RBK – Gender Empathy Gap: a product of male ego

Gender Empathy Gap
Comments (46)
  1. uh oh, you are gonna have to tell those pesky, macho, whiny M(h)RA’s to stop calling other men mangina’s,…

  2. Okay, RBK- I am intensely uncomfortable with your article…

    I took a brisk walk and tried to ask myself if it was unchecked gynocentricism within me that was causing this…

    Well, as far as your last paragraph, this seems similar to the feminist’s call for an Alan Alda type man who is in touch with his feelings And we’ve all seen where that went…

    Look at how femmies contempt at Nice Guys ™ as being worse than Hitler…

    I remember seeing two of my dogs die of cancer. While they were surely in extraordinary pain, they hardly cried and tried to carry on like business as usual-in fact they both hid their pain so well that we thought nothing was wrong until the last few weeks of their lives. Someone explained to me that injured animals hide their injuries so they are not picked off by predators in the wild. Sorry, but the life of the low status male is far closer to the animal in the wild and revealing vunerability is exceeding unwise. What you are advising in the last paragraph is dangerous. In fact it is as irresponsible as a sex positive feminist to tell a beautiful woman to get really drunk and wander through the streets of the most dangerous neighborhood at 2am naked after the latest slutwalk and expect the beautiful woman to be safe because “social justice” ™

    If that makes me a party pooper or male negative so be it.

    We are in a survival phase right now and to describe anything other than the reality we live in is a disservice to young men whose futures are being destroyed. What we need to do right now is tell everyone where the landmines are-not what a perfect world should look like…..

    1. NotWorth TheSqueeze says:

      “We are in a survival phase right now”
      I think sometimes the supposed “leaders” of mgtow forget this. There are a minute few who are truly mgtow. For the rest of us mgtow is a means to an end, survival.

    2. Tamerlame says:

      Try spreading MGTOW on facebook and the men will attack you worse then the women.

      Pointing male suffering to a facebook and it is mostly the men who call you a faggot who needs to man up.

      Yesterday I met a man yesterday that he was okay with being raped. I am talking about real life here.

      The male ego has a big part to play in this. Women are more passive in their hatred and contempt of men, women will normally only destroy the man via proxy violence because it is low risk. (Females only practice violence differently due to the fact they are risk adverse.) Men will aggressive destroy men and take great risks to do so, if he thinks that will win female approval.

  3. NotWorth TheSqueeze says:

    I haven’y fully digested everything that you have written, but I do have two comments.

    First a fear:
    “The more we can erase the gender differences, the more complete men can be without women.”

    If we are all the same, then we are all alone.

    Second a question:
    “We will step out of our armor, and into the sunlight for the whole world to see us as we truly are. ”

    Isn’t this the problem many “nice guys” run into when seeking women? Because they take off the armor to readily, or never put it on fully, they get rejected. I think many men already want to take off the armor. That desire is apart of a man’s male mother need. Women’s mate preferences force men to keep the armor on.

    If female mate preference is the carrot, then perhaps emboldening of male ego is the stick that drives our gynocentric society. Or is that the other way around?

  4. NotWorth TheSqueeze says:

    Additionally, a lady friend once commented on how strong yet weak I was. The comment bothered me for a long time. I have come to realize that one of the best personal reasons (along with health) that a man should be physically strong, is that he can safely(from other men) be emotionally vulnerable.

  5. Max Hydrogen says:

    Yes, but all these masculine traits were selectively bread by women for the purposes of women and are re-enforced through shame by women.

    1. big_red01027 says:

      Reminds me of the Bene Gesserit plan to breed the Kwisatz Haderach. Didn’t work out for them in the end.

      1. barbarossaa says:

        didnt indeed, jessica ruined it with her hypergamous gina tingles

        1. Roger Anaheim says:

          Christ I wish there was a movie, tv series, live action, anime, whatever adaptation of all the original Chronicles of Dune. The Honored Matres were the ultimate femme fatales and one of the scariest evil organizations in the world of fiction.

          1. Veritech Ace says:

            Surely you know about the Dune mini-series that was on the Sci-Fi Channel back in 2000? It was an infinitely better adaptation than that disgrace of a movie that David Lynch spewed out back in 1984.

            If you haven’t seen it…enjoy:

  6. Simon says:

    Self knowledge is a wonderful gift. An understanding if nature and society also. Given the current climate victimhood could be a potential strategy for a man seeking help from the state, but from men and women within society the male victim will be shunned. Let us retain out courage and strength. Perception is reality after all. Simultaneously we can avoid the pitfalls of the inflamed male ego and do what we can to remain productive into old age to ensure out well being.

  7. Aaron says:

    Insightful. Though I would disagree that all aspects of gender relations are driven by the masculine ego insecurity you speak of.

    It definitely warrants more investigation. But to say it is the main driver still ignores biological drivers too much. To do so in my opinion takes the idea to the an extreme that could be incorrect.

    Regardless. Great article, its content like this that is contributing to the growthcin the going your own way phenomenon.

  8. NotWorth TheSqueeze says:

    “So I want you to picture a man who is afraid that acknowledging male victimhood is like castrating men, and on top of that he feels the need to reaffirm his manliness by white knighting for the weaker sex. ”

    But it is even more innate than that. A man’s ego is essentially his broadcast to the world of sexual fitness. To completely shed his ego would be to tell the world that he is not sexually fit enough for reproduction. Again, a minute few can do this, but most just can’t.

    1. big_red01027 says:

      Has anyone ever advised you to “be yourself”?

      Like the rest of us, you probably laugh or mutter under your breath how stupid it is, or how you can’t be anyone else, etc.

      RBK asserts above that to shed the ego is to dispense of the facade(s) you use to defend yourself. Once you’ve done that, you show yourself as you truly are to the rest of the world. Whether they accept you or not is irrelevant; as a MGTOW you need not work (or care) for their approval because you are living for yourself in the most authentic way you know.

      1. NotWorth TheSqueeze says:

        I am saying that facade is not merely for self defense, but also apart of our primal mating ritual(signaling of fitness). If that it is the case, then it will very difficult for the vast majority of men to take his advise. In either case, “shedding the ego”may be the highest ideal and/or truest definition of mgtow, but there are a minute few true mgtow.

        Though we my not all achieve it, or come close, if we are to walk this path, I
        suppose attempting to shed the ego is a necessary step.

  9. Wallace Cass says:

    Good article, but I found it simpler a long time ago to just walk away from women, dating, and relationships, but to leave the fundamental aspects of my life in place. Acknowledge their existence as human beings, but nothing more. Anyway, that’s my two cents.

  10. Thank you for posting this, RBK. I am hoping you can elucidate certain points.

    Until now I have categorized you as a MGTOW who believes in actively fighting gynocentrism, in contrast to MGTOWs who believe we should sit back and let society crumble. I formed this opinion based on statements you’ve made the past, such as your belief that arguing with feminists is a good thing. This article seems to signal a shift. To say that men need to step out of their armor feels like a retreat. My interpretation of ‘shedding the ego’ is a man shedding the goal of personal gain for the larger goal of defeating gynocentrism. Your interpretation of shedding the ego – and forgive me if I’m oversimplifying – seems to be men collectively embracing their weakness. Can you give a real world example of what shedding the ego would look like? And can you explain how this will help close the gender empathy gap? I’m not trying to poke holes in your conclusion. I merely want to understand you better.

    Secondly, is your urging the reader to ‘shed the ego’ inspired by the name of this website, OR is it a case of two concepts dovetailing by coincidence? I’m just curious.

    Thank you again RBK, and take care.


  11. 95% of all social collective behaviour is shaped by socio-economic circumstances and not by DNA and as the society changes, as male and female roles change and become more similar and interchangeable, so does gynocentrism and the empathy gap.

    However, the question is if we let others define our rights, boundaries and roles and control the speed of this transformation. Or if we get actively involved in shaping our future.

    Great article BTW!

  12. Golden Eagle-owl says:

    After gasping in horror at reading that part where you wrote: “Women are almost as masculine and strong as men, but male sexual insecurity pressures women to conform to a submissive role” (something one could hear out of the mouth of a feminist, btw), I have to ask this:

    Don’t women have a tremendous amount of influence in the existence of the male ego, since to them, a weak man is useless? Isn’t the fact that, by being the ones who set the standard for procreation, deciding which males get to pass on their genes or not, it’s women that are ultimately the cause of male in-group competition to see who is the “manliest man”? Would you agree that if a man had full control over his sexual/reproductive destiny, the facade of masculinity would simply be irrelevant and readily done away with, since it would no longer be a factor in the biological game?

    You proposed a look into the origin of the of gender empathy gap, but I would also propose a look into where the male ego comes from.

    1. Pellaeon says:

      I agree with golden eagle owl.

      Beyond sexual selection, however, there are practical considerations as well. The bottom line is, at the end of the day, someone has to actually perform in order for society to function.

      A woman can say “Gee, this working thing is hard. I’m just a frail creature, someone please care for me.” And some men will gladly pick up the slack in hopes of gaining access to pussy (maybe not hers specifically, but the hope of that he signals his fitness to other willing females in the process).

      Now if a man decides to throw off the facade and declare “this working thing is hard. I’m just a frail a creature, someone please take care of me” he MIGHT find someone who will pick up the slack for him, but odds are good that they will resent him, and it won’t last for long. That means he either gets his shit together or he is forced to fend for himself on the streets. But even then, the street is in many ways an even more cruel environment for the weak and vulnerable. Thus, as a man, you either learn to become strong, or accept a lower standard of living.

      Certainly it makes sense to care for the frail body within the armor, but there is little to gain from eschewing armor entirely and matching into battle naked with the plan of appealing to your enemies sense of empathy to show restraint.

    2. Look at butch dykes. Many of them are convincingly masculine. It’s clear that if women work very hard to be masculine, they can be pretty convincingly masculine (more so than many men of similar age, size, etc). Transmen are not quiet as good of an example as they’re probably taking hormones, but they also illustrate this point.

      I believe there’s an important distinction between three concepts: (1) “nature” – almost completely genetic, (2) “second nature” – environmental, but so entrenched and pervasive it’s really difficult to tell, (3) “nurture” – something environmental, but also seems plausibly environmental.

      I believe gynocentrism (and I would call “male ego,” as RBK describes it here, as a manifestation of gynocentrism in men — it serves women) is largely second nature. When there is a genetic basis for sexual dimorphism, given a drastic change in culture, it could be significantly reduced.

    3. Max Hydrogen says:

      Excellent reply!

  13. NotWorth TheSqueeze says:

    It occurs to me that “shedding the ego” might be the only thing that will separate mgtow from PUA/neo-masculinist(ok, also the pussy begging, but even they preach some self-discipline). A lot of the rhetoric is otherwise the same.

  14. bob loblaw says:

    I completely disagree with this article. It reeks of once again trying to put the blame for dysfunctional gender roles squarely on men’s shoulders.

    I’ve seen many young men acting like the “nice guy” (emotional, sensitive, etc.) during adolescence (myself included). Young men would talk about their feelings and try to be polite and respectful to women. However, this didn’t work. We eventually found out that despite what they say, women respond to men that, as you put it, “act a thousand feet tall”. Men act like “invulnerable rulers” because that’s what women want.

    My father was a stay-at-home dad. He is a sensitive man, and my mom dumped his ass and took him to the cleaners in family court. A Barborossa video tilted “house husbands just aint sexy” points this phenomena out perfectly. Men are willing to be the sensitive nurturers, but women won’t stand for it.

    The male ego doesn’t drive men to put on a facade of stoicism – women demand it. If women wanted sensitive, vulnerable men, men would act that way. And as for men that shame other men for bringing up our vulnerability? They’re just seeking female approval as well.

    1. NotWorth TheSqueeze says:

      whatever the reason behind it, i think now, that as mgtow, we need to at least make the attempt to shed it. Consequences be damned. Most won’t be able to fully do it, but it is the journey, not the destination, as they.

      Many ask, I am mgtow, now what? Well, this what. Stop being The Man, but be a man, a male, a person. Not out of spite or anger to society, but because you can. Because it is a easier, less stressful life. Just ask women.

    2. Lord of minerals says:

      “However, this didn’t work.”

      I can’t speak for RBK, but I don’t think the point of acknowledging male vulnerability is to work it for the sake of women.

      Yes, being sensitive and honest will get you in trouble with people who want you to preserve the social fiction. If a man lets himself experience this rejection of his true and honest self, then it’s very easy to, in turn, reject the traditional role. Once free, a man can see the encumbrance of the white knight’s armor as the thing it is – a prison that is worn.

      Your own personal prison, I think RBK is saying, is the ego. The ego, in this case, is main constructed of a pretense toward strength (which is distinct from true strength, such as knowledge, chiefly, self-knowledge).

  15. This seems very similar to “male mother need.” Mothers and other adult women were the ones that give you emotional support when you were a child and assuaged your fears. Fathers and male adults were probably not as sympathetic when you were showing vulnerability.

    We seek out women that we can be vulnerable around that will tell us “it’s okay” or “you’re okay” or “you’re one of the good ones.”

    In my own case, that’s one of the things that tends to drive me in to relationships as much (probably more) than desire for sex.

    1. Max Hydrogen says:

      I think you are wrong Dick Wheybrew, fathers seem to be more relaxed and caring for their kids than mothers…

      1. So when you see kids crying it’s their mother’s saying “stop crying, what’s wrong with you?” I like my father, but he was always the one discouraging me from being emotional, whereas my mother was more encouraging of it.

        I’ll grant you, it might be more than just encouraging. I could maybe more accurately say she would “emotionally engage with me.”

        I’m not saying what either of them did were good. Just saying that if we want to truly understand what’s going on here, we need to be objective and honest and not just always favor fathers.

    1. Tamerlame says:

      This is a message you need to hear, because your right wing ego is your biggest weakness.

  16. Daniel says:

    I think you’re onto something, but I’m not buying that men think they’re better than women. Granted, I haven’t read the entire article, but give me a break, it is quite long. I want to give this time to digest and come back to it.

  17. George says:

    This is a brilliant article and I agree with every word! Thanks for posting it.

    Excessive weakness is an unattractive feature in either sex. The point isn’t to become an Alan Alda style Nice Guy – someone who fails to cultivate the necessary resilience and stoicism in face of life’s travails and displays excessive sensitivity, but to no longer present a facade of “machoness”, emphasizing one’s supposed strength out of all proportion, and focusing on that as the main feature of one’s personality to the point of squeezing out enjoyable emotions. A macho man is one who is unable to relax and show joy, happiness, pleasure, laughter, fun, because he is so focused on displaying his “toughness”, which he sees as his most relevant feature which has to be displayed at all times and places. A balanced approach is to relax when appropriate, while retaining the ability to show resilience in adversity, when needed.

    And although this isn’t dating advice – more advice for psychological health, as I see it, and a re-orietation of values away from displaying “toughness” when it isn’t needed or appropriate – I have found that women in no wise penalize men who are uninterested in constantly emphasizing their stoicism and toughness all the time, and have a capaccity to relax, have fun, enjoy themselves, and not take life seriously. Women MIGHT – I wouldn’t know – penalize men who have failed to develop a basic emotional resilience in the face of adversity – be excessively “sensitive” – but that has nothing to do with being kind, nice*, appropriately sensitive, and relaxed enough to not obsessively focus on their “strength” when much of life does not call for strength, but for relaxed happiness. In my opinion, the whole NIce Guy thing is a posing of false extremes, a fallacy of the excluded middle, or else an example of women not admiring sycophancy, which is indeed unattractive.

    While weakness and sensitivity is tolerated in women, everyone admires a woman who is resilient and resourceful in face of life’s challenges, also.

  18. Veritech Ace says:

    Whether it’s men’s fault or women’s fault is ultimately irrelevant. What is relevant is that a person only truly has control over themselves, and what they choose to do. No one can manipulate you unless you allow it; similarly, no one can manipulate another unless they allow it. That choice to allow is not always a conscious choice, but it is a choice nonetheless.

    This is why it is important to shed one’s ego, because ego destroys objectivism; it distorts one’s view of one’s self. It is the distorted view of self that leaves us vulnerable to manipulation from others and indeed from ourselves.

  19. Keith Emery says:

    “If this man could accept that men, as a whole, are being victimized by women, than he is accepting that he as a man, has been emasculated, reduced to womanhood.”

    The fear of castration in no way implies that a man is reduced to being a woman; only that he is less of a man. The female equivalent to this would be if she found herself barren. Most interesting is the word Baron is also derived from French; meaning man; servant, soldier, mercenary.
    Only in Feminist publications have I encountered such constant use of false equivalences.
    Damn it RBK you’ve hardcore drunken the poison cool-aid.

  20. The Awakening
    Finally we as men are starting to wise up to the fact that we cater to women to feed our self worth in the superior hierarchy. In addition, we are also witnessing it’s effects. To juxtapose RBK’s point to extend my point, it’s often highlighted in the manosphere about the herbivore men in Japan of the 80 ‘ s to now. The fact that the bravado of masculinity along with a tribal mindset have conciously or up conciously have ignored this same struggle in the African American community. In MGTOW a popular slander is “they just want to be victims” while passive aggressively calling African Americans who fight for their rights social justice warrior’s.

    This behavior reinforces gynocentric behavior with the underline trapping of alpha male behavior. Which relates to the old school strategy of divide and conquer. As we are starting to see, we as people are being divided in all forms making it harder to coexist and spread knowledge to eatch other all while making a better case for the artificial womb. In conclusion, with that said if we don’t start appreciating all human life then all human life will be disposable.

  21. anotherbastard says:

    When I see men laughing or belittling claims of male victim-hood, I’ve always had different thoughts on the matter, RBK. I loved your article, but this is my opinion. You’re right, IT IS MALE EGO. That’s indisputable, but I think it’s also gynocentrism.

    I think your youtube guy was trying to communicate that he comes from a mentality of callous. He takes pride in the idea that masculinity (as he sees it – that’s where the pride comes in) is being more accepting of self-destruction than being a squeaky wheel.

    Being a squeaky wheel is shame. It’s accepting help from others, which means resources, time or care is being redirected from the tribe to you – the individual. Men are more devoted to the wellfare of the tribe than women and are therefore more willing to suffer in silence.

    That’s why in horror movies, the man trying to escape the monster or break away from the group – usually because the alpha male leader has decided to go back for the damsel the monster kidnapped – favoring his own survival makes him a villain. And he always gets the most gruesome death in the movie. Because viewers, by biological drive, see that as justice. This is gynocentrism and the Male Ego.

    Men are proud of Self-Destructive tenancies. Look how much suffering I can take. Look how devoted to the tribe I am!

  22. anotherbastard says:

    Oh. My favorite part, RBK:
    “Men seek out, as mates, those that do not threaten his shameful, bashful, sexuality. Women seek out, as mates, those who can complete her. And when I say “complete her” I am referring to completing her masculine self she has to hide away.”
    nice words :)

  23. Rickard says:

    Great article RBK!

  24. Tyrian says:

    To be honest, that article made me think a lot. The honesty was brutal and I liked it, but I see one thing here that should have been included, wich is the cause of the male ego. Because of that, let me explain why I think you are wrong (no puns intended!)

    Evolution made it that women have to carry the burden of pregnancy for many months and they have to breastfeed. This made them more vulnerable and women who secured a strong and dependable male were more likely to survive and her children were more likely to survive.

    Following that, men who were not strong enough were not selected as mate and their genetic could not be passed on. As physically stronger and bigger men passed their genes, men became stronger than women (physically). Men took high risk and would die or sucessfully get to mate. Women who took less risk were more likely to survive and their children were more likely to survive. Thus we got sexual dismorphism. In other word, we are a race with notables differences between the genders. For the record, some species have higher sexual dismorphism as the gorilla (really small female and really large male) and some have almost none, like a lot of birds. Humans are somewhere in the middle.

    In every stage of history men were more disposable than women. They died trying to protect the tribe, they took higher risk and sometime got killed to get a chance at the mating game, then we got bigger civilisation and men were sent to war. Even today, if there is a building on fire, we save women and children first and men will be the last to receive help. What does this mean for the male identity? What does it mean to YOUR indentity when you are disposable and you are expected to act as if you are disposable? It mean you have less worth has a human being, it mean you have no real identity (or at least not a positive one!).

    Women have a worth simply because they are women and because they can bear children. It is logic to care for them and protect them, because if a women die it limit the potential pool of offspring for the next generation. At least that was especially true when we lived in tribes. Simply put, women have a healthy identity secured even if they don’t do much, because they have worth has the sex that produce kids.

    For men, we have no inate value, we have no worth simply because we are men. As men, we need to actively seek our worth, we need to work, acheive and potentially make big sacrifice. A man’s worth constantly need to be proven, renewded and it can be easily crushed. A man who want a positive and healthy identity need to distance himself from the feminin. In the feminin, a man as no worth, no value. In other words, because he cannot bear children, a man as no inate worth (feminin), thus he must seek a worth elsewhere (masculin).

    The error I think you made is that you did not include the reason of why male have an ego. Man have an ego because they don’t have an inate value. The lives of men is so easily disposed of that it needed some sort of refuge, a value they created themselves by enforcing masculinity. Men created their selfworth because they needed to and I absolutely don’t think we can reduce it to just a pale ”Male ego”.

    Personnaly, I think that blurring the line between the gender and getting rid of masculinity is the worse thing that could could happen to men, because even today we are disposable. And by the way, we still cannot bear children, so no inate value for us even in the modern age. If we cut this thread, we will lose our self-worth and we will have no mean to define a good and healthy identity for ourselve.

    I’m not saying we should be disposable, and I truly think it is possible to accept that men can be victims. But, we should not discard manliness because of it, that would be a fatal mistake.

  25. Beaker says:

    “your life, your reality, self esteem, and sense of self, is derived from women.”

    Not anymore bitch. I could not care less what women think of me now. I’m doing what I want to do and I’m achieving even more and having greater success than ever before.

  26. MgtowWave says:

    If women were uninterested in men who act like like they are a 1000 feet tall then there would be a lot fewere men who act like that..

    Women do not empathize with men as much as they empathize women.


    Men do not empathtize with men as much as they empathize with women .

    Women have an ingroup bias and men have an out group bias.

    Realize that women do not care about you, your life,your health,your mental health,your financial security,your happiness nearly as much as they say is natural for them to do.

    Women do not have a “caring gene” when it comes to men .

  27. Jon Jay Obermark says:

    Your list of the traits of women is entirely biased. Women in our society are seen as giving, caring, supportive, and a range of other positive things — more positive than men. Ignoring this creates an entirely biased picture typical of feminist oversimplification. You cam blame the male ego for the same reason they did — by simply lying about what we actually say, believe and act on in our attributions of morality.

    Carol Gilligan can complain about abstruse theories of morality declaring women less morally competent, but the average woman or man on the corner actively overvalues the moral opinions of the women in his life.

    The ‘slave-morality’ quote from Neitzche is totally lost on you. In the end Christianity, a value system that devalues strength and asks us to depend upon someone who is not even human. Slave-morality/power-with/femininity WON. Women’s morality is valued more highly. The same thing happened in other cultures, to a lesser degree — the religions disown strength and end up devaluing men. Only relatively young religions like Islam really uphold an equal respect for the two genders’ strengths, and unfortunately, that falls on a culture that is so warlike that freedom from assault really required being locked in your house.

    Once you explain the lack of manhood we traditionally project onto Jesus, and the powerful aura we traditionally project onto Mary, you can tell me how much we value male strength. Until then, just try not to lie in public.

  28. not me says:

    I know I’m late as hell to this party but I’ll say it nonetheless: “huge male ego” didn’t cause gynocentrism, gynocentrism caused the “huge male ego”. the reasons have been stated above by others.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *