ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Gynocentrism

Updated on September 11, 2016

The Rubin Vase

Source

Gynocentrism Defined

Dissecting The Biological Drivers Of Gynocentrism

A Lesson In Gynocentrism: Feminism And Male Disposability

Gynocentrism Demonstrated By Role Reversal: A True Story Of Male Suicide Played By A Woman

Gynocentrism Produces An Observable Gender Empathy Gap Favouring Women

Social Experiments Revealing Gynocentrism At Work And The Resulting Gender Empathy Gap

Look at the adjacent picture. Do you see a vase or two faces? This optical illusion is called the Rubin Vase. In Gestalt psychology it is used to examine how our perception organises and interprets sensory information in terms of figure and ground. Our perception of gender issues is much the same. There is a male perspective and a female perspective. Perhaps people have heard of the saying that there are two sides to every story? Well the story on gender issues is no exception.

You can imagine that if someone were told one side of the story and given only one perspective on gender issues for the last 50 years, that this would bias their thinking and beliefs on gender issues. That is exactly what has happened for the last 50 years with mainstream ideological feminism and it's influence on public perception relating to gender issues. The feminist narrative has been propagated for 50 years in a vacuum without scrutiny, critical analysis or alternative and complementary perspectives. Feminism has had a monopoly on the gender dialogue which they have taken full advantage of and have used shaming tactics to silence dissenting opinion. This is why I have devoted this Hub Profile to telling the other side of the social equation. The male perspective that has been neglected for far too long.

When it comes to gender issues facing men and women, we have tunnel vision. The male perspective and the male experience has been ignored and sidelined from the public discourse on gender issues for 50 years. Even on the rare occasion when men’s issues are discussed by feminists or the public, it is frequently spun and twisted within the feminist patriarchy theory paradigm. There is very little room given for men to speak freely about men's issues and independently from feminist dogma in our institutions and hardly any socially acceptable way to do so without coming across as some “whinger” or “misogynist". Ironically, women can more freely discuss men's issues in society than men can. Some women support men such as Karen Straughan and Alison Tieman and other women disgracefully use men's issues to portray men as "obsolete" and "unnecessary", such as Hanna Rosin and Maureen Dowd.

What is behind the tunnel vision on gender issues, is a psychological disposition which men and women have evolved, to view one gender as more vulnerable than the other. We have developed an instinctual predisposition over our evolution, to view women as the more vulnerable gender and men as the stronger gender. This is because for much of our history, physical strength was a key determinant in survival in a prehistoric environment filled with physical hazards and challenges and men developed considerably greater physical strength than women due the sexual dimorphism in our evolution. Consequently humanity acquired a perceptual bias to associate vulnerability more so with femininity. The male rate limiting factor of survival, protects the female rate limiting factor of reproduction (see this link for further discussion and also this related article). The damsel in distress and the knight in shining armor captures the psychology brilliantly. Think of how many plays, movies, stories and books capture this basic narrative. This evolutionary dynamic is the basis of gynocentrism, or the perceptual orientation of looking at the actions of people, society and the world through a prism of how they solely relate to or affect women and girls. In this orientation, women are cast as the figure and men are cast in the background of our perception, conscious thought and subconscious. Women are the focus of constant support and saving and men are the actors that protect and provide. In the case of feminism, men are cast as the dangerous oppressors that a few chosen male feminists and white knights and the government must save women from.

Gynocentrism is how feminists were able to shriek at the top of their lungs on how it is supposedly a man's world, whilst thousands of young men were being forcibly drafted and coming back from the Vietnam War in body bags. This is how people can claim men are privileged, whilst simultaneously writing books and running public debates about why men are "finished", "obsolete" and "unnecessary". Gynocentrism is how feminists can do all of this without a hint of cognitive dissonance, because they are blind to their own hypocrisy. In the words of Manwomanmyth, back at the start of the 20th century in the UK, poor Julie may not have gone to university, but poor John who got conscripted, did not get to live. This is the duality of reality that feminists routinely ignore or downplay, as a result of the gynocentrism which permeates the feminist movement.

When we talk about gender issues, we have a bias to gravitate toward a gynocentric perspective. Women are framed as perpetual victims and men are cast as their perpetual saviours or oppressors. This is not good for either gender, because life in our modern societies is far more complicated than that. We are not on the savannah anymore as a species. Men are not always actors and women are not always victims. Men are not always the stronger party and women are not always the weaker party. Because we see men as inherently the stronger party that is supposed to protect and support women and society, men recognising their vulnerabilities, talking about their problems and attempting to address them in public policy, comes across as whinging and yet if women do the same thing it is socially acceptable. Men are looked at as a source of support, rather than as a target of support and any attempt to suggest otherwise is met with social disapproval.

Let me discuss a few examples to further illustrate how gynocentrism works. When a man is physically assaulted by his wife, some may ask, “What did he do?”. When a women is physically assaulted by her husband, we are far less likely to ask such a question. Instead we will correctly determine that the male perpetrator is responsible for his actions. When a man has his penis cut off by his ex-wife, TV panels and their audience laugh it up on national TV and yet if we reversed the genders, no one would be joking about it and the same TV panel and audience would be baying for the perpetrators blood. There certainly would not be laughter! Now here is a brilliant example that came up recently in the media, regarding having sex while drunk. This is gynocentrism in action. Watch the video below:

Gynocentrism In Action

Under gynocentrism we see men as agents, whom are always responsible for their own actions and accountable for the relevant consequences. Conversely we see women as a group that things happen to. We equate women with children. Does the saying, "women and children first" ring a bell? Women are not responsible or accountable for their own actions because someone or something is always said to make them do it. We can see this play in our courts with female pedophiles, rapists, murderers and criminals. We are told she was "depressed", she had an "abusive childhood", she was "struggling to make ends meet" etc. Yet none of these excuses are good enough for their male counterparts, because unlike female criminals, male criminals are held responsible for their own actions regardless of the circumstances. Gynocentrism casts men as disposable utilities with the expectation that they support women and society at the expense of their own well-being and safety with no reciprocity in return (even to the point where men die in their thousands). Gynocentrism casts women as powerless children with no expectation of responsibility to others, particularly toward men. It is misandry and it is misogyny.

Feminist campaigns like HeForShe are the literal embodiment of gynocentrism. Gynocentrism is literally spelt out in the name, "HeForShe" for pete's sake! HeForShe is just another pathetic attempt to rebrand feminism and pull the wool over people's eyes. Basically the message of HeForShe, is that men need to get back on the horse and be the white knight in shining armor for women and fight for gender equality, by focusing solely on what they can do for women. There is no focus in any of the HeForShe campaign, on what women should do for men. No, no, no, support is to go in only one direction, from he to she and don't we dare forget it. It is he for she, not she for he. Please see this video for more discussion on why HeForShe is gynocentric and harmful to men and boys in the modern climate, as well as this article published in Time. Apparently HeForShe expects men to believe that men's issues will be solved by men acting as white knights for women and focusing solely on what they can do for women. Yeah right. Now lets move on and examine the psychology underlying gynocentrism in women and men more closely, in the following section.

Female Hypoagency Explained

Female Hypoagency And White Knights

When gynocentrism is displayed in some women, the underlying psychology driving it is hypoagency. In men we get the white knight rushing to the rescue and male disposability. That is to say that any empathy we might feel for men’s vulnerability and well-being is “disposed of”, as men are asked to be women’s saviours and protectors. Hypoagency in women, presents itself as a constant need to rearrange every aspect of society on how it relates to and benefits them. Society must rearrange itself around women, because unlike men, women should not be expected to act on their own behalf. This is the train of thought and behaviour of female hypoagency. There is also a constant feeling of victimhood, because wider society is always responsible for whatever negative consequence eventuates. Accountability and responsibility for ones own actions, are foreign concepts to this particular group of women. Now of course this does not represent all women, but this is what feminism and our social norms seem to want to reinforce in women through their rhetoric and lobbying of our governments. They want to infantilise women.

Gynocentrism in men causes an almost sheep-like mentality. Introspection and critical examination of the social relations between men and women, are replaced by some archaic sense of duty and mindless obedience to social norms based around female social approval. Women are considered to be inferior and child-like and their wishes to be catered to at every turn. This is what white knights in the feminist movement and in wider society really think of women. They don’t take female agency seriously. They are the same individuals who let female pedophiles walk and look the other way when wives physically assault their husbands. I call them sheep because they mindlessly act on behalf of women to be their white knight, so they can feel some twisted sense of self worth. Their entire identity revolves around how useful they are to women. We can see this play out in female proxy violence, where mindless male thugs go and beat up innocent men that have been falsely accused of something by a jealous or vindictive wife or girlfriend. Such men are truly pathetic, but as with women not all men are like that, just some of them. Once again this is what feminism and our social norms seem to want to reinforce in men through their actions and rhetoric. Guilt and shame for being male, is spread in our society through the feminist revision of history and the demonisation of men as violent brutes and men are consequently manipulated into becoming white knights. By the way on the subject of history, people might want to check out gynocentrism.com to learn more about the history of gynocentrism and consult the videos embedded in my article on patriarchy theory.

Technological Shocks, Social Change And Gynocentrism

Source

What has happened with technology, is that it has made female hypoagency, white knights and male disposability obsolete. Physical hazard has largely been eradicated from most aspects of work and daily life. Many of us can subsist in our modern Western societies unlike our third world counterparts, without the need for rigid social roles where the freedoms of men and women are restricted. This era is not the "end of men", it is the end of male disposability and female hypoagency. It is the end of gynocentrism and the beginning of true gender equality.

The problem we currently face in our society, is that we have a feminist narrative in the public discourse on gender, that presents one half of the social equation and has consequently produced very lopsided and dysfunctional outcomes. Gender equality does not just mean equal rights, opportunities and freedoms, it also means equal responsibilities, obligations and accountability. That last part about accountability, I really want to emphasise. That means when a female teacher sexually assaults or rapes a five year old male child, she does not get a slap on the wrist, she goes to jail for a long time. Whenever discussion along these lines takes place with feminists, the general response is to paint a picture of female victimhood. Female hypoagency is the reason why feminism will not survive the 21st century. They simply won’t recognise that women need to be held equally responsible and accountable for their own actions.

Whether feminists like it or not, women will have far more agency than they have ever had in human history in the coming decades. One look at the number of bachelor degrees and master degrees being awarded to women validates that statement. With equal agency to men, women will be expected to shoulder more and more responsibility whether they want to or not. Perhaps people have heard of the saying from former US President Harry Truman, “the buck stops here”. People won’t tolerate individuals that dodge accountability in the professional world just because they are women and that is particularly so when it comes to leadership. This is what makes things like the ban bossy campaign so ridiculous and damaging to women. If you are a woman and act badly, be expected to be held accountable for it. Spending millions of dollars attempting to ban a word, is not going to make women exempt from accountability. Feminists do not seem to understand this. Men like myself are fine with female agency, as long as it comes with the same responsibilities, obligations and accountability expected of male agency. Equality works both ways, not just the way you like it. That is true gender equality.

Now on the other side of the social equation we have men. Most people have no doubt heard of or seen the sculpture of Atlas. That has more or less been the role of men for the last couple of hundred thousand years. Civilisation has been built on the backs of men and often over their dead bodies. Finally the load for running society is being shifted onto women and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. This should be a massive relief for men, but again we run into a problem with the public discourse on gender and outdated social norms. We don’t recognise that men are not always agents or the more powerful party in a given social situation, particularly with respect to women. We don’t recognise male vulnerability and that men can be a group that things happen to, rather than a group that directs or has the control.

Again whether feminists or the public like or not, the role of men as protector and provider for women and society is over and recognising male vulnerability and humanity is now a necessity. Society needs to learn to see men as being equally worthy of our social support as women and we need to eliminate the gender empathy gap favouring women. Society should care just as much for the well-being of men, as we do for the well-being of women. Society also needs to learn to hold women as accountable and as responsible for their own actions, as we do for men. If we don’t make these changes, then our societies will face economic and social ruin and eventually social collapse in the coming decades. When speaking about men, women and power, I must say that I find the opinions of certain feminists and extreme right wing traditionalists remarkably stupid. I mean boys make up 40-43% of our students at universities (less than 40% on some campuses), a number which is continuing to decline and boys are falling behind at every level of education from kindergarten to graduate school and we are complaining about the lack of women in STEM fields! We have women only scholarships, multiple affirmative action programs for women in education and women's groups and women's departments on university campuses, to help women overcome their numerical superiority at our universities. In contrast, we basically have nothing for the minority of university students that are men. This is how blindly insane gynocentrism can get.

At what point are our politicians going to recognise the boy crisis in education (Please start with this article for discussion on the causes of the gender education gap)? When boys make up 35%, 30% or 20% of our university students? How about 0%? Male participation and graduation rates at university are continuing to decrease at an alarming rate, they are not holding steady. At what point are we going to accept that the boy crisis in education might need to be addressed? Just wondering if anyone has considered what will happen to our Western economies, when large chunks of the male half of the population that does not take time off work for pregnancy and giving birth, won't be able to get a job in our future knowledge based economy? Just wondering how we are going to pay off our spiralling government debts with so many men out of work? Just wondering how empowered a wife will feel, when she has to work 50 plus hours a week to support a family on one wage, while her husband has been made redundant because his low paying blue collar job has been sent overseas. You see feminists and people like Hanna Rosin, would have us all believe men and women live in isolation from each other. In reality that could not be further from the truth. Men and women have households to run together and families to support. When you are looking at your mortgage, the electricity bills, or your kids school fees, all of this nonsense about matriarchal female supremacy counts for absolutely nothing. Of course the idiots at the peanut gallery have not thought about any of this.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the society that we are heading towards: A society of mass male homelessness, male unemployed, male poor and male gangs and criminals. A society of mostly female service industry white collar workers, earning a fraction of today's discretionary income (income left after subtracting taxes and basic living expenses), but working far longer in a poorly functioning economy and faced with large student loan debts. A society of mostly single mothers living from paycheck to paycheck and an epidemic of directionless and troublesome youth. A society with a government buried in debt it will never repay and facing the added burden of supporting a growing elderly population, whilst substantial chunks of the male half of the population will be too poor to pay enough tax. A society where men will still dominate the top jobs because of what they study and the choices they make, but whom won’t get married or start a family because of the parasitic divorce and family court system. A society where many businesses start downsizing or moving overseas, because of the economic downturn from so many men out of work. This will not be a utopia for either gender. Women can earn all of the masters and bachelors degrees they want and rack up their massive student loan debts. Without a properly functioning economy and men participating in the workforce, it will count for absolutely nothing. This is what gynocentrism generates in modern industrialised society. The GFC, the associated "mancession" and our current staflation is just the beginning. Things are going to get much worse.

Gynocentrism, Human Evolution And Fisherian Runaway

How Outmoded Gynocentric Social Conditions Are Killing Men

Men Are Adapting And Moving Beyond Gynocentrism And Some People Don't Like It- Well Too Bad

Now let me steer this article back onto men. Unlike women, men have not been liberated from their traditional role. This is despite all of the technological and social changes to our societies. In fact many people in the media, government and elsewhere, shame men who step outside of the archaic protector and provider paradigm. Society still expects men to live to this outmoded ideal of being a “real man”, as if their worth as individuals is decided by how much they benefit women and serve as utilities for society. Women have been liberated from the home, but men have not been liberated from the coalface of society. Even now we still fully expect young men and only young men, to go off to war and be cannon fodder conscripts if our governments call for a draft. So whilst the landscape for men has changed as women have become liberated, when men attempt to walk away from their traditional role, then there are suddenly calls for men to “man up”, be “real men” and not “man boys”. We hear about the "Peter Pan Syndrome" and the "Failure To Launch" nonsense and yet no one questions the double standards underlying these social phenomena. Why? Because with gynocentrism, many self-righteous commentators are completely blind to such double standards. Some even endorse them.

This mismatch between the reality of modern society and our outmoded gynocentric social norms surrounding masculinity, is partly responsible for the sharp increase in male suicide over the last 50 years since we have had feminism. Gynocentrism which has been amplified by the feminist movement, is literally killing men. Women have been liberated and men have been kept shackled to their traditional role, despite the fact the social landscape has changed. This has created major social imbalances and fueled major social problems. This is why the social phenomenon of men going their own way or MGTOW is so crucial. Men need to become independent from our gynocentric social system, form their own identity and not have it defined for them. Men need to decide for themselves who and what they will become. Until men realise they owe women and society absolutely nothing and until they realise the guilt and shame they are made to feel for their masculinity is a form of control to keep men in their place, they will continue to keep committing suicide.

Men in particular need to realise that our current gynocentric social norms will not survive the next 30 years. Thus they need to move beyond the archiac social expectations presently placed on them regardless of how much society shames them, because none of it will matter in the not to distant future. The solution to outdated gynocentrism and male disposability is MGTOW. Without male support and attention, gynocentrism, female hypoagency, male disposability and feminism itself, cannot continue to exist. Men need to walk away from gynocentism and live independently from it. MGTOW is now a growing social phenomenon that is being observed across the world. These men are opting out of gynocentric institutions and norms, particularly marriage. The publication Brietbart covered the MGTOW phenomenon in it's article, "The Sexodus". In Japan they refer to the term "Herbivore Men", to describe men shunning marriage with women entirely. Men are no longer supporting a gynocentric social system designed to benefit women at men's expense.

The time for men's liberation is now. Be your own man for a change.

The Solution To Gynocentrism Is For Men To Go Their Own Way And Withdraw Their Support For A Social System Designed To Benefit Women At Men's Expense

Comments

Submit a Comment

No comments yet.