Featured post
Box 2

About gynocentrism

The golden casket above depicts scenes of servile male behaviour toward women that were typical of courtly love culture of the Middle Ages. Such objects were given to women as gifts by men seeking to impress. Note the woman standing with hands on hips in a position of authority, and the man being led around by a rope or halter in a position of subservience.

It is clear that much of what we today call gynocentrism was invented in the Middle Ages with the cultural practices of romantic chivalry and courtly love. In 12th century Europe feudalism served as the basis for a new kind of love in which men were to play the role of vassal to women who played the role of an idealized Lord. C.S. Lewis, back in the middle of the 20th Century, referred to this historical revolution as “the feudalisation of love,” and stated that it has left no corner of our ethics, our imagination, or our daily life untouched. “Compared with this revolution,” states Lewis, “the Renaissance is a mere ripple on the surface of literature.”1 Lewis states;

“Everyone has heard of courtly love, and everyone knows it appeared quite suddenly at the end of the eleventh century at Languedoc. The sentiment, of course, is love, but love of a highly specialized sort, whose characteristics may be enumerated as Humility, Courtesy, and the Religion of Love. The lover is always abject. Obedience to his lady’s lightest wish, however whimsical, and silent acquiescence in her rebukes, however unjust, are the only virtues he dares to claim. Here is a service of love closely modelled on the service which a feudal vassal owes to his lord. The lover is the lady’s ‘man’. He addresses her as midons, which etymologically represents not ‘my lady’ but ‘my lord’. The whole attitude has been rightly described as ‘a feudalisation of love’. This solemn amatory ritual is felt to be part and parcel of the courtly life.” 2

With the advent of (initially courtly) women being elevated to the position of ‘Lord’ in intimate relationships, and with this general sentiment diffusing to the masses and across much of the world today, we are justified in talking of a gynocentric cultural complex that affects, among other things, relationships between men and women. Furthermore, unless evidence of broadspread gynocentric culture can be found prior to the Middle Ages, then gynocentrism is precisely 800 years old. In order to determine if this thesis is valid we need to look further at what we mean by “gynocentrism”.

The term gynocentrism has been in circulation since the 1800’s, with the general definition being “focused on women; concerned with only women.” 3 From this definition we see that gynocentrism could refer to any female-centered practice, or to a single gynocentric act carried out by one individual. There is nothing inherently wrong with a gynocentric act (eg. celebrating Mother’s Day) , or for that matter an androcentric act (celebrating Father’s Day). However when a given act becomes instituted in the culture to the exclusion of other acts we are then dealing with a hegemonic custom — i.e. such is the relationship custom of elevating women to the role of Lord in relation to male vassals.

Author of Gynocentrism Theory Adam Kostakis has attempted to expand the definition of gynocentrism to refer to “male sacrifice for the benefit of women” and “the deference of men to women,” and he concludes; “Gynocentrism, whether it went by the name honor, nobility, chivalry, or feminism, its essence has gone unchanged. It remains a peculiarly male duty to help the women onto the lifeboats, while the men themselves face a certain and icy death.” 4 I agree with Kostakis’ descriptions of assumed male duty, however the phrase ‘gynocentric culture’ more accurately carries his intention than gynocentrism alone. Thus when used alone in the context of this website ‘gynocentrism’ refers to part or all of gynocentric culture, which phrase I will define here as any culture instituting rules for gender relationships that benefit females at the expense of males across a broad range of measures.

At the base of gynocentric culture lies the practice of enforced male sacrifice for the benefit of women. If we accept this definition we can look back and ask whether male sacrifices throughout history were always made for the sake women, or alternatively for the sake of some other primary goal? For instance, when men went to die in vast numbers in wars, was it for women, or was it rather for Man, King, God and Country? If the latter we cannot then claim that this was a result of some intentional gynocentric culture, at least not in the way I have defined it here. If the sacrifice isn’t intended directly for the benefit women, even if women were occasional beneficiaries of male sacrifice, then we are not dealing with gynocentric culture.

Male utility and disposability strictly “for the benefit of women” comes in strongly only after the advent of the 12th century gender revolution in Europe – a revolution that delivered us terms like gallantry, chivalry, chivalric love, courtesy, damsels, romance and so on. From that period onward gynocentric practices grew exponentially, culminating in the demands of today’s feminism. In sum, gynocentrism (ie. gynocentric culture) was a patchy phenomenon at best before the middle ages, after which it became ubiquitous.

With this in mind it makes little sense to talk of gynocentric culture starting with the industrial revolution a mere 200 years ago (or 100 or even 30 yrs ago), or of it being two million years old as some would argue. We are not simply fighting two million years of genetic programming; our culturally constructed problem of gender inequity is much simpler to pinpoint and to potentially reverse. All we need do is look at the circumstances under which gynocentrism first began to flourish and attempt to reverse those circumstances. Specifically, that means rejecting the illusions of romantic love (feudalised love), along with the practices of misandry, male shaming and servitude that ultimately support it.

Querelle des Femmes and perpetual advocacy for gynocentrism

The Querelle des Femmes translates as the “quarrel about women” and amounts to what we might today call a gender-war. The querelle des Femmes had its beginning in the twelfth century and finds its culmination in the feminist-driven ideology of today (though some authors claim, unconvincingly, that the querelle came to an end in the 1700s). The basic theme of the centuries-long quarrel revolved, and continues to revolve, around advocacy for the rights, power and status of women. If we consider the longevity of this revolution we might be inclined to agree with Barbarossaaa’s claim “that feminism is a perpetual advocacy machine for women”.

To place the above events into a coherent timeline, chivalric servitude toward women was elaborated and given patronage first under the reign of Eleanor of Aquitaine (1137-1152) and instituted culturally throughout Europe over the subsequent 200 year period. After becoming thus entrenched on European soil there arose the Querelle des Femmes which refers to the advocacy culture that arose for protecting, perpetuating and increasing female power in relation to men that continues, in an unbroken tradition, in the efforts of contemporary feminism.5

Writings from the Middle Ages forward are full of testaments about men attempting to adapt to the feudalisation of love and the serving of women, along with the emotional agony, shame and sometimes physical violence they suffered in the process. Gynocentric chivalry and the associated querelle have not received much elaboration in men’s studies courses to-date, but with the emergence of new manuscripts and quality English translations it may be profitable to begin blazing this trail.6 For instance a text I was re-reading today, Ulrich von Liechtenstein’s ‘In The Service of Ladies’ (1250) provides a treasure trove of emotions faced by a man trying to adapt to the vassal role; texts like this could be included in syllabus and explored for a deeper understanding of male experience and the cultural expectations that are placed on men.

References

1. C.S. Lewis, Friendship, chapter in The Four Loves, HarperCollins, 1960
2. C.S. Lewis, The Allegory of Love, Oxford University Press, 1936
3. Dictionary.com – Gynocentric
4. Adam Kostakis, Gynocentrism Theory – (Published online, 2011). Although Kostakis assumes gynocentrism has been around throughout recorded history, he singles out the Middle Ages for comment: “There is an enormous amount of continuity between the chivalric class code which arose in the Middle Ages and modern feminism… One could say that they are the same entity, which now exists in a more mature form – certainly, we are not dealing with two separate creatures.”
5. Joan Kelly, Early Feminist Theory and the Querelle des Femmes (1982), reprinted in Women, History and Theory, UCP (1984)
6. The New Male Studies Journal has published thoughtful articles touching on the history and influence of chivalry in the lives of males.

Romantic Love, by Lester F. Ward (1903)

The Proposal. John Pettie, R.A. (1839-1893). Oil On Canvas, 1869.
The following essay is from the book Pure Sociology by Lester F. Ward 1903 [pp. 390-403] – PW

Romantic Love

It is the psycho-physiological progress going on in all races that have undergone repeated and compound social assimilation, that has laid the foundation for the appearance (in the most advanced races) of a derivative form of natural love which is known as romantic love. It is a comparatively modern product, and is not universal among highly assimilated races. In fact, I am convinced that it is practically confined to what is generally understood as the Aryan race, or, at most, to the so-called Europeans, whether actually in Europe or whether in Australia, America, India, or any other part of the globe. Further, it did not appear in a perceptible form even in that ethnic stock until some time during the Middle Ages. Although I have held this opinion much longer, I first expressed it in 1896.1 It is curious that since that time two books have appeared devoted in whole or in part to sustaining this view.2 There is certainly no sign of the derivative sentiment among savages. Monteiro, speaking of the polygamous peoples of Western Africa, says: -

The negro knows not love, affection, or jealousy. … In all the long years I have been in Africa I have never seen a negro manifest the least tenderness for or to a negress. … I have never seen a negro put his arm round a woman’s waist, or give or receive any caress whatever that would indicate the slightest loving regard or affection on either side. They have no words or expressions in their language indicative of affection or love.3

Lichtenstein4 says of the Koossas: “To the feeling of a chaste tender passion, founded on reciprocal esteem, and an union of heart and sentiment, they seem entire strangers.“ Eyre reports the same general condition of things among the natives of Australia,5 and it would not be difficult to find statements to the same effect relative to savage and barbaric races in all countries where they have been made the subject of critical study. Certainly all the romances of such races that have been written do but reflect the sentiments of their writers, and are worthless from any scientific point of view. This is probably also the case for stories whose plot is laid in Asia, even in India, and the Chinese and Japanese seem to have none of the romantic ideas of the West; otherwise female virtue would not be a relative term, as it is in those countries. This much will probably be admitted by all who understand what I mean by romantic love.

The point of dispute is therefore apparently narrowed down to the question whether the Ancient Greeks and Romans had developed this sentiment. I would maintain the negative of this question. If I have read my Homer, Æschylus, Virgil, and Horace to any purpose they do not reveal the existence in Ancient Greece and Rome of the sentiment of romantic love. If it be said that they contain the rudiments of it and foreshadow it to some extent I shall not dispute this, but natural love everywhere does this, and that is therefore not the question. The only place where one finds clear indications of the sentiment is in such books as “Quo Vadis,” which cannot free themselves from such anachronisms. I would therefore adhere to the statement made in 1896, when I said, “Brilliant as were the intellectual achievements of the Greeks and Romans, and refined as were many of their moral and esthetic perceptions, nothing in their literature conclusively proves that love with them meant more than the natural demands of the sexual instinct under the control of strong character and high intelligence. The romantic element of man’s nature had not yet been developed.”

The Greeks, of course, distinguished several kinds of love, and by different words (έρως, άγάπη, Φιλία), but only one of these is sexual at all. For έρως they often used ‘AΦροδίτη. They also expressed certain degrees and qualities in these by adjectives, e.g., πάνδημος. Some modern writers place the adjective ούράνιος over against πάνδημος, as indicating that they recognized a sublimated, heavenly, or spiritual form of sexual love, but I have not found this in classic Greek. Neither do I find any other to the Latin Venus vulgivaga. But whether such softened expressions are really to be found in classic Greek and Latin authors or not, the fact that they are so rare sufficiently indicates that the conceptions they convey could not have been current in the Greek and Roman mind, and must have been confined to a few rare natures. Romantic love is therefore not only confined to the historic races, those mentioned in Chapter III as representing the accumulated energies of all the past and the highest human achievement, but it is limited to the last nine or ten centuries of the history of those races.

It began to manifest itself some time in the eleventh century of the Christian era, and was closely connected with the origin of chivalry under the feudal system. Guizot has given us perhaps the best presentation of that institution,6 and from this it is easy to see how the conditions favored its development. In the first place the constant and prolonged absenteeism of the lords and knights, often with most of their retainers, from the castle left the women practically in charge of affairs and conferred upon them a power and dignity never before possessed. In the second place the separation of most of the men for such long periods, coupled with the sense of honor that their knighthood and military career gave rise to, caused them to assume the rôle of applicants for the favor of the women, which they could not always immediately attain as when women were forcibly seized by any one that chanced to find them. These conditions produced a mutual sense on the part of both sexes of the need of each other, coupled with prolonged deprivation on the part of both of that satisfaction. The men, thus seeking the women, naturally became chivalrous toward them. The solitary life of women of high rank made them somewhat a prey to the lusts of men of low degree, and the knights assumed the rôle of protecting them from all dangers. Moral and Christian sentiments also played a part, and we find among the provisions of the oath that every chevalier must make the following solemn vows:

●To maintain the just rights of the weak, as of widows, orphans, and young women.
●If called upon to conduct a lady or a girl to any place, to wait upon her, to protect her,
and to save her from all danger and every offense, or perish in the attempt.
●Never to do violence to ladies or young women, even though won by their arms, without their will and consent.

 
Such an oath, made a universal point of honor, any breach of which would be an everlasting disgrace, and be punished severely by the order of knighthood to which they belonged, could not fail to produce a powerful civilizing effect upon the semi-barbaric men of that age. The whole proceeding must have also given to women a far greater independence and higher standing than they had ever before enjoyed since the days of gynæcocracy in the protosocial stage. Out of this condition of things there arose a special class of poets who wrote lyrics wholly different from the erotic songs of antiquity that go by that name. These poets were called troubadours, and some of them wandered from place to place singing the praises of the great court ladies, and still further inflaming the new passion, which was relatively pure, and contented itself with an association of men with women while conserving the honor and virtue of the latter. This, of course, was a passing phase and somewhat local, being mainly confined to southern France and parts of Spain. It degenerated, as did the whole institution of chivalry, and by the end of the thirteenth century nothing was left of either but the ridiculous nonsense that Cervantes found surviving into his time, and which he so happily portrayed in Don Quixote. But chivalry had left its impress upon the world, and while Condorcet and Comte exaggerated certain aspects of it, no one has pointed out its greatest service in grafting romantic love upon natural love, which until then had been supreme.

But it would be easy to ascribe too great a rôle, even here, to chivalry. The truth is not all told until chivalry is understood as an effect as well as a cause. Whatever may be said of the Middle Ages as tending to suppress the natural flow of intellectual activities, there can be no doubt that they were highly favorable to the development of emotional life. The intense religious fervor that burned in its cloisters for so many centuries served to create centers of feeling, and to increase the sensibility of all those nerve plexuses that constitute the true organs of emotion. Whatever may be the physiological changes necessary to intensify the inner feelings, corresponding to the multiplication and diversification of the neurons of the brain by which the intellect is perfected, such changes went on, until the men and women of the eleventh century found themselves endowed with far higher moral organizations than those of the ancient Greeks and Romans. They had been all this time using their emotional faculties as they never had been used before, and the Lamarckian principle of increase through use is as true of those faculties as it is of external muscles and organs. It is true of the brain, too, and when educationalists wake up to this truth the only solid basis for scientific education will have been discovered. But without a preparation in this latent growth of the emotional faculties neither chivalry nor romantic love could have made its appearance. The crusades, contemporary to a great extent with chivalry, and due also to the surplus emotion, taking here a religious course, became also a joint cause in the development not only of romantic love but also of many other lofty attributes, both ethical and intellectual. They failed to save the holy city, but they gained a far greater victory than that would have been in rationalizing, moralizing, and socializing Europe. Any one who thinks they were a failure has only to read Guizot’s masterly summing up of their influence.7

Romantic love was due primarily to the greater equality and independence of woman. She reacquired to some extent her long-lost power of selection, and began to apply to men certain tests of fitness. Romantic love therefore marks the first step toward the resumption by woman of her natural scepter which she yielded to the superior physical force of man at the beginning of the androcratic period. It involves a certain degree of female selection or gyneclexis, and no longer permitted man to seize but compelled him to sue. But it went much farther than this. It did not complete a cycle and restore female selection as it exists in the animal world. It also did away with the pure male selection that prevailed throughout the androcratic régime. The great physiological superiority of the new régime cannot be too strongly emphasized. Its value to the race is incalculable. Female selection, or gyneclexis, as we saw, created a fantastic and extravagant male efflorescence. Male selection, or andreclexis, produced a female etiolation, diminutive stature, beauty without utility. Both these unnatural effects were due to lack of mutuality. Romantic love is mutual. The selection is done simultaneously by man and woman. It may be called ampheclexis. Its most striking characteristic consists in the phenomenon called “falling in love.“ It is not commonly supposed that this so-called “tender passion“ is capable of cold scientific analysis. It is treated as something trivial, and any allusion to it creates a smile. Yet libraries are filled with books devoted exclusively to it, and these are as eagerly devoured by philosophers and sages as by schoolgirls.

[...]

In the early days and in the upper classes the demands of woman may have been somewhat trivial. Man must do something heroic, must prove his worthiness by acts of prowess, and such acts may even be opposed to true progress. But they at least develop manhood, courage, honor, and under the code of chivalry they must have a moral element, must defend the right, protect the weak, avenge dishonor, and uphold virtue. But in the lower ranks even then, and everywhere since the fall of the feudal system, woman demanded support and the comforts of life, luxuries where possible, and more and more leisure and accomplishment. To-day she demands a home, social position, ease, and economic freedom. More and more, too, she requires of men that they possess industry, thrift, virtue, honesty, and intelligence. Man must work for all this, and this struggle for excellence, as woman understands that quality, is an extraordinary stimulus, and leads to all forms of achievement.

But man also selects. Romantic love is mutual. Woman has as much to lose as man if it results in failure. And man sets ideals before woman. She must be worthy of him and she gently and to understand is most grateful to him. Thus she develops herself in the direction of his ideals and both are elevated. She may also to some extent transform the environment, if it be no more than the inner circle of the family. The combined effect, even in an individual case, is considerable, and when we remember that in any given community, town, city, state, or country, the majority of men and women pass at least once, sometimes twice or several times, through the phase of life known as being in love, waiting and working for the longed-for day when they are to possess each other, struggling to prepare themselves for each other and for that happy event, we can readily believe that such a stimulus must work great social results. The history of the world is full of great examples, but the volume of achievement thus wrought is made up of thousands, nay, millions of small increments in all lands and all shades and grades of life, building ever higher and broader the coral reef of civilization.

 

REFERENCES

[1] International Journal of Ethics, Vol. VI, July, 1896, p. 453. [click thumbnail]
WARD
[2] “Antimachus of Colophon and the Position of Women in Greek Poetry,” by E. F. M. Benecke, London, 1896. “Primitive Love and Love Stories,” by Henry T. Finck, New York, 1899.
[3] “Angola and the River Congo,” by Joachim John Monteiro. In two volumes. London, 1875, Vol. I, pp. 242-243.
[4] “Travels in Southern Africa,” in the years 1803, 1804, 1805, and 1806, by Henry Lichtenstein, English translation, Dublin, 1812, p. 261.
[5] Journals, etc., Vol. II, p. 321.
[6] “Histoire de la Civilisation en France depuis la chute de I’Empire Romain,” par M. Guizot, 3e éd., Vol. III, Paris, 1840, Sixième Leçon, pp. 351-382.
[7] “Histoire générale de Ia Civilisation en Europe depuis la chute de I’Empire Romain,” par M. Guizot, 4e éd., Paris, 1840, Huitième Leçon, pp. 231-257.

Marie Petti: Gynocentrism in 1922

petti-may-7-1922

Man Is A Mere Imposter And Woman Is Supreme, Says Ultra-Feminist Head
London, May 6. 1922

“Man is but one of a million humble fertilizers. Nature intended woman to reign supreme.”

Marie Petti, leader of a secret ultra-feminist movement that has sprung up throughout the British Isles, today voiced this slogan of the new organization. Although still clandestine, the organization is reported to have gained tremendously in membership and influence since first it was promulgated a month ago. It aims to restore womankind to its “rightful place.”

Miss Petti was asked by the United Press to state the beliefs on which her movement is based.

“Modern man,” she replied, “in his pose of superiority, is but a mere contemptible imposter, who must be subdued. Woman’s superiority has been scientifically established.

“At the beginning of organic life, woman, created man, and ruled him. He was a parasite, and a slave.”

“At best, man is but an afterthought of nature.”

At secret meetings of the new movement, a charter, based on data from the days before woman fell, is being drawn up, Miss Petti declared. She said at these meetings, any mention of the word man or anything masculine was hissed. [1]

_________________________________

 

London Women Would Oust Men – Clan of Man-Haters Seeks to Sweep Males Prom Face of Earth
London, Apr. 30, 1922

Tenets of Man-Haters
petti-may7-1922-quote
Mere man is about to be swept off the face of the earth if “ultra-feminists” have their way, Elliott O’Donnell, author and investigator of distinction, informs the International News Service. The tenets of the ”ultra-feminists” who are organized to unthrone man, are, according to O’Donnell, as follows:

“In the beginning there was only one sex, the feminine – man was a mistake, a mere afterthought.”

“There is no need for any sex other than the feminine.”

“Love between the sexes is only weakness, temporary madness.”

Life begins as female, life is feminine.”

“Parthenogenesis or virgin birth proves the oneness at the substance out of which all things are made.” [2]

petti-apr23-1922-headline-text

 
Sources:

[1] William M. Sweets, “Man Is A Mere Imposter And Woman Is Supreme, Says Ultra-Feminist Head,” syndicated (UP), The Pittsburgh Press (Pa.), May 7, 1922, p. 1
[2] “London Women Would Oust Men – Clan of Man-Haters Seeks to Sweep Males Prom Face of Earth,” syndicated, Tulsa world (Ok), Apr. 30, 1922, p. 14

Originally published at The Unknown History of MISANDRY

Post-gynocentrism culture: a counterculture or subculture?

By Peter Wright and Paul Elam

Global Team - Americas

Post-gynocentric attitudes are entertained by an increasing number of people, and by groups like those focused on Men’s Human Rights Advocacy (MHRAs), Women Against Feminism (WAF), and Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW). While they all demonstrate a reaction against gynocentric culture, it’s an error to conceptualize them as engaging in countercultural activity alone.

It should be noted that countercultural involvement is not always conscious and may be an unintended byproduct of committments that clash with the dominant culture. There are few examples of this better than Men Going Their Own Way. They demonstrate a new model for culture, and comprise a peaceful subcultural demographic that is at once countercultural, simply by going about their lives within the larger society.

Before we get to what ‘going about their lives’ means, let’s first make a few distinctions.

To clarify the distinction between subculture and counterculture, the following passages from Howard P. Chudacoff’s book ‘The Age of the Bachelor’ are instructive. Chudacoff asks if the values, behaviors and institutions typical of bachelors comprise a subculture — in other words, a subset of the general culture — or whether they are part of a counterculture that openly conflicts with the general culture. He begins by defining the difference between subculture and counterculture:

“A subculture exists as a reasonably benign component of a more general culture. The defining characteristics of a subculture may include such qualities as age, ethnicity, region or occupation. The elderly, the Irish, southerner’s, and carpenters are all subcultures. As well, a subculture may consist of people tied to each other by mutual special interests, such as bird watching, gun ownership or vegetarianism. According to one authority, the most important element in distinguishing a subculture is the degree to which values, artifacts and identities are shared among members. Such sharing is normally enhanced by the extent of conscious social separation between members of the smaller behavioral group and members of the larger society. Thus hair color can characterize a group but in itself is not a strong enough criterion for special separation — though certain cohorts of redheads or blonds might disagree. Youth or an interest in bird watching, by contrast, more likely would be sufficient qualities to create a subculture.

In an article published in 1960, J. Milton Yinger, a sociologist and leading authority on subcultures, separated the distinguishing characteristics of subcultures into four types: (1) aspects of life, such as religion, language, diet, or moral values; (2) duration over a period of time; (3) a common origin; and (4) a mode of relationship –indifferent, positive, or conflictual– with the surrounding larger culture. Yinger also distinguished between two types of subcultures: (1) those groups characterized by ascriptive qualities that differentiate the group from the larger society, qualities such as language and religion; and (2) those groups with norms that arise specifically from tension or conflict between that group and the larger society, separate norms common to groups such as youth gangs or homosexuals. He dubbed the second type “contra cultures” which he notes could develop a series of inverse or counter values that stand in opposition to those of the larger society. The term “contra culture” evolved into “counterculture” in the 1960s.

“According to Yinger, practically every person is born into a culture and is automatically a member of several subcultures, but an individual must actively and voluntarily join a counterculture. Moreover, conflict constitutes an essential element in the concept of counterculture, and such conflict differentiates a counterculture from a subculture. As sociologist William Zellner has written, “A subculture is part of the dominant culture, but some aspects of the subculture’s value system and life-style sets its members apart from the marger culture…” That is, a subculture normally does not pose a threat to the dominant culture. A counterculture, on the other hand, “is deliberately opposed to certain aspects of the larger culture.” Yinger has added that to understand a subculture, it is not necessary to understand its interaction with the larger society. But a counterculture’s identities a product of such interaction and can be understood only through that relationship. [Chudacoff, pp.12-14]

The title of this article asks whether post-gynocentric culture is better defined as a counterculture, or subculture? After reading the definitions above, the answer is unmistakably Both. Post-gynocentric culture defines itself in resistance to gynocentric culture and operates as a peaceful subculture based on human rights, equality, and greater freedom of choice than the larger culture currently prescribes – meta-ideological commitments that may, based on their increasing popularity, become principles of the culture at large.

The confluence should hardly be surprising. The Man Going His Own Way usually works, pays taxes, goes to school, socializes with friends, generally obeys laws and is indistinguishable on the surface from his cultural and subcultural counterparts.

However, his personal rejection of marriage, sex based chivalry or treating what relationships he has with women as a financial obligation – as well as his steadfast refusal of sex-based expectations on his values and actions — are all practiced in rejection and defiance of the culture at large. He is, through his personal choice, participating in counterculture, and as such is furthering advocacy by example of lifestyle and consciousness that is “deliberately opposed to certain aspects of the larger culture,” per Yinger.

The charge that post-gynocentric culture (including MGTOW, WAF and the MHRM) is merely a reaction to feminism can be dismissed. Post-gynocentric culture can’t be reduced to antifeminism any more than the black civil rights movement can be reduced to being anti-white, or the gay rights movement being reduced to anti-heterosexuality.

These are grossly oversimplified rationalizations — more symptomatic of cultural prejudice and backlash than credible explanations for the post-gynocentric culture’s existence. It may, however, be said that the drumbeat of reductionism characterized by these misperceptions adds momentum to the countercultural reaction.

Sources:

Howard P. Chudacoff, The Age of The Bachelor: Creating an American Subculture.
Peter Wright, Gynocentrism and its Cultural Origins
Peter Wright, A Voice for Choice
Paul Elam, What feminism is really about and why anyone who values freedom should fight against it
Paul Elam, Counterculture
Dean Esmay, Breaking the pendulum: Tradcons vs. Feminists
Dean Esmay and Paul Elam, On the MHRM, MGTOW, and Creating a Counter-Culture
August Løvenskiolds, Freedom from gynocentrism in 12 Steps

Post-gynocentrism culture

The following articles appear on A Voice for Men, the most comprehensive post-gynocentrism advocacy website on the internet. Each article presents a post-gynocentrism paradigm for individual or collective existence. – PW

ACfM logo

Freedom from gynocentrism in 12 Steps
Breaking the pendulum: Tradcons vs. Feminists
On the MHRM, MGTOW, and Creating a Counter-Culture
Why anyone who values freedom should be fighting against feminism
A Voice for Choice
Gynocentrism: A hierarchy of entitlement
Gynocentric Hegemony and the Counterculture
MHRM: counterculture or subculture?

The Marriage Boycott

The following articles describe the increasing post-gynocentrism phenomenon of marriage shunning by males, and the rationale behind it. – PW

No marriage

Marriage is a gynocentric custom
Slavery 101 – dating as taught to girls
Valentine’s Day: gynocentrism’s most holy event
Women complaining about lack of available slavemasters
Men not marrying
Men shouldn’t marry
Marriage is obsolete. Are women?
Men on strike: why men are boycotting marriage

mgtow smaller version

MGTOW & bachelorhood

The following articles offer perspectives on the MGTOW (Men Going Thier Own Way) movement – a significant post-gynocentrism subculture based on the principle of male self-determination. PW


The supposed danger of celibacy (1707)
MGTOW movement of 1898
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) – Definition
MGTOW: 12th century style
MGTOW – facts and fallacies
Subverting MGTOW