An idea that has been pervasive within the MGTOW community for a while, is the meme that women are evil. In this article I will offer some commentary by focusing on a very specific issue that seems quite dear to men and that is the issue of Abortion. My motivation for focusing on the topic of abortion within the context of the supposed ‘evil’ nature of human female is very simple. Firstly many MGTOW have openly criticised both the right to abortions and the number of abortions carried out, which according to worldmeters.com  has already reached 32,000,000 so far in 2015 worldwide. Secondly, my motivation in picking the issue of abortion to discuss the supposed evil of females comes from the flavour and sheer volume of emotions that pour forth when abortion is mentioned in MGTOW circles, the language quickly reverts to women being ‘evil’ or a similar adjective.
Before we go on, I wish to state that one of the things that most people (including myself) agree on is that terminating life is a morally undesirable behaviour, it is not universally preferable. The sanctity of life is a human universal across all cultures and ethnic groups, even within pre-history, tribes that practiced what we in modernity would consider grotesque forms of human sacrifice usually took life to placate a deity  into sending more rain for their crops or animals for them to hunt, human sacrifice was an attempt to preserve the lives and wellbeing of the majority of the members of a tribe at the expense of the few. Armed with our modern sensibilities many now use the word ‘evil’ to describe such practices, however we would learn much by unemotionally putting ourselves in the shoes of such primitive societies, who knew little of the cause of phenomena they experienced including thunder, rain and the seasons other than that all such things came at the whims of their gods, who needed regular offerings of human life to be placated. What we now have within MGTOW, thats especially visible when the issue of abortion is raised is what the social psychologist Roy F. Baumeister called ‘The Myth of Pure Evil’ , When we think of evil, Baumeister suggests, we tend to use a schema with three parts. These are:
1. Evil is intentional harm.
2. The perpetrators of the harm are sadistic, they enjoy harming others.
3. The victim is innocent and good.
Consequently, when we put all this together, evil is a sadistic force that randomly inflicts gratuitous violence on innocent, unsuspecting victims. Now it is certainly true that sadists, serial killers, and child molesters walk among us. But Baumeister points out that by focusing on these people as much as we do, we dramatically fail to understand how very rare these kinds of people really are. They account for only the smallest fraction of human violence. To put the point bluntly, you are many times much more likely to be killed by your spouse than a sadistic serial killer. So, what causes most human violence and cruelty if “pure evil” isn’t doing most of it? What Baumeister found is this: Victims. The real irony of violence is that it is perpetrated by “victims.” Victims kill and create more victims. This concept of victimhood is going to be essential in our understanding of abortion as a social phenomenon and why opposing abortion within MGTOW is counterproductive, as is the often repeated meme that women are evil.
The next concept that will allow deeper understanding of the topic at hand is ‘The triage theory of infanticide’. Anthropologists and historians tell us that infanticide has been practiced by all cultures, at all times in history. Evolutionary Psychologists Martin Daly and Margo Wilson estimate that historical rates of infanticide range from 10 to 15% in most societies to up to 50% in other more extreme examples, my source for these numbers is Michael Shermer’s book, the Moral Arc , current rates of abortion are around the 30% level in the European Union . Note that infanticide represents the termination of a child after birth, within MGTOW abortion has been portrayed as firstly an act that is unique to this generation of women, this argument goes along the lines that women in our grandmothers or mothers generation were pure and respectful of life but women nowadays abort pregnancies at will and without remorse. Secondly within MGTOW abortion has been portrayed as the single purest act of evil that is conceivable. These arguments against abortion are extremely superficial, and represent they kind of moralistic argumentation that comes from a very myopic historical, biological and evolutionary perspective.
Like all human behaviour, infanticide and abortion are non trivial issues, the Evolutionary Psychologists Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, studied 60 societies using an ethnographic database of cultures around the world, 87% of supported the ‘triage theory’ of infanticide, that is parents, often mothers make a choice when they perceive times to be hard. They kill their children when they believe resources are too scarce to support another infant, the victimhood situation I addressed earlier. As Edward Tylor the anthropologist put it, Infanticide arises from hardness of life rather than hardness of heart. Due to the fact that humans are not blessed with an infinity of resources not all our young can survive, so when conditions are difficult, historically parents, especially mothers will decide who is most likely to survive. These are the environmental and biological conditions that lead to infanticide.
Irrefutable evidence suggests that human societies have always practiced infanticide, society allowed the women and men to make a decision based on the environment and condition of the child at the time of birth, if for example the birth took place during a time of war, famine or if the child was conceived out of wedlock with a man who she was unsure of his parental commitment or the child was deemed to be sickly or the woman had other nursing children, women (and men) terminated such a child quickly after birth. So the questions we might ask are as follows, firstly what can we learn from cultures who practiced infanticide and where were their reasons for infanticide? Secondly, what are the most common reasons given nowadays by women who have abortions? Are their differences or similarities in ancient times vs modernity?
According to researchers there is different theme in modern abortion vs pre-history infanticide in that pre-modern infanticide more often than not ensured that female offspring were terminated , a tacit acknowledgement by our ancestors that female children were a large and often unbearable burden on the family, a burden which in times of tribulation could scarcely be justified, evidence of this can be seen in the cultural attitudes that prevailed uniformly across the human species at the time. For example sexually selected infanticide was particularly prominent in Arabia before the time of Mohammed (570?-632 AD) . In the Persian world females were generally seen as an undesirable burden to a family struggling to survive. A common proverb held that it was “a generous deed to bury a female child.” Nevertheless, the Koran, which collected the writings of Mohammed, introduced reforms that included the prohibition of female infanticide . We also see the more modern evidence in india and India and China where male life is prioritised due to a number of social factors including the fact that male children are expected to support their parents well into their dotage. It is clear that the onerous costs involved with the raising of a girl, and eventually providing her an appropriate marriage dowry is an important factor in social acceptance of the murder at birth of female children in India. In China, economics also played a significant role since it is a poor country with one of the lowest rates of agricultural output per acre of arable land in the world. With an extremely high infant and child mortality rate, because of sparse food supply and medical care, a married couple needed to raise three sons in order to ensure the survival of one into adulthood. Females were primarily consumers and a serious financial burden to a poor family, they were therefore often killed at birth.
So what we see as we develop as a species and move into the modern era with abortions is the shift to a gender neutral position by the human female and male in the termination of life after birth  crazy feminists such as Lana who claimed to have aborted a fetus simply for being male  should be seen as perhaps the behaviour of a women desperately seeking attention and notoriety rather than indicative of the way females make decisions regarding the termination of life. Sons are an economic asset who are expected to support a parent into their old age while daughters were an economic liability, in the presence of social welfare and female participation in the labour force, sex selected pre-modern infanticide has given way to modern gender neutral abortions.
As one might observe as we consider the issue of abortion and infanticide the key difference in the choices leading to the termination of life are now almost entirely ‘trivial’ compared to issues we faced as a species in the era of pre-hostory, in that women in the west no longer have to weigh specific parts of the triage theory such as famine, disease and even war when making a decision to terminate or keep a child, however the biological drivers for termination of infant or newborn life remains and previously smaller relative concerns now carry greater weight due to what I term the ‘Girl Writes What’ effect, where the safer women become the smaller the things that affect their feelings of safety. Previously, the timing of birth may have carried smaller consideration and now it may play a more prominent concern, for example if the timing of a potential birth may in a woman’s estimation negatively harm her career she will more likely opt for early termination.
Within MGTOW many have assumed that as social conditions changed, as resources became more abundant then the rates of the modern equivalent of infanticide, namely abortion, would reduce (in the way many other forms of societal violence have reduced including war, murder, genocide, assault, murder and child abuse) due to the civilising effects of modernity. The fact that abortions have not followed the general trend of a reduction in societal violence perhaps shows just to what extent we as humans are driven by deep biological drivers which modernity will only amplify. The desire to terminate a life after birth is less the effect of cold coalition and can be seen as perhaps more the effect of emotions that come as a result of specific genetic survival pressures, which despite the change in our environment and relative affluence still persist.
We as MGTOW should not be against abortion per say without also being against other forms of societal violence, the very young or pre born it seems, alongside men in our cultures are the last groups to have human compassion and empathy extended to then which might curtail violence towards them by affecting how our genetics interact and pressure our emotional impulses. Over time as we became more repulsed emotionally with the slave trade, murder, female genital mutilation, laws followed in short order to codify our outrage into law and these further reinforced moral outrage when witnessing these acts.
There is a very important issue that MGTOW have been discussing for a while which seems legitimate and even achievable, on the surface. Unfortunately in my opinion our underlying drivers as a species, will cause a massive push back and that is the concept of Male Abortion, also known as Financial Abortion. A financial abortion is the legally granted ability of a man to walk away from the pregnancy and parental rights in exchange for renunciation of financial obligation towards the child. Like most MGTOW, I would would like to see this right extended to men in my life time. However I believe it is unlikely and hence the most effective financial abortion a man can make is to refrain from impregnating a woman. The reason for my lack of faith in men being granted the legal right to walk away from financial obligations is that that males and females carry out the very same sex act for very different reasons and these reasons tend to form the basis of legislative policy. Firstly males desire to leave a genetic legacy, while females seek primarily to secure provisioning and protection from the male in return for being the vessel by which he reproduces, for this reason society will bulk at granting male abortion due to the fact that very act of impregnation ensures that genetically speaking the female has provided the terms of her end of the bargain upfront, once the child is born the mans genetic legacy is deemed secure, assuming the child is not aborted by the mother of course, however the mans end of the bargain is deemed unfulfilled since he is yet to furnish either she or the child with resources, as such financial abortions will be viewed as breach of contract and possibly even genetic theft since her biologically driven need for provisioning (for herself and the child) are clearly yet to be fulfilled by the male.
Furthermore, within MGTOW to be logically consistent we can not criticise single motherhood and also condemn abortion rates, since one of the reasons for abortions is an unwillingness to be a single mother. An unwillingness to raise a child without a male is one of the top three reasons in fact for abortions  and its a reason that has stood the test of time in that this was also a key reason for infanticide throughout pre-history according to the research by Evolutionary Psychologists Martin Daly and Margo Wilson . I do not wish to commit the naturalistic fallacy here, what is natural is not necessarily ideal in the advent of modernity, I abhor the termination of human life, and I extend the term human to unborn featus’ however in our drive to better understand men and women our views should encompass and view abortion within the context of survival pressures that drive our emotional makeup and lead to unpleasant choices and terrifying decisions.
What we have creeping into MGTOW is a human life taboo that is incompatible with many features of reality specifically in the area of why we murder the pre-born in modernity, this taboo ignores that we murdered the neonatal in pre history. The taking of infant life follows from our biological drive and culture and since we now have a culture that reveres birth and considers it to be some sort of sacred act, this may also partially explain the unwillingness of many women to have the child and give it up for adoption or to murder it after birth. They respond to their environment by avoiding birth and opting for abortion, this option saves them from the hindrance of 9 months of pregnancy which entails social pressures, career slowdowns and psychological obstacles.
The abortion culture is a result of the fact that humans will have sex without considering the resource availability that a child might be born into, necessarily many children will be born into resource poor environments that lead to infanticide in prehistory and abortions in modernity. We had infanticide back then due to lack of contraceptive options and abortion clinics not because women have changed, the same genetics drive the human female and male, and as I mentioned earlier the same victim hood mental persists. No matter how the environment changes, no matter how civilised we become will will always abort due to the victimhood complex. Im not excusing the abortion culture but its essential to understand it within the context of historical, environmental and biological drivers. So gentlemen women are not evil, they are capable of terrifying destructiveness, however resorting to the term evil to describe half of the human species disempowers MGTOW .
 Discourse on Civility and Barbarity by Timothy Fitzgerald
 The Moral Arc: How Science and Reason Lead Humanity toward Truth, Justice, and Freedom by Michael Shermer