04 May 2012

The Gender Equality Paradigm

Many make the mistake of perceiving only their own oppression when they attempt to fix the status quo. While feminists readily claim women were historically inherent victims of male patriarchy, there is a growing culture of men who claim that males are historically inherent victims of female hypergamy. This has led me to compare the two positions. Here is the result:

I call this diagram, and the theory that it spawned, the ‘Gender Equality Paradigm’. Feminists talk about female objectification, while men’s rights proponents often talk about male disposability. Both phenomena are based on legitimate aspects of gender identity, albeit there is an obvious disparity when we look more closely. This leads to learned helplessness if entrenched into an ideology. Feminists seem to feel that their objectification has no advantages, while some in the men’s rights movement feel that male disposability has harboured no positive results for men either. There is therefore a discrepancy to address, initially requiring a breakdown of the categories represented by the four corners of the diagram:

Positive Female Objectification

The biological vulnerabilities of women have meant that they have found other ways to survive. Like many animals, they rely on the ability to acquire agents to assist in this endeavour, not unlike pets that use endearing qualities to acquire support. The role of women as vulnerable, yet efficient nurturers has resulted in them being treated like precious objects that must be protected at all costs, since men, as supporters of women, go to great lengths to make them feel comfortable and happy. The instinct to protect and care for women results in elevating them to pedestals that often make them infallible and free of responsibility. Many, including women, often show systemic gender bias towards females.

Negative Female Objectification

From the perspective of a woman this can result in them being treated in a similar manner to children. While the swooning behaviour of women can have positive effects on the acquisition of assistance, it can also lead to women who wish to be more independent feeling patronised or overprotected. That being said the modernisation of society is the primary reason that women are capable of being as independent as they are today. One of the greatest dangers and limitations to women in history was childbirth, which would always place the mother’s life at risk, especially if complications were to arise. Again, modernity via medicine and contraception significantly helped women in this regard.

Positive Male Disposability

The man, as the risk-taker and provider, is showered with great adulation, praise, power and reward upon his success. Men, while given heavy burdens of responsibility, have the opportunity to rise to the top of the social ladder, it being possible to carve out a legacy that has been out of reach for women in the past. Many leaders in history would also partake in roles that women would never have been capable of as a rule, like generals who fought alongside their troops, Julius Caesar and Napoleon being two very famous examples.

Negative Male Disposability

For a man to prove his worth he has to take risks that often put his health and well being in jeopardy. Human beings also consistently care less about men, since consideration for male safety and health are lesser concerns, especially when compared to women. This is an evolutionary and cultural condition akin to ants in a colony being sacrificed for its success. It is important to note that many of the responsibilities put upon men in the past were often based on necessity, since expecting women to take the place of men would have inevitably had a detrimental effect on success overall.

What the Gender Equality Paradigm Tells Us

While this is a brief breakdown of the detailed field of gender dynamics, this, along with the diagram, demonstrates that being a man or a woman has its advantages and disadvantages. Social change is never an easy thing to enact, and it is a sad fact that this often results in the pendulum of change swinging too far in the other direction. It is for this reason that when we attempt to implement change we must never do it by suppressing the full interpretation of reality, since this leads to anger and resentment. Feminists and the Marxian inspired ideologues behind its inception have always tapped into social warfare when bringing about transformation, and it is for this reason that feminism is so one-sided and flawed in its reasoning. This results in revisionist tactics that obstruct the full appreciation of gender dynamics. In the case of feminism, negative male disposability and positive female objectification are ignored. With regards to the diagram two quarters are left blank:

This demonstrates that feminist theory makes no effort to consider negative male disposability, and ultimately fails to recognise its existence. One minor exception is kyriarchy, though this still primarily suggests men can also be oppressed by patriarchal structures, i.e other men. On the other hand the suggestion that average women have any true power over average men is a dismissed in the vast majority of cases, especially in the political and academic arena, where men’s issues are seriously downplayed. Therefore feminists keep switching back and forth between a perception of misogyny and positive male disposability, which only leads to female supremacy, since it fails to consider positive female objectification and negative male disposability.

The men’s movement is barely taking off, but even now it is clear that there are some who are incapable of viewing history through a lens that observes the full picture. If this is not addressed very early on then there is a serious risk that the men’s movement will make the same mistakes as feminism, thus taken over by political radicals who seek to divide society. On this basis it is important that those who would ignore negative female objectification and positive male disposability are challenged:

Such a view only leads to half the paradigm being visible, just like feminism. In this case male supremacy is a result of a short-sighted perception of misandry, since positive male disposability and negative female objectification are ignored. This creates yet more imbalances, requiring a need for equal and opposite reaction. Such a course of action is typically the smokescreen for radicals to manoeuvre themselves into positions of influence and authority, and historically fails to lead to a place of equilibrium.

It is therefore essential that one views the full paradigm when advocating for change, lest those who have no interest in creating harmony be the ones that are heard, since they are often the ones that are noticed by the disingenuous. These people are the most open to being manipulated, especially by those in positions of state influence who would seek to co-opt a movement for political ends.


  1. A good discussion of the concepts in the abstract. I think we should also bear in mind that whatever the solutions may be to find equilibrium, they should not be state-sponsored solutions.

    For example, the state would LOVE for a potent and widespread fathers' rights movement to spring up, united in demanding Shared Parenting.

    Shared parenting necessarily requires strict supervision by the state to make sure "equal" time is spent between mother and father.

    This does not free nor benefit men. Rather, it takes ALL of society further down the dialectic towards totalitarian state control of the population.

    It may seem unthinkable from where we sit today, but the state that seems totally in support of women will one day turn and "help" men, as long as it means increased power over everyone's lives.

    1. The problem is that divorce has to be an option, since sometimes marriage genuinely fails.

      On the other hand, the state will try to co-opt anything and everything.

      At the same time equal access to children is really the only fair and functional option for parents and children upon divorce, so I guess it's a better outcome than only the mother or father gaining access, unless one parent genuinely is negligent.

  2. Hey, E.

    Sorry I'm almost a week late to respond. I forgot to either check back or subscribe to the comments.

    Divorce is of course always an option, but state-enforced 'equal' custody in a society with divorce rates of 50% and growing is far more dangerous than in a society with a 5% rate.

    There have been arguments for default father custody in cases of divorce, and though I'm not ready to be an advocate of that, it is undeniable that historically men have not used divorce to abuse children and women in these systems as women are doing today. Father custody systems tend to ensure that 90+% of children grow up with both their mothers and fathers.

    I don't know if you've read Daniel Amneus' "Garbage Generation," but it goes into great detail on the matter of child custody. The entire book is available for free online:


    Like I said, I don't know what the solution is, but these are just some things to consider. I know for sure that 'equal' custody in high-divorce societies such as yours and mine would put an enormous number of children under direct government supervision, which is highly undesirable.

  3. Great insights.

    I have never been convinced by feminist claims even when they are popular amongst the creative field where I work. On the other hand some MRM advocates always seemed to be as extremists as the feminists even when they have valid claims.

    What do you think of the right to resign fatherhood in the same period a woman can have an abortion? At least on a purely conceptual level this seems to largely level the ground on the subject of reproductive rights although I think both of them: the right to abort and to resign fatherhood must be granted with restrain.

    1. I actually don't believe that anyone has the right to redefine the concept of a parent. I made a video called "Unalienable Fatherhood" that goes into this. Since I made a video on the topic I recommend you check it out if you want my detailed views on your question.

      Thanks for checking out my blog :-)