I have distanced myself a bit from the broader Men's Human Rights Movement, but, not because of not being a Men's Human Rights Advocate. It is because it is very clear that there seems to be a bit of an issue with this movement and one particular word. That is the word Gynocentrism and what it really is talking about. What the fundamental aspects of this Gynocentrism are really made up of that makes it so appalling.
The truth is that philosophically what is so appalling about Gynocentrism is altruism as it was defined by the founder of the philosophy one Auguste Comte. Whom was a known extreme left-utopian/dystopian and one of the founders of the formation of the non-science of sociology. He also was a quack that decided to create a "religion of Humanity." Which was an insane way of trying to make a heaven on earth.
A key part of August Comte's view being altruism or the idea that what is moral is to live for others. As opposed to being selfish which is defined as looking after self and what the self finds is in its best long term interests and rational good. However, this view was not original it was he simply extended it to be in a secular context and removed the inclusion of God. All religions are altruistic in the philosophical definition as none of them say being selfish is good and they hate the mind. The one thing that is anything like a "human soul."
Our neuron networks, our brain and our person is that which mystics mistake for a soul. Mystics of mind either are ignorant, or evil and simply evading the fact our brain structure/our mind is what makes us human just as much as the rest of the functions of our body. There is no mind/body dichotomy. For our mind is in our brain and that is the core of our body and its functioning in so many ways.
Thus altruism which says we should live for others at the expense of ourselves is basically a slow death sentence. It is choosing a long slow suicide for the sake of others living like being the energy source for a world of parasites and vampires. How is this philosophical Gynocentrism? Well, how is Gynocentrism as a moral philosophy anything, but, altruism taken to its most extreme. It is simply taking the floating-abstraction other and giving it an image that of the female human of the species.
Gynocerntrism is a collective death sentence for males saying to all men to live for women and die for them too. It is a collectivism within a collectivism a gendered division within the greater altruism and societal collectivism of both genders. Except it's ideas are targeted towards men and manipulate men's natural tendency to desire to protect and provide for women with ideas that one should always act on such instincts. As a blank check without thinking about what it means for the self of that man.
There are two Gynocentrism's; the natural instincts to protect women and children and the "philosophy" which says all women need saving and you the man are the one to do it. The philosophy is altruism writ large over all men on a collective scale. It collectivizes all men as wanting the same thing. Even if these instincts exist not all men want, nor should need to have a woman or children around; let alone protect them at the expense of their own life. It is the anti-male division of the greater collectivism we see in society.
Yet, the Men's Human Rights Movement never seems to bring it up. Neither does MGTOW which has now made it too susceptible to collectivism. As Men supposedly going their own way make their own collectivist shrieks and shrills of "all women are evil." Which is simply taking the Feminist idea of male Patriarchy and reversing it calling "all women toxic." Even if a lot, hell, a good portion of women in the modern day are toxic in their views of men, especially feminists, that does not equal a collective "all women."
A truly liberating movement for men would champion individualism and not collectivism. For it is collectivism that is at the heart of Philosophical Gynocentrism and it is that which fueled the existence of a feminist movement. Feminism with it's all men were evil throughout history views are simply one more modern version of collectivism. Which is itself a manifestation of altruism's core tenants of living for others like a servant at the expense of ones own self-worth and value. To live for women by women's social rules has always been nothing more than altruism brought to bare to men.
It has always taken the natural instincts of protecting and providing for women/children within ones own relations and extended that to being "living for all women and all children everywhere." I am not arguing men protecting the women they love and their children is wrong. Hell, that would be to go against the reality of men's evolved psychology and a core of masculinity. However, I contend Philosophical Gynotheism, as was coined by Youtuber Jay Double Gee, is instincts gone insane. Pushed upon and unleashed without reason or rhyme on purpose.
Not as part of some conspiracy or any such tin foil views of the extremer MGTOW's out there. It came into being because irrational people drank the kool-aid that collectivism was good and act ignorant. It is also very possibly a reaction to the ever more expanding freedom of expression of women's own psychologies being gone unchecked by being told to "shut the fuck up special snowflake." Thus pushing ever more worse collectivism and Philosophical Gynocentrism through men reacting at a more instinctive level and less reasoning manor to women's exposed evolved psychologies.
That freedom without understanding of individualism vs collectivism can unleash collectivist attitudes on us. Through unleashing the more wet-ware instincts on a massive scale without the rational mindset to go with them. That in a sense altruism which is core to collectivism has taken something which is beautiful in the right context; protection of others not at expense to self, but, because those saved are a high value.. Having replaced it with not protecting, but, complete self-sacrifice and suicide to "save everyone, but, the self that is a man because my being is to be sacrifice itself."
The MHRM needs to address collectivism, but, to do that it needs to address the core tenants of that philosophy called altruism. Not the tit for tat and win/win benevolent reciprocity and mutualist aspect of our human instincts, but, complete and utter self-sacrifice. The idea that win/lose is noble, but, win/win is bad because a win/win feeds the self its "spiritual fuel" as Ayn Rand would say. The MHRM if it is serious about the rights and liberty, hell, liberation of men needs to stand up against the altruist-collectivist origin of the movements it is against. It needs to be a beacon of individualism and let manhood be all about that.
