And maybe those who programmed them (or who paid those who programmed them) were putting their spin into the works?
I will never forget an airplane trip where I had a discussion with the gentlemen in the next seat. He was a programmer and wrote programs for health insurance companies. He told me straight up that he was instructed to program in bugs that kicked back a percentage of claims for no reason. He said that most people wont argue with a claim like this and will just pay up. That helped me understand the world we are living in.
Sometimes, gynocentrism is painfully obvious: in this post, an American woman rabbi travels to Israel and calls for funding of Israeli women. The men that were killed and maimed in the war are invisible to her.
To read this outrageous article, I had to subscribe. I read it and clicked on the "angry" icon. Usually, there's a way to unsubscribe from publications. Not in this case. I found no "unsubscribe" to click. If you know of any way to unsubscribe, please let me know.
Thanks, Jamie. Actually, I did manage to unsubscribe. They sent me a confirmation of my subscription, and that page had "unsubscribe" at the bottom. Whew!
57 yo conservative woman here, not a feminist. We need our men! Wanted to share what I witnessed firsthand in probate court that perfectly illustrates your gynocentrism thesis.
My husband and I both filed pro se on the same side of an adult incapacitated guardianship case. Same arguments, same standing, same legal positions, same amt of oral argument and filings. We were both respectful—he was actually MORE deferential to the court than I was.
And yet the differential treatment was staggering. How they treated him:
-Openly rude and dismissive
-Actively tried to silence him
-Accused him of heinous crimes with zero evidence, and he had to defend his innocence with evidence
-Held him to strict procedural compliance on every rule
-Kicked him out of court entirely
-Threatened jail time in a probate court (no criminal jurisdiction, no due process, lower evidentiary standards) for literally no crime
-Applied attorney-level professional standards to his conduct, but didn't even hold the 30-year attorneys to that high standard
How they treated me:
-Kind, gentle, softer voices
-Talked down to me (condescending but not hostile)
-More "understanding" of procedural mistakes
-Zero threats, zero accusations
-Allowed to remain and participate throughout, even when I said the exact same things that got him kicked out of court immediately after he got kicked out
Meanwhile, the actual attorneys on the opposing side? Broke constitutional protections, violated statutes and court rules, committed provable perjury and fraud—and faced zero consequences.
My husband, the pro se non-lawyer, was held to standards the licensed attorneys ignored with impunity.
This wasn't a criminal case. This wasn't divorce or custody where gender bias is well-documented. This was a probate guardianship where we were trying to protect a vulnerable adult. Two people, same facts, same behavior, wildly different treatment—and the only variable was gender.
I knew this happened in family court. I didn't realize how deeply this gynocentric bias runs across the entire legal system until I saw two judges and multiple court-appointed officers demonstrate it in real time
.
Here's what your chatGPT analysis misses: this isn't just about "prioritizing women's concerns." It's about viewing men as inherently threatening, untrustworthy, and deserving of harsher treatment even when their behavior is objectively better than the women in the room.
The flip side of benevolent condescension toward women is hostile suspicion toward men—and both are dehumanizing.
One could argue that men commit more crimes, especially violent ones. That's a statistical reality—but it's irrelevant to individual treatment. The legal system is supposed to operate on evidence and due process, not demographic probabilities. Treating every man as a potential criminal because men commit more crimes is the definition of discrimination. We don't accept "this racial group commits more X crime, so we'll treat all members of that group more harshly"—yet we accept it reflexively when it's based on sex.
Strong suggestion for your series: Research sentencing disparities for identical crimes across gender. The data is stark—women receive significantly lighter sentences than men for the same offenses, same criminal history, same aggravating factors. If gynocentrism is truly "omnipresent," it should show up most clearly where the system claims to be most objective: criminal sentencing guidelines.
What I witnessed wasn't an anomaly. It was the system working exactly as designed.
Swedish word translates into English 'boxitis'. Applies to sailor who on the last voyage home before xmas frequently opens the box and examines the presents he is bringing for friends and family.
The dirty English mind turns this into a gynae fetish.
"Sound familiar?"
Written in identical style, in identical vocabulary, to the endless sexual harassment prevention workplace seminars in recent decades.
Yes, I wonder where it learned to talk like that??? lol
Maybe AI is much older.
And maybe those who programmed them (or who paid those who programmed them) were putting their spin into the works?
I will never forget an airplane trip where I had a discussion with the gentlemen in the next seat. He was a programmer and wrote programs for health insurance companies. He told me straight up that he was instructed to program in bugs that kicked back a percentage of claims for no reason. He said that most people wont argue with a claim like this and will just pay up. That helped me understand the world we are living in.
There is no maybe about it. But, then, it is probably impossible to keep our spin out of any of our product.
Sometimes, gynocentrism is painfully obvious: in this post, an American woman rabbi travels to Israel and calls for funding of Israeli women. The men that were killed and maimed in the war are invisible to her.
https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/women-at-war/
To read this outrageous article, I had to subscribe. I read it and clicked on the "angry" icon. Usually, there's a way to unsubscribe from publications. Not in this case. I found no "unsubscribe" to click. If you know of any way to unsubscribe, please let me know.
If you leave critical comments on the page, they delete them. They don't want to hear criticisms of feminist goddesses by us uppity men!
Thanks, Jamie. Actually, I did manage to unsubscribe. They sent me a confirmation of my subscription, and that page had "unsubscribe" at the bottom. Whew!
I do hope the noted disadvantages shape policies in the direction of fairness for all. It is a constant struggle to find that sweet spot.
We are engaged in the same search.
Yup! They're that dumb!
This is the unspeakable truth
57 yo conservative woman here, not a feminist. We need our men! Wanted to share what I witnessed firsthand in probate court that perfectly illustrates your gynocentrism thesis.
My husband and I both filed pro se on the same side of an adult incapacitated guardianship case. Same arguments, same standing, same legal positions, same amt of oral argument and filings. We were both respectful—he was actually MORE deferential to the court than I was.
And yet the differential treatment was staggering. How they treated him:
-Openly rude and dismissive
-Actively tried to silence him
-Accused him of heinous crimes with zero evidence, and he had to defend his innocence with evidence
-Held him to strict procedural compliance on every rule
-Kicked him out of court entirely
-Threatened jail time in a probate court (no criminal jurisdiction, no due process, lower evidentiary standards) for literally no crime
-Applied attorney-level professional standards to his conduct, but didn't even hold the 30-year attorneys to that high standard
How they treated me:
-Kind, gentle, softer voices
-Talked down to me (condescending but not hostile)
-More "understanding" of procedural mistakes
-Zero threats, zero accusations
-Allowed to remain and participate throughout, even when I said the exact same things that got him kicked out of court immediately after he got kicked out
Meanwhile, the actual attorneys on the opposing side? Broke constitutional protections, violated statutes and court rules, committed provable perjury and fraud—and faced zero consequences.
My husband, the pro se non-lawyer, was held to standards the licensed attorneys ignored with impunity.
This wasn't a criminal case. This wasn't divorce or custody where gender bias is well-documented. This was a probate guardianship where we were trying to protect a vulnerable adult. Two people, same facts, same behavior, wildly different treatment—and the only variable was gender.
I knew this happened in family court. I didn't realize how deeply this gynocentric bias runs across the entire legal system until I saw two judges and multiple court-appointed officers demonstrate it in real time
.
Here's what your chatGPT analysis misses: this isn't just about "prioritizing women's concerns." It's about viewing men as inherently threatening, untrustworthy, and deserving of harsher treatment even when their behavior is objectively better than the women in the room.
The flip side of benevolent condescension toward women is hostile suspicion toward men—and both are dehumanizing.
One could argue that men commit more crimes, especially violent ones. That's a statistical reality—but it's irrelevant to individual treatment. The legal system is supposed to operate on evidence and due process, not demographic probabilities. Treating every man as a potential criminal because men commit more crimes is the definition of discrimination. We don't accept "this racial group commits more X crime, so we'll treat all members of that group more harshly"—yet we accept it reflexively when it's based on sex.
Strong suggestion for your series: Research sentencing disparities for identical crimes across gender. The data is stark—women receive significantly lighter sentences than men for the same offenses, same criminal history, same aggravating factors. If gynocentrism is truly "omnipresent," it should show up most clearly where the system claims to be most objective: criminal sentencing guidelines.
What I witnessed wasn't an anomaly. It was the system working exactly as designed.
Swedish word translates into English 'boxitis'. Applies to sailor who on the last voyage home before xmas frequently opens the box and examines the presents he is bringing for friends and family.
The dirty English mind turns this into a gynae fetish.
Best
gws
Thanks for your comment. This is not an easy thing to see.