#gynocentrism

[redpillfuturist215]

Society at large doesn't give a fuck about men, even if you're a survivor or rape.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

There is nothing wrong with being mindful of your own personal safety.

We all have a right to feel uncomfortable, and to act accordingly. It’s okay to cross the road to avoid others, I do this myself.

So too we should all be mindful of how we can make others feel safer when walking home at night – this is just basic common decency.

But what isn’t okay; is to fear monger, vilify and create a cultural panic around ‘men’ as a group.

To talk about men as if they’re monsters forever lurking the shadows; comparing experiences with men to walking through a room of snakes, or swimming in a shark tank, and yes, eating from a bowl of poisoned M&Ms.

This is not advocacy. This is ignorance, and hate.

Neither do such thought experiments help women ‘feel safe’ either. In fact, such terrifying analogies will likely make them feel the opposite.

Neither do you get to tell men (who are at a significantly higher risk), that they can walk the streets at whatever time they like, without fear or consequence – under the protective shield of so called ‘male privilege’.

Walking home at night is not an opportunity for you to inject your bigoted political ideas around men, or stoke fear and division.

I am tired of it.

I am tired of the endless pearl clutching.

I am tired of seeing the conversation of violent crime centred on highly privileged millionaire celebrity women, who are not at risk, and taken away from those who are – which is young, inner city, working class black boys.

I am tired of the conversation making no effort to understand what shapes violent crime, or how to reduce it, to instead fan the flames of a gender war.

I am tired of seeing tragic stories hijacked for political ends, to become yet another bludgeon to hit ‘yes all men’ with.

It is boring. It is divisive. And most of all, it doesn’t achieve anything.

So let’s look at the numbers, for a more reasonable and evidence based insight into violent crime.

--

Sources:

[1] https://tinyurl.com/5ah8vw34

[2] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-39

[3] https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2010-2019/national/asrh/nc-est2019-agesex.xlsx

[4] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/homicideinenglandandwales/march2022

[5] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31065232_Gender_motivation_and_the_accomplishment_of_street_robbery_in_the_United_Kingdom

==

Xians will thank their god for everything good in their lives, but are pathologically incapable of blaming it for the bad things that happen. It's either "free will" or "Satan" or some other excuse. This is hypocritical.

If you blame men as a category for violent crime, then you can also give credit to men as a category for the decline of violent crime over the years. To not do so would also be hypocritical.

Or you just blame the extreme minority who are actually responsible.

And if you're still like, nope, changes nothing, then okay. But just do one thing for me. Type: "I'm justified crossing the road when I encounter..." Then go look up violent crime by race, pro rata it, and see how you feel about finishing that sentence. I dare you. If one would make you feel racist about making assumptions about and blaming all members of one group, then the other should also make you feel sexist about making assumptions about and blaming all members of another group.

In fact, such terrifying analogies will likely make them feel the opposite.

This is, of course, a feature not a bug. Women's fear is a valuable political and ideological commodity.

"... as we know from the war on drugs and the war on terror, for those in the business of providing protection, high threat levels are bread and butter. Likewise, for those in the business of healing race relations, racial division is your sworn enemy but your secret friend—so much so that wounding and healing become part of the same operation." -- Lyell Asher, "Why Colleges Are Becoming Cults."

The same thing applies here. The point of stupid analogies and stories is the same as the threat of hell: to control and manipulate, to gain authority by building dependence through fostering fear.

When someone is encouraging you to be afraid, stop for a moment and ask yourself, why. What do they get out of it?

[lateantiquechud]

Atomization needs to accelerate massively. As it stands now, women have been retreating into the false interconnectedness of the internet, which allows them to be coddled even more. Their emotional dissonance spawns from their pathetic way of clinging onto "communitarian" sensibilities; constantly being "lonely" but somehow paradoxically validated by social media NPCs. They make up romanticized conflicts because solitude is a "scary" thing to them.

"lonely" men coddle them on a larger level, even through misogyny, as attention confirms their "interconnected" hivemind psychosis. Simps and crypto-simps perpetuate the cycle by confusing gynocentrism with "heterosexuality" or appeals to "naturalism". But at the end of the day, they're just being gynocentric and parasocially uplifting female strangers that aren't connected to their life

Atomization must be accelerated. Flood the internet with AI. Raise men's standards via 10/10 waifubots. The more atomized society is, the less women will be coddled. That is the solution. Gynocentrism must be removed from the soul.

[arcenciel-par-une-larme]

Gaston as the villain is scary because of his influence. Not because “he could be anyone” but because he’s so well respected and abuses that. He is the perfect example of social power being given to the wrong person. Of how someone doing good for the community does not always mean they are a good person.

Every one of us will, at some point, meet a person whose nasty, bullying behaviour is excused by the people around them, because they’re rich, or handsome, or good at sports, or their parents are important.

"Who? Connie?? Nooooo, she would never do that! She's the star of our music ministry, and a most esteemed member of our PCC! She would NEVER bully or backstab anyone! You're overreacting as usual, and that further shows that you need to fix yourself and tone it down a bit, right? You're not being very inclusive..."

[redpillfuturist215]

I knew about Terrence Popp for a long time, just through YouTube, initially. After serving the country for years family court fucked him over. He was living out of his car for a while and almost X'd himself. So upon seeing this shitbag comment I had to put him on blast.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Whilst I try to enter every conversion with an open mind, I won’t lie, whenever someone starts talking about ‘patriarchy’ this, and ‘toxic masculinity’ that, I roll my eyes and find myself acting as a parent would, when their child once again grabs hold of the microphone, to unleash a diatribe of incoherent babble.

I hear reductive, meaningless, and shame-laden neologisms pepper discourse, stoke division, and erode the value and mental health of men and boys.

I watch as we routinely and systematically deride ‘men’, and name everything bad in the world after them.

How we insult and gaslight men, pathologising innate parts of who they are as ‘toxic’, to be expunged, exorcised or corrected.

We frame men as collectively responsible.

We blame them for things they never did and are horrified by.

This slow drip of such hateful ideas naturally impacts the group consciousness of society, who have now learnt to dislike men too; including men, who continue to take their own lives in record numbers.

And whilst this ‘men vs women’ narrative might sell your angry book, look great on a placard, or shift tickets to expensive ‘positive masculinity’ workshops where the self-righteous flagellate themselves, and proselytize, with whines and crocodile tears – such ideas have little efficiency in the realm of real life.

Such ideas don’t work. Such ideas often make things worse.

They make little sense and are thankfully rejected by most of the world.

Still, damage is being done, and ought to be discussed.

So, what do you think of the profile of men, now found to be the most disliked demographic of all?

And what can we do to reframe people’s minds to value, treasure and respect men, as we do women?

What do you think?

--

Sources:

Study: "Intersectional implicit bias: Evidence for asymmetrically compounding bias and the predominance of target gender"

Center for Male Psychology: "Landmark research study finds clear evidence of pro-women/anti-men bias"

Supplementary studies:

"'Women are wonderful' Effect"

"Sentencing in Homicide Cases and the Role of Vengeance"

"Evaluations of sexual assault: perceptions of guilt and legal elements for male and female aggressors using various coercive strategies"

"Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases"

"The Thorny Challenge of Making Moral Machines: Ethical Dilemmas with Self-Driving Cars"

"Police Perceptions of Rape as Function of Victim Gender and Sexuality"

==

Bonus study: "Worth the Risk? Greater Acceptance of Instrumental Harm Befalling Men than Women"

==

Nobody who lives in a western country lives in a "patriarchy."

As evidenced by this very simple question: who are you allowed to criticize and villainize with impunity, with no expectations of repercussions?

If you lived in an actual "patriarchy," you couldn't complain about the "patriarchy." You'd suffer government and societal repercussions. Like Iran, Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.

Pretending you're the same makes you vile and repugnant. Western women are the freest, most self-determining, prosperous people who have ever walked the face of the planet at any time ever.

[gynarchy-now]

Nothing is more worthwhile than serving the Women in your life. A selfless existence serving Women is what men are meant to do.

[argirawerner]

[radical-ramblings]

G is for Gynocentrism

[doom-ocean]

"It's all men's fault! Can't point the finger at the actual problem, so men it is!"

Conservatives and feminists have more in common than they might care to acknowledge or admit..

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Eric W. Dolan

Published: Mar 2, 2024

Research suggesting men are superior to women in certain aspects is often viewed less favorably than research showing the opposite. But why? A recent study examined this issue, finding evidence that perceived harm to women is a key factor driving negative reactions to male-favoring findings. The new study has been published in the International Journal of Psychology.

“For the last few years, my lab has been studying how people react to research on sex differences,” said study author Steve Stewart-Williams (@SteveStuWill), a professor of psychology at the University of Nottingham Malaysia.

“A very consistent finding is that people react less positively to research that puts men rather than women in a better light. For example, people see fictitious research showing that men are better at drawing, more honest, or smarter than women as lower in quality than otherwise-identical fictitious research showing the reverse.”

“We wanted to know why. Our hypothesis was that a key contributor is that people see male-favoring research as more harmful to women than female-favoring research is to men. Our new paper describes an experiment we conducted to test this hypothesis.”

To conduct this exploration, the researchers recruited 433 participants through Prolific.com, an online platform known for facilitating academic research. These participants were a mix of 214 men and 219 women, ranging in age from 18 to 75 years, with a substantial majority hailing from the United Kingdom (82.4%) and the United States (14.1%).

After providing demographic information, participants were introduced to the study’s context through a preamble embedded in the introduction. This preamble was crucial, as it was designed to prime participants with a certain perspective on sex-differences research by highlighting either its potential benefits or drawbacks.

The benefits perspective was encapsulated in a quote emphasizing the risk to women’s health from ignoring sex differences in brain responses to drugs. Conversely, the drawbacks perspective featured a quote suggesting that emphasizing distinct male and female brains could exaggerate sex differences and discourage gender equality in fields like science.

Following this preamble, participants were presented with one of four versions of a popular-science article summarizing the findings of a fictional study on sex differences in intelligence. This fictional study was carefully crafted to appear legitimate, with summaries claiming either that women are more intelligent than men or vice versa.

To further manipulate the experimental conditions, the study was purported to be led by either a male or a female researcher, with names and photographs selected to avoid confounding factors related to the researchers’ perceived traits other than sex.

“As with our previous studies, we showed participants bogus research finding either a male-favoring or a female-favoring sex difference, then quizzed them about their reactions to the research,” Stewart-Williams explained. “The twist, however, was that before doing this, we surreptitiously exposed them to either a statement about how research on sex differences can be harmful to women (by reinforcing harmful stereotypes) or a statement about how it can be helpful to women (by making medical interventions safer for them).”

In line with previous findings, Stewart-Williams and his colleagues observed a general aversion to male-favoring research findings. Participants rated research that purported to show males as more intelligent than females less positively than research suggesting the opposite.

Interestingly, the sex of the participant did not significantly alter the strength of this aversion. Both men and women exhibited similar levels of negative reactions to male-favoring findings, challenging the notion that gender-ingroup bias (a preference for one’s own gender) plays a major role in these reactions.

The study also investigated the role of the fictional lead researcher’s sex in shaping reactions to the research. Here, a subtle but intriguing pattern emerged: participants reacted slightly less positively to male-led research, particularly when the findings favored males. This effect was more pronounced among male participants, suggesting that the credibility or acceptability of male-favoring findings may be somewhat contingent on the perceived gender neutrality of the researcher presenting those findings.

Another significant aspect of the study was the experimental manipulation of participants’ pre-existing attitudes towards sex-differences research through the preliminary passage they read. Those exposed to a passage highlighting the potential drawbacks of sex-differences research reacted more negatively to the fictitious findings than those who read about its potential benefits. This was especially true for female participants in the context of male-favoring research, reinforcing the idea that concerns about harm to women underpin much of the aversion to such findings.

“As predicted, participants in the ‘harmful�� condition had a stronger negative reaction to the male-favoring findings than those in the ‘helpful’ condition,” Stewart-Williams told PsyPost. “This suggests that perceived harm to women is an important driver of the aversion to male-favoring findings.”

Collectively, these findings support the notion that perceptions of harm and protective attitudes towards women play a crucial role in shaping reactions to sex-differences research. This suggests a genuine concern for the potential societal impact of male-favoring research, particularly in terms of reinforcing harmful stereotypes or undermining efforts towards gender equality.

“The male-favoring aversion comes from a good place: People want to protect women,” Stewart-Williams said. “But the fact that it comes from a good place doesn’t necessarily mean that its effects are good. I always tell students that to improve the world, we need accurate knowledge about the world. Sometimes, that knowledge might be a bit of a downer. But if we want to craft successful interventions and policy, we’re better off knowing than not knowing.”

“I’ll give you a concrete example. On average, girls and women do slightly worse than boys and men on most tests of spatial ability. That’s not good news. But because we spotted this difference, psychologists were able to develop interventions that boost people’s spatial abilities. If we’d suppressed the findings to spare people’s feelings, we wouldn’t have those interventions.”

“And of course, the same applies in reverse in areas where boys and men do worse than girls and women – in verbal abilities, for instance,” Stewart-Williams noted.

The study controlled for important factors that could influence the results, such as political correctness or social desirability bias. However, the research is not without its limitations. The generalizability of the findings across different cultures and among experts and policymakers remains to be tested. Furthermore, the study’s reliance on fictitious research summaries and preambles introduces a level of artificiality that might not fully capture the complexities of real-world reactions to sex-differences research.

“One caveat is that the study involved self-report measures, and that it’s possible that people’s responses were distorted by the desire to present themselves in a socially desirable light or by a tendency to give ‘politically correct’ answers,” Stewart-Williams explained.

“To try to control for this, we measured social desirability bias and proneness to political correctness, then reran our analyses while statistically controlling for these variables. The results were exactly the same, boosting our confidence that our findings are real. Still, it would be great if we could test the hypothesis in other ways – ways that don’t involve self-report measures.”

Despite these limitations, the study’s implications are profound, suggesting that societal and individual biases can significantly shape our reactions to scientific research, especially on contentious topics like sex differences. This bias could potentially influence the peer review process, funding decisions, and the broader scientific discourse.

“I’d just like to give a shout-out to my excellent co-authors: Dr. Christine Leong, Shania Seto, Dr. Andrew Thomas, and – first and foremost – my PhD student Xiu Ling Wong,” Stewart-Williams added. “It’s been a fun project, and I couldn’t have done it without them!”

The study, “The harm hypothesis: How perceived harm to women shapes reactions to research on sex differences,” was published January 3, 2024.

[pass-da-baton]

[wickershells]

Found this unbelievable online essay when searching for Christ’s dick(-centric) pics by the way

[colerains]

🍖🥛 Wʜᴇʀᴇ ᴡᴇᴀᴋ ᴍᴀʟᴇs ꜰᴀɪʟ, ꜱᴛʀᴏɴɢ ᴍᴇɴ ᴀᴛᴛʀᴀᴄᴛ ʜɪɢʜ-ᴠᴀʟᴜᴇ ᴡᴏᴍᴇɴ 🥛🍖

Humanstuck AU (5/12): Equius Zahhak

Humanstuck Lore: So I thought a bit about this one… As much as I love a big bara build, canonically this man is a big blood bigot. I debated what I wanted to root his prejudice in. Like, does his 'hemophobia' best translate to homophobia, racism, or misogyny?

Then it hit me… Equius is totally a toxic gym bro!

If Eridan is the classic 'nice guy,' Equius is more of a red-pilled #AlphaMale. He's got his gallon jug of 'water' (𝘪𝘵'𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵-𝘶𝘱 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘬 💀), his favorite podcast queued up (𝘈𝘯𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘸 𝘛𝘢𝘵𝘦 💀), and is a self proclaimed “social media role model.” (𝘈𝘒𝘈 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘮𝘰𝘥 💀)

He's a senior dating a freshman, and all of Nepeta's friends are concerned. She doesn't pay much attention to his masculinist monologues or gynocentrism grouses, but Equius is set on taming her wayward unlady like ways. (𝘎𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘭𝘶𝘤𝘬 𝘣𝘳𝘰. 𝘚𝘩𝘦'𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘬𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩...)

He's a self-described 'alpha male' and looks down on other men for being 'soy-boy beta males.'

I ended up going with this misogy-à-trois flavored bigotry because it fits with the whole 'gym rat' vibes. (Plus, ♐︎ is basically ♂) In the comic, one of Equius’ defining characteristics is his value of status, a sentiment echoed in the social hierarchy of the manosphere.

Also, here's a little bonus from my previous Nepeta illustration...

[mariacallous]

A few years ago I attended a manosphere conference in Orlando, Florida. One of the masculinity gurus was up on stage doing his macho man routine. He talked of ‘alpha males’ and ‘patriarchs’ and there was some Jungian waffle about initiation rituals. Then out of nowhere he began talking about ‘the Js’ acting ‘behind the scenes’. He had sprinkled it into the speech like herbs on a pizza.

At the time I found it quite shocking, though looking back it seems entirely unremarkable, not least because such sentiments have become depressingly common in certain parts of the internet. ‘They [Israel] control the Matrix. They control narratives,’ the accused sex trafficker Andrew Tate told his livestream audience in August 2024. Following his arrest that the same month, Tate also retweeted a post by the American white supremacist Nick Fuentes. ‘Just 2 days after Andrew Tate said that “the Matrix” is really just the Jewish mafia – his house was raided and he was arrested again,’ said Fuentes in the tweet promoted by Tate. Moreover earlier that year Tate had urged his followers to question whether ‘they’ lied about the Second World War and whether the Nazis were really the ‘bad guys’.

Others in the manosphere have gone the same way. Dan Bilzerian, the Instagram playboy whose ostentatious lifestyle made him a hero to adolescent males of all ages during the 2010s, has turned into a full blown Holocaust denier. ‘6 million Jews did not die during WW2, they lied to you,’ he wrote on X in January 2025. ‘Stop calling “them” Globalists, Elitists, Frankists, Sabbateanists, Communists, Deep State, Zionists, Oligarchists, Rothschild Bankers JUST SAY JEWS...’, tweeted Myron Gaines, co-host of the popular Fresh&Fit podcast, in August 2024. Others in the masculinity huckster scene talk of being ‘Jewpilled’.

The 2000s manosphere was largely made up of pickup artists. They were misogynists to be sure and displayed a cavalier attitude toward the free will of women. They gave men scripted lines and sent them out to bars and clubs to practice on unsuspecting women. Their clients were told to ‘disregard’ what women said and to ‘push through’ what was characterised as ‘token resistance’. Yet by and large they were not political misogynists - they did not launch into jaundiced three-hour diatribes about a ‘gynocentric social order’. In fact, if women found one of their clients repulsive then it was his fault rather than hers. ‘She’s not a bitch,’ as probably the most famous pickup artist - Mystery (aka Erik von Markovik) - used to tell his students; ‘she’s just a bitch to you.’

A change in tone became evident during the 2010s when self-proclaimed ‘red pill’ gurus began to emerge. In their eyes she definitely was a bitch. Whereas Mystery had dressed flamboyantly and worn kohl eyeliner to the club as part of his ‘peacocking’ routine, the new brooms of the manosphere saw men in makeup as part of the problem: a sign that society had become irredeemably feminised and degenerate.

The basic premise of the red pill is that women run the world. It is therefore unsurprising that its devotees should be susceptible to other conspiratorial beliefs. I suspect this is partly down to what has been called ‘crank magnetism’: the tendency of delusional beliefs to attract each other and become magnetic. Each is a product of the same sloppy thinking.

But the structure of manosphere misogyny is also similar in some ways to that of antisemitism. Women, like Jews, are depicted as opposites. They are both inferior and superior; weak but powerful; governed by a fluctuating tide of emotion yet simultaneously capable of crushing men under the jackboot of feminism.

One way to resolve such tensions is to view women as doing someone else’s bidding. And so they become marionettes, controlled by dark forces pulling the strings behind the scenes. That those behind the curtain should turn out to be Jews is less surprising when one considers the increasing overlap between the manosphere and the far-right.

[redpillfuturist215]

Good pic for the quote...

"Teach your sons to be men before teachers teach them to be women"