Gynocentrism

When European Gynocentrism Came To India

/ gynocentrism

During British colonial rule in India, the Western customs of romantic love and chivalry began to influence Indian society, particularly among the upper classes, as they sought to project an image of “civilization.” This was the beginning of traditional gynocentrism.

The Indian image of the ‘devi’ (divine woman) was constructed during the British colonial period. By borrowing elements from traditional Hindu Brahmanical, patriarchal values and those of Victorian England, the Indian men made an effort to project themselves as ‘civilized’ in response to the colonial imagery brought into India. The ideas of ettiquette, chivalry, and romantic love were implanted onto existing patriarchal joint family norms. 1

During the period of the Raj, Anglo-Indian romance novels written by British women, and these love stories were symptomatic of British fantasies of colonial India and served as a forum to explore interracial relations as well as experimenting with the modern femininity of the New Woman witthin Indian culture.2 These Anglo-Indian romance novels often explored interracial relationships, with racial differences serving as a structural framework for the romantic narrative. 2

The idea of romantic love, shaped by British Romanticism and chivalric notions, influenced literature, culture, and societal norms in colonial India. Below are some scholarly works and key references that address this topic:

1. “The Romantic Imagination in Colonial India” by Homi K. Bhabha
  • Summary: Bhabha examines how colonial subjects in India were influenced by European Romanticism, which included ideals of individualism and emotional expression in love. The British colonialists, through their literature and cultural practices, promoted a concept of love that was distinct from traditional Indian ideals.
  • Citation: Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The Location of Culture. Routledge.
2. “The British Empire and the Culture of Romance” by James D. Laidlaw
  • Summary: This book explores how the British Empire, including its administration and literature, promoted the ideals of chivalric love, heroic virtue, and emotional expression, which were later incorporated into Indian culture. It discusses how British officers and administrators saw themselves as part of a chivalric mission in their dealings with India.
  • Citation: Laidlaw, J. D. (2002). Romanticism and Colonialism: An Historical Study. Cambridge University Press.
3. “Love, Romanticism, and Imperialism: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of British and Indian Love Narratives” by Gauri Maulik
  • Summary: Maulik delves into the cross-cultural exchange between Britain and India, focusing on how British romantic narratives influenced the portrayal of love in Indian literature. Romanticism, as shaped by British literature, was absorbed and adapted in the Indian context, often blending with traditional Indian ideals of love.
  • Citation: Maulik, G. (2010). Love and Empire: Colonial Encounters in Romantic Literature. Oxford University Press.
4. “Colonial Encounters: Gender and the Indian Elite” by Ania Loomba
  • Summary: This work focuses on the gender dynamics during the colonial era, including how British ideas of romance and love affected the portrayal of women and relationships in India. British ideas of courtly love, often steeped in chivalric values, were contrasted with the more rigid and socially structured ideas of love in Indian society.
  • Citation: Loomba, A. (1998). Colonialism/Postcolonialism. Routledge.
5. “Romanticism, Colonialism, and the Cultural Politics of Love” by Elizabeth Jane Hill
  • Summary: This paper examines how the British romantic imagination, with its focus on passionate, often idealized love, affected the cultural landscape in colonial India. It explores how these Western notions of romantic love were adopted by Indian writers, especially in the context of English-educated elites.
  • Citation: Hill, E. J. (2015). Romanticism, Colonialism, and the Cultural Politics of Love. Journal of Postcolonial Writing, 51(2), 163-177.
6. “Colonial Modernity in India” by Partha Chatterjee
  • Summary: Chatterjee discusses the broader impact of British colonialism on Indian society, including how Western concepts of love and marriage became entangled with traditional Indian customs. The “modern” notion of romantic love was promoted among the English-educated elite, especially in literature and the arts.
  • Citation: Chatterjee, P. (1993). The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories. Princeton University Press.
7. “The English Language and Indian Literature” by A. K. Ramanujan
  • Summary: Ramanujan addresses the introduction of English literature and the English language in India, which included the romantic and chivalric themes of British poetry and novels. Indian authors, especially those from the English-educated classes, were influenced by these new ideas of love and self-expression, as seen in their works.
  • Citation: Ramanujan, A. K. (1999). The Collected Essays of A. K. Ramanujan. Oxford University Press.

These sources provide a comprehensive view of how British romantic ideals, especially those connected to chivalry and courtly love, influenced Indian society during the colonial period, particularly through literature, education, and elite cultural practices.

To summarise: traditional gynocentrism came to India when romantic love came to India – all compliments of the British Colonial period. This new form of romantic love, based on the feudal model of a man down on one knee before an elevated woman, was seen nowhere earlier in India – despite some traditional concepts of passionate love that existed in the North of India. The British therefore were the ones to introduce romantic gynocentrism for the first time, and it has disrupted traditional Indian culture ever since.

 

References:

[1] Channa, S. M. (2013). Gender in South Asia: Social imagination and constructed realities. Cambridge University Press.

[2] Teo, H. M. (2004). Romancing the Raj: Interracial relations in Anglo-Indian romance novels. History of Intellectual Culture, 4(1).

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.

A Values-Centered Approach to Gynocentrism

/ gynocentrism

By Paul Elam

Eleanor Roosevelt is credited with saying ‘Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.’ It is a fantastic quote and I’d like to borrow from it and offer my own red pill spin:  Great minds discuss gynocentrism. Average minds discuss feminism. Small minds discuss women. 

When discussing a values-centered model in the context of gynocentric culture, I assume three states of being most typical to modern western men. Those are:

  1. Gynocentric
  2. Gynocentric Reactive
  3. Gynocentric Proactive

Gynocentric refers to the average man. He usually, but not always, operates with women unconsciously, just following whatever scripts he has adopted from early life. He seeks women’s acceptance without an intact set of values that are designed to protect him. In fact, it is his values that put him at risk. Many men value only being accepted sexually and romantically, by any woman they are attracted to, regardless of her moral character and any possible risk she represents.

The gynocentric man is the one with a piece of paper that says kick me taped to his back. We can mock him if we want, but we are well to remember that we have all been this man at one point or another in our lives.

Gynocentric Reactive is a much more complicated affair. Here we see men who are infinitely more conscious than gynocentric men. They are aware of relationship pitfalls, may even be quite familiar with concepts like gynocentrism, hypergamy and male disposability.

It is their reaction to that information that may foment troubles. These men can be perpetually fulminating and overtly hostile to anything female. It’s the “all women are bitches and hoes” crowd, and the ever present resentments they carry can cause emotional and psychological atrophy. They may have a diminished capacity for reason and defensively take refuge in an ideology that shields them from examining their anger productively.

Another manifestation of the gynocentric reactive man is one who hides inside emotional armor, simply reducing women to their sexual utility, doing their best to get sex then get out. Unfortunately, it is a form of self-protection that may well heighten risk with repeated sexual contact with women who have not been assessed for anything other than physical attraction.

Finally, there are still other gynocentric reactive men who are just frustrated by the realities of lived experience with women. They find themselves caught in a web of confusion and consternation. They tend to be understandably mistrustful of women, and sometimes vacillate between being indifferent to them and being attracted. They feel stuck and outgunned. Chronic loneliness is often part of their lot. For this reason, many of them may be attracted to the other forms of reaction-based mindsets that don’t leave them feeling so vulnerable.

Gynocentric Reactive men get call misogynists a lot. They’re not. Setting aside judgements about the efficacy of their state of being, they are just men rationally demonstrating the will to self-protect. Regardless of how tiring the perpetual anger may be, they are much more functional and conscious than the gynocentrist.

The Gynocentric Proactive man routinely operates consciously with women. He has a clearly identified, personally chosen set of values that trump his sexual instincts and significantly temper his need for female approval.

Whether he includes women in his life or not, he is not burdened by fear of, or resentment toward, them.

He does not tolerate abuse, doesn’t take unnecessary financial risks or commit thoughtlessly. He can be available for a relationship if he chooses. He is also willing and able to let a relationship go that threatens his well-being. And he can do it without undue emotional distress.

Importantly, he is willing, indeed insistent, on evaluating any woman on his radar for risk and maintenance concerns.

It is important to reiterate here that none of these states of being can be called wrong. They are simply ways of coping in the modern sexual milieu. Even the gynocentric male is trying to cope in his way.

I will point out, however, that when I see men belittling and shaming other men for not walking in lockstep with them, it usually comes from gynocentric and gynocentric reactive men. Those are also the two states of being where, exceptions notwithstanding, I have observed the least happiness and the least reasonable points of view.

So, obviously, the intent here is to suggest that there is much more benefit to men in a Gynocentric Proactive state of being. The benefits are certainly there for emotional health.

 

Madame Bovary Syndrome (English Translation from the original French paper – 1892)

/ Peter Wright

Madame Bovary Syndrome (bovarysme/bovarism) represents women’s delusional fixation on the ideals of romantic love.  The term was coined by French writer J. de Gaultier in his 1892 essay Le bovarysme, la psychologie dans l’oeuvre de Flaubert, with the following two excerpts translated (and paraphrased) from the original French essay. – PW

Mr. Montégut noted that the appearance of Madame Bovary “was a reaction to certain long-sovereign influences.” She stood in all reality for the false ideal made fashionable by the school of romantic love and for the dangerous sentimentality that has as its counterpart the male figure of Don Quixote who was a consequence for the too long-prolonged chivalric mania of Spain.

Mr. Montégut continues; “As Cervantes dealt the death blow to the chivalrous mania with the very weapons of chivalry, it is with the very same processes that G. Flaubert has destroyed the false ideal promoted by the romantic love school; it is with the very resources of the romantic imagination that he has painted the vices and errors of that imagination in the figure of Madame Bovary.”  [Page 11]

* * *

If all of Flaubert’s characters reveal in their feelings and in their ideas the morbid principle that governs them, there is one who manifests a more complete, singularly evil set of symptoms: Madame Bovary. Equipped with a strongly accentuated temperament and an active will, she creates within herself, in contradiction to her real nature, a being of imagination, made of the substance of her reveries and  enthusiasms.

In complete good faith she incarnates in this ghost, and lends it passions and desires, putting in it all the tension of her nerves, and putting all the energy of her soul at its service to satisfy them.  Her true instincts however, always ready to emerge, protest with their violence against this usurpation and try to reconquer the place that has been taken from them; she strives to stifle their calls, and with incredible determination she persists in turning her eyes away from herself, seeing herself only under the appearance of her dream.

Her entire life is torn apart by this poignant struggle between her little-known real self and the chimerical monster she has installed in her brain. Thus torn between these two equal powers, abused by the false romantic ideal that she has formed of herself, the poor woman becomes this hybrid being dedicated to the necessary lie and leading ultimately to suicide, which alone puts an end to her terrible duality.

By the obstinate blindness by which she carried out her incessant evolution, and by her tragic end, she personified in herself this original disease of the human soul for which her name can serve as a label: we can understand that “Bovarysm” is the faculty given to man to conceive of himself otherwise than he is, without taking into account the various motives and external circumstances which determine this intimate transformation in each individual. [Page 26]

 

SEE ALSO: What is Madame Bovary Syndrome?

Romantic Chivalry Encourages (Vulnerable) Female Narcissism

/ gynocentrism

*the first part of this article was published earlier as Gynocentrism As A Narcissistic Pathology – Part 2.

The proverbial ‘pedestalisation’ of women fostered by romantic love tropes is one that encourages narcissistic self-identification in women (Wright, 2020). An unbroken line featuring noblewomen, and the men who love them, appears in each iteration of literature; from the medieval romances of Tristan and Isolde, Lancelot and Guinevere; the weaving and telling of European fairy tales; Shakespeare; Victorian women’s novels; up to and including modern Disney Princess movies and the ubiquitous romance novel which continues to out-gross all other genres of literature today.

As a dominant source of role modelling, studies have surveyed the impact of such imagery on women’s identity formation and their choices of romantic partners, finding for example that “women are influenced, whether consciously or unconsciously, by what they saw in Disney princess films while choosing mates, setting standards and establishing expectations for their lovers.” (Minor, 2014).

Parents may not fully appreciate the impact of exposing daughters to aristocratic role models, nor see the harms that can arise from such an identification for later adult relationships. In their book The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in The Age of Entitlement (2009), Twenge and Campbell underline the dangers of princess role models which encourage daughters to become narcissistic:

Parents do not consciously think, “Wow, wouldn’t it be great to raise a narcissistic child?” Instead, they want to make their children happy and raise their self-esteem but often take things too far. Good intentions and parental pride have opened the door to cultural narcissism in parenting, and many parents express their love for their children in the most modern of ways: declaring their children’s greatness. A remarkable percentage of clothing for baby girls has “Princess” or “Little Princess” written on it, which is wishful thinking unless you are the long-lost heir to a throne. And if your daughter is a princess, does this mean that you are the queen or king? No—it means you are the loyal subject, and you must do what the princess says. (Twenge & Campbell, 2009)

In fairytale models the female gender role becomes the locus of a narcissistic script, as detailed by Green and colleagues (2019) who point to an unfavourable outcome whereby, “female narcissists may assert their femininity and receive affirmation from society to attain their goals, and at the same time deflect accountability and externalise blame.” (Green, et al., 2019).

WHAT HAS BEEN MEN’S ROLE IN PROMOTING GYNOCENTRIC NARCISSISM?

Firstly we can say that men have played a principle role in aiding and abetting the growth of gynocentrism among women, motivated in large part by a desire to form relationships with them. Secondly, as Paul Elam recently pointed out in an article Daddy’s Little Nightmare, men encourage narcissism in their daughters:

It’s quite ironic, listening to a man complain about how his wife has crazy unreal expectations. He bemoans the fact that she cannot be satisfied, no matter what he does. He claims that he pulls his hair out trying to figure out how to satisfy her endless demands only to be met with more disapproval and, of course, more demands. He wonders aloud how she ever learned to be such a bottomless pit, and such a bitch about it.

Then you go watch him interact with his four-year old daughter, whom he will endlessly coddle and for whom he will go to any measure to make sure she never lacks anything, no matter how trivial.

And it doesn’t stop when she turns five. Or fifteen, or twenty-five. When it comes to turning human females into paragons of pissy entitlement, the western father has few rivals. (Elam, 2019)

Suffice to say that many men are complicit in maintaining the status quo, creating a culture of exaggerated benevolent sexism in order to gain and maintain intimate access to women. The subsequent relationship dynamic is one they usually come to find destructive to their emotional and physical wellbeing and is thus unsustainable in the long term. Some men adjust to the gynocentric dynamic by resigning their dreams and emotional needs and playing the role of what is disparagingly referred to as a ‘simp’ or overly servile partner, perhaps rationalizing that gynocentrism is encoded into our genome and is thus ‘the way of nature.’

Gynocentric narcissism is further upheld by men at the institutional level, relying for example on a chivalric compact between women and male politicians who wish to hold office (Farrell, 1996; Frasure-Yokley, 2018; Lodders & Weldon, 2019; Naurin, et al., 2019; Wright, 2017), or male court judges who are eager to demonstrate their chivalric credentials by providing lighter sentences for female offenders (Visher, 1983; Hood, 1992; Curry, et al., 2004; Embry, et al., 2012; Starr, 2015). Such displays by men in positions of power have the effect of normalizing gynocentrism, along with the gender imbalance it entails, as an acceptable standard of behavior for heterosexual exchanges.

In cultures perceived as encouraging female narcissism, an emerging male demographic is seeking female partners who eschew the gynocentric blueprint in favor of alternative relationship models; for example traditional gender roles based on division of responsibility and labor (Wright, 2022), or alternatively a ‘multi-option’ model for both male and female partners based on the libertarian principles of individual choice, self-determination, and negotiated labor-sharing arrangements (Wright, 2022). Others are seeking relationships with women from Asian countries that have been less exposed to gynocentric culture forces.

Further, increasing numbers of ‘no gynocentrism’ men are choosing to avoid long-term relationships with women, adopting instead the lifestyle of confirmed bachelors while engaging in meaningful relationships and activities that can fill the breach (Smith, 2013, Yiannopoulos, 2014). In Western societies these men are sometimes referred to as ‘Zeta Males’ who reject the gynocentrism-dependent male categories of alpha and beta (Tayo, 2017), or alternatively they are called ‘Men Going Their Own Way,’ (Wright & Elam, 2013), and in Japanese society they are given the title of sôshoku danshi or ‘herbivore men’ to denote their refusal to seek traditional ‘carnivorous’ pursuits of career and women (Smith, 2013, Morioka, 2013, Yiannopoulos, 2014).

 

References:

Wright, P. (2020). Gynocentrism As A Narcissistic Pathology. New Male Studies, 9(1).
Minor, B. D. (2014). Happily Ever After: Is Disney Setting Us Up? A Study on Disney Princesses and Their Influence on Young Women and Their Personal Love Narratives.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2009). The narcissism epidemic: Living in the age of entitlement. Simon and Schuster.
Green, A., Charles, K., & MacLean, R. (2019). Perceptions of female narcissism in intimate partner violence: A thematic analysis. Qualitative methods in psychology bulletin, (28), 13-27.
Elam, Paul. (2019). Daddy’s Little Nightmare, published at A Voice for Men.
Farrell, W. (1996). The myth of male power. Berkeley Publishing Group.
Frasure-Yokley, L. (2018). Choosing the Velvet Glove: Women Voters, Ambivalent Sexism, and Vote Choice in 2016. Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics, 3(1), 3-25.
Lodders, V., & Weldon, S. (2019). Why do women vote radical right? Benevolent sexism, representation and inclusion in four countries. Representation, 55(4), 457-474.
Naurin, D., Naurin, E., and Amy A. (2019). Gender Stereotyping and Chivalry in International Negotiations: A Survey Experiment in the Council of the European Union. A Survey Experiment in the Council of the European Union. International Organization, 73(2), pp. 469-488.
Wright, P. (Ed.). (2017). Republicans and Democrats, both Gynocrats. Chapter 8. A Brief History of The Men’s Rights Movement: From 1856 to the present. Academic Century Press.
Visher, C. A. (1983). Gender, police arrest decisions, and notions of chivalry. Criminology, 21(1), 5-28.
Hood, R. G. (1992). Race and sentencing: a study in the Crown Court: a report for the Commission for Racial Equality. Oxford University Press, USA.
Embry, R., & Lyons Jr, P. M. (2012). Sex-based sentencing: Sentencing discrepancies between male and female sex offenders. Feminist Criminology, 7(2), 146-162.
Starr, S. B. (2015). Estimating gender disparities in federal criminal cases. American Law and Economics Review, 17(1), 127-159.
Curry, T. R., Lee, G., & Rodriguez, S. F. (2004). Does victim gender increase sentence severity? Further explorations of gender dynamics and sentencing outcomes. Crime & Delinquency, 50(3), 319-343.
Smith, H. (2013). Men on Strike: Why Men are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream–and why it Matters. Encounter Books.
Yiannopoulos, M. (2014). The sexodus, part 1: The men giving up on women and checking out of society. Breitbart London.
Tayo, A. O. (2017) A new class of men who don’t care what you think – Zeta Males are the new type of men who do not play the ‘game’ but are societal rebels. Published at Pulse.ng.
Wright, P. Elam, P. (2013), Go Your Own Way: Understanding MGTOW. Zeta Press.
Morioka, M. (2013). A phenomenological study of “herbivore men”.
Wright, P. (2022). The Tradwife Revisited, Published at https://gynocentrism.com/ (retrieved on 22/03/23)

The Natural Gynocentrism Fallacy

/ gynocentrism / Leave a comment

The natural gynocentrism fallacy, otherwise known as bio-gynocentrism, is a centuries old mythology first promoted in feminist circles, and subsequently to mass culture under the guise of science. Below is a selection of writings elaborating on this fallacy.

– The ‘Natural Gynocentrism Fallacy’ (Hanna Wallen)
– What’s in a suffix? taking a look at the meaning of gyno–centrism (Peter Wright)
– Is Gynocentrism Adaptive? (Peter Ryan)
– Robert Briffault’s Law Doesn’t Apply to Humans (Peter Wright)
– Has the MRM Adopted a Gynocentric Ideology? (Peter Wright)
– ‘Biological Gynocentrism’: Falling Into The Feminist Trap? (Peter Wright)
– Lester Ward’s Gynocentrism & The Deification of Women (Peter Ryan)
– Eight Traits of the Bio-Gynocentrist (Vernon Meigs)
– Bio-gynocentrism: Turning Science Into Goddess Worship (Peter Ryan)
– Humans as a “Gynocentric Species” is Pure Myth (Peter Wright)

Robert Briffault insisted his ‘law’ doesn’t apply to humans

/ Peter Wright / Leave a comment

We’ve all heard it before – the claim that we must accept gynocentrism as the default setting for the human species, and for human relationships, because Robert Briffault said it was true a century ago. The only problem is that he didn’t say that at all; its a fabrication by people who have attempted to con us into thinking gynocentrism is the incontrovertible basis of human existence.

Briffault’s law, as stated in his book The Mothers, is this:

“The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.”1

Many have embraced Briffault’s Law and applied it to human relationships in a way that Briffault didn’t intend. Briffault applied his law strictly and explicitly to non-human animals in a chapter titled “The Herd And The Family Amongst Animals.”

In the section describing his ‘animal’ law he qualifies that, quote “There is, in fact, no analogy between the animal family and the patriarchal human family. The former is entirely the product of the female’s instincts, and she, not the male, is the head.”

The chapter is five pages long. In it he mentions tigers, elks, lions, zebras, gazelles, buffaloes, deer, monkeys, beavers, lions, birds and other animals, and only references humans briefly in order to contrast human behavioural patterns from those of animals. Briffault says:

“There is in fact no analogy between that [animal] group and the patriarchal human family; to equate the two is a proceeding for which there is no justification. The patriarchal family in the form in which it exists today is a juridic institution. Whatever external and superficial similarities there may be in the constitution of the human and of the animal family, there is one profound and fundamental difference. The patriarchal family is founded upon the supremacy of the male as ‘pater familias,’ as head of the family. This is not the case in the animal family. it is, on the contrary, entirely the product and manifestation of the female’s instincts; she, and not the male, is its head. We may occasionally find the male employed in foraging for the brood and for the mother, while the latter is lying quiescent in charge of her eggs or brood; but there is nothing in those appearances to justify us in regarding the animal family as patriarchal; on the contrary, the conduct of the group is entirely determined not by the male but by the female.”1

Most of what Robert Briffault says is factually incorrect by today’s standard of knowledge. But what we can say without any doubt is that he never applied his “law” to humans. Therefore, let us apply Occam’s razor to this monumental con-job that has been disseminated in the manosphere and beyond.

While we are at it, why not apply the razor to all the other bogus arguments for natural gynocentrism; the people disseminating such unscientific rubbish are not genuinely interested in men’s liberation from the current status quo.

* * *

 

[1]  Robert Briffault, The Mothers: A Study Of The Origins Of Sentiments And Institutions, Volume 1 of 3  (April, 1927)