Gynocentrism n. (Greek, γυνή, “female” – Latin centrum, “centered” ) refers to a dominant or exclusive focus on women in theory or practice, or to the advocacy of this.1 Anything can be considered gynocentric (Adj.) when it is concerned exclusively with a female (or specifically a feminist) point of view.2
The prevailing focus of gynocentric ideology is to prioritize females hierarchically, and as a result, may be interpreted as misandry (the hatred and prejudice towards men). Feminism calls for equality or even equity are often, according to them, a deception for gynocentrism.
As a worldview based on the inherent or express belief that the world revolves around women, a cultural theme that they claim has become required by fashion behind the scenes in law courts and government bureaucracies, which has resulted in systemic discrimination against men.
Gynocentrism can bee seen as a form of essentialism (as a presumed human trait), as distinct from scholarship or political activity on behalf of women. To the extent that it focuses on the innate virtues of women and the innate vices of men. Evidenced by events such as Mother’s Day, International woman’s day and the broader concept of a gynocentric culture which refers to a larger collection of culture traits that have major significance in the way people’s lives were lived.
Elements of gynocentric culture existing today are derived from practices originating in medieval society such as feudalism, chivalry and courtly love that continue to inform contemporary society in subtle ways.
The golden casket: depicting scenes of servile behavior toward women was typical of courtly love culture of the Middle Ages. Such objects were given to women as gifts by men seeking to impress. Note the woman standing with hands on hips in a position of authority, and the man being led around by a neck halter, his hands clasped in a position of subservience.
Much of what we today call gynocentrism was invented in the Middle Ages with the cultural practices of romantic chivalry and courtly love. In the 12th century Europe, feudalism served as the basis for a new kind of love in which men were to play the role of vassal to women who played the role of an idealized Lord. C.S. Lewis, back in the middle of the 20th Century, referred to this historical revolution as “the feudalisation of love,” and stated that it has left no corner of our ethics, our imagination, or our daily life untouched. “Compared with this revolution,” states Lewis, “the Renaissance is a mere ripple on the surface of literature.” Lewis states;
“Everyone has heard of courtly love, and everyone knows it appeared quite suddenly at the end of the eleventh century at Languedoc. The sentiment, of course, is love, but love of a highly specialized sort, whose characteristics may be enumerated as Humility, Courtesy, and the Religion of Love. The lover is always abject. Obedience to his lady’s lightest wish, however whimsical, and silent acquiescence in her rebukes, however unjust, are the only virtues he dares to claim. Here is a service of love closely modeled on the service which a feudal vassal owes to his lord. The lover is the lady’s ‘man’. He addresses her as midons, which etymologically represents not ‘my lady’ but ‘my lord’. The whole attitude has been rightly described as ‘a feudalisation of love’. This solemn amatory ritual is felt to be part and parcel of the courtly life.”
With the women being elevated to the position of ‘Lord’ in intimate relationships, and with this general sentiment diffusing to the masses and across much of the world today, we are justified in talking of a gynocentric cultural complex that affects, among other things, relationships between men and women. Further, unless evidence of widespread gynocentric culture can be found prior to the Middle Ages, then gynocentrism is precisely 800 years old. In order to determine if this thesis is valid, we need to look further at what we mean by “gynocentrism”.
The term gynocentrism has been in circulation since the 1800’s, with the general definition being “focused on women; concerned with only women.” From this definition, we see that gynocentrism could refer to any female. There is nothing inherently wrong with a gynocentric act (eg. celebrating Mother’s Day), or for that matter an androcentric act (celebrating Father’s Day). However when a given act becomes instituted in the culture to the exclusion of other acts we are then dealing with a hegemonic custom, such as the relationship custom of elevating the women to the significantly higher role of “Lord” in relation to male vassals.
With acts such as male sacrifice for the benefit of women and the deference of men to women, gynocentrism, whether it went by the name honor, nobility, chivalry, or feminism, its essence has gone unchanged. It remains a peculiarly male duty to help the women onto the lifeboats while the men themselves face a certain and icy death. It has become the descriptions of the assumed male duty.
If we accept this definition we can look back and ask whether male sacrifices throughout history were always made for the sake women, or alternatively for the sake of some other primary goal? For instance, when men went to die in vast numbers in wars, was it for women, or was it rather for Man, King, God, and Country? If the latter we cannot then claim that this was a result of some intentional gynocentric culture, at least not in the way defined here. If the sacrifice isn’t intended directly for the benefits women, even if women were occasional beneficiaries of male sacrifice, then we are not dealing with gynocentric culture.
Male utility and disability strictly “for the benefit of women” comes in strongly only after the advent of the 12th-century gender revolution in Europe. A revolution that delivered us terms like gallantry, chivalry, chivalric love, courtesy, damsels, romance and so on. From that period onward gynocentric practices grew exponentially, culminating in the demands of today’s feminism. In sum, gynocentrism was a patchy phenomenon at best before the middle ages, after which it became ubiquitous.
With this in mind, it makes little sense to talk of gynocentric culture starting with the industrial revolution a mere 200 years ago (or 100 or even 30 yrs ago), or of it being two million years old as some would argue. We are not simply fighting two million years of genetic programming; our culturally constructed problem of gender inequity is much simpler to pinpoint and to potentially reverse. All we need to do is look at the circumstances under which gynocentrism first began to flourish and attempt to reverse those circumstances. Specifically, that means rejecting the illusions of romantic love, along with the practices of misandry, male shaming, and servitude that ultimately support it.
Throughout history, we, as men, have cultivated a culture of protecting, perpetuating and increasing female power in relation to men that continues, in an unbroken tradition, in the efforts of contemporary feminism. Along with it, we have suffered emotional agony, shame and sometimes physical violence in the process. Yet, in order to undo the damage, not only do we have to accept the fact that we are to blame for the position that we are in, but we also have to face an onslaught of brethren in order to take back the reigns from the grasp of the women we hold so dear.
Despite the doom and gloom, it’s not all bad news, far from it. There is a window opened by the internet, which has been seized upon and used to maximum effect. We have inserted a narrative on what gynocentrism is, what men’s issues are, and they’ve enjoyed considerable reach into the culture. Witness any comments section under an MSM article to gauge the new awareness of -and support for- these same issues. And the narrative is growing.
MHRAs, MGTOW, gamers, PUAs, antifeminists, and a growing coalition of everyday Joes, are poised to drive the nail deeper. We can continue to use social media -in spite of restrictive feminist guidelines- to drive the narrative home : gynocentrism is toxic and we want it to end. And those smart enough to grab their own domains and websites can come down harder with the message knowing there is no Hall Monitor to control our private soapboxes, at least not yet.
In fact, let’s grow our private websites exponentially so they overshadow PC social media outlets and continue competing with them in the battle for the cultural real estate.
Latest posts by Rogue Star 13 (see all)
- Gyno-dominance - February 7, 2016
- Definitely the only argument against political correctness. - January 30, 2016
- Dangerous labels. - January 26, 2016