Gynocentric Feminism – by Iris Young

January 10, 2019January 26, 2019 / rtbavfm / Leave a comment

Below is an excerpt from a 1985 paper entitled “Humanism, Gynocentrism, and Feminist Politics” by feminist Iris M. Young – PW.

Iris M. Young

Gynocentric feminism defines the oppression of women very differently from humanist feminism. Women’s oppression consists not of being prevented from participating in full humanity, but of the denial and devaluation of specifically feminine virtues and activities by an overly instrumentalized and authoritarian masculinist culture. Unlike humanist feminism, gynocentric feminism does not focus its analysis on the impediments to women’s self-development and the exclusion of women from the spheres of power, prestige, and creativity. Instead, gynocentric feminism focuses its critique on the values expressed in the dominant social spheres themselves.

The male-dominated activities with the greatest prestige in our society — politics, science, technology, warfare, business — threaten the survival of the planet and the human race. That our society affords these activities the highest value only indicates the deep perversity of patriarchal culture. Masculine values exalt death, violence, competition, selfishness, a repression of the body, sexuality, and affectivity.

Feminism finds in women’s bodies and traditionally feminine activity the source of positive values. Women’s reproductive processes keep us linked with nature and the promotion of life to a greater degree than men’s. Female eroticism is more fluid, diffuse, and loving than violence-prone male sexuality. Our feminine socialization and traditional roles as mothers give us the capacity to nurture and a sense of social cooperation that may be the only salvation of the planet.

Gynocentric feminism thus defines the oppression of women quite differently from the way humanistic feminism defines it. Femininity is not the problem, not the source of women’s oppression, but indeed within traditional femininity lie the values that we should promote for a better society. Women’s oppression consists of the devaluation and repression of women’s nature and female activity by the patriarchal culture.

? ? ?

Gynocentric feminism has received a number of expressions in the United States women’s movement in recent years. Artists and poets have been among the leaders in developing images of celebration of this more positive understanding of women’s history and contemporary self-understanding. Judy Chicago’s The Dinner Party, for example, laboriously and beautifully recovers whole aspects of women’s history and locates them within images of female genitalia and objects that rely on traditionally female arts.

Within the sphere of political activism, gynocentric feminism perhaps is best represented in the feminist antimilitarist and ecology movements of the past five years. In the Women’s Pentagon Action or the action at the Seneca Army Depot, for example, a major aspect of the political protest has been the use of symbols and actions that invoke traditional labor, such as weaving, spinning, birthing, mothering. Feminist antimilitarist and ecological analysis has argued that the dangers to the planet that have been produced by the nuclear arms race and industrial technology are essentially tied to masculinist values. The burgeoning movement of feminist spirituality entails a similar analysis and promotes values associated with traditional femininity.

A number of prominent recent theories of contemporary feminism express a gynocentric feminism. I see Susan Griffin’s Woman and Nature as one of the first written statements of gynocentric feminism in the second wave. It shows that one of the first steps of gynocentrism is to deny the nature/culture dichotomy held by humanists such as Beauvoir and to affirmatively assert the connection of women and nature. Daly’s Gyn/Ecology I see as a transition work. In it Daly asserts an analysis of the victimization of women by femininity that outdoes Beauvoir, but she also proposes a new gynocentric language.

Carol Gilligan’s critique of male theories of moral development has had a strong influence on the formation of gynocentric analysis. She questions dominant assumptions about moral valuation and affirms forms of moral reasoning associated with traditional femininity. Following Chodorow, she argues that gender socialization creates in women a relational communal orientation toward others, while it creates in men a more oppositional and competitive mode of relating to others. These gender differences produce two different forms of moral rationality: a masculine ethic of rights and justice, and a feminine ethic of responsibility and care.

Traditional moral theory has ignored and repressed the particularistic ethic of care as being pre-moral. Women’s moral oppression consists of being measured against male standards, according to Gilligan, in the silencing of women’s different voice. The dominance of those male centered values of abstract reasoning, instrumentality, and individualism, moreover, produce a cold, uncaring, competitive world. Both the liberation of women and the restructuring of social relations require tempering these values with the communally oriented values derived from women’s ethic of care. While Gilligan herself would reject the label of gynocentric feminist, her work has exerted an enormous influence on feminists in fields as diverse as mathematics and philosophy, providing the foundation for a revaluation of attributes associated with femininity.

Mary O’Brien articulates a gynocentric critique of traditional political theory starting from the bio-logical fact that the reproductive process gives women a living continuity with their offspring that it does not give men. Women thus have a temporal consciousness that is continuous, whereas male temporal consciousness is discontinuous. Arising from the alienation from the child they experience in the reproductive process, masculine thought emphasizes dualism and separation. Men establish a public realm in which they give spiritual birth to a second nature, transcending the private realm of mere physicality and reproduction to which they confine women.

Patriarchy develops an ideology of the male potency principle, which installs the father as ruler of the family and men as rulers of society, and substitutes an intellectual notion of creativity for the female principle of life generation. The contemporary women’s movement has the potential to overturn such a conception of politics that is separated from life continuity because out of female reproductive consciousness can come a politics based on women’s experience of life processes and species continuity.

Nancy Hartsock’s theory of the feminist stand-point from which she analyzes patriarchal culture is a more sweeping version of gynocentric feminism. She argues that the sexual division of labor provides men and women with differing experiences that structure different standpoints upon nature and social relations. Based on Chodorow’s theory of the development of gender personalities, Hartsock argues that men experience the relation of self and other as one of hostility and struggle.

The sexual division of labor also removes men from the needs of the body, from the vulnerability and basic demands of children and the aged, and provides men with an instrumentally calculative reltion to nature. This division of labor, she argues, produces a way of thinking about the world that Hartsock calls abstract masculinity, which organizes experience and social relations into binary oppositions in which one term carries greater value than the other.

This standpoint of abstract masculinity has determined the primary structure of Western social relations and culture. This male dominated culture’s values are both partial and perverse. It embodies sexuality where desire for fusion with the other takes the form of domination of the other. Masculine consciousness denies and fears the body and associates birth with death. The only sense of community generated by abstract masculinity, moreover, is the community of warriors in preparation for combat.

From women’s experience, Hartsock claims, we can both criticize masculinity values and conceptualization and develop a better vision of social relations. The gender personalities women develop in relation to their mothers give them a propensity to feel more connected with others than men do. The experiences of menstruation, coitus, pregnancy, and lactation, which challenge body boundaries, give women a greater experience of continuity with nature.

Women’s labor in caring for men and children and producing basic values in the home, finally, gives them a greater rootedness in nature than men’s work gives them, a more basic understanding of life processes. These attributes of women’s experience can ground, Hartsock argues, a form of conceptualization that does not depend on dichotomous thinking and that values connections among persons more than their separation, as does abstract masculinity.

While Sara Ruddick is careful to claim that any recovery and revaluation of traditionally feminine attributes must be infused with a feminist politics, her notion of maternal thinking provides another example of a gynocentric feminist analysis. She argues that the specific daily practices of mothering generate specific modes of thinking motivated by the interests in preservation, growth, and the acceptability of the child to the society. Maternal practice is not restricted to mothers, but exists wherever such nurturing and preservation interests prevail. She suggests that maternal thinking provides antimilitarist values that feminists can use in promoting a politics of peace.

Writing within a very different intellectual current from American feminists, using rather different assumptions and style, several women in France in recent years have developed distinctive versions of gynocentric feminism. I shall mention only Luce Irigaray and Julia Kristeva. Like a number of other contemporary French thinkers, Irigaray describes phallocentric culture as preoccupied by a meta-physics of identity dominated by visual metaphors. Male thinking begins by positing the One, the same, the essence, that generates binary oppositions in which the second term is defined by the first as what it is not, thus reducing it to its identity.

Phallogocentric discourse defines the opposition male/female in just this way—woman is only not a man, a lack, a deficiency. Preoccupied with the straight, the true, the proper, men establish relations of property and exchange in which accounts are balanced. Women in the phallocentric system have been silenced and separated, exchanged as goods among men. Irigaray pro-poses that women must find and speak the specificity of female desire, which has completely different values from those of phallic thinking.

Women’s eroticism is neither one nor two but plural, as women’s bodies themselves experience arousal and pleasure in a multiplicity of places that cannot all be identified. Touch, not sight, predominates, the autoeroticism of vaginal lips touching clitoris, of intimate bodies touching. A genuinely feminine language moves and twists, starts over again from different perspectives, does not go straight to the point. Such a language can displace the sterility and oppressiveness of phallogocentric categorization.

Kristeva also focuses on language and the repression of specifically female experience. Language has two moments: the symbolic, the capacity of language to represent and define, to be literal; and the semiotic, those elements of language that slip and play in ambiguities and nuance. Certain linguistic practices, such as poetry, make most explicit use of the semiotic, but for the most part the playful, the musical in language is repressed in Western culture and the symbolic, rational, legalistic discourse rules.

For Kristeva this repression concerns the repression of the body and the installation of order, hierarchy, and authority. Repression of the body and the semiotic entails repression of the pre-oedipal experience of the maternal body before the subject emerges with a self-identical ego, as well as denial by the culture of the specificity and difference that the female body exhibits. Challenge to the dominant oppressions, to capitalism, racism, sexism, must come not only from specific demands within the political arena, but also from changing the speaking subject.

Kristeva finds in the repressed feminine the potential for such change, where feminine means at least two things: first, women’s specific experience as female bodies, the daughters of mothers, and often mothers themselves, an experience of a decentered subject; second, the aspects of language and behavior Western culture has devalued and repressed: the poetic, rhythmic, musical, nurturant, and soothing, but also contradictory and shifting ways of being, that fickleness that women have been accused of. This revolution of the feminine Kristeva finds in anumber of male avant-garde writers. The women’s movement, however, also carries the possibility of displacing the rigidity of a subject that loves authority, provided that women do not fall into that humanist feminism by which they simply demand to get in on the masculinist power game.

To summarize, humanist feminism defines femininity as the source of women’s oppression and calls upon male-dominated institutions to allow women the opportunity to participate fully in public world-making activities of industry, politics, art, and science. In contrast, gynocentric feminism questions the values of these traditional public activities that have been dominated by men. Women’s oppression consists not of being prevented from participating in full humanity, but of the denial and devaluation of specifically feminine virtues and activities by an overly instrumentalized and authoritarian masculinist culture. Femininity is not the problem for gynocentric feminism, and indeed is the source of a conception of society and the subject that can not only liberate women, but also all persons.

Perversions of gynocentrism

January 8, 2019July 13, 2020 / Peter Ryan / 2 Comments

Article by Peter Ryan

Chivalry And Feminism Go Hand In Hand

Gynocentrism perverts everything it comes into contact with and the first casualty is the standard of behaviour between men and women. Sydney Watson recently did a great video ¹ on men helping women and the ridiculous feminist concept of benevolent sexism. In this article I will be discussing her video and exploring the connection between chivalry and the success of feminism. I will also be discussing benevolent sexism further and what is missing for men in our gynocentric society, as part of my series on exploring the nature of gynocentrism. Chivalry has been around in Western culture for far longer than feminism and is one of the major contributing factors to the rise of feminism in society and its successful and rapid spread through our institutions, corporations, politics, academia, media, law and policy etc.

The chivalrous deference that men in power have shown toward women and their eagerness to prioritise female well-being, often at the expense of everything else, has been absolutely critical to the rise, spread and success of feminism in Western culture. The willingness of men and boys as a group to not just tolerate, but actively support feminist measures that prioritise female well-being over their own well-being, without any reciprocity, is a product of the gynocentric tradition of chivalry that has been ingrained in our culture for centuries and passed down from generation to generation. Without men in power and men as a group deferring to the demands of feminists and women as a group and feminists deliberately exploiting the gynocentric tradition of chivalry, feminism would have never been able to gain traction.

Chivalry ² is what gynocentric traditionalists (not all traditionalists are gynocentric) do not want men and boys to unlearn. What they fail to understand, or perhaps do not want to understand, is that it is chivalry that allowed feminism to emerge, grow and quickly spread throughout society like a virus and gain a stranglehold in our institutions etc. Feminism was a power grab by a substantial fraction of the female population, to enshrine gynocentric double standards into law, policy, media, academia, businesses and our institutions and normalise those double standards in the culture.

Chivalry was what gave feminism the opportunity to successfully execute a bloodless coup of our societies. Chivalry was the accelerant that facilitated the rapid spread of the feminist firestorm through every branch of society, without any resistance from the men supposedly in power. We could eliminate feminism tomorrow, but as long as chivalry remains in our culture, it will simply re-emerge a few decades later under a different name. I would actually go further and argue that as long as chivalry remains in our culture, feminism will never be defeated.

As long as men defer to women and men in power and in men general are prepared to prioritise female well-being over male well-being, without any reciprocity for men and boys, feminism will keep succeeding on every front with their agenda until society collapses. Calls by gynocentric traditionalists for men to be more chivalrous, are nothing less than calls for more gasoline to be thrown into a burning building. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, is called insanity. It is gynocentric insanity to be promoting chivalry in the modern feminist society we live in.

Feminists are of course all too happy to keep exploiting chivalry to their advantage and like gynocentric traditionalists, they also encourage and promote chivalry when it suits them. HeForShe and White Ribbon for example, are nothing less than an attempt by feminists to blatantly exploit chivalry for their own benefit. We could go through example, after example, after example, of this same strategy being employed by feminists- Set a victim narrative or damsel in distress narrative where women and girls are in need of male assistance, instill guilt and shame in men and then engender a sense of duty in men to save the day, be the white knight and redeem themselves (of course even when men do what feminists say, they are never forgiven for their sin of being male), then ostracise any man or woman that questions your narrative and label them a misogynist. Wash, rinse, repeat. It is the same feminist strategy every time and on every occasion our male politicians fall for it and so does most of the rest of society. Exploiting chivalry from men and boys, has always been a core element of feminism’s success. It is the fuel that keeps the feminist fire burning.

The prime distinction between gynocentric traditionalists and feminists, is they exploit chivalry to fit an agenda that is different. Both exploit chivalry, just for different ends. Both are different sides of the same gynocentric coin and are in conflict over the male resources they want to exploit. It is a gynocentric tug of war between two gynocentric factions of society that want to exploit men for different goals. Neither group has an ounce of concern for male well-being, except to the extent it serves female interests.

So why is it exactly that feminism has been able to rely so heavily on chivalry to gain traction in society? Chivalry in its modern form is one-sided. There is no reciprocal set of responsibilities and duties expected from women and girls, in relation to how they treat men and boys. It is all one-way traffic, which makes chivalry the perfect fuel to drive a one-sided and bigoted agenda of female supremacy under the banner of feminism. Whilst chivalry has diminished somewhat in the culture over the last several decades, it still remains socially enforced to a substantial degree in modern society. Indeed a number of women in the media ³ have been doing their very best to promote chivalry.

This is about women wanting to have their cake and eat it too. They want the rights and opportunities of men, but not the responsibilities, obligations and sacrifices expected of men and they want to keep the traditional privileges women have enjoyed for centuries. They want to be treated as equals when it suits them, but they want special treatment like they are aristocracy when equality does not suit them. This is female entitlement mentality. The same women arguing men should act like gentlemen from the 19^th century, bristle at the very mention of women acting like ladies from the 19^th century. That right there is the problem- Lack of reciprocity. The one-sided gynocentric face of chivalry in the modern era.

To Defeat Feminism Chivalry Has Got To Go

Chivalry in its modern form is gynocentric bigotry. It is a one-sided code of socially enforced behaviour for men and boys to treat women and girls as a group with a special level of care and respect, simply because they are a female, with no equivalent efforts expected to be made by women and girls toward men and boys in return. Men and boys are expected to act like gentlemen and women and girls can act in any manner they please toward men and boys. Like other forms of bigotry, chivalry has no place in a society that claims it is against discrimination and for equality.

If we are ever going to defeat feminism, then chivalry will need to go. Men in power have to start saying “no” to the demands of feminists and putting their principles ahead of the approval of feminists, female voters and female media commentators. Men in general are going to have to learn to set boundaries with women and stand their ground and not cater to the demand’s women make that conflict with their values. Men in general need to learn to say “no”⁴ to unreasonable demands by women and feminists. This might sound simple and yet for many men they cannot bring themselves to say that simple word when it really matters. What would we call a relationship when you cannot say no to a group or individual? Slavery and dictatorships come to mind.

Society is not a patriarchy, that is feminist projection (so much of feminist ideology in general is projection). Modern Western society more accurately resembles a matriarchy by proxy, with feminists ruling from behind the throne and the men in power acting as feminist servants. These men in positions of authority, regularly and eagerly implement the feminist female supremacist agenda on feminists behalf, without a whimper of resistance and throw men and boys under the bus for approval from feminists and female voters.

All that is required for this to stop, is for men (and particularly men in positions of authority) to stop kowtowing to women, find their balls and say the word “no” to the next unreasonable demand made by a screeching feminist harpy. Men place far too much value in concerning themselves about winning and maintaining the social approval of women and far too little value in striving to be the best version of their authentic themselves and winning the approval of others on authentic grounds that are true to themselves. That is the distinction between a man with integrity and a man on a leash that follows the social whims of women and feminists. That needs to change and if we want to begin that change, then we need to stop teaching young boys a one-sided chivalrous code of behaviour. We need to stop teaching boys that deferring to women and prioritising female well-being at the expense of male well-being, without any reciprocity, makes them a “man”.

Of course men are not the only group that need to change if we want an end to chivalry and to defeat feminism. There will also have to be a big shift in the attitude of women as a group toward men. We live in a culture that fosters female entitlement mentality ⁵, as Miranda Devine termed it. Women to a significant degree are raised from childhood to expect chivalry and a one-sided set of obligations men have toward women. There is no reciprocal set of obligations given to girls on how to treat men and boys. Boys and girls learn from a young age that boys do not hit girls, but rarely if ever are girls told not to hit boys. This is despite boys and girls reporting similar levels of intimate partner violence when they date ⁶. That is just one example of many that I can give of the lopsided gynocentric messages children get as they develop into adults.

Paul Elam has recently done a video ⁷ examining the link between how we raise girls in modern society and how that then fuels the culture of female entitlement that leads to feminism. Children are not stupid. If girls are taught and see the adults around them expecting men to treat women specially simply because they are women and the reverse is not expected for women on how they treat men, then of course it will foster a sense of female entitlement and female superiority they will carry through to adulthood.

Both men and women are involved in perpetuating the cycle of gynocentrism from one generation to the next and teaching girls this sense of entitlement. The result of this cycle is an epidemic of female narcissism. Dr. Tara Palmatier spoke about this social trend of female narcissism ⁸ in her talk at the first international men’s conference in Detroit in 2014. Peter Wright has recently discussed ⁹ how gynocentrism in women is a form of situational narcissism in women’s relations with men and compares the characteristics of gynocentrism in women with narcissistic personality disorder.

Female entitlement mentality is indeed a pathology and it is narcissistic, but in this feminist culture we glorify it as a sign of female empowerment. That will also need to change if we want to see an end to chivalry and by extension, an end to feminism. Female entitlement mentality is not something to be proud of or something we should be normalising in the culture as a sign of female empowerment. All it does in the long term is foster resentment and bitterness between the sexes and drives them further apart, which in turn hastens the social breakdown and collapse of society. Neither sex benefits from female entitlement mentality in the long term.

Sex Differences And Limitations

In Sydney’s video she discusses the reality that males and females are different and each sex has their own unique set of limitations and vulnerabilities and that there is nothing necessarily wrong about men helping women in that context. I would absolutely agree. The sexes have co-evolved over millions of years of natural and sexual selection, to develop unique and complementary sets of traits to perpetuate the lineage. This has been a feature of not just human evolution, but also the evolution of our ancestors. It is certainly correct to state that men helping women based on real limitations, is not immoral and it is not gynocentrism. Where it becomes gynocentric bigotry, is when men help women based solely or partly on the fact they are female and not because of some real limitation and where no reciprocal efforts are expected or made by women in return.

There is a distinction between being kind, compassionate, respectful and generous toward your fellow human being and applying such principles selectively based on the sex of the individual. This is why I developed a diagnostic definition ¹⁰ of gynocentrism to delineate between being authentically generous and compassionate and gynocentric bigotry. If you are a man that sees a woman that clearly needs help with her shopping bags and you want to assist them, so be it. Good on you! However, if you are the sort of man that sees a man clearly needing help moving a fridge onto a truck and won’t help them simply because he is not female, don’t ask me to respect that. Imagine for a moment if this double standard was reversed or based on racial grounds. What would we call it? Make no mistake chivalry in the modern era is bigotry, gynocentric bigotry to be exact.

Feigning Female Vulnerability

Dr. Warren Farrell in the Myth of Male Power¹¹ wrote that, “Men’s greatest weakness is their facade of strength, and women’s greatest strength is their facade of weakness.” In our gynocentric culture it is often the case that female vulnerability and limitations are exaggerated and in some instances just made up, as a means to garner special treatment for women and girls. As mentioned, the feminist victim narrative is critical to their standard strategy of getting their agenda implemented. In sharp contrast, it is often the case in our gynocentric culture that male vulnerability and limitations are dismissed. So whilst I agree with Sydney that real limitations between men and women exist and that men helping women where these limitations is exist is not automatically a bad thing, we need to look at those limitations in an honest way and without the gynocentric glasses on. We should seriously look at male vulnerabilities and limitations as well and not just glaze over them.

We also need to take an honest look at how we react to those limitations of women and men and make sure we react in fair and balanced manner. For example, if we are going to lower physical entry standards for the military, then we should be basing that decision on solid evidence that it will make our military more lethal by allowing higher quality recruits to be retained. Furthermore, we should be applying those standards across every recruit and not just female recruits. If the reasoning for lowering entry standards is to increase the number of women serving in the military to appease feminists and win female votes at the expense of national security and such standards will be selectively applied to female recruits only, then we are not reacting honestly or fairly to the physical limitations of women.

Benevolent Sexism Doublethink

I discussed benevolent sexism in my earlier article on diagnosing gynocentrism and how we need to look at the intent that is driving the behaviour before we make claims men helping women is sexist against women or conversely that it is gynocentric. Indeed that was precisely the same point Sydney raised in her video discussing benevolent sexism. Using feminist logic, it can be successfully argued that numerous feminist initiatives where men are helping women, like White Ribbon, HeForShe and others, actually hurt women and are examples of benevolent sexism. It could even be argued that feminism itself is benevolent sexism. Such claims are clearly false obviously.

To claim men helping women is sexism against women, implies that the intent driving that behaviour is malicious and that such acts are done with the intent to harm women rather than help them. If that was indeed the case, then we would expect the attitude that such men express toward women would be negative and that their stated reasons behind their actions would betray a similar negative view of women and a clear intent to do them harm. Yet we do not see this, we see the opposite. Instead we often see such men talking about women (undeservingly I might add), as if they are some superior or special class of human being. We often see such men arguing women are kinder, gentler, morally superior or should rule the world etc. The goals or reasoning behind the actions of such men is often explicitly and emphatically stated to be to benefit women and not to harm them. Only someone that has a deep-seated mistrust and hatred of men, would assign negative motives in such a context and in light of these facts.

Benevolent sexism contradicts itself and is gynocentric doublethink. If it is sexism, then by definition it is not benevolent. Such terms exist because feminism cannot tolerate men being viewed in a positive light by society, if men are to accept their own exploitation. If men are doing things to benefit women, then that clearly runs against the feminist narrative of male oppression of women and against the feminist propaganda to instill perpetual guilt in men and boys. It is hard to demonise men and boys in the eyes of society, when they are trying to help the people they are accused by feminists of oppressing!

What Is Missing For Men

Sydney points out in her video that men are in a no-win scenario, where any action they take will lead to shaming and ostracism by feminists. I addressed this in my article on normalising gynocentrism ¹², where I discussed learned helplessness in men. Feminism seeks to dehumanise men and encourage men to give up on themselves, so that gynocentric bigotry can be normalised in the culture and men will accept it. This is precisely why pleasing feminists and women in general, should not be the core priority of any man. You cannot win by kowtowing to feminists or women, you just make things worse for yourself and also worse for society by pandering to female entitlement. Living life in your own way, in an authentic manner, according to your own principles and forming your own identity and setting your own direction in life, is the only path left for men to take and that is a good thing. What I have just described is men going their own way (MGTOW)¹³. MGTOW is a good thing, because perhaps now men will finally start taking care of themselves, standing up for themselves in their relations with women and demanding fair treatment from society and from women and not just rolling over and allowing their own exploitation.

Sydney is correct that men need a purpose or something to do and I would argue this is also true for women. People need a direction in life to give it meaning. For much of human history men have been assigned their purpose by society, just as women have been. Only recently has society become technologically advanced enough and by extension prosperous and safe enough, for the sexes to have the opportunity to assign their own purpose based on individual interests (As Dr. Warren Farrell has pointed out, men were not the oppressor, the harsh environmental pressures on human survival for most of human history and prehistory was the oppressor). Everyone needs a direction in life and that is important for men in particular, because men get their primary sense of fulfillment from taking action, undertaking challenges and accomplishing things. Men need an outlet to actively express their natural masculine talents.

However men must be given the right as women have been given, to assign their own purpose and not be lectured to on what a “real man” is by women or by other men. Yes men have an innate tendency to protect and provide, but that does not translate to men having an innate tendency to be a disposable workhorse for women and society (I am not implying that is what Sydney meant, but often in this gynocentric culture those innate drives in men can be deliberately twisted to mean that).

It is not that men need to be needed either, it is deeper than that. This is about respect. Men need to be respected for what they do for themselves, for others and for society as a whole. That includes men being respected for what they do for women and reciprocal compassion, help, respect and generosity being shown toward men by the supposedly fairer female sex. The feminist message that men have been receiving for the last 50 years and in particular the last 20 years, is that there is nothing men do that is respectable and nothing that women should do for men in return for what men do for women. Masculinity is framed as toxic and as a disorder.

We live in a world where panels of women can have televised debates about whether or not the male half of the human race is obsolete and get support from the mostly female audience for the absurd claim men are obsolete. You can listen to Karen Straughan’s critique on that disgusting bigotry here ¹⁴. Women can even write books, articles and be interviewed about such bigoted opinions and have such ideas promoted and celebrated by the mainstream media. Women can write hateful articles titled, “Why Can’t We Hate Men?”¹⁵ and get it published in mainstream newspapers. Boys are now being told by society that the future is female ¹⁶ and are being indoctrinated to feel inferior because they are male. The list is endless. Imagine for a moment if this was happening to women and girls. Men and boys are not suffering from a purpose void. This is a void of respect. This society has no respect for men and boys. Masculinity is continuously attacked and men and boys are constantly demonised and disrespected, despite all the amazing things they do for women and society on a daily basis.

Men and boys are internalising the message that they are not worthy of respect and nothing they do or contribute is worthy of respect. The large drops we are seeing in boy’s academic achievement and motivation in education, the claim young men are failing to launch (which is really nowhere to land) and the male suicide epidemic etc, are all symptoms of the widespread reality men and boys are being starved of respect. Men going their own way is simply that and nothing more (despite what some disingenuous people claim, it has nothing to do with hating women). MGTOW are men taking a stand to value and respect themselves, in the face of a society that encourages them to hate themselves.

MGTOW is about going your own way in life, by having the self-respect to live life according to your own principles and identity and with no regard to what this hate filled society has to say about it. Men have the right to set their own direction and find their own purpose in life, pursue their own happiness and decide for themselves how to live their own lives. Men are going their own way in increasing numbers and it is about time! If gynocentric traditonalists, feminists or men or women want to complain about MGTOW choosing to avoid marriage and to a lesser extent relationships, then they might want to look at what they can do to make marriage and relationships less toxic and healthier for men.

Marriage is no longer marriage, it is a slave contract for men. That is what feminism has done to marriage. If you think I am being hyperbolic I am not. Just ask the tens of thousands of men in US prisons that cannot make alimony and child support payments to their ex-wives, because the alimony or child support that is set by the courts exceeds their actual income. Just ask the tens of thousands of fathers that kill themselves after being alienated from their children and losing everything from divorce. Here are just two disgusting examples linked here ¹⁷ and here ¹⁸, illustrating how perverted marriage has become. There are so many other stories that can be shared and I would encourage men to leave their story in the comments section below this article if they like. The institution of marriage is rotten to the core. The bias men experience in divorce and family court and during the course of marriage itself is systemic and deeply tipped against men.

We all know roughly half of marriages will end in divorce and that most divorces are initiated by women and it is little wonder why when the scales are tipped so heavily in women’s favour. Whilst the nature of the misandry of marriage varies from country to country and from state to state, the common theme is one of male servitude to women and female entitlement. The sayings, “Happy Wife Happy Life” and “The Ball And Chain” did not emerge from nowhere. Marriage in the modern era is a gynocentric perversion of the original marital contract between the sexes, which feminists happily tore up and rewrote to unilaterally benefit women at the expense of men (no fault divorce, family courts, VAWA etc).

Relationships have gone down a similar path of gynocentric perversion of catering to female entitlement, which has been accelerated with the metoo movement. MGTOW is not the problem, the degradation of marriage and relationships is the problem. MGTOW is about choosing your own path in life and not kowtowing to what society or women demand men do with their own lives. Perhaps if marriage was reformed, relationships became more balanced and respect was shown again to men, fathers and masculinity, more MGTOW would freely choose to get married and have relationships on their own accord without social coercion and shaming.

Something tells me though that the gynocentric traditionalists and feminists will continue to double down and shame men for going their own way and daring to passively resist their own exploitation. Newsflash- These men stopped caring about what society thinks of what they should do with their own lives long ago and indeed for many of them the shaming was what drove them to discover MGTOW, or was the last straw that drove them to adopt a MGTOW pathway. MGTOW are the men that are prepared to say no to feminists and women, set boundaries with women, reject chivalry and stand up for themselves. They are the sort of men that can help bring about the end of feminism and that scares the shit out of the feminist mainstream media, because these men are not getting back in line and bowing their heads.

Society needs to get over its reluctance to honestly examine the actual reasons why MGTOW are avoiding marriage and relationships. Society needs to start making serious efforts to correct the numerous systemic imbalances and double standards that feminism has enshrined into our legal system and culture and address the pervasive culture of female entitlement. Until that happens, shaming MGTOW will just help increase the social phenomenon and contribute to its growth. MGTOW is now the only pathway for men to follow. Once men become aware there is no way to please women and society by pandering to female entitlement, they go red pill and then MGTOW in rapid succession.

Like I said, society has a void for respect for men and boys. Men walking away from a gynocentric society that hates them and disrespects them at every turn, is that predictable even a six-year-old could have told us this would be the result 20 years ago. This has nothing to do with men wanting women back in the kitchen or under the thumb of men and everything to do with respecting men and restoring fairness and reciprocity to the social contract between the sexes.

This gynocentric society will reap what it has sown until the imbalance between the sexes is corrected and society is prepared to confront the elephant in the room- its own gynocentrism.

References:

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un09DRXZt2U

[2] https://gynocentrism.com/2013/07/14/the-birth-of-chivalric-love/

[3] https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/rita-panahi/equality-is-essential-but-so-is-chivalry/news-story/8bbcfae72c86ea6325818377b7ff3990

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F0kNTMSTKU

[5] https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine-women-believe-they-live-in-the-age-of-entitlement/news-story/e4a1b901c0e55baa2517887ff8bbb072

[6] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6216015/New-study-finds-boys-report-physical-violence-girls-young-peoples-relationships.html

[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUZXLUaICH8

[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxSTwlOz4P4

[9] https://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/why-is-it-always-about-her-gynocentrism-as-a-narcissistic-pathology/

[10] https://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/diagnosing-gynocentrism/

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

[12] https://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/the-normalisation-of-gynocentrism/

[13] https://www.mgtow.com/

[14] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaO3THnOHhA

[15] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.534074468575

[16] https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/real-men-dont-write-blogs/201703/memo-our-sons-and-grandsons-the-future-is-female?page=1

[17] https://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/family-courts/i-am-chris-mackney-and-i-have-something-to-say-from-the-grave/

[18] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAs8S0LxNRE

Bachelorhood as a fine art (1900)

January 2, 2019July 24, 2023 / Peter Wright / Leave a comment

The following gem is from an American Magazine that circulated in the year 1900 called The Bachelor Book. – PW

Paul Elam: ‘Gynocentrism: the Root of Feminism’ (ICMI 16 speech)

December 31, 2018 / rtbavfm / Leave a comment

Gynocentrism Theory Lectures by P. Wright, A. Kostakis and P. Ryan

December 4, 2018September 11, 2022 / rtbavfm / Leave a comment

The following are collections of essays examining the phenomenon and associated theories of gynocentrism:

1. Gynocentrism Theory Lectures – by Peter Wright
2. Gynocentrism Theory Lectures – by Adam Kostakis
3. Gynocentrism Theory Lectures – by Peter Ryan

Diagnosing Gynocentrism

December 4, 2018January 25, 2021 / Peter Ryan / Leave a comment

By Peter Ryan

When we discuss men’s issues in the manosphere, the term “gynocentrism” is often attributed as the primary causal factor driving the marginalisation of men and boys in society. Understanding the nature of the force men are fighting, is a critically important step in developing effective strategies and possible solutions to the numerous issues men and boys are facing in society. Peter Wright at Gynocentrism.com ¹, defines and describes gynocentrism and discusses its cultural origins and biological underpinnings on his website.

Gynocentrism manifests itself in relationships and the culture in many ways. However, this is not always obvious. One of the powerful characteristics of gynocentrism is how subtle it is and how easily gynocentric bigotry can be disguised and hidden from our perception. Society is complex and often there are a multitude of variables involved in any activity, practice or set of behaviours etc. Gynocentrism can blend in with these other variables and the complexity of society can help push it into the background of our perception.

The biological drivers of gynocentrism ², also play a role in masking it from our perception. Gynocentrism is the product of superresponses to sexual and emotional superstimuli and these responses undoubtedly filter our perception, as well as produce the behaviours that give rise to gynocentrism. Intense cultural conditioning also plays a major role from cradle to grave, in training the brain to filter information through a gynocentric lens (the blue pill perspective). The gynocentric mobius strip is a readily observable social phenomenon.

As a result of these factors, there are examples in society where gynocentrism is obvious to many people (like radical feminism) and there are many examples where gynocentrism is not so obvious. There are also examples where an activity can be mistaken to be non-gynocentric and vice versa. It can often take years to train perception in adults to a point where gynocentrism can be readily identified (taking the red pill) and overcome the years of cultural conditioning and the acquired biological short circuits (the superresponses and positive feedback loops) that drive gynocentrism.

Gynocentrism is a slippery beast and defining it has been the subject of discussion in the manosphere (please see Paul Elam and Alison Tieman’s talk on this subject linked here ³). If we are to slay the gynocentric dragon, then we must first develop a refined definition of gynocentrism and diagnostic criteria for identifying it in society and relationships. It is important to define problems as precisely as possible, so we can develop effective targeted solutions. This article will be the first in a series of articles exploring the nature of gynocentrism.

In this article I will present a refined definition of gynocentrism and provide a simple set of diagnostic criteria for identifying it in society and relationships. I will provide practical examples of the operation of this definition and criteria, then discuss whether certain aspects of the culture are gynocentric and then describe a model of measuring the intensity of gynocentrism in the culture. It is my hope that this article and the following series of articles, will assist people in the manosphere in explaining what gynocentrism is to people unfamiliar with the concept and in relation to men’s issues. Solving a social problem requires spreading an awareness of the problem and this in turn requires properly identifying what it is.

What Is Gynocentrism?

I define gynocentrism as the following: The set of elements of society and relationships that are directed by the intent to prioritise female well-being over male well-being, based solely or partly on the sex of the intended beneficiary(ies) being female and for which there are no equivalent efforts made to provide corresponding commensurate benefits to males.

I define well-being as the quality of the overall condition of the life of an individual or group, that is based on taking their mental and physical health and life satisfaction into consideration.

The diagnostic criteria that must be met for an element of society or relationships to be considered gynocentric are the following:

The element must be driven by the intent to prioritise female well-being over male well-being.
This intent must be solely or partly based on the sex of the intended beneficiary(ies) being female.
There must be no equivalent efforts made to provide commensurate benefits to males for instances where female well-being is prioritised over male well-being.

Evaluating an element of society or relationships against these three criteria, requires some investigation to confirm the intent driving it and whether that intent is based on the sex of the group or individual that is meant to benefit from it. Quite often this information is overtly virtue signalled (like policies advocating female hiring quotas or domestic violence campaigns). On other occasions it is not and gynocentrism has to be identified through careful observation of the element in question and through a process of elimination.

The core belief that gynocentrism is associated with is female superiority. It is also associated with female entitlement mentality ⁴. Gynocentrism is a form of bigotry based on sex and is not a morally justifiable aspect of society or relationships. For those people that have doubts, please substitute “male” with black people and “female” with white people in the definition of gynocentrism, or simply reverse the sexes. Those individuals that appeal to nature to justify gynocentrism, should look up what a naturalistic fallacy is. We can appeal to nature to justify rape and that does not morally justify it or mean that we should accept it. Gynocentrism is not defensible and should not be normalised in the culture.

I called myself “theantigynocentrist” for this very reason and because I wanted to make it abundantly clear exactly what I am fighting against. Feminism is the political manifestation of gynocentrism and is just the tip of the iceberg of the problem I am standing up against. There are those that would prefer men just stop at feminism and not question anything beyond that. Heaven forbid men get the idea in their heads that they deserve to be treated fairly (The scene from Oliver Twist asking for more comes to mind. How dare men ask to be treated fairly! The horror.). Some so-called “antifeminists” are worried the gravy train of exploiting men might stop if men look beyond feminism and go to the root of the problem.

Armed with this refined definition of gynocentrism and the diagnostic criteria described earlier, it becomes possible to identify gynocentrism in society and relationships in a tangible way. What gynocentrism is and is not, can be illustrated with the following examples:

Example 1.

A man and a woman are both involved in a car accident. The woman is critically injured and at risk of death without immediate medical treatment and the man is walking around conscious with a few scratches and is in a stable condition. The woman is treated first.

This is not an example of gynocentrism. The paramedics prioritise the woman’s well-being over the man’s well-being, as the woman is objectively in greater need of immediate medical assistance and the man is not.

Example 2.

A man and a woman are both involved in a car accident. The man is critically injured and at risk of death without immediate medical treatment and the woman is walking around conscious with a few scratches and is in a stable condition. The woman is treated first, as the paramedics mutter women and children first.

This is gynocentrism. The paramedics prioritise the woman’s well-being over the man’s well-being, even though the man is objectively in greater need of immediate medical assistance.

Example 3.

A family celebrates Mother’s Day and then celebrates Father’s Day later in the same year.

This is not gynocentrism. There is a corresponding day for male parents.

Example 4.

An organisation celebrates International Women’s Day and does not celebrate International Men’s Day.

This is gynocentrism. There is no corresponding day of celebration for men at this organisation.

Example 5.

A company decides to implement a female hiring quota for their board that requires 50% of positions to be given to female candidates. The number of applicants is 90% male.

This is gynocentric. Female candidates are prioritised over male candidates and this is because they are female.

Example 6.

A company decides to implement a female hiring quota for their board that requires 50% of positions to be given to female candidates and 50% of positions to be given to male candidates. The number of applicants is 90% male.

This is gynocentric. Whilst men are given a corresponding benefit, this benefit is not commensurate with the benefit given to women. 90% of the applicants are male and yet only half of the positions are available to those men.

Example 7.

A company decides to implement a multifaceted policy to boost gender diversity on their board. The company develops a mentoring network for senior female managers to mentor younger women and offers them secondment opportunities in higher positions. An equivalent mentoring network is set up for men and the same secondment opportunities are offered. The company makes changes to provide equal amounts of maternity and paternity leave to male and female employees. Flexible work hours, subsidised childcare located at the workplace and the option to work remotely from home three days of the week, is provided to both male and female employees.

Whilst there might be other problems with the feasibility of this policy, it is not gynocentric. The intent driving this policy does not prioritise female well-being over male-wellbeing. The benefits given to women and men are balanced and the aim to prioritise gender diversity is not skewed in favour of either sex. However, the initiatives in this policy may increase female representation at senior managerial levels and have a flow on effect at board level.

Example 8.

A man and a woman with equal salary go out for dinner on a date. During the date the woman repeatedly makes it known they expect chivalry from the man. Despite desiring to pay half the bill, the man pays the entire bill to gain female approval and bows to the pressure to conform.

This is gynocentric. The woman’s well-being is prioritised over the man’s well-being because she is female.

Example 9.

A man and a woman with equal salary go out for dinner on a date. During the date the woman and the man chat and have a great relaxing time. The man has a generous character and enjoys giving gifts to people. Out of his own personal desire and generosity, he pays the entire bill. He feels very happy about this and suffers no detriment to his health and does not put his finances in jeopardy. The benefit to his well-being in his individual case, is commensurate with the benefit to the woman’s well-being.

This is not gynocentric. In this case the man is acting in an authentic manner that makes him happy and improves his well-being and his well-being is not given a secondary priority. Not all men will react the same way to the same situation. What may decrease one man’s well-being, may actually increase another man’s well-being. Men must be their authentic selves (provided they do not harm others, including themselves, unless in self-defence).

Example 10.

A man and a woman with equal salary go out for dinner on a date. During the date the woman and the man chat and have a great relaxing time. The man has a generous character and enjoys giving gifts to people. Out of his own personal desire and generosity he pays the entire bill. They go out on further dates to expensive restaurants and the man continues to pay the whole bill on each occasion. He also buys his date expensive jewellery every month. The man starts to fall into debt and starts to default on payments. He becomes stressed and depressed.

This is gynocentric. In this case the man may be getting some short-term satisfaction out of being so generous, but in general his life satisfaction and mental health are declining because of the growing debt he is accumulating. The net result is that his well-being (or the quality of the overall condition of his life) is in decline.

There is nuance to life and these examples demonstrate that there is nuance to gynocentrism. What may appear healthy on the surface may actually be unhealthy and what may appear an unhealthy behaviour to some people, may be actually healthy for that particular person. These examples illustrate why it becomes important to define concepts along lines that reflect what they are intended to describe. The central recurring principle driving the discussion facing men’s issues is fairness.

Is it fair that men receive far lower funding for their health than women and yet have significantly shorter lifespans and generally have a higher disease burden? Is it fair that we have engineered our entire education systems to cater to the needs of girls over the needs of boys? Is it fair that women receive considerably shorter and more lenient sentences for committing exactly the same crimes as men, even after controlling for other variables? In many respects, men are simply demanding to be treated fairly and not to be treated in a discriminatory fashion simply for being male. Men are demanding an end to gynocentrism.

Is Chivalry Gynocentric?

As has been discussed on many occasions in the manosphere, gynocentrism has been around longer than modern feminism. Romantic chivalry ⁵ is often cited as an example of historical gynocentrism and indeed it is. But why? It is not the actions alone that pedestalise women, that make chivalry gynocentric. It is the fact that chivalry is also a series of socially enforced expectations that men are expected to live up to, whether they want to or not. Chivalry is a code of behaviour that is still part of our culture and enforced to some degree, even today.

What individual men personally desire to do is not taken into consideration and therefore their well-being is treated as secondary to female well-being. If some men desire on their own accord without social pressure, to do things like pay a bill for a dinner and if this makes them happy to a degree that their well-being benefits to the same degree as their female counterpart (provided it is not pathological like in example 10), then that is not gynocentric. What might make some men unhappy, may make other men happy and vice versa. This is a critically important distinction to make.

Chivalry is gynocentric because it puts men’s wishes and their well-being secondary to women’s. It is not the respectful and generous actions directed toward women on their own that define chivalry. It is theoretically possible for a small fraction of men to be generous toward women in relationships because they are women, with no reciprocal generosity shown by the women and yet objectively increase their own well-being to the same degree as their female counterpart. It is not likely, but it is possible (perhaps an example could be men into female domination, whatever floats their boat). One man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Who am I or anyone for that matter, to tell a man what is in his best interests unless I have clear objective factual evidence to the contrary? With that said, men should certainly decide for themselves, but not lie to themselves like in example 10.

To clarify this point further, if a man decides to be generous exclusively toward women and this selective behaviour extends beyond the relationship, then that is gynocentric even if his well-being objectively benefits to the same degree as the woman. He is placing the well-being of women above the well-being of men in his social sphere, because they are women and he is making no equivalent effort to provide commensurate generosity toward men. Even if he derives happiness from being exclusively generous toward women simply because they are female, the overall effect of his behaviour in society, is that women’s well-being in his social sphere is elevated above men. He is contributing to gynocentrism, reinforcing gynocentric double standards and causing social harm.

Is Benevolent Sexism Gynocentric?

Feminists are often quick to rebut instances where supposed sexism benefits women and instead claim they actually hurt women. It is correct to point out that elements of society and relationships can bring both benefits and costs to women’s well-being. Indeed, this was an important point in the discussion Paul Elam and Alison Tieman had about the nature of gynocentrism. To determine whether something is gynocentric, we must consider the impact on well-being in a holistic sense. That is why I defined well-being in an overall context. We also have to consider the intent behind the element of society or relationships in question, rather than just considering the outcome. That is why intent forms part of the refined definition of gynocentrism.

One could make a valid argument that female hiring quota’s actually reduce female well-being ⁶ inevitably over the long term, or that protecting women at the cost of their freedom hurts women. However, the intent of such policies and practices is clearly to prioritise female well-being over male well-being. Intent matters. To borrow a line from feminists and flip it-Gynocentrism hurts women too.

Similarly, one could make the argument that taking only women off a sinking ship against their will because they are women (there actually were some women ⁷ that would not leave their husbands on the Titanic, even as officers tried to force them to do so), is an example of benevolent sexism. Whilst women may indeed experience great emotional distress from such practices, there is no question that the intent is to prioritise female well-being in an overall sense over male well-being and in this case save as many women as possible.

Are Traditional Relationships Gynocentric?

Like romantic chivalry, traditional relationships can be gynocentric. But are they always? If a man and a woman have a traditional division of labour and traditional roles and both the man and the woman’s well-being are given equal priority and are both enhanced by the relationship to the same degree, then that is not gynocentric. If however the woman’s well-being is prioritised over the man’s well-being, then that is a gynocentric relationship. Traditional relationships can certainly be gynocentric, but not just simply because they are traditional. It is because they can be lopsided to elevate the well-being of women above the well-being of men. Please see this classic MGTOW video ⁸ on the subject of gynocentrism and traditional relationships and commensurate benefits by Barbarossa.

Can traditional relationships be balanced to benefit both male and female well-being? Yes. Provided men have the self-respect to demand it and women have the integrity and level of respect for men to accept nothing less. It is worth noting that a relationship does not have to be traditional to be gynocentric. Relationships where the female is the breadwinner, or where both partners work full-time, can be just as gynocentric and often even more so.

Is Male Disposability Always The Result Of Gynocentrism?

In different contexts in our society, male life and well-being is treated as disposable and in many instances gyoncentrism plays a role in diminishing the societal concern for male suffering. However, it is not the only factor that contributes to male disposability in society. Greed and the psychopathy of numerous tyrants and regimes can attest to that. Sometimes historical accounts of invading armies killing all of the men in a community and raping all of the women, is given as an example of gynocentrism.

Remember that intent matters. Are the actions of the invading armies driven by the intent to prioritise female well-being over male well-being, solely or partly on the basis of a group being female rather than male? In some instances that may indeed be the case and in other instances that may not be the case. An invading army may kill all of the men in a community because they want to remove the military threat of a counterattack, rather than simply because they are not female or because they want to prioritise female well-being. Female well-being may not be the priority they have in mind that is inspiring their actions, when they spare the women and then rape them. Human evil comes in many forms.

Gynocentrism is just one expression of evil, but it is not the only form of evil. Yes, real sexism against women and girls does exist. Female infanticide does happen in some societies on a significant scale and genocides of both men and women do occur. Some companies do carelessly produce products that leach endocrine disruptors that impair the health, development and onset of puberty, of not just boys, but girls as well.

The Gynocentrism Index

So far we have looked at gynocentrism at the micro level. The same definition of gynocentrism is also applicable at the macro level of society and entire nations. However, it is also useful at the macro level to develop metrics that quantify such concepts so we can measure and analyse them. We often hear about the so-called “gender inequality index”⁹. In this article I would like to propose a basic model for a gynocentrism index, that could be measured for each country or a given population just like the gender inequality index.

In our society gynocentrism manifests itself along five major dimensions between the sexes. These include the following:

The empathy gap– More concern is shown for females than for males ¹⁰. Female interests, needs, wants, perspectives, happiness, safety, health, wealth and welfare etc is prioritised over the males. Entire government departments are set up to address these matters and billions of dollars spent on them. Even in education where women and girls are thriving relative to men and boys that are struggling, virtually all of the initiatives and policies in education are focused on supporting female learning and academic achievement.

The accountability gap– Females are held to a lower standard of accountability than males ¹¹. The sentencing gap between males and females ¹² that commit the same crimes and after controlling for other variables, is six times greater ¹³ than the sentencing gap between black people and white people (yes you read that correctly). This lack of female accountability, is particularly pronounced when it comes to their behaviour toward males. Whilst there is a great social taboo toward males committing acts of physical and sexual violence against females, female physical and sexual violence against male victims is either dismissed or excused. A woman cutting off a man’s penis ¹⁴ is even laughed about on national TV.

The reward for merit gap– Females receive more reward than men for the same merit or the same reward for less merit. A number of businesses and government organisations are implementing, or have implemented female hiring quotas and introduced lower entry standards exclusively for female applicants. Some businesses actually now pay women more superannuation ¹⁵, simply because they are women (yes you read that correctly-more super for women because they are female). Contrary to popular opinion, there is also evidence of discrimination in hiring favouring women in a number of instances ¹⁶, even in STEM fields ¹⁷.

The women are wonderful effect– Mainstream media, entertainment, ads, academia, schooling and politics, are constantly saturated with messages promoting female superiority and overt misandry ¹⁸. Books and news articles like, “The End of Men: And The Rise of Women”¹⁹ are abundant and are a daily feature in society. Boys in school are having particularly bad experiences with this phenomenon and I would encourage people to read this article ²⁰ and watch this video ²¹ of the accounts of two boys experiencing this in school. This has been going on a long time. The women are wonderful effect is systemic in our society, culture and relationships and has profound impacts on how we perceive men and women and boys and girls and how we treat them.

Greater female in-group bias– Research has demonstrated ²² that women have an in-group bias that is 4.5 times stronger than men. Women show a bias favouring other women over men and men also show a deference to women. Men are “othered” in our gynocentric society. The female in-group bias is why millions of women will go on a “Women’s march” on the street for 2 years in a row, simply because someone with a vagina did not become US President. It is also one of the key reasons why feminism has become such a powerful force in society. You may have heard the phrase, “Because I am a woman” given as some justification for gynocentric double standards and outright bigotry. You may have heard the phrase or come across the mentality, “Believe the woman” from the female metoo# mob and their white knights, that want to dispense with due process and the rule of law. That is gynocentrism and female in-group bias talking.

In gynocentric societies women are treated with more empathy, have less accountability, receive more reward for their efforts (if they put any effort in at all), are treated and spoken about with reverence as men’s superiors or betters and women display a substantially stronger in-group bias than men do. These gaps are most likely correlated with each other. If women are treated with more empathy in a given society, then they will also be treated with less accountability, receive greater reward for their efforts and the women are wonderful effect and female in-group bias will be stronger.

These five dimensions can be measured. For example, we could measure the empathy gap by comparing the disparity in funding for men’s health versus women’s health after accounting for the death rate and disease burden. The accountability gap can be measured by looking at the sentencing gap between men and women, after controlling for relevant variables. The reward for effort gap could be measured by counting the number of affirmative action hiring programs that target female applicants to meet female hiring quotas. The women are wonderful effect could be measured by examining the number of instances in mainstream media and entertainment material that women are portrayed as or implied to be superior to men. The relative size of the female in-group bias, could be measured through existing psychological tools. These examples are by no means an exhaustive list. Numerous other sources of data could be added to this list and used in the analysis to calculate a gynocentrism index.

Once a proper and agreed upon scientific methodology, formula and model is developed to calculate a gynocentrism index from the data and a comprehensive amount of data is collected, then studies could be conducted. I have little doubt such studies would produce fascinating results if they were done. This is the sort of conceptual framework and analysis that is inevitably is going to be required to solve the huge problems facing men and boys. It would interesting to plot such a gynocentrism index against national IQ, national sex ratios (particularly the operational sex ratios), age and cultural demographics, population density, education levels, rates of fatherlessness, crime rate, GDP per capita, over time and even the gender inequality index.

As long as gynocentrism remains unanalysed and masked from society, then society will continue to rush towards the gynocentric abyss and an inevitable fempocalypse ²³. The first step in the process of solving a problem, is identifying that there is a problem and the second step is understanding precisely what that problem is. Gynocentrism is in many ways like a virus. The immune system of society has to be trained to identify the pathogen that is destroying it. Developing an effective vaccine requires identifying the antigens of the virus that trigger an immune response.

Developing a refined definition of gynocentrism, diagnostic criteria to screen for it and analytical methods of measuring and examining gynocentrism, are the first few steps in that process. The scientific method should form the basis of any research into this social phenomenon, if we are to develop an accurate model of the problem and design an effective solution from that model. Feminist ideology has given us numerous examples of what happens when facts, evidence and science are ignored. We should consider those examples as a warning of what not to do.

If any serious investigation and academic research is going to be made into gynocentrism, the scientific method will need to be restored in the social sciences at the universities (particularly in the psychological sciences) and the feminist ideological bloc that has taken them over will need to be removed. Substantial political, media and financial pressure will need to be applied on our universities to achieve this. So much of government policy, law, journalism, education, employment and industrial relations policies etc, is based on faulty feminist research coming from the social sciences of the universities. If the decay of academic research is not resolved, then society will need to collapse before it can return to a sustainable paradigm.

Men and boys are not an inferior group of people and are equally deserving of respect, empathy and love. Societies that do not accept that, do not deserve them.²⁴

References

Gynocentrism Theory Lectures (Peter Ryan)

December 4, 2018March 24, 2025 / Peter Ryan / 1 Comment

The following essays by Peter Ryan were written and published between 2018 – 2024. Collectively they demonstrate how spurious biological and evolutionary hypotheses are used to promote gynocentrism:

GYNOCENTRISM THEORY ARTICLE SERIES:

Excitement brews with the revival of ‘FGM-derived’ skincare range for men

November 28, 2018November 29, 2018 / rtbavfm / Leave a comment

After the recent lifting of the “unconstitutional” ban on the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM), the global cosmetics industry wasted no time reviving a traditional skincare range for men that incorporates byproducts of harvested female genital skin into the product formula. The controversial practice looks set to flourish as the ban on FGM has been decisively tested, and voided by US District Judge Bernard Friedman.

BigPhrama™ CEO Nick Clinton responded to the overturning of the FGM ban, saying, “This is a win for the people; not only for freedom of religious expression, but also for the right to manufacture, buy and use healthcare products that are defined as ethically sourced under law.”

The rejuvenating properties of pulverized labia and clitoral cells are called fibroblasts, collagen, stem-cells and epidermal growth factor (EGF), which have long been recognized as healing agents when applied to aging or damaged skin.

Regarding female circumcision, the partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora is a largely cosmetic practice, intended to aesthetically enhance genital appearance while minimizing risk of infection and foul odors associated with lack of basic hygiene. Importantly, FGM also benefits male partners by reducing the transmission of HIV, aids and other STDs carried by women, particularly at-risk women who lead promiscuous sex lives.

Over millennia the quest for youthful skin has led men to try many exotic treatments. But the one chosen by actor Hugh Whiting perhaps tops the lot in effectiveness – it involves the discarded clitorises of circumcised African girls. The 45-year-old star underwent a facial for the first time last week that uses an epidermal growth factor serum containing stem cells cultivated from the discarded circumcisal tissue of pre-pubescent girls.

Mr. Whiting boasted that the final results are far more appealing than the actual ingredients. Alongside a picture of him with make-up-free face, the father of two told his fans on Instagram: ‘After a long flight, I do like to lie down and be covered in a mask of liquefied cloned clitorises – frankly who doesn’t?’

The $850 facial, which is performed by US-born therapist George Armstrong at his salon in New York, has become a favourite with celebrities. Leonardo DeCaprico, 45, is credited with nicknaming it ‘the clitoris facial’.

The serum contains epidermal growth factor proteins, which are taken from the dermal fibroblasts – skin cells responsible for generating connective tissue – of young circumcised girls. These fibroblasts, which produce collagen and other fibres, are then cloned in a lab to grow stem cells before they are put into the face cream.

Experts claim rubbing these stem cells onto the face activates ageing cells, producing more collagen and making fine lines disappear. The secret ingredient is sourced from African countries because it has a large supply of clitoral skin obtained during circumcision rituals, the general custom for young girls.

The continent also has a large number of stem cell banks.

Hugh Whiting enjoying an application of controversial face-cream.

Movie star Hugh Whiting was recently photographed enjoying an application of FGM clitoridenal face-cream. When asked about the ethics of using such a cream Whiting replied that;

“When I first heard about the make up of this cream it certainly made me stop and question the ethics of using extracts from human skin in a cosmetic treatment. The manufacturers however have assured users that the cream has not been tested on animals and does not contain animal byproducts such as whale or seal oils. It contains only tiny micro-quantities of female genital skin that have been harvested firstly in the interests of women’s health, rendering the product conforming with the highest ethical standards.”

Author note: This article is both a parody and a gender-reversal of the very real article appearing in the Australian Daily Mail that celebrates genital mutilation of male infants and selling of their foreskins to global cosmetics companies who use them in manufacturing skin rejuvenation creams for women. The purpose of the article is to highlight extreme gynocentrism as tends to appear in the politics of genital mutilation.

Has Chivalry Fled? (Article, May 1912)

November 16, 2018February 24, 2022 / rtbavfm / 1 Comment

The following article provides an example of a ‘threat narrative’ – i.e., in this case the threat that chivalry is departed or dying, thus putting women in danger in a myriad ways.

The ‘Chivalry Is Dead’ trope has been wheeled out by every newspaper and media outlet for the last two centuries, on a weekly basis. If romantic chivalry is taking hundreds of years to die then it must be the slowest death on earth!

However the intent of such articles appears not to report accurately on chivalry’s demise (which doesn’t appear to be happening to any significant degree), but to reinforce protection of chivalry as an article of dogmatic faith; i.e., the more one feels chivalry is under threat, the more one protects and upholds the institution.

To be sure there have occurred alterations in the way gynocentric chivalry is acted out on the contemporary scene, but the basic convention is still very much alive.

The following article appeared in the Evening Post LXXIII, Issue 112, 11 May, 1912:

__________________

HAS CHIVALRY FLED?

What’s in a suffix? taking a closer look at the word gyno–centrism

October 18, 2018December 2, 2019 / rtbavfm / Leave a comment

There sometimes occurs conflicting definitions of gynocentrism, so it might help to clarify and understand a central facet of the word: the suffix “-centrism.”

We can legitimately name a single, isolated act “gyno-centric”; e.g., when we celebrate Mother’s Day. Or for a more dramatic illustration, if a man were to take on a knife-wielding maniac who is threatening to hurt his pregnant wife, while the wife retreats and does not help the husband during the fight, then the actions of both husband (protecting his wife) and wife (protecting herself) are rightly defined as “gyno-centric”.

If we consider the overall relationship between the same husband and wife, as a whole, we might ask a new question – is the relationship a gyno-centric one? If the husband and wife take turns indulging each other across the duration of their relationship, then the relationship is rightly referred to as “couple centered” — because by definition a gyno-centric relationship centers exclusively around the woman. As soon as you have genuine reciprocity in a relationship, ie. a couple-centric dynamic, it can no longer be considered gynocentric.

Employing the word gynocentrism to discuss reciprocal exchanges between men and women, where women are occasional beneficiaries in certain ways, and men are beneficiaries in certain ways, is an erroneous use of the term because such exchanges, strictly speaking, do not constitute a gender “centrism” – ie. its not a gyno-centric relationship.