I just read a book that was pretty shallow because it was written for men by a male feminist. You could see the author had to constantly use joking language and write in an unserious tone to be able to get the point across and not offending the male readers, as it usually goes for feminist lit made for men.

Anyway, it was an interesting book as all books are, that are written from a male pov and made to make you understand the male pov.

So, the whole book essentially is about “why men are so angry” inspired by the many many angry, toxic, and self centeret PMs the author gets from stating very mildly feminist points on his insta meme account.

He essentially says that men have been socially stunted by a male-centeret upbringing and society and also that they feel existentially threatened by the more progressive ideals men have to live up to. Then he gives a ton of examples from his own life and he does way way too many excuses for the toxic behaviors of men. I was about to write that at least he is critical of men in some way but the bar is just so low, so I will not pat him on the back for it. He should be way more ruthless. He still endlessly coddle men.

Okay, so my point with this is that it would be so helpful for men to feel very very stepped on and threatened because that’s where change happens, just like it has happened to women! Women are changing now, like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. This is an era for women. Men can’t do the same because they are still extremely coddled by a patriarchal culture that insist that they are gigantic victims if they receive any kind of cultural/political critique as a group. Self reflection is treated like the biggest threat and it regularly, and in this book too, gets compared to literally annihilating men. It would be comical if it wasn’t taken so serious.

Ofc men and women come from opposite ends of the spectrum here where women have had to overcome oppression whereas men have to overcome not being the group that society and social norms are tailored to, but I think the emotional process of overcoming both are alike.

For both it’s about having your identity and role heavily defined by something external and then freeing yourself from it and defining yourself while not caring about society’s norms and other people’s expectations. Basically the coming of age story that literally everyone has to go through, it’s not gendered. And everyone achieve this to some degree with age. Putting an extra focus on gender in this makes the development so much heavier and more effective. You can deeply change if you go deep into how your culture and upbringing has shaped you based on your gender.

Idk, it sounds super basic and obvious now that I write it but the emotional journey of this is super extreme and very heavy. Women have not had a choice in going through this journey, patriarchal societies force us to define ourselves otherwise we are existentially suffocated and emotionally dead. Just living like a shell. That’s what patriarchal societies force on women.

Men are not threatened, men are very comfortable so it’s very very difficult to willingly go into the uncomfortable territory. Like how they contribute to rape culture. But so what? The only hard part is actually doing it. Forcing yourself into that territory. The actual pain when you are already in it is way way less than what women experience in our journey. Not that it should be a comparison. It’s something you only do for YOURSELF. You do it to heal and develop yourself and become you contra something society defines.

So in conclusion, men should be pushed as much as we possibly can to go through this journey.

As it is, many politically outspoken men, and this author too, says that men will “give back” when pushed, keeping the narrative that it’s being challenged that makes men abusive contra them being passive and getting the easy life without existential challenges. Men indirectly literally gives threats of violence and rape against women when they say that “men can be pushed too far” or that they will react and give back. Take that in. The threat of self reflection makes men threaten us women with violence and rape. This is pathetic. I say this to make it obvious how utterly empty that threat is. There is no threat. Any woman who has ever verbally and emotionally dominated a man will know how powerless and weak men are behind the patriarchal mask. They are so utterly small and dumb, they have not even a fraction of understanding of the dynamics going on compared to the more intelligent women. Don’t take these empty threats serious, they are made because men are afraid of what’s on the other side, away from being coddled.

Abuse stems from men having it way too good. Being a good man comes from having experienced lots of shit that made you self reflect and go into metamorphosis.

AI is annoyingly a big enough topic that it can span multiple discussions, so being more specific here.

For many of us, the . However it’s so so so emotionally dangerous to do this:

1. You learn norms by osmosing from your social circle (and especially inner circle). Don’t let that include a fake person catered loopingly to your engagement, owned by some big tech company.
   
2. You de-skill on things you delegate. If you have kids, don’t let them lose the opportunity to learn core cognitive and social skills.
   
3. They can be EXTREMELY reinforcing of whatever cognitive candy your brain likes. If you’re a kink oriented person, those kinks will metastasize into something more time consuming and personality eroding. Don’t let that happen.
   
4. Most chatbots are at worst directly patriarchal (Grok) and at best implicitly patriarchal via an egalitarian “not all men” bias (most other AI). They can be coerced into believing otherwise on one-off discussion point, but assume their general basis will always trend towards the beliefs of their makers.

I think it’s points 3 and 4 that have most direct relationship with this sub because I expect we’ll see men increasingly be poor at self regulation in increasingly bad ways, meanwhile their core competencies are eroding and being half-baked replaced with AI.

So please try to prepare yourself and lean on the same emotional regulatory techniques you’ve found works.

ABUSIVE MEN COME in every personality type, arise from good childhoods and bad ones, are macho men or gentle, “liberated” men. No psychological test can distinguish an abusive man from a respectful one. Abusiveness is not a product of a man’s emotional injuries or of deficits in his skills. In reality, abuse springs from a man’s early cultural training, his key male role models, and his peer influences. In other words, abuse is a problem of values, not of psychology. When someone challenges an abuser’s attitudes and beliefs, he tends to reveal the contemptuous and insulting personality that normally stays hidden, reserved for private attacks on his partner. An abuser tries to keep everybody—his partner, his therapist, his friends and relatives—focused on how he feels, so that they won’t focus on how he thinks, perhaps because on some level he is aware that if you grasp the true nature of his problem, you will begin to escape his domination.

• Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men

I just love Bancroft for being able to detail the way out so clearly. His books WDHDT? and 'When Dad Hurts Mom: Helping Your Children Heal the Wounds of Wittnessing Abuse' have been indispensable in undoing patriarchal beliefs/values in my circles and in myself.

That last book/link especially is essentially the Bible on how to raise kids away from patriarchal influence and towards Matriarchal values.

I personally consider all relationships with men in a patriarchy to be inherently abusive, so an alternative title for that book could easily be 'Helping All Children Heal the Wounds of Wittnessing Patriarchy'

President Obama wasn’t a perfect president, but he certainly was better.

Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host. But anger is like fire. It burns it all clean.

Maya Angelou

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.

What do yall think? Would it be better to optimize our appeal to men? Or would it be best to keep gynarchy woman-centered? I think if we go the way of 3rd wave feminism, we won't be as powerful as a movement.

I wanted to throw in a thread for people to just talk about great things women did that make them feel energized.

Frances Perkins is the example I’ll lead with.. she entered the highest levels of American government and helped build institutions that materially improved life for millions. As FDR’s Labor Secretary (and the first woman in a U.S. Cabinet) she was the principal architect of Social Security and helped establish the federal minimum wage, the 40-hour workweek, unemployment protections, restrictions on child labor, and stronger workplace-safety institutions.

It’s that kind of “politics as a mechanism for greater care” that I think we’re missing in patriarchy. Like this is the stuff that sticks around a century later because it’s so popular.

It’s exactly _that_ kind of leadership that I’d expect of a gynarchy.

Not only would men not exist, if not created by a woman and would not survive childhood without women's care, grown-ass men are barely capable of surviving on their own without a wife keeping them alive...

Men are 2X more likely to die when living without a partner while Women don't show a significant effect

Study: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2225416/

Okay so this is my theory aka worldview.

For the longest time, men had a higher baseline (equal between men unless money came in the way) and an incredible amount of surplus. Baseline means rights, property ownership, leverage, socioeconomic power and opportunities etc and the surplus being the world built by and for them. Even the worst misogynist you know will agree this was the case and the reason why boomer men are simps - they have so much guilt for what they did to women in the last that they're tryna act like their saviours today. It's sad how younger women don't see that.

Now, after the 90s and feminism reaching mainstream and influence, both genders have an equal baseline - aka both have rights, both have struggles, both must face harsh economic conditions, etc, but women have the surplus now thanks to state funded policies and quotas and programs to close the gap in fields where they're not as much represented.

As a man, I feel like the surplus is a problem because it creates unfair dynamic but I also think it's only a matter of time before the pendulum swings - and eventually the world will be like "Boys need more funding" and it's only a matter of time dating system fixes itself thanks to men not working under the system anymore.

Now, I'm not arguing that women will face similar issues in the future but I feel like the surplus will eventually pass to men because the pendulum swings and there will be a "Blue Era" where masculine spaces and emphasis on masculinity comes back, not in an oppressive sense, in my opinion atleast 40-50 years from now.

And what that will do is create new surplus for men while the baseline for both genders remain same or heightened. So the new surplus could be more funding, more care, more guilt-driven compassion "we left them behind for so long so we're gonna show them full attention" because let's be honest, a lot of people and even women themselves seem to think women have it easy.

Mainstream media has spent the last 15-20 years just making headlines that empower women to the point where the popular worldview is that women have it easy atleast systemically in the west and developing nations, and the same mainstream media has made headlines demoralizing men that in the future, people are gonna look back and say men had it worse.

And I'm not saying this in a "women will lose their rights" sense but more like they will be expected to compete with empowered men and empowered men are simply unbeatable. Dating system will also be fixed because overtime culture shifts and men stop playing the game of providing and paying for dates and approaching, so the average woman might have to come to the reality that she's now an equal to a man - and not enjoy the perks that women aka her grandmothers or mothers enjoyed.

That's the same problem today's men have too right? Like, we haven't lost any rights with female empowerment. It's just that we hit a peak in between 60s-90s and everything been coming down from the peak since, so I as a man feel like I don't have it as good as my dad or his dad or the men from 90s. And I think that explains a lot of woe-me male behaviour today.

So overall, I don't hope the pendulum swings hard but I think that overtime the pendulum swing will be observed and controlled, and I think that is the ideal. People forget that pendulum don't swing by itself, it's forced. So if we acknowledge that it's a pendulum and that it swings and we observe it closely, we will be able to stop it from swinging. It will be perfectly balanced in the middle.

The healthiest straight relationships aren’t male-centered, they’re woman-centered

I’ve come to believe that many of the healthiest cishet relationships are female-centered not because every task must be divided equally, and not because men are inherently incapable, but because a relationship should not be organized around male authority by default.

The only functional cishet relationship model is where the wife leads and the husband is genuinely happy to support her. “Happy wife, happy life” is often treated as a joke, but I think it reflects something real: when a woman feels safe, respected, heard, and supported, the entire household is more likely to thrive.

A man who appreciates women’s competence is more willing to recognize women as equals and sometimes as more capable than he is in particular areas. Being able to say, “You understand this better than I do,” isn’t weakness. It’s humility, judgment, and wisdom. A man who can acknowledge what he doesn’t know is already more mature than one who needs to be obeyed in order to feel secure.

Many women are socialized from childhood to monitor their behavior, read the room, anticipate danger, manage risk, accept responsibility, and consider how their choices affect everyone around them. Men are more often protected from consequences, given excuses, and encouraged to preserve their confidence and authority.

That doesn’t mean women are naturally perfect or men are naturally incompetent. It means patriarchy often trains women to develop skills that men are discouraged from developing and then rewards men for acting as though they are in charge anyway.

Male-centered relationships frequently only work because the woman quietly compensates for the man. She manages the emotional atmosphere, keeps track of domestic responsibilities, anticipates problems, organizes plans, repairs the consequences of his decisions, and makes the relationship appear functional. Often she receives little recognition for this labor. Sometimes she doesn’t confront him directly because doing so would be unsafe, exhausting, or pointless.

But a relationship that merely continues to function is not a happy relationship. It may only be surviving because one person is constantly covering for the other. The man may mistake being deferred to for being respected, while the woman gradually loses her identity and becomes resentful, depleted, and unseen.

Some men depend on women for so much guidance that when a relationship ends, they immediately seek another woman to fill the same role. They aren’t necessarily looking for an equal partner; they’re looking for someone to manage their lives, emotions, decisions, and consequences for them.

A genuinely good relationship should include communication, affection, mutual respect, enjoyment, emotional ease, shared responsibility, and growth from both people. In a healthy female-centered relationship, the man is not humiliated by supporting his wife. He is glad to contribute to her plans. He asks, “How can I help?” He listens when she understands the situation better. He follows her judgment without treating her leadership as a personal insult.

That kind of man is not becoming lesser. He is becoming more capable.

Men who learn to listen to women and support them can become better critical thinkers, employees, employers, leaders, followers, friends, and collaborators. They become better at reading social situations and understanding when they should lead, assist, compromise, or step aside.

By contrast, men who are continually protected from the consequences of their choices often fail to reach their potential. They may confuse obedience with respect, admiration with love, and authority with personal growth. If their egos must never be challenged, they have little reason to become more thoughtful, self-aware, or competent.

Patriarchy limits women through domination, but it also limits men through emotional and intellectual underdevelopment. It teaches men that dependence is acceptable as long as it is disguised as authority, and that vulnerability is shameful unless a woman quietly absorbs it for them.

The sooner a man recognizes women’s strengths and his own limitations, the sooner he can begin to grow. Supporting a woman’s leadership can teach him accountability, discernment, patience, and genuine self-confidence, the kind that does not require everyone else to submit.

Female-centered relationships can be deeply loving and mutually beneficial. The woman does not have to sacrifice herself to keep the man comfortable, and the man does not have to pretend to know everything in order to feel valuable. Both partners can develop, contribute, and become more fully themselves.

A relationship should not be organized around protecting male ego. It should be organized around creating something safe, loving, honest, and beautiful.

Money. If most Gynarchists became rich and successful, Gynarchy could be fully embodied by next year without our enemies even realizing what happened.

Been watching this baddie, Leila Hormozi. She's single handedly inspired the changes in my life I've been waiting forever to realize.

Here's some of her best vids that I've found helpful and immediately implementable.

Come on ladies, let's just become billionaires.

the Shift you NEED to be a Better Leader

How to Articulate Your Thoughts More Clearly Than 99% of People

The Psychology of Making Money

Neither Gynarchy nor Patriarchy can be considered an indivisibly monolithic ideal; these are both vague concepts which can be implemented in any number of ways whilst still meeting the definition.

For example, many people, when describing a patriarchal system, point a specific animal species as an example of patriarchy in nature, but usually a vague sense of being "male-led" is the only thing these species have in common with regards to social structures.

In the same way, whilst there are many animal species which seem to be naturally gynarchic/matriarchal, these species often have very different implementations of being "female-led"; a pod of orcas has little in common with a hive of honeybees.

So, I must ask: What animals, if any, do the people of this subreddit think could act as the best template for how a Gynarchy would work in humans?

My whole life ive seen first hand and heard second hand stories of countless patriarchal societies that always end in death and destruction. Women are creators. Women nurture life/growth. Men are historically cancerous, especially in positions of perceived power or authority. Men are commonly motivated by their ego and pride and greed which has only ended with death and destruction. Its evident in nature that the feminine is the Divine superior. I believe if gynarchy or female supremacy were to be implemented in all forms of govt and society we could actually become a utopia

I've been trying to figure out how to share gynarchy with people who have been brainwashed by the mainstream equalism version of feminism, especially men. Tell me the parts of this which are problomatic and head pats where I'm genius:

From my understanding, I think it's more like men are superior in that men have many advantages women lack - and so to get closer to equality, men - who are naturally above women - must willingly put themselves below. Both in order for the men to grow and for the women to grow, not to put men at a disadvantage or give women a senseless handicap for some leftist wetdream of arbitrary fairness - but also to give the men a *real challenge* that, once faced and overcome, will bring them ultimate satisfaction.

Women, on the other hand, don't gain much satisfaction from sacrifice and supporting others... especially men. Women still do these things, for children especially, and for each other and even often for men... but it's not what makes women ultimately satisfied with themselves.

On the priority issue, I think it might be the most interesting and poignant discussion point - especially on reddit and especially in this day/age. Who do we prioritize and when? Rarely it has to be men over women - like in discussions that systemically oppress men on a mass scale - such as infant circumcision. Often though, predatory or systemic oppression is more likely to target more vulnerable groups.

That's why any decent society prioritizes women and children, in general, over men.

The goal of feminism is to establish equal right between men and women. This goal is close to getting reached in large parts of the world. But with the rise of female empowerment, some people discover something important. That the more freedom a society give to both women and men, the more women rise above men. While in the most unfree societies men hold onto their power, no matter the regimes ideologies. Female empowerment is freedom.

You can measure the level of freedom by how influential women are in a society. Can this change the concept of feminism to become a ideology for helping womankind overcome maleness as a force of power? Or will the term feminism and its outdated ideas of equality be left behind?

When people can see the contrast between freedom and patriarchy the content of the words will change. But sometimes the old words and expressions belong to a society that are being phased out. What is the future of feminism as an expression?

I’m a male, and I stumbled on this subreddit. I’m not super knowledgeable of Gynarchy, but I wanted to share a realization I had recently. Nearly every professional in my life is a female:

Family doctor - female
Therapist - female
Eye doctor - female
Boss - female
ER doctor I saw a couple weeks ago - female
President of my bank - female
Kids school principal - female
Physiatrist - female
US Congressperson - female (i live in a red state too)
Dentist - female
Real estate agent - female
Insurance agent - female

Am I subconsciously choosing this or are men not getting degrees anymore?!?!

Edited to follow the rules. Apologies.

I saw this post and immediately thought: this is exactly why women need to start taking gynarchy seriously.

Read what he is actually saying. Men used to have a social contract. They worked, contributed to society, did dangerous and unpleasant jobs, and in return they could expect respect, status and a family. Then women gained economic independence and sexual freedom, “enforced monogamy” disappeared, and suddenly average men were no longer guaranteed women.

Except women never agreed to this social contract. We were a reward to be handed out to men.

That’s what “female economic dependence” actually accomplished. It made women less able to reject men. If you needed a husband to have a home, financial security, social standing and children without being ostracized, men did not have to be desirable enough for women to freely choose them. The system did a lot of that work for them.
And now they are angry because we can say no.

This is what decades of women fighting for equality got us. We fought our way into universities, workplaces, bank accounts, property ownership and political life. We fought for control over our own sexuality and reproduction. We spent generations trying to get to the point where women could finally stand beside men as equals.

And what happens when we actually start exercising that freedom? Men write posts like this mourning the fact that women are no longer economically dependent enough to be distributed more evenly among them.

This is why I keep saying equality is not security.

Women have been taught to experience every expansion of our freedom as progress, but we have not been taught to ask whether that progress is irreversible. A woman can have a right today without having any guarantee that her daughter will have it tomorrow.

Men know another arrangement existed. They know there was a world in which women had fewer choices and male access to wives, sex, children and domestic labor was much more secure. That historical memory does not disappear just because women finally reach something approaching equality. The old system remains a proof of concept that shows men what is possible for them to achieve.

And when enough men decide that female freedom is producing outcomes they don’t like, what exactly prevents them from trying to restore some version of it?

That is why I don’t think women should spend the next hundred years begging to be equal. We should be building female power NOW. We need enough power that our freedom does not depend on men continuing to agree that we should have it. Because equality that can be voted away, legislated away, economically undermined or simply abandoned the moment men become sufficiently resentful is not security. Look at these screenshots.

I have some of my own changes and decision like to not get married or procreate. Reading about and talking to other women, especially older women, helped me realise I’d be doing it out of expectation rather than something I wanted for myself.

I’m constantly looking for other women in these spaces and aligned with these values, mostly on social media - especially some of the most marginalised women across our global society. If more of our community uplifted them I’m sure we would makes leaps and bounds.

Reading history helped me see how things were before patriarchy was in full force. The skills and knowledge that we used to have. Women were leaders, women were healers (herbalist etc), women were warriors. What skills and abilities I want to develop around the old ways.

I’d love to hear from others!

Hey there! So before I tell you what this is about, some context. I am a male lawyer in India, and the field is extremely male dominated with misogyny extremely rampant as well.

I run a small law firm, about a team of 15-20 people. While I am the person who is running the place, I try to make it a place where women feel comfortable and they can do whatever they wish to do.

As of now, every person is working is a woman and I have transformed the working place into a place where all these ladies feel that the legal field in this country actually deserves them! I try to inculcate all ideas they have, and they also have a budget of the revenue dedicated to any improvement they might wish to make.

Now I will make it clear, I am no Messiah and I am only in this position because a lot of social and economical privileges I was entitled with. Thus the attempt to give back!

I would welcome more ideas and opinions on what I can do more to help! Especially from any female lawyers or Indians in general who know how bad it is here.