Into the Lifeboats

The Feminist Exploitation of Male Instinct

We have a pretty good idea of how humans lived for, say, one-hundred-thousand years, because some pre-modern cultures still survive. It was a tribalistic society. The tribes had one or two hundred members; they maintained themselves as hunter-gatherers; and inter-tribal conflict was frequent and deadly. Every one of us has descended from some successful tribe; by which I mean, a tribe that did things better than its competitors. Unsuccessful tribes disappeared and left no progeny. This struggle was mediated by two quite different things: it was partly a matter of culture, or knowledge handed down by teaching; and partly a matter of instinct, or behaviour passed on by genes.

Let us imagine that, tens of thousands of years ago, there emerged two tribes with quite different ways of doing things, and they competed with one another. One of them, the feminist tribe, insisted on gender parity i.e., women shared the dangerous tasks of exploring new territory, hunting ferocious animals, and warring with other tribes. The other, the sexist tribe, excluded women from dangerous tasks i.e., only men did the exploring, the hunting and the fighting. Which tribe would succeed?

The sexist tribe would succeed. The explanation is simple: reproductive biology. A woman gives birth no more frequently than once per year; but men can have several wives. Hence, if half the men are killed, the population would recover far more rapidly than if half the women were killed. The sexist tribe would eventually outcompete the feminist tribe.

Men will shield women from danger because, reproductively speaking, women are far more valuable to posterity. Put less palatably, men are disposable. There is no equality here, because biology is not interested in equality. What matters in biology, is winning survival strategy. The sexist tribe is in fact the gynocentric tribe - one in which women are prioritised, protected and provided for.

It was 'women first' on the night of April 15, 1912 - the men stayed behind to die. Moreover, they stayed voluntarily. Some of those men were very wealthy; yet priority was still given to chambermaids and charladies. John Jacob Astor, one of the world's wealthiest men, had less right to a place in a lifeboat than the lowliest skivvy: and so he died. This behaviour is very strange indeed, for a society that supposedly oppressed women; that treated them as second-class citizens. On a foundering slave ship, would the crew give their lives to save the slaves? No. That is oppression. Men dying voluntarily, so that women can live, is not oppression of women. (Although it might be called oppression of men.) The most fundamental instinct of all, namely self-preservation, was discarded in favour of the instinct to protect women. It is seldom expressed that way, but that is what happened. The drowned men, after all, descended from gynocentric ('sexist') tribes; not from feminist tribes.

These male deaths also had a cultural origin: when men oppress women by volunteering to drown, this is chivalry. It is something feminists hate: they call it 'benevolent sexism'. (Behave badly toward women, and that is sexism; yet behave deferentially, and that is also sexism. All feminist roads lead to 'men are bastards'.) Chivalry, you see, is patronising; it is the 'damsel in distress' scenario. Women are not weak, vulnerable creatures requiring help from men! Today, when a woman struggles with her luggage, and men no longer offer to help her, then she is a victim of feminism.

Male instinct, unlike chivalry, is less easy to eradicate; for example, men oppress women by getting themselves shot. In 2012, a gunman opened fire in a cinema in Aurora, Colorado. Two men threw themselves between their girlfriends and the gunman; a third shoved his girlfriend under a seat. The women lived; the men did not. The men behaved this way because of male instinct. In mainstream culture their behaviour has received little comment. Instead, the feminist-industrial complex points to the gunman's 'toxic masculinity'. Nowadays it is better to be a non-sexist bystander, than a sexist hero. The behavioural scientist Gad Saad has a name for the feminist hero: 'Apathetic Cowardly Bastard Man'. Everyone into the lifeboats; only elbows matter from now on.

Imagine a terrorist group with an inveterate hatred of Western Civilization, and for whom a Western education is an abomination. The terrorists shoot boys or behead them; it even burns dozens of them alive: but the eyes of the international media glaze over. Then one day the terrorists have a brainwave, and kidnap one-hundred-odd girls: and they obtain all the oxygen of publicity they could dream of. At this point, a memory might bubble up in my reader's mind: this is Boko Harem. Celebrities and politicians scrambled to condemn the kidnapping of girls, not the murder of boys. Human societies are gynocentric: and men are the disposable sex.

When we observe the world through the gynocentric lens, the 'oppressed women' narrative much loved by feminists quickly falls apart. The Empathy Gap (2019) by William Collins is a magnificent six-hundred page compendium of gynocentrism in contemporary society. It is a review of primary sources of data, and contains hundreds of references. From this I will select just four topics: health, homelessness, imprisonment and suicide.

With health, spending is biased in favour of women, even allowing for pregnancy and its related problems. Across all major diseases, female-specific health research receives more than twice as much funding as male-specific health research; across all cancers, the difference is an astonishing factor of twenty, yet more men than women die prematurely from all cancers. Across all ages, prostate cancer kills 60% more men than cervical, uterine and ovarian cancers kill women combined; there is no national screening program for prostate cancer, and yet there is for cervical cancer, which causes one fifth as many deaths. This discrepancy is adduced to the lack of any reliable diagnostic, yet the PSA test is no more reliable than mammography for breast cancer; and prostate cancer kills more men than breast cancer kills women, while receiving half the funding. Meanwhile, Caroline Dinage, Minister of State in the Department of Health and Social Care, referred to the NHS as the 'National He Service'; Health Secretary Matt Hancock said 'we must build a NHS that works for women'; and Sally Davies, Chief Medical Officer for England, produced a report on women's health, while refusing to produce a corresponding one for men. This is the gynocentric society, in which women are prioritised over men.

With homelessness, similar numbers of men and women are assessed by local authorities, but substantially fewer men than women are housed, despite substantially more men than women being deemed 'eligible, homeless, and subject to a duty to help secure housing'. Even for those deemed 'eligible, unintentionally homeless and in priority need', men are less likely to be housed than women. Men account for 80-90% of deaths among rough sleepers, a range which accords with the gender ratio observed in censuses. The perception of these men as ex-offenders, drug addicts and alcoholics, can be misleading: some of them have led respectable lives, held responsible jobs, and just fell on hard times, as their biographies show. Meanwhile, Professor Erin Dej of Wilfred Laurier University in Canada writes that homeless men perpetuate hegemonic masculinity; their hypermasculinity fortifies the dominance of men and the subordination of women, by adopting a 'compensatory masculinity' to cope with their failed status. This is the gynocentric society, in which women are prioritised over men.

With imprisonment, twenty times more men are incarcerated than women. Now obviously men commit more crimes than women; the crux, is whether this accounts for incarceration rates. Well, it does not. Men are convicted of nearly three times as many crimes as women; and around six times more serious ('indictable') offences. But six is still a long way from twenty. The discrepancy between conviction rate and incarceration rate shows an obvious bias; it is not accounted for by the seriousness of the offence; and yet the belief that women are treated more harshly by the criminal justice system persists. A man is more likely to be imprisoned than a woman convicted of the same offence; this is true across all offence categories. Moreover, a man will receive a longer sentence for a comparable crime, and must wait longer until paroled. Women are more likely to receive conditional or unconditional discharges, suspended or community sentences, and cautions. The explanation, is that men are agentic and responsible; women are nonagentic and vulnerable. Hence, if men become criminal they deserve punishment; whereas if women become criminal they deserve compassion. This is why the government is building more male prisons, while pursuing a policy of avoiding female incarceration whenever possible. We are equal before the law, except for when we aren't. This is the gynocentric society, in which women are prioritised over men.

Finally, there are three or four male suicides for every female suicide. In fact, suicide is the biggest killer of men under 45. A number of factors are well known: divorce, widowhood, domestic abuse and socioeconomic class (powerlessness, disrespect, social exclusion, poor lifestyle). Following divorce, refusal of child contact is a biggy. For male victims of domestic abuse, lack of help, disbelief, mislabelling as a perpetrator and lack of sympathy all play roles. Much is still conjectural: but this is no surprise, as research into male suicide is sparse. The Government offered research grants totalling £1.5M; but none of the proposed topics mentioned men specifically - the very demographic that accounts for most of the suicides! Here, I can do no better than Collins himself: 'how much imagination does it take to understand that doing dirty, laborious, and potentially hazardous work outside in all weathers, and earning little from it and even less respect, might impact adversely on one's equanimity when one reaches middle age with no expectation from life beyond being decreasingly able to sustain the physical effort? And then your wife throws you out, makes an allegation of violence against you, refuses to let you see the kids, and you are now homeless and not the local authority's priority to assist. This is not a rare scenario.' In other words, your life is utter shite. Welcome to the gynocentric society, in which women are prioritised over men.

I said I'd cover four types of male disadvantage, but I should also mention, if only en passant, those workplace fatalities in which men are overwhelmingly represented: in a typical year, the figure is 97%. There is a simple reason for this: men are overwhelmingly represented in dangerous jobs. There is a simple reason for this as well: men are the disposable sex. This is how far our tribal ancestry reaches into modern culture.

Now as a man myself, I would take all of this 'on the chin', so to speak, quite willingly, if it were it not for a much bigger problem; namely those womanagging feminists. According to their narrative, women are disadvantaged, put upon and short-changed; 'male privilege' gives men unearned success; and patriarchy, an omnipresent and nefarious force-field, permeates all society. Every year we men hold our global convention, in which we sneak off to the manosphere, conspire amongst ourselves, and devise fiendish ways to oppress women. Whenever the female hand cannot supply the torque to open a jam jar, this is my contribution. I'm rather proud of that one.

In November 2021 the House of Commons debated International Men's Day. But Gavin Newlands (SNP) was confused - he appears to have thought it was International Women's Day. What he said was this:

International Men's Day is anathema to me. It is rather a cruel joke concocted in response to feminism. [ . . .] My personal view is that international days are usually for the oppressed, the underprivileged or those facing inequality. [ . . .] It is fairly easy to make sure that men's achievements are celebrated when, essentially, the entirety of Western society has been run for the convenience and security of men over women since God was a boy. [ . . . ] Frankly I'm a bit sick of hearing unadulterated mince about how hard done by men are becoming. . . [ . . . ] Let us talk about the achievements of men: centuries of subjugating and belittling half the population. [ . . . ] Far too many men still do not accept the reality or take responsibility for these actions [ . . . ] We have to acknowledge the wrongs we have perpetrated on women for millennia. [ . . .]

A rant such as this - on a day devoted to men's issues! Men must be shamed. Men must be blamed. International Men's Day should not be about men's problems, but men's culpability. It is quite interesting to hear Gavin Newlands refer to the collective guilt all men carry today, for the misdeeds of a small number of men in history. Well, Gavin Newlands is a man: will he apologise for the crimes of Jack the Ripper and Vlad the Impaler?

Gavin Newlands is wide of the mark. Why do parliamentarians avoid men's rights? Well, he that touches pitch shall be defiled. If there were votes in men's rights, then parliamentarians would speak out. The sole Member of Parliament to strike up the band, Philip Davies, does so because he fully intends to remain a back bencher. There are no votes in men's rights, because our culture is gynocentric. That is why we have a Minister for Women and Equalities and Nothing Else.

Gavin Newlands opposes formal debate on men's problems because he is a male feminist. But there is nothing 'progressive' about this: the word 'traditional' runs through him like a stick of rock. He believes that feminism drives him: but in fact it is gynocentrism. There is a cruel irony here: feminism grabs male instinct, weaponises it, and turns it on men: that is Gavin Newlands. His mind has been captured by what Gad Saad calls an 'idea pathogen'; a virus that causes self-delusion. Feminism is an infectious disease, and many men have caught it. Until this condition is cured, men of Gavin Newlands' ilk will remain abundant, and male disadvantage will continue being accepted, evaded and dismissed. In the gynocentric world of our ancestors, men were valued and acknowledged - even loved - when they protected and provided for their womenfolk. In the feminist world, they are just vilified.

Bibliography

Collins W. (2019), The empathy gap - male disadvantages and the mechanisms of their neglect, LPS Publishing.

(c) cufwulf

cufwulf@aol.com