The concept of gynocentrism, first written about among men’s rights advocates on gynotheory.com, but also discussed on blogs such as Under the Goddess and Gynocentrism and its Cultural Origins (whose premise I profoundly disagree with), describes a state of affairs in which the needs, expectations, requests and demands of women are placed ahead of those of men; in which, if a woman’s needs were ever to come into conflict with those of a man, he was expected to abolish his needs in favour of hers. While social phenomena may be called gynocentric, I mainly use this term to describe people’s mindsets, since social phenomena are merely the product of these mindsets.
As an example of a gynocentric mindset, someone (a man or a woman) may think that men ought to protect women, and that women ought to protect themselves (and possibly each other, but never men); that men ought to provide for women, and that women ought to provide for themselves (and, again, possibly each other, but never men). That they ought to receive support from men, and should care for themselves (and each other, but never men). Notice that gynocentrism can be either individualistic and solipsistic (men should do things for women, women should only do things for themselves), or collectivist and feminist (men should do things for women, women should do things for each other), but always parasitic, since its adherents demand that women extract benefits from men that they never think of reciprocating.
Under gynocentrism, men should make efforts to help women, women should make efforts to help themselves or to get themselves helped. Under gynocentrism, when women cry helplessly, men jump to their rescue; when men cry helplessly, women look upon them with contempt, for helpless men cannot fulfil their gynocentric role of jumping to women’s rescue. Under gynocentrism, men should never deprive women of anything, whereas women should never let themselves be deprived of anything.
In a gynocentric marriage, the man must ensure that the woman is happy; the woman must ensure that she herself is happy. If she is not happy, she may freely divorce the man, for he is clearly not fulfilling his marital obligations, whereas she is clearly doing her best to fulfil hers (by divorcing to ensure that she is happy). In a gynocentric marriage, the man’s property is there for the woman to use as she sees fit, while her own property is there for herself to use as she sees fit. If, after divorce, she needs the property, she should clearly have it. Likewise, in a gynocentric marriage, the couple’s children are hers alone, and she should keep them after divorce for her own emotional satisfaction. Just as well, since the man should provide for the woman whereas the woman should either provide for herself or be provided for by the man (depending on her choice), the man should, in the end, pay her part of his income after the gyoncentric divorce, simply because she needs it.
In gynocentric courtship, the man must live up to a woman’s expectations, and the woman must be liberated from the man’s own expectations. The man must jump through whatever hoops the woman brings forth, and the woman must bring forth whatever hoops she wishes, for her own entertainment and convenience. If it turns out that some of these hoops (e.g. male dominance, fame, aggression etc) are invisible, and only jumping through the invisible hoops counts as a success, then everything is perfectly all right, for it is up to the woman to decide which hoops are to be jumped through, and she need not inform the man of her preferences at any time. She is free to let her hypergamous desires run wild in her body language, while verbally demanding that the man lavish her with acquiescence, and so creates the mix of invisible and visible hoops that form the basis of modern courtship. The fact that no man can jump through both types of hoops is simply evidence of men’s inferior nature, for the woman is doing everything required of her within gynocentric courtship (i.e. demanding both male dominance and male acquiescence), while the man always fails to do the things required of him within this courtship (i.e. providing both male dominance and male acquiescence). This forces the “poor” woman to settle for either being sexually dominated by the man (“oh, but he never lets me win!”), or lavished with special treatment that sexually turns her off (“I only see him as a friend.”).
Read that again, and you will understand why women’s double sexual strategy seems perfectly logical to them. If a woman instinctively believes in the false premise of gynocentrism, she will demand both dominance and acquiescence, and will resent men for being incapable of doing both at once rather than resent herself for being gynocentric. Gynocentrism explains the entirety of women’s sexual hypocrisy in one word.
I’ve briefly touched on gynocentric courtship and marriage. What about a gynocentric country, inhabited by a whole glut of gynocentric people? Well, let’s look at India, a den of gynocentism if there ever was one. In India, according to section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, only men suffer penalties for sexual assault. Likewise, section 498a allows women to lock up their husbands and the husbands’ families without due investigation over charges of “dowry harassment”, charges that only target husbands, never wives, as perpetrators. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, released in 2013, disregards male victims, as its very name indicates. That these and other laws have been written explicitly to address men as perpetrators and women as victims – never the reverse – is a manifestation of gynocentrism at the level of the state. I don’t want to single out India here – the US, Britain, France, Spain, Sweden, Canada and other Western countries have had their share of gynocentric laws – but it makes for a good example of how the unilateral concern for women’s well-being translates into laws.
I could not finish this brief introduction of gynocentrism without mentioning Feminism, for Feminism and gynocentrism are like Nationalism and tribalism: one is an aspect of human nature, the other is its ideological outgrowth. “Don’t tell me what to wear, tell men not to rape!” means “men should do what I want, I should do what I want!”. “Stop violence against women!” means “men should never hurt women, women should tell men not to hurt them!”. “My body, my choice!” means “men should let women decide what happens to the baby, women should let themselves decide what happens to the baby!”. “Fringe fathers’ rights groups threaten mothers’ sole custody!” means “Men should ensure that women are catered to after divorce, women should ensure that they are catered to after divorce. Not the reverse.”
To sum it up, gynocentrism means that men should do good things to women, and women should ensure that good things are done to them; men should take care not do bad things to women, women should ensure bad things are not done to them. There is no reciprocation, no compensation, no gratitude, just gynocentrism, gynocentrism and more gynocentrism.
The good news is that rampant gynocentrism will stop if men decide to stop it.
Some men, notably conservatives, believe in complementarianism – the idea that women should be the helpers of men, and men should be the leaders of women. A good helper will let the leader lead, thereby holding patriarchal attitudes, while a good leader would compensate the helper for her lack of autonomy by providing her with greater support, thereby holding gynocentric attitudes. In any society in which women instinctively want to follow, and men instinctively want to lead, patriarchy and gynocentrism naturally arise, and in theory (though sometimes not in practice), each of these principles keeps the other in balance. Nevertheless, in the last 50 years, feminists have campaigned tirelessly to strip men of their patriarchal benefits while ensuring that women retain, if not receive more of, their gynocentric benefits.This has created an imbalance that led to many of the problems men’s rights activists campaign against: the gynocentric family courts, the gynocentric laws on domestic abuse and rape, the gynocentric use of affirmative action laws, as well as the overall gynocentric culture in which we live.
Gynocentrism, or at least, gynocentrism without patriarchy, can give evil women the opportunity to ruthlessly exploit men, whereas patriarchy without gynocentrism can give evil men the opportunity to ruthlessly exploit women. The same goes for androcentrism without matriarchy and the reverse, although these latter two systems only exist in very rare cases. The important thing is that, from the 1960s to the current year, we have gone through a half-century of gynocentrism without patriarchy, leading to the widespread exploitation of men by women, and this imbalance can be solved in two ways: by dismantling gynocentrism or by re-establishing patriarchy. Both solutions can arise at once, in their own separate communities.
My guess is that we will see three movements progressing to overthrow the current state of gynocentrism-without-patriarchy, each going in its own direction. One is a conservative movement with ideas currently expressed by the writers at The Art of Manliness, as well as by androsphere bloggers such as Dalrock, W. F. Price of The Spearhead, Laura Grace Robins of Unmasking Feminism and The Native Canadian of the eponymous blog; this movement’s goal is to restore patriarchal attitudes as complementary to gynocentric attitudes, and to ensure a balance between the two. Another is a leftist “humanist” movement that opposes both patriarchy and gynocentrism, at times under the naive assumption that most people can be convinced to give up their natural inclination towards both. Some authors who ascribe to it include Dean Esmay, Alison Tieman, and others at A Voice for Men, the well-known mens’ rights academic dr. Warren Farrell, the ex-feminist academic dr. Elly Tams on the Quiet Riot Girl blog, the Amazing Atheist on YouTube and the writers at Feminist Critics. The third and final movement is a secular moral one, to which I would ascribe but which does not seem to have any outspoken adherents so far. It would seek to establish communities for those men and women who, while being true in their devotion and caring for one another, as well as having strong morals, believe that, within these communities, patriarchy and gynocentrism should not extend beyond the bedroom, if they are to exist at all.
Given recent trends, I am confident that the dual push to remove gynocentrism from some circles, and to re-include patriarchy in other circles, will succeed to everyone’s benefit. People who want to live in patriarchal-and-gynocentric communities will come together and establish (or revive) them without fear of retaliation from the feminists, while people who want to live in genuinely egalitarian communities will hopefully do so as well. My only concern is that there might be far fewer non-gynocentric women than non-gynocentric men in the world, warranting a need for artificial wombs to allow these non-gynocentric men to reliably procreate, and that is a topic I look forward to tackling throughout this blog and elsewhere.