Bio-gynocentrism

Bio-gynocentrism refers to a general attitude which regards men and masculinity as expendable and disposable, on a biological and evolutionary basis, for the benefit of women. Bio-gynocentrism also incorporates a corresponding higher value imposed on women, who's evolutionary status represents the end goal for 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 class. Although the phenomenon and fallacy has existed for centuries, 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 those that casually adopt the attitude as if it represented 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 of the gynocentric double standard. The narrative of the "strong independent woman" who can do anything a man can do appears to be reliant on bio-gynocentric standard of male support, whereby men forego (by female demand) their own life and aspirations in favor of this idea of serving and elevating woman as his superior.

History

The bio-gynocentric claim of women's superior importance within the evolutionary scheme was championed by first-wave feminists and also by proto-feminists such as Christine de Pizan (1364–1430), and Lucrezia Marinella (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 elaborated bio-gynocentric beliefs. Marinella wrote:

It is a marvelous sight in our city to see the wife of a shoemaker or butcher or even a porter all dressed up with gold chains round her neck, with pearls and valuable rings on her fingers, accompanied by a pair of women on either side to assist her and give her a hand, and then, by contrast, to see her husband cutting up meat all soiled with ox’s blood and down at heel, or loaded up like a beast of burden dressed in rough cloth, as porters are. At first it may seem an astonishing anomaly to see the wife dressed like a lady and the husband so basely that he often appears to be her servant or butler, but if we consider the matter properly, we find it reasonable because it is necessary for a woman, even if she is humble and low, to be ornamented in this way because of her natural dignity and excellence, and for the man to be less so, like a servant or beast born to serve her.

First wave feminist Charlotte Perkins-Gilman (1860–1935) claimed that the bio-gynocentric worldview was the most important contribution to ‘the woman question’ ever made. Commenting on the basic premise of women's superior biological importance, she wrote “You’ll have to swallow it. The female is the race type; the male is her assistant. It is established beyond peradventure.” (Gilman, 1911).

Lester F. Ward, an American biologist (1841-1913) was the first person to propose a formal scientific theory of bio-gynocentrism, which is summarized as follows in his works:

“The female sex is primary in point both of origin and of importance in the history and economy of organic life. And as life is the highest product of nature, and human life the highest type of life, it follows that the grandest fact in nature is woman… Woman is the unchanging trunk of the great genealogic tree; while man, with all his vaunted superiority, is but a branch, a grafted scion, as it were, whose acquired qualities die with the individual, while those of woman are handed on to futurity. Woman is the race, and the race can be raised up only as she is raised up.” (Ward, 1888)

“The gynæcocentric theory is the view that the female sex is primary and the male secondary in the organic scheme, that originally and normally all things center, as it were, about the female.” (Ward, 1903)

Since these early writings, there has accrued thousands of speculative academic papers on the topic of bio-gynocentrism, consolidating the narrative which has gone on to capture the imagination of most academic fields, such as evolutionary psychology and sociology, which now reiterate and emphasize the bio-gynocentric belief system with further layers of confirmation bias.

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."

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 this idea that humans historically prioritised the survival of women only, Brockway states that those reasons no longer apply.

Vernon Meigs suggested 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.

Author Peter Ryan has written extensively on the "fallacy of the golden uterus".

See also

• Peter Ryan: Critique of bio-gynocentrism theory writings
• Paul Elam & Peter Wright: Briffault: Rules for the Rational Simp