Chapter 23: Gynocentrism and Socialism

Previous chapter Next chapter

Chapter 23: Gynocentrism and Socialism

‘‘Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.’’

- Winston Churchill –

‘‘Socialism states that you owe me something simply because I exist. Capitalism, by contrast, results in a sort of reality-forced altruism: I may not want to help you, I may dislike you, but if I don't give you a product or service you want, I will starve. Voluntary exchange is more moral than forced redistribution.’’

- Ben Shapiro –

In 1590, female writer Modesta Pozzo wrote:

[Don’t we see that men’s rightful task is to go out to work and wear themselves out trying to accumulate wealth, as though they were our factors or stewards, so that we can remain at home like the lady of the house directing their work and enjoying the profit of their labors? That, if you like, is the reason why men are naturally stronger and more robust than us—they need to be, so they can put up with the hard labor they must endure in our service.]

Gynocentrism is the practice, conscious or otherwise, of asserting a female perspective and placing it at the center of a political, social, familial, or gender context, potentially to the detriment of men.

The perceptions, needs, and desires of women have primacy in this system, where the female perspective is the lens through which all matters are analyzed.

Always putting the woman first, even if it is to the detriment of others, accurately defines what gynocentrism is. We can see a perfect example of gynocentrism with the modern feminist movement, as feminists are actively crushing any association that tries to protect men’s quickly disappearing rights, consequently gifting more advantages to women.

At the base of our gynocentric culture lies the practice of enforced male sacrifice for the benefit of women.

Modern gynocentrism is facilitated by three interrelated factors; the first being biological and the other two as cultural.

We inherited basic instinctual behaviors from our ancestors for prioritizing female safety; we tend to protect and provide for women as a way to ensure the survival of our species. Like I said in previous chapters, in order for our dominance instinct to be efficient, men require a lack of innate empathy toward other men, and women possess a mechanism called own group preference. These natural tendencies have been reinforced by varying local customs and laws throughout history, and while they may not represent gynocentrism by themselves, they certainly pave the way for it. We could say that these instincts are gynocentric tendencies, and they are the roots upon which it can grow and flourish.

It is only with the intensification of our innate inclinations that it becomes a real problem. Beginning in the 12th century, European society came up with a poisonous mix of female worship, the Marian cult, along with the notion of chivalry, which consists of servicing ladies, otherwise known as courtly love.

The Marian cult was a pagan cult that excessively worshiped Mary, the mother of Jesus, referring to her as mother in heaven, or even as a Goddess. Some even went so far as to make sacrifices for her.

Courtly love was enacted by minstrels, musicians, performers, and hired romance writers who created a model of romantic fiction that became the most trending genre of literature today. This combination of factors sustained the cultural norms that continue to fuel gynocentrism to this very day.

We now have developed economies with service industries where women can enter the labor force and gain financial independence from men. Feminist movements sprouted out everywhere, women gained the right to vote, and they keep demanding more rights vis-a-vis men. In developed democratic countries it is expected that women will become the majority of voters since they outlive men and there are generally more women alive than there are men. According to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, there are clear gender differences in voter turnout:

- In 2016, 63.3% of women and 59.3% of men voted. That's 73.7 million women and 63.8 million men—a difference of 9.9 million votes.

- In 2012, 63.7% of women and 59.8% of men voted. That's 71.4 million women and 61.6 million men—a difference of 9.8 million votes.

- In 2008, 65.6% of women and 61.5% of men voted. That's 70.4 million women and 60.7 million men—a difference of 9.7 million votes.

- In 2004, 60.1% of women and 56.3% of men voted. That's 67.3 million women and 58.5 million men—a difference of 8.8 million votes.

- In 2000, 56.2% of women and 53.1% of men voted. That's 59.3 million women and 51.5 million men—a difference of 7.8 million votes.

- In 1996, 55.5% of women and 52.8% of men voted. That's 56.1 million women and 48.9 million men—a difference of 7.2 million votes.

As we can see, there are 7 to 10 million more female voters than male voters every year in the last 20-25 years in the US. Similar trends can be observed throughout the Western world. Although the difference is not as wide, a similar outcome in voter turnout can be seen even when we look at data from more than fifty years ago:

- In 1964, 67% of women and 71.9% of men voted. That's 39.2 million women and 37.5 million men—a difference of 1.7 million votes.

Women’s instincts push them to seek more protection and provision, and since they are the majority of voters, they will vote for an ever-increasing welfare state.

Feminist often claim that women are an oppressed minority, but in reality, women are the majority and they hold more political power than men as a voter base.

Men pay over 70% of income taxes and it will be their money that will be redistributed to women via government subsidies and services. These same services that men’s taxes pay for will eliminate any and all trade-offs that existed in traditional relationships for a woman, which means that women as a whole will no longer hold any real accountability toward their partner.

As it becomes a one-way transaction that only benefits women, men will realize that they have nothing left to gain by entering into a traditional relationship with a woman. Like in Ancient Rome, marriage has become a whole bucket of responsibilities and legal duties that are enforced on the husband but not on the wife.

Women’s liberation can only be achieved by putting men down and by taxing/stealing their money. As it stands, women’s ‘‘liberation’’ completely ruined the social contract that has always existed between men and women, and it didn’t make us equal in the slightest. Today, men are nothing more than taxed livestock.

Even if we enforced true equality for women, they could never do it. Women aren’t built for it. Treating women just as harshly as men and making them work like draft horses all their life would not only make them utterly miserable, but it could even render them permanently sterile. It is a well known fact that high-performance female athletes as well as female soldiers, especially the ones who are deployed, often have problems with their fertility, with a sizeable portion of them never being able to conceive.

Regardless of it being in the military, sports, or in physical labor, extreme physical activity, irregular meals, inadequate intakes of nutrients, sleep deprivation and stress are common factors that can trigger “conservation mode” in women. This conservation mode results in a decrease in female hormones, cessation of menstruation (amenorrhea), osteoporosis with a heightened risk of stress fractures, and even fertility problems.

A study, "Musculoskeletal Injuries in Military Women," published in 2011 by the Army Surgeon General's Office of US Army Reserve, noted that women are approximately 67% more likely than men to receive a physical disability discharge from the army due to a musculoskeletal disorder, and that statistic was compiled before all combat jobs were opened to women.

The following argument is based on the work of Victoria A. Osborne, Ashley Gage, and Abigail J. Rolbiecki in their publication called ‘‘Psychosocial Effects of Trauma on Military Women Serving in the National Guard and Reserves’’ (The University of Missouri in Columbia).

Their study of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan revealed that female soldiers were more likely to be diagnosed with depression than their male counterpart. They found higher rates of suicide as a cause of death for women in the military compared to female civilians. Around 25% of all female military deaths were attributed to suicide, which was the leading cause of death among military women. This is in contrast to a general suicide rate in the female population of 1.6%.

Distinctive military conditions such as relocation overseas and separation from family are especially hard on female soldiers.

Women who were exposed to combat were almost twice as likely to develop eating disorders and more than twice as likely to lose an extreme amount of weight compared to the women who were not exposed to combat.

Most women breakdown when such a lifestyle is extended over the course of several years. As a whole, women aren’t capable of handling high-stress levels, relocation and separation from loved ones, constant physical labor, high-regiment training, life-threatening situations, and little to no social support. I want to be clear on the fact that while not all men go through this, the majority of them have the potential to do it.

If we were to enforce true equality for women, this is a typical scenario that they would have to go through, but the majority of women can’t. They would physically and emotionally collapse and possibly experience permanent damage to their reproductive capacities. True equality would be a death sentence for most women and it would decimate society’s birthrate, effectively destroying it from within.

I would like it if men and women could truly be equals partners, trusty companions who loved each other for who they are. However, our biology dictates otherwise. For women to be ‘‘equal’’ to men, men must be dragged down, and in doing so, everything is pulled downward, which isn’t good for anyone.

Socialism and communism are excellent gateways that allow for gynocentrism to expand its roots into the lives of people.

While it promises prosperity, equality, and security, socialism delivers nothing but poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality can be achieved only in the sense that everyone becomes equal in their misery.

This book is about the male condition and isn’t about socialism, but I believe that it is important to explore certain political ideas in order to understand the human condition. This is especially relevant since the Western world is becoming increasingly socialist, and since we live in it, we are directly impacted by that society. Furthermore, I think that it is essential to understand the mechanisms that drive civilization in order to come at peace with the injustices of the world. I believe that it is easier to let go of anger and sadness by internalizing the inevitability of certain phenomenon. Some things are unavoidable.

Every day the sun rise and fall. Mosquitoes bite you when you go hiking. During the winter the temperature become icy cold and you have to shovel snow. Some things just happen and being angry won’t change their outcome. The world will stay unfair regardless of how you feel about it. Instead of holding on to anger, it is be preferable to refocus one’s energy on other things that can bring forth a genuine sense of meaning.

With that brief aside out of the way, let’s get back on topic. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.

Centrally planned economies deprive the human spirit of its innate potential. Socialism fails because it kills the human spirit and it suppresses the dominance instinct of men, completely inhibiting our drive, aspirations, and dreams.

You need market forces to make an economy work, and you cannot have a market without property rights. With that said, let’s look at a few examples of failed socialist states.

Venezuela

Venezuela currently has an electricity rationing problem. The government issues periodic planned blackouts of at least four hours across the country to save electricity, which affects schools, businesses, shopping malls, restaurants, and even supermarkets. It goes without saying that plenty of food goes bad because of this. This socialist state also created the ‘‘five day-weekend’’, which means that most office workers only work two days per week. That way, the employees can sit through rolling blackouts at home rather than in the office, and the government doesn’t need to spend more money to pay them.

Businesses go bankrupt because of governmental restrictions that go as far as regulating toilet paper. Business owners can even face prison for not having enough toilet paper to meet labor union standards, or they can face charges for hoarding too much of it. Making things even worse for entrepreneurs is the fact that employees will steal toilet paper rolls. Stealing toilet paper may seem unreasonable, but this is bound to happen when there are major shortages everywhere. Unsurprisingly, a lucrative black market for toilet paper emerged and business owners often have to make illegal deals just to make ends meet. Black-market toilet paper is sold at highly inflated prices and the federal police are at the border to stop these ‘‘criminal’’ transactions.

The situation is so dire in Venezuela that citizens are rioting, looting stores, and they even attacked the headquarters of the government’s electric power company, Corpoelec.

However, Venezuela has one of the largest reserves of petroleum in the world, and their technology is relatively advanced. By all means, they should be rich and prosperous. However, it seems like their socialist state broke the economy and they are facing dire consequences.

Ancient Rome

Ancient Rome had a growing and flourishing free market at first and that pushed them to become an influential superpower at the time. But as many large nations do, they turned to socialism and inevitably crumbled under their own taxation.

The tax reforms of Emperor Diocletian in the 3rd century were so rigid and unwavering that many people were driven to starvation and bankruptcy.

By the 4th century, the Roman economy and tax structure were so restrictive and insidious that many peasants abandoned their lands in order to profit from welfare entitlements in the large cities.

At this point, the imperial government was spending the majority of the funds it collected on either the military or on public spending.

The parallels with the United States and the Roman Empire are plentiful, and unsurprisingly, the two primary expenses of the US government today are on welfare and the military. In 2015, welfare spending towered at almost 70% of all federal expenses while the military represented 16% of annual spending. If you want to verify this yourself, I advise you to look for the ‘‘Total Federal Spending’’ (3.8 trillion dollars) instead of the ``Mandatory spending`` (2.45 trillion dollars) or ‘‘Discretionary Spending’’ (1.11 trillion dollars) which are not representative of the real total.

Historian Joseph Tainter earned his Ph.D. in anthropology at the University of California, and he explains in his work ‘‘The Collapse of Complex Societies’’ that in Ancient Rome, those who lived off the treasury were more numerous than those paying into it.

In the 5th century, tax riots and all-out rebellion were commonplace, and the Roman government often had to send its legions to crush peasant tax revolts.

Zosimus was a Greek historian who lived in Constantinople during the reign of the Emperor Anastasius of the Eastern Roman Empire (5th century).

He wrote: [As a result of this exaction of taxes, city and countryside were full of laments and complaints, and all… sought the help of the barbarians.]

Many Roman peasants even fought alongside their invaders, while others migrated out of the Empire altogether.

Jesús Huerta de Soto Ballester is a Spanish economist of the Austrian School. He is a professor of political economics at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Madrid, and a Senior Fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and he promotes anarcho-capitalist political theories. Here are some of his quotes about the fall of the Roman Empire (translated in English):

"Barbarians came as immigrants come to the prosperous Western World in which we live in, looking for opportunities."

"Rome fell due to socialism - its welfare destroyed the Roman Empire."

"Roman citizens were so angry at their tax collector overlords that they said: 'We prefer to be nominal slaves to barbarians than citizens under the oppressing, fiscal and interventionist boot of the Roman Empire."

"What would have happened to civilization if the prosperous market economy of the Roman Empire hadn't fallen due to socialism? Maybe we could have reached the Moon in the 9th or the 10th century."

Socialism brings more debt, more regulation, more restriction on freedoms, more currency debasement, more taxation, and more insidious enforcement of ruthless laws. Here are more examples.

The Soviet Union

Mass killings occurred under communist regimes during the 20th century. The number of executions in the Soviet Union that were explicitly ordered by the officials is around 1.5 million.

Most historians seem to agree that around 20 million died during World War II in Russia alone, but the Russian Academy of Sciences estimate total Soviet losses due to the war at 26.6 million. Some independent researchers in Russia have even put total casualties of the war, both civilians and military, at over 40 million.

Soviet Union 1932-34

The infamous ‘‘Soviet Famine’’ happened right after the "Decree About the Protection of Socialist Property" that was enacted on August 7, 1932. The purpose of the law was to protect the property of the collective farms. It allowed people to be prosecuted for gleaning leftover grain from the fields. There were more than 200,000 people sentenced under this law. Between seven and eight million people died of hunger as a result of this program in which the government seized grain for exports. When people in Ukraine reported a famine, Stalin punished them by refusing to send them food aid.

Soviet Union 1946-47

Roughly two million people died because of a drought coupled with extreme socialist government policies, mainly because of the re-enforcement of agricultural collectivization policies.

China 1958-62

Between 10 and 30 million people died as a result of Mao Zedong's ‘‘Great Leap Forward’’. Farmers were collectivized into communes of about 25,000 people and had to give the state a large percentage of their crops. Officials often exaggerated the size of harvests, and in many places, the entire grain harvest was seized together with livestock, vegetables, and crops.

In absolute terms, Mao Zedong of China is believed to be responsible for the deaths of 40-75 million Chinese.

North Korea 1995-99

Between 2.8 million and 3.5 million people died because of a combination of flooding and harsh government policies.

The Nazis

Before rebranding his political party as the Nazi Party, Hitler’s political party was known as the ‘‘National Socialist German Workers Party’’ (NSDAP). His political strategy focused on being anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist. Hitler agitated the working class to resist “exploitation” by capitalists. His programs called for the nationalization of education, healthcare, transportation, and other major industries.

Hitler said in a 1927 speech, “We are socialists. We are the enemies of today’s capitalist system of exploitation… and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

As a side note, Hitler’s political party was more popular amongst women than it was amongst men, which is typical of most leftist political parties. On average, women value security over freedom and are natural leftists, and German women are partly responsible for putting Hitler in a position of power. Women have been among the most influential pillars of Hitlerism from its very inception, and numerous women’s organizations supported and openly advocated for Hitler’s party. Some people said that Hitler cultivated his female fan-base through a mystical occult appeal, mesmerism, and ‘‘magical’’ powers delivered through his eyes. Some women ‘‘felt’’ the caring and commitment that came from his direct gaze and fervently supported his cause.

As it is common knowledge, I don’t think that I have to explain why the Nazis were the direct cause that created mountains of dead bodies.

As you can also see, most of the world’s worst famines during the 20th century happened in communist countries: China, the Soviet Union, and North Korea.

Socialism and communism are, and will always be unsustainable systems, but as strange as it may seem, those ideologies continuously reappear throughout the ages. If socialism caused the death of tens, if not hundreds of millions of people and if it has been proven to fail times and times again, why is it that far-left ideologies keep coming back?

I argue that far-left policies like socialism and communism are an expression of human nature and that they are inevitable. Once a free market society becomes prosperous enough, it will naturally be taken over by socialism, which will mark the beginning of its end. This process can be delayed, allowing for a prolonged period of wealth and abundance that can possibly last a few centuries, but it cannot be permanently stopped.

You see, luxury breeds weakness in men, or to be precise, it allows weakness to grow. In nature, weak and lazy people die, which is to say that there is a filter. If you are not self-sufficient, you die along with your genetic legacy.

In rich countries, people can live with more ease, and men become weak and soft. As a society, we eventually fall prey to care-based morality. We want to take care of the poor and the helpless, which sound like a kind and just thing to do, and to do so, we create a safety net. Humans are hedonistic, and we do what feels right simply because it feels good. It feels good to take care of the poor, and we eventually give them more ground and more privileges, both of which mark the beginning of a welfare state.

As it harms the people who are unsuccessful, we take away the free market that made us powerful and successful in the first place. Furthermore, when men become weak, their mating strategy changes; instead of enforcing male authority, we do everything that we can to please women in the hope of getting into their good graces.

I argue that capitalism, with all its greatness, breeds weakness in the long run, which means that it will inevitably lead to socialism. In fact, I argue that socialism is the blatant continuation of capitalism. In other words, capitalism creates the perfect environment for socialism to grow and flourish.

We have seen countless times throughout history that when societies become rich enough to bring comfort and stability, socialism and sometimes pseudo-feminist movements also appear. Civilizations rise, and one day they fall. Prosperity makes us lazy, soft, and weak, and everything eventually crumbles. It’s an ongoing cycle, and going against it is akin to fighting the laws of nature. We can fight this cycle to a stalemate for a time, but it eventually flies right back at us, smacking us in the face with its large, indifferent cosmic hand.

Gynocentrism can only occur with an active cooperation from both men and women. Many men allow women to get away with anything, and they are at the root of this problem. Giving up seats to ladies, taking a woman’s side without questions, defending a woman’s honor, excusing and rationalizing any harmful female behaviors, fighting and beating other men for a woman, and getting stabbed to death to protect an unknown woman are just a few examples of how little it takes for some men to disregard their safety. They will happily throw away their self-respect, their self-interest, and other men’s safety when there is a woman around.

Our reproductive instinct, which is so very powerful and compelling, is what pushes us to overcome our limitations. Men’s breeding instinct is at the root of their dominance instinct, which in turn helps to create an abundance of resources for the betterment of civilization. That is, until we have achieved a state of prosperity because, at this stage, the breeding instinct pushes men in the other direction. At his point the male sex drive causes men to bend over to women and disregards everything else.

It is akin to a cosmic design flaw that cannot be fixed, and I don’t think that we can overcome it through education, with laws or even with a system made with the express purpose of bypassing it. Although it may be possible for a handful of individuals to go against gynocentrism, I firmly believe that it is impossible on a societal scale, as our instincts will always take the central place in our lives. This is why socialism and gynocentrism will perpetually come back, no matter what we do.

In my opinion, regardless of whatever era you live in, the only logical thing to do is to liberate yourself from this unending spiral. Once you overcome the grief that comes from realizing the depth of this fatality and attain acceptance, only then can you legitimately be free, even if it means being one of a kind.

Previous chapter Next chapter