of overwhelming force.
But people’s behaviour, and indeed the very stability of society, is mostly controlled by a common perception of what is right and what is unacceptable. This is the social morality. It is not the absolute morality of the religious or certain moral philosophers. Social morality differs between cultures. Most importantly, social morality is mutable.
The ability to mould the precepts of accepted social morality is by far the most puissant strategy for those seeking power.
And feminism is all about power. It always was.
Feminism is a psychosocial pathology. Specifically, it is a corruption of social morality for its own ends, as a power strategy.
If you want an image of feminism it is this: a dog owner viciously beating her dog – to a chorus of applause.
Imagine a large powerful dog – a beast who could make mincemeat out of his mistress. But he does not. He cowers under the onslaught of blows and does not attack back. Why? Because countless generations of selective breeding have moulded his behaviour. The dog is psychologically incapable of attacking his human abuser.
Men are also the product of selective breeding. The selection is done by women because women are the gatekeepers of sex. The right of a woman to choose with whom she mates is sacrosanct. This is proved by the perceived heinousness of rape – which is precisely the violation of that right. As a result, over deep genetic time, only 40% of men left progeny (compared with 80% of women).
One of the key evolutionary adaptations of Homo sapiens is the formation of long-term pair bonds. This phenomenon, not shared by other primates, is key to the species’ evolutionary success, and hence coming to dominate the planet. The glue which binds this pair bond is a complex of emotions. Contrary to the now-popular belief that males are emotionally stunted, the emotional complex underpinning the crucial pair-bond is primarily within the male – since it is the male whose behaviour is altruistically modified. An emotional basis is essential to drive altruistic behaviour: the phenotype is conned by the genotype via the intermediary of emotional triggers. This is the foundation for what is perceived as morally “good” becoming defined by what is good for the family. And, as far as the male is concerned, a convenient cognitive shortcut for “what is good for the family” becomes “what is good for the woman”. (And this remains the societal presumption, as embodied by the family courts, even when the individual man has reason to perceive the fallacy of it, when the mother stands between him and his children).
So it came to be that, millenia ago, men ceded moral authority to women – because men were selected on that basis.
When gynocentric power was deployed to preference the family, it acted as a highly successful evolutionary adaptation. But feminism is gynocentric power misapplied to preference women in the external, formerly male, world of affairs. It is power being deployed without responsibility. Worse, neither the body politic nor the body social have any means to counter it.
Just pause for a moment to consider how absolute is the power to define what is regarded as morally correct, and what is not. This control over the moral narrative is hegemonic power indeed. It blows my mind that it goes unnoticed. But, then, covert action is part of its power structure because it acts directly within the evolved psychology of both sexes.
In short, men are bred to be gynocentric and women expect it.
I suspect that almost no women have the faintest clue just how men’s gynocentric mindset controls their actions. Men are generally not aware of it themselves. Take my own case. Modesty aside, I dare to say I am quite well informed about the wealth of factual evidence which confirms the litany of male disadvantage. Despite that, my logic module exists in a perpetual state of war with my gynocentric emotion module. The latter screams ‘nasty misogynist’ at me constantly. The former responds with more facts, but to no avail. I have my own, inescapable, internal feminist.
There are just two things you need to know about sexual dynamics. First, the key attribute of inter-sex dynamics is that men are terrified of female disapproval (because women define the moral right). Second, the key feature of intra-sex dynamics is that women have strong in-group preference whereas men have no in-group preference. Men’s strength is their self-reliance. Men’s weakness is their self-reliance.
So, Kathy Gyngell should not be surprised that the dogs will not fight back. They just can’t. Oh, the odd one may do so. But such a dog proves thereby that he is a vicious beast who must be put down, and quickly. The dogs cannot unite and mount a coordinated counter-attack on humans. It is unthinkable.
The female onslaught upon men will not slacken, it will intensify. There will be no coherent counter to it. A few suicides will make no difference. Our society can tolerate mass male death with equanimity. Because of men’s lack of gender-based joint action, they can respond only as individuals. An individual can respond to an attack by an army only by withdrawing, not by counter-attack. Men will increasingly withdraw. The economy will weaken as young males fail to see any point in continued striving in a society which provides only sticks and no carrots. Their increasing withdrawal will be mocked and their lack of motivation chided, but to no avail in a society which can only demand their performance but give nothing back in the way of respect. Women will reap the usual rewards of getting what you wished for.
Natural feminine hypergamy is the ordering principle of every human society. In fact, I think it has been the ordering principle of every sexual animal since the dawn of sexual reproduction.
Overpower is the key concept men have to understand; the ability to direct the choices of others is just as important.
“How do you intend on providing for my economic needs and my endless wants? ” -99% of all women can ask this, without laughing at our face.
What is amazing is that 99% of men try to answer this question in a very predictable enthusiastic fashion.
The way I have been describing the myth of patriarchy is that patriarchy has to be a system built around the interest of men to have any validity; Clearly, society is built around the interest of women… thinking men are in control is laughable only because being strong and doing all of the hard work to provide is what a mule does, women are clearly the more intelligent gender because you cannot be the strongest gender and the smartest well finding yourself predictably in the same situation slaving away to make her happy. Smfh
And it’s taken 150 years for men to start to question feminist Notions and yet in only 6 years has any appreciable amount of men even thought to question all of them… something women pass on effortlessly. Maybe this has every bit to do with the male ego: thinking that he’s strong, in charge and smarter… these assumptions have to be questioned obviously!!!
Pingback: Goodbye New Scientist | The Illustrated Empathy Gap
Dogs or pets is an interesting analogy. Pit Bulls maybe… Interesting…
Whereas I think there have been some encouraging signs that a small number of activists and a small number of male politicians who have more guts than a louse are finally having some effect on the course of the feminist super-tanker (and whilst it will certainly at least be a very long time before we get it to head for the rocks), such as men in this country no longer being arrested and charged for being battered by their wives, the new domestic violence law seeming, at last, to acknowledge there are male victims, and some states in the US now seriously trying to bring in shared parenting, I remain amazed how male politicians seem to allow to pass laws that are very obviously one-sided and therefore anti-men.
Such as Sweden allowing the sale of sex to be legal, whilst making the buying of sex an offence. A male-led socialist government in Spain bringing in an anti-domestic violence law that gives women the power to have their male partners jailed for three days on their word alone, and without evidence. And Australia’s marriage laws that allow a wife to deny her husband sex, whilst making it an offence for the husband to deny his wife “affection”, and prevent a husband from having access to his wife’s money, whilst having no power to prevent the wife accessing HIS. And all this is days of supposed sex-equality. How can any self-respecting male politician agree to this stuff? Did they think these laws will only affect men outside in the street?
What you are describing is primate behaviour, but human societies have always protected women from this raw tournament model mating strategy. You are proposing that what used to matter was individual strength. But that is a very feeble form of power compared to the power that may be garnered from society, as I point out in the piece. There are many male hierarchies, mostly based on various competencies, not merely on strength. It is a feminist fallacy – and a misdirection – to put all the emphasis on muscular strength. Culture and large scale society are formed around the male hierarchies, and alliance with (or corruption of) the resulting society is where real power lies. In the individual, the power of society is implemented via social morality, policed by guilt and shaming when necessary.
Meanwhile, more and more men, unable to fulfill their masculine imperatives through productive social means will turn to the fringes: gangs, political extremists and religious fundamentalism.
The barbarians are starting to mass in wilds beyond the city walls, and the women refuse to see it.
I fully agree with you on everything and more importantly that there is currently not any counter-power available to what is happening (ie the feminist diversion of female power from the interpersonal level to the political level. This diversion is what feminism actually does, and it is its political genius, completely misunderstood by political commentators).
However I disagree with you on the end of your post. I’m convinced feminism is a revolutionary movement, and that “smashing the Patriarchy” is not just a joke but a very serious political end for them (see Julie Bindel declarations on this). I believe when the feminist political movement will have gathered a critical mass, one of them will try to grap power and establish a dictatorship, with an institutional “coup”. I see women being used by feminists like the proletariat by Bolcheviks, as an army of unwitting soldiers, being slowly, ideologically, mobilized. The more “gender equality” (ie feminism) advances, the more women are mobilized. In the end I think, this army of women will be used for a “revolution”, that will likely be staged with a #metoo 2.0 campaign, which they will try to internationalize like the arab spring. The current #metoo movement is both a means to mobilize more women and a showdown of their strength. Here the feminist movement shows the world their army is very, very big, and powerful.
So part of our thought should go to the question of “how could this revolution take place ?”. Imagine a female Prime Minister, with a full female cabinet. They stage the discovery of one horrific rape after another. Say that “now that women are in power, the full extent of male mischiefs is being discovered”. Ask for an urgent and radical toughening of sexual violence laws, and the removal of presumption of innocence. Ask “men of goodwill” to “temporarily” resign from all positions of power while this is being sorted out by women, in parliament, the army, and every company. “Sexual violence prevention Committees” (the feminist version of “soviets”, which transmits power from the top, to the local level) being set up in all organizations. All this while they kindle the fire of a new #metoo movement on Twitter, and try to drag other countries in it (like the arab spring or the revolution waves of 1789, 1830, 1848 etc.). Then, these “comittees” become inquisition tribunals that accuse men in power of generalized sexual violence, harassment, etc. Finally when everybody is terrorized, and male elites dragged in prison, they declare that from now on men can not exert power anymore without a “permit”, revocable at will by the government; Here the feminist movement has instituted a dictatorship. They smashed the Patriarchy. I think could be doable somewhere in the coming 30 years. We should at least prepare ourselves to that possibility.
Another absolutely succinct piece on the gender evolution of our species and why men will always be second class citizens in society.
When I think of the vast majority of songs, I hear lyrics of undying love of women by men and what men will do to court women & this of course, underlines society’s view of the difference of the sexes.
My belief is that women will be the leaders in any real change to gender politics in the west and that is starting to happen as most women now no longer identify as feminists and they see their sons (mostly) suffer at the hands of feminism.
William, many thanks for an outstanding piece, but I find myself far more optimistic than yourself about the future. A number of things are coming together which give me hope, including:
– growing public understanding that feminism has nothing to do with gender equality, and everything to do with female supremacy
– growing public awareness that some of the major problems affecting males, especially young males (e.g. academic under-achievement) have been going on for decades, and they’re caused by the actions and/or inactions of the state
– our institutions (NHS, education, criminal justice system, and so much more) are visibly failing because they’ve been manipulated by feminists and/or become enclaves of high levels of female employment – and of course we know four times as many men as woman are work-centred (Catherine Hakim’s Preference Theory, 2000)
– the increasing gap between the mainstream media’s depiction of the sexes, and the real-world realities people see all around them
– women increasingly prepared to say publicly that the direction of travel over the past few decades hasn’t been good for them – hasn’t made them happier – let alone the damage it’s wrought on men
The MRM is undoubtedly going in the right direction, even if the speed of travel is slower than we’d like. I suspect it always will be. But there’s no going back now.
Along with many others, I look forward to your talk at the next International Conference on Men’s Issues, London, July 20-22. The speaker list is here https://icmi18.wordpress.com/speakers/.
AWARENESS does not equal REFORM but please don’t mistake me, you and others are quite the ones instrumental in getting us this far! Its just that laws are being passed in RAPID FIRE since the insane feminists know their time is running out eventually but not any time soon! Once the man hating laws are in place it is exponentially harder to get them repealed which is, after all the intended result. You can’t even look at a female now without wondering if she is your next villain! Orwell could not even imagine this…and we men allow it to stand!!
Mike, I couldn’t agree more, awareness doesn’t equal reform, but it’s a necessary precursor. As for, ‘we men allow it to stand’, the individual man doesn’t ‘allow it’, he’s powerless in the face of it – until and unless he joins with others in the MRM, and starts fighting collectively.
I believe it was Stefan Molyneux who said, in a recent video, that it is possible to tell how strong a man is by how easily he can say “No!” to a woman. I don’t see many strong men in politics. And most married men, in my experience are real weaklings.
Saying ‘No’ to a woman – Stefan said that in a recent video? Paul Elam said it – in relation to mental health, but the link is obvious – in July 2015 (30 months ago):
Stephen Molyneux, the white supremacist who refers to Black people, Jews, and women as collectively less intelligent than white men? That’s who you’re touting? Wow.
A model of economy in expressing what is factually known about human development. It led me to reflect on the role of Christianity and in particular courtly Chivalry in turning self destructive warrior cultures into more peaceable “kingdoms” in which conflict became much more “ritual” and concentrated in the males of the warrior class. Paving the way of course for relatively peaceful societies with a penchant for exporting their most restless knights to foreign lands which they conquered.
On a more contemporary note I’d observe that it is often mothers, sisters and new female partners who seek help for men being abused by women.; grandparents especially grandmothers most active in opposing gutless and biased family courts; “honey badgers” that point out the damage to boys and men and mothers that get incensed by the hounding of boys as inherently abusive at school or indeed the way they are disregarded in reading and education in general. All of this means to me that simply mirroring the “in group” preferencing of women will be a mistake but taking a human rights inclusive approach allows women to play a full part in challenging the “casual sexism” of a gynocentric society.
This is an outstanding exposition. Absolutely bang on target. Thank you.