Due to some respondents: THIS IS PURELY CONDITIONAL AND SPECULATIVE> IF x then y.

Conditional Hypothesis: If there were a temporary/permanent period of quasi-segregation between males and females Gynocentrism, as an evolutionary stable strategy, would be out-competed in terms of the evolutionary trajectory of the species.

I have provided two biology essays on the subject of Gene-culture co-evolution and Cultural Group Selection for those who may not have background on the issue or want a more biological grounding of MGTOW theory as well as futurology speculation.

"Transmission coupling mechanisms: cultural group selection" (You can skip to section 6 for group competition) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2981912/)

"How culture shaped the human genome: bringing genetics and the human sciences together" (http://www.google.be/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CC0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Flalandlab.st-andrews.ac.uk%2Fdocuments%2FPublication145.pdf&ei=sZhXVcrmOoqs7Aa9kYOIDA&usg=AFQjCNFy0uua6SL3S__qrHBy6_q2Yq9V2g)

I. MRA’s are the Sisyphus of Homo sapiens:

Simply put (very simply so as to not get lost in technicalities): Cultural group selection examines which groups out-compete/d each other and why the various practices/norms of the successful group spread as a result of the victorious group removing or co-opting the defeated. Another possibility is that the latter group simply imitate/adopt the former's fitness conferring group norms/behaviors allowing this specific strategy/cluster of social practices to spread rapidly. Essentially, the norms/practices/group-level behaviors of the successful group likely confer greater fitness for the group leading to a number of reasons that made it more successful/competitive than surrounding groups which had a different schema of norms, et al. Thus, one could argue that Gynocentrism was the best (relatively speaking) strategy (for example: seeing women as sacred, worth protecting above all else, using men to fight the battles and the privileged maintenance of females (males as utilities for the group’s growth) which ensured greater reproduction rates for the group) for groups that won out in the evolutionary period of inter-group competition which has determined the advance and trajectory of human civilization thus far. As a result, Gynocentrism is still at root the base level evolutionary current of human society. The only way to change this strategy would require a confluence/cluster of various severe selection pressures which make Gynocentrism the less suitable, less efficient evolutionary-stable-strategy which no longer confers the greatest adaptive fitness relative to the cost to the group. Thus, MRA’s will always fail as they are trying to reform society, but not dealing with the underlying biological realities which they can’t reform away (not that they would ever be able to bring about the modest reforms they talk about currently).

II. Segregation and Innovation:

The only way to bring about this cluster is through the current acceleration of the ongoing male exodus. The eventuality of artificial wombs (AW) and female substitutes (androids) along with a large opting-out strategy will likely cause some type of societal breakdown (I would even posit the eventual necessity of war(s) as the State and a large minority of society would not be able to condone this segregation; not to mention issues of national borders and population shifts), but this will not make Gynocentrism unproductive (no doubt blue-pillers will still remain). However, if in some possible way a large contingent of men went their own way forming societies divorced from female societies then perhaps over time both sexes would adapt/evolve to the point of not needing the other. Females nor males would be necessary for reproduction (at least one would not require the other beyond certain necessities like sperm banks or AWs). I have considerable doubts as to whether a society of mostly women will manage to sustain itself. If the latter can sustain itself either it will force women to adapt to not needing men or their still Gynocentric society will simply lose in the dynamics of group competition with non-Gynocentric societies (male only) societies thus bringing about a second tier of selection pressures (the first tier would be the initial segregation pressures and this may work if women adapt to no longer needing men; otherwise this second tier will be the true means to out-competing Gynocentrism). Either Gynocentrism becomes untenable as an evolutionary strategy or women simply become obsolete and die off (they would be obsolete in the former case, but a rapprochement between the sexes might mean they survive by default).

However, it is not clear that even if women would truly adapt to no longer needing men (Gynocentrism killing itself) (first tier of adaptation) or if Gynocentrism was out-competed (second tier) whether women would not still revert to the atavistic seed of Gynocentric resource accumulation. Perhaps their behavioral adaption in the segregated period was only a relative strategy which becomes obsolete once they are living with men again. Perhaps Gynocentrism as reduced to female mammalian evolutionary directives/programming can never be competed or adapted out of existence. In that case, segregation would need to be permanent.

In the end, this is all mere speculation and I could care less if there is a way for the sexes to achieve a worthwhile rapprochement. Still, it is worth a second to ponder the “what ifs.”