"I do find the concept "gynocentrism" persuasive."
I agree, but I would argue that gynocentrism is only half the equation.
Gynocentrism is just nature's way of ensuring the resources get to women and children. Gynocentism only became a corrupting (or 'corroding') force in the post industrial/ technological age when living standards shot up.
The way I see it, the male/ female dynamic and psychology is set up for a world of scarcity, danger and mud! Now that we have electric street lights, pavements, public transport, indoor plumbing, shopping malls etc all those previously complementary and compatible 'programs' in men and women have spun completely out of control.
Men can now AFFORD to indulge women's limitless demands, which are no longer for some more sheepskins for winter, logs for the fire and a pheasant for dinner .... but for starring roles in action movies, equal representation in boardrooms and a gender role which provides maximum freedom to behave however you like with zero social obligations (he for she).
Nothing has changed, per se. It's just that western society has suddenly (in the last century) won the lottery, and now all of those male/ female gender dynamics that used to be kept in check by practical limitations (bucket, spade, horse) have had those practical limitations removed.
Indeed it is hard to imagine the grind of life that was the lot of most people until pretty recently. Most of our "heritage industry" sanitises the more distant past by really focussing on the stately homes, castles and grand religious monuments. Only occassionally does one get to see the "third world" existence my ancestors lived until two generations ago. And even the modern third world has elecricty, phones and medicine. When, in 1906, the old age pension was established here it was set at age 75, mens life expectancy was then just 52, it what overall was one of the richest lands on the planet. Intriguingly in Europe generally the smallest "gender pay gaps" are in the poorest still largely agricultural countries, because everyone has to lend a hand to everything. Unprecedentedly widespread luxury, long lives well beyond human reproductive lifespans control over fertility and you have something entirely new and something that has happened in a blink of an eye in even recorded history let alone the 100,000s years of human existence. We have "affluenza" in health and "luxury beliefs" as you say.
" Intriguingly in Europe generally the smallest "gender pay gaps" are in the poorest still largely agricultural countries, because everyone has to lend a hand to everything"
Right. But I would argue that the 'gender pay gap' is actually a measure of female privilege anyway, and NOT oppression (credit to Karen and Alison of the Honey Badgers for this observation).
It is men's enormous subsidies to women (both voluntary and involuntary via taxation) that allow women to choose lower paying jobs and earn less. For every dollar a man spends he must earn $1.23 and for every dollar a woman spends she only has to earn 77 cents of it.
As usual feminists have spun this as patriarchal oppression, and men have swallowed the bait.
Also, the gender pay gap assumes jobs only pay with money. The kinds of jobs which women tend to choose are those which pay in social opportunities, safety, comfort, fun and job satisfaction, easy commute, safety and cleanliness. That is part of the 'pay'. That form of pay only benefits the person being paid, and cannot be divided up and handed other to anyone else.
We push men into jobs which pay almost exclusively in terms of money (rather than safety, comfort, flexibility etc) because monetary pay can easily be taken from that man (taxed) and handed to women, and men can also be persuaded to hand it over to women by paying for the meal, and paying the bills. Paying men in money (converting his labour into coins) is in this sense a form of parasitism (to put the most cynical spin on it).
If we equalised pay between men and women (as feminists pretend they want), the standard of living for women would go down, not up.
The 'wage gap' is just another feminist shaming tactic (to keep men in line), not a real campaign. If it was a real cause we'd see feminists choosing high paid jobs and then spending their high earnings on men so they could afford to be florists, or children's authors or run their own pottery barn... or be stay at home dads. I think most men would enjoy such 'oppression'.
BRILLIANT! It is clear that Bolshevism is built into the legal system, seemingly everything from child support & alimony to FAKE rape claims against MALE celebrities is just an agenda to re distribute wealth from MEN to wo-MEN. On a more humorous note: I'm sure glad Elon Musk got rid of all those worthless fe-MALES with those fluff jobs at Twitter who were censoring everyone.
Gyno centrism is the WORSHIP of wo-MEN. In NO way is it biological or evolutionary. MEN being ordained as the HEAD and the wo-MAN called by God to submit, is the natural order, Gyno-centrism is NOT. Protecting those who are weaker doesn't have to be gender based.
As I see it, gynocentrism is placing the comfort, security and survival needs of women (and by extension children) above those of men. It is men sacrificing whatever is necessary (perhaps their lives) to ensure the women and children live.
This is not at odds with gender based hierarchies such as 'patriarchy'. Men can absolutely be head of the family, or head of the tribe or society and have women submitting to them left, right and centre, without this conflicting with gynocentric hard wiring.
To submit to a man in a relationship, or to submit to men generally in wider society, is to minimise your own agency and maximise your vulnerability, while maximising the man's agency and minimising his vulnerability. This places you under him, and therefore gives him RESPONSIBILITY over you.
Submission makes you more like a child, and pushes the man more into the role of parent (patriarch) as a response. I would say that submission to men is entirely compatible with gynocentrism, and is in fact a way to provoke it and maximise it.
Feminism is a form of submission (it's a male power fantasy), minus the corresponding respect, adoration and gratitude for men's gynocentric dominance and heroic sacrifices (he for she).
Feminism is wanting to exploit the natural gynocentric / patriarchal transaction between men and women, while simultaneously branding it the root of all masculine evil and female suffering! Feminism is insisting on the cabbie sitting in the back seat, while you get to sit up front, and then shouting at him to hurry up and drive you to your destination!
OK, some valid points, however I still see Gyno-centrism as IDOLATRY, the worship of wo-MEN. Protecting the weak doesn't have to be gender based. For ex. many fEMINISTS have said: "If a wo-MAN & a child are drowning, we should save the wo-MAN first" The justification being that wo-MEN can create more babies. OK, so what if the child is fe-MALE? That the fe-MALE adult is prioritized over the fe-MALE child, puts a kink in the (gyno-centrism is evolutionary thesis) exposing gyno-centrism as the WORSHIP of wo-MEN rather than preservation of the tribe.
"I do find the concept "gynocentrism" persuasive."
I agree, but I would argue that gynocentrism is only half the equation.
Gynocentrism is just nature's way of ensuring the resources get to women and children. Gynocentism only became a corrupting (or 'corroding') force in the post industrial/ technological age when living standards shot up.
The way I see it, the male/ female dynamic and psychology is set up for a world of scarcity, danger and mud! Now that we have electric street lights, pavements, public transport, indoor plumbing, shopping malls etc all those previously complementary and compatible 'programs' in men and women have spun completely out of control.
Men can now AFFORD to indulge women's limitless demands, which are no longer for some more sheepskins for winter, logs for the fire and a pheasant for dinner .... but for starring roles in action movies, equal representation in boardrooms and a gender role which provides maximum freedom to behave however you like with zero social obligations (he for she).
Nothing has changed, per se. It's just that western society has suddenly (in the last century) won the lottery, and now all of those male/ female gender dynamics that used to be kept in check by practical limitations (bucket, spade, horse) have had those practical limitations removed.
Indeed it is hard to imagine the grind of life that was the lot of most people until pretty recently. Most of our "heritage industry" sanitises the more distant past by really focussing on the stately homes, castles and grand religious monuments. Only occassionally does one get to see the "third world" existence my ancestors lived until two generations ago. And even the modern third world has elecricty, phones and medicine. When, in 1906, the old age pension was established here it was set at age 75, mens life expectancy was then just 52, it what overall was one of the richest lands on the planet. Intriguingly in Europe generally the smallest "gender pay gaps" are in the poorest still largely agricultural countries, because everyone has to lend a hand to everything. Unprecedentedly widespread luxury, long lives well beyond human reproductive lifespans control over fertility and you have something entirely new and something that has happened in a blink of an eye in even recorded history let alone the 100,000s years of human existence. We have "affluenza" in health and "luxury beliefs" as you say.
" Intriguingly in Europe generally the smallest "gender pay gaps" are in the poorest still largely agricultural countries, because everyone has to lend a hand to everything"
Right. But I would argue that the 'gender pay gap' is actually a measure of female privilege anyway, and NOT oppression (credit to Karen and Alison of the Honey Badgers for this observation).
It is men's enormous subsidies to women (both voluntary and involuntary via taxation) that allow women to choose lower paying jobs and earn less. For every dollar a man spends he must earn $1.23 and for every dollar a woman spends she only has to earn 77 cents of it.
As usual feminists have spun this as patriarchal oppression, and men have swallowed the bait.
Also, the gender pay gap assumes jobs only pay with money. The kinds of jobs which women tend to choose are those which pay in social opportunities, safety, comfort, fun and job satisfaction, easy commute, safety and cleanliness. That is part of the 'pay'. That form of pay only benefits the person being paid, and cannot be divided up and handed other to anyone else.
We push men into jobs which pay almost exclusively in terms of money (rather than safety, comfort, flexibility etc) because monetary pay can easily be taken from that man (taxed) and handed to women, and men can also be persuaded to hand it over to women by paying for the meal, and paying the bills. Paying men in money (converting his labour into coins) is in this sense a form of parasitism (to put the most cynical spin on it).
If we equalised pay between men and women (as feminists pretend they want), the standard of living for women would go down, not up.
The 'wage gap' is just another feminist shaming tactic (to keep men in line), not a real campaign. If it was a real cause we'd see feminists choosing high paid jobs and then spending their high earnings on men so they could afford to be florists, or children's authors or run their own pottery barn... or be stay at home dads. I think most men would enjoy such 'oppression'.
Yes pay gaps are slippery things. Of course the smallest such gaps existed behind the Iron curtain.
BRILLIANT! It is clear that Bolshevism is built into the legal system, seemingly everything from child support & alimony to FAKE rape claims against MALE celebrities is just an agenda to re distribute wealth from MEN to wo-MEN. On a more humorous note: I'm sure glad Elon Musk got rid of all those worthless fe-MALES with those fluff jobs at Twitter who were censoring everyone.
Gyno centrism is the WORSHIP of wo-MEN. In NO way is it biological or evolutionary. MEN being ordained as the HEAD and the wo-MAN called by God to submit, is the natural order, Gyno-centrism is NOT. Protecting those who are weaker doesn't have to be gender based.
As I see it, gynocentrism is placing the comfort, security and survival needs of women (and by extension children) above those of men. It is men sacrificing whatever is necessary (perhaps their lives) to ensure the women and children live.
This is not at odds with gender based hierarchies such as 'patriarchy'. Men can absolutely be head of the family, or head of the tribe or society and have women submitting to them left, right and centre, without this conflicting with gynocentric hard wiring.
To submit to a man in a relationship, or to submit to men generally in wider society, is to minimise your own agency and maximise your vulnerability, while maximising the man's agency and minimising his vulnerability. This places you under him, and therefore gives him RESPONSIBILITY over you.
Submission makes you more like a child, and pushes the man more into the role of parent (patriarch) as a response. I would say that submission to men is entirely compatible with gynocentrism, and is in fact a way to provoke it and maximise it.
Feminism is a form of submission (it's a male power fantasy), minus the corresponding respect, adoration and gratitude for men's gynocentric dominance and heroic sacrifices (he for she).
Feminism is wanting to exploit the natural gynocentric / patriarchal transaction between men and women, while simultaneously branding it the root of all masculine evil and female suffering! Feminism is insisting on the cabbie sitting in the back seat, while you get to sit up front, and then shouting at him to hurry up and drive you to your destination!
OK, some valid points, however I still see Gyno-centrism as IDOLATRY, the worship of wo-MEN. Protecting the weak doesn't have to be gender based. For ex. many fEMINISTS have said: "If a wo-MAN & a child are drowning, we should save the wo-MAN first" The justification being that wo-MEN can create more babies. OK, so what if the child is fe-MALE? That the fe-MALE adult is prioritized over the fe-MALE child, puts a kink in the (gyno-centrism is evolutionary thesis) exposing gyno-centrism as the WORSHIP of wo-MEN rather than preservation of the tribe.
Disagree. Gynocentrism is not innate.
Protectiveneds over women is definitely innate, and gynocentrism takes advantage of this.
However, most societies were patriarchal for a reason. Respect towards successful men is as innate as protectivenesd of women.