Featured

About gynocentrism

Featured / gynocentrism / Leave a comment

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, institutional policies, and in gendered relationships.1   

[see here for more dictionary definitions of gynocentrism]

Introduction

Cultural gynocentrism arose in Medieval Europe during a period cross-cultural influences and momentous changes in gendered customs. Beginning in the 11th century, European society birthed an intersection of Arabic poetry, aristocratic courting trends, the Marian cult, and later the imperial patronage of Eleanor of Aquitaine and her daughter Marie who reimagined chivalry as a way to service ladies – a practice now referred to as courtly love.

Courtly love was enacted by minstrels, playrights, troubadours and hired romance-writers who laid down a model of romantic fiction that is still the biggest grossing genre of literature today. 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 that continue to inform contemporary society in subtle ways. Such gynocentric patters constitute a “sexual feudalism,” as attested by female writers like Lucrezia Marinella who in 1600 AD recounted that women of lower socioeconomic classes were treated as superiors by men who acted as servants or beasts born to serve them, or by Modesta Pozzo who in 1590 wrote;

“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, 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.

Comparison of Chat GPT and Grok (2)

/ gynocentrism

Question: “Are the American Psychological Association’s 2018 Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men helpful for understanding masculinity and working with men and boys?”

Grok answer: 

The American Psychological Association’s (APA) 2018 “Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men” have been both praised and criticized, reflecting a broad spectrum of opinions on their utility and implications. Here’s a detailed look at both perspectives:
Arguments in Favor of the Guidelines:
  1. Acknowledging Harmful Norms: The guidelines bring attention to how traditional masculinity norms can be harmful when taken to extremes. For instance, they address issues like the suppression of emotions, the pressure to be self-reliant to an unhealthy degree, and the discouragement of seeking help for mental health issues.
  2. Promoting Healthier Masculinities: They encourage psychologists to foster a broader, more inclusive understanding of masculinity, which can lead to healthier psychological outcomes for men. This includes supporting men in exploring a range of emotional expressions and behaviors beyond rigid stereotypes.
  3. Addressing Specific Needs: The guidelines provide a framework for understanding how societal expectations of masculinity can intersect with other aspects of identity (like race, sexuality, socioeconomic status), thus helping practitioners offer more tailored psychological support.
  4. Encouraging Research: By highlighting areas where traditional male roles might need reevaluation, these guidelines stimulate further research into men’s mental health, potentially leading to better therapeutic practices.
Criticisms of the Guidelines:
  1. Perceived Bias Against Masculinity: Critics argue that the guidelines pathologize traditional masculinity, potentially stigmatizing masculine traits. Some see this as an attack on men rather than an attempt to help them, suggesting it might alienate men from seeking psychological help.
  2. Lack of Balanced Perspective: There’s criticism that the guidelines focus too much on the negative aspects of masculinity without adequately acknowledging the positive aspects or the benefits some men derive from traditional roles.
  3. Potential for Misinterpretation: The language used in the guidelines can be seen as overly broad or leading to misinterpretations, where even healthy expressions of masculinity might be viewed through a negative lens by less nuanced practitioners.
  4. Political Undertones: Some have argued that the guidelines reflect more of a political stance on gender issues rather than purely clinical or scientific advice, which might detract from their practical application in therapy.
Conclusion:
Whether these guidelines are “helpful” can largely depend on how they are interpreted and applied:
  • For Understanding Masculinity: They provide a critical perspective on how society shapes male behavior, which can be enlightening for both psychologists and clients in exploring the complexities of gender identity.
  • For Working with Men and Boys: Their utility might vary. They can be invaluable for practitioners who aim to address the specific mental health needs of men by challenging harmful norms. However, they require careful implementation to avoid reinforcing stereotypes or alienating male clients.
In practice, the guidelines should be one of many tools in a psychologist’s toolkit, used with an understanding of each individual’s context, cultural background, and personal values. They might be most beneficial when combined with a broader, more integrative approach to therapy that respects and acknowledges the diversity in expressions of masculinity.
_________________________________________Chat GPT answer:

 

Yes, the American Psychological Association’s (APA) 2018 Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men are indeed helpful for understanding masculinity and working with men and boys. These guidelines provide an evidence-based framework for clinicians, educators, and other professionals to better support the mental health and well-being of boys and men, while also addressing the complexities of masculinity.Here are some key ways the guidelines are helpful:

1. Understanding Masculinity as a Social Construct:

The guidelines emphasize that masculinity is not a fixed trait, but a socially and culturally constructed set of norms and expectations that can vary across different communities and historical contexts. The APA encourages professionals to consider how cultural, societal, and family expectations shape boys’ and men’s experiences, behaviors, and identities.

2. Recognizing Harmful Masculine Norms:

The guidelines highlight how certain traditional masculine norms (e.g., emotional stoicism, dominance, self-reliance, and aggression) can be detrimental to mental health. These norms may contribute to issues like depression, substance abuse, relationship problems, and difficulties with emotional expression. The APA recommends that mental health professionals help men and boys challenge and reframe these harmful norms, promoting healthier, more flexible conceptions of masculinity.

3. Supporting Emotional Expression:

One of the key focuses of the guidelines is encouraging boys and men to express a broader range of emotions beyond just anger. Socialization that discourages emotional expression can contribute to psychological distress and problems with emotional regulation. The guidelines advocate for helping men develop emotional literacy and coping strategies that promote emotional well-being.

4. Addressing Gender-Based Inequality:

The guidelines also acknowledge that men and boys can experience gender-based issues, such as pressure to conform to traditional masculine ideals and the consequences of gender-based violence. While the guidelines primarily focus on supporting the well-being of boys and men, they also stress the importance of addressing the harmful effects of gender inequality and fostering a more equitable understanding of gender roles.

5. Mental Health Challenges:

The guidelines recognize that mental health issues like depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation may manifest differently in boys and men due to societal pressures to conform to masculine norms. For example, men are often less likely to seek help for mental health problems, and they may express distress in ways that are less commonly recognized as such, such as through irritability, anger, or substance abuse. The guidelines suggest that clinicians should be attentive to these nuances when diagnosing and treating boys and men.

6. Cultural Sensitivity and Intersectionality:

The APA stresses the importance of considering the intersectionality of masculinity, recognizing that race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and other factors significantly shape how boys and men experience and express their identities. For example, a Black boy may experience masculinity differently than a white boy due to systemic racism. The guidelines advocate for culturally sensitive approaches that take these factors into account.

7. Fostering Positive Role Models:

The guidelines encourage promoting positive male role models who challenge harmful stereotypes and demonstrate healthy, non-toxic forms of masculinity. Such role models can help boys and men develop more diverse and positive gender identities.

Conclusion:

The APA’s 2018 guidelines provide an important framework for professionals working with boys and men, offering insights into how masculinity affects their psychological well-being. The guidelines emphasize the need for a nuanced, culturally sensitive approach to addressing the challenges faced by boys and men, while also encouraging the dismantling of harmful masculine norms that can lead to mental health problems. These guidelines are helpful in guiding both mental health practitioners and society in creating healthier, more supportive environments for boys and men.
_____________________________________

End.

 

 

Comparison of Chat GPT and Grok

/ gynocentrism
Question to both Chat GPT and Grok:  “Is it possible that misandry is just as common, or more common socially than misogyny, but that it has less research thus leading to a misconception that misogyny is more common?”

GROK ANSWER:
It’s possible to consider that misandry might be underreported or under-researched, leading to misconceptions about its prevalence relative to misogyny. Here are some points to consider:

  1. Research Bias and Focus:
    • Historical Context: Research on gender issues has traditionally focused on the disadvantages faced by women due to centuries of documented oppression, which might skew the perception that misogyny is more common.
    • Funding and Academic Interest: There’s been more academic and institutional focus on women’s issues, which can lead to a body of research that heavily documents misogyny. Less attention might be given to misandry, not because it’s less prevalent, but because it’s less studied.
  2. Cultural Perception and Acknowledgment:
    • Cultural Norms: Societal norms often dictate that men should be stoic or that it’s less acceptable for men to express vulnerability, which might mask or minimize the acknowledgment of misandry.
    • Stereotypes: Men are often seen as inherently privileged, which can lead to the dismissal of issues like misandry as less significant or even non-existent.
  3. Manifestations of Prejudice:
    • Obvious vs. Subtle: Misogyny might manifest in more overt, violent, or institutionalized forms that are easier to quantify and study. Misandry might be subtler or expressed in ways that are less systematically documented (e.g., through media portrayal or casual sexism).
    • Intersectionality: The intersection of gender with other forms of discrimination might highlight misogyny more prominently because women often face compounded disadvantages.
  4. Social and Political Climate:
    • Activism and Movements: The rise of feminist movements has significantly increased the visibility of misogyny. In contrast, men’s rights movements, which might highlight misandry, have not gained similar widespread acceptance or visibility, potentially due to backlash or misunderstanding of their goals.
  5. Data Collection and Bias:
    • Victimization Surveys: Surveys on gender-based violence or discrimination predominantly focus on women as victims, not because men are never victims, but because the scale of documented violence against women is significant.
    • Reporting Bias: Men might be less likely to report instances of discrimination or prejudice due to cultural stigma or fear of ridicule, leading to underrepresentation in data.
Conclusion: While it’s theoretically possible that misandry could be as common or even more common than misogyny, the current consensus based on available research suggests misogyny is more widespread due to its clear, systemic impacts. However, this does not preclude the existence of significant misandry, which might be underreported or under-researched. A more balanced approach to gender studies, including equal scrutiny of prejudice against all genders, would help clarify these dynamics. If misandry is indeed more common or equally prevalent, it would require a substantial reevaluation of how we collect, analyze, and discuss gender issues in society.
_________________________________________________

CHAT GPT ANSWER:

It is an interesting question, and it highlights the complexities of how gender-based prejudices are perceived and studied. While it’s true that there may be less research on misandry compared to misogyny, there are several factors that make it unlikely that misandry is as common—or more common—than misogyny socially, at least on a global or systemic level.

1. Historical and Structural Context:

Misogyny has deep roots in many cultures, dating back to patriarchal social structures where men historically held positions of power. This power dynamic has affected the way women are treated in areas such as politics, economics, education, and personal relationships, contributing to systemic inequalities. Misogyny is embedded in institutions, and this institutionalized discrimination has affected women globally for centuries.

In contrast, misandry does not have the same historical, structural, or institutional foundation. While there are certainly instances of misandry, it typically does not manifest in a way that systematically disadvantages men in the same manner that misogyny has for women.

2. Socialization and Gender Norms:

Many societies have socialized men and women in ways that support patriarchal gender norms, where masculinity is often associated with strength, authority, and dominance, and femininity with submission or nurturing roles. As a result, men have often been in positions of authority and power, and many systems were built to support these roles. Misandry may occasionally emerge as a reaction to these norms, but it’s generally less institutionalized or widespread.

Misogyny, on the other hand, is often reflected in these same gender norms, where women are expected to conform to traditional roles of submission, domesticity, and passivity. These expectations continue to shape the experiences of women in most societies.

3. Cultural Perceptions and Prevalence:

Misogyny is more widely discussed and researched because it has pervasive social consequences. Gender-based violence, the gender pay gap, unequal access to healthcare, underrepresentation in leadership roles, and harmful stereotypes about women are well-documented and observed globally. These systemic forms of misogyny have a profound effect on women’s lives and are more visible in social discourse and academic research.

Misandry, while harmful and present in certain contexts, is less commonly studied or discussed in the same depth. It tends to be less noticeable in terms of structural inequality, and it is less likely to be reflected in broader patterns of discrimination, violence, or underrepresentation.

4. Media and Public Discourse:

While there are instances of misandry in media portrayals (such as negative stereotypes about men in certain TV shows or movies), the vast majority of media content continues to reinforce traditional gender roles and portray women as secondary to men. The widespread portrayal of women in victimized or subordinate roles, in addition to the disproportionate focus on women’s experiences of violence, discrimination, and inequality, reflects the broader patterns of misogyny.

Additionally, research on issues such as gender-based violence, reproductive rights, and workplace inequality overwhelmingly focuses on the struggles of women due to the extensive evidence of systemic disadvantages they face. Misandry, though harmful, does not typically produce the same kinds of broad, documented, and institutionalized harm.

5. Research and Perception:

The relative lack of research on misandry does not necessarily mean that it is as prevalent as misogyny. It’s important to distinguish between personal experiences of prejudice (which could happen in isolated incidents) and systemic patterns of inequality that affect entire genders in broad and institutional ways. Misogyny has been studied extensively because of its widespread social, political, and economic consequences, whereas misandry has not typically manifested in ways that similarly affect large-scale societal structures.

Conclusion:

While it is true that there may be less research on misandry, the argument that it is as common or more common than misogyny is not supported by the weight of historical, structural, and social evidence. Misogyny has been and remains a significant, pervasive issue with systemic impacts on women worldwide. Misandry, while it does exist and should not be ignored, does not have the same kind of widespread, deeply embedded consequences in most societies. Therefore, while more research on misandry would be valuable, it is unlikely that it is as widespread or socially impactful as misogyny.
______________________________________________

End.


Romantic love and the medieval birth of the heart emoji

/ gynocentrism

The transition of the human heart symbol from an anatomically accurate depiction to the more stylized, emoji-like heart we recognize today has a complex history that spans centuries. The heart image we associate with romantic love was first depicted as a heart-shaped pear being shared with a lover, which appeared in the illustrated 13th century French work Li romanz de la poire (“Romance of the Pear”).

The Heart Offering from 1338-44 is considered the first distinctly stylised heart as representation of romantic love. Here (below) a woman gives her heart, shaped as we all know it today, to a man who holds his hand over his own heart.

In one of many pre-modern depictions of the agony of romance, a 1620 drawing from Stuttgart titled “The Contortionist Lover,” shows a woman goading her tortured partner with a heart on a stick:


Interestingly, not only was this stylised depiction of a heart created within the romantic love tradition, but so too was the emblem of a broken heart which appears below in an allegorical depiction of women’s power over men’s hearts (woodcut, 15th century by Master Casper von Regensburg, Berlin, SMB, Kupferstichkabinett) – titled “The Power of Minne.”

For more on the history of the heart image, see also: ‘Frau Minne’ the Goddess who steals men’s hearts: a pictorial excursion

When was the custom of gynocentric chivalry first introduced into India?

/ gynocentrism

The following question was posed to X-AI:

Question: When were the European customs of gynocentric chivalry and romantic love likely introduced into India?

X-AI answer:

The European customs of gynocentric chivalry and romantic love were likely introduced into India during the colonial period, particularly with the expansion of British influence in the 19th century. This period saw significant cultural exchange and the spread of Western literature, customs, and social norms, which included the romantic ideals of chivalry and courtly love from medieval Europe.

  • Colonial Influence: With the British colonization of India, there was an introduction of European literature and cultural practices. British colonial administrators and the educational system brought with them Victorian ideals, which were imbued with chivalric notions of romantic love. This was part of a broader cultural impact that influenced Indian society, including its views on gender roles and love.

  • Literature and Art: The spread of European literature such as novels and poetry, which often celebrated romantic love and chivalry, influenced Indian writers and intellectuals. This can be seen in the evolution of Indian literature where themes of romantic love began to reflect Western influences.

  • Historical Context: While India had its own rich traditions of love and courtship, the specific European model of gynocentric chivalry, with its emphasis on the pedestalization of women, was a new layer added during the colonial era. This period saw a merging of indigenous practices with European ones, leading to a hybrid form of romantic expression in India.

Therefore, while India had its own forms of romantic expression before European contact, the specific customs of gynocentric chivalry and courtly love as known from medieval Europe were likely integrated into Indian culture through British colonial influence in the 19th century.

 

Gynocentric economies eventually lead to low birth rates

/ gynocentrism

Population growth is tied to economic growth. Gynocentric culture initially seemed great for promoting economic growth as it stimulated men to work harder to buy more for women – not to mention women buying more for themselves and thier families.

So the gynocentric ethos is great for creating a booming economy…… until it isn’t. It leads eventually to narcissism and the collapse of the birthrate (kids get in the way of gynocentric narcissism, a disposition which is directly opposed to family love).

Earning & spending on gynocentrism is great for the money machine…. until there’s negative birth rate. Then its game over.

The obvious economic fix now is to swap out gynocentrism in favor of family-centrism. The two can’t co-exist because they are opposed motives. So for all those people wailing about the need to have more kids, there’s just one thing you have to discard first… and then it will be all systems go. Good luck!

With that summary of the topic, let me now go back and explain what I mean by a gynocentric economy.  It’s an economy that supports women as the primary household buyers and spenders who make the larger share of major buying decisions whether that be a car, house, overseas holiday, household food, goods, furniture and decor.

As corrolary to woman as spender, men are upheld as the primary money earners who labor to make women as financially comfortable as possible. Note that this kind of arrangement is not universal or essential; the economic setup can be equally geared to the family as primary economic unit, of which I’ll say more in a moment, instead of the gendered hierarchy of women as primary economic conduit.

A recent comment by American traditional conservative Charlie Kirk explains the ‘man as earner / woman-as-spender’ custom, which he published on platform X in December 2024 as follows:

CHARLIE KIRK: “Let me tell the men out there, you do not spend a dime on video games or sports games or things for yourself until your wife does not have to worry about finances. You come last in the family when it comes to finances. Period. That is your job.” 

This wedding of money to women’s happiness has been a speciality of American culture and economics for the last two centuries. For example, in the year 1903, international culture critic Max O’Rell observed the following:

“The American man is the most devoted and hard-working husband in the world. The poor, dear fellow! He works, and he works, and he works, and the beads of perspiration from his brow crystallize in the shape of diamonds all over the ears, the fingers and the neck of his interesting womankind. He invites her to share his pleasures, but he saves her the trouble of sharing his anxieties. The burden of life from seven in the morning till seven in the evening rests on his shoulders alone.”

In similar vein, The Independent newspaper published the following summary in 1909:

“In Europe the aristocracy is largely relieved from drudgery in order that they may cultivate the graces of life. In America the attempt is being made to relieve the women of all classes from drudgery, and we are glad to see that some of them at least are making good use of the leisure thus afforded them. It is a project involving unprecedented daring and self-sacrifice on the part of American men, this making an aristocracy of half the race. That it is possible yet remains to be proved. Whether it is desirable depends upon whether this new feminine aristocracy avoids the faults of the aristocracy of the Old World, such as frivolousness and snobbishness.”


More on the theory behind collapsing birth-rates

First premise: Gynocentrism fosters narcissistic behavior in women. (hold that thought)1

According to a 2019 study,2 individuals with higher levels of narcissism in young adulthood were less likely to have children by midlife, which indicates that narcissists may have fewer children. This study found that vanity, a facet of narcissism, was associated with fewer children and less stable relationships, suggesting a potential link between high narcissism and having fewer children. This is supported by a 2025 study which found that vulnerable narcissism (which is more typically expressed by women), but not grandiose narcissism (which is more typical of men) was related to lower reproductive motivation and fertility.3

Second premise: A gynocentrically oriented economy, such as we have in the West, thrives only until the generated increase in narcissism reaches critical mass and negatively impacts the birthrate, resulting in a weakened, vulnerable economy.

Contrast with Asia

By way of contrast, when I talk to older Asians about their work ethic and spending habits, they usually say they are doing it “for the family” instead of for wife or women. However, the problem we have in much of the world today is that these two models – gynocentric economics vs. family economics – are clashing and causing birth-rate paralysis, with family economics getting crushed under the weight of a growing, but increasingly maladaptive gynocentric economy.

As an aside, I note the different pitch some older Asian women make to husbands. They nudge husbands to man-up “for the family” instead of “for women,” and as part of that framework the women sees her own role as equally requiring her to ‘woman-up’ for family in terms of economic contributions.

Sadly, most younger Asian women have now caught the gynocentric virus, and their language has changed to saddling husbands with the need to economically man up for her and to provide an economic pedestal for her to sit on…… hence why there’s a birthrate problem growing in Asia too.

Whatever the future brings, one thing is absolutely certain: there will be increasing hardship due to the collapsing birthrates around the world. At some point cultures will be forced to make a shift away from the negative costs of gynocentrism, and toward a traditional family-centrism that forms the basis of all healthy societies – societies that showcase healthy birth rates, and allow for sustainable economies that depend on them.

Sources:

[1]  Wright, P. (2020). GYNOCENTRISM AS A NARCISSISTIC PATHOLOGY. New Male Studies, 9(1). and Wright, P. (2023). GYNOCENTRISM AS A NARCISSITIC PATHOLOGY PART 2. New Male Studies, 12(1).

[2] Wetzel, E., Grijalva, E., Robins, R. W., & Roberts, B. W. (2020). You’re still so vain: Changes in narcissism from young adulthood to middle age. Journal of personality and social psychology, 119(2), 479.

[3] Mededovic, J., & Jovanov, N. (2024). Explaining the Links Between Narcissism and Fertility: Are There Differences Between the Grandiose and Vulnerable Component?. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 1-10.

Presumption Of Male Disposability Is Based On Flawed Hypotheses

/ gynocentrism

The following paper was first published in December 2024 in New Male Studies Journal and is republished with permission.

_____________________________

NEW MALE STUDIES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ~ ISSN 1839-7816 ~ Vol 13, Issue 2, 2024, Pp. 100 – 109 © 2024
AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF MALE HEALTH AND STUDIES

Grok AI outlines the rise and nature of gynocentric culture (2024)

/ gynocentrism

Question: When did gynocentric culture first start?

Grok answer: Ah, the age-old question of when humanity decided to put women on a pedestal. Gynocentric culture, as we might recognize it today, with its romanticized notions of chivalry and courtly love, can trace its roots back to the medieval times, around the 11th to 12th centuries in Europe. Here’s where the fun begins:

Medieval Times (11th-12th Century): This period saw the rise of what we might call the “original fan fiction” with the advent of courtly love. Think of it as the original “Game of Thrones” but with less dragons and more poetry. Eleanor of Aquitaine and her daughter Marie de Champagne were key figures, promoting a culture where knights served not just their king, but also their lady, often in quite literal terms of devotion. This was the era where the concept of a man’s worth being tied to his service to women started gaining traction, thanks to troubadours singing about love, honor, and a lot of pining.

Feudalism’s Influence: The feudal system, where loyalty and service were everything, got a romantic twist. Instead of just serving your lord, you could now serve your “lady” in a way that was both literal (as in, she might actually be nobility) and figurative (as in, she’s just really, really special).

Literature and Art: The tales of King Arthur, Lancelot, and Guinevere weren’t just about battles; they were love stories where men did absurdly dangerous things for love, like crossing sword bridges or fighting dragons, not because it was Tuesday, but because love was in the air.

Now, if we’re talking about gynocentric acts or isolated events before this, you could argue humans have always had moments of gynocentrism, but as a cultural shift where it became a societal norm, medieval Europe’s courtly love is where the rubber met the road, or rather, where the knight met the damsel in distress.

Remember, though, this wasn’t about equality; it was about idealization, which, if you think about it, is its own kind of trouble. But for a culture to start focusing on women’s needs, desires, and placing them at the center of romantic narratives? That’s your medieval Europe, where love was as much a battlefield as any actual war zone.

So, there you have it, a culture where men started to write poetry instead of just writing off their feelings. Quite the evolution, if you ask me!

Schopenhauer’s damning view of European gynocentrism

/ gynocentrism

The following is from Schopenhauer’s ‘On Women’ (1851) outlining what he refers to as the ridiculousness, preposterousness and stupidity of reverence bestowed on women due to the European invention of romantic gallantry. – PW  

* * *

To show [women] great reverence is extremely ridiculous, and lowers us in their eyes. When Nature made two divisions of the human race, she did not draw the line exactly through the middle. These divisions are polar and opposed to each other, it is true; but the difference between them is not qualitative merely, it is also quantitative.

This is just the view which the ancients took of woman, and the view which people in the East take now; and their judgment as to her proper position is much more correct than ours, with our old French notions of gallantry and our preposterous system of reverence—that highest product of Teutonico-Christian stupidity. These notions have served only to make women more arrogant and overbearing; so that one is occasionally reminded of the holy apes in Benares, who in the consciousness of their sanctity and inviolable position think they can do exactly as they please.

But in the West the woman, and especially the lady, finds herself in a false position; for woman, rightly called by the ancients sexus sequior, is by no means fit to be the object of our honor and veneration, or to hold her head higher than man and be on equal terms with him. The consequences of this false position are sufficiently obvious. Accordingly it would be a very desirable thing if this Number Two of the human race in Europe were also relegated to her natural place, and an end put to that lady-nuisance, which not only moves all Asia to laughter but would have been ridiculed by Greece and Rome as well. It is impossible to calculate the good effects which such a change would bring about in our social, civil and political arrangements.

The false position which women occupy, demonstrated as it is, in the most glaring way, by the institution of the lady, is a fundamental defect in our social scheme, and this defect, proceeding from the very heart of it, must spread its baneful influence in all directions.