top of page
  • yinfol

Gynocentrism and the Rise of Militarism and Warrior Culture - Part 2

עודכן: 4 ביולי 2022

Violence is a Hallmark of Gynocentric Cultures, not Patriarchal!

Now, after understanding the female incentive for war in gynocentric societies and the way how they manipulate males into fighting, let's elaborate, furthermore on the details that show that this dynamic did not diminish the elevated status of women and how the division of power according to Carol Rogers never decreased the power of women and how they always yielded the real power. Moreover, the female connection with the success of fathers, husbands, or other related men in wars by giving them access to reproductive rights not only increased female status but especially widened the gap between men themselves. In this system, all men became dependent on their wives while poor men were controlled and exploited not both by affluent men and affluent men that depended on their wives. Especially critical was the situation here of poor men as it was mainly affluent women controlling their work in their domestic sphere while making them depend on their wives (as to making the livelihood and her controlling this) while those affluent women controlled them through their husbands to influencing them to create female-friendly law regulations

Nathanson and Young mention the waning of horticulture (which involved wooden hoes that women could push as well as men) and the advent of plow agriculture (which involved iron plows that men could push more easily than women) but the conclusion is different than heirs. It did not mean that women in the new economic and political order of proto-states lost not only their role as fundamental force controlling the house finances because first, they controlled the domestic sphere as Carol Rogers points out, and second, their husbands consequently, working at the fields of elite women who were precisely those who did not have to work in the fields but controlled the working men became the true exploitable force

Moreover, adding patrilineal and patrilocal characteristics did not change anything, hence, society was a mix of patrilocal, patrilineal but matrifocal aspects, concentrating on the needs of women meaning that even inheritance that followed the male line, still transferred to the female domain. Furthermore, in the following discussion, I will expand more on those dynamics and developments not only in theoretical terms but in more practical terms, this discussion will allow us to follow and build up on the research of S.C. Rogers titled "Female Forms of Power and the Myth of Male Dominance".

While Rogers showed this dynamic within older and traditional societies especially the peasant ones here I continue to elaborate on her findings and conclusions showing that this is a universal principle that is valid in all human societies - modern as well as traditional and older ones. It is important for the realization and apprehension of the underlying dynamics, the recognition of the clandestine nature and hidden gynocentric dynamics of our society as well as to offer the best solution to overcome or deal with the ravages, the destruction, and scourged earth that feminism, gynocentrism, and misandry leave behind them.

First, I want to give the most important conclusions from Roger's research by highlighting the important points from her outstanding work in a form of a summary. Rogers begins by observing and correctly characterizing and defining anthropology as a field, we can say hardly scientific discipline, that is guilty of making a lot of sweeping generalizations and assumptions. Those false generalizations and assumptions directly and negatively influence anthropologists' perception of reality through selective interpretation and cherry-picking of its nature based on these false axioms to investigate power dynamics and authority.

Those academically active in the field of anthropology typically assume that the only forms of power dynamics that are relevant are those codified through written laws, legislation, and so on and are finally formalized: according to them things like directives, (the written) law and positions in political entities are the only things that count. There is no place in their observations for informal power. However, this sole focus on only formal aspects of power and authority through cherry-picking and selective misinterpretation naturally distorts reality and its non-dual nature, as we will see, where the masculine can't exist without the feminine in a vacuum and makes it deludedly and wrongly appear as if male dominance is virtually a universal phenomenon all over the spectrum of human experience, existence, and societies.

To make this even worse, according to Rogers, both men and women act upon this myth as if men are truly dominant (again all over the range of human existence), when in reality, the situation is of course almost as opposed to those myths and notions. None of these myths have a corresponding reality. In her research, Rogers writes, “although peasant males monopolize positions of (formal) authority and are shown public deference by women, thus superficially appearing to be dominant, they wield relatively little real power” (p.728). Here, below, in my further elaboration, I attempt to explain the underlying dynamics that solve this phenomenon and explain the clandestine and hidden gynocentric nature upon which it relies, and Rogers fails to bring in her research.

Furthermore, in the peasant societies investigated by Rogers, women were in control of the major portion of the family resources and made most of the decisions regarding how those resources were used, in effect, wielding the greater power as she writes and explains. This dynamic, by the way, has been proved as valid in our modern societies too when we consider the global female consuming power where females according to estimates control 70% of global spending, the same amount of the world's wealth including family resources. So, the question that may arise in this context is why in ancient societies both women and men would do this and which personal and collective incentive it would serve? Why did ancient societies act like men have all the power and subsequently authority, when in fact, not only this hasn't been true or had any corresponding reality while those are women who have most of it?

Well, Rogers starts by first defining a myth as a belief that one can see is factually untrue. According to her research, both groups seek to think, see and understand themselves as having clear advantages, values, and prestige relative to one another. Each of the group's members naturally seeks of course those attributes to be distributed fairly and in such a way that neither group nor its specific member in an intimate relationship feels like they’re getting less out of the deal.

Each of the individual members of the respectively collective group wants to be seen personally as well as collectively as a “winner” in the eyes of both the actual partner in the relationship as well as publicly or collectively. Furthermore, both men and women see themselves as mutually dependent upon one another, which, when you come right down to the very basic reality of reproduction is and without any doubt valid. However, as we will see it transcends the realm of reproduction and is true in every aspect. This we will discuss immediately.

Additionally, despite a certain level of ignorance and delusion needed to maintain the myth as Rogers states both men and women in peasant societies (whether intuitively or by insight), completely understood that we are all, men as well as women, dependent upon one another and thus they sought to create a social structure that makes both men and women feel valued and being treated respectfully and fairly.

This although still a socially fair gynocentric contract existed until the time of queen Eleanor of Aquitaine and was replaced by her a new misandrist model that gave rise to the current social and cultural gynocentric social contract whose epitome is feminism and its attempt to form and create a misandrist matriarchy in the future as its end goal. Both, this nondual ancient as well as the one-sided construct and social contract between the genders will be discussed immediately.

So, what resources do women control is of course the next question we should be asking? In peasant societies and still even today the key unit of economic development as well as social life, both in evolutionary terms as well as our personal and collective well-being (which is also important for survival), is the nuclear family. Husband, wife, children, and perhaps extended members of the family in the form of grandparents. Jill Dubisch, that was mentioned in Roger's research also tried to evaluate the power that women hold in peasant societies, and came up with four criteria to evaluate how evenly power and authority were distributed between husbands and wives which can be outlined as the following fourfold evaluation or points:

1. How respectfully did the spouses treat one another, both privately and publicly?

2. How often or much did the spouses interfere with one another’s domains?

3. How were family resources distributed?

4. How were decisions regarding plans for children made?

Here is an example of how it works in Greek villages just to give one example. It is important to understand because it gives us an understanding of the workings and the dynamics behind the fact that women control 70% of family resources, 70% of the world's wealth, and 70% of global spending. So, in our Greek example, women control all the family finances, because they take principal responsibility for producing the food/goods that will be sold at the local market.

Those women bake the bread, produce the butter, weave the cloth, collect the eggs, raise the goats, make the cheese, and so on. They then go to the markets, set the prices, and collect the payment. So far, they are not only the primary drivers of the family’s wealth and physical well-being but that is one of many underlying reasons why women control up to 70% of the world's wealth and family resources even if they work less than men and participate less in the working force. Adding the fact that women are natural and sexual selection in evolutionary terms and their control through informal power is almost absolute.

Here, we should also add that contrary to modern misandrist culture driven by feminism and extreme gynocentrism, according to Rogers traditional peasant societies could see that women produced and controlled most of the actual, finite resources in society, including the labor of the majority of less lucky and rich men. They also could see how that might make men feel exploited and in a problematic position in a relationship with a woman. So both men and women agreed to a division of power where the more important informal power stays completely in the hands of women but men would be allowed to control the greater part of the formal power structures, none of which can exist without the consent, being approved by women, their actual help in executing power and authority as well as the labor of women and poor men including of course the participation of women in political institutions as well as the power structures of authority. So, to make certain that both men and women felt equally valued and appreciated, they created a myth of male dominance, all the while knowing that the true balance of power swayed heavily in favor of women.

So, these are the findings and the conclusion from Roger's research and now let's continue to my elaboration which relies upon her research, findings, and conclusions, and further explain their underlying universal dynamics. Here, in that sense, we must first understand that formal power (authority aka codification, law, legislation, directives, regulations, and many more) is rooted, defined, depends, and can be exercised only with the help, consent, and when approved by the informal power (societal focus, collective intelligence/understanding, and narrative). And the latter is always gynocentric and especially matrifocal that obsessively concentrates on female incentives, wishes, and desires. It is also important to add that conventional - collective intelligence is a form of relative wisdom but not the ultimate one. As such and on a large group scale it is susceptible to mistakes, false views, and misinterpretations having thus to undergo an evaluation not through group members but by being scrutinized through empirical findings and data as to be classified as truth.

Metaphysically authority springs conceptually (abstractedly) from wisdom, language, and speech including verbal interpretation (before codification), and is overwhelmingly controlled by female energies and gynocentric concepts while it is important to understand that through conditioning beginning from the 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 as 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, levels, 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 is 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 it is a 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 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 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 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 rise 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 that based on the female principles' men practice, codify, and exercise authority. Therefore, the codification and execution always occur within this nondual phenomenon where the masculine and feminine can never be separated and function alone but the feminine is the dominant force that gives rise to, 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 nondual 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 to 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 within 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 correctly balance 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 such 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. And this is what needs to end.

Further reading:

1. S.C. Rogers, Female forms of power and the myth of male dominance: A model of female/male interaction in peasant society:

2. Paul Nathanson/Kathrine Young, Sanctifying Misandry:

4. Female monkeys use both the carrot and the stick to promote male participation in intergroup fights, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, rspb.royalsocietypublishing.or … .1098/rspb.2016.1817 Journal information: Proceedings of the Royal Society B:

5. Douglas Ghalbie, here marthiya: women’s distinct voice for killing men:

This article of mine was first published on the site Newsofx at:


bottom of page