Again, this analysis is spot on. The problem here is that the responses men are expected to provide, concern for the other, restraint of one's own opinion/needs are generally the correct way we should deal with others. The problem arises from women being selectively excluded from these same obligations vis a vis others, especially in interactions with men. What is the solution?
Hold women to the same standards as if they were another man. Require them openly and publicly to "man-up", "act their age" and "stop being a premadona" when they try to play the gynocentric game. If their complaints are over emotional drivel (as they usually are), say that to them directly and dismiss their complaints. Further, when even legitimate complaints are delivered in a sexist/gynocentric way dismiss THEM as well saying the woman will NOT be heard until she gets her own emotions under control. Make quite clear that the stereotypical female histrionics are a disqualifying behavior for engaging with her on any level and be willing to hold the line. Time for women who behave this way to find themselves voted out of the conversation and off the island as it were until they start to behave properly.
Yes indeed. Men need to hold women accountable and it is not so easy. From the small sample I have seen, it seems women are allergic to accountability! In fact, many don't even understand what the word means.
It often seems like the only form of accountability that can be effective on women is when it comes from the kind of man whose 'no' to a woman hurts her far more than it hurts him.
This is really interesting, Tom, with your focus here on interpersonal relations. The interpersonal is clearly shaping, and shaped by, social discourse (societal norms). The big development that, I think, deserves more scrutiny and attention is how our public discourse (public policy/ media opinion) in the 21st century now seems to be dominated by theory and social movements that are seemingly immune from criticism. We need to be able to discuss these issues in an inclusive manner without anyone being immediately cancelled as a “misogynist” to shut down debate. It is not constructive, for example, to casually say that masculinity is “toxic” – and yet so many people do. How on earth can we have cohesive societies with such divisive rhetoric being mainstream, and increasingly shaping public policy without solid evidential underpinning?
My strong theory is that women are unwilling to face facts about how so many aspects of feminist informed ideas and behaviour have not worked out well for them relationally (and is getting increasingly worse).
Instead of being honest, they turn their misgivings into anger against men - it's "toxic masculinity", "the patriarchy", and "misogyny" over and over again. And you're right, these kinds of rhetoric are "conversation stoppers" and so nothing moves towards a better end. It's depressing (especially when it's the norm in spheres of influence - media, academia, politics etc.).
I am seeing more and more women explaining to other women that giving their men respect is essential, and that it will only make things better for their relationships. That ambushing their partners with complaints is toxic.
Yes. There's absolute truth in that, as much as so many woman push against it (to their detriment).
Men and women are built differently, and have different needs. Until we are willing to acknowledge that and act accordingly, we'll continue to struggle.
I definitely agree with you, Tom. I also wonder though, shouldn’t men themselves take the first step to recognise this and set boundaries? Society and relationships can change, but real balance starts when men understand their own needs and assert them.
Yes! Men should take steps on their own. The more they wake up to what the article discusses the more likely they will start taking steps to require a partnership.
I suspect this emulates most of modernity. Where almost half of children are raised in single-parent homes, mostly with mothers, there seems to be no boundaries being taught. I also suspect that it is because of the way those women were raised, infantilised, and this seems to continue into adulthood. It's a developmental disaster, and I worry it's by design.
This article reminded me of a recurring problem in my relationship with my wife (which, to her credit, she has acknowledged): any negative feelings that I express have often been interpreted as anger, and any attempts to make my feelings known are interpreted as aggression. In this way, I wasn't allowed to have feelings like frustration or disappointment, and this article does a pretty job of explaining why.
A desire for justice can turn strength into weakness, and weakness into power. With power comes responsibility, even when the power comes from an inverted weakness.
As well, it is remarkable the degree to which a woman's interpretation of the practice of justice entails appeasement of her emotional, subjective position, as opposed to any cognizable, rational ethical framework.
I see where you're coming from, and in online discourse this behaviour is definitely problematic.
But irl, handling emotions is an important part of every relationship... some more than others. Personally, in my relationship with my wife, I care about her emotions, whatever they are. Emotions are a big part of how we experience life, so I think it is usually an important part of my relationship as a husband to just experience emotions with her, and understand her emotions, and maybe even talk about what to do based on these emotions. Part of that should be recognizing when our emotions are not in alignment with our values.
Caring about her emotions is fine. But appeasing her emotions when they are disconnected with or not aligned with reality is dangerous and unhealthy. I believe women, generally tend to be more solipsistic than men and, as a result, the imperative to be empathetic or accommodating tends to flow toward women and rarely in the opposite direction. While this may or may not be true in any given specific instance - maybe even yours - I believe it tends to be more true than not.
I suspect the hard part (which is not taught by parents or society) is that those two actions are not mutually exclusive. Everyone can acknowledge someone else's feelings, but at the same time relate them to interpersonal boundaries.
I suspect what you've discovered there, Max, is how men and women are, or can be, two parts of a whole (a healthy relationship).
Solid breakdown of how gynocentrism hides behind social expectations. The distinction between emotional restraint turning into self-erasure is precise. I've noticed in my own life how easy it is to assume that keeping the peace means absorbing tension, and how that quietly shifts from care into an asymmetrical dynamic. The point about empathy becoming directional is something that doesnt get talked about nearly enough.
I agree with your core observation, but I would frame it more cautiously.
What makes these patterns feel right is not that they are necessarily fair or true, but that they are biologically and socially reinforcing. Behaviours labelled as mature, empathetic, or loving activate reward and affiliation systems, reduce conflict, and preserve social approval (including in exchanges like this).
That affective relief is a reinforcement signal, not evidence of moral correctness.
The cognitive problem arises when this felt sense of virtue is mistaken for knowledge. Anecdotal relational experiences, shaped by social norms and identity reinforcement, are then generalised into explanatory claims without sufficient empirical grounding.
In that sense, the account risks becoming emotionally compelling and experientially real, yet theoretically underdetermined. We can acknowledge gendered emotional socialisation and asymmetrical expectations without committing to a single ideological construct as an explanation.
I think the key distinction is between why something feels good to enact and whether the narrative built around it is actually true.
As always, a thoughtful and insightful post—thank you, Tom 🙏💙
I don't understand well, the language is indirect. I understand the first part, that behaviours considered good are rewarded and that we largely depend on social approval, and it doesn't mean that we are unequivocally virtuous. Are you applying that to men in the context of this article, or to people in general?
Felt sense of virtue about what, specifically?
What are the specific anecdotal experiences generalized, and the explanatory claims, that you have in mind?
What specific account risks becoming emotionally compelling and experientially real, yet theorically underdetermined?
What is the single ideological construct that we don't have to commit to? The concept of gynocentrism, or something else? (I don't use the term personally, and gynocentrism can be questionable or wide to people like any "macro" term as "androcentrism" or "patriarchy" o "matriarchy", but it has the utility to connect several gender attitudes).
If you are more specific in those things, then your central points will be better understood.
I am applying the reinforcement argument specifically to men in the relational context described in the article, not to people in general.
Re: a sense of virtue, I mean the subjective experience of being mature, empathic, or loving that arises when one behaves in socially sanctioned ways. That feeling is produced by reduced conflict, approval, and affiliation—not by independent evidence that the behaviour is fair, reciprocal, or psychologically healthy.
The anecdotal experiences are everyday relational interactions in which men learn that accommodating female distress restores harmony and approval.
The explanatory claim I am cautioning against is the move from those experiences to a totalising explanation—namely that a single organising principle (gynocentrism) is doing the explanatory work, rather than a combination of socialisation practices, conflict-avoidance dynamics, attachment patterns, and status regulation.
The account risks becoming emotionally compelling and experientially real because it resonates with lived experience, yet underdetermined because the same observations can be explained by multiple frameworks (e.g. confirmation bias).
Without clearer boundary conditions or empirical discrimination between explanations, the theory risks overreaching in its explanations.
In short:
Yes—the construct I am referring to is gynocentrism. My point is not that it is meaningless or useless, but that it is not necessary to accept it as the primary or singular explanatory lens in order to acknowledge asymmetrical emotional expectations or costs borne by men.
Now I understand. Thanks for the kind response. It makes sense.
A question arises in my mind: can't multiple frameworks be combined to reveal a pattern that is adressed in the theory of gynocentrism? I wouldn't use that specific term (gynocentrism) because constantly using a single term is not comfortable for me, but I've seen a pattern of female-centered policy and attitude, even in the non-feminist context.
Perhaps you don't see the same pattern, and that's fine too. What are your thoughts on the subject?
Yes, multiple frameworks can be combined, and I agree that doing so is often the most intellectually honest approach. I should add that I tend to begin with basic biological and neurocognitive mechanisms—such as affect (emotion) regulation, reinforcement learning, threat sensitivity, and social bonding—before invoking higher-level theoretical constructs.
All people are like this, just varying in their emotional reactivity.
My hesitation is not about recognising a recurring pattern of female-centred assumptions in policy, culture, or relational norms. I do see that pattern, including outside explicitly feminist contexts. Where I remain cautious is when a pattern becomes a primary explanatory principle.
What is being observed can plausibly emerge from the interaction of several well-documented processes: gendered emotional socialisation, institutional risk aversion, conflict management incentives, moral signalling, and historically sedimented norms about protection and vulnerability.
When these converge, they can reliably produce outcomes that appear female-centred without requiring a single organising ideology to do the causal work.
That does not make the pattern illusory, nor does it deny that it exists or its effects. My restraint is about explanatory scope, not dismissal. I am wary of any macro-framework—gynocentrism, patriarchy, or similar—once it functions as a catch-all rather than a discriminating explanation.
As Heraclitus observed:
No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it is not the same river and he is not the same man.
The relevance is temporal: patterns persist through reinforcement across a changing life, not because they are fixed truths. This is why experiential continuity should not be mistaken for theoretical sufficiency 🙏💙
I agree. And the multiple frameworks suggest that the patterns observed need a combination of multiple solutions, and that's the more difficult part. An isolated solution has a very limited power.
Because of that, there are moments in which I think that I have to engage more in the advocacy for human issues, but at the same time there's the obstacle of thinking that I have to wait more or prepare myself more. Anyway, those are my highs and lows.
I am concerned that you've misdiagnosed and missed the mark here in very much the wrong direction. The expectation to be mature, empathic, and loving is placed on men not because they are adult MALES, but because they are ADULT males. You're not largely criticizing an unreasonable pattern of behavior here, you're attacking 'being an adult'.
Everyone, male or female, ought to exhibit emotional regulation and deescalate conflicts. Everyone ought to consider others as at least as important as themselves. Everyone ought to be willing to make some sacrifices and compromises to make relationships work. That's not 'gynocentrism' in any respect other than a general failure to hold women to that same standard as ADULT females. This article comes across to me far more as a criticism of men actually 'adulting' than a more reasonable complaint that society hasn't been holding women AS accountable to likewise 'adult', but that's not a valid reason for men to choose immaturity and selfishness. We need to try to be the best that we can be, whether women (or other men for that matter) do the same or not.
No, it is men who are withholding their side of things in order to keep the peace and that ruins a relationship but negating any chance of it becoming a true partnership.
Tom, I usually like your stuff, but this post reads to me as effectively saying "Women are selfish and immature, so for a relationship to be equal, men must also become selfish and immature". I don't consider "be selfish and immature" good relationship advice for anyone of either sex.
Then why are women not held to the same standards in terms of outcomes that men are? Why are men required to practice emotional self restraint by women who refuse to or are incapable of doing the same and who rationalize their inability or disinclination to do so as their God-given birthright by dint of merely being female? Why is 'I'm just a girl' and 'A girl's allowed to change her mind' so casually weaponized against men as a means of demanding/extortong male compliance to momentary, arbitrary and self-serving expectations of both HIS behavior AND HER pathological impulsive arbitrary actions and expectations?
If you actually read my comment you'd see that I specifically said, "Everyone, male or female, ought to..." regarding behaving like an actual adult. The solution to people, of either sex, behaving in a manner that is immature, inconsiderate, and unloving, is NOT to encourage people who actually are behaving with maturity, empathy, and love to sink to the level of those who aren't.
I did read your comment. It was full of prescriptive assertions. And, one of the issues of prescriptive assertions is that they often impose obligations and duties one one person or a group of people which are not reciprocated (or reciprocated in a meaningful way) by an equal and opposite person or group. And so, when you (or anyone else) say that people of both sexes SHOULD do x, y, or z thing, my question is, 'Why?' Why should all people do that thing? Why do you or anyone else feel they have the social or moral authority to assert that all people should AFFIRMATIVELY behave in a certain way and, furthermore, what reciprocal duties do you think are reasonable to expect the other party to fulfill in exchange? What are the logical limits of that assertion? What are the moral limits of that assertion? At what point do you recognize that the universal decency that is necessary to make your assertions workable in real life, and NOT weaponized against someone, NOT used as a means of manipulation and fulfillment of avarice simply doesn't exist.
"Do the right thing" is an obligation of everyone. The obligation to "do the right thing" is an individual obligation, therefore it is irrelevant who or how many other people do the right thing also. If you ask "Why do the right thing?" the question answers itself: BECAUSE they are the right things to do. That's not a matter of my personal authority deciding what is right, but one of recognition of what is objectively, universally right. What is right is not dependent on reciprocation, but the very nature of 'reciprocation' inherently REQUIRES that one side unilaterally initiate the behavior they wish to have reciprocated. Bluntly, if you want to be treated decently, you must start by treating others decently yourself. I "expect" everyone to try their best to do the right thing whether it gets reciprocated or not. Anything less is basically saying "I'm only willing to be as good or worse than everyone else, I actively refuse to try to be any better than the people around me". Who the hell wants that kind of world, that kind of friend or spouse? What are the logical and moral limits of "do the right things"? You do the best you can. That's all that can ever be asked of anyone. As for it being unworkable in reality? I LIVE it. I have a happy marriage, the respect of my peers, and no regrets about any of it. You might be surprised how often even initially shitty people come around to behaving better with someone quietly setting the example for them.
'Do the right thing...' is a nice sentiment/exhortation/prescription. My issue - the one which your reply fails to examine - is this: What does that look like and by whose metric? How is that put into practice? Perhaps to a lesser degree than with 'empathy', doing the right thing is subjective, both in its execution and in its reception. That what seems like an act of empathy may be perceived very differently on the receiving end. Further, what exactly is entailed in this prescription, and by whose metric and to what extent? How long is someone obligated to 'do the right thing' when there is no reciprocation? How long before a retreat to indifference is justified? The position you take implies that there is some kind of universal agreement on what the 'right thing' is, but that simply isn't the case, and never has been. Perhaps you use that phrase as a surrogate for the 'do unto others...' maxim that derives from the Biblical New Testament? Personally, I think its a generally 'good' maxim, but it doesn't enjoy universal acceptance and never has. Here is a smattering of examples of what must be presumed to be 'good' practices from historical and modern cultures:
Mesoamerican cultures routinely practiced slavery, sexual slavery, ritual torture, human sacrifice and child sacrifice.
North American 'indigenous' tribes practiced slavery, sexual slavery, and torture of enemy combatants by such methods as wrapping them in 'green' leather and leaving them out in the sun, whereupon, as the skins dried and shrank, the victims would experience the slow gradual and eventual cracking of their ribcages and eventually suffocate to death.
For the entirety of its history, Islam has practiced jihad - religiously sanctified warfare for the purpose of conquest and conversion by violence. Islam has enshrined and conducted the following practices as sanctified by Mohammed and their holy scriptures: religious conquest and violence, slavery, sexual slavery, castration of male slaves, pedophilia, child marriage, honor killings and incest (specifically marriage of first cousins). In point of fact, a few months ago, the Pakistani Islamic council rejected a law that would have forbidden child marriage calling it 'un-Islamic and blasphemous'. Clearly, a significant element of the Islamic world sees child marriage as 'good'. I feel safe asserting that western cultures would reject child marriage as being very not good.
So, in the absence of universal agreement about what 'doing the right thing' entails, how does society establish a common framework for identifying behavior that is acceptable versus that which should be rejected? My take is that the only real way to go about this is to establish things which are forbidden to do, rather than try to assert or impose on others a set of rules that are their affirmative obligation to do. Any choices or actions in the affirmative should probably be left to mutual consent, informal agreement or formal, contractual agreement.
I'll answer the one part of that which can still fit down here in the comments, because you seem to be requesting an entire book on morality for the rest (The Bible is an excellent starting point on that, but you'd need to read a lot more than a single verse to cover everything you're asking for). "How long is someone obligated to do the right thing when there is no reciprocation?" To which I already answered you, what is right is not dependent on reciprocation. You seem to think the only viable or sustainable principle is something like "Do unto others as they do unto you", but it should be immediately obvious that approach becomes a downward rachet if people aren't expected to attempt to treat others better than they've been treated themselves.
If you want a Bible reference, you might start with the book of Matthew, Chapter 5, verses 38-48 for a decent summary regarding a higher moral standard than mere reciprocation.
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[b] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
"Men are often physically and emotionally stronger."
Yes, men are generally physically stronger.
Emotionally stronger - I think that women are much more attuned to emotions than men - they start earlier in life and we know that girls/women are generally more interested in people than boys/men. Men have that quality of stoicism and I would say more rational in their thinking. But I'm not sure that men are generally more emotionally STRONGER than women?
It depends on how you define stronger. I watch the male cops go to fatal car crashes and hold it together to get the job done. I think women, in general, are less likely to do that. That is emotional strength. If you are talking about sensitivity then that is another question. In my book, stoicism is stronger.
Again, this analysis is spot on. The problem here is that the responses men are expected to provide, concern for the other, restraint of one's own opinion/needs are generally the correct way we should deal with others. The problem arises from women being selectively excluded from these same obligations vis a vis others, especially in interactions with men. What is the solution?
Hold women to the same standards as if they were another man. Require them openly and publicly to "man-up", "act their age" and "stop being a premadona" when they try to play the gynocentric game. If their complaints are over emotional drivel (as they usually are), say that to them directly and dismiss their complaints. Further, when even legitimate complaints are delivered in a sexist/gynocentric way dismiss THEM as well saying the woman will NOT be heard until she gets her own emotions under control. Make quite clear that the stereotypical female histrionics are a disqualifying behavior for engaging with her on any level and be willing to hold the line. Time for women who behave this way to find themselves voted out of the conversation and off the island as it were until they start to behave properly.
Yes indeed. Men need to hold women accountable and it is not so easy. From the small sample I have seen, it seems women are allergic to accountability! In fact, many don't even understand what the word means.
It often seems like the only form of accountability that can be effective on women is when it comes from the kind of man whose 'no' to a woman hurts her far more than it hurts him.
Women know what the word means...they just think it doesn't apply to them under any circumstances.
This is really interesting, Tom, with your focus here on interpersonal relations. The interpersonal is clearly shaping, and shaped by, social discourse (societal norms). The big development that, I think, deserves more scrutiny and attention is how our public discourse (public policy/ media opinion) in the 21st century now seems to be dominated by theory and social movements that are seemingly immune from criticism. We need to be able to discuss these issues in an inclusive manner without anyone being immediately cancelled as a “misogynist” to shut down debate. It is not constructive, for example, to casually say that masculinity is “toxic” – and yet so many people do. How on earth can we have cohesive societies with such divisive rhetoric being mainstream, and increasingly shaping public policy without solid evidential underpinning?
Well said Nick.
My strong theory is that women are unwilling to face facts about how so many aspects of feminist informed ideas and behaviour have not worked out well for them relationally (and is getting increasingly worse).
Instead of being honest, they turn their misgivings into anger against men - it's "toxic masculinity", "the patriarchy", and "misogyny" over and over again. And you're right, these kinds of rhetoric are "conversation stoppers" and so nothing moves towards a better end. It's depressing (especially when it's the norm in spheres of influence - media, academia, politics etc.).
I am seeing more and more women explaining to other women that giving their men respect is essential, and that it will only make things better for their relationships. That ambushing their partners with complaints is toxic.
So some of this is being figured out.
Good! We need a shift. Let's hope it snowballs.
It's not merely that it is essential, but that a man who does not feel respected almost definitionally CANNOT feel loved.
Yes. There's absolute truth in that, as much as so many woman push against it (to their detriment).
Men and women are built differently, and have different needs. Until we are willing to acknowledge that and act accordingly, we'll continue to struggle.
I definitely agree with you, Tom. I also wonder though, shouldn’t men themselves take the first step to recognise this and set boundaries? Society and relationships can change, but real balance starts when men understand their own needs and assert them.
Yes! Men should take steps on their own. The more they wake up to what the article discusses the more likely they will start taking steps to require a partnership.
I suspect this emulates most of modernity. Where almost half of children are raised in single-parent homes, mostly with mothers, there seems to be no boundaries being taught. I also suspect that it is because of the way those women were raised, infantilised, and this seems to continue into adulthood. It's a developmental disaster, and I worry it's by design.
This article reminded me of a recurring problem in my relationship with my wife (which, to her credit, she has acknowledged): any negative feelings that I express have often been interpreted as anger, and any attempts to make my feelings known are interpreted as aggression. In this way, I wasn't allowed to have feelings like frustration or disappointment, and this article does a pretty job of explaining why.
A desire for justice can turn strength into weakness, and weakness into power. With power comes responsibility, even when the power comes from an inverted weakness.
Excellent Max. You are ahead of the game!
As well, it is remarkable the degree to which a woman's interpretation of the practice of justice entails appeasement of her emotional, subjective position, as opposed to any cognizable, rational ethical framework.
I see where you're coming from, and in online discourse this behaviour is definitely problematic.
But irl, handling emotions is an important part of every relationship... some more than others. Personally, in my relationship with my wife, I care about her emotions, whatever they are. Emotions are a big part of how we experience life, so I think it is usually an important part of my relationship as a husband to just experience emotions with her, and understand her emotions, and maybe even talk about what to do based on these emotions. Part of that should be recognizing when our emotions are not in alignment with our values.
Caring about her emotions is fine. But appeasing her emotions when they are disconnected with or not aligned with reality is dangerous and unhealthy. I believe women, generally tend to be more solipsistic than men and, as a result, the imperative to be empathetic or accommodating tends to flow toward women and rarely in the opposite direction. While this may or may not be true in any given specific instance - maybe even yours - I believe it tends to be more true than not.
I suspect the hard part (which is not taught by parents or society) is that those two actions are not mutually exclusive. Everyone can acknowledge someone else's feelings, but at the same time relate them to interpersonal boundaries.
I suspect what you've discovered there, Max, is how men and women are, or can be, two parts of a whole (a healthy relationship).
Very well said.
Solid breakdown of how gynocentrism hides behind social expectations. The distinction between emotional restraint turning into self-erasure is precise. I've noticed in my own life how easy it is to assume that keeping the peace means absorbing tension, and how that quietly shifts from care into an asymmetrical dynamic. The point about empathy becoming directional is something that doesnt get talked about nearly enough.
I agree with your core observation, but I would frame it more cautiously.
What makes these patterns feel right is not that they are necessarily fair or true, but that they are biologically and socially reinforcing. Behaviours labelled as mature, empathetic, or loving activate reward and affiliation systems, reduce conflict, and preserve social approval (including in exchanges like this).
That affective relief is a reinforcement signal, not evidence of moral correctness.
The cognitive problem arises when this felt sense of virtue is mistaken for knowledge. Anecdotal relational experiences, shaped by social norms and identity reinforcement, are then generalised into explanatory claims without sufficient empirical grounding.
In that sense, the account risks becoming emotionally compelling and experientially real, yet theoretically underdetermined. We can acknowledge gendered emotional socialisation and asymmetrical expectations without committing to a single ideological construct as an explanation.
I think the key distinction is between why something feels good to enact and whether the narrative built around it is actually true.
As always, a thoughtful and insightful post—thank you, Tom 🙏💙
You are welcome!
I don't understand well, the language is indirect. I understand the first part, that behaviours considered good are rewarded and that we largely depend on social approval, and it doesn't mean that we are unequivocally virtuous. Are you applying that to men in the context of this article, or to people in general?
Felt sense of virtue about what, specifically?
What are the specific anecdotal experiences generalized, and the explanatory claims, that you have in mind?
What specific account risks becoming emotionally compelling and experientially real, yet theorically underdetermined?
What is the single ideological construct that we don't have to commit to? The concept of gynocentrism, or something else? (I don't use the term personally, and gynocentrism can be questionable or wide to people like any "macro" term as "androcentrism" or "patriarchy" o "matriarchy", but it has the utility to connect several gender attitudes).
If you are more specific in those things, then your central points will be better understood.
You're reading my reply correctly!
I am applying the reinforcement argument specifically to men in the relational context described in the article, not to people in general.
Re: a sense of virtue, I mean the subjective experience of being mature, empathic, or loving that arises when one behaves in socially sanctioned ways. That feeling is produced by reduced conflict, approval, and affiliation—not by independent evidence that the behaviour is fair, reciprocal, or psychologically healthy.
The anecdotal experiences are everyday relational interactions in which men learn that accommodating female distress restores harmony and approval.
The explanatory claim I am cautioning against is the move from those experiences to a totalising explanation—namely that a single organising principle (gynocentrism) is doing the explanatory work, rather than a combination of socialisation practices, conflict-avoidance dynamics, attachment patterns, and status regulation.
The account risks becoming emotionally compelling and experientially real because it resonates with lived experience, yet underdetermined because the same observations can be explained by multiple frameworks (e.g. confirmation bias).
Without clearer boundary conditions or empirical discrimination between explanations, the theory risks overreaching in its explanations.
In short:
Yes—the construct I am referring to is gynocentrism. My point is not that it is meaningless or useless, but that it is not necessary to accept it as the primary or singular explanatory lens in order to acknowledge asymmetrical emotional expectations or costs borne by men.
Now I understand. Thanks for the kind response. It makes sense.
A question arises in my mind: can't multiple frameworks be combined to reveal a pattern that is adressed in the theory of gynocentrism? I wouldn't use that specific term (gynocentrism) because constantly using a single term is not comfortable for me, but I've seen a pattern of female-centered policy and attitude, even in the non-feminist context.
Perhaps you don't see the same pattern, and that's fine too. What are your thoughts on the subject?
Yes, multiple frameworks can be combined, and I agree that doing so is often the most intellectually honest approach. I should add that I tend to begin with basic biological and neurocognitive mechanisms—such as affect (emotion) regulation, reinforcement learning, threat sensitivity, and social bonding—before invoking higher-level theoretical constructs.
All people are like this, just varying in their emotional reactivity.
My hesitation is not about recognising a recurring pattern of female-centred assumptions in policy, culture, or relational norms. I do see that pattern, including outside explicitly feminist contexts. Where I remain cautious is when a pattern becomes a primary explanatory principle.
What is being observed can plausibly emerge from the interaction of several well-documented processes: gendered emotional socialisation, institutional risk aversion, conflict management incentives, moral signalling, and historically sedimented norms about protection and vulnerability.
When these converge, they can reliably produce outcomes that appear female-centred without requiring a single organising ideology to do the causal work.
That does not make the pattern illusory, nor does it deny that it exists or its effects. My restraint is about explanatory scope, not dismissal. I am wary of any macro-framework—gynocentrism, patriarchy, or similar—once it functions as a catch-all rather than a discriminating explanation.
As Heraclitus observed:
No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it is not the same river and he is not the same man.
The relevance is temporal: patterns persist through reinforcement across a changing life, not because they are fixed truths. This is why experiential continuity should not be mistaken for theoretical sufficiency 🙏💙
I agree. And the multiple frameworks suggest that the patterns observed need a combination of multiple solutions, and that's the more difficult part. An isolated solution has a very limited power.
Because of that, there are moments in which I think that I have to engage more in the advocacy for human issues, but at the same time there's the obstacle of thinking that I have to wait more or prepare myself more. Anyway, those are my highs and lows.
It was a good conversation, thanks. 😁
No problem, anytime! I hope it's been useful 💙
I am concerned that you've misdiagnosed and missed the mark here in very much the wrong direction. The expectation to be mature, empathic, and loving is placed on men not because they are adult MALES, but because they are ADULT males. You're not largely criticizing an unreasonable pattern of behavior here, you're attacking 'being an adult'.
Everyone, male or female, ought to exhibit emotional regulation and deescalate conflicts. Everyone ought to consider others as at least as important as themselves. Everyone ought to be willing to make some sacrifices and compromises to make relationships work. That's not 'gynocentrism' in any respect other than a general failure to hold women to that same standard as ADULT females. This article comes across to me far more as a criticism of men actually 'adulting' than a more reasonable complaint that society hasn't been holding women AS accountable to likewise 'adult', but that's not a valid reason for men to choose immaturity and selfishness. We need to try to be the best that we can be, whether women (or other men for that matter) do the same or not.
No, it is men who are withholding their side of things in order to keep the peace and that ruins a relationship but negating any chance of it becoming a true partnership.
Tom, I usually like your stuff, but this post reads to me as effectively saying "Women are selfish and immature, so for a relationship to be equal, men must also become selfish and immature". I don't consider "be selfish and immature" good relationship advice for anyone of either sex.
Sauce for the goose Steven.
Then why are women not held to the same standards in terms of outcomes that men are? Why are men required to practice emotional self restraint by women who refuse to or are incapable of doing the same and who rationalize their inability or disinclination to do so as their God-given birthright by dint of merely being female? Why is 'I'm just a girl' and 'A girl's allowed to change her mind' so casually weaponized against men as a means of demanding/extortong male compliance to momentary, arbitrary and self-serving expectations of both HIS behavior AND HER pathological impulsive arbitrary actions and expectations?
If you actually read my comment you'd see that I specifically said, "Everyone, male or female, ought to..." regarding behaving like an actual adult. The solution to people, of either sex, behaving in a manner that is immature, inconsiderate, and unloving, is NOT to encourage people who actually are behaving with maturity, empathy, and love to sink to the level of those who aren't.
I did read your comment. It was full of prescriptive assertions. And, one of the issues of prescriptive assertions is that they often impose obligations and duties one one person or a group of people which are not reciprocated (or reciprocated in a meaningful way) by an equal and opposite person or group. And so, when you (or anyone else) say that people of both sexes SHOULD do x, y, or z thing, my question is, 'Why?' Why should all people do that thing? Why do you or anyone else feel they have the social or moral authority to assert that all people should AFFIRMATIVELY behave in a certain way and, furthermore, what reciprocal duties do you think are reasonable to expect the other party to fulfill in exchange? What are the logical limits of that assertion? What are the moral limits of that assertion? At what point do you recognize that the universal decency that is necessary to make your assertions workable in real life, and NOT weaponized against someone, NOT used as a means of manipulation and fulfillment of avarice simply doesn't exist.
"Do the right thing" is an obligation of everyone. The obligation to "do the right thing" is an individual obligation, therefore it is irrelevant who or how many other people do the right thing also. If you ask "Why do the right thing?" the question answers itself: BECAUSE they are the right things to do. That's not a matter of my personal authority deciding what is right, but one of recognition of what is objectively, universally right. What is right is not dependent on reciprocation, but the very nature of 'reciprocation' inherently REQUIRES that one side unilaterally initiate the behavior they wish to have reciprocated. Bluntly, if you want to be treated decently, you must start by treating others decently yourself. I "expect" everyone to try their best to do the right thing whether it gets reciprocated or not. Anything less is basically saying "I'm only willing to be as good or worse than everyone else, I actively refuse to try to be any better than the people around me". Who the hell wants that kind of world, that kind of friend or spouse? What are the logical and moral limits of "do the right things"? You do the best you can. That's all that can ever be asked of anyone. As for it being unworkable in reality? I LIVE it. I have a happy marriage, the respect of my peers, and no regrets about any of it. You might be surprised how often even initially shitty people come around to behaving better with someone quietly setting the example for them.
'Do the right thing...' is a nice sentiment/exhortation/prescription. My issue - the one which your reply fails to examine - is this: What does that look like and by whose metric? How is that put into practice? Perhaps to a lesser degree than with 'empathy', doing the right thing is subjective, both in its execution and in its reception. That what seems like an act of empathy may be perceived very differently on the receiving end. Further, what exactly is entailed in this prescription, and by whose metric and to what extent? How long is someone obligated to 'do the right thing' when there is no reciprocation? How long before a retreat to indifference is justified? The position you take implies that there is some kind of universal agreement on what the 'right thing' is, but that simply isn't the case, and never has been. Perhaps you use that phrase as a surrogate for the 'do unto others...' maxim that derives from the Biblical New Testament? Personally, I think its a generally 'good' maxim, but it doesn't enjoy universal acceptance and never has. Here is a smattering of examples of what must be presumed to be 'good' practices from historical and modern cultures:
Mesoamerican cultures routinely practiced slavery, sexual slavery, ritual torture, human sacrifice and child sacrifice.
North American 'indigenous' tribes practiced slavery, sexual slavery, and torture of enemy combatants by such methods as wrapping them in 'green' leather and leaving them out in the sun, whereupon, as the skins dried and shrank, the victims would experience the slow gradual and eventual cracking of their ribcages and eventually suffocate to death.
For the entirety of its history, Islam has practiced jihad - religiously sanctified warfare for the purpose of conquest and conversion by violence. Islam has enshrined and conducted the following practices as sanctified by Mohammed and their holy scriptures: religious conquest and violence, slavery, sexual slavery, castration of male slaves, pedophilia, child marriage, honor killings and incest (specifically marriage of first cousins). In point of fact, a few months ago, the Pakistani Islamic council rejected a law that would have forbidden child marriage calling it 'un-Islamic and blasphemous'. Clearly, a significant element of the Islamic world sees child marriage as 'good'. I feel safe asserting that western cultures would reject child marriage as being very not good.
So, in the absence of universal agreement about what 'doing the right thing' entails, how does society establish a common framework for identifying behavior that is acceptable versus that which should be rejected? My take is that the only real way to go about this is to establish things which are forbidden to do, rather than try to assert or impose on others a set of rules that are their affirmative obligation to do. Any choices or actions in the affirmative should probably be left to mutual consent, informal agreement or formal, contractual agreement.
I'll answer the one part of that which can still fit down here in the comments, because you seem to be requesting an entire book on morality for the rest (The Bible is an excellent starting point on that, but you'd need to read a lot more than a single verse to cover everything you're asking for). "How long is someone obligated to do the right thing when there is no reciprocation?" To which I already answered you, what is right is not dependent on reciprocation. You seem to think the only viable or sustainable principle is something like "Do unto others as they do unto you", but it should be immediately obvious that approach becomes a downward rachet if people aren't expected to attempt to treat others better than they've been treated themselves.
If you want a Bible reference, you might start with the book of Matthew, Chapter 5, verses 38-48 for a decent summary regarding a higher moral standard than mere reciprocation.
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[b] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
"Men are often physically and emotionally stronger."
Yes, men are generally physically stronger.
Emotionally stronger - I think that women are much more attuned to emotions than men - they start earlier in life and we know that girls/women are generally more interested in people than boys/men. Men have that quality of stoicism and I would say more rational in their thinking. But I'm not sure that men are generally more emotionally STRONGER than women?
It depends on how you define stronger. I watch the male cops go to fatal car crashes and hold it together to get the job done. I think women, in general, are less likely to do that. That is emotional strength. If you are talking about sensitivity then that is another question. In my book, stoicism is stronger.
Yes...men are far emotionally stronger as a group than women are. Women are attuned to emotions like a hypochondriac to fears of illness.
100% spot on. I didn’t realise there was a name for it. Fuelled by woke media. I expect AI will cure many young men’s issues with gynocentrism.
I think you've described my entire relationship life in one "essay". Thank you sir and may God bless you for your writing.
I keep telling you, unless you start calling it feminocentrism rather than gynocentrism you’re going to win neither friends nor arguments