• "women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat." (Hillary Clinton). Well, sure – losing family members to horrible deaths is so much worse than actually having to die those horrible deaths.
  • The traditional idea under discussion is male sacrifice for the benefit of women, which we term Gynocentrism. This is the historical norm, and it was the way of the world long before anything called ‘feminism’ made itself known
  • men perfectly accustomed to the idea of dying for the sake of their women. It is an idea that has outlived nearly every other, and endures to this day in our American Empire. That men should sacrifice themselves utterly – their very essence, their being and their identity, to save women that they do not even know – is neatly encapsulated in that popular phrase, ‘women and children first.’
  • feminism equals female supremacism
  • The feminist movement is taken very seriously indeed by those with the power to enforce its core aims:
    • (1) The expropriation of resources from men to women.
    • (2) The punishment of men.
    • (3) To increase (1) and (2) in terms of scope and intensity indefinitely.

The quotes above are from a very interesting lecture series:

Gynocentrism Theory 

                       (all lectures above in the RSS link)

  1. Staring Out From the Abyss   Lecture No. 1
  2. The Same Old Story   Lecture No. 2
  3. Refuting the Appeal to Dictionary
  4. Pig Latin
  5. Anatomy of a Victim Ideology

 

 

Staring Out From the Abyss  (Lecture 1)

This weblog aims to encourage the intellectual crystallization of what we are calling the Men’s Rights Movement, by taking a narrow lens across a broad range of topics. This weblog is dedicated to the elucidation of Gynocentrism Theory.

What is Gynocentrism Theory? To put it simply, it is a system which explains social relations between the sexes. It supersedes Patriarchy Theory, the cornerstone of all feminist thought. Now memetic, Patriarchy Theory has proved a remarkable tool in denying men their rights, including their most basic human rights to dignity and bodily integrity, on the pretense that all men are oppressors (or at least, allied with oppressive men from whom they receive benefits) and that all women are victims of male power. Gynocentrism Theory is the articulation of many years of effort by various thinkers in the Men’s Rights sphere to describe a vision of the world which more accurately reflects the experiences of men – and many women, too.

 

The Same Old Story   Lecture No. 2

Allow me to clarify. The traditional idea under discussion is male sacrifice for the benefit of women, which we term Gynocentrism. This is the historical norm, and it was the way of the world long before anything called ‘feminism’ made itself known

.


[…] Take any of the great Empires that swept the globe – the Roman, the Ottoman, the Spanish, the British – and you shall   find Gynocentrism as the order of the day. Such extensive geopolitical enterprises, historical testaments to man’s triumph over the earth and sea, were built and maintained by men perfectly accustomed to the idea of dying for the sake of their women. It is an idea that has outlived nearly every other, and endures to this day in our American Empire. That men should sacrifice themselves utterly – their very essence, their being and their identity, to save women that they do not even know – is neatly encapsulated in that popular phrase, ‘women and children first.’ […]

Why should men continue to fulfill or perform their traditional obligations, when women will not live up to theirs, but neither will they adopt the responsibilities corresponding to their rights at present? The questions arise: were men wrong, all this time, to sacrifice for the sake of women? Should we, in fact, have no obligations to women whatsoever?[…]

The reason why the Men’s Rights Movement arouses such hostility, from both the left and right, is because it is the first attempt in history for a sex to attempt to break out of its traditional role. Feminism is not this; it is the entrenchment of the power that women already held. The Men’s Rights Movement today goes far beyond simple accusations of feminist wrongdoing. Its adherents labor at historical analysis and social criticism, and with the benefit of two-and-a-half centuries of imagination and innovation stemming from the Enlightenment, can easily conceive of a world in which men, for the first time in history, are not required to self-sacrifice for women.

 

Refuting the Appeal to Dictionary Lecture 3

"Do women need land and an army . . .; or a feminist government in exile . . .? Or is it simpler: the bed belongs to the woman; the house belongs to the woman; any land belongs to the woman; if a male intimate is violent he is removed from the place where she has the superior and inviolate claim, arrested, denied parole, and prosecuted. . . . . Could women ‘set a high price on our blood’?" – Andrea Dworkin

Yes, this really was on an older version of wikipedia, since removed.

 

Pig Latin Lecture 4

So, here is the definition I offer up: "feminism is the most recent, and presently the most culturally dominant form of Gynocentrism. It is a victim ideology which explicitly advocates female supremacy, at every facet of life in which men and women meet; it does so in accordance with its universalizing tendency, and so it does so in each sphere of life, including but extending beyond the political, social, cultural, personal, emotional, sexual, spiritual, economic, governmental and legal. By female supremacy, I refer to the notion that women should possess superiority of status, power and protection relative to men. It is the dominant cultural paradigm in the Western world and beyond. It is morally indefensible, although its adherents ensure that their hegemony goes unchallenged through the domination of societal institutions and the use of state violence."

 

feminism equals female supremacism.

Feminism essentially seeks the following goals:

(1) The expropriation of resources from men to women.

(2) The punishment of men.

(3) To increase (1) and (2) in terms of scope and intensity indefinitely.

I feel that such a definition will strike a nerve with feminists themselves – because it hits a little too close to home. That the real-world effects of the feminist project have indeed been (1) and (2), and that these have increased in scope and intensity over the years (3) is frankly, irrefutable.

Time has yielded the truth about what happens when feminist-minded women come to occupy the most powerful positions in society, and that is that Men’s Rights are systematically trashed. The more power that feminists have, the more new laws are created to accomplish greater confiscation of men’s property and intensifying violations of their liberty, bodily integrity, and lives.

 

Anatomy of a Victim Ideology  (Lecture 5)

"The weakness of men is the façade of strength: the strength of women is the façade of weakness" – Warren Farrell

Among the worst mistakes that freedom-loving people can make is to stereotype feminists as a small, motley crew of angry lesbians who have long since ceased to be relevant. Take note: this stereotype helps them.

I must repeat myself: this stereotype helps them.

Let that sink in for a moment. Every time you have belittled feminists as a bunch of cranky old hags that nobody takes seriously, you have helped to obscure their program and indeed, their very existence as a form of organized power. Belittle them, you must – but do so in a way which exposes, not obscures! For feminism is far from being a relic of the past. The feminist movement is taken very seriously indeed by those with the power to enforce its core aims:

(1) The expropriation of resources from men to women.

(2) The punishment of men.

(3) To increase (1) and (2) in terms of scope and intensity indefinitely.

Obscurity assists the realization of these goals by creating doubt amongst potential opponents.

[…] In the transformation of feminism from a movement opposed to government and society at large, into a movement which controls the state and public opinion – and uses this position to persecute the new enemies of the state – its strategies underwent a certain cultivation. Today, feminists no longer need to throw temper tantrums to get their way, because while they once raged against the machine, they now control it.

 

As Fidelbogen recently put it:

    Feminism is now lodged in the institutional structures, hence, "respectable". I might compare it to organized crime, which was openly thuggish in the early racketeering days, but once they got their people into "city hall", and into electoral politics, learned to wear a silk tie and play the game in a different way.

The Counterfeminist (peruse this site, amazing content)

Share

6 Comments

  1. rhayat10 says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    I think it might make sense for men to sacrifice their lives for the sake of their womenfolk – if it is reasonably certain that the women in question are going to procreate with other men who are genetically close to those who had given their lives. This might be in their genetic interests. But to sacrifice one’s life for women today – who, in some cases, are just as likely to mate with men from an entirely different race – makes no sense from a genetic point of view.

  2. admin says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Most chivalry is justified by the hope of being the surviving hero that procreates more. That, by far is the main reason why young men are risk takers.

    Chivalry might serve for defending the women and children you already have. Or the relatives in your tribe that can bear children in the future.

    And of course, to maintain your reputation. If you are a man and fight your way onto a Titanic Life Boat, be prepared for a smear campaing against you.
    If your women mates with a non-related man of your race or of another race, it does not make much genetic difference. Only if she mates with your brother, or at least a second cousin.

  3. admin says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Dozens of male war reporters assaulted, but only one assault on Sara Logan is of utmost concern to Hillary Clinton

    http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/02/hillary-clinton-says-lara-logan-case-is.html

  4. About feminism and the hate against men | About Things says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    […] to save women from a so called male oppression and dominance. Truth be said, they should analyse gynocentrism a little. Nevertheless, observing more about the feminism concept, which states equality between […]

  5. Zoey Montage says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    It’s clear that much of what we today call gynocentrism was invented in the Middle Ages with the cultural practices of romantic chivalry and courtly love: http://gynocentrism.com/2013/07/14/about/

    I love Kostakis lectures on gynocentrism but he makes the one error of assuming gynocentrism has been around throughout recorded history. A study of history reveals that gynocentrism fluctuated and was not constant at all – in fact it rarely existed before the middle ages.

Leave a Reply