Why does this happen? For a number of reasons, but I will highlight two that I feel are on top:
- It is very profitable for feminists (and their allies...nearly everyone) to legally steal from net positive taxpayers (aka men) to fund programs that benefit only women and girls.
- These actions (or inaction, but it is intentional) numb boys at an early age to prepare them for the onslaught of negativity that will incur throughout their lives. And, most importantly for TPTB....it preapres men and boys to be actual cannon fodder when the time comes to die for the bankers, the military industrial complex, and the gynocracy.
All of this is very true. I grew up in a dysfunctional family where the mother made very poor choices of husband (twice) and with 2 sisters from these marriages experienced an environment where women's needs were centered and the male role (due to the fathers) was demonized. Initially this made sense where the first father was definitely a demon...but with the second father being merely a flawed adult and the mother's bearing significant flaws, it became clear that the righteous anger was being spread to men in generally. This applied to myself as I became a teenager and really hit in college. When resources now were more in "competition" the needs of the male child were completely dismissed to give massive subsidies to the female children despite their poor academic performance and behavior NOT warranting such investment. In the end, whenever the male young adult attempted to call out and correct the conduct of the younger women, HE was immediately sanctioned because NO criticism of ANY woman is ever allowed regardless of the damage the woman's conduct is causing. The end result of course is that the men end up alienated from their mother's and sisters, the women continue down the road of dysfunction and economic ruin and then complain that the men should bail them out. By the end...the men hold women as a group in disdain and want nothing to do with them. I have seen this in multiple families. Women have enabled the toxicity of their sisters and do not realize they have poisoned the entire environment. I see this with young people today who are quite willing to shrug their shoulders when a woman needs "protecting" and respond by...you wanted equality...now man up and reap what YOU have sown.
Having viewed matriarchal groups closely over the past 40 years, it raises all kinds of issues. Unrestrained female dominance can be exceedingly cruel, in an indiscriminate, relationship destroying way, towards any questioning of the power role. The adult male had either been cast out on the basis of mental illness or addiction, or had fallen into a subservient role. I anecdotally haven't seen the same relationship disruptive forces applied to the same degree in male dominated family groups.
So I postulate the gynocentrism and loss of appropriate male role modelling will be a hard road to redefine as female power systems are internally more punitive, and now much more common as the Queen Bee conceptualization of power has been glorified in education.
I need a psychologist to help me out here. We know male aggression can be problematic. We know female nuturing instincts underpin university's (now increasingly female dominated) not studying topics that may be perceived as causing harm to a marginalized groups. Do we have relevant study information on how how the different sexes manage "power". Understanding this may help to save our young men by having our older men perhaps show more of their instinctive leadership qualities than society is currently willing to allow.
Like you, Alan, I'm not a psychologist,. But I do know that women can wield power as destructively as men can (but often in more subtle ways). Psychologists, politicians and journalists prefer to call this phenomenon "assertiveness" in women but "aggression" in men. Testosterone doesn't actually cause aggression, but it prepares the body for behavior that might include aggression (which can be either good, even necessary, or bad). Men have far more testosterone than women do (although levels in the blood fluctuate considerably throughout the day), but women can nonetheless behave in ways that include aggression. Precisely how, I don't know.
Paul, I share an on group bias which obviously can be used to negate any comments that I make. But there is some suggestion in relationships straight and gay which may inform on the aggression aspect. Lesbian, straight then gay couples is the ranking for relationship breakup.
The power use/abuse is a harder question as motive is always harder to define as not usually declared. Here I do have a concern that female coded behaviors which are more directed at egalitarian concerns can be used to justify some very harsh outcomes at dissenting males under a moralistic cloak. It may all boil down to as males despite all the patriarchy misogyny accusations, are generally more kindly disposed towards women as part of some innate protective role.
I dunno, Alan. There really are some innate differences between men and women, but I think that biological determinism is just as misguided as cultural determinism.
I've read and heard a lot, for example, about women's "nurturing" instinct. Too much. It's true that most women are effective in caring for their own children or at least their own infants. But not all women are, to judge from the statistics on child abuse (let alone abortion). Moreover, women are not particularly effecting in caring for institutions (let alone for society as a whole) that rely on abstract loyalty, objective thinking and rules of fairness. That's because sentimentality is not enough to foster the common good. When subjective urges--feelings such as envy and spite--prevail over objective principles, the result can be administrative hell.
I've read and heard just as much about men's "protective" instinct. It's true that most men would rescue or at least help others in physical distress or perhaps even emotional distress. But not all men do that, to judge from the statistics on, say, rape (when men become the bullies, not the protectors).
My point is that way too many women and men do not fit the stereotypes that both they and society promote either by rewarding conformists or intimidating non-conformists. It's true that non-conformists are in the minority, by definition, but they are hardly genetic mutants. Some non-biological factor must be involved as well as biology. That factor is culture, which is a universal feature of human nature.
I agree with you on your "not all do" observation and your other comments. And although I do drift more to the biogical determinism side I accept your cultural influence argument. The fascinating information that male and female infants show marked eye contact and object observation duration differences is a group rather than an individual characteristic.
Something has profoundly changed with the rise and institutional support for identarian politics which needs a " how did we get here" dissection. I hope wiser heads than mine are able to define all the influences. With the rapid feminisation of cultural institutions the management of power might be one to look at- but with the caution about the replicability crisis in social sciences particularly and peer review ideological capture.
Recently, I watched a soccer team practice for 3 year olds. All were boys except 1 girl. At the end of practice, the coach called the kids together. The little girl was last to join the group. As she was walking up; one of the little boys started to speak. The coach told him & the other boys to wait because, "girls go first". He then asked the young girl if she had any questions.
It was a prime example of how early the gynocentric conditioning starts in our culture. These kids will hear this message often in their childhood. It will continue into adulthood. "Girls (& later women) go first".
Boomer women who experienced the unapologetic sexism that existed before the women’s movement are incapable of believing there is bias against their grandsons.
Everything you said about what boys need and how they often don’t get it (and the harms of what they get instead) is true. And, the “gynocentric” concept you cite as the driving force for why boys are struggling is short-sighted. The underlying problem is that as a society seeking to correct the very real marginalization of certain groups, we often default to dehumanizing those who are historically advantaged - seeing them not as vulnerable individuals but as a category of people whose access to power over others means they can take, and even deserve, some “punching up” as a way to even the scales, and to decry the very real harms marginalized groups experience at the hands of the advantaged group. This goes way beyond gender, you see it with race, religion, etc. as well, but in gender it’s magnified because boys’ conditioning tells them to hide vulnerability and project an illusion of toughness and invincibility, feeding the idea that they can and should “take it.” Even your approach seems to follow this line of “advocacy,” just with boys as victims and feminists as the aggressors.
I believe that the answer is to instead remember that everyone is a vulnerable human and not a category to rally against, and that engaging with people as humans worthy of compassion is actually the most effective way to correct behaviors that harm others. To paraphrase Marshall Rosenberg’s essential book “Nonviolent Communication,” it is the rare human being who can be attentive to your feelings and needs when they are presented via images of his wrongness.
Here is where we part company. If you start throwing the word gynocentrism about, you will rightly lose anyone who cares about the rights of men and boys, but knows a red pill red flag when they see one.
If gynocentrism is valid, so are feminist theories of “the patriarchy”. Both are crap.
There is an attempt here to constrain the definition of gynocentrism to something more palatable. Words don’t work like that, they have context and they have momentum, and “gynocentrism” is already out there and fully in use by the sort of dingbats who think modern men should be more Spartan. It’s best use is in signalling that the person using it is a fing idiot.
I think it pretty clearly means putting women at the centre of your thinking and policy. I don't know who these dingbats are that you're referring to. The guys like Andrew Tate etc. who think men need to be fighters, wouldn't be caught dead using "gynocentrism". I think it describes a very important issue that is hurting men and boys, which is how our policymakers and commentariat consider everything exclusively in terms of how it affects women, and ignore men's problems. It is far more useful as a concept than "misandry", which is far less prevalent.
I think that both concepts, Duncan, are useful and important. And go together, because misandry is the almost inevitable fallout from gynocentrism. It means hatred toward men (just as misogyny means hatred toward women). And hatred is a moral problem of profound importance whether every hater realizes that or not.
By "hatred," I don't mean dislike or even extreme dislike. That's an emotion. Hatred is not an emotion, because emotions are transient, personal and subjective. Misandry is a worldview. Unlike gynocentrism. however, misandry is an institutionalized and culturally propagated worldview--that is, an ideology. Hatred of any kind has a life of its own precisely because it has been institutionalized and no longer depends on personal experience.
The same is true, by the way, of androcentrism and misogyny. The names of target populations keep changing, but the phenomenon of hatred does not.
It’s pretty clear that this post wants to redefine gynocentrism to something useful to the author. As I said, words don’t work that way, and public debate certainly doesn’t. Has it occurred to you that the feminists claiming everything is run for men, and the red pillers claiming everything is run for women, are both wrong?
If you can usefully comment on issues facing men and boys, please do so. If you try to do so using stupid words and concepts like gynocentrism, prepare to be derided and ignored.
.Women have a sexual appearance , men don't so women get attention and consideration men never get, i think simply being female is a luxury and why everyone helps them but not men.
Women look for different things in men that man do in women. Most men will find more than half of women their age (or younger) to be attractive. Women tend to judge men largely on status, and only find about ten percent of men attractive.
But - while men tend to largely agree on what is attractive in women, women (other than on dating sites) have very different ideas of what is attractive in men.
Excellent article, as always, Tom.
Why does this happen? For a number of reasons, but I will highlight two that I feel are on top:
- It is very profitable for feminists (and their allies...nearly everyone) to legally steal from net positive taxpayers (aka men) to fund programs that benefit only women and girls.
- These actions (or inaction, but it is intentional) numb boys at an early age to prepare them for the onslaught of negativity that will incur throughout their lives. And, most importantly for TPTB....it preapres men and boys to be actual cannon fodder when the time comes to die for the bankers, the military industrial complex, and the gynocracy.
All of this is very true. I grew up in a dysfunctional family where the mother made very poor choices of husband (twice) and with 2 sisters from these marriages experienced an environment where women's needs were centered and the male role (due to the fathers) was demonized. Initially this made sense where the first father was definitely a demon...but with the second father being merely a flawed adult and the mother's bearing significant flaws, it became clear that the righteous anger was being spread to men in generally. This applied to myself as I became a teenager and really hit in college. When resources now were more in "competition" the needs of the male child were completely dismissed to give massive subsidies to the female children despite their poor academic performance and behavior NOT warranting such investment. In the end, whenever the male young adult attempted to call out and correct the conduct of the younger women, HE was immediately sanctioned because NO criticism of ANY woman is ever allowed regardless of the damage the woman's conduct is causing. The end result of course is that the men end up alienated from their mother's and sisters, the women continue down the road of dysfunction and economic ruin and then complain that the men should bail them out. By the end...the men hold women as a group in disdain and want nothing to do with them. I have seen this in multiple families. Women have enabled the toxicity of their sisters and do not realize they have poisoned the entire environment. I see this with young people today who are quite willing to shrug their shoulders when a woman needs "protecting" and respond by...you wanted equality...now man up and reap what YOU have sown.
Having viewed matriarchal groups closely over the past 40 years, it raises all kinds of issues. Unrestrained female dominance can be exceedingly cruel, in an indiscriminate, relationship destroying way, towards any questioning of the power role. The adult male had either been cast out on the basis of mental illness or addiction, or had fallen into a subservient role. I anecdotally haven't seen the same relationship disruptive forces applied to the same degree in male dominated family groups.
So I postulate the gynocentrism and loss of appropriate male role modelling will be a hard road to redefine as female power systems are internally more punitive, and now much more common as the Queen Bee conceptualization of power has been glorified in education.
I need a psychologist to help me out here. We know male aggression can be problematic. We know female nuturing instincts underpin university's (now increasingly female dominated) not studying topics that may be perceived as causing harm to a marginalized groups. Do we have relevant study information on how how the different sexes manage "power". Understanding this may help to save our young men by having our older men perhaps show more of their instinctive leadership qualities than society is currently willing to allow.
All the thoughts as ever just my humble opinion
Like you, Alan, I'm not a psychologist,. But I do know that women can wield power as destructively as men can (but often in more subtle ways). Psychologists, politicians and journalists prefer to call this phenomenon "assertiveness" in women but "aggression" in men. Testosterone doesn't actually cause aggression, but it prepares the body for behavior that might include aggression (which can be either good, even necessary, or bad). Men have far more testosterone than women do (although levels in the blood fluctuate considerably throughout the day), but women can nonetheless behave in ways that include aggression. Precisely how, I don't know.
Paul, I share an on group bias which obviously can be used to negate any comments that I make. But there is some suggestion in relationships straight and gay which may inform on the aggression aspect. Lesbian, straight then gay couples is the ranking for relationship breakup.
The power use/abuse is a harder question as motive is always harder to define as not usually declared. Here I do have a concern that female coded behaviors which are more directed at egalitarian concerns can be used to justify some very harsh outcomes at dissenting males under a moralistic cloak. It may all boil down to as males despite all the patriarchy misogyny accusations, are generally more kindly disposed towards women as part of some innate protective role.
I dunno, Alan. There really are some innate differences between men and women, but I think that biological determinism is just as misguided as cultural determinism.
I've read and heard a lot, for example, about women's "nurturing" instinct. Too much. It's true that most women are effective in caring for their own children or at least their own infants. But not all women are, to judge from the statistics on child abuse (let alone abortion). Moreover, women are not particularly effecting in caring for institutions (let alone for society as a whole) that rely on abstract loyalty, objective thinking and rules of fairness. That's because sentimentality is not enough to foster the common good. When subjective urges--feelings such as envy and spite--prevail over objective principles, the result can be administrative hell.
I've read and heard just as much about men's "protective" instinct. It's true that most men would rescue or at least help others in physical distress or perhaps even emotional distress. But not all men do that, to judge from the statistics on, say, rape (when men become the bullies, not the protectors).
My point is that way too many women and men do not fit the stereotypes that both they and society promote either by rewarding conformists or intimidating non-conformists. It's true that non-conformists are in the minority, by definition, but they are hardly genetic mutants. Some non-biological factor must be involved as well as biology. That factor is culture, which is a universal feature of human nature.
I agree with you on your "not all do" observation and your other comments. And although I do drift more to the biogical determinism side I accept your cultural influence argument. The fascinating information that male and female infants show marked eye contact and object observation duration differences is a group rather than an individual characteristic.
Something has profoundly changed with the rise and institutional support for identarian politics which needs a " how did we get here" dissection. I hope wiser heads than mine are able to define all the influences. With the rapid feminisation of cultural institutions the management of power might be one to look at- but with the caution about the replicability crisis in social sciences particularly and peer review ideological capture.
Recently, I watched a soccer team practice for 3 year olds. All were boys except 1 girl. At the end of practice, the coach called the kids together. The little girl was last to join the group. As she was walking up; one of the little boys started to speak. The coach told him & the other boys to wait because, "girls go first". He then asked the young girl if she had any questions.
It was a prime example of how early the gynocentric conditioning starts in our culture. These kids will hear this message often in their childhood. It will continue into adulthood. "Girls (& later women) go first".
Boomer women who experienced the unapologetic sexism that existed before the women’s movement are incapable of believing there is bias against their grandsons.
Everything you said about what boys need and how they often don’t get it (and the harms of what they get instead) is true. And, the “gynocentric” concept you cite as the driving force for why boys are struggling is short-sighted. The underlying problem is that as a society seeking to correct the very real marginalization of certain groups, we often default to dehumanizing those who are historically advantaged - seeing them not as vulnerable individuals but as a category of people whose access to power over others means they can take, and even deserve, some “punching up” as a way to even the scales, and to decry the very real harms marginalized groups experience at the hands of the advantaged group. This goes way beyond gender, you see it with race, religion, etc. as well, but in gender it’s magnified because boys’ conditioning tells them to hide vulnerability and project an illusion of toughness and invincibility, feeding the idea that they can and should “take it.” Even your approach seems to follow this line of “advocacy,” just with boys as victims and feminists as the aggressors.
I believe that the answer is to instead remember that everyone is a vulnerable human and not a category to rally against, and that engaging with people as humans worthy of compassion is actually the most effective way to correct behaviors that harm others. To paraphrase Marshall Rosenberg’s essential book “Nonviolent Communication,” it is the rare human being who can be attentive to your feelings and needs when they are presented via images of his wrongness.
Single sex schools are a good thing for boys and girls - helps them get through puberty to young adulthood without disasters.
Here is where we part company. If you start throwing the word gynocentrism about, you will rightly lose anyone who cares about the rights of men and boys, but knows a red pill red flag when they see one.
Try not being a twat.
Try making an argument about why gynocentrism isn't valid and stop throwing abuse. You have convinced no-one, and maybe losing you isn't a problem.
If gynocentrism is valid, so are feminist theories of “the patriarchy”. Both are crap.
There is an attempt here to constrain the definition of gynocentrism to something more palatable. Words don’t work like that, they have context and they have momentum, and “gynocentrism” is already out there and fully in use by the sort of dingbats who think modern men should be more Spartan. It’s best use is in signalling that the person using it is a fing idiot.
I think it pretty clearly means putting women at the centre of your thinking and policy. I don't know who these dingbats are that you're referring to. The guys like Andrew Tate etc. who think men need to be fighters, wouldn't be caught dead using "gynocentrism". I think it describes a very important issue that is hurting men and boys, which is how our policymakers and commentariat consider everything exclusively in terms of how it affects women, and ignore men's problems. It is far more useful as a concept than "misandry", which is far less prevalent.
I think that both concepts, Duncan, are useful and important. And go together, because misandry is the almost inevitable fallout from gynocentrism. It means hatred toward men (just as misogyny means hatred toward women). And hatred is a moral problem of profound importance whether every hater realizes that or not.
By "hatred," I don't mean dislike or even extreme dislike. That's an emotion. Hatred is not an emotion, because emotions are transient, personal and subjective. Misandry is a worldview. Unlike gynocentrism. however, misandry is an institutionalized and culturally propagated worldview--that is, an ideology. Hatred of any kind has a life of its own precisely because it has been institutionalized and no longer depends on personal experience.
The same is true, by the way, of androcentrism and misogyny. The names of target populations keep changing, but the phenomenon of hatred does not.
It’s pretty clear that this post wants to redefine gynocentrism to something useful to the author. As I said, words don’t work that way, and public debate certainly doesn’t. Has it occurred to you that the feminists claiming everything is run for men, and the red pillers claiming everything is run for women, are both wrong?
If you can usefully comment on issues facing men and boys, please do so. If you try to do so using stupid words and concepts like gynocentrism, prepare to be derided and ignored.
The door is over that way====>
Debate is here
Then you should debate rather than fling abuse.
Carefully inspected, you will see that my comments contain arguments. I know it’s really hard, but you can do it.
.Women have a sexual appearance , men don't so women get attention and consideration men never get, i think simply being female is a luxury and why everyone helps them but not men.
Women have a sexual appearance _to men_. Women tend to find men sexually attractive.
i wish they found me sexualy atractive
Women look for different things in men that man do in women. Most men will find more than half of women their age (or younger) to be attractive. Women tend to judge men largely on status, and only find about ten percent of men attractive.
But - while men tend to largely agree on what is attractive in women, women (other than on dating sites) have very different ideas of what is attractive in men.
like money but they cant have any of mine