The following brief exchange appeared in the comments under an article titled C.S. Lewis: The Feudalisation of Love. In it I give a brief comment about how women’s cultivation of childlikeness contributes to gynocentric attitudes, and how this appears to be a more forceful influence than sexual and reproductive pressures.
TEXT:
2cyar wrote:
“The primary ‘something’ that was biologically there to leverage is the child archetype in women, an innocence and moral purity feigned with cosmetics, clothing, gestures and fragility and held up as a fetish for men to worship and protect. Sexual factors do come in but are secondary in strength.”
The next question is how do we turn it off? They certainly aren’t going to self regulate, so we have to figure out how to turn off the impulse within ourselves (and all men) to render it ineffective.
___________________________________Peter Wright wrote:
Turning it off can happen by no longer believing that women are children deserving indulgences at men’s expense – ie. seeing it as artificially manufactured and that in reality women are grown adults. It’s the same process as no longer viewing the Santa Claus in the shopping mall as real – he’s doing theatre.
The result of that awakening is that men find themselves saying “No” to every bit of theatrical childishness put before them, realising that it’s a supernormal bait and a grift. Such a man is no longer caught in the gynocentric machinery of his mind.
This is where I part ways with a few honeybadgers and men’s advocates who believe gynocentrism is more ‘natural’ than I do, even as they accept gynocentrism as sometimes extreme and unfair to men. The “gynocentrism is natural” stance is built mostly on belief in the power of women’s sexuality and reproductive functions, while omitting more powerful & more artificial ruses such as feigning childlikeness: i.e. women may have breasts and uteri, but they are not children.
It’s self-defeating ideology to believe sexual politics is totally unfair for men, while simultaneously believing gynocentrism is “natural.” It results in a learned impotence. Most advocates of this theory end up promoting the familiar parental lifestyle for men under the nostalgic euphemism of “honouring masculinity.” That approach pretends to free men while ultimately keeping them trapped – compliments of an unexamined and unchallenged child archetype, combined with a cultural ideology that pedestalizes women as a higher, quasi-noble class.
* * *
*Note: For an illuminating treatment of this topic by Honeybadger Hanna Wallen, see ‘The Natural Gynocentrism Fallacy.‘
SEE ALSO:
– Articles On Women’s Attraction to the Child Archetype
– Articles Exploring The Nature of Damseling Behaviors
– Fascinating Womanhood: How To Use Childlikeness to Manipulate Men (video)
– Fascinating Womanhood: Women’s Introduction To Cultivating Childlikeness (pdf)
What I find particularly bizarre is that both men and women (when they each think it through properly) SAY they want women to be treated like adults and not like children.
Feminists speak historically of “chattels”, “patronisation” and “the legacy of patriarchal dominance” etc. Even the word husband is a form of “parenting” by the man.
We, on the MRA side, are only too aware of the damage done to men by the “little princess on the pedestal” status that to many men allow women to have.
Both sides say they don’t want it (each using their own language), but both sides actively participate in its continuance.
For females I can understand the motivation. The right to be a CEO by day and the right to be a helpless female when doing it for yourself becomes inconvenient.
It’s all win.
But for men its all lose… or is it?
Perhaps in the end the numbers speak for themselves. Most men are as guilty as most women, so like the women they must benefit somehow.
Sexual favour? Maybe, sometimes, on her terms, IF they’re lucky and play her game well enough.
A pretty shaky reward, so why else?