What is The Purpose of the Gynocentric Mythos, Ethos, and Pathos

And How it is Used by Private and Public Gynocentrism to Solidify Male Subordination and Exploitation by Women!

One of the most distinctive hallmarks of gynocentrism is that it operates covertly behind a façade of many myths. The most known is, of course, that of the patriarchy and universal male power but there are many more that are an essential part of the gynocentric setup of reality. Gynocentrism operates within a hidden and clandestine dynamic which also serves as the lifeline of its system. It is also an indispensable and critical part of human reality and existence as an embedded part of the survival of our species. Other examples or examples of this reality are the myths of the gendered domestic violence against women (there is gender symmetry in DV), the innocence myth of women (women can be as good and evil as men), or the female emotional and moral superiority over men. So. where do these myths come from? What are their origins? How are they spread and maintained? The purpose of the following dissertation is to elaborate on those questions and bring them to light and public awareness. Anyway, to understand it, we must reach back as far as the realms of private and public gynocentrism and understand its clandestine and covert workings. As I have elaborated in my previous work on the gynocentric power dynamics, structures, and centers, standing at the heart of the private Gynocentrism, 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. Women, as Carol Rogers so eloquently points out, are primarily associated with the domestic, the family, the house, the home, the household, and even the national, a reality that we describe as private gynocentrism. Therefore, whether it is a traditional or modern one, the society at its primal level, is still domestic-oriented; that is, the domestic sphere and private gynocentrism are of central importance, at least socially. In that sense, Gynocentrism refers to female domination and superior status both in public and private spheres of human life. 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. 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 relationships 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.

About the reality of private and public gynocentrism described in the paragraph above, Durkheim, the founding father of sociology, explained that the causes or the keystones are, indeed, dramatically reflected in the ideal of the Roman Matron namely in the workings of the working of the domestic unit within the sphere of private gynocentrism! "In Roman society", as Durkheim writes, "women, as wives, enjoyed a "worthy position. Women, as mothers, were the objects of profound "respect (obsequium et reverentia)." This exaltation of wives and mothers was due to the structure of what I describe as the (gyno)patriarchy, to "the strength with which the marriage bond held firm.", in the words of Durkheim. According to him, "the Roman family brought together, in close unity, husband and wife acting like parents, and their children" (1980, p. 256). Moreover, Durkheim explained, that the domestic organization in Rome, reflecting gynocentric patrilineal and matrifocal realties and dynamics, had several distinctive features. According to Durkheim "never was the bond of matrimony stronger than in Rome, never was the union of man and wife more fully regarded as an inviolate partnership throughout the whole of life." Consequently, to Durkheim, "the Romans had no less high an opinion of the wife than the Germans" (1980, p. 292). The Roman matron, reflecting the matrifocal state of gynocentric reality had "a far superior social status" than that of the Greek woman (1980, p. 303). It has created a strong family, central and important to society and mankind. This situation bequeaths importance on the family role and confers respect for the women who occupy it. Under Durkheim's thought, the family is "intense" and "important." Husband and wife are close because they are relatively oriented toward, and involved in, the family. This completely dispels that feminist bogus claims that due to patriarchal values the father isn't involved in the children's life or constitutes his share to the family and even the assertion that he isn't important for the children's life at all, as feminists love to claim. In Durkheim's view, this reality advanced the interests of women because it advances the interests of the family. "The greater the place occupied by the family in the man's preoccupations", writes Durkheim, "the more he feels himself to be his wife's associate, the more he loses the habit of seeing in her an inferior" (1910, p. 143). As a result, in the powerful, pivotal, cohesive matrilocal and patrilineal family, "women's role" had "greater importance" and the wife and mother had a greater "moral position", according to Durkheim. The woman is "surrounded with respect" and shares the "condition" of her husband. However, it must be added that it was not only her moral supremacy but also financial superiority resulting from her female privilege rooted in the realm of informal power exclusively controlled by women as explained by S.C. Rogers in her research (being the natural and sexual selection).

In addition to the various classifications of gynocentrism, dependent on which aspect we concentrate, in that sense, social or cultural gynocentrism shows us “two distinct forms of Gynocentrism – private and public Gynocentrism”. Private gynocentrism is based upon the female being the natural as well as sexual selection, on the one hand, and, on the other side, the control of 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 the social and economic setting through which all nonaffluent men are oppressed for the benefit of all women, alongside the wife of those Alpha males who simultaneously control their husbands as well as spending the day managing her Beta male workforce and servants at home, while those Beta males undergo the same treatment from their actual wife when they're back at home from their bone-breaking work. This reality has become possible 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 through social engineering, and only destined to do the back-breaking and life-endangering labor? Thus, generally poor men, struggling, even more, to get a foot on the ladder and pull their whole family up, 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.

Likewise, in private gynocentrism, the expropriation of men’s labor takes place primarily by individual matriarchs within the household, while in the public form of gynocentrism it is a more collective expropriation. 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 by making them more dependent on their wives in the private spheres whereas in the modern state men are exploited financially both in terms of transferring their resources both only for the society but also referring it as a collective group of men to the collective one 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 cases also 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 always routinely experience it at the hands of women and through state violence. Female violence is systematically condoned and legitimated by the state's refusal to intervene against it, except in exceptional instances, 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 including 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 subordinated.

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 shows or accepts that women are superior to men in all aspects of life especially morally and as a human and men are inferior so that they must 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 dynamics 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 resources - 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, many, more.

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 and 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 man, sometimes even more but by still being the treasurer now she has her money, most of his money, thus making the imbalance even greater. Evolutionary pressure never works to mitigate the imbalances created by such social dynamics but creates a bigger, deeper, and wider abyss that expanses inequality and the superiority of women over men. This is especially seen in the divorce proceedings and the fact the ever-growing imbalances rooted in such policies and coupled with anti-male law divorces drive the female incentive to divorce higher and let male suicide skyrocketing. 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 most men as what is known as the phenomenon of 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 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 for 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 most 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 most 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 of now, we have discussed 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, 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 action 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 expand themselves over the whole range of the structure-infrastructure beginning with prenatal conditioning and continuing in infancy, puberty, and adult life. From an evolutionary point of view, the predisposition has the aim of 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 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 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 of 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 of 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. Men are indoctrinated to adopt the gynocentric female system of values as a component of their authentic personality and to maintain it, while 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 life and action 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 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 resources 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 a 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, 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 on which he depends. It includes and is extended to sisters, aunts, and grandmothers. The bride's power is in synch with his great need for a womb which he needs for procreation, a setup that 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 is 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 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 the 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 offspring 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 nonmaterial 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. Therefore, women have a monopoly on it. And therefore, 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 of 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 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 setup 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. A 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 few options. In evolutionary terms, it goes against a man's rationale 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 this as chivalric gender roles and the socio-cultural gynocentrism shows.

Anyway, these dynamics and realities have also important implications for life beyond the domestic and interact with the collective level to create what is called public gynocentrism. Rogers explains that to the extent that the distribution of jural and other formal rights belie the power of women, most ordinary and important interactions occur in the context of a face-to-face community, where informal relationships and forms of power are at least as significant a force in everyday life as formalized, authorized relationships and power. As we will see those dynamics as Pit-Rivers and others explain are more important and the formal sphere is subordinate to the informal. It is this set of components that assure women the kinds of power to be illustrated below. Thus, the elements together of male dominance as well as any other aspect of gynocentrism regulating the relationship and interaction between men and women are of a mythical nature. Felt lack of power on the part of men, while perhaps not a required component of the system, nevertheless enhances both the relatively powerful position of women and the mythical nature of those gynocentric power structures, centers, and dynamics. Anyway, this hallmark of human reality and life is true not only in traditional societies but also the modern ones. It is there that women’s power in the household takes its origins and course of actions and is widened as an extension that we will be discussing immediately 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, 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. It is this interactive Private-to-Public flux of an overall established and conditioned female gynocentric dominance over men and their formal power that socially engineers men to keep female interests, fighting for and supporting women as well as being in the position of power to hold men at bay.

According to Pit Rivers, 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 (which is the formal power). Thus, those memories and cultural traditions are forming what can be described as Gynocentric, Ethos, Mythos, and Pathos Axis (GEMPA) which respectively form what can be described as a gynocentric repository consciousness (GRC). The term “repository consciousness” or GCR refers to the unconscious level of experience where our habits are maintained. The GRC is the foundation or basis of all consciousness and experience, and it contains impressions of all our past actions, both personally as well as collectively. These impressions form "seeds," and from these seeds, arise our thoughts, opinions, desires, and attachments. Thus, those are also the seeds that form the basis of our personalities as well as the building stones of our gyno-normativity and identity. As such, it influences and permeates our intentions and actions with thought, word, and deed. In other words, the GRC is, then, a repository of everything that is "us," both harmful and beneficial. And like the subconscious mind, the contents of the repository consciousness shape our actions and the way we experience our lives and interpret reality. "The source of our perception, our way of seeing and interpreting, lies in our repository consciousness

Likewise, according to PIT RIVERS 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.' Therefore, the GRC can be described as the oceanic dimension of the unconscious where all memory, history, and potential are contained. GRC has both individual and universal dimensions. In the individual dimension, GRC holds the patterns of each person's past. In the universal dimension, it is a shared reservoir of collective memories, images, and desires which are an integral part of the wider GEMPA that includes all other aspects of reality from values, ethics, aesthetics, and many more. Carl Jung explored some aspects of general repository consciousness, using the term collective unconscious. More recently, neuroscientist Karl Pribram and physicist David Bohm compared consciousness to a hologram where the smallest part contains the information of the whole. The holographic record is the interpenetration of the individual and universal aspects of repository consciousness. Yogis, mystics, and shamans of all cultures have explored and described this dimension of human experience.

Moreover, the Gynocentric conditioning that creates our habits is staggeringly vast. Think of all that had to happen for you to be able to interpret this word as having that or the other meaning. Millions of years of evolutionary gynocentrism and evolution itself, both physical, metaphysical, psycho cognitive as well as cultural and historical, come into play so that you can understand the word. Our emotional habits, too, stem from untraceable gynocentric conditions, especially pre-natal gynocentrism. The GRC is like a flowing river. The GRC helps us understand who we are, our place in the world, etc. To understand the dynamics and the inner workings of the GRM, let's further dive into the mythos, ethos, pathos, and logos axis and see how it applies to our gynocentric society. In that sense, myths can be described as stories that are based on tradition. They are presented as having occurred in a previous age, explaining the cosmological and supernatural traditions of a people, yet often dealing with the clandestine, covert aspects, or taboo elements of society. The purpose of myth is to explain, and, as Sir G.L. Gomme said, myths explain matters in “the science of a pre-scientific age." To the ancients, the meaning of the story was most important, not the literal truth or the details of a certain version of a narrative. Throughout human history, in all times and under every circumstance, our myths have flourished; and they have been the living inspiration of whatever else may have appeared out of the activities of the human body and mind. It would not be too much to say that myth is the secret opening through which the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos pour into human cultural manifestation. Religions, philosophies, arts, the social forms of primitive and historic man, prime discoveries in science and technology, the very dreams that blister sleep, boil up from the basic, magic ring of myth. Gynocentrism is no exemption to the rule and while gynocentrism isn't a myth, it uses many myths to explain the world and to justify its existence. Thus, myths deal with the creation of man, our world, society, and the rules use to govern it. According to psychiatrist Carl Yung, myth is a necessary aspect of the human psyche which needs to find meaning & order in the world. Gynocentric myths express the whole typology of myths; there are historical, etiological as well as psychological gynocentric myths. As Carol Rogers points out, myths have factual origins or meaning, while they have added completely fictional layers.

Hence, the mythos tries to answer the most difficult and the most basic questions of human existence: Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going? What is my purpose in life? Therefore, religious mythology mirrors gynocentric myth and realities and not vice versa. Gynocentric myths are the most primal level while religion comes on top of that. Hence, as I have explained, gynocentrism operates on a clandestine and more covert level, religion is the more elusive façade, gynocentrism with its myths operate behind it as the covert and clandestine heart of a matrix. And in that sense, as I have said above, to the ancients, the meaning of the story was most important, not the literal truth of the details of a certain version of a tale. However, myths, especially gynocentric ones, are more than mere stories. As I have said they serve a more profound purpose in ancient and modern cultures not only as to justify the gynocentric order with its female dominance and male subordination but also to create gynonormativity at the root of our existence, identity, and personality. In a way, myths are sacred realities, narratives, and traditions that explain the world and man's experience. Myths are as relevant to us today as they were to the ancients. Myths answer timeless questions and serve as a compass for each generation, moral or otherwise. And the gynocentric myths stand above all. Why are the myths so powerful today in our scientific civilization and how it works? Here is the reason and explanation. In the ancient world, the purpose of a myth was to provide the hearer with a truth that the audience then interpreted for themselves within the value system of their culture. Apprehension of reality was left up to the interpretation of the individual encountering the values expressed in the myths instead of having that reality interpreted for them by an authority figure. This remains the essential difference between a sermon and an individual experience with religious mythology; within one's cultural belief system a sermon can only encourage or reinforce common belief while a myth, though it might do the same, has the potential to elevate and transform individual understanding through the potency of symbolic landscape, character, image, and theme. The ancient myths still resonate with a modern audience precisely because the ancient writers crafted them toward individual interpretation, leaving each person who heard the story to recognize the meaning in the tale for themselves and respond to it accordingly. In that way, the modern audience transforms the meaning of the myth and adjusts it to science. The feminist gender pseudo-science of women's studies exhibits exactly this dynamic. So, the gynocentric myths create a compass for young men and women to follow, as they accept adult responsibilities. The subjects of the gynocentric myths reflect the universal concerns of mankind throughout history, our place, axiology, our duties, purposes, responsibilities, and many more. A myth taps into a universal cultural narrative, the collective wisdom of man.

An excellent illustration of the universality of these themes is that so many peoples who have had no contact with each other create remarkably similar myths. So, for example, cultures worldwide, from the Middle East to the distant mountains of South America have the same gynocentric systems, values, and realities based upon gynocentric myths although initially, they had no ways of communication between them. Yet, based upon those myths, gynocentrism is a universal phenomenon. Unlike fairy tales, myths are not always optimistic. True to the nature of life, the essence of myths is such that they are as often warnings as promises as often laments as celebrations. Many myths, especially, the gynocentric ones, are instructive and act as a guide to social norms, taking on cultural taboos and so on. Myths are also pervasive in arts, music, media, and especially in popular culture and for a very simple reason. From film to songs to romance, it uses visual and audio metaphors or messages to speak to us. While artists of every generation reinterpret myths, the same basic patterns have shown up in the gynocentric mythology for thousands of years. A name, phrase, or image based on a familiar myth can speak volumes to those who have been absorbing these mythic tales since birth. So, from the Troubadours to the Disney Princess over the many love songs and romance novels, we got the same on the unconsciousness level. In his book cultural jam, Kalle Lassen reminds us of Richard Condon's 1959 novel, The Manchurian Candidate — which was turned into a movie. Pauline Kael, he writes, called it "the most sophisticated political satire ever to come out of Hollywood". Why I'm mentioning this? Because we can use it as an analogy or metaphor to understand the workings of myths described above. The Manchurian candidate tells us the story of an American soldier who is captured during the Korean War, shipped to Manchuria, and groomed, via brainwashing, to become a robotic assassin programmed to kill the U.S. president upon a predetermined verbal command. The subtext of the movie is that Americans are being depatterned by propaganda systems they may not understand or even be aware of. In a way that is what happens to the average person due to such gynocentric conditioning and upbringing. As a default, we have a vague notion that at some point early in our life, experiments were carried out on us, but we can't remember much about them. While we were drugged with gynocentric ideas, or too young to remember, those myths were implanted into our subconscious to manipulate and control our behavior and life. The person, the blue pill minded one, has been programmed not to kill the president or anyone, but if she was a woman to expect men's veneration, protection, asset, and worshipping while if it was a man to be ready to fall into the servitude of women and be subordinated to them. Slogans now come easily to his lips. He has warm feelings toward many ideas. Even his most innate drives and emotions trigger immediate connections with gynocentric ideals. Happiness equals servitude to women. Purpose equals marriage. Success equals providing for a woman. And what about that burning anxiety, that deep, almost forgotten feeling of alarm at his lost independence and sense of self? To that average blue pill Joe, that's the signal to turn on the TV, to hear some music, or to read about "love and marriage". The myths will do the rest.

Now, an ethos that goes with mythos is about establishing your authority to speak on the subject, logos is your logical argument for your point and pathos is your attempt to sway an audience emotionally. Therefore, for the gynocentric mythos to be executed, there was and is an ethos and pathos that accompanies it. The gynocentric ethos plays on the fact of the woman being the natural as well as sexual selection and the sacrifices she makes and further then exploits it in terms of the pathos that is male shaming. It does so by playing on emotional nuances or those of female emotional and ethical superiority. Ethos says: ‘Hear me because I'm a woman, the creator of life. Logos says: ‘Hear me because you can't understand it as a man.’ Pathos says: ‘hear me I'm so cute, loving, and caring which is part of my nature. And if you don't you are a misogynistic pig that will live in agony, for I'm an asset in the world. The first part of ethos is establishing your credentials to be speaking to the audience on the specific subject matter. It’s the verbal equivalent of all those degrees hanging up in your doctor’s office. And once you’ve established why you are an authority on the subject, you need to build understanding. Ethos, when everything is stripped away, is about trust. Your audience needs to know (or to believe, which in rhetoric adds up to the same thing) that you are trustworthy, that you have a locus standi to talk on the subject, and that you speak in good faith. You need your audience to believe that you are, in the well-known words, ‘A pretty straight kind of a human being’. We’ll even see a reverse ethos appeal at times, an attack on an opponent which questions their credentials and trustworthiness and serves to alienate them from the audience. This is the so common tactic of male shaming especially used today by feminists.

The last part of the equation here is logos. If ethos is the ground on which your argument stands, logos is what drives it forward: it is the stuff of your arguments, the way one-point proceeds to another as if to show that the conclusion to which you are aiming is not only the right one but so necessary and reasonable as to be the only one. Think of this as the logic behind your argument. You want your points to seem so straightforward and commanding that your audience can’t conceive of an alternative. Aristotle had a tip here: He found that the most effective use of logos is to encourage your audience to conclude your argument on their own, just moments before your big reveal. They will relish the fact that they were clever enough to figure it out, and the reveal will be that much more satisfying. Another logos trick used often is the much-abused syllogism. The syllogism is a way of combining two premises and drawing a fresh conclusion that follows logically from them. The classic instance you always hear quoted is the following: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. While you need to take care with the syllogisms you use — false syllogisms can lead to obvious logical fallacies — they can be a powerful tool for helping your audience draw certain conclusions. Aristotle also advocated the use of ‘commonplaces’, or accepted premises shared with the audience. The best arguments are soaked in them. Associated with these general topics are ‘commonplaces’ (topos is Greek for a ‘place’). Any form of reasoning must start from a set of premises, and in rhetoric, those premises are very often commonplaces. A commonplace is a piece of shared wisdom: a tribal assumption. In the use of commonplaces, you can see where logos and ethos intersect. Commonplaces are culturally specific, but they will tend to be so deep-rooted in the appeal that they pass for universal truths. They are, in digested form, the appeal to ‘common sense.’ You get nowhere appealing to commonplaces alien to your audience. The wise persuader starts from one or two commonplaces he knows he has in common with his audience – and, where possible, arrives at one too. Your use of commonplaces is also a good point to interject pathos, as many of these common beliefs can elicit an emotional response. Let’s dig into pathos.

The pathos that we already touched is the last one. Your logical argument will be that much more persuasive if it’s wrapped up with a good dose of emotion. Because of the way we use the word pathos in the modern world, you may be thinking of something dramatic and sad. But pathos is more nuanced than that; it can be humor, love, patriotism, or any emotional response. The key here once again is to know your audience. If you are trying to evoke a sense of anger or sadness regarding mankind’s role in the decline of the honeybee, you might not get the response you want from the bee allergy support group. You can even invoke pathos by admitting a wrong. (We all make mistakes…) This can be a clever way to put your opponent off balance. This is the figure, called paromologia in Greek, where you concede, or appear to concede, part of your opponent’s point. It turns what is often a necessity to advantage because it makes you look honest and scrupulous, takes the wind out of your opponent’s sails, and allows you to shift the emphasis of the argument in a way finally favorable to you. It’s the equivalent of a tactical retreat, or the judo fighter using an opponent’s momentum against him. Another tool you can use with pathos is something the ancient's called aposiopesis. Aposiopesis – a sudden breaking off as if at a loss for words – can be intended to stir pathos. And even where something appears merely decorative – a run of alliteration or a mellifluously turned sentence – it serves to commend the speech more easily to memory and to give pleasure to the audience. Delight is an end, as well as a means.

And we can’t forget joy and laughter. A well-received joke can help you both connect with the audience (ethos) and bring home the pathos appeal.… the joke can do more than just perk up a drowsing audience. It can be a powerful rhetorical tool. It participates in the pathos appeal since it stirs an audience’s emotions to laughter – but more importantly, it participates in the ethos appeal, since laughter is based on a set of common assumptions. As Edwin Rabbie argues in ‘Wit and Humour in Roman Rhetoric,’ ‘Jokes usually presuppose (even rest on) a significant amount of shared knowledge. Ultimately, the three modes of persuasion are interconnected. It’s helpful not to think of them linearly but more like three overlapping circles. If you can create something with ethos, logos, and pathos peppered throughout, and tie it all into your audience’s belief system, you will have a very strong argument. While Aristotle’s three persuasive appeals make appearances throughout the book, there is so much more to Words Like Loaded Pistols. Leith goes into depth regarding the five parts of rhetoric and the three branches of oratory. He also spend considerable time explaining the different figures, also known as the ‘flowers of rhetoric, which can be thought of as the literary weapons you can use in your war of words. If you have an interest in making your presentations or speeches better, or in understanding the techniques a speaker is using when you are in the audience then this book is worth the read. In the meantime, check out our post on Wartime Rhetoric for some inspiration. 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. 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 then women become and appear to be more powerful to men. What it means is that while women wield 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 feminist misandry which forces more and more men not only to abandon marriage but relationships with women altogether.

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 nonaffluent men are oppressed for most 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.

Additional References:

Anatomy of female power: A masculinist dissection of matriarchy by Chinweizu

Female forms of power and the myth of male dominance: a model of female/male interaction in peasant society by Susan Carol Rogers

Female to Male Power and the Web of Sexual Economic by Yoav Levin