Gynocentrism

Past Male Authority Delusion and Father Need.

male authority
Comments (13)
  1. Max Hydrogen says:

    Women invented the Male Authority Myth because they desire it.

  2. It’s funny, soooo many feminist’s are obsessed with S&M&M’s…..

    yet they hate Nice Guys ™ more than anything else….

    and they insist men are privileged….

    As a man, it is get in line, do as you are told and shut the fuck up….

  3. GhostThinker says:

    I up voted your post, but I ask one question, who controls and exploits the one in a million (1iM)?
    I submit that it is the various females in their lives. In my opinion, that gets us back to my personal contention that the patriarchy is not a male institution at all but, in fact, is a highly misrepresented and fraudulent female institution run surreptitiously by and for the benefit of females. It is simply leadership from behind. It is, in my mind, nothing but a manifestation of the ‘Iron Rule of Hypergamy©’ and of Briffault’s Law, two sister paradigms.
    The real power brokers are seldom, if ever, in full view, but always in the shadows. I’ve long known of this concept and have used it during my professional life to some distinct advantage.
    By way of example look at the various American leaders and identify who controls each of them. I believe it all leads back to the gynocracy. I believe the patriarchy leads back to a simple concept — rule by pussy. Look to the supporters of VAWA? The supporters and implementers of the so-called primary aggressor? The stripping of fundamental rights from male college students? The new ¿rape? laws. The unlimited squander of scarce tax dollars?
    That is why I have been a Ghost for some two decades. And a MGTOW for many more decades. At least, during this last decade, I finally have a few with whom I can walk! I love the arguments that MGTOW engenders.
    (An argument is “a form of expression consisting of a coherent set of reasons presenting or supporting a point of view; a series of reasons given for or against a matter — thefreedictionary.com”; arguments are used in law, philosophy or any learned discussion. There has been a lot of learned discussion in MGTOW. That is why there is so much push back.)
    (My definition of the ‘Iron Rule of Hypergamy©’ is:
    A woman is intrinsically driven to acquire a male provider/protector, generally with the highest economic or social status available in comparison to her own situation, in order to acquire money, resources, prestige, status and/or power for her own personal gratification primarily through the use of her stock-in-trade, that is through the use of her body and/or the use of her future offspring.
    Sub 1: Where an upgrade male is not available she will attach herself to the next suitable male substitute for the interim.
    Sub 2: Where due to major personal defects, no suitable male or substitute is available to her, she will attach herself to the public teat of the government.
    Sub 3: When the acquired male, at some point, fails to meet the required criteria, or her criteria morphs, she will feel compelled to acquire additional benefits from a new male or male substitute of equal or higher status to her then current status while attempting to retain all the benefits previously acquired.)

  4. Male-Male competition DOES NOT disprove male authority OVER WOMEN!

    These men who had no authority in society at large still had authority over their wives and children. There are levels within a society, with men at the head of each, and men at the head of all. Men lost their authority in their own homes, hence MGTOW. That doesn’t mean all men were kings back in the day.

    The 1iM King ruled over other men, but those men rules over their homes and families.

    The bottom line is that there will NEVER and can NEVER be a society where men as a group benefit together because of male competition. Even if humans became asexual through technology, there would still be resources to fight over. However, to say that this somehow disproves patriarchy, or proves that even the most male-dominated society was actually gynocentric because men were exploited by other men is insane.

    1. big_red01027 says:

      “These men who had no authority in society at large still had authority over their wives and children”.

      Until they gave their wives the right to vote, that is.

  5. Tim says:

    Watched a special today on the Murder of Jarrod Davidson. Who murdered him? His X wife Kaylee and her parents Phil and Malinda Jones.

    Because he was such a great guy, people were stunned that someone would want to murder Jarrod. Why was he murdered? After being lured into signing the suicide contract (marriage contract), his wife transformed into a psycho (you never hear of that happening). Once it became clear to Jarrod that he’d been hoodwinked, he filed for divorce. His X Kaylee was given custody of their toddler daughter (rarely do women get custody) and Jarrod was granted visitation.

    Surprisingly, Kaylee tried to make Jarrod’s life a living hell by blocking him from seeing his daughter (rarely do women use this tactic to torture men). A custody battle ensued. To maintain custody, Kaylee filed false charges of molestation (you never hear of women using false allegations to ruin men’s lives) against Jarrod and a plot was launched – spearheaded by the matriarch Malinda Jones – to murder Jarrod. Rarely do mother-in-laws become guard dogs against their son-in-laws when it comes to custody of their grandchild. Just never happens.

    What was Kaylee’s punishment for her part in Jarrod’s untimely demise? A year and a half in prison. What were her parent’s punishments? Life in prison. The only reason any of the Jones family were arrested is because the matriarch left her DNA on a part of a potted plant. Their alibi was also ruined by cell tower pings indicating they weren’t 90 miles away as they originally claimed What was the potted plant’s part in the murder? In combination with a knock on his residence front door, it was used to lure Jarrod from his dwelling out on to his front stoop so that he could be easily shot. Shot by whom? Why, by the white knight father-in-law, of course.

    Men are privileged? Men are manipulated, used, programmed and brainwashed into volunteering for the role of disposable utility. By whom? Answer that question and all that’s misunderstood suddenly becomes crystal clear.

    What’s the moral of the story? (1) Never sign the suicide contract for men (marriage contact) and (2) never give a woman power over your life physically, psychologically, emotionally, socially, spiritually, legally or financially. The gynocracy is chock full of pathologically narcissistic sociopaths. Beware those that try to convince you that women’s current condition is all men’s fault. Remember, the women’s movement was about (1) destroying the patriarchy, (2) freeing women from the slavery of marriage and (3) women’s sexual liberation. Many will jump through dozens of levels of mental hoops to make this too men’s fault.

    Now get out there and MAN UP! Marriage is wonderful! Trust me!

    1. Tim says:

      Self-correction. Jarrod’s X wife’s name is spelled Kelee, not Kaylee.

  6. braininavat says:

    I really enjoyed this analysis. TFM has pointed out that, “Male-Male competition DOES NOT disprove male authority OVER WOMEN!” But it does not follow that, “These men who had no authority in society at large still had authority over their wives and children.” This is because, as GhostThinker pointed out, the 1iM man may well be controlled by the woman or women in his life (this does not have to wait until women get the vote).

    Somewhere someone recently pointed out that women would rather share a highly successful man that have a less successful man for their own. This is an obvious consequence of hypergamy and of a society that facilitates, rather than curtails, hypergamy. The 1iM man can easily support multiple women (some as mistresses, some as prostitutes, some a FWB, some as hangers-on, etc.), and a 1iM man who allows himself to fall into this trap of plentifully available pussy (because of his status) will likely so pulled one way and then another by all these women (perhaps a wife also) that he will rarely achieve his own personal ends, being so busy serving the ends of the women in his life.

    One interesting thing about such a society that I have not seen described or developed in an explicit form is woman who follow their hypergamy but who do not fully understand or appreciate the male dominance hierarchy, or what exactly confers prestige. Probably everyone in their own life is aware of women who hooked up with a guy who bragged a lot about what he was going to do, but turned out to be a blowhard. When the dull-witted woman finally catches on that she has not hitched her wagon to a star, she goes on to find another blowhard. PUA attempt to consciously fashion themselves into being just such a blowhard in order to temporarily enjoy the sexual favors of such easily duped women before they catch on.

    Women understand obvious status symbols like wealth and the lifestyle that can be purchased by wealth, but this can be distracting. Donald Trump is very wealthy and is running for president — clearly a high status individual — but many people regard him as a figure of fun, a clown, despite his success. He gets little respect. Other much more “powerful” men are much more low key. Many mafia bosses keep a very low profile, though everyone in the associated community knows who it is that calls the shots. Some years ago when a big Cosa Nostra boss was caught in Sicily he was found living in a barn — but he was a very powerful man. Someone (i.e., some women) observing from the outside without understanding the detailed social cues might well rate one of the underbosses higher than the boss, because the underboss wears a flashy suit.

    So even the most aggressively hypergamous woman may make serious mistakes in judgment as to male status, and she may do so repeatedly until she’s hit the wall and ends up used and worn without the status she had hoped to possess by this age. Hypergamy is a tough taskmaster, and if followed without discipline and discernment it ends up more or less destroying its less talented adepts.

    The clever girls know this, and they don’t ride the cock carrousel. They learn how to judge the subtle expressions of respect and authority within the male dominance hierarchy, and rationally and realistically set their sights on the highest up partner they can expect to get for themselves. Ultimately, these woman are the most dangerous, as they have harnessed their hypergamy to cunning and manipulation, successfully clawing their way up the cattiness of the female dominance hierarchy.

    The 1iM man mentioned above is likely to the target of a clever woman, and not one of the dumb cunts that burn themselves out. Therefore the 1iM man is dealing with weaponized hypergamy, and he is likely to be completely unaware of the degree to which he is manipulated, because in this context his manipulator is on the top of her game. I think this will also be born out to a lesser extent at each level of society.

    à bon chat, bon rat.

    1. GhostThinker says:

      I completely agree with your comment on weaponized hypergamy. The higher up the apexual hierarchy you go the more weaponized the female will become, and when beauty meets brains, look out.

      This is the blow job that Barbarossa talks about, where a MGTOW finds a NAWALT. A MGTOW who has resources must always be aware of a weaponized hypergamous female.

      I pulled this from Dear Abby, Page 10, Section 1, the Milwaukee Sentinel, Thursday June 15, 1967. ‘Life with a beautiful woman is sheer purgatory’. When you add hypergamous intellect, life would be sheer hell. This is what the 1iM male has to look out for. He is every bit the worker drone as every other male is, just with a higher standard of living, more to lose and further to fall.

  7. GhostThinker says:

    All males tend to be competitive, some more than others. Success at competition depends on a multitude of factors, some positive and some negative, including heredity, charisma, strength, intellect, empathy, viciousness, sociopathy, among others. This sorts out into a apexual hierarchy (shout out to TyphonBlue) with an almost infinite multitude of mini-apexual hierarchies within. That is the lattice that maintains the structural cohesion of the ‘iceberg’. This continues to this day. The only difference now is that in some instances women are physically replacing men at the apex of some hierarchies, more than in the past as some women are giving up covert power for overt power.

    Management theory is rift with other structures such as quality circles, flat management and inverted management. (Theory of Management by Peter Drucker and other management treatises) They may succeed in some instances but they tend to fail over time in favour of the apexual hierarchy. Management theory is nominally about the devolution of power within power structures (mini-apexual hierarchies).

    A late friend used to claim that the world was essentially controlled by no more than two, maybe three dozen families (clans, dynasties, whatever) with eight to a dozen controlling the West. I tend to agree with some current thinkers and writers that this power structure is currently in flux today with challenges and counter challenges.

    My contention is that much of the power within the apexual hierarchy is often illusionary inasmuch as it is normally constrained. To quote, “That doesn’t mean all men were kings back in the day. TFM” and “Male Authority Delusion. JDG” However, TFM and JDG both appear to feel that men control the apex or the 1iM. I don’t. I have often seen a very powerful man who is controlled by the ‘little woman’. For example, if she wants certain legislation passed, that legislation is passed come hell or high water. As I contended, earlier, the true power brokers tend to operate in the shadows, pulling the strings. In most cases, it has been my experience that even those apexual males pulling the strings have women pulling their strings, except where it doesn’t matter to the women and as long as the males please them.

    I have noticed that at all levels of society, it is the women who generally have the essential underlying power, but not generally the overt power, that is ‘devolved’ to the male, the beast of burden, the worker drone. It was the women who cracked the whip way back in the day. My late father-in-law maintained that it was always so but that ‘now’ it was more ‘out in the open’ (and that ‘now’ was back in the sixties, he was born around the turn of the century). This quote from Dear Abby, Page 10, Section 1, the Milwaukee Sentinel, Thursday June 15, 1967. ‘Life with a beautiful woman is sheer purgatory’ also supports this contention.

    I fully admit that men usually have overt power, but, in my opinion, lack, for the most part, covert power, or essential underlying power. My argument is that while men may have overt power, it is the covert power where true power rests. If you define the patriarchy as simply overt power, I would agree, but I still feel that the ‘overt’ patriarchy is still essentially controlled by covert feminine power who dictates to the patriarchy and controls it. What the MRA apparently fights appears much like covert power to me. That is why I am MGTOW not MRA. You can fight overt power and sometimes win, but you seldom win against covert power.

    I would much rather have covert power than overt power.

  8. elementaltruth says:

    GhostThinker, I understand what you are saying. But where I grew up and as what my culture originally holds is that the man main decision maker. I see the difference between covert and overt power. The men of my culture don’t let the women control them. They are extremely intelligent and know most or all of women’s tricks. I move to north america after all and learning about north american culture, gynocentrism seems disgusting. The guys of my culture would often tell other guys tips. I don’t want to say too much but, a wife would usually follow along there and not lead the family, they would stick to their household chores and let the man do his thing.

  9. Lekhosi says:

    The relationship between man and woman is like that between owners and CEO. In the past a man (ceo) would run the company, take risk and all for the benefit of the owners (woman). Because of his running of the company (family) in his own image it gave an appearence that his was an owner but reality is that he can always be required to die at any time for the company at a drop of a hat.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *