This is the second post in this series on Gynocentrism. The first post offered an exercise to help see the degree of gynocentrism you might have. You can see that post here. This second post focuses on how to see gynocentrism in our world.
Great article, but gynocentrism is logical in evolutionary terms. One women equals 2000 men when it comes to child bearing potential (I do the math in my own substack). And hence men are replaceable, and have less worth, much less worth in society.
Thanks Ole. I agree with you with regard to reproduction. Women hold a great deal more importance. However, the survival of a group is not solely dependent upon reproduction. It is necessarily dependent on its safety and that is where the importance of men is critical. Many of the hunter gatherer cultures were vulnerable to raids by other groups to take their goods, food etc but even more importantly to steal their WOMEN! Without men, the culture would cease to exist since it would be vulnerable to attacks that would eliminate it totally. So yes, women are important from a reproductive standpoint but men are very important from a protection/safety perspective. Gynocentrism was about both sexes playing vital roles.
David Geary, in his excellent book "Male Female The Evolution of Human Sex Differences" talks about these issues.
First, thanks for replying - I do not disagree. But today, without the perception of threat from the outside, I believe that gynocentrism is logical, (but faulty) and hence I can understand how it came about. (If you have time and the inclination, I would be grateful if you read my first article on said theme; Worthless men.)
I’ve noticed this bias for years, but if you articulate it, the vitriol that ensues is beyond belief. This has been exacerbated since 2020, and what I see, particularly in the workplace, is that men are systematically being erased. The culprits who often do it are other men, and many of them take great pride in it, and your article explains why, it’s about “status” and the need to be seen as “good” or “empathetic.” It’s toxic empathy, not to mention sheer hypocrisy.
When this behavior is clearly ruinous to one’s own right to even exist at times, why do men keep pursuing this path? I’ve always wondered that. This dynamic is also what we are currently doing with regard to race, it seems this is what the political divide is all about at it’s core, those who see how this fake empathy and preening are destroying human lives and Societies ability to function, and those who either don’t, or who are out right contentious of the idea of doing anything to stop it? Moderation is dead, it’s all about the elevation of this type of implicit bias as a means to an ends?!
Really enjoyed your comment. Toxic empathy is a keeper! Great phrase. And yes, you are correct that it is status that pushes men to erase other men for female adulation.
It is interesting to note that racism and gynocentrism have many similarities. I avoided that for this article but it is a fascinating study.
Gynocentrism stems from, crudely, thinking with the other head. Men generally have a stronger sex drive, and women are more aware of it than we are. It's not learned behavior; it just is. That combined with the universal urge to grasp at every advantage early on develops at the extremes into the twin evils of rape and prostitution. It has less to do with mommy vs daddy issues.
Maslow did us a disservice in his hierarchy of human needs, distorting reality into so-called higher and lower needs, as though both men and women have the same needs. Needs (motives) are not higher and lower, but stronger and weaker. And self-actualization is the weakest of our needs, if it even exists in other that sociopaths. The concept is but a euphemism for self-centeredness.
Darwinism warps the sex drive into the need for survival of the species, ridiculous within a theory of evolution. And why would the one sex capable of bring to fruition the next generation have the lower sex drive? Now, obviously, every man is not equally driven nor every woman equally reticent. But it is undeniable that there are more male rapists and more female prostitutes. It is also undeniable that not all men are rapists (per feminists) nor all women prostitutes (per misogynists.) On the vast spectrum of behavior between rapists and prostitutes lie the bulk of humanity.
I think gynocentrism made sense when society was more patriarchal, and therefore, balanced. Now that women have the upper hand in pretty much everything, it doesn't make sense anymore and just (generally) hurts men. I'm thinking of the Bill Burr bit where he talks about the "gender pay gap" and says men deserve at least a dollar more an hour as they're expected to let women out of burning buildings first, take on aggressive dogs, give up lifeboats, etc. He even goes into how watching Titanic for a woman is romantic but for a man it's horrifying. If you haven't seen his bit on this, look it up! It's so astute (as is Dave Chappelle's on men and women in his special Killing Me Softly).
As a woman (and one with a mother who is "toxically feminine") with a great appreciation for men, I will say that as fat as I can tell there really is only one space that women don't dominate and in fact, need a bit more--medical research (outside of IVF). There is a lot more research needed into female hormones as doctors aren't really sure how women's changing hormones affect health and wellness and various medical conditions. Many women and their symptoms are dismissed as them being histrionic. And while I do believe that plays a role FOR SURE, it doesn't mean the mystery of hormones should be overlooked as it has real consequences. But of course, men's hormones matter too and they're just beginning to understand those as well. And I bet male stoicism plays a significant role in men not getting treatment they need as well.
Have you considered "spiritual" gynocentrism?
We eschew the notation of "God, the Father" as toxic and sexist.
Yet, we revel in the notion of "Mother Earth" and "Mother Nature."
Good point. One is bad and one is good! Spiritual Gynocentrism. Nice phrase.
Great article, but gynocentrism is logical in evolutionary terms. One women equals 2000 men when it comes to child bearing potential (I do the math in my own substack). And hence men are replaceable, and have less worth, much less worth in society.
Thanks Ole. I agree with you with regard to reproduction. Women hold a great deal more importance. However, the survival of a group is not solely dependent upon reproduction. It is necessarily dependent on its safety and that is where the importance of men is critical. Many of the hunter gatherer cultures were vulnerable to raids by other groups to take their goods, food etc but even more importantly to steal their WOMEN! Without men, the culture would cease to exist since it would be vulnerable to attacks that would eliminate it totally. So yes, women are important from a reproductive standpoint but men are very important from a protection/safety perspective. Gynocentrism was about both sexes playing vital roles.
David Geary, in his excellent book "Male Female The Evolution of Human Sex Differences" talks about these issues.
First, thanks for replying - I do not disagree. But today, without the perception of threat from the outside, I believe that gynocentrism is logical, (but faulty) and hence I can understand how it came about. (If you have time and the inclination, I would be grateful if you read my first article on said theme; Worthless men.)
I like Geary's writing a lot! (And "Male
Female" have an elevated place in my bookshelves. He further has a great article on socialization of boys (and girls) ) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222674192_Evolution_and_Development_of_Boys'_Social_Behavior.
I also take some from Baumeisters book, "Is there anything good about men".
Excellent research Tom.
I'm particularly interested because I've been working on essays on a similar topic for an embarrassingly long time now!
Keep up the good work.
Thanks Tony. Let me know when you have them up and running.
Excellent Tom as always.
How about the stupid but ubiquitous come-back to shut men down ‘who hurt you?’
I always say TOXIC FEMALES!
Thanks Clayton, "Who hurt you???" LOL ain't it the truth. They are pros at shifting the ground!
Wow!
Some serious depth in your research Tom!
I appreciate this depth of knowledge immensely that's seriously worth reviewing and researching!
Much appreciated and thanks for sharing.
Thanks Brian, glad you found it useful.
I’ve noticed this bias for years, but if you articulate it, the vitriol that ensues is beyond belief. This has been exacerbated since 2020, and what I see, particularly in the workplace, is that men are systematically being erased. The culprits who often do it are other men, and many of them take great pride in it, and your article explains why, it’s about “status” and the need to be seen as “good” or “empathetic.” It’s toxic empathy, not to mention sheer hypocrisy.
When this behavior is clearly ruinous to one’s own right to even exist at times, why do men keep pursuing this path? I’ve always wondered that. This dynamic is also what we are currently doing with regard to race, it seems this is what the political divide is all about at it’s core, those who see how this fake empathy and preening are destroying human lives and Societies ability to function, and those who either don’t, or who are out right contentious of the idea of doing anything to stop it? Moderation is dead, it’s all about the elevation of this type of implicit bias as a means to an ends?!
Really enjoyed your comment. Toxic empathy is a keeper! Great phrase. And yes, you are correct that it is status that pushes men to erase other men for female adulation.
It is interesting to note that racism and gynocentrism have many similarities. I avoided that for this article but it is a fascinating study.
Gynocentrism stems from, crudely, thinking with the other head. Men generally have a stronger sex drive, and women are more aware of it than we are. It's not learned behavior; it just is. That combined with the universal urge to grasp at every advantage early on develops at the extremes into the twin evils of rape and prostitution. It has less to do with mommy vs daddy issues.
Maslow did us a disservice in his hierarchy of human needs, distorting reality into so-called higher and lower needs, as though both men and women have the same needs. Needs (motives) are not higher and lower, but stronger and weaker. And self-actualization is the weakest of our needs, if it even exists in other that sociopaths. The concept is but a euphemism for self-centeredness.
Darwinism warps the sex drive into the need for survival of the species, ridiculous within a theory of evolution. And why would the one sex capable of bring to fruition the next generation have the lower sex drive? Now, obviously, every man is not equally driven nor every woman equally reticent. But it is undeniable that there are more male rapists and more female prostitutes. It is also undeniable that not all men are rapists (per feminists) nor all women prostitutes (per misogynists.) On the vast spectrum of behavior between rapists and prostitutes lie the bulk of humanity.
I think gynocentrism made sense when society was more patriarchal, and therefore, balanced. Now that women have the upper hand in pretty much everything, it doesn't make sense anymore and just (generally) hurts men. I'm thinking of the Bill Burr bit where he talks about the "gender pay gap" and says men deserve at least a dollar more an hour as they're expected to let women out of burning buildings first, take on aggressive dogs, give up lifeboats, etc. He even goes into how watching Titanic for a woman is romantic but for a man it's horrifying. If you haven't seen his bit on this, look it up! It's so astute (as is Dave Chappelle's on men and women in his special Killing Me Softly).
As a woman (and one with a mother who is "toxically feminine") with a great appreciation for men, I will say that as fat as I can tell there really is only one space that women don't dominate and in fact, need a bit more--medical research (outside of IVF). There is a lot more research needed into female hormones as doctors aren't really sure how women's changing hormones affect health and wellness and various medical conditions. Many women and their symptoms are dismissed as them being histrionic. And while I do believe that plays a role FOR SURE, it doesn't mean the mystery of hormones should be overlooked as it has real consequences. But of course, men's hormones matter too and they're just beginning to understand those as well. And I bet male stoicism plays a significant role in men not getting treatment they need as well.