• yinfol

FEMALE – TO - MALE POWER DYNAMICS AND THE WEB OF SEXUAL ECONOMICS


Female – to - Male Power Dynamics and the Web of Sexual Economics in the structural and infrastructural Power Centers of Gynocentrism!

Gynocentrism is the leading cause that creates the obstacles, barriers, and hindrances men face on their path to true self-realization and personal development devoid of female focus. Despite differences in levels of domination, subjugation, and oppression, the far-reaching principles continue to be the same. Using informal power dynamics as well as their status as sexual and natural selection women are not only in control of men on a personal level of conditioning but also control all formal male power dynamics by permeating then through informal social networks and power centers unique to women and absent in men's life. The nature of this may not only differ but requires a special effort to expose it as it is clandestine in its anatomy and dynamics. So, it is essential to comprehend and reveal the system, which keeps men dominated, subordinate, subjugated, exploited and controlled by women and to unravel its workings to work for men's liberation from the gynocentric tyranny in a systematic way. In the modern world where men are demonized and almost degraded by feminism to none human beings, Gynocentrism is still there to support feminism in producing hindrances for men to go forward in self-realization beyond being valued by serving women, because especially informal gynocentric institutions and social relations as well as networks, centers, and power dynamics are responsible for the lower and inferior status of men. Gynocentric society gives absolute priority to women on cultural, social as well as material and financial priorities and great extent denies men even basic human rights. Gynocentrism refers to female domination and superior status both in public and private spheres. In this way, we use the term Gynocentrism to describe the power relationship, structures, dynamics, and centers between men and women as well as to find out the root cause of men's subjugation, subordination, and exploitation.

In other words, Gynocentrism as a system at the level of human structures and constructs of human-made arrangement is a structural building of cultural and social practices as well as moral values and financial arrangements in which women to different degrees and levels dominate, oppress, subjugate and exploit men by using informal power, both personal, public as well as institutional, and by relying on more clandestine and invisible institutions power dynamics. Gynocentrism as an evolutionary biological level is deterministic to ensure the survival of human species. Yet, despite the evolutionary and biological aspect of Gynocentrism which predates human society in all primates, as a social convention of human arrangements Gynocentrism enables, both men and women, to escape the matrix evolutionary biological determinism by the application of the relative free choice we have as a part of the spiritual and human realm. Thus, as human beings and as standing opposed to animal life and kingdom, we are not bound to stay slaves in this system but can escape it anytime by working on ourselves and applying the red pill knowledge and wisdom. However, escaping evolutionary Gynocentrism does not mean "eradicating" its existence from our life but transcending the condition with wisdom and awareness. In a way, it's like disengaging the autopilot. It means that whether a Gynocentric condition is or isn’t there and specifically when it exists, we have the choice to act wisely so that we don’t compromise our safety or happiness despite the fact of its existence. It is the (spiritual and psychological) beyond where we're still (physically and materially) in. Thus, we have a real choice to say yes or to say no!

Anyway, the biological determinism can be observed even in the way that male aggression is originated from female Genes. Rooted, in gynocentric narrative, ethos, and pathos, it's common to think that aggression is a male trait and that the gene responsible for its expression originated in the father. A rare genetic disease called Turner Syndrome has led to a surprising discovery. The gene responsible for male aggression is more likely to come from the mother! The general opinion is that there is something flawed in the male genes. It further assumes that while mothers allow their daughters the social cordiality that characterizes them, at the same time fathers give their sons manifestations of aggression and dominance" As, opposed to the gynocentric narrative, ethos, and pathos, the scientific truth is, of course, different. In the nucleus of the human cell, there are 23 pairs of chromosomes. One-half of the pairs a human being receives from the father, and the other half this human being receives from the mother. A single pair of chromosomes is the determinant of the pair. When the pair is XX, it is a female, and XY is a male. Therefore, the mother always inherits chromosome X to her offspring, while the father inherits chromosome X and half times Y. In other words, the human father has the exclusive right to determine the offspring. "

This is where the "Turner Syndrome" gives us insight into these dynamics. So, unfortunately, the meiosis process rarely occurs. Instead of merging two X chromosomes originating from mother and father, one of them is already at a critical stage. The results are not necessarily fatal, and the embryo usually develops until birth, but as we know, chromosome X carries genes that have a decisive influence on the human being's personality and behavior. When the developing embryo carries chromosome X cells, we can expect to have a female, but sometimes a baby has only 45 normal chromosomes instead of 46. This genetic disorder is called Turner Syndrome, in recognition of Henry Turner, who first reported it. However, Turner's syndrome does not only characterize the external appearance of the women who suffer from it. Apart from infertility that results from malformations of the ovaries, many exhibits what society ignorantly describes as male-dominated behavior. As it turned out, Turner's syndrome daughter inherited a single X chromosome from one of her parents. Immediately, researchers thought" that Turner girls "prone to outbursts of anger and aggression" would have inherited the X chromosome from their father. As is customary, our misandrist society falsely and immediately assumes that in such a case the genes expressed in violence would have belonged to the male, and the genes that moderate this behavior belong to the female. However, a British researcher named David Skuse discovered in his research the inverted world order, and with his colleagues deciphered how the tendency to aggression was created by female and not male genes" David Skuse who conducted these studies, found that at all times when Turner's girls inherited their X chromosome, they used to riot and express violence, and also had difficulties adapting to a social environment compared to their other Turner peers. As standing opposed to those, the Turner's girls who inherited their father's X chromosome, showed more sensitivity and tolerance even more than the ordinary daughters.

In other words, the genes expressed in aggression are originating from the mother. The genes expressed intolerance and sensitivity come from the father. Probably this gene war started in females. The natural selection of females favored belligerent males who could protect their families. A female X chromosome that expressed aggression in these subjects was preferred over that which did not contain the genes for violence. However, the hereditary burden that came from the mother was quite heavy, as her daughters also showed great aggression and violence, and instead of taking care of their offspring and nurture them, they risked bloody fights with their other female peers. Therefore, the male X chromosomes were found to contain genes that mitigate this aggression. Therefore, fathers whose daughters were peacefully living with their other peers were successful with raising their grandchildren and their inheritance has gradually gained a growing share of the population of posterity until the girls regained their peaceful and pleasurable status. So, the more the male chromosome X succeeded in its mission to mitigate female violence, the more the female X chromosome became more and more violent and more and more turbulent thus no one can save us from it anymore". In conclusion: the genetic study here by David Skuse supports the studies in the field of primatology. I have written extensively about it in the past, especially the research of Arsenau which has shown that females in the wild are the ones that indoctrinate and condition males to violence. This research has shown how sociologically as well as anthropologically female Vervet monkeys condition male to violence whether it is directly or what's called violence by Proxy.

As such, Gynocentrism as a social and cultural phenomenon in which women wield primary and secondary power over men by informal power that permeates and pervades the formal power hold by men, also simultaneously predominates male roles and decisions of political leadership, creates female moral authority, which is broadened by social conditioning and engineering from female informal authority over men and boys in intimate and family relationships into the formal spheres of law codification and social narrative in terms of society's acceptance of gynocentric truths, establishes female social, moral and cultural privilege and thus control personal, familial as well as the nation's wealth including property. Thus, gynocentric societies are mainly matrifocal and only slightly balanced using patrilineal and patrilocal dynamics Likewise, Gynocentrism as a social and cultural construct and subsequently by extension feminism too refers to the female domination, exploitation, and subjugation of men, both in public and private spheres, using informal power stemming first from the private spheres of intimate and family relationship and through this by female informal social networks widened to the public spheres. It is associated with a set of ideas, myths, and beliefs, a gynocentric ideology that acts to explain and justify the female dominance over men and attributes its approach to methods of using a selective interpretation of reality, implying cherry-picking of data and information and especially by maintaining a clandestine façade in which the true nature of Gynocentrism is hidden behind a large set of taboos, the denial of female to male violence, for instance, and by falsely accusing men of female oppression and subjugation under the banner of the so-called patriarchy.

As we've seen, the domestic unit which relies upon the dynamics of female natural and sexual selection is the key social, cultural, political as well as an economic unit in all human societies, not only in traditional but the modern ones too. It is there that women’s power in the household takes its origins and course of actions and is widened as an extension to the wider community and from there to all political, economic, cultural, and social power structures, centers, and dynamics at large. It is expressed as female camaraderie, expressed, maintained, and spread in and through informal women’s groups. Those power structures of informal power and female solidarity are held together by a well-developed interhousehold of a female communications network as S.C. Rogers writes. This can be seen and considered as the strongest power base from which women operate in the community. Margery Wolf, Aswad, and Riegelhaupt, for instance, describe how women’s groups are more heterogeneous and less stiff than those of men and how they act as a kind of information control, heavily influencing community public opinion and mediating between groups of men. Pitt-Rivers also sees these informal processes and relationships as an infrastructure forming a part of the larger structure. According to him it springs from the network of interpersonal relations within the community and depends upon the memories and cultural traditions that he calls pueblo rather than on the written word. According to him the [formal structure] owes its existence to authority delegated by a central power which as we've seen is the informal power of women in interpersonal relationships and the domestic household tooted in them being the natural and sexual selection. The infrastructure is an aspect of structure not a segment of the community and thus as we've said it is on both levels controlled by women. The two systems are, at the same time, interdependent and in opposition, as he writes They are both parts of the same structure. If tension exists between the two, it is as much a condition of the one as of the other. So, it encapsulates the myth of male dominance stemming, being surrounded and controlled by gynocentric ethos and pathos as I have mentioned and will later explain in detail.

In essence, the result and the meaning of it all are that although men dominate positions of formal authority and were historically held in high esteem by women, they only superficially were reflecting the impression to be dominant, especially in their intimate relationships with women and in the domestic household unit. In reality, as standing opposed to the myth of male dominance, men wield relatively little real power, especially in modern misandrist feminist societies. Their authority is largely powerless, often accompanied by a felt sense of powerlessness, both in the face of the world at large, as S.C. Rogers writes, and especially in intimate relationships and at home. Women not only in peasant societies but again especially in the modern one control 70% of personal and familial wealth as well as the same percentage of the nation's wealth. Therefore, women control the major portion of the most important resources and decisions – both economic, financial as well as human resources of the family. In other words, if we concentrate our investigation and widen it to all aspects regarding the female-to-male power dynamics, formal and informal, relative and absolute than women become and appear to be more powerful to men. What it means is that while women wield true and actual power, men monopolize “symbolic” power. This explains lies in the fact that it reflects a necessary division of power, namely the formal and the informal one so that the powers are balanced and harmonized to enable relationships because otherwise, they'll collapse due to the imbalance and the unwillingness of men to participate in them. Today we can see the beginning of such collapse caused by the feminist misandry which forces more and more men not only to abandon marriage but relationships with women altogether.

From that point of view, Gynocentrism is a form of social arrangement of power distribution in which the female chief of staff is the head both of the domestic unit as well as the formal sphere while she exercises the true and central power is hidden more covert than overt ways, while the male head is her officer who operates its formal apparatus of authority in the front. Thus, the male is the public face while the female is the heart of the operational unit. It is a social convention in which the male head of the construct operates its formal functions of authority while giving the impression of exercising dominant power in it whereas the female directs the male behind the scene as a puppet. Also, based on our definitions of Gynocentrism, women do not have to exercise any formal authority to wield true power because male formal authority is controlled by female informal power dynamics by the virtue of the woman being a natural and sexual selection as I will explain immediately and therefore for a social system to be gynocentric it is none essential. If women would extend their informal power in the marriage to include the formal power institution in the public sphere, this would have become a matriarchal system which is the true goal of feminism. If women, also, will succeed in operating all-female power centers that exercise both interpersonal, familial, communal, social, cultural, political as well as economic and financial powers that that will be centered upon women, then the range of Gynocentrism in that system would be widened so that it becomes full matriarchy. So long as formal and informal power centers are divided between men and women that are traditional Gynocentrism, whereas if women exercise dominant power in all domains and spheres of life, that system becomes matriarchal!

So, to expand the discussion on authority to deeper understand it we must bear in mind that metaphysically authority springs conceptually (abstractly) from wisdom, language, speech including verbal interpretation (before codification) and is overwhelming controlled by female energies and gynocentric concepts (ethos and pathos) while it is important to understand that through conditioning beginning from early stages of infancy up to adulthood both boys and girls adopt their mother's female and thus gynocentric mindset in how and through which they perceive and interpret the world and reality. In practical terms authority springs in the world of actual forms (as standing opposed to abstract and conceptual "emptiness" aka. "pregnant void" ( which can be compared to the quantum physical principles) from the narrative and through the realm as well as at the same time the means of language and speech, both heavily colored through its gynocentric and female nature, then it is codified (thus dependent on it) and is finally implemented/exercised over the masses through the support and acceptance of the informal power (women and the gynocentric principle). Without going too much into a metaphysical discussion it is important to understand and differ between the ultimate, unborn - abstract wisdom and its emanation into other realms of knowledge and intelligence which are born, relative and not ultimately always true as even paradigm changes (and shifts) within science itself show. In that sense the ultimate wisdom, the abstract - unborn is eternal and primordial; other forms are born and emanate from it. The next one is the born wisdom and it is followed by various stages, level, and realms of intelligence up to the last and lower pieces in the chain of originating wisdom, intelligence, and knowledge which are bits of data and information. In this context despite the unborn wisdom there exist non dually personal as well as (conventional) collective forms of wisdom and intelligence leading to knowledge based on data and information. Not only this is the dwelling realm of the collective conventional knowledge but it is also the place where it is created. Thus, gynocentric collective - conventional knowledge and narrative are formed in the born, conditioned realm of the narrative and this is the root dimension of its origins. Despite the feminist's and the blue pill's claims, gynocentric conventional - collective wisdom is not the ultimate truth and in fact, it is wrong and falsely fabricated narrative.

Anyway, authority as a characteristic of male power is surrounded by female qualities, concepts, and energies from every side while at the same time it is born of it, conditioned and thus, in the end, implementing its narrative and cause by being approved and the support of the feminine in the same way as a male baby is by his mother even physically in the womb. In other words, authority, in that sense, resembles, reminds, and embodies the same dynamic as masculinity itself that by default of the gynocentric nature of women and the societal expression of reality is defined by women. In other words, the origin of mundane authority is metaphysically born, conditioned, created, and is emanating from born, conditioned, relative, and emanating wisdom, especially the collective one as well as narrative, language, and speech. It functions on a two folded realm principle whereas the origin of authority gives it birth and rises and then in another two folded manner it first defines it and then through language, speech, and narrative interprets it. It is only in the middle stage or link and that based on female principles men practice, codify, and exercise authority. Therefore, the codification and execution always occur within this none dual phenomenon where the masculine and feminine can never be separated and function alone but the feminine is the dominant force that gives rise, defines, and allows the masculine to be acted and executed in the world. This embedded gynocentric biological evolutionary and unavoidable feature within the mundane society does not mean that it leaves men devoid of (personal) choice and agency but that through the personal agency they have, men have the choice to seek to transcend this conditioning by cultivating a masculine expression that is not female-focused and conditioned. It is the none dual principle of living outside while operating within. Again, without going too much into metaphysics it is a middle path that allows (mental as well as conceptual) liberation through ultimate wisdom that is in harmony with its lower emanating types including the personal as well as collective forms without resorting into the extreme of denouncing every aspect of the material and mundane world or life.

In the bottom line, we can see its workings may be ultimately taking place in the realm of laws and the legal system (which extremely prefers and favors women over men. In the legal system the written law and codification are less important but what counts is the interpretation of the written law which is always female, gynocentric, and today feminist - misandrist. Why is it so? Because codification and written law can never cover all possibilities thus you always need an interpretation that belongs to the realm of narrative which is, as I said, always female, gynocentric, and rooted in informal power. It is defined, it depends and can be implemented only through agreeing with it. The question that may arise now is whether women should participate in the power dynamics, centers, or circles of formal authority. Historical and empirical findings decisively suggest contrary to feminist myths and falsehoods that women exercised (formal) authority and participated in it on a large scale. Therefore, such a question is outdated and irrelevant. What is the relevant question? Within our changing society, it may be the correct ratio between male and female forms of authority but the more important question is how we balance correctly the power gap which is a detriment to men by balancing the formal and informal power in the light of the changing ratio whatever it might be. And this starts upon a personal reflection of both men and women, continues to a collective agreement within each respective gender and finally must end in a new social contract between men and women that will end the era of gynocentric, feminist and misandrist tyranny against men. Especially one where a tiny minority of men at the top of the formal power oppress the majority of men in the name and for the benefit of all women.

From a sociological point of view, Gynocentrism can also be understood as a social product which exploits valid gender roles rooted in natural differences between men and women in a way that affects and shifts power dynamics, structures and centers between men and women in culture and society in a way that harm men and only benefits women, elevates women to the status of Goddesses and men as their servants while enforcing this imbalance on the economical way by exploiting male work in the name of shifting economic resources from men to women. Thus, the social and cultural aspects of female-to-male imbalance of power dynamics rely upon the financial and economic exploitation of male labor. Historically, Gynocentrism has manifested itself at the evolutionary biological level and then in the social, cultural, religious. legal, political, and economic informal and formal institutions of a range of different cultures. Even, if not explicitly defined to be by their terms and laws, most contemporary societies are, not only still, in practice, gynocentric but reached the third stage of Gynocentrism that is feminism. Six overlapping structures can define Gynocentrism at that level and that take different forms in different cultures and different times:

The state: In the modern feminist state, feminists haven't abandoned the traditional gender roles but shifted them from the personal level into the amorphous and impersonal level of the welfare state in which the personal man/husband of blood and flesh that was serving his wife and other female members of the family/clan has now turned into a collective husband/man, where trough the state all men have to serve all women. It is this state, especially the welfare state, that is responsible to force men by force and even state violence to refer resources from men to women. At this level, women are controlling 70% of the nation's wealth

The household: being the natural and sexual selection, women are still controlling not only the familial human resources but are still controlling 70% of personal and familial wealth

Violence: while women are at least equally responsible for domestic as well as sexual violence against men and according to the new paradigm are overrepresented in DV by roughly perpetrating 70% of all violence in the family as well as historically representing between 30% to 50% of all violence, this is still the greatest taboo of all that is used against men to deny them equality.

Paid work and labor: First, women are not paid less, a myth that was thoroughly, but in fact, men's labor is used to transfer resources from men to women. This is why women, as stated above, are in control of 70% of personal, familial, and nation's wealth.

Sexuality: first, being the natural and sexual selection, female sexuality is the main source of female informal power through which women condition men and permeates every male power in the formal sphere. It is also the source of what can be described as "Sexonomic" that is the basis of financial and economic exploitation.

Popular culture and media: While women are represented either as Goddesses, as morally superior to men, wiser than men, more capable and female violence against men is praised and hailed, representation of men in media, and popular culture is "within a gynocentric gaze", where abused men are laughed at, men are demonized on daily basis, represented as buffoons, animals and sub-humans and where misandry is commonplace.

Therefore, gynocentrism pre-supposes the natural superiority of women over men and sustains a system of male-on-female dependence and subordination in all aspects and spheres of life. Consequently, by the use of informal power dynamics all-male formal authority is subordinated to female control and definition, whether within the family, the society and the state, and remains remain entirely in the hands of women while male universal dominance, power, and authority constitute itself as a mythos enveloped in gynocentric ethos and pathos. So, due to gynocentrism men are deprived even of their basic legal rights and opportunities, unless they accept their status of serving women, thus gynocentric values restrict true freedom of choice, limit their flexibility, reject their freedom over themselves as well as their earned money and finances. In other words, subordination means that men are less important than women and behind the façade of the mythos male formal power or authority is subjugated to the female informal one so men have less authority and power in reality or that in reality, male authority is less powerful and that women, not men have the true power in what matters in life.

We can, therefore, say that Gynocentrism is also a classification of status originated or rooted in a social convention where men are kept subordinate to women in several ways. The subordination that men experience at a daily basis, regardless of religion, race, status, and different walks of life men might belong to, takes various forms like discrimination, oppression, disregard, insult, control, exploitation, violence – within the family, at the place of work or in society. Whether, it is the discrimination and the war on boys in the educational system, lack of freedom and mobility for men and boys, husband abuse and female violence against men and boys – both in DV or sexual violence, discrimination in the legal system - male disposability and control over men and boys by women, sexual harassment of men, female control over 70% of male income and property, female control over men's bodies and sexuality, no reproductive rights for men, discrimination of men in the criminal legal system, the discrimination of fathers and divorced men in family courts, no shelters or any safety system for men in general, discrimination of men in the health system, the demonization of men, misandry and many more. So, the norms and practices that define men as inferior to women, impose controls on them, are present everywhere in our families, social relations, religion, laws, schools, textbooks, media, factories, and offices. Thus, gynocentrism is called the sum of the kind of female domination we see around men all the time. In this ideology, women are superior to men, and men are regarded as the thing of the women, as coined by Eleanor of Aquitaine, the founder of Gynocentrism, so men should be controlled by women and this produces men's subordination. Therefore, we can say that the use of the phrase subordination of men instead of the word “oppression” has distinct advantages. Subordination does not have the connotation of evil intent on the part of the dominant; it allows for the possibility of collusion between her and the subordinate. It includes the possibility of voluntary acceptance of subordinate status in exchange for some minor privileges, a condition that characterizes so much of the historical experience of men. I will use the term “gynocentric dominance” for this relation. “Subordination” encompasses other relations in addition to “gynocentric dominance” and has the additional advantage over “oppression” of being neutral as to the causes of subordination.

Subordination is the situation in which one is forced to stay under the control of others and as we've seen. It is the informal power dynamic that forms the ultimate source of control and subjugation. So, men's subordination means the social situation in which men are forced to stay under the control of women. In this way to keep men under women’s control, gynocentrism runs different social customs, religious traditions and culturally enforced roles by socialization process as well as parental conditioning by the mother as well as the intimate personal engineering of her partner widen through female social networks to collective social engineering of men as a group. To preserve the female supremacy, gynocentrism created gynocentric gender roles characteristics of chivalry, where women are seen as Goddesses, men are regarded as their slaves or the thing of a woman, whereas the whole private-public realms are now colored by gendered socialization process of gynocentric domination. Conditioning, as I have shown in other researches begins even in the pre-natal state, it continues through conditioning and socialization from infancy to puberty and continued with social engineering through all the male adult life. Therefore, we can say that it is considered to take place even in the prenatal state but primarily during childhood, when boys and girls learn the appropriate behavior for their sex. All agents of socialization process such as the family, religion, the legal system, the economic system, and the political system, the educational institutions, and the media are the pillars of this gynocentric system, structure, and infrastructure which infuses the gynocentric dominance as a default raison d'etre respectively in both men and women. The use of the above terms in all the three stages is important here since it implies that Gynocentrism has an evolutionary-biological and thus a deterministic level but also on top of that a level offering the possibility of escaping it in the domain of social structure and within the help of the mental and spiritual realm with the free choice we make there. However, unless we have escaped it and are part of the matrix of gynocentric dominance, men’s work, power, authority, reproduction, sexuality, flexibility and as well as finance and as a derivative property too including other economic resources are under gynocentric female control and are subordinated or subjugated to gynocentric dominance”

It is needles to say that such kind of subordination encompasses all aspects of life, religious as well as secular, and the intersections between them. Thus, I want to refer now to a power dynamic model that we can describe as the three-stages-model of gynocentric power dynamics and relations (TSM – GPDR). The TSM – GPDR is an interactive historical cognitive/epistemic model that juxtaposes and mirrors the gynocentric dynamic between the human realm of historical events and the abstract cognitive or metaphysical realm as is seen in religion, spirituality and the mutual relation between ultimate reality and human psycho cognitive base. In the human historical and material realm, it is expressed as the gynocentric three stages of historical and biological development: a) biological/evolutionary gynocentrism giving the female an in-built privileged position and advantage that is balanced through giving up some of her power while reducing the formal and balancing it with the informal one.; b) socio-cultural gynocentrism which symbolizes the attempt of reestablishing the female privileged and divine status in the human realm, and c) feminism which is taking it to extremity with and attempt to create an only female-dominated society. The same process is mirrored in the realm of religion through all esoteric, mystic Gnostic and heretical belief systems which assumes the privileged divine status as well as being the actual ruling power in the world (Shechinah) through which the male aspect of God is only mirrored which resembles the historical stage of evolutionary and biological gynocentrism that is balanced through giving up some of her power while reducing the formal and balancing it with the informal one (a) leading to the apposition of wisdom and Chochmah as part of the process of female and male dethroning of Pagan deities as for the creation of the monotheistic concept of God within the framework of keeping her essential position as the elevated part of the divine based upon giving up wisdom for the sake of faith and with the incentive to control and condition men (b) while at the last stage it aims at creating a female messianic era as it is thought by Guillaume Postel (c). Thus, we can see that historical gynocentric dynamics are mirrored and parallel those in religious realms. Indeed, we can say that religion doesn’t create gynocentrism but mirrors it's dynamic in an interactive model history and metaphysics.

This control over and exploitation of areas of men’s lives mean that women benefit not only materially from gynocentrism but also in any other possible way. First, regarding materiality, women derive concrete economic gains from the subordination of men. In what we can call the “gynocentric mode of production”, men’s labor is expropriated by their wives and others who live there in many ways but in two major ones! First, it is by the virtue of the women being the natural as well as sexual selection thus both the one deciding over the household finances, running the household expenses, deciding what will be bought or what is needed or dietary for the family and second through the human resources of the family. The other route is that of the impending divorce which like a guillotine stands over the husband's head in the shadow meaning that'he'll lose everything if he isn’t complying with the wife. Needing the wife to run the house but at the same time lose everything including the house, the money, and his children in the case of divorce are what make the husband dependent on the wife and left at her mercy. Thus, husbands create the subordinated status, while wives are expropriating it. Most of the men aren't presidents or CEOs of some transnational corporation, so for the majority of men, it means that the wife is expropriating their back-breaking, endless and repetitive work while it even is not considered enough work at all and the husbands are required not to help but do 50 percent of the household chores too.

Thus, 74.9% of women identified themselves as the primary shoppers for their households (Source: GFK MRI, Survey of the American Consumer, 2011); 84%of women are the sole preparer of meals in the household, with 61% stating that they prepare meals at least five times per week. The majority of these meals are not prepackaged, as 64% said they make most meals using fresh ingredients. (Source: “Today’s Primary Shopper”, Private Label Manufacturers Association); 93% of women say they have a significant influence on what financial services their family purchases, (Source: Harvard Business Review, Boston Consulting Group Survey); Women make 90% of household healthcare decisions. (Source: Yankelovich Monitor, M2W Conference). And this is only a tiny part with some small examples about the gynocentric dominance as expressed in the household merely by the fact that the woman is the natural and sexual selection. It is impossible to completely overthrow this balance unless a man goes his own way. First, because he'll need the assistance and help of his wife in the household, and once the construct is created a 50% 50% division is impossible as the wife will inevitably gravitate into this position (motherhood vs career choices). Deviation might exist but they are exactly that, exceptions that only prove the rule. And second, because it is a power dynamic that no woman will give up especially regarding kids and divorce. It is her source of controlling everything. So, that's impossible. Thus, in divorce as standing opposed to myths property and other productive resources are not only not controlled by men and passed from one man to another, usually from father to son, but the husband is losing his son as well as most property and money. The bottom line is that while men bring the most money home, it is the woman who controls and makes the decisions over it. So, there is a material basis for gynocentrism.

So, even in theory if that would be possible there us an additional level to men's emancipation and a whole array of customary practices, emotional pressures, social sanctions, and sometimes, plain violence, prevent them from clearing actual control over them. In other cases, personal laws limit their rights, rather than enhance them. In all areas, they are disadvantaged. So, the material base of gynocentrism does not solely rest upon what we can describe as gynocentric sexual economics or gynocentric sexonomics of the family but its human resources with the emphasis on all the social structures that enable women to control men’s labor through the use of informal authority, power and dynamics. The ideology of gynocentric dominance aims at keeping men away from the true and actual forms of power and their centers by offering them the symbolic power of the formal system and its structures. It is attempted to be achieved through the construction of many private and public realms for women and men respectively while keeping all the informal power centers in the hands of men, giving women significant access to formal power structures and centers, something that was also historically true and is now widened even more but not giving men any footing in the informal realm.

In addition to the various classification of gynocentrism, dependent on which aspect we concentrate, in that sense, social or cultural gynocentrism shows “two distinct forms of Gynocentrism – private and public Gynocentrism”. Private gynocentrism is based upon the female of her being the natural as well as sexual selection, on the one hand, and, on the other side, the control household production expenses as well as human resources which is the main female power base and thus constitute the main source of their oppression. Public gynocentrism which relies upon and takes its power from the private sphere principally concentrates and restricts itself to public sites and domains such as employment, establishment, and the state while all of them reflect and at the same time exercise the gynocentric dominance especially over men. This is the tiny majority of what we call Alpha males, the affluent men, that were conditioned by women, to monopolize those spheres of formal power and who therefore reflect the gynocentric dominance creating the political and social structures that make it possible for their economies and societies to work. They set the terms, they mediate disputes, they codify the laws and enforce them while they reflect their gynocentric conditioning and dominance they inherited in the sphere of private gynocentrism and brought it into their position of public gynocentrism. So, while those rich men formalize gynocentric power and authority and create the political context that governs how the whole society works and especially all none affluent men are oppressed for the majority of all women, the wife of those Alpha males spends the day managing her Beta male workforce and servants at home, while they undergo the same treatment from their actual wife when they're back home. This is so because being the other side of the coin, namely an inevitable and necessary force to create and sustain the material and economic realm of gynocentrism, those Beta males are the other side of the coin, the gynocentric futile Alpha Beta game, conditioned and created by women to through social engineering, only destined to do the backbreaking and life-endangering labor? Thus, generally poor men, struggling, even more, to get a foot on the ladder and pull their whole family up they are more dependent on their wives although equally exploited. For this reason, the household does not cease to be a gynocentric structure in the private sphere, but it flows back and forth to encompass all realms and spheres of life.

In private gynocentrism, the expropriation of men’s labor takes place primarily by individual matriarchs within the household, while in the public form it is a more collective appropriation. In that sense, the difference on the state level between traditional societies and the modern welfare state is that in the older ones men at the public level were more exploited with the aim at transferring material resources to society as a while by maki the more dependent on their wives in the private spheres while in the modern state men are exploited financially both in terms of transferring their resources bot only for the society but also referring the resources as a collective group of men to the collective of all women not only the one at home and of course buy making the dependence on her even greater. In private gynocentrism, the principle gynocentric strategy of exploitation is exclusionary and segregated for her benefit and in the public sphere, it is pervasive and universal while in both subordinating. Above all, “the state has a systematic bias towards gynocentric interests in its policies and actions”. In this system, different kinds of violence may be used to control and subjugate men, formal and informal, female and state violence, such violence by women may even be considered legitimate and men are always routinely experienced by female and state violence. Female violence is systematically condoned and legitimated by the state's refusal to intervene against it except in exceptional instance as well as a society that celebrates it. Due to such violence including female sexual violence against men, rape of men by women, other forms of sexual abuse, DV against men, husband and child murder, and husband-beating) and the continued sense of insecurity that is instilled in men, as a result, keeps them bound and dependent to the home, their violent wives ], economically exploited and socially suppressed.

In this gynocentric system, men and women behave, think, and aspire differently; women being thought to be privileged and deserving of men's protection, veneration, servitude, sacrifice (the male disposability constant - MDC) and financial support while men having been conditioned to behave like a slave to every female whim and additionally being taught to provide all this and even more and to act as a second class of human beings under the tyranny of the gynocentric chivalric gender roles. Gynocentric system show or accept that women are superior to men in all aspects of life especially morally and as a human and men being inferior so that they have to follow the gynocentric moral compass set by women – first the mother than the wife and mother in law in the realm of private gynocentrism and then female teacher and women as a collective in the private sphere of gynocentrism. As such the domestic unit is formed by a gynocentric constant and variable which moves across the axis of the house, sex and labor - paid and unpaid, internal and external - as well as the female biological evolutionary position of being the natural and sexual selection, which at the end provides the most important cornerstones of the gynocentric power bases and dynamic to establish gynocentric dominance scale (GDS) of private and public gynocentrism (PPG) by women over men with the aim at subordination, controlling and exploiting them. The gynocentric house variable (GHV) is held by parameters like female paid and unpaid work, (historically) mostly inside the domestic house unite (DHU) and sometimes outside the domestic house unite, the management of the familial resource - material and human ones, including kids and male workforce – as well as managing the aspects of daily life like house expenses, consumerism, shopping, health, familial budget. and many others.

As an extenuation of the GHV (gynocentric house variable) to extend the GDS (gynocentric dominance scale) over the whole range of PPG (private and public Gynocentrism) men are exploited in a multi-layered manner while based on informal authority, power structures, and dynamics, it is simultaneously used to create the veil of taboo around the gynocentric dynamics of male exploitation. Hence, by means explained above being in the position of control of male resources, wages, finances, power, and authority while freely having chosen to keep those informal power structures and granting men the symbolic ones making the question of paid work (who's the breadwinner) none essential as to the question of being in control of that money then by dividing the results into historical aspects and the modern reality we can say and sum up that though historically women choose a more balanced approach where men were the main breadwinners and the wives the treasurer in modern society the wife earns as much as the men, sometimes even more but by still being the treasurer now she has her money, most of his money, making the imbalance even greater. Therefore, as standing opposed to the wage gap myth, women follow the same gynocentric dynamics. Most women chose to balance motherhood and career and some chose more career over motherhood but whatever they chose, these gynocentric variables and constants are leaving most of the decisions and all the control over the familial resources in their hands. Another aspect is that within the field of paid work, based on these free choices of women, occupational segregation is used by Alpha males not against women but, in fact, against beta men where they keep access to the best-paid jobs either for themselves or women and at the expense of the majority of men as what is known as the glass basement.

As studies show in the sum of the balance between household and paid work, men do more and have less free time than women. According to the Eurostat Study as the Finnish research states: “Time use at different stages of life”, men with young children have less free time than their spouses in most European countries (Eurostat 2003)." This study refutes the falsely ingrained gynocentric and misandrist myth that women do a harder Job at home with children while having less time for themselves than their husbands. For a long time, this basic myth was held as almost endless burning material to fuel misandry, to demonize as well as de-humanize men. First, the study refutes and puts an end to the long-held view that men do not equally contribute to their children as do their mothers. In fact, by being outside the home men not only contribute but enable both the survival as well as material, financial and mental wellbeing of the mother and child, normally at the expense of one's own. It also refutes the notion of men using women as slaves at home while they're enjoying the good life and are running away from participating in doing their share of the domestic work and house chores. The other notion refuted here is that which blames men of not being involved enough in their children's life. And in sum, it refutes the claim of men's selfish core as being hedonistic pigs who only think about sex, watching movies, and getting drunk. Therefore, these threefold forms of expropriation also act to reinforce each other, since men’s disadvantaged position in the house, work and free time makes them vulnerable in making marriage arrangements, and their position in the family disadvantages them in every aspect of life. Thus, simply said, Gynocentrism is the system of female domination and male subordination in the family, community, economy, society, culture, and religion that has characterized much of human history to the present day. Gynocentric institutions, social relations, and power dynamics are responsible for the inferior or secondary status of men in whatever society they leave and the economic system they act. The primacy of the sexual division of labor in general and the gynocentric sexual economy within the family, as we have explained, when taking all aspects of reality, the formal and informal ones, paint a different picture than the gynocentric myth and feminist narrative tries to convince us. It shows a superior and elevated status of women and that men face severe consequences, especially when emerging and trans-passing from the private sphere of Gynocentrism into the public sphere.

Now let's consider the relationships between the different gynocentric constants, variables, and parameters. The basic gynocentric constant (GC) is the male disposability constant (MDC). No society can survive without it and it also operates at the taboo (aka. clandestine) level of gynocentrism for two main reasons: a) to hide the inherently violent nature against men and not women and b) with the aim at denying men compassion so they'll freely choose to be used as cannon fodder for the gynocentric culture and society for some minor privileges. Thus, as a result, another constant was born namely the compassion gap constant (CGC). While the MDC operates at the biological evolutionary level, the CGC is its twin brother that operates on socio-cultural and religious levels and creates the gynocentric equation of male disposability and compassion gap to ensure the survival of the species (MD/CF Equation). To ensure that the equation functions and its gynocentric taboo have remained, the GHU (the gynocentric house unit variable) comes into play and takes the course of actions where it operates within the range of PPG (private and public gynocentrism). Beginning in prenatal conditioning, the massive social engineering of boys (and girls) into the principles of gynocentrism begins with infancy and continues over puberty and remains with the men in their adult life where they at the end emerge and trans-pass into the sphere of public gynocentrism. At that level, already carrying the burden of the gynocentric condition, the Alpha male at the top is responsible for the use and implementation of MDC (male disposability constant), at the expense of the vast majority of Beta men and in the benefit of all women. This is not only in the military but the same phenomenon can be observed in civil life where the majority of casualties and deaths at the workplace are that of men. And this is where the violent and deadly circle of gynocentric female to male power dynamic and structures ends and what it represents.

As we have discussed now the constants, the variables, and parameters of the structure as well as the infrastructure of the gynocentric female – to – male power dynamics and how it relates and operates within the various forms of gynocentrism, let's do the same regarding the metaphysical gynocentric superstructure. Here, I want, first of all, to talk about what can be described as epistemic or epistemological gynocentrism (EPG). Epistemological gynocentrism with various other aspects as we will discuss is inherently predisposition in gynocentric reality and arises together with the biologically – evolutionary gynocentrism. It is also threefold: a) cognitive; b) conceptual; c) interpretative. The GDS, the gynocentric dominance scale/spectrum, is taking its course of actions here and is also pre-dispositioned in the cognitive epistemic gynocentrism (CEG) and as a part of the superstructure permeates and pervades all other parts of the structure and infrastructure. Both, EPG, epistemic gynocentrism, as well as the GDS, are pre-dispositioned and expands themselves over the whole range of the structure-infrastructure beginning with prenatal conditioning and continuing in infancy, puberty and the adult life. From an evolutionary point of view, the predisposition has the aim at securing the survival of our species. Moreover, as a part of this realm and the necessity to ensure the survival of the species, the MDC, the male disposability constant, serves also as an integral that is pre-dispositioned in this realm alongside with the other ones namely the epistemological gynocentrism, the gynocentric dominance scale/spectrum and the male disposability constant. Thus, the Kernel of the gynocentric matrix (KGM) exists in a MESH style topology of three components: a) epistemic gynocentrism (EPG); b) the gynocentric dominance scale/scale (GDS) and the male disposability constant (MDC). Borrowing the language of computer science and networking, the biggest advantage of such topology lies within the fact that the dynamically, directly, and non-hierarchically connected structure, infrastructure, and superstructure with its constants, variables, parameter, and axis' can not only cooperate to efficiently route information as cognition, perception, interpretation, etc but that in a mesh network, if one point goes temporarily down, communication is simply rerouted through another point, so will the entire network continue to function until the problem is restored. In a way, this is the other basis of the deterministic reality of the biologically evolutionary gynocentrism that ensures the survival of the species.

Furthermore, we can sum up and say that both the kernel of the gynocentric matrix (KGM) with all of its components and especially epistemic gynocentrism (EPG/a) at this level has three goals: a) to ensure the survival of the species; b) for that reason to ensure the (informal) gynocentric dominance scale/spectrum (GDS) and it should be achieved through the creation of bias in the form of an excessive and pervasive focus on the female and her needs in the perceptional epistemic gynocentrism (EPG/b) which in the infrastructure as well as structure will be accompanied by interpretative epistemic gynocentrism (EPG/c). Thus, epistemic gynocentrism by its excessive and pervasive focus on women is also the metaphysical source of the superstructure for gynocentrism and misandry. The result is that in the realms of structure and infrastructure it comes to methodological biases like the so well-known feminist and gynocentric cherry-picking and selective interpretation of reality and this leads to anti-male suppression, concealment, distortion, manipulation, and dismissal of truths and reality. It also leads to logical biases like many cognitive dissonances, petitio principii, incorrect inferences, and a completely false interpretation in the favor of women and the detriment of men. Anyway, at these levels, the variables, integrals, and constants that operate and are added are the compassion gap constant (CGC) and the gynocentric house unit variable where the prenatal conditioning continues and never ends until the man's death. All of this occurs on the axis of private and public gynocentrism where it goes back and forth – from infancy to puberty and later in marital life in the sphere pf private gynocentrism and continuing later in adulthood in the career realm of public gynocentrism.

Next, we should look at gynonormativity. Here, rooted in biological and evolutionary gynocentrism, we can observe the following dynamics and describe gynonormativity in this way regarding the discussed phenomena. At the most basic level of both, the evolutionary dynamics as well as the psycho-cognitive structure of human consciousness, gynonormativity serves the purpose of indoctrinating the female worldview, observation as well as interpretation of reality and power dynamics in boys and girls from birth and into adulthood. It takes its root from the kernel of the gynocentric matrix (KGM) and directly from epistemic gynocentrism (EPG) where it corresponds with the gynocentric dominance scale/spectrum (GDS) and the male disposability constant (MDC). Thus, by adopting the female worldview, observation as well as interpretation, it aims at internalizing gynocentrism and its clandestine and hidden nature at the root of human identity, especially in men. While, the adaptation of the gynocentric sets of values at the root of male and female identity operates, first and foremost, at the unconscious level of the human mind, psyche, and mentality and additionally has the purpose of controlling formal male-dominated power structures through the female informal structures of power (all the while starting in the prenatal stage) it is taken to the next level of human conditioning, familial and social engineering, first in the domestic sphere using the gynocentric house unit variable within the realm of private gynocentrism and later expanding it as we already have explained to the domain if public gynocentrism.

Therefore, men from all walks of life, no matter the religious affiliation, race, ethnicity, nationality, status, or political mindset, left or right, are all part of a gynocentric upbringing and are conditioned in this way alongside the gynonormative conditioning axis (GNCA). Gynonormative goals are achieved partly also through chivalric sets of values that are indoctrinated in men as described above. While in the traditional gynocentric society the rules of chivalry were applied to each man as in the servitude of his wife and other women in his life (like daughter, mother, aunt, mother in law, etc), gynonormativity, as well as chivalry, have been applied to all men and from them to all women. It was achieved by institutionalizing gynonormativity and chivalry within the sphere of public gynocentrism through the legal and other official institutions of the state and that now have replaced the once-living husband of blood and flesh through an amorphous collective husband which is the state itself (whereas the glue that binds all of this together is the female informal power, stemming from the kernel of the gynocentric matrix as well as the combination of epistemic and biologically – evolutionary gynocentrism, remerging after the prenatal state and birth in the domestic sphere by applying both the rules of the gynocentric house unit variable in the realm of private gynocentrism as well as the biologically and evolutionary constant of gynocentrism (BECG) as the female being the natural and sexual selection and later expanding this conditions into the sphere of public gynocentrism as explained before). Therefore, in the third stage of gynocentrism that is feminism, chivalric and gynonormative dynamics have been applied to and through the state back to all men. Thus, in this authoritarian stage of gynonormativity, all institutions of the state are mobilized to the cause of gynocentrism and the feminist cause whereas also all other sectors of society like media, academy, etc, are affected by gynonormativity and serve the same purpose.

Anyway, operating at the unconscious level and within the clandestine frames of informal as well as formal power dynamics at the conscious and external level through many myths and taboos, is what makes gynocentric and gynonormative dynamics so powerful and hard to overcome. To sum it up: gynonormativity is a derivative of gynocentrism as the evolutionary and biological conditioning in all primates and not only human society. It aims at giving priority to women's needs, points of view, and desires and on behalf of all other parts of society while elevating their status about everyone. Seen as disposable, men in this society have the aim at serving women through chivalry and male servitude while at the same time gynonormative dynamics are used to create a delusion of male dominance and selling men this phantasy. Gynonormativity also regulates the hierarchical power structures within the culture enabling women to control formal structures of power through the informal power structures on both, political, social, cultural, and most importantly the interpersonal level. In particular, men are indoctrinated to adopt the gynocentric female system of values as a component of their authentic personality, but to maintain it, this social engineering and cultural conditioning are widened and applied to women and girls too. Thus, at the last stage and especially within the feminist gynocentric state, gynonormativity becomes authoritarian. We would argue that feminism as a gynonormative project and the extreme expression of totalitarian gynocentrism aiming at achieving the fourth gynocentric stage of a feminist matriarchy, could not have been born and come into operation without its previous gynocentric stages in the traditional cultures and religions. As such, the combination of gynonormativity and gynocentrism coupled with the feminist effort to achieve the transition into a gynocentric female matriarchy is integral to the establishment of female supremacy and a totalitarian state in the present as well as in the future

Now let's consider and explain private gynocentrism and its web of conditioning and power dynamics more in detail. From the prenatal state to birth, from birth to infancy, from infancy to puberty, a man is subjected to the conditioning of the mother – to – son power dynamic and imbalance. From puberty and into his teenage years he is subjected maybe to boyfriend – to - girlfriend power dynamic and imbalance and as he marries it's the greatest wife – to husband power dynamic which includes in wider circles also his mother and mother in law. In these centers of power, women control the most important resources as S.C. Rogers writes. They control scarce resources, they are natural and sexual selection, so they control sex, they control house finances, and expenses, merchandise, and opportunities; if affluent they manage the Beta male workforce and servants and whether they are rich or poor, they manage the human resources of the family; they also distribute material as none material good and act as the treasurer of the family controlling the husband's earnings too; they are the main buyer, purchaser and responsible for health consumption; they wield instruments of persuasion and coercion. and they exercise power through education, propaganda, directives, suggestions, rewards, and punishments while all of this constitutes as we've said the female informal power base and authority that permeates and pervades male symbolic authority. Thus, female power exists; it hangs over every man like a guillotine in a possible divorce in case he isn't cooperative and must be punished. Indeed, the life cycle of man, from birth to death, can be divided into two main phases, the private sphere of gynocentrism and the public sphere. The private gynocentrism sphere can be further divided into the nuclear family and later the marriage and the man's new family. The female power which dominates him in the nuclear family of the private's gynocentrism sphere is the female family members, first of all, his mother, grandmother, aunts, and bigger sisters. Once he has married, the outer circle of the private's gynocentrism's sphere which is first his bride, then his wife and at the end his mother in law, comes to life and is born!

Either way, the conditioning begins in fact in the prenatal stage and continues from birth to infancy, from infancy to puberty and from puberty to teenage years and him becoming a grown man. As he grows most of the time the little boy and then man is being subjected to the conditioning of his mother. Other female family members play a role too. Sisters, aunts, grandmothers, and to a lesser degree at least in infancy to puberty babysitters or female kinder garden staff. A little change occurs in the schools as the mother is losing some of her control and hands it over to female teachers which means control still stays in the hands of women. Yet, in general, the biggest influence and power in these stages is that of his mother. Then, still within the realm of private gynocentrism, he passes into the territory of the girlfriend and later the bride – to - be, as exercised over him by her. This relationship and its conditioning are still soft and tender so that he feels he cannot live without her. This phase lasts from teenage years to that wedding day when the last of his potential brides finally makes herself his wife. He then passes into the domain of wife control, as exercised over him by his gynocentric matriarch, alias his darling wife. Yet, this relationship isn't anymore so soft and tender. This phase lasts till he is either divorced, widowed, or is dead, all too often by suicide as he wakes up from his delusion and ignorance to the ugly gynocentric reality. In each of those stages, still within the frame of private gynocentrism, female power is established over him through his unusual weakness in the first stages of his life. The power of his mother and other female family members is established over him while he is a helpless infant and in awe of the woman who gave him life and his own depends on her. It includes and is extended to sisters, aunts, and grandmothers. The Bride power holds with his great need for a womb in which to procreate mesmerizes him with her overwhelming feminine beauty; if he didn't feel this need, he wouldn't put himself into the power of any owner of a womb. Wife power is established over him through basically the same craving and for that reason to serve a woman while being her protector and provider too. This reality of the women being the natural as well as sexual selection and consequently the evolutionary pressure to procreate and ensure the survival of the human species, those are the basic anchors that hold him hostage to the gynocentric misery and matrix.

Anyway, within the realm of private gynocentrism, the female position of being the natural as well as sexual selection alongside with her controlling the domestic sphere and the gynocentric house unit variable (GHUV) as manager and treasurer is that which forms the female power base or the informal power integral (IPI). It is fivefold in its nature and includes the following parameters: women's control of the womb meaning the access to sex and human sexual reproduction, that's her being the natural and sexual selection; upon her being the natural and sexual selection, women's control of the kitchen is the metaphor of her being the main consumer and shopper responsible for the material resource management and the family expenses which means she's the treasurer; women being the nurturer of children, that's the female managing the human resources of the family as well as ensuring that the gynocentric conditioning axis (GCA) isn't broken and the gynocentric dominance scale (GDS) continues. Those are the four conditions inherent to the woman. The last one regarding the man is his psychological naivety relative to the woman and the man's tendency to be unhinged by his excited penis. These conditions are the five elementary pillars of the female informal power; they are pivotal for its dominance over male power. Though each is recognized in popular culture and even media as jokes, their collective significance from a scientific point of view was rarely, scarcely discussed and even seldom noted. Shamefully, a discussion about those realities is considered politically incorrect and inappropriate, That's part of the clandestine nature of gynocentrism and its taboos.

Alternatively, female informal power can also be characterized by a different classification: a) access to sex that based on biology and evolution is under female control; b) men's stupid desperation for sex that is exploited by women; based on above two predispositions, women control all the scarce material and human resources in the family which are also the most important ones. How did female informal power evolve to attain these elementary pillars so women could dominate men and their symbolic power? Female genitalia and especially the permission to access her womb is evolution's priceless gift to women or an evolutionary necessity (depending on your belief system). The relative psychological immaturity of men regarding sex is evolution's supplementary measure to ensure the survival of the species not only in producing offsprings but also later providing and protecting them. And if these natural evolutionary advantages in the favor of women were not great enough, they are the evolutionary biological base for women to annex all the material and none material human resources in the family, a position from which women can easily control and subordinate men with the male's full agreement. Of these elementary pillars, sex – the access to it and reproduction - is by far the most crucial one because from an evolutionary point of view it is of exceptional importance for the survival of the species. This is why women have a monopoly on it. And this is why it is the source and the ultimate power base for women. However, as I often said, this determinism is only valid at the biological evolutionary level. In the psychological and socio-cultural realm, men can change a lot if they begin to work on themselves and undergo a path od self-exploration as well as self-empowerment and self-realization and where they can use free will to create different conditions and agreements.

Private gynocentrism is divided into two stages and two periods in a man's life. The first stage and period of life belong to his mother and in a wider extent to the other female members of the nuclear family like sisters, grandmother, and aunts; the second belongs to his wife, her sister, and mother in law. There is a middle link where he might be subjected to female babysitters, teachers, and kindergarten staff. The first has both informal and formal power and authority over him in his vulnerable infancy; however, from both, as usual, it is the informal power and authority that is most crucial. The second in his ambitious adulthood are his girlfriends and later his bride and wife. First, she exploits his nostalgia for his mother's set and manipulates his sexual craving for his future wife to be. Thus it is the triangle of mother, bride, and wife who control a man through his whole life, from birth to death. Like a kaleidoscope, it is done by a constant play between his basic needs for sex and companionship. Woman's monopoly to (the access to) sex and reproduction shifts the mating power dynamic completely in her favor of women. It reduces the man to an applicant. Since he is driven to survive through his progeny, he will pay any price to be allowed the use of a womb. He has little options. By evolutionary terms, it goes against am man's rational and goals to force a woman against her will – whether it is sex or marriage. If in theory he's done that, she can harm the baby whether by legally or illegally aborting it or by harming the baby upon birth. From an evolutionary point of view, it is therefore in his interest to yield to her terms, whatever they may be. If he must, he will conquer the whole world and lay it at a woman's feet to be allowed to marry and procreate with her. Confronted with her monopoly over the womb, the man is obliged to be her slave if that is the price she demands; and women do as chivalric gender roles and the socio-cultural gynocentrism shows.

12 צפיות

​FOLLOW ME

  • Facebook Social Icon
  • Twitter Social Icon
  • LinkedIn Social Icon
  • Google+ Social Icon