Article published in The Tribune – Fri 30 Sep 1932: Father takes exception to dowry system of paying for daughters – suggests they should instead marry for mutual “pleasures.”

Dorothy Dix asks:
“Is Your Wife Worth 10%?”

It is a lamentable fact that, under the existing laws, many women are better off financially when they are divorced or when their husbands are dead than at any other period of their married life. There is something drastically wrong with the social system when such a state of affairs is allowed to exist.

The following is a history of gynocentrism’s journey into China during the early 20th Century – based upon the Chinese language. English (pdf.) translation by SpiritHart.

The following definitions explain the term ‘Evosimp’ and its related form ‘Evosimping,’ capturing the concept of men justifying self-sacrifice or deference to women through evolutionary reasoning – compliments of Chat GPT.

1. Long, Dictionary-Style Version

Evosimp (noun)
A person who justifies disproportionate male self-sacrifice or subservience to women by invoking evolutionary psychology or evolutionary arguments, claiming that women inherently hold greater reproductive or evolutionary value.

Evosimping (verb, intransitive)
The act of behaving as an evosimp; engaging in the rationalization or performance of excessive male deference to women on the basis of evolutionary reasoning.

2. Short, Punchy Version

Evosimp (n.) – A man who treats women as inherently more valuable and justifies self-sacrifice or subservience using evolutionary arguments.

Evosimping (v.) – Acting like an evosimp; putting women on a pedestal and excusing male self-denial as “evolutionary necessity.”

Throughout history, men certainly performed caring acts for the good of their families and communities—but these gestures were not one-sided. Women, elders, and other family members also contributed their own sacrifices, creating a balance of mutual care. What we see in the historical record is not gynocentrism, but cooperation: family as a team.

Traditionally, men and women lived within family and community networks where everyone’s life and labor mattered, and protections were extended according to circumstance and need. Yes, women were sometimes prioritized for assistance, but so too were children, the elderly, the injured, or the sick. This was not evidence of a female-centered order—it was simply an expression of storge, the Greek word for familial love. Acts of care flowed in many directions, depending on who was most vulnerable in the moment.

To explore this point further, I conducted a small poll (see below). The question was simple: In a traditional society, which family member would men have rescued first from a burning house? One of the answer choices was “pregnant woman,” since pregnancy is often cited as the reason women supposedly always received priority.

The results were telling. Out of 825 respondents, the overwhelming majority believed that young children would be assisted first (73.3%). Frail grandparents came next (13.3%), followed by pregnant women (10.5%), and lastly non-pregnant women (2.8%). These responses reflect a common-sense principle: protection was given first to those in greatest need, not automatically to women.

Traditional family life was guided by the ethic of “all for one, and one for all.” Men, women, children, and elders were all valued, and any of them might become the priority depending on the situation. If an uncle broke his leg, he would be helped. If a grandfather fell ill, he would be cared for. If a child was in danger, he or she came first. To call care for a woman “gynocentrism” makes no more sense than calling care for an injured uncle “uncle-centrism.”

The idea that every act of familial kindness toward women must be reframed as evidence of a gynocentric order is a modern distortion—a projection of ideology onto the past. It reduces the complexity of human family life into a one-dimensional myth of female-centeredness. In truth, traditional society was not gynocentric, but family-centric.