Featured

About gynocentrism

Featured / gynocentrism / 1 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.

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.

Anatomy Of A Kneel

/ gynocentrism

By Vernon Meigs

Man’s dignity begins with and is measured by how he stands his ground. When you see a man who does, you see a man with his spirit intact, defended, or being healed. You are seeing a man who owns himself, and belongs to no one else. This is one kind of man.

Now direct your attention to another kind of man: the man who kneels. The man on his knees. You see a man who lives by others’ expectations, others’ arbitrary standards, and others’ undue authority. You see a man that does not own himself, and his spirit broken.

The question of the purpose of man, in both the senses of humanity and the human male, is of particular urgency in something such as the Men’s Human Rights Movement. The case for men standing his ground today is in tandem to the case that he was always meant to.

We once again address the bizarre case for “natural gynocentrism” which attempts to determine that man is meant to service womankind, intrinsically, because of “biological reasons”. Attached to it is the notion that man should not change it and instead accept such an existence, albeit with the possible stipulation that gynocentrism has “gotten out of hand”.

This is the notion that mankind evolved to pedestalize women, and that’s why we are here. Ergo, man was always meant to live on his knees for women. Because biology.

It is for this reason we must make clear and advocate for a new cultural narrative that says no, mankind was never meant to grovel, but instead is meant to hold himself up, and always was.

Perhaps it is much more than a convenience of evolution that human beings are creatures that stand tall on two legs. It could be that there is a deeper, metaphysical meaning behind that evolution. What does it mean to bring such a creature down from where he stands?

The observant will notice that not only is there not enough defense of the man who stands for himself, but rather glorifies the kowtower, and alleges its charm, calling it “humility.”

If it is improper for a human being to be brought to his knees, then it follows that it is improper that anybody expects another human being to be on their knees for them. Taking all of this into consideration, we can point at where kneeling takes place in our society – who does them, for whom. Who expects this behavior. Who demands it. Who can’t imagine life without it.

From kowtowing to authority figures to going on his knees to attain women’s approval, mankind has made this practice an unquestioned habit. Under comfortable labels such as “sacrifice”, “humility”, “service” and even “love”, the symbolic groveling act holds the status of virtuous behavior. The refusal to do so holds the status of reckless independence, stubbornness, and adolescent rebellion.

They are, in fact, partly right about the latter. Standing tall and defiant on one’s feet requires independence. A streak of recklessness, for lack of a better term, can be a recipe for successful risk-taking endeavors where necessary. There is no problem with stubbornness if it means refusal to compromise one’s values and the well-being of himself and his own kin. Some of us can stand to revisit our adolescent energy in the face of the Saturnian stagnation of cold authority. Furthermore, being a rebel for the right cause is always noteworthy.

Make no mistake that those that uphold the virtues of subservient existence consider these qualities anathema. They aren’t misnomers, meaning that they are not mistaken in their choice of words as they blame independence for not being a good, humble-enough groveler.

What it Means to Kneel

Cast off all the clutter of empty justifications and excuses in the mind that grasps for any wholesome meaning to kneeling, and let’s cut to the chase with this one. I’m going to tell you what going down on your knees really means.

We have to realize that kneeling is not a picture made up of one figure, but at least two. Even if it is a solo act, something abstract fills the second role. Figure A is of course the kneeler, the creature on his knees. Figure B is the one that Figure A is at the feet of. Figure B stands, and looks down at Figure A.

B knows that the dirt is A’s rightful place. B may profess “compassion” and can possibly permit B to look up at A, emphasis on permit, but not generally; typically, A must avert his eyes.

The brutally honest interpretation of the image is Figure A representing the defeated being, the diminished, the lower, the inferior, the unworthy; Figure B would then represent the pedestalized, the exalted, the usurper, the tyrannical, the one that looks down and condescends.

This is a common historical toxic relationship between two humans – one human basking in the glory of being higher of another lowly, broken human. A relationship of host and parasite instead of equally human but different individuals – a defiance of human dignity, a false uplift involving the lowering of another.

There is no exception to this formula when we look at the everyday phenomenon of Romantic kneeling. A man is always expected to be on one or both of his knees. The woman, in presumed exaltation, looks down on him, and knows that in her mind and that of the society that upholds her, that he belongs there. He is hers to use and dispose.

Flip the genders, and this would constitute some sort of toxic, abusive relationship. The fact that it is acceptable the way we see it occurring in our real world is the problem that should be addressed and challenged.

It should be considered a form of sadism for a woman to actually be delighted to be in this position, or to observe this occurrence as a third party and classifying it as joyful. Likewise, it should be considered a form of masochism for a man to partake in such fundamental submission.

Too many think that these are the sort of things men do that women should be thankful for. At the risk of once again the message falling under deaf ears, I have to make this point yet again by asking the question: why is a man groveling on his knees and debasing himself something to be thankful for?

Why is the risk to men’s well-being and sacrifice of their time, health, and very lives subject to female gratitude? Why does the belittling of one for the pedestalization of another have any place in what is supposed to be a civilized society, in which all of humanity enjoy same dignity as human beings?

The Meaning of Natural

A common response I receive when I speak out against the expectation that gynocentrism is natural goes something like the following: “I do believe it is natural, even if I am against it.”

Again, a reminder of what is meant by gynocentrism: deference to women and their needs and wants at the expense of men and their needs and wants. These people are saying this state of affairs is natural, no matter what they ultimately feel about it. In other words, biologically proper to the species.

Perhaps it is only fair to reference two contexts of “natural”: evolutionarily arrived at, and what is metaphysically meant to be. I will attempt to respond to the allegation of “gynocentric nature” from both of these contexts.

We are generally preoccupied with human reproduction as well as the survival of the species when invoking evolution in justifying gynocentrism. A favorite bromide, paraphrased, is “A man can inseminate many women and the tribe will survive, whereas the opposite is unsustainable, therefore women’s survival is more valuable than any man.”

I will remind you that too many antifeminists love this argument; beware of the ones that parrot it.

But as it turns out, if humanity was “centric” about anything, the case would be better made that it would be about the children since it is their survival that trumps both adult men and women, at least so it has socially been accepted. Even without the argument from child-centrism, both men and women are equally valuable and necessary, and men have to be highlighted now because of how they are treated as extras at best, disposable and less than human at worst.

Gynocentrism clearly prioritizes male groveling and catering to females as if they are a superhuman level of being. Either that, or the male is subhuman; regardless, the tiers are clear. Female more valuable than male. But if it rings true that men are what build society, then is vulgar to even imagine them as anything but valuable.

The question to ask then becomes this: is it biologically natural for men to be downplayed as a subspecies of human of little to no importance to the evolutionary equation? Is degradation and mortification mankind’s natural state as it is the natural state for the female of the species to treat them accordingly?

There is a sickening prospect as traditional gynocentrists indulge in this line of thinking. Observe how they refer to the “science” of evopsych propaganda to justify the existence of the gynocentric status quo, just like Nazi Germany used the “science” of racial superiority as fuel for their particular ethnic crusade. Both use a form of scientism to justify classifying one group of humans as above, and the other below.

It is important to note that there is much more to the nature of humanity than just its survival and how it reproduces. The evolution of humanity chiefly has to do with how it evolved into its current physical and social form. As I have stated, Humanity evolved to stand and walk on its own two feet. Clearly, it is a large factor in bringing the species to where it is now.

Remember, however, what Homo Sapiens means: “Thinking Man”. Thinking is more than solving math problems or recognizing landscapes or realizing that fire burns…or worse, obeying; it is about asking questions – philosophy was born with the human, as he first contemplated the reason for his limited time on Earth.

Conclusion

What, then, is natural to mankind? To stand, to think, to achieve greatness.

What is decidedly not natural to mankind? To act in contrary fashion to the meaning of mankind. To not think, in other words conform. To not achieve, in other words to berate greatness or even worse, to destroy it. To not stand, in other words, to go down on his knees and grovel.

Based on what I have stated thus far, groveling is an act of non-humanity. The same species that looks forward and up for his aspirations and goals and ultimately followed through to create wonders civilizational, technological, and creative cannot simultaneously say that he is a mere animal in subservience.

Kneeling, then, means assuming the role of the subhuman. It becomes improper for anyone, man or woman, to assume the role that which condescends another human as a subhuman role. To see a man on his knees should be met with grave concern, instead of bubbling saccharine gratitude.

Groveling to the female of the species is completely incompatible to the nature of mankind as a bipedal driver of the motor of the world, end of story. This is my response to those who say that gynocentrism is natural, no matter whether they hate it or not: we are against gynocentrism because it is not natural, but rather a social disease with no proper biological backing.

Consider then why any woman must want this. Ever since the attempt to weasel into sex-relational favoritism by way of Romantic Love and courtship, in which the first gynocentrist gave an irresistible sales pitch that says “men much be subhuman servants to holy womankind” in order to curry favor with a woman, the stage was set. Women learned to see men as marks.

This has been my case for challenging the act of the kneel as gracious or wholesome as our gynocentric world loves to insist.

The next time you see a man proposing to a woman on his knees, know that he is degrading himself no matter the outcome of the proposal. The next time you see a man kowtowing on his knees to an authority figure that may or many not be divine, he is not practicing humility in any meaningful sense but rather has integrated his unworthiness as a human.

Kneeling is a gross affirmation of man as a sacrificial animal. It is an admission that he lives for the approval of tyrants big and small.

The reason why this should be placed as a higher issue for our men’s movement is because too many who call for “real masculinity” cite kneeling as an actual masculine trait. This is a danger, and we will do well to know one when we spot one.

The Great Conflation: Romantic vs Christian Love

/ gynocentrism

By Paul Elam

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians, 5:25 (NASB 1995)

In my experience, this is one of the more commonly quoted bits of scripture. I’ve had it recited to me, sometimes more like thrown at me, by other Christian men when discussing marriage and relationships. It’s most often used when the conversation turns to contentious wives and how to handle them within scriptural canons.

To be frank, most of the time I’ve heard Ephesians 5 invoked, it came across as a copout; a convenience for men without boundaries or leadership qualities to explain their failure to stand up to their wives, or, and even worse, as a way to soften the spines of other men who might consider rebuking their wives for their contentious ways. In other words, it’s “go to” scripture for emasculating and emasculated men. I’ve seen no shortage of clergy who also fall into this category.

This unfortunate tendency to conflate love with weakness is pervasive and part and parcel to the feminized facsimile of Jesus now being peddled by mainstream churches. To tell the truth, I don’t think it’s possible to overstate the negative impact that this misinterpretation of scripture has visited on the church, on the expectations that Christian men and women have of each other, and on the institution of marriage itself.

But I’ll try.

And I’ll start with a shout-out to Javier, whose suggestion in the recent chat I started piqued my interest right away. I offer this with a linguistic caveat. I pledged when I started this series of lectures that I would avoid all of the foul language that accentuated my work prior to my Christian life. Out of respect to Javier, I’ll read the suggestion as written, and I quote:

“Consider a series where you take a typical thing a woman says, which is usually a shit test, and dissect the various ways to respond to it. Almost like a school for how to deal with women in a long-term relationship when they start to gradually introduce disrespect.”

Fantastic suggestion, but one that requires some rebranding. I will henceforth refer to the well known test, as a leadership test. I think this works out pretty well since that is actually what it is. Language problem resolved.

Also, I want to approach this from a slightly different angle than you’d normally expect from someone in the red pill space. Rather than tag this and future similar talks as how to overcome leadership tests, I’m calling this, “How to love your wife as Christ loved the church.”  Like the term, “leadership test,” I think “How to love your wife as Christ loved the church,” drills down much more succinctly on the designated topic.

But herein is the problem. The mind of the Western man and woman, Christian or not, is saturated and thoroughly corrupted with the romantic love narrative. When the conversation turns toward women and love, the Western mind automatically and reflexively conjures up images of romance, of giddy, undying infatuation, gallantry, chivalry, and worshipful praise, particularly of the woman. And I submit to you, dear listener, that this model of a man loving a woman doesn’t just evaporate when reading Ephesians 5:25. It continues to wield its influence, unabated, shaping our perceptions and our beliefs. It clouds our minds to what is actually meant by loving your wife as Christ loved the church. So, the task here is to first and foremost, long before we ever contemplate how to respond to disrespectful behavior, to clear out the romantic clutter from our worldview: to actively and purposefully reject the notion of romantic love when considering the love we have for a woman. We must, I tell you now, be unburdened by what has been… Sorry, I just couldn’t resist.

I should note here this confusion, this conflation of Christian love with romantic love, which I now call the “great conflation,” is a matter of historical record. After all, marriage based on romantic love is a recent development in anthropological terms. That kind of marriage, resting entirely on the insanity of infatuation, has only been happening for about 150 years. For countless thousands of years before that, marriages were arranged for the benefit of the families that were united by the institution. This involved, depending on circumstances, either dowries or bride price as the compensatory payoff for the union. It’s a topic I’ll be digging into an upcoming interview I’m doing with “This is Shah,” a man who has done significant investigation and research on the subject.

Suffice it to say for now that the Great Conflation did not go unnoticed. It’s been referenced in works by CS Lewis, but it was perhaps most succinctly nailed down by the great moral and religious thinker, Leo Tolstoy, who in 1888 wrote, and I quote, “I wish to open the eyes of all to the real nature and the tragic consequences of this substitution of romantic for Christian love.” End quote.

Keep in mind that that was written at the same time that romantically based marriage was coming into full swing as the latest social fad in the western world. Tolstoy wrote about what he was seeing play out in society, including the church, in real time. This may come as a surprise to those who have erroneously believed that marriage had always been a matter of romantic love. I would not hold that against them too harshly. Everyone operating in the romantic model is subject to such conditioned ignorance.

So, where does this leave us? Once we’ve cleared our view of romantic clutter, we need to answer the question, just how did Christ love the church?

Of course, the moment we actually do that, and attempt to answer the question honestly, it becomes abundantly clear that Christ’s love for the church wasn’t romantic. Christ didn’t send the church flowers. He didn’t take it on lavish vacations, or whisper sweet nothings in the church’s ear. He didn’t kneel before the church offering jewels. Indeed, he never tried to impress the church in any way. He never responded to a problem in the church with the pathetic surrender of, “yes, dear.” It was often quite the opposite.

Mind you, Christ loved the church, just as he loved all mankind. He gave his life for the church, just as he gave his life for you and me. In that light, the biblical lesson of that kind of love is clear where it concerns wives. We are to love them completely. We are willing to die for their protection. And, at least in my mind, this is where any similarity to the chivalrous model of romantic love begins and ends. The rest, every example of Christ’s love witnessed and recorded in scripture, takes a very different path.

The first thing we must acknowledge is that Christ’s love of the church was corrective.

In Revelations 2:14-16 Christ says to the Church of Pegamum;

“Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality. Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.”

Call me crazy, but that doesn’t sound like date night.

To the Church of Thyatira, Christ, while commending their love and service, nonetheless rebukes them for allowing Jezebel to lead believers into sexual immorality and idolatry. He urges them to repent. That is from Revelation 2:20-23.

Indeed, as we study the scripture in Revelations, we see churches lined up like ducks in a carnival shooting game as Christ draws a bead on them, one after another. For reference, see Revelations 2:4-5, Revelations 2:10, Revelations 3:1-3 and Revelations 3:15-19

Furthermore, in Matthew 21:12-13 and John 2:13-17 Jesus corrects the misuse of the temple when He drives out the money changers and merchants in a violent outburst of righteous indignation. He condemns the commercialization of worship and the way the temple, a house of prayer, had been turned into what He called a “den of robbers.”

In Matthew 23, Jesus delivers a series of “woes” to the Pharisees and teachers of the law, who represented the religious establishment. He corrects them for hypocrisy, legalism, and their focus on outward righteousness while neglecting justice, mercy, and faithfulness. Though not addressing the Christian church directly, this correction speaks to the same religious hypocrisy that now infects the modern Christian church.

Finally, we see in Matthew 16:23 the Rebuke of Peter, Christ’s personally designated rock on which the Christian church was built. For after Peter tries to prevent Jesus from going to the cross, Jesus sternly rebukes him by saying, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

There are countless other examples in scripture that fall along these lines. The Pauline Epistles amount to a collection of church spankings, with the Apostle Paul wielding the paddle through divine inspiration. I invite you now to find more examples in scripture that clearly demonstrate Christ’s love for the church and post them to the comments below.

And what are we to conclude from this about Christ’s love for the church? Well, it was obviously a corrective love. Christ held the church accountable for straying from its duties and sacred obligations. He insisted that the church adhere to its holy purpose, and was quick to rebuke the church when it didn’t.

That’s obviously not romantic love, as romantic love, by its very nature, elevates women above being rebuked. I think it’s fair to say that it elevates women above the church, and you can now witness the results of Tolstoy’s warning about that throughout Churches in the Western world.

Now, with this as the foundational understanding, we can begin to consider how to love our wives as Christ loved the church. We can now have meaningful dialogue about how to deal with the inescapable leadership tests that all women employ in their relationships with men. That is, we can do all that if we have examined, broken down and rejected the notion of romance, a tool of Satan designed to undermine both family and church.

That can be an ongoing challenge. Romance entered the family the same way that crack entered the inner city, and with largely the same deleterious effect. Like crack, romance is addictive. It’s pretty on the outside, it’s seductive and feels incredibly good for a while, but ultimately ends in ruin for most who take the bait and run with it.

As I continue this series of talks, I’ll do so assuming you’ve broken the code; that you’ve taken the red pill and have wiped away fairy tale mirage. You’re now free, sans romanticism’s unhealthy sentiments and ridiculous expectations.

Now that we have the foundation corrected, we can begin our work in earnest.

And with that, I will see you again with the next installment of the 425.

* * *

The above video was first published at Paul Elam’s 425 Podcast, and is posted as text version by permission. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘Q & A’ with Peter Wright – by Jana Xiolier

/ gynocentrism

Jana Xiolier posed the following questions to Peter Wright on July 4, 2024 .

Q. What do you think of our current culture and how it treats men?

A. In today’s culture, men are no longer appreciated for their presence or contributions and are routinely despised, especially when they fail to be of service to women and the State. This is because Western culture has lost its sense of family love – called storge by the Greeks – and in its place we now have atomised individuals driven by a narcissistic preoccupation with themselves; it’s a mindset that reduces men to mechanistic, utilitarian functionaries for the benefit of others, or to failures in that mandate.

Q. Do you feel fairly treated as a man?

A. If the benchmark for fairness is being treated with equal value, I think its reasonable to conclude that men are not – which I would say is demonstrated by the higher suicide rate of Western males. By way of comparison, Chinese women suicide in higher numbers than Chinese men, which also demonstrates the question of human value but with genders reversed.

Q. Do you think men have more power than women on a societal level?

A. Men more often hold the power of office, but what they do with that power deserves further consideration. To give an example, a local council where I live has eleven elected councillors (8 men and 3 women) who recently voted on whether to apportion money for celebrations of International Men’s Day in the city. The 8 men voted yes to funding, and the 3 women voted no! In a similar resolution voting to issue funds for International Women’s Day, the same 11 councillors voted yes, unanimously. My observation is that gendered use of power is generalizable to these examples; ie. men extend chivalry and consideration to women, but it is not reciprocated by women.

On a more general note I agree with Nancy Armstrong’s observation that there exists ‘two spheres’ of influence – one male sphere, and one female. She states that the interpersonal contract of romantic love and family relationships, which are directed largely by women, can often overrule the social contract controlled largely by male office holders.  The result is that love can be the most powerful regulating convention between two parties – a possibility that is little considered by feminist writers in their rantings about males holding all the power in all domains.

Q. Do you think feminism is interested in equality?

A. Not at all. “Equality” on the feminist tongue serves as a euphemism for securing unearned and often unequal power for themselves, and for women more generally. This motive points to a definition of feminism that most people would agree with: i.e., feminism is the project for increasing the power of women.

Q. Does feminism help men?

A. Feminism sets out to actively harm men in many instances. Strangely enough, feminism may accidentally help men in some ways, especially when they get legislation passed for the purpose of empowering women, but men end up exploiting the same legislation to their own benefit. For example, legal redress for victims of sexual harassment or physical abuse, or even the ‘abuse excuse’ designed for women who murder a spouse are things men have used to their advantage, which elicited outrage by the feminist architects of these systems. In fact there has also been a trend of men claiming (but only on paper) that they are trans-women in order to secure multiple female-only privileges: for example, in Switzerland a man legally classified himself a woman on government documents and was able to retire younger and receive a pension at the same age as women. A man in Ecuador also changed his status to female, on paper, in order to gain custody of his children after divorce, as his country typically awards child custody to women. In Germany and also Norway, men have identified as women, on paper, in order to gain access to female-only university courses (eg. STEM quotas), or to gain access to female-only scholarships. These men did not “transition” in any material way, and were simply exploiting the gender privileges that have accumulated exclusively around the female sex.

Q. What do you think are the major issues facing men today?

A. First issues that come to mind are a lack of social valorization, which leads them to feeling worthless and paves the way for suicidal outcomes. A second major issue is the weight of imposed guilt that men carry around for being supposed members of a violent oppressor class. I could go on to list more men’s issues, but these two items are among the most crushing for men and boys, working in the background of their psyches, which means that rectifying these messages would lead to a number of improvements for men – and by extension for Western society as well.

Q. What do you think a true path towards equality between men and women would look like?

A. Socially that would look like an equal valuing of men and women, and would rest legislatively on ‘equality of opportunity’ in place of the current feminist push for ‘equality of outcomes’ (equity).

Q. Can you tell me of an experience of someone you know or yourself that was unfair and related to our culture’s treatment of men?

A. For me the heart breaker scenario is men in horrifically abusive relationships who can’t leave for good reasons, men who sometimes suffer the double horror of being falsely painted an abuser by the actual female abuser – then having the world come down on that same man and multiplying his pain. I’ve seen many men in this situation, and feeling alone is an understatement for what they are going through. If readers know any man in this position, I encourage you to consider helping them – whether materially, or even simply with some kind words and a listening ear which may prove the difference between him living versus suiciding.

Q. Do you know of any experiences of people who have experienced issues with women in their lives or with the court system etc etc.?

A. Too many to count, and I wager most readers here will feel the same – the system is rigged against men from beginning to end. Again, if you know any man going through a break-up and family courts, consider if you can offer them some kind of support.

Q. What do you think of traditional gender roles?

A. Another tricky question because there’s a variety of “traditional roles,” each one differing somewhat in its customs and conventions. For example in the West we have two primary traditionalisms: the first one is highly gynocentric (prioritising wife/woman somewhat over husband and children) and the second model is a non-gynocentric tradition which values gender roles on the basis that they exist as service roles within the wider family nexus; this is a model I can get behind. I wrote two detailed articles on traditional gender roles titled, The Tradwife Revisited and Anti-Gynocentrism Is The Only Anti-Feminism That Matters – which I’d encourage readers to read if they want more detail. To summarise those two articles, I praise traditional gender roles that are non-gynocentric and family oriented, with the caveat that we now live in a society that doesn’t support that model – in fact it actively tries to undermine it and rip it down.

Q. What do you think of intersectionality?

A. Advocates of the intersectional model claim its a way of seeing, and of being more inclusive toward marginalised people. In practice however, I’m seeing the opposite; the theory gets used for the sake of excluding people deemed too high on their ‘privilege wheel,’ and such exclusion is often based on wide categories like ‘whiteness’ or simply ‘maleness.’ On that basis I completely reject its interpretation & application.

Q. One last question. What would you say to the argument that the world is more child-centered than it is gynocentric? In that women are only centered, as much as they are, because they are useful to nature and that it is an attempt to center children, meaning that gynocentrism is an inaccurate way of describing society’s focus on the issues women face?

A. One popular hypothesis holds that women have always been more ‘centered’ than other family members who remained on the periphery, this being due to women’s usefulness in reproduction and in the raising of children.  I reject this argument as another attempt to smuggle gynocentrism into families. The gynocentrism displayed today towards women who don’t have any children, and who plan to remain childless, is evidence that something other than child-centrism is at play in our centering of women.  I think that something else amounts to a gendered narcissism that aims to place women ‘on a pedestal.’ Far from being an evolutionary adaptation for production of children, this practice results in the maladaptive outcome of less pairbonding between men and women, acrimonious relationships, higher divorce rates, and plummeting birth rates.

In traditional societies all members of the family are considered central to the functioning of the family unit, providing an environment of support for the raising of children. And if any member of the family suffered injury or needed extra support, it was based wholly on need and not on being female. For example, I recently conducted a poll on X that fleshes out people’s reactions to this question: “In a traditional society, which family member do you think men would have assisted out of a burning house first?” The answers to that question & the results are as follows:

In summary, all family members throughout our evolutionary history needed protection, or ‘centering’ to use your word, in order to be part of a strong, viable family team. But that isn’t called gynocentrism; it’s called storge as mentioned above. All family members were protected – as indicated in the poll. If women were vulnerable and needed protection occasionally, they would be. Men, too, were protected if they were injured, old, sick, or in need. Protection & provision has always been based on the shifting needs of various family members – whoever had the most immediate need was catered to, cared for and centered.

* * *

Jana Xiolier’s YouTube Channel:  Women Against Feminism

What Is Gynomyopia?

/ gynocentrism

The following is a definition of ‘gynomyopia’ is by Grok AI  (19/08/24)

* * *

What is gynomyopia?

Gynomyopia, as described in various contexts, primarily refers to a type of myopia (nearsightedness) where the focus is on issues or perspectives related to women to the exclusion or minimization of men’s issues or perspectives. Here’s how it’s commonly understood:

1. Feminist Context: In discussions around feminism or gender issues, “gynomyopia” has been used to describe a narrow focus on women’s experiences or issues, often to the point of ignoring or downplaying men’s issues. This term suggests a critique of certain feminist or gynocentric viewpoints that might overlook or dismiss the challenges men face, thereby presenting a skewed perspective of gender dynamics.

  • Example: If discussions about domestic violence focus almost exclusively on male perpetrators and female victims, without acknowledging cases where the gender roles are reversed, this could be labeled as gynomyopia.

2. Medical Context: While not directly related to the gender-focused definition, in medical terms, myopia generally refers to nearsightedness, where close objects are seen clearly, but objects farther away are out of focus. If we stretch this metaphor to social or political issues, gynomyopia could imply seeing “close” (women’s issues) clearly while having a blurred vision of “distant” (men’s issues) concerns.

  • However, there’s no widely recognized medical term “gynomyopia” in the context of eye conditions. The term seems to be a play on words, merging “gyne” (related to women) with “myopia” to metaphorically describe a limited viewpoint.

3. Cultural or Social Critique: In broader cultural discussions, gynomyopia might be used to critique media, education, or policy-making that disproportionately focuses on female-centric narratives or issues, potentially at the expense of addressing or understanding male experiences.

  • Example: Policies or educational programs might focus heavily on empowering women or addressing issues like the gender pay gap without equally considering areas where men might face disadvantages, like workplace deaths, homelessness, or educational underachievement in certain subjects.
The term “gynomyopia” isn’t universally recognized or used in academic or formal settings but has found a place in online discussions, particularly among those critiquing what they see as an imbalance in gender discourse. It’s worth noting that while this term highlights a critique of focus, it’s also part of a broader conversation about how gender issues are framed and discussed in society, often reflecting underlying biases or oversights in public discourse.

 

“The One True Masculinity”
– Part 2: The Alpha

/ gynocentrism

As mentioned in Part 1, ancient cultures recognized dozens of male archetypes – as showcased in the example of Greek gods where each mythological character is presented as a carefully differentiated expression of masculinity.

Despite our tendency to think of Zeus as the single Alpha male of the pack, it’s more accurate to say that each god, each archetype, demonstrates alpha qualities in a specific domain; each demonstrating a different kind of power.

Zeus was Alpha in his political leadership, Ares in martial skill, Hephaestus in labour consciousness and artisan mastery, Apollo on intellectual pursuits, and so on. Conversely each of these characters are Beta, if not Sigma in the areas outside of their specialities, as demonstrated in the instances where each god was subjected to moments of dominance by another deity.

Looked at in this polytheistic way, modern descriptions of Alpha, Beta, Sigma etc. appear not only reductionistic as applied to real men (men who may excel in one area and not another), but also frankly gynocentric in the way each ranking is defined by an overriding criteria of whether a man is pleasing to, or useful for women. Is gynocentric appeal the only way to assess Alpha value?

By way of contrast none of the classic male gods (archetypes) described by the Greeks were based on what women want, which Alpha, Beta, Sigma etc. designations have unfortunately come to be defined today. Instead, they was based on special areas of male competency.

To summarize, humans are not like bears or wolves who become Alpha based on simple formulae like strength and bite force. Alpha masculinity in humans can demonstrate superiority via a plurality of competencies, a fact not lost on the makers of Marvel movies which showcase a shifting mantle of ‘Alpha’ based on the individual skillsets called for in a given (and always changing) situation. The sooner we jettison our singular notions of Alpha, the sooner we can get down to appreciating the rich diversity of masculine potentials.

* * *

Further Reading: The One True Masculinity

Setting The Record Straight: Gynocentrism, Biology, Culture And The Gender Empathy Gap

/ Peter Ryan

This article is dedicated to Gender Empathy Gap Day on July the 11th. To all men and boys, you do matter and more than you know! 

What is gynocentrism? In the simplest sense it is the preferential concern for the well-being of women and girls and their elevation in social status on the basis of their sex. It is the gender empathy gap. It is the discrimination of men and boys and in favour of women and girls. It is female supremacy and female superiority. In a word it is bigotry. We live in a culture that normalises gynocentrism so well, that people can run targeted campaigns solely promoting the concern for the female homeless and completely ignoring the majority of homeless that are male. People will even seriously argue the primary victims of war are in fact women and ignore the millions of male dead.

There are many other countless examples like this illustrating the gender empathy gap. The myopic concern over the lack of women and girls in STEM and the complete silence and inaction on men and boys falling behind at every level of education from kindergarten to postgraduate study is one example. The comparative lack of funding for men’s health in relation to women’s health, despite men living considerably shorter lifespans, dying of most major diseases earlier and in higher numbers and men’s far higher rates of suicide is another example. To add insult to injury, there are the female only quotas in employment and education and a complete lack of any effort to increase male representation in professions you would think gender diversity would be of highest relevance like psychology, education and medicine.

Perhaps the most glaringly obvious example is the willingness of society to force men off to be cannon fodder in war, whilst sparing women this male privilege. Possibly with that last example there will be some change in the US[1] where it concerns selective service. Even then it will be men no doubt who will actually be the ones deployed in combat zones in harm’s way if a major war breaks out, just as it is men that are overwhelmingly expected and in fact demanded by society to do all of the dangerous, dirty and unglamorous work in society. Work which frequently leads to chronic injury and sometimes death.

We live in a gynocentric culture and women enjoy a monopoly where it concerns receiving empathy from society for their issues as a group and as individuals. Our culture routinely segregates men and boys from women and girls where it concerns matters to do with who gets support and who does not and who gets preferential treatment with quotas and who has to excel purely on merit and be shamed for doing so. The truth of the matter is that we do live in a society of gender segregation with women elevated above men. The dominant gender ideology of our age, naturally reflects the bigotry of our age. Feminism did not create this bigotry, feminism emerged from it and is a reflection of a longstanding prejudice we have.

We are told this society is a patriarchy and yet the wider culture and every institution at every level condemns the very behaviour and systems of discrimination that feminism claims our society normalises. Like with so many things, feminist ideology has become projection and an inversion of reality. Has it always been this way? No it has not always been this way. I would not go as far as to say our past societies were purely patriarchal as feminists have described them, however I also would not go as far as to say past society has been purely gynocentric either.  Like with many aspects of society, for most of recorded history there has always been a mixture of elements in our culture that discriminate sometimes in favour of men and sometimes in favour of women. As Dr. Warren Farrell has written about in his book, The Myth Of Male Power[2], many of these double standards come from gender roles that themselves have arisen from societies relentless need to survive.

Whilst both sexes have faced unfair treatment on the basis of their sex, there has been a consistent pattern in our culture over the last 150 years to correct discrimination facing women. There has been relatively little current or historical effort to correct discrimination facing men. Why the difference? The gender empathy gap is the reason. Once technological change reduced the daily pressures on communities to survive and permitted desirable social change, the empathy we have for women drove female emancipation. In contrast we have not seen the same social change where it concerns the life of men and this is because our culture has lacked and still lacks the degree of empathy it has for women where it concerns men and the issues men face.

Men are still bound by the same traditional gender expectations that they have always been expected to adhere to. To protect and provide for others, often at their own expense and even sacrifice their lives in the process of doing so. Men are expected to not be the recipient of support and compassion from society and instead be the provider of such support. We have HeForShe campaigns but no SheForHe campaigns. We have White Ribbon campaigns and calls for men to stand up for women facing domestic violence, but no comparative movement for male victims of domestic violence, despite substantive rates of female perpetrated intimate partner violence against men.

Many point to biology as the origin of the gender empathy gap, making relatively simplistic arguments that the empathy gap has to do with women giving birth and the dependence on the community for enough women to survive so society can replace itself (the golden uterus dogma). The problem with this alluring but overly simplistic idea is that like the gender wage gap narrative, this explanation reduces a complex multivariate problem of sustaining a community or society into a model that has little resemblance to actual reality.

The golden uterus explanation for the gender empathy gap, reduces relatively complex requirements for a population to sustain itself down to primarily or exclusively one variable, simple reproduction. It does not give any proper or proportionate consideration for the numerous other factors that determine if a population will survive or perish, like maintaining the food supply and basic shelter. Many of these other factors related to survival, men play a more important or equally important role in. The golden uterus dogma does not consider the impact of losing the men and consequently the manpower available to provide the necessary food and resources a population needs to continue to subsist. Whilst a society may die out if enough women are lost, the same is true if enough men are lost and there are not enough men around to support the survival of the community. This narrow view of focusing solely on uteri and reproduction, also does not consider the impact of manpower allowing a society to thrive instead of merely subsist and in doing so making a society adaptable enough to withstand frequent environmental challenges and not die out.

Population size means little if everyone is starving and breeding without regard to basic survival constraints. This is why arranged marriage has been so common in so many cultures over the centuries, including in prehistoric times and why sexual relations between the sexes have often been heavily regulated by the community and by parents. More babies mean the community needs to support more children that cannot fend for themselves. Societies have been more concerned with regulating reproduction rather than focusing purely on maximising reproduction and how many uteri were available. Some cultures even still engage in female infanticide or leave female infants to the elements when they cannot be supported. Such practices of course are indefensible on moral grounds, but their existence and similar practices like them, fly in the face of this notion possessing a uterus makes someone more valuable as a human being and this therefore explains the gender empathy gap. The reality on the ground is more complicated than that.

Whilst I would not agree with the simplistic assertion women being the rate limiting factor of reproduction makes them more valuable and thus explains the gender empathy gap, biology is certainly involved to at least some degree in causing gynocentrism and the gender empathy gap. Sex differences arising from differences in life history strategy, mean that there is in my view a greater tendency for women to develop physical and psychological characteristics that elicit support or empathy from the community and a greater tendency for men to develop characteristics that promote a more individualistic, self-sufficient approach to survival and maximising reproductive success.

When a man can father hundreds of offspring, it can pay to take greater risks to maximise reproductive success and exhibit a high degree of personal agency and self-sufficiency and rely less on the community for support. In contrast when you can mother only a few dozen offspring at the most and spend considerable periods of time in a vulnerable physical state whilst pregnant and caring for infants, it can pay to take less risks and be able to garner the attention and empathy of the wider community for support.

The biological underpinnings of the gender empathy gap, is not about who is the more valuable sex. Such an explanation ironically reflects the same gynocentric bias it attempts to objectively explain without prejudice and then predictably fails in doing so. The biology behind the gender empathy gap, is about differences in how each sex maximises their chances of propagating their own genetic line and how these differences can work to the advantage and disadvantage of each sex depending on the scenario. At the extreme dysfunctional end of these differences, we get a gynocentric culture that promotes male hyperagency and shuns concern for men and encourages female hypoagency and treats women like children.

The greater degree of female neoteny stimulating a greater degree of societal concern for women, is one such example of a sex difference that can drive the gender empathy gap. Female neoteny is in fact not the product of women being more valuable because they possess a vagina. Evolutionary biology is a bit more complicated than repeating reductive gynocentric pseudoscience to justify the status quo, just as racists and eugenicists of the past did with debunked racial science ideas like Drapetomania[3], a theory that slaves desiring their freedom were suffering from mental illness!

Whilst there is undoubtedly a biological reality to the gender empathy gap. It is also a reality in our species, that sex differences in neoteny are not as pronounced as they are in many other animals and primates. It is also a fact that women and girls can and do spend a great deal of time exaggerating their neotenous appearance. These two observations can be replicated in relation to many of the major emotional, sexual and social triggers driving gynocentrism.

Peter Wright and Paul Elam have discussed the role of superstimuli and superresponses to those superstimuli at length in their works Chasing The Dragon[4] and Slaying The Dragon[5]. We live in an environment saturated with superstimuli that exaggerate female vulnerability, just as we live in an environment that amplifies the prevalence of salt and sugar in our diet and these superstimuli lead to an exaggerated superresponse to those stimuli. We cannot consider biology in isolation to the environment, particularly where it concerns the role of superstimuli underpinning the gender empathy gap and the role of modern communications and social media in amplifying their impact far beyond any evolved tendency to view women as the more vulnerable sex in need of support. We have in the West an environment full of feminist narratives of female victimhood and vulnerability and male perpetration and power which act as a form of gynocentric social superstimuli, that collectively with exaggerated female neoteny, put any evolved biological predisposition for gynocentrism on hyper drive. This then leads to male hyperagency and female hypoagency and a resulting gender empathy gap.

So whilst biology is involved, it is helpful to illustrate precisely how. When you roll a ball up a hill it has potential energy. If you push the ball down the hill it has a tendency to move in that direction and release that potential energy. Our biological predispositions toward various behaviours are similar in that regard only far more complex. Imagine the weather conditions that need to manifest themselves in a precise way to generate a tornado. The atmosphere on its own cannot generate a tornado unless it is in a particular state from local environmental conditions. Gynocentrism is similar in this regard and arises from a very complex interplay of biology and environment. When we are saying behaviour is biological, we are essentially stating the obvious. All behaviour involves a biological being and biological processes, but that is distinctively different from stating that a certain behaviour is an absolute like breathing and invariantly expressed regardless of the environment. Gynocentrism and the gender empathy gap are not absolute biological invariants, they are biological potentials which are expressed to different degrees depending on environmental conditions. In the West this biological potential is expressed to an exaggerated degree thanks to gynocentric superstimuli.

The frequent retort to this is the following question, “Can you find me a culture that is not gynocentric?”. Then you cite examples and then they cite back examples of gynocentrism in said culture. Of course if you look hard enough you can find examples of all sorts of behaviour in a given culture, that does not mean gynocentrism is mainstream in that culture, or acceptable to its social norms. It is also a fact that certain customs or laws may appear to be driven by gynocentrism in a given culture from a Western vantage point, when in fact there may be other reasons behind them that have little or nothing to do with gynocentrism. What is interesting though is the same people that ask these questions will not ask the question, “Can you point to a culture that is entirely gynocentric?”. Even our Western culture as gynocentric as it may appear, is not entirely gynocentric. That is to say, that our culture like many cultures is a complex mixture of different forces acting together, frequently in opposition all at the same time.

It would be false to suggest gynocentrism does not exist at all and it would be false to say gynocentrism is reflected throughout all cultures of the world at every level and in every context. In other words, it would be incorrect to say that either the existence or nonexistence of gynocentrism is an absolute and a biological invariant. Gynocentrism exists, but it does indeed vary across environments and even within cultures. Even how gynocentrism manifests in the West from one country to the next can be different. Gynocentrism is not a biologically invariant behaviour like breathing.

Gynocentrism is a complex set of behaviours that are learned from our culture and reinforced through our institutions, our media and our laws. Biology is just the substrate these forces act upon. The influence of our culture and our institutions on our biological predispositions in how we perceive and act on vulnerability when it comes to biological sex cannot be understated. Behavioural conditioning has ample empirical evidence supporting its existence in animals and humans. The results from classical conditioning and operant conditioning from numerous studies have been replicated thousands of times. It would be easy to believe that in every brain there is a basic program governing every aspect of human cognition and behaviour from breathing to which political ideology a person supports, but the reality is far more complicated.

How complicated? Watch Prof. Robert Sapolsky’s lecture series on behavioural biology and the limits of reductionism when explaining biological systems, particularly his first introductory lecture[6] and lecture on chaos theory[7]. To put it simply we really cannot reduce behaviour down to a single aspect of biology or culture or a genetic lock and key mechanism. Behind every behaviour there are hundreds, if not thousands of processes both biological and cultural working together to produce the complex behaviours we see. Like the weather the interactions are so complex and chaotic they are difficult to predict with pinpoint accuracy.

The reality is that social learning and conditioning, just like biology, does play a significant role in how we develop as people and how we collectively behave. Our legal system and the billions of dollars spent on marketing is based on this premise. Our own militaries and intelligence agencies and those of our adversary’s, understand the importance of psychological warfare and controlling the narrative through propaganda. Organised religion relies upon social learning and behavioural reinforcement of approved customs and social norms. There is no biological program hardwired into people’s brains to not eat meat on Good Friday, that is learned behaviour.

To suggest almost one thousand years of gynocentric cultural conditioning from one generation to the next and centuries of institutional enshrinement of gynocentric double standards has not had any impact on how we as biological beings behave, flies in the face of ample historical and scientific evidence. Evidence to show tradition, narratives of our history and conditioning associated with those traditions and narratives, shapes perception and shapes behaviour. Where do you think the concept of “man up” and being a “real man” comes from? That is basic social programming and operant conditioning at work to beat men over the head with when men start asking questions about gynocentric double standards.

Men and society at large have been under the assault of gynocentric social programming for centuries. The gender empathy gap exists because we have centuries of narratives and conditioning playing on biological potentials to view women as the more vulnerable party and men as powerful agents. It is analogous to playing keys in a certain sequence on a piano to produce a gynocentric melody that everyone becomes entrained into thinking as normal. It is a melody of social programming where men are portrayed as strong and as demonic in need of redemption from their toxic masculinity and women are portrayed as vulnerable and angelic in need of saving and adulation for their feminine divinity. This is called moral typecasting and there is evidence[8] to show that men are morally typecast as the less vulnerable sex and the sex least deserving of support and so we predictably demonstrate a lower expression of empathy toward them. Moral typecasting is learned and it impacts how we perceive the world and behave.

None of this is insurmountable though. Narratives change, evolve and are replaced over time with better narratives as the culture matures and evolves to higher and higher levels of moral development and sophistication. There was a time when sacrificing female virgins to appease the gods to ensure a good future harvest was considered acceptable and the right thing to do. We do not do that anymore, we evolved beyond practices we now consider to be barbaric or discriminatory but were once considered acceptable in the past.

Racism has a biological element to it as well. Humans have a biological predisposition to be tribal and form groups based on shared genetic heritage. Just as with gynocentrism, there are countless examples of racism throughout history and arguably over a far longer period of time. Just as with gynocentrism there have been narratives justifying discrimination, the segregation of races and even their extermination. Gynocentrism is nothing special. Racists of the past used the same pseudoscientific use of biology to justify their bigotry of racial superiority, just as some people currently do attempting to justify and rationalise gynocentrism as some immutable biological law that our species is unable to rise above. If we accepted such pseudoscientific nonsense on the matter of race, then we would not be living in the society we do today in the West. The reality is that despite our tribalistic nature, we have been able to rise above any biological predisposition we have and make progress against racism. The same can be true for gynocentrism which is the modern bigotry of our time.

The appeals to nature to explain and justify gynocentrism, doing nothing to address it and attacking those that do, are really just excuses people are using to avoid asking tough questions about human nature and about themselves. That is why there is so much vitriol when you dare question the idea gynocentrism is some immutable law of human behaviour. Human beings are herd animals and that too is biological. Despite the prevalence of herd mentality, groupthink and the desire for people to conform and despite numerous historical examples of the atrocities that have unfolded as a result and the research[9] demonstrating their power, these important aspects of human behaviour barely have been mentioned in relation to explaining gynocentrism. People are to an extent sheep and that permits people to blindly go along with all sorts of ideas, even when they are completely wrong and people know they are wrong. The biological desire to conform and not to be different from the group is strong. I would argue it is the desire to conform to gynocentric double standards that are socially enforced, that is the single most powerful driver of gynocentrism. It is the same force behind the groupthink we saw unfold in the pandemic and the herd mentality that resulted in the extermination of millions of Jews.

Once the desire to conform is removed or exhausted, men go their own way. The desire to conform has limits and every major social change or revolution that has occurred throughout history has always begun with a few outliers reaching the end of their patience and rebelling before it gradually becomes an unstoppable force and attracts millions of followers. As conditions become more and more unbearable, people one by one start to reach a tipping point where they will no longer conform and no longer obey. Even the desire to conform could not stop the social change of the civil rights movement and even in Nazi Germany there were multiple acts of resistance, including within the Germany Army itself. Eventually sooner or later, people get sick of conforming and desire change. That too is biological and human nature. People’s desire to conform only goes so far with their own biological interests before it becomes advantageous to rebel.

That is truly what our gynocentric society is afraid of. The gender empathy gap exists in large part because men acquiesce and go along with it. What can we do to change this? From my perspective it starts with men themselves. If men do not express any concern for their own well-being, then how can men expect the rest of the population to share that concern? If men continue to sign up to a marriage contract and are fully aware of the bias in divorce and family court, there is no reason to complain when they join the line of men subjected to the injustice of divorce and family court. Men teach society how to treat them through their own actions or lack of inaction to protect their wellbeing and interests. It is very simple stop acquiescing. From my experience men are far too willing to worry about pleasing other people where it concerns gynocentrism and especially worry far too much about female approval and their disapproval. Women are no more the gatekeepers of relationships than men are. It is all a matter of boundaries and enforcing those boundaries. Ask yourself these questions, if you are a man and worried about such things:

Why would you worry about the approval of someone that regards your well-being either as a secondary concern or of little to no concern at all?

What value is there really in a social connection where the other person sees you as existing to please them and values you solely for what you can do for them without reciprocity, if you can even call it a social connection at all let alone a relationship?

Men are raised from birth to view women as the fairer sex and the more peaceful and caring sex. This has profound impacts on how men view themselves in relation to women. However when those decades of social programming start to unravel from direct exposure to the wrongs and injustices of our modern gynocentric culture, men in increasing numbers are starting to question the narratives they have been told.

Part of addressing the gender empathy gap is to teach men that they are worthy of respect because they are men and that respect for their well-being is something that they must protect irrespective of what our dysfunctional gynocentric culture is trying to tell them. Men are remarkable creatures when you consider what men can do. A single man can literally change the world and leave a legacy lasting thousands of years. All of the men we would regard as great, often did things that went against the orthodoxy of their time. Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King etc. You cannot stand up to the culture when you do not believe in yourself and so that is the very first step men must take. It is one thing for me to write this and it is another for men to truly believe it about themselves deep in their bones.

Men have been lied to. Men have been told by this gynocentric culture they are disposable and are human doings. The truth is this gynocentric culture cannot exist without men believing those lies. In order for a human male to do anything and to be of use to anyone, they must regard themselves as a human being first and view themselves as worthy of basic care and look after themselves. How much male potential is squandered by men failing to take care of themselves and measuring themselves solely by what they do first whilst neglecting their wellbeing? How much does society lose by failing to take care of male wellbeing? A great deal.

If men want to address gynocentrism and resolve the gender empathy gap, then they have to value themselves enough to want to change how they are treated. Until men demand change, nothing will change, it is that simple. Forging a new narrative about men, women, power and vulnerability is also a key to how men demand this change. We need to play a new melody of cultural narratives on our biological piano that better resembles the world we want to live in and fully utilises our biological potential in a more positive and constructive way. Whenever it is brought up that we should have a tally on how many women have died from domestic violence over the year, men should be demanding the same be done for male victims and perhaps demands from men for a male suicide and homeless tally would not go astray either.

Men need to stop caring about what women think. If women have any value to men at all, then it is in loving them and supporting them as fellow human beings, as loved ones and as partners (and I would say the same advice for women). The same applies to men and how they regard their fellow man. What sort of man shames another man for protecting his well-being and his rights as a man? What sort of man abandons moral principles once a woman is involved? What sort of man shames another man that does not want to live in a subservient, second class and frequently demonised position in relation to women because he is male? No man at all. Masculinity in its basic form is self-respect and standing up for yourself and what you believe in and your values. The original code for chivalry before it was corrupted by our gynocentric culture was a military code of honour between men. It was a code that enshrined respect between men. This code needs to be revived and chivalry needs to be taken back by men and restored free of gynocentric corruption, perhaps with some modern modifications.

A gynocentric culture cannot tolerate a population of men that stand up for themselves and know their own worth in relation to women. This is why such much effort is put in and continues to be put into trying to “educate” men to respect women as some elevated aristocracy and every effort is made to demonise men and silence any attempt to instil self-respect in men. Self-respecting men are not violent unless they are defending themselves and do not disrespect women or men unless they act in a disrespectful manner.

Men have the moral high ground when they realise that self-respect is not oppression and that the true oppressors are the very people teaching them they are toxic, disposable, deserving of hate and inferior simply because they are male. Addressing the gender empathy gap starts with men taking that very first step of living life with self-respect and enforcing their personal boundaries. The next step is spreading a superior narrative that reflects the true reality of power and vulnerability when it comes to men and women in the modern world and calling out attempts to silence that narrative for the hate and oppression that it truly is. In the end lies cannot compete with the truth.

Gynocentric culture reduces fertility rates. When you elevate catering to female narcissism above the good of society and marginalising men, your society begins to die out. Whatever biological forces prevail, only societies that possess cultures that harness their genetics in ways that further their own existence will survive. Men must rise up for themselves, but also for the future of their communities. Masculinity and civilisation go hand in glove.

References:

[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/legislation-require-women-men-sign-potential-draft/story?id=79013594

[2] https://www.amazon.com.au/Myth-Male-Power-Warren-Farrell-ebook/dp/B076HVLZGH

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VygKQV-hEpY&t=1s

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5WLNMX4COA&t=0s

[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA&t=1030s

[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_njf8jwEGRo

[8]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597820303630#:~:text=The%20moral%20typecasting%20hypothesis%20contends,schema%20is%20a%20prototype%20observers

[9] https://www.verywellmind.com/the-asch-conformity-experiments-2794996

The Masochism of Sir Lancelot

/ Peter Wright

Knight Of The Hangman’s Cart

On a surface level, Knight of the Cart centers around the exploits of a knight (Sir Lancelot) and his endeavors to rescue his queen (Guinevere) from kidnappers. On a deeper level, however, Knight of the Cart tells the story of a masochist, who willingly suffers at his dominatrix’s behest. With every step Lancelot takes, the line between pain and pleasure is blurred. In one particular instance, the knight braves a hazardous bridge of sharpened steel. He is wounded, but this pain soon becomes a source of gratification:

Love, which led and guided him,
Comforted and healed him at once
And made his suffering a pleasure

In this passage, pain and pleasure appear conflated. This conflation is one of the central themes of Chrétien’s narrative, and it perfectly encapsulates Lancelot’s relationship with Guinevere. She exists simultaneously as a source of pain and pleasure. In fact, she is the very impetus of their coalescence. Lancelot’s affection for Guinevere and his status as a courtly lover act as driving forces that urge him ever onward, skewing his perception of pain and bringing him into a world of masochistic pleasure. Love is his guide, and she is a cruel and sadistic mistress.

The implications of this passage do not stop here, however. The association between pain and pleasure and the dichotomy of male subordination/female domination are as relevant to Knight of the Cart as they are to courtly culture at large. In Chrétien’s writing, we see not only the passionate submission of one knight to one lady. We see one of the first, fully realized instances of sadomasochistic erotica. We see how Venus got her furs. Scholars and historians have recognized the pervading masochism of this text but have yet to attribute this masochism to a larger tradition of textual eroticism. In the following pages, we will explore the relationship between Lancelot and sadomasochistic erotica, the role of humiliation in Lancelot’s masochism, and Knight of the Cart’s connection to modern BDSM.

* * * *

Terms like sadomasochism were coined hundreds of years after the medieval period, yet they are strewn throughout these pages [Knight Of The Cart]. The plain and simple truth is that Europe was ill-equipped to address sadistic and masochistic practices as a collective during the Middle Ages. It lacked the terminology necessary to express mass, public recognition. That is not to say that sadomasochism was not deeply embedded in the public consciousness, because it was. It was so ingrained that it began seeping into the realm of popular culture and media. Elements of sadomasochistic practices are found all throughout Europe during the medieval period, most notably during the 12th century, when courtly culture was still in its naissance.

During the 1100’s, this cultural phenomena gave birth to what would come to be known as courtly romance. The courtly romance genre is perhaps the most abundant source of evidence that sadomasochism was not a foreign concept at the time. It was certainly no foreign concept to Chrétien de Troyes. As a troubadour, Chrétien committed several works to the courtly romance genre. One of his romances, Knight of the Cart, is laden with sadomasochistic subtext. But before one can explore the elements of sadomasochism that appear in this narrative, it is imperative to delve first into the preexisting scholarly responses to Chrétien’s writing.

* * * *

The Beheading

After Lancelot defeats a dishonorable knight, a maiden requests the fallen knight’s head. She essentially puts Lancelot to the task of decapitating the knight he has just defeated. He is then torn between his desire to appease the lady, and his desire to satisfy his own, personal sense of justice (Lancelot’s personal sense of justice entails having mercy for his fallen foe). Feinstein recognizes this inner turmoil when she alludes to “Lancelot’s struggle as to how to keep both his promise to give the lady the head of the defeated knight and grant the defeated knight mercy, as is his custom.” In the end, Lancelot submits to the lady’s wishes, and this submission is central to the subordination/domination that defines male/female relations in this text.

This courtly dichotomy of submissiveness and dominance is integral to Feinstein’s interpretation and overall understanding of courtly romance, and beheading is one of the linchpins holding this dichotomy together. On the surface, the act of a man beheading another man (whether at the behest of a woman or not) would seem to be an immediate expression of masculine power, but this is not how beheading functions in Chrétien’s narrative. Rather, it functions as an example of the lengths to which Lancelot will go to appease a lady.

According to Feinstein, “Chrétien’s use of beheading as closure becomes identified with issues of control or authority not as they refer to male rule, but as they relate specifically to women. . .In Chrétien’s romance, love is defined and controlled by women.” In Knight of the Cart, Lancelot is ultimately submissive to the wishes of every lady he comes across, and this is especially true of Guinevere. Their courtly love, and courtly love in general for that matter, is defined by this fundamental relationship of subordination and domination. Again, this notion of female dominion is not limited to the text. Male to female subordination saturates the courtly romance genre on both sides, appearing both on and off the page.

* * * *

In courtly culture we see men (be them courtly poets, lovers, or fictional characters) transition from the dominant role to the submissive role. We also see women transition from the submissive role to the dominant role. The understanding of courtly love as a masochistic contract is also noteworthy in this instance, as it constitutes a social space with very specific rules. These rules are very much an inversion of the norms of medieval gender relations. In short, because courtly love emulates the crucial elements of the sadomasochistic ritual, it is essential to regard courtly romance literature as part of the cultural history of sadomasochism.

So we return to the text, to that bridge of sharpened steel where pain and pleasure become one:

Love, which led and guided him,
Comforted and healed him at once
And made his suffering a pleasure

As previously stated, there is a masochistic association between love, pain, and pleasure throughout this text. Because the suffering Lancelot endures is facilitated by Guinevere, and the two are bound by the masochistic contract, she is situated as his dominatrix. According to Cohen, this is “the role of the woman of cold pleasure who enjoys the negation of her lover rather than of her self. . .the role of domna/dominatrix whose distant delectation Lancelot’s own suffering is predicated upon.” However, Lancelot’s excursion on the sword bridge is not the only instance in Knight of the Cart where suffering and satisfaction are conflated.

Another precedent of pleasurable pain is set early on in the narrative. As with Lancelot’s experience on the sword ridge, this scene also establishes a direct connection between love and wounding:

Love frequently reopened
The wound it had dealt him;
Yet he never wrapped it
To let it heal or recover,
For he had no desire or thought
To find a doctor or to bandage it,
Unless the wound grew deeper.
But willingly would he seek that certain one

This passage is especially noteworthy, as it illustrates how Guinevere (Lancelot’s “certain one”) is viewed as the disseminator of both pain and remedies. Lancelot does not want to consult a doctor: the only remedy he desires lies with his queen. Yet it is at her behest that Lancelot has received his wounds in the first place. Thus, love is responsible for injuring Lancelot while simultaneously holding the key to his recovery. This discrepancy between hurting and healing plays a big role in sadomasochism, wherein the application of aftercare is often overseen by the same dominant party that subjects the submissive party to physical pain. It is also important to note that Lancelot intentionally leaves his wounds unbandaged; he has no desire for them to heal. In other words, he is content enduring the pain of his injuries. It is as if Lancelot enjoys the pain and would only consult a medical professional if absolutely necessary.

Along with the masochistic association between love, pain, and pleasure, Lancelot’s quest is fraught with elements of sadomasochistic ritualism. According to Peter Tupper, sadomasochistic erotica often appears with an air of spiritual resonance: “Sacher-Masoch [Venus in Furs] explicitly drew connections between. . .desires, Catholicism, and paganism, which give his novel suggestion of a personal religious rite.”  Chrétien’s writing establishes the same connections. For example, as Lancelot pursues the missing queen, “Mundane objects acquire great symbolic value” while he wades deeper and deeper into the sadomasochistic ritual.  One example of this can be seen when Lancelot discovers a piece of Guinevere’s hair. What follows is nothing short of worship:

Never will the eye of man see
Anything so highly honored
As those strands, which he began to adore,
Touching them a hundred thousand times
To his eyes, his mouth,
His forehead, and his cheeks.
He showed his joy in every way
And felt himself most happy and rewarded.
He placed them on his breast near his heart,
Between his chemise and his skin.
He would not trade them for a cart loaded
With emeralds and carbuncles;
Nor did he fear that ulcers
Or any other disease would afflict him;
He had no use for magic potions mixed with pearls,
For drugs to combat pleurisy, for theriaca…
No use for prayers to St. Martin and St. James!
He placed so much faith in these strands of hair
That he had no need of any other aid.

Not only does this passage illustrate Lancelot’s association between mundane objects (strands of hair) and a greater allusory value, but it also elucidates Lancelot’s worship of Guinevere as a quasi-divine figure. The strands of hair are cherished as a relic that eclipses all other remedies (both spiritual and secular). In tandem with this worship, Lancelot seems to take an erotic pleasure in rubbing Guinevere’s hair all over his body. This pleasure plays out in such vivid detail that it resembles a scene of sexual gratification. Guinevere’s hair acts as a stand-in for the queen herself, and when Lancelot comes across these strands, he projects his sexual desires onto them. It is a scene ripe with the potential for titillation, one that foreshadows Lancelot’s subsequent sexual union with the queen.

Romantic Gyneolatry In The Bedroom

Lancelot’s worship of Guinevere is fully realized when the two consummate their physical relationship. The scene plays out as a religious rite turned sexual romp:

He came next to that [bed] of the Queen;

Lancelot bowed and worshiped before her,
For he did not have that much faith in any saint.
The Queen stretched out
Her arms toward him, embraced him,
Hugged him to her breast
And drew him into the bed beside her.

In this passage, Lancelot’s adoration of Guinevere is actualized in religious, albeit sexual, terms. He literally bows before her in worship. In this moment, Lancelot’s submission to Guinevere is at its most overt. The use of the word “worship” is especially noteworthy to this end, as it expresses in literal terms the subordination Lancelot willingly endures for his dominatrix. In this scene, Lancelot’s masochistic desires play out as a religious rite: this is supported by Cohen, who argues that “Lancelot’s reverence [of Guinevere] translates the sexual into the spiritual.” The spiritual resonance of this scene along with the titillation implicit in their sexually charged embrace help cement this work as a piece of sadomasochistic erotica.

This religious connection also thrusts Lancelot into the role of the masochistic martyr. When Lancelot makes his way to Guinevere’s chambers, he receives yet another injury:

Lancelot prepared and readied himself
To loosen the window.
He grasped the bars, strained, and pulled,
Until he bent them all
And was able to free them from their fittings.
But the iron was so sharp
That he cut the end
Of his little finger to the quick
And severed the whole
First joint of the next finger

Once again, this scene suggests a connection between pain and pleasure, as Lancelot receives these injuries as he makes his way to Guinevere’s bed: as he makes his way to sexual gratification. He must enter a world of pain to enter a world of pleasure. For Lancelot, pleasure always entails pain, and vice versa. In this particular instance, however, Lancelot becomes a martyr for love. More specifically, he “suffers and bleeds, his martyrdom for love.” This notion of martyrdom provides yet another connection between love, pain, and pleasure. It also supports the notion that Lancelot’s masochism plays out in spiritual terms.

When it comes to sadomasochistic erotica, it can be said that Chrétien’s Knight of the Cart bears striking similarities to other works in this literary tradition. In Leopold von Sacher-Masoch’s Venus in Furs, for example, the sadomasochistic ritual is “performed with contracts, disguises, whippings, masks, cuckolding, and role play.” Similarly, Lancelot is bound to Guinevere through the masochistic contract, through the rules of courtly love. Also, disguise plays a major role in Lancelot’s quest; he bares the moniker of knight of the cart for a lengthy period, his true name left unknown until Guinevere restores his identity:

she [Guinevere] rushed forward and called to him,
Shouting for all to hear
In a very loud voice: ‘Lancelot !
Turn around and behold
Who is watching you

The connections between Lancelot and the sadomasochistic ritual do not stop here, however. The imagery Chrétien employs also lends itself to the literary tradition of sadomasochistic erotica. The most iconic and enduring among these images is that of a powerful woman holding a whip. This image is not foreign to Knight of the Cart:

There came a girl riding
Across the heath
On a tawny mule,
With her mantle unpinned and hair disheveled.
She had a whip

As previously stated, whips and whippings are very crucial to sadomasochistic ritualism. They are symbolic of the dominatrix’s power over her subordinate masochist. Likewise, this whip-wielding woman demands satisfaction from Lancelot, and like a good masochist, he submits to her wishes. Specifically, she demands the head of an individual Lancelot has just defeated in combat. As Feinstein suggests, Lancelot endures a “struggle as to how to keep both his promise to give the lady the head of the defeated knight and grant the defeated knight mercy, as is his custom.”

In the end, Lancelot submits to the lady’s wishes, and this submission is central to the submission/domination that defines male/female relations in this text.
Cuckolding and role play are also central to Knight of the Cart’s status as a work of sadomasochistic erotica. In one particular instance, a lady puts Lancelot in a situation where he has the potential to be made a cuckold:

Help! Help!
Sir knight – you who are my guest —
If you do not pull this other knight from off me,
I’ll not find anyone to pull him away;
And if you do not help me at once
He will shame me before your eyes!
You are the one to share my bed,
As you have sworn to me!
Will this man forcibly have his will
With me before your eyes?

In this moment, the lady is not in any real danger. She is role playing with her personal guards to create the illusion that she is being assaulted. This illusion places Lancelot in a position where he believes he will be made a cuckold if he does not intervene. The role play and cuckolding may not disseminate from Guinevere, Lancelot’s primary dominatrix, but it is still a widely relevant narrative device that helps situate Chrétien’s writing as sadomasochistic erotica.

Another important thing to consider is the role that public humiliation plays in Lancelot’s quest. Throughout the narrative, the knight endures a thorough social stigmatization. The stigma itself stems from his status as the eponymous knight of the cart. According to Cohen, “The cart is described as a space wholly outside of chivalric identity. To enter its ignoble confines is to become a mere subject of the law rather than its agent.”68 Therefore, Lancelot’s decision to enter the cart is understood as a willing act of self-emasculation that effectively strips him of his social clout and renders him a pariah in the public eye. No longer is he regarded with renown as an executor of the King’s laws; he is regarded as a common criminal. In fact, Lancelot remains symbolically branded throughout a bulk of the narrative and is subject to mass ridicule on several occasions. In one instance, a group of revelers actively avoid him:

Look at that knight, look!
It’s the one who was driven in the cart.
Let no one dare continue
His play while he is among us.

In another instance, he is directly admonished: “The one who was watching him reproached him / Bitterly for having ridden in the cart.” Both cases illustrate the ramifications of Lancelot’s decision to ride in the cart. His quest to rescue Guinevere leaves him marked, and the lasting effect of this mark is ridicule in the public sphere.

Lancelot’s ridicule is essential to understanding him as a masochist. In the world of sadomasochism, the dominant party (the dominatrix, master, etc.) often takes great pleasure in leaving marks on the submissive party (the masochist, slave, etc.). These marks are widely superficial (bruises, hickeys, etc.), but they can also be of symbolic nature. In any case, they are meant to denote the dominant party’s complete and total ownership over the submissive party. Lancelot’s experience with the cart allows Guinevere to leave a lasting, albeit indirect, mark on her subordinate rescuer. To secure her favor and affection, Lancelot must receive this mark willingly and endure every modicum of humiliation that comes with it.

As previously stated, along with pain, humiliation is a condition of the masochistic contract. It may be delivered, overseen, or set in motion by the dominatrix, but it must always entail some degree of shame or emasculation. Similarly, Guinevere subjects Lancelot to public humiliation on several occasions. In one particular instance, she chides him during his engagement with Maleagant: “Ah, Lancelot! What could it be / That makes you act so foolishly?” This question has a profound effect on Lancelot. It leaves him retreating inward, into the realm of introspection. Lancelot’s self-reflection is made evident in the following passage: “Lancelot was most ashamed / And vexed and hated himself.” Even after he endures the pain and humiliation of his quest, successfully rescuing Guinevere from her imprisonment, she chastises him.

When Lancelot is victorious in his battle against Maleagant, Guinevere denies any and all gratitude towards him. She publicly and intentionally embarrasses him at the very moment when he believes his suffering is at an end: “to pain and embarrass him further / She refused to answer him a single word / And passed into another room instead.” This process of denying satisfaction is another crucial element of sadomasochism. It involves the dominatrix withholding pleasure from her submissive partner until she believes they have suffered to an appropriate degree or for an appropriate amount of time. This brings us to the subject of titillation.

To assess how titillation functions within Chrétien’s larger poetic design, one must take a closer look at the imagery of Knight of the Cart. Not only do we find images of dominatrices with whips, but we also find images of cuckoldry and sexual union. Let us return to that moment where Guinevere embraces Lancelot, and accepts him as her lover:

The Queen stretched out
Her arms toward him, embraced him,
Hugged him to her breast
And drew him into the bed beside her.

This is a viscerally sensual moment for Guinevere and Lancelot, and Chrétien spares no linguistic expense in playing up the provocative nature of his subject matter. The titillation here is multifaceted: Not only does Guinevere press her breast against Lancelot, but she is also the one to initiate the movement from one social space to another. The contextual parameters of Guinevere’s bed constitute a sexual space, and when she brings Lancelot into this space, their status as lovers is solidified. As such, the imagery of Guinevere drawing Lancelot into bed with her could be construed as sexually stimulating because of the potential sexual energy implicit in the act. It is also erotic because of the power Guinevere holds over Lancelot. She is in control, and when she pulls Lancelot into bed with her there is an anticipation that she will retain this control throughout the sexual engagement.

[ Above passages from How Venus Got Her Furs: Courtly Romance as Sadomasochistic Erotica ]

* * * *

Lancelot’s Gyneolatry 

The submission which Lancelot shows in his actions is accompanied, on the subjective side, by a feeling that deliberately apes religious devotion. Although his love is by no means supersensual and is indeed carnally rewarded in this very poem, he is represented as treating Guinevere with saintly, if not divine, honours. When he comes before the bed where she lies he kneels and adores her : as Chretien explicitly tells us, there is no corseynt in whom he has greater faith. When he leaves her chamber he makes a genuflexion as if he were before a shrine.

The irreligion of the religion of love could hardly go further. Yet Chretien—whether he is completely unconscious of the paradox, or whether he wishes, clumsily enough, to make some amends for these revolting passages—represents his Lancelot as a pious man and goes out of his way to show him dismounting when he passes a church, and entering to make his prayer; by which, according to Chretien, he proves both his courtesy and wisdom.

[From C.S. Lewis – Allegory of Love: A Study in Medieval Tradition]

* * * *