Frankly, I would have expected your audience to shout you down, maybe even to stone you. I would guess that this article will lose you more followers than you will gain. Feminists will probably go completely berserk.
I think most of those who subscribe here are aware that they already have a blue pill bias. The real question is how to be aware of this and then use your conscious awareness to not step into it. This is what makes the red pill powerful. This is also the difference between men's activists and feminists. The men will hold each other accountable but the feminists are very unlikely to push women to see their own biases.
Sorry, but this is a poor example. Gynocentrism is about putting emphasis on women as being more important than men. Men and women are inherently different. We process situations and emotions differently. So, it has nothing to with bias against men to look at your example as most people did. Men shouldn't behave like women. It's not a flaw or a failing of society or neglect of men, it's part of our evolutionary firmware. A man and a woman crying in public as described are not equal things, so responses shouldn't be equal. If anything, gynocentrism, or female preeminence, is trying to make men behave more like women; that is no good for anyone.
Disagree. Gynocentrism is about valuing women's needs and pain over that of men. Yes, we process things very differently but why would it be that even with this different processing both men and women would cater to female in pain and ignore the man? Gynocentrism.
I would be curious to hear what example you might have that would expose gynocentrism more clearly.
Your point about this double standard is well taken, Tom, and your examples of it are effective. As David Shackleton says so cogently and succinctly, our society expects compassion for women but not for men and accountability from men but not from women.
I would add only that the word "gynocentrism" has a broader meaning than your stated one. It refers to a worldview in which all of human history revolves around the needs of women (just as androcentrism is a worldview in which all of human history revolves around those of men). One consequence is the double standard that you illustrate. Another consequence, however, is misandry. That's an even deeper problem than gynocentrism, because it relies on a conspiracy theory of history. This is what not only generates an emotional affinity for women but also condones hatred toward men and thus revenge against men.
The conspiracy theory of history is a legacy from the remote past and probably one prudent response to early humans who identified any strangers from another clan or village as potentially threatening and therefore sinister.
The conspiracy theory is not merely a theory. Rather, it is a story about who we are, how things came to be as they are and how things will be or should be again. In other words, it is a myth. Unlike many myths, however, this one is profoundly destructive. It is about “us” versus “them.” In the beginning, as it were, “we” lived in a primeval paradise: peace, harmony and everything good. Then, “they” either rebelled or invaded (both of which conflict with the notion of a primeval paradise). The result was expulsion from primeval bliss into the world of history as we have known it in daily life ever since: confusion, war, tyranny and everything evil. But story doesn’t end that way. In the future, it continues, “we” will rebel against tyranny, convert or eliminate “them” and return to paradise. Otherwise, the story would be useless in rallying the troops.
That general outline should sound very familiar, at least in Western countries, from the biblical story of Eden, the fall from grace (expulsion into the turmoil of history) and eventual return to paradise (the Messianic Age, the Kingdom of God).
Feminists have revised the story in one very significant way: blaming the fall from grace not on both Adam and Eve (as in Genesis) but on Adam alone—that is, on men. (For some reason, no one cares much about the serpent.) Feminist historiography, so to speak, assumes a primeval conspiracy of men to oppress women, a conspiracy that continues to this day among men who supposedly retain “all the power.”Never mind that this conspiracy theory rests on no archeological evidence at all, let alone on written evidence, but only on expedient theory. In any case, our remote ancestors lived for many thousands of years before the advent of elaborate gender systems due to the rise of agriculture, states, hierarchies, specialization, war, and other features of early civilizations.
Secular ideologies have insisted on their own versions of the same story—but, as I say, with the names changed! “We” are the faithful but victimized believers, known variously as the proletariat, women, black or brown people, gay people, transgendered people and so on. “They” are the powerful but doomed enemies, known variously as the bourgeoisie, male (or patriarchal) people, white (or Western) people, “cis” gendered people and so forth. (Within living memory, moreover, “we” were Aryans, and “they” were Jews. According to one current version, “we” are Palestinians or even Hamas, and “they” are Israelis or even Jews.)
The names keep changing, but the dualistic structure remains. Even so, one antidote to the conspiracy theory of history is still available to Jews and Christians (who might or might not use it). I refer to the prophetic tradition. According to biblical prophets such as Isaiah, for example, the origin of evil is not “out there” (projected entirely onto the dirty old Egyptians, Babylonians and Assyrians). Rather, it is both “out there” and “in here” (which is why the prophets often denounce their own kings). In other words, no group or individual is innately good or innately evil (which would make no sense, in any case of, of moral agency).
Thanks Tom. My first thought was that I would treat them equally as a mother of 2 sons and Aunty to 2 loved neices. However when I saw the examples I thought maybe I would be more inclined to approach and comfort the female even if I felt same compassion incase it backfired on me which I would have more hope of dealing with the woman who got aggressive than a man . SAD 😔
How clear do I have to be? Men and women process emotion in drastically different ways. Women are weaker and more emotional by nature, so they are more likely to express more emotion than men in response to the same circumstances. Human instincts tend to put more weight on protecting women (eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap).
Your example represents two likely very different situations. Since men and women are different in many ways, it makes your example invalid.
A woman sitting in a restaurant alone crying is vastly different from a man doing the same. Their emotional states are vastly different. The cases are not equal, so any attempt to compare people's reactions is invalid. The people are not responding to the same situation and conditions for both cases. Your are evaluating people's responses to two different situations.
Another thing your example implies (though I doubt you intend it to) is that men and women are the same. This then tends to lead to the thinking that men are "defective" because they should act more like women.
As far as gynocentrism goes, it IS about preferring or emphasizing women over men and is part of the female superiority power dynamic (feminism).
Frankly, I would have expected your audience to shout you down, maybe even to stone you. I would guess that this article will lose you more followers than you will gain. Feminists will probably go completely berserk.
Let them go beserk!
I think most of those who subscribe here are aware that they already have a blue pill bias. The real question is how to be aware of this and then use your conscious awareness to not step into it. This is what makes the red pill powerful. This is also the difference between men's activists and feminists. The men will hold each other accountable but the feminists are very unlikely to push women to see their own biases.
Sorry, but this is a poor example. Gynocentrism is about putting emphasis on women as being more important than men. Men and women are inherently different. We process situations and emotions differently. So, it has nothing to with bias against men to look at your example as most people did. Men shouldn't behave like women. It's not a flaw or a failing of society or neglect of men, it's part of our evolutionary firmware. A man and a woman crying in public as described are not equal things, so responses shouldn't be equal. If anything, gynocentrism, or female preeminence, is trying to make men behave more like women; that is no good for anyone.
Disagree. Gynocentrism is about valuing women's needs and pain over that of men. Yes, we process things very differently but why would it be that even with this different processing both men and women would cater to female in pain and ignore the man? Gynocentrism.
I would be curious to hear what example you might have that would expose gynocentrism more clearly.
Your point about this double standard is well taken, Tom, and your examples of it are effective. As David Shackleton says so cogently and succinctly, our society expects compassion for women but not for men and accountability from men but not from women.
I would add only that the word "gynocentrism" has a broader meaning than your stated one. It refers to a worldview in which all of human history revolves around the needs of women (just as androcentrism is a worldview in which all of human history revolves around those of men). One consequence is the double standard that you illustrate. Another consequence, however, is misandry. That's an even deeper problem than gynocentrism, because it relies on a conspiracy theory of history. This is what not only generates an emotional affinity for women but also condones hatred toward men and thus revenge against men.
Very interesting Paul. Tell me about the conspiracy theory of history. I'm not sure I get the connection. This sounds like a good topic for a video.
The conspiracy theory of history is a legacy from the remote past and probably one prudent response to early humans who identified any strangers from another clan or village as potentially threatening and therefore sinister.
The conspiracy theory is not merely a theory. Rather, it is a story about who we are, how things came to be as they are and how things will be or should be again. In other words, it is a myth. Unlike many myths, however, this one is profoundly destructive. It is about “us” versus “them.” In the beginning, as it were, “we” lived in a primeval paradise: peace, harmony and everything good. Then, “they” either rebelled or invaded (both of which conflict with the notion of a primeval paradise). The result was expulsion from primeval bliss into the world of history as we have known it in daily life ever since: confusion, war, tyranny and everything evil. But story doesn’t end that way. In the future, it continues, “we” will rebel against tyranny, convert or eliminate “them” and return to paradise. Otherwise, the story would be useless in rallying the troops.
That general outline should sound very familiar, at least in Western countries, from the biblical story of Eden, the fall from grace (expulsion into the turmoil of history) and eventual return to paradise (the Messianic Age, the Kingdom of God).
Feminists have revised the story in one very significant way: blaming the fall from grace not on both Adam and Eve (as in Genesis) but on Adam alone—that is, on men. (For some reason, no one cares much about the serpent.) Feminist historiography, so to speak, assumes a primeval conspiracy of men to oppress women, a conspiracy that continues to this day among men who supposedly retain “all the power.”Never mind that this conspiracy theory rests on no archeological evidence at all, let alone on written evidence, but only on expedient theory. In any case, our remote ancestors lived for many thousands of years before the advent of elaborate gender systems due to the rise of agriculture, states, hierarchies, specialization, war, and other features of early civilizations.
Secular ideologies have insisted on their own versions of the same story—but, as I say, with the names changed! “We” are the faithful but victimized believers, known variously as the proletariat, women, black or brown people, gay people, transgendered people and so on. “They” are the powerful but doomed enemies, known variously as the bourgeoisie, male (or patriarchal) people, white (or Western) people, “cis” gendered people and so forth. (Within living memory, moreover, “we” were Aryans, and “they” were Jews. According to one current version, “we” are Palestinians or even Hamas, and “they” are Israelis or even Jews.)
The names keep changing, but the dualistic structure remains. Even so, one antidote to the conspiracy theory of history is still available to Jews and Christians (who might or might not use it). I refer to the prophetic tradition. According to biblical prophets such as Isaiah, for example, the origin of evil is not “out there” (projected entirely onto the dirty old Egyptians, Babylonians and Assyrians). Rather, it is both “out there” and “in here” (which is why the prophets often denounce their own kings). In other words, no group or individual is innately good or innately evil (which would make no sense, in any case of, of moral agency).
Thanks Tom. My first thought was that I would treat them equally as a mother of 2 sons and Aunty to 2 loved neices. However when I saw the examples I thought maybe I would be more inclined to approach and comfort the female even if I felt same compassion incase it backfired on me which I would have more hope of dealing with the woman who got aggressive than a man . SAD 😔
How clear do I have to be? Men and women process emotion in drastically different ways. Women are weaker and more emotional by nature, so they are more likely to express more emotion than men in response to the same circumstances. Human instincts tend to put more weight on protecting women (eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap).
Your example represents two likely very different situations. Since men and women are different in many ways, it makes your example invalid.
A woman sitting in a restaurant alone crying is vastly different from a man doing the same. Their emotional states are vastly different. The cases are not equal, so any attempt to compare people's reactions is invalid. The people are not responding to the same situation and conditions for both cases. Your are evaluating people's responses to two different situations.
Another thing your example implies (though I doubt you intend it to) is that men and women are the same. This then tends to lead to the thinking that men are "defective" because they should act more like women.
As far as gynocentrism goes, it IS about preferring or emphasizing women over men and is part of the female superiority power dynamic (feminism).