Author: gynocentrism

Featured

About gynocentrism

/ gynocentrism / Leave a comment

Gynocentrism (n.) refers to a dominant focus on women’s needs and wants relative to men’s needs and wants. This can happen in the context of cultural conventions, institutional policies, and in gendered relationships.1
[see here for more dictionary definitions of gynocentrism]

Introduction

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

Courtly love was enacted by minstrels, playrights, troubadours and hired romance-writers who laid down a model of romantic fiction that is still the biggest grossing genre of literature today. That confluence of factors generated the conventions that continue to drive gynocentric practices to the present.

Gynocentrism as a cultural phenomenon

The primary elements of gynocentric culture, as we experience it today, are derived from practices originating in medieval society such as feudalism, chivalry and courtly love that continue to inform contemporary society in subtle ways. Such gynocentric patters constitute a “sexual feudalism,” as attested by female writers like Lucrezia Marinella who in 1600 AD recounted that women of lower socioeconomic classes were treated as superiors by men who acted as servants or beasts born to serve them, or by Modesta Pozzo who in 1590 wrote;

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

The golden casket at the head of this page depicting scenes of servile behaviour toward women were typical of courtly love culture of the Middle Ages. Such objects were given to women as gifts by men seeking to impress. Note the woman standing with hands on hips in a position of authority, and the man being led around by a neck halter, his hands clasped in a position of subservience.

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

C.S. Lewis, in the middle of the 20th Century, referred to this historical revolution as “the feudalisation of love,” and stated that it has left no corner of our ethics, our imagination, or our daily life untouched. “Compared with this revolution,” states Lewis, “the Renaissance is a mere ripple on the surface of literature.”3 Lewis further states;

“Everyone has heard of courtly love, and everyone knows it appeared quite suddenly at the end of the eleventh century at Languedoc. The sentiment, of course, is love, but love of a highly specialized sort, whose characteristics may be enumerated as Humility, Courtesy, and the Religion of Love. The lover is always abject. Obedience to his lady’s lightest wish, however whimsical, and silent acquiescence in her rebukes, however unjust, are the only virtues he dares to claim. Here is a service of love closely modelled on the service which a feudal vassal owes to his lord. The lover is the lady’s ‘man’. He addresses her as midons, which etymologically represents not ‘my lady’ but ‘my lord’. The whole attitude has been rightly described as ‘a feudalisation of love’. This solemn amatory ritual is felt to be part and parcel of the courtly life.” 4

With the advent of (initially courtly) women being elevated to the position of ‘Lord’ in intimate relationships, and with this general sentiment diffusing to the masses and across much of the world today, we are justified in talking of a gynocentric cultural complex that affects, among other things, relationships between men and women. Further, unless evidence of widespread gynocentric culture can be found prior to the Middle Ages, then  gynocentrism is approximately 1000 years old. In order to determine if this thesis is valid we need to look further at what we mean by “gynocentrism”.

The term gynocentrism has been in circulation since the 1800’s, with the general definition being “focused on women; concerned with only women.”5 From this definition we see that gynocentrism could refer to any female-centered practice, or to a single gynocentric act carried out by one individual. There is nothing inherently wrong with a gynocentric act (eg. celebrating Mother’s Day) , or for that matter an androcentric act (celebrating Father’s Day). However when a given act becomes instituted in the culture to the exclusion of other acts we are then dealing with a hegemonic custom — i.e. such is the relationship custom of elevating women to the position of men’s social, moral or spiritual superiors.

Author of Gynocentrism Theory Adam Kostakis has attempted to expand the definition of gynocentrism to refer to “male sacrifice for the benefit of women” and “the deference of men to women,” and he concludes; “Gynocentrism, whether it went by the name honor, nobility, chivalry, or feminism, its essence has gone unchanged. It remains a peculiarly male duty to help the women onto the lifeboats, while the men themselves face a certain and icy death.”6

While we can agree with Kostakis’ descriptions of assumed male duty, the phrase gynocentric culture more accurately carries his intention than gynocentrism alone. Thus when used alone in the context of this website gynocentrism refers to part or all of gynocentric culture, which is defined here as any culture instituting rules for gender relationships that benefit females at the expense of males across a broad range of measures.

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

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

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

La Querelle des Femmes, and advocacy for women

The Querelle des Femmes translates as the “quarrel about women” and amounts to what we might today call a gender-war. The querelle had its beginning in twelfth century Europe and finds its culmination in the feminist-driven ideology of today (though some authors claim, unconvincingly, that the querelle came to an end in the 1700s).

The basic theme of the centuries-long quarrel revolved, and continues to revolve, around advocacy for the rights, power and status of women, and thus Querelle des Femmes serves as the originating title for gynocentric discourse.

To place the above events into a coherent timeline, chivalric servitude toward women was elaborated and given patronage first under the reign of Eleanor of Aquitaine (1137-1152) and instituted culturally throughout Europe over the subsequent 200 year period. After becoming thus entrenched on European soil there arose the Querelle des Femmes which refers to the advocacy culture that arose for protecting, perpetuating and increasing female power in relation to men that continues, in an unbroken tradition, in the efforts of contemporary feminism.7

Writings from the Middle Ages forward are full of testaments about men attempting to adapt to the feudalisation of love and the serving of women, along with the emotional agony, shame and sometimes physical violence they suffered in the process. Gynocentric chivalry and the associated querelle have not received much elaboration in men’s studies courses to-date, but with the emergence of new manuscripts and quality English translations it may be profitable to begin blazing this trail.8

References

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

Infantriarchy

/ gynocentrism / Leave a comment

By Gordon Wadsworth

If our species were observed by an alien race for any length of time, two profound defects in the human condition would rapidly become apparent to them. One is a defect in the female character, and the other is a defect in the male character. Although they weren’t always defects, they have become such because they are fundamentally at odds with both legal equality and self-actualization.

The female defect is her desire to infantilize herself; to project a facade of weakness and victimhood. The female does this because part of her identity is contingent on compelling males to act on her behalf. This is a mechanism which allows the female to feel desirable, important, and powerful. The female often mistakes this behavior as personal empowerment, when in reality it is quite the opposite. Taking personal responsibility is something she will inherently resist, because as soon as she takes personal responsibility and stops infantilizing herself, her identity can no longer command others to act on her behalf. Thus, the female defect keeps her from assuming personal responsibility, which presents a barrier to her self-actualization.

This is why the self-actualized female finds playing the victim so repugnant; she is shunning part of her old identity.

The male defect is his desire to compensate for the infantilized female. He does this because part of his identity is contingent on earning female validation. He thus demonstrates his ability to protect, provision and inform. This is a mechanism for feeling useful, powerful, knowledgeable, and important. The male defect leads him to compete with other males to demonstrate his primacy to females, and it ultimately turns him into a guardian, which keeps him from relinquishing responsibility. This becomes his own barrier to self-actualization.

This is why the self-actualized male sees competing for female validation as idiotic; he is shunning part of his old identity.

These defects mean that the female path of self-actualization is one of taking responsibility, and the male path of self-actualization is one of relinquishing responsibility.

It is vitally important to recognize that the majority of males and females in our culture enjoy their dysfunction. The female has a puerile sexual identity validated by compelling a man to act on her behalf, and the male has a similarly puerile sexual identity validated by demonstrating his ability to act on her behalf. This is a drug that our species has been addicted to for millennia, and it is one we desperately need to cast aside. Moving past this behavior is the next step humanity must make to realize equality.

We already have a name for this drug. It’s the blue pill. Those in the blue pill paradigm aren’t conscious of this behavior, they’re merely stuck engaging in it. Consciously recognizing this defective behavior is, in my opinion, the source of red pill wisdom. Once this behavior is seen for what it is, the blue pill paradigm becomes observable, and the transition to the red pill paradigm is made.

An understanding of the male defect is vital for contextualizing feminist criticism of men. Our defect, for example, is why many feminists are partially correct when they point to demonstrating power as a male motivation. We display power to demonstrate our readiness to compensate for the infantilized female. Our defect is also the source of feminist complaints about “mansplaining.” Men engaging in “mansplaining” are largely attempting to demonstrate their knowledge and value in order to demonstrate their capability to compensate for the infantilized female. Additionally, the “fatherly” guardian status that results from our defect is why the feminists are superficially correct about patriarchy, but why they are also leaving out half the picture.

Where the feminist is completely wrong is where she believes that pre-feminist Western culture was in its totality a patriarchy. Since the traditional paradigm of pre-feminist Western culture was an expression of both the male and the female defects, patriarchy was only half the picture.

Let’s clarify what patriarchy means.

For the most part, patriarchy is simply a word to describe the male defect. On its own, however, patriarchy says exactly nothing about the female defect. If we’re to have a fair and balanced discussion on sex and gender, we need a word to address both defects. Let us therefore add the word infantriarchy to describe the female defect.

Patriarchy and infantriarchy are simple concepts that reflect a relationship of codependency between the male and female defects. If the male defect is over expressed in society, female infantilization is compelled, and patriarchy results. If the female defect is over expressed in society, male compensation is compelled, and infantriarchy results.

Thus, the traditional paradigm of pre-feminist Western culture wasn’t in its totality a patriarchy, because it was built around the expression of both the male and the female defects. The fact that there exist both males and females who wish to return to traditionalism proves this. The traditionalist female was thus perfectly happy to infantilize herself, and infantriarchy was a part of traditionalism that cannot be ignored.

The feminist response to this, of course, will be to claim that patriarchy infantilizes women and that the second concept is therefore unnecessary. To clarify this response, the feminist will essentially be claiming that the male defect is wholly to blame. This line of reasoning is problematic because it denies the existence of the female defect, and in doing so it assumes women are perfect and asserts that the defect necessarily exists solely within men.

This can only be described as hate.

Because feminism doesn’t acknowledge the existence of the female defect, it denies female complicity in traditionalism, and thus distorts the male defect of compensating into one of oppressing. Thus, feminists mistakenly believe that women were uniquely oppressed because they’re using half of a theoretical model to examine traditionalism.

The notion of female oppression becomes highly dubious when one considers the female defect. The female defect, for example, becomes apparent when a woman claims that women have always been the primary victims of war, despite the countless millions of men who have died. The female defect has led a woman to cry about being victimized over a t-shirt, and it has led a journalist to claim that MHRM efforts are based on “victim envy.” So it isn’t terribly surprising that the female defect might lead certain women to claim that human history was one long story of female oppression. It is simply an expression of the female defect. It is the female projecting her victimhood.

What then, is feminism?

To be fair, I have met a handful of feminists whose goals I thought were legitimate. To a significant extent, however, feminism is merely a sociopolitical platform for these defects, an arena for them to play in, and the cultural force which is expanding infantriarchy. Feminists claim their movement is about female equality, but I disagree. Being an expression of the female defect, feminism is merely a movement to express female victimhood; more specifically, it is an expression of female victimhood to compel sociopolitical male compensation with the humorous goal of preventing female victimhood.

This results in a merry-go-round to hell, wherein feminism actively entrenches the same value it seeks to fight.

Because feminism is essentially an expression of female victimhood working to end female victimhood, most feminists are stuck in the destructive convulsions of an individual fighting against a victim identity she has chosen for herself.

The nail in the coffin for our society is that the male defect supports and encourages this female behavior. The majority of feminists are fighting an identity they’ve chosen for themselves, one that makes them feel deeply unhappy and traumatized, and the majority of males, instead of criticizing them, are simply trying to compensate for them. The male’s drive to compensate for the infantilized female knows no bounds. If the female is expressing her oppression the male will seek to compensate. If the female is ruthlessly attacking the male’s identity and stripping him of his rights, the male will still seek to compensate.

It is important to understand that both defects must disappear, or neither one will. These two defects are codependent. Females must stop infantilizing themselves, and males must stop compensating for infantilized females. If the female defect isn’t addressed, then no matter how savagely the male defect is attacked, directly or indirectly, the problems with these defects will never be solved. One behavior compels the other, since men and women are and will always be two sides of the same coin. Men and women will evolve their consciousness together, or their consciousness will not evolve.

With this in mind, “patriarchal” expression of the male defect doesn’t disappear in an infantriarchy, it merely changes forms. Remember, in infantriarchy, male compensation is compelled. “White knights” and “manginas” are the expressions of patriarchy, because they are the expressions of the compelled male defect, and often this expression is so pathetic as to beggar belief.

This patriarchal behavior goes largely unnoticed by feminists because they don’t see the male defect directly for what it is. They arbitrarily define patriarchal behavior as authoritative, but they’re mistaken in this regard. Patriarchal behavior is any expression of the male defect. White knights and manginas are thus expressing patriarchal behavior because their behavior seeks to compensate for the female, and it thus encourages the female to continue expressing her victimhood and self-infantilization.

This is the reason some feminists are beginning to recognize and reject men like Hugo Schwyzer for what they are. Men like Schwyzer will never criticize women on any level, simply because men like Schwyzer aren’t remotely interested in equality. They are merely interested in validating their own puerile sexual identities by demonstrating their compensatory capacity. They are cowards, content to ignore real world suffering as they continue taking hits off the blue pill crack pipe. And they are ironically the very agents of patriarchy feminists denounce.

The profound irony of this is that feminism claims to oppose patriarchy while fiercely upholding it, and the MHRM hates the concept of patriarchy, but is currently the only cultural force actually fighting it.

Finally, an infantriarchy will be built around male blame. This is because the female defect leads her to project all authority on to the male, and this forms the basis for blaming him for all wrongdoing. In order to project victimhood, it is necessary for the female to cast the responsibility for her problems elsewhere. Thus, the more infantriarchal a society, the more male blame can be expected.

In our society, this blame is expressed in the feminist’s belief that equality can be achieved by examining “masculinities,” and by deconstructing “patriarchy.” It is also why the feminist believes men just need to shut up and listen to women in order for equality to happen; inequality, after all, was “men’s fault,” and men should shut up and let women fix it.

In late stage infantriarchy, men even become blamed for a woman’s feelings.

If a joke offends a woman, men are blamed. If a man says hello in an elevator in a way a woman dislikes, he is blamed for making her feel victimized. If a man approaches a woman in a bar and she doesn’t like it, he is blamed for making her feel bad, and society responds by prohibiting men from talking to women in this way. If a man looks at a woman who is half naked and it makes her feel bad, he is blamed for looking.

Since the purpose of feminism is largely to express victimhood, “victim blaming” becomes one of its tools. “Victim blaming” is simply another expression of male blame. It is a tool designed to protect female victimhood by savagely casting blame at any male who ever dares to question it.

Feminism does not seek to address either defect, it seeks to criticize male behavior while upholding the male defect and openly expressing the female one. Feminism thus upholds both patriarchy and infantriarchy. Since directly deconstructing and understanding both defects is a minimum prerequisite to promote equality between the sexes, feminism will never achieve equality on its own, however viciously it attacks men.

In my opinion, the MHRM sees these two defects for what they are, and criticizes both of them directly. The MHRM opposes feminism as an unrestrained expression of the female defect, and it opposes “white knights,” “manginas,” and the forces of chivalry as expressions of the male defect and enablers of the female defect. The MHRM opposes both patriarchy and infantriarchy.

For all its claims, feminism is not a progressive movement. Whatever its stated goals, feminism binds humanity to an archaic sexual identity. The MHRM is the socially progressive movement because it is spearheading a move toward greater self actualization for both men and women.

*This  article first published in 2013 at AVfM.

Cornelius Castoriadis: Infantile Narcissism Replaced by a Narcissistic Social Contract

/ gynocentrism / Leave a comment

According to Freud, childhood omnipotence & narcissism undergo displacement via a series of clashes with the reality principle. For a special group of humans, however, culture offers to compensate them for that displacement by offering elevated status, a contract that restores the narcissistic bubble. Cornelius Castoriadis describes the situation:

‘The “narcissistic contract,” theorizes what the psyche expects from society as compensation for the abandonment of its “monadic ultranarcissism”. That’s the narcissistic contract: If you behave in this or that way, you’ll then have other people’s recognition; you will be cathected by the others, who will fill the narcissistic breach opened by the abandonment of originary omnipotence.’ [Figures Of The Thinkable, by Cornelius Castoriadis, Stanford University Press, 2007]