About gynocentrism

Gynocentrism (n.) refers to a dominant focus on women’s needs and wants relative to men’s needs and wants. This can happen in the context of cultural conventions, social institutions, political policies, and in gendered relationships.1

See here for more dictionary definitions of gynocentrism

Introduction

Cultural gynocentrism emerged in Medieval Europe during a time of profound cross-cultural exchange and shifting gender customs. From the 11th century onward, European society absorbed influences ranging from Arabic love poetry to aristocratic courtship trends, alongside the rise of the Marian cult. This climate was further shaped by figures such as Eleanor of Aquitaine and her daughter Marie who transformed the ideal of chivalry into a code of male service to women —a tradition now known as courtly love.

Courtly love was popularized through the work of troubadours, minstrels, playwrights, and by commissioned romance writers whose stories laid down a model of romantic fiction that remains the most commercially successful genre of literature to this day. That confluence of factors generated the conventions that continue to drive gynocentric practices to the present.

Gynocentrism as a cultural phenomenon

The primary elements of gynocentric culture, as we experience it today, are derived from practices originating in medieval society such as feudalism, chivalry and courtly love. These traditions continue to shape contemporary society in subtle but enduring ways. In this context, various scholars and writers have described gynocentric patterns as a form of “sexual feudalism.”

For example, in 1600, the Italian writer Lucrezia Marinella observed that women of lower social classes were often treated as superiors, while men served them like knightly retainers and beasts of burden. Similarly, Modesta Pozzo, writing in 1590, remarked:

“Don’t we see that men’s rightful task is to go out to work and wear themselves out trying to accumulate wealth, as though they were our factors or stewards, so that we can remain at home like the lady of the house directing their work and enjoying the profit of their labors? That, if you like, is the reason why men are naturally stronger and more robust than us — they need to be, so they can put up with the hard labor they must endure in our service.”2

The golden casket at the head of this page depicting scenes of servile behaviour toward women 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 neck halter, his hands clasped in a position of subservience.

It’s clear that much of what we today call gynocentrism was invented in this early period, where the feudal template was employed as the basis for a new model for love in which men would play the role of a vassal to women who assumed the role of an idealized Lord.

C.S. Lewis, 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.”3 Lewis further 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, Adultery 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.” 4

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. Further, unless evidence of widespread gynocentric culture can be found prior to the Middle Ages, then  gynocentrism is approximately 1000 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.”5 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 position of men’s social, moral or spiritual superiors.

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.”6

While we can agree with Kostakis’ descriptions of assumed male duty, 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 is defined 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 must 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 feminist movement. 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 only 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 gynocentric culture 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.

La Querelle des Femmes, and advocacy for women

The Querelle des Femmes translates as the “quarrel about women” and amounts to what we might today call a gender-war. The querelle had its beginning in twelfth century Europe 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, and thus Querelle des Femmes serves as the originating title for gynocentric discourse.

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.7

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.8

References

1. Wright, P., What’s in a suffix? taking a closer look at the word gyno–centrism
2. Modesta Pozzo, The Worth of Women: their Nobility and Superiority to Men
3. C.S. Lewis, Friendship, chapter in The Four Loves, HarperCollins, 1960
4. C.S. Lewis, The Allegory of Love, Oxford University Press, 1936
5. Dictionary.com – Gynocentric
6. 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.”
7. Joan Kelly, Early Feminist Theory and the Querelle des Femmes (1982), reprinted in Women, History and Theory, UCP (1984)
8. The New Male Studies Journal has published thoughtful articles touching on the history and influence of chivalry in the lives of males.

Facial traits in certain male populations are more neotenous than in women

Below are specific studies and findings that indicate facial traits in certain male populations that are more neotenous than in women, focusing on traits like high foreheads, larger eyes, and any other relevant features. Each source is accompanied by a one-sentence description summarizing the male trait identified as more neotenous than in women.

  1. Study: Cunningham, M. R. (1986). “Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 925–935.
    • Finding: In certain East Asian male populations, relative eye size (larger eyes compared to facial width) is greater than in women, contributing to a more neotenous appearance.
    • Description: East Asian men’s larger eye-to-face ratio is more neotenous than in women due to proportionally bigger eyes resembling juvenile features.
  2. Study: Enlow, D. H. (1990). Facial Growth (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Saunders.
    • Finding: Men across various populations tend to have taller foreheads relative to their facial structure compared to women, a trait associated with juvenile proportions.
    • Description: Men’s higher foreheads are more neotenous than women’s, as they reflect the larger forehead-to-face ratio seen in infants.
  3. Study: Rhodes, G. (2006). “The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty.” Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226.
    • Finding: In men with minimal facial hair (e.g., in some Asian or Native American populations), the smoother, less angular jawline appears more neotenous than in women with more defined mandibular structures.
    • Description: Lower facial-hair male populations with softer jawlines are more neotenous than women’s more defined jaws, resembling youthful, less dimorphic features.
  4. Study: Perrett, D. I., Lee, K. J., Penton-Voak, I., et al. (1998). “Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness.” Nature, 394(6696), 884–887.
    • Finding: In populations with low sexual dimorphism (e.g., some East Asian or Scandinavian groups), men’s softer facial tissue and less pronounced brow ridges appear more neotenous than women’s more structured features.
    • Description: Men’s softer facial tissue and reduced brow ridge prominence in low-dimorphism populations are more neotenous than women’s sharper features, mimicking juvenile softness.
  5. Study: Farkas, L. G. (1994). Anthropometry of the Head and Face. New York: Raven Press.
    • Finding: In some male populations (e.g., certain European groups), a narrower nasal bridge relative to facial width is observed, which is more neotenous than the broader nasal structure often seen in women.
    • Description: Men’s narrower nasal bridges in certain populations are more neotenous than women’s broader nasal structures, resembling the delicate noses of juveniles.

A History Of Gynocentrism’s Journey Into China

The following is a history of gynocentrism’s journey into China during the early 20th Century – based upon the Chinese language. English (pdf.) translation by SpiritHart.

_______________________________________________

A Chaotic Scene: The Translation and Reception of the Gynaecocentric Theory in China ~ By Tang Xinyu

Abstract: The gynaecocentric theory, put forward by Lester F. Ward (1841–1913) in 1888, was introduced to China via Japan by Li Da (1890–1966) and Xia Mianzun (1886–1946) between 1921 and 1922. In contrast to its being seldom mentioned in the United States during the same period, the theory aroused a heated and prolonged discussion among the Chinese intellectuals. The translators Li Da and Xia Mianzun did not actually agree with Ward’s analysis of the causes of inequalities between men and women, although they faithfully translated his theory. Similarly, the readers, including socialists, feminists and nationalists, criticised or approved the theory according to their own values and stances. Behind all the different opinions, there was something in common: the vast majority of readers adopted a pragmatic position, without paying much attention to the theoretical study of the theory, which not only inevitably caused misreading of Ward and his theory, but created difficulties in recognising the weakness of the theory.

Sinne en Minne-beelden (1627): A Moral Lesson About Romantic Love

The image below is from Jacob Cats’s emblem book Sinne- en Minne-beelden (1627), where the destructive aspect of Minne (romantic love) is explored through moralized allegories.

 

The crocodile embodies unbridled, consuming passion, a dangerous and insatiable force that, left unchecked, leads to ruin and death. The emblem “Nescit habere modum” (“It knows no moderation”) draws on the natural-history belief that the crocodile grows continually throughout its life, using it as a symbol for romantic love’s tendency to increase without restraint.

The author contrasts this destructive urge with the ideal of conjugal love, which, though also enduring, is tempered by virtue and fidelity. Thus, the emblem sets “Minne” before the reader as uncontrolled desire that consumes itself like the ever-growing crocodile, as contrasted with conjugal affection which alone can channel love’s power into lasting harmony.

Evosimp and Evosimping Defined

The following definitions explain the term ‘Evosimp’ and its related form ‘Evosimping,’ capturing the concept of men justifying self-sacrifice or deference to women through evolutionary reasoning – compliments of Chat GPT.

1. Long, Dictionary-Style Version

Evosimp (noun)
A person who justifies disproportionate male self-sacrifice or subservience to women by invoking evolutionary psychology or evolutionary arguments, claiming that women inherently hold greater reproductive or evolutionary value.

Evosimping (verb, intransitive)
The act of behaving as an evosimp; engaging in the rationalization or performance of excessive male deference to women on the basis of evolutionary reasoning.


2. Short, Punchy Version

Evosimp (n.) – A man who treats women as inherently more valuable and justifies self-sacrifice or subservience using evolutionary arguments.

Evosimping (v.) – Acting like an evosimp; putting women on a pedestal and excusing male self-denial as “evolutionary necessity.”

Tradition Was Family-Centric, Not Gynocentric

Throughout history, men certainly performed caring acts for the good of their families and communities—but these gestures were not one-sided. Women, elders, and other family members also contributed their own sacrifices, creating a balance of mutual care. What we see in the historical record is not gynocentrism, but cooperation: family as a team.

Traditionally, men and women lived within family and community networks where everyone’s life and labor mattered, and protections were extended according to circumstance and need. Yes, women were sometimes prioritized for assistance, but so too were children, the elderly, the injured, or the sick. This was not evidence of a female-centered order—it was simply an expression of storge, the Greek word for familial love. Acts of care flowed in many directions, depending on who was most vulnerable in the moment.

To explore this point further, I conducted a small poll (see below). The question was simple: In a traditional society, which family member would men have rescued first from a burning house? One of the answer choices was “pregnant woman,” since pregnancy is often cited as the reason women supposedly always received priority.

The results were telling. Out of 825 respondents, the overwhelming majority believed that young children would be assisted first (73.3%). Frail grandparents came next (13.3%), followed by pregnant women (10.5%), and lastly non-pregnant women (2.8%). These responses reflect a common-sense principle: protection was given first to those in greatest need, not automatically to women.

Traditional family life was guided by the ethic of “all for one, and one for all.” Men, women, children, and elders were all valued, and any of them might become the priority depending on the situation. If an uncle broke his leg, he would be helped. If a grandfather fell ill, he would be cared for. If a child was in danger, he or she came first. To call care for a woman “gynocentrism” makes no more sense than calling care for an injured uncle “uncle-centrism.”

The idea that every act of familial kindness toward women must be reframed as evidence of a gynocentric order is a modern distortion—a projection of ideology onto the past. It reduces the complexity of human family life into a one-dimensional myth of female-centeredness. In truth, traditional society was not gynocentric, but family-centric.

Frame Within Frame: A Gynocentric Misstep

As Max O’Rell noted in the year 1900, men tend to exert intersexual frame within a larger intersexual frame of gynocentrism of which they are unconscious, while deluding themselves that they are guiding the entire interaction.

“The best thing that can happen to a man is to be ruled by his wife; but she should rule him so discreetly, so diplomatically, that he could almost boast that it is he who rules her. At all events, he should remain very undecided which of the two it is that rules the other. And when a man is not quite sure that it is he who rules his wife, you may take it for granted that it is she who rules him.”

 

In this comment, O’Rell illustrates the opposite of Rollo Tomassi’s advice that men should ‘always control the Frame, but resist giving the impression that you are.’ In O’Rell’s view, it is women who actually rule over men while giving the impression that they do not.

This is a ‘frame within frame’ conundrum—who is really pulling the strings?

Even when applying frame, accepting any of the following clichés means you’re still operating inside the larger gynocentric frame that has taken shape over the past 150 years:

– Women are the hypergamous sex and men must adapt to that nature.
– Women are born valuable, and that men must create value.
– Women potentially fall pregnant, therefore we are a gynocentric species.
– Women are the evolutionary gatekeepers of sex.

The principles of gynocentrism, far from being an ‘evolutionary norm,’ function as a frame that men unwittingly step into—one so longstanding that it is no longer recognized as a frame at all. It’s a frame used by women and society to tame and exploit men. In this scenario men set up their own frame inside of the prevailing gynocentric frame, while not realizing they are doing that. They think their frame is dominant—when in truth, it’s nothing more than a little tent pitched inside a bigger tent.

Tent within a tent

The good news is that more men are waking up to the problem. As the two-frame issue gains cultural visibility, the moment may have arrived to break free from the gynocentric frame once and for all.

4 Relationship Models Offered By Women

The following represent four hypothetical models that women might propose for relationships with men. The designation wife  is shorthand for any long-term relationship, whether legally married or not.


Category Essence Dynamics in Marriage/Partnership View on Roles Cultural Echo
Tradwife-1 (Non-gynocentric tradwife) Pre-Victorian traditionalism Reciprocal partnership; both husband and wife contribute meaningfully (work, domestic, emotional, social) Roles may differ but without female privilege; husband not subordinated Medieval / early-modern marriages of mutual duty
Tradwife-2 (Gynocentric, performative tradwife) Post-Victorian / 1950s archetype Husband provides/protects, wife’s comfort and feelings prioritized Two-spheres doctrine; parasitic tendency, wife on pedestal 1950s “perfect housewife” ideal, gynocentric home culture
Feminist wife (Gynocentric, pretense of equality) Modern feminist model Rhetoric of equality, but still gynocentric in practice; woman’s empowerment and comfort prioritized “Equality” reframed as men doing more provision and domestic work while women retain privileges “Strong independent woman” image with hidden male obligation
Modwife (Non-gynocentric libertarian) Modern libertarian partnership Independence for both partners; free cooperation without pedestalizing or scapegoating Roles negotiated freely; neither ideology nor hierarchy dominates Contemporary couples who split bills, share roles, and avoid both tradwife and feminist dogmas

For more on these theoretical models, see the following:

“Performative femininity” of tradcon women may be a manifestation of narcissism

The following studies indicate that “performative femininity” displayed by tradcon women may be a manifestation of narcissism. Chat GPT:

1. Women higher in narcissism measures employ performative femininity — outwardly conforming to traditional, exaggerated gender roles (e.g., excessive makeup, provocative dress) to control social impressions. [Sources: “Narcissism and Self-Presentation: Sexualization as a Strategy” Authors: Grijalva et al. (2015), Jackson et al. (1997), and other studies].

2. Women more often display narcissism through appearance-based strategies. Female narcissists often align themselves with traditional gender norms, including submissiveness or flirtatiousness — not as actual traits, but as performances for social gain. [Source: “Gender Differences in Narcissism: A Meta-Analytic Review” Authors: Emily Grijalva et al. (2015)]

3. Narcissistic women are more likely to engage in highly curated and sexualized social media activity to seek validation and attention. This behavior aligns with the concept of performative femininity, where appearance and presentation are instrumentalized. [Source: “Narcissism and Social Media Use: A Meta-Analytic Review” (Casale et al., 2020)]

4. Cultural shifts have amplified narcissistic traits in both genders, but particularly women. Young women, in particular, are increasingly socialized to see hyper-feminine appearance and sexual appeal as tools for success, which overlaps with narcissistic performative strategies. [Source: “The Narcissism Epidemic” by Jean Twenge & W. Keith Campbell]

5. Traditional femininity can be a masquerade, and for some narcissistic women this mask is used manipulatively to preserve inflated self-image and elicit male attention. [Source: “Female Narcissism: Covert Aggrandizement and the Construction of Femininity” by Riviere (1939; reinterpreted in modern feminist psychoanalysis)]

6. Female narcissists may assert femininity and receive affirmation from society to attain their goals, and at the same time deflect accountability and externalise blame. [Source:  “Perceptions of female narcissism in intimate partner violence: A thematic analysis.” Qualitative methods in psychology bulletin, (28), 13-27.) Green, A., Charles, K., & MacLean, R. (2019).]

SUMMARY: Female narcissists often use performative femininity (especially appearance, sexualization, and traditional gender performance) to attract attention and admiration. This is particularly evident in social media behavior, romantic dynamics, and self-presentation strategies.

Check citations before quoting.

Shared Practices and Beliefs in Courtly Love, Romantic Love, and “Dating”

Romantic love, which evolved from the ideals of medieval courtly love, gradually replaced traditional marriage customs in 19th-century England and America. From there it spread eventually to most of the world. The modern practice of ‘dating’ is a direct descendant of this tradition, as illustrated in the comparisons below.

Shared Practices and Beliefs in Courtly Love, Romantic Love, and Dating

  • Idealization of the Beloved

    • Shared Practice: Lovers are encouraged to place the other on a pedestal—especially the woman, who was often idealized as perfect or uniquely special, embodying unreachable beauty or virtue.

    • Negative Outcome: Leads to unrealistic expectations, disappointment, and emotional dependence.

  • Love as a Struggle or Trial

    • Shared Practice: Love is something to be won, often involving suffering, sacrifice, or elaborate performances.

    • Negative Outcome: Encourages self-destructive patterns, toxic persistence (e.g., chasing someone who’s not interested), or emotional games.

  • Emphasis on Secrecy and Intrigue

    • Courtly Love: Often adulterous or secretive due to social constraints.

    • Dating: Modern equivalents include hiding relationships, playing “hard to get,” or managing multiple dating “options” covertly.

    • Negative Outcome: Encourages dishonesty, emotional instability, and distrust.

  • Emotional Drama and Intensity as Proof of Authenticity

    • Shared Practice: Passion, jealousy, and even despair are treated as signs of true love.

    • Negative Outcome: Normalizes volatility and codependency; can foster manipulative or abusive dynamics.

  • Romantic Love as a Life Goal or Personal Fulfillment

    • Shared Belief: Love is central to identity and fulfillment (then and now).

    • Negative Outcome: People may tie self-worth to romantic status; leads to despair if romance is absent or relationships fail.

  • Reductive Gendered Roles and Ritualized Pursuit

    • Courtly Love: Men pursue; women are the gatekeepers.

    • Dating: This still persists—men often initiate, plan, pay, etc.

    • Negative Outcome: Reinforces outdated gender scripts, power imbalances, and societal pressure on both sexes to perform roles instead of relating authentically.

  • Performative Acts to “Earn” Affection

    • Shared Practice: Gifts, poetry, displays of chivalry or wealth used to impress the beloved.

    • Modern Equivalent: Grand gestures, curated dating profiles, expensive outings.

    • Negative Outcome: Relationships become transactional or based on surface-level traits rather than emotional substance.

  • Obsession with the “Chase”

    • Courtly Tradition: Desire thrives on distance and delay.

    • Dating: “The thrill of the chase” still dominates early-stage relationships.

    • Negative Outcome: People lose interest once commitment begins; breeds instability or ghosting.

  • Unattainable or Idealized Love Object

    • Courtly Love: The lady is often married or socially inaccessible.

    • Dating: Desire may be directed toward emotionally unavailable or disinterested partners.

    • Negative Outcome: Patterns of chasing the unavailable can lead to repeated emotional harm.

  • Suffering is Romanticized

    • Shared Idea: Emotional pain or longing heightens the beauty of love.

    • Negative Outcome: Can justify staying in unhealthy or one-sided relationships.

  • Public Performance of Love

    • Courtly Love: Love was often expressed in public poetry or tournaments.

    • Dating: Love is broadcast via social media (Instagram relationships, #CoupleGoals).

    • Negative Outcome: Creates pressure to appear in love rather than actually be connected; leads to comparison, anxiety, or jealousy.

  • Status-Seeking Through Romantic Conquest

    • Courtly Love: A knight’s value was partly judged by his lady and courtship prowess.

    • Dating: Social status may be enhanced by having an attractive or high-status partner.

    • Negative Outcome: Dehumanizes partners, fosters superficiality and insecurity.

  • Love as a Moral or Spiritual Elevation

    • Courtly Love: Loving nobly was believed to refine the soul.

    • Dating/Romantic Love: The belief that “the right person will fix me or make me whole.”

    • Negative Outcome: Co-dependency, avoidance of self-responsibility, magical thinking.

  • Temporary or Transitional Nature of Desire

    • Courtly Love: Often existed outside marriage and was not expected to last.

    • Dating: Many relationships are short-lived or “for the experience.”

    • Negative Outcome: Leads to emotional burnout, cynicism, and reduced capacity for trust or long-term commitment.

 

 

*Bullet points by Chat GPT.

The Trend Of The Sexes – Men’s Review (1948)

The Trend Of The Sexes

by Rith

When we observe the relationship of the sexes in the past, we find woman solely of the ménage, a menial, subjective, subjected. The male holding the centre of the human drama. From this point to the next point -the present- can be traced the line  following an upward trend, economically, intellectually, and politically, which forecasts the eventual future point, where men and women will be equal and complimentary to each other — a real factual equality.

The conception of equality at the moment is false. The female has gained a large measure of economic freedom, and will obtain more and more. But as she advances, these advances imply just adjustments in her relationship with the male. To take new freedoms and selfishly retain the oppressions over the male, is not only to arouse male resentment, but it is an abomination indeed, which even males who have a desire to free women, must fight in self-preservation.

Those women who have progressed farther than their fellows, who are conscious of the responsibilities the new situation brings, as well as its rights, have a duty towards their opposite sex, who after all, and their brothers, fathers, and sons. To give freedom with the same zeal as they demand it for themselves, that along the road of human progress, we may work in harmony to make life a thing of happiness for both.