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 attracting the disapproval of women (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.