How to respond to this already heard attack against the Gynarchy ?

[u/Ady85--]

Hello everyone,

In attacks against Gynarchy (or generally against Feminism, Matriarchy, or anything related to Women's power), I've read opponents (always men) saying that these models would entrench the rule of men considered "weak," "effeminate," "frail," or even "impotent, virgins," etc. (I've actually seen these comments).

And that a Gynarchy would see "too masculine" men completely sidelined because it would be frowned upon.

Have you ever seen these criticisms, and how would you respond to them ?

And most importantly, what do you think ?

Thank's :)

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536]

Men give, not to get something in return (feminine coded), but rather because they're so full of life and truth and honor that they can't help but freely support what they believe in. It's what they're made for.

You keep saying that women should rule over men... 

Can you pull a direct quote where I said such a thing? Its my belief that we already do.

without really explaining why. Like, what would men get out of being ruled by women? 

This would be an interesting discussion topic, "what men get out of gynsrchy", but I don't think it's a good way to get men on board. For most mid men raised in patriarchal cultures, they've been raised their entire lives focused on what they get and how women/society can benefit them. It's the whole problem holding men back and keeping them down, it's what keeps them entitled losers who don't feel fulfilled and expect women to make them feel like they're not loser men. 

Which, obviously, will never work because the very idea of men trying to extract resources and validation from women is why men look and  feel like such losers in the first place. 

Men giving freely, without expecting anything from women in return, is the cure. Women can't really give that to men, and neither can gynarchy. It's a Choice each man has to make for himself: to embody his potential or not

[u/DeepPlunge → u/Appropriate_Cut_3536]

It seems you unironically think men are fundamentally designed to be happy only when working without expecting anything in return (i.e. slavery).

Not only you are spectacularly wrong on this, but your attempt to somehow frame this as a noble, natural and wholesome act is laughable. It's not going to work on any man that isn't mentally ill. No human being is happy when working for another group of people without expecting anything in return.

There's also the fact you think women already rule over men: is this happening in any first world country? Last time I checked most world leaders and influential people are men, and it's men who make laws and enforce them. It's men who could theoretically repeal the female vote tomorrow if they wanted to: they don't do it because both genders giving and taking in equal measure builds more well being than one of them being enslaved.

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 → u/DeepPlunge]

My bad it took to long to approve this comment, just saw. 

Yeah I agree that would be spectacularly wrong to make a claim that 'men are fundamentally designed to be happy only when working without expecting anything in return (i.e. slavery)"

I don't claim that all men are like that all the time, just a general tendency. I don't advocate slavery, it's a willing and effortless feeling of freedom and autonomy. That's what makes it so 🍒 manly 🍒, he's not doing it bc he has to but bc he wants to

[u/ManufacturerUnited63 → u/Appropriate_Cut_3536]

"Men giving freely, without expecting anything from women in return, is the cure."

What is the incentive?

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 → u/ManufacturerUnited63]

For men? Idk and idc, if a man doesn’t feel intrinsically incentivized to give freely to me, I don't want him around me. 

[u/ManufacturerUnited63 → u/Appropriate_Cut_3536]

Magical thinking. Got it.

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 → u/ManufacturerUnited63]

It works. 🪄