Difference between revisions of "Bio-gynocentrism"

From Wiki 4 Men
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 18: Line 18:
 
===History===
 
===History===
   
The claim of women's superior importance in the human evolutionary scheme was championed by first-wave feminists and also by proto-feminists such as Christine de Pizan, and Lucrezia (1571-1653) who in the year 1600 published a volume titled ''The Nobility And Excellence of Women, And The Defects And Vices Of Men'', in which she elaborates a widespread cultural belief in bio-gynocentrism. <ref>Lucrezia Marinella (1571-1653), The Nobility And Excellence of Women, And The Defects And Vices Of Men. Translated and republished in 1999 by UCP.</ref>
+
The claim of women's superior importance in the human evolutionary scheme was championed by first-wave feminists and also by proto-feminists such as Christine de Pizan (1364–1430) , and Lucrezia (1571-1653) who in the year 1600 published a volume titled ''The Nobility And Excellence of Women, And The Defects And Vices Of Men'', in which she elaborates a widespread cultural belief in bio-gynocentrism. <ref>Lucrezia Marinella (1571-1653), The Nobility And Excellence of Women, And The Defects And Vices Of Men. Translated and republished in 1999 by UCP.</ref>
   
 
===Objections to Bio-Gynocentrism===
 
===Objections to Bio-Gynocentrism===

Revision as of 05:38, 8 March 2022

Bio-gynocentrism refers to a general attitude which regard men and masculinity as expendable and disposable on a biological and evolutionary basis. Bio-gynocentrism also incorporates a corresponding higher value imposed on women, who are the endpoints of the biological disposability of males. Bio-gynocentrism can be best summarized as the alleged scientific basis for sex stratification, with males as the servant sex and females as the serviced. Although the phenomenon and fallacy has existed for decades, the term to describe it was coined by Vernon Meigs in 2022.

Description

Bio-gynocentrists are either 1. serious believers of the fundamental disposability of the human male and are advocates towards that end, or 2. are often those that casually adopt the attitude as if it is common sense.

Common arguments include:

  1. Men evolved to protect and provide for women because women are of higher reproductive value.
  2. A tribe can survive if most of the males are wiped out, so long as the women are protected.
  3. Men are biologically stronger, so they should be expected to die in service to the tribe.

The attitude is commonly adopted by Traditional gynocentrists who, despite opposing feminism for its unjust attitudes towards men, impose similar gynocentric standards of inherent biological importance of females and the associated expectations of male sacrifice.

Role In Gynocentric Double Standard

It can be argued that bio-gynocentrism is a key enabler to the gynocentric double standard. The narrative of the "strong independent woman" that can do anything a man can do appears to be reliant on bio-gynocentric standards, in which men forego (by female demand) their own efforts and life in favor of this idea of serving and elevating woman as his superior.

History

The claim of women's superior importance in the human evolutionary scheme was championed by first-wave feminists and also by proto-feminists such as Christine de Pizan (1364–1430) , and Lucrezia (1571-1653) who in the year 1600 published a volume titled The Nobility And Excellence of Women, And The Defects And Vices Of Men, in which she elaborates a widespread cultural belief in bio-gynocentrism. [1]

Objections to Bio-Gynocentrism

Adam Kostakis speaks on the subject:

"I do not believe that gynocentrism is a biological predisposition. I do not believe that evolution grants women superior biological value and status. I do not believe men are created to “serve” women, or that this situation is inescapable. What the advocates of male disposability describe is not a symbiotic relationship, but a parasitic one. And it is one I believe is socially constructed. It’s an enduring relationship, for sure! But you know what they say, rules are made to be broken."[2]

Robert Brockway argues that with a population approaching eight billion, humans are no longer struggling to survive and no longer need the capacity to reproduce quickly. If there is any truth in the idea that humans historically prioritised the survival of women only, those reasons no longer apply.

Vernon Meigs (coiner of the term) suggests the following eight attributes as traits of the hypothetical bio-gynocentrist:

  1. Lack of imagination (inability to conceive of a masculinity aside from the chivalric narrative)
  2. Similarity to the average feminist (having male disposal as a means to a gynocentric endpoint)
  3. Preoccupation with male "hard-wiring" (in the name of evolution, the narrative of male helplessness and base instinct over volition and free will)
  4. Skewed, biased conclusions regarding human biology (in which women are considered the far valuable in comparison to the disposable male)
  5. Refusal to hold women accountable (in favor of subjective interpretations of traditional gender roles in which women hold no agency, resulting in men taking on more responsibility and consequences than warranted)
  6. Blatant collectivism regarding the purpose of the male sex
  7. Closeted need and preoccupation of being on one's knees (as white knights and too many males do)
  8. The accusation of science denial, lobbed against those who disagree that biology deems men as the inferior sex below women.

Peter Ryan speaks extensively on the "fallacy of the golden uterus". [3][4]

References

  1. Lucrezia Marinella (1571-1653), The Nobility And Excellence of Women, And The Defects And Vices Of Men. Translated and republished in 1999 by UCP.
  2. Adam Kostakis - Is gynocentrism a biological essential? 2011
  3. Gynocentrism and the golden uterus, part one, 2019
  4. Gynocentrism and the golden uterus, part two, 2019