This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀

This post is sure to get me called ‘mean’ by other women, mostly women who call themselves ‘feminists’, and to me, that is a great indicator that I’m speaking a truth that hits a little too close to home. In other words, this is the mark of a successful post. ‘Mean’, when used in these situations, tends to end up being tone or language policing of clear or blunt words, as I try my best not to infantilize women by denying their role in their own oppression or using euphemisms to downplay the ridiculousness of behaviours and situations. And calling feminists ‘mean’ can also be a standard and unintelligent way of coping with the cognitive dissonance associated with knowing on some level that, despite proclaiming to be a feminist, one’s own behaviour is harmful to women as a class. In fact, I’m not a mean person at all, and I actually regularly self-examine and give up behaviours that I consider to be harmful to females. So I don’t take name-calling or ad feminem attacks by other women seriously at all. I think that being ‘nice’ goes hand in hand with telling lies. Both are a waste of energy and accomplish little, even if you end up making people feel good about their poor and sometimes stupid and harmful-to-others choices. Being critical in order to analyze nonsense is not mean; being an asshole for no reason other than to cause havoc, is.

So what, pray tell, is going to rattle women today? Well, I’m going to propose that feminism that doesn’t centre women is not feminism. When I write and then read this, it sounds obvious and ridiculous that I should even need to argue this at all. But it is amazing how many women will promote the most woman-hating of behaviours and call it ‘feminism’. And they are not a mentally disturbed minority, but the oversensitive and fragilely constructed majority. I’ll also even go so far as to say that anything that doesn’t centre female liberation from males isn’t really feminism either. Enough with “What about the men?” The question that nobody ever asks, but should, is: “What about the women and girls?” Can you believe that that is not the central question in most feminist theory or practice these days? Mindboggling.

All this is to say that today, G is for Gynocentrism.

The fact that most people don’t know what this word is, let alone find it in mainstream sociopolitical philosophy or movements is a testament to our poor education systems, the enforced mandate to be ‘inclusive’ in feminism, and the fact that our psychological and material realities reflect something else entirely: androcentrism. Here is a very simple definition of gynocentrism:

It is a dominant or exclusive focus on females in theory or practice.

Some definitions try to include stuff about femininity or a ‘feminine perspective’, but I won’t include it here as gender has no place in gynocentrism or true feminism, and I have no idea what a ‘feminine perspective’ is except that you probably have to apply lipstick before expressing your point-of-view in a sexy, pouty, TikTok video sort of way.

There also seems to be the belief that gynocentrism is just the opposite of androcentrism, which likely comes from the limited male perspective that females aren’t their own entities, but just male wannabes. While androcentrism can also be called patriarchy, I wouldn’t say that gynocentrism is the matriarchy of male testerical fantasy. Gynocentrism is not the opposite of androcentrism. What men do is all about domination and hierarchy and creating slave classes and disenfranchising groups and causing and perpetuating suffering and violence. And you’ll notice that all of this is present in every single sociopolitical system that men have ever devised, including those claiming to make people equal. In fact, some of the most violent and unfair systems men have created were those borne of the quest for equality in society. Men don’t believe in equality. It’s not part of their DNA. Interestingly, a lot of people, including some feminists, think women can be just as violent as men, and of course, this is nonsense. If that were true, we’d have destroyed male power long ago and established some sort of similar dictatorship-matriarchy, because although women are not physically stronger than men, they are actually naturally smarter, more organized, more patient and more strategic than men, and brains always win over brawn if you’re playing the long game. As well, what we aren’t is more violent or psychopathic than men. So no, gynocentrism is not androcentrism, but with tits and twats on top. That’s just not how we roll, genetically speaking. Rather, I see it as separation or separatism, first and foremost. Then, it is about peace, learning, co-existence with the natural world, and progress stemming from logic-based sustainability, rather than greed-based, uncontrolled and unlimited growth.

Now, before you accuse me of idealism, I’ll say that I don’t believe women could sever ties from males today en masse and magically create a feminist utopia. I believe that so much would have to happen before women could ever create a high-functioning female-only society, and it would likely take generations, although not for lack of trying. Today’s women and girls are so severely damaged and brainwashed and immersed in male filth and violence that I don’t think it is possible to heal completely in one’s lifetime, even if one managed to magically live completely separately from patriarchal influence, including other damaged people. Further, there is epigenetic inheritance evidence that experienced trauma can be passed on to offspring. While it is acknowledged that this inheritance affects how our cells function, but doesn’t cause permanent changes to DNA, the field is so new that we don’t know how the effects can be remedied. All this is to say that for women to be natural and thriving, not just surviving – meaning undamaged by patriarchy and living in a pro-health, female-focused way – the sociopolitical world would have to undergo massive structural change. That’s not to say that adopting gynocentrism and, naturally, by extension, female separatism, isn’t worth pursuing. Not at all. I just think it will end up being a personal and political health choice. For some, a matter of life and death. For others, the only option that makes sense. It’s not easy and it can be lonely, but it is what needs to be done in order for women to be free.

The Second Wave: The Zenith before the Plummet into Slut Feminism

The Western feminists of the Second Wave got it. I mean, they really got it. They were single-minded, focused on women, extraordinarily hard-working and generous. They did consciousness raising. They built communities. Many created a world where they could live as separately as possible from men. They made the personal political, and they made life choices based on those beliefs. And these choices weren’t sacrifices or suffering in their minds. They were natural and logical. And necessary. You absolutely don’t see that today, or at least it’s rare. I don’t think most young women can understand what it means that the personal is political, or that most of what constitutes ‘identity’ these days is constructed, or that what you do can affect other women negatively. I think women spend a lot of time making excuses for their selfish and woman-hating choices, and they tend to focus superficially, but loudly, on the easy stuff that doesn’t require lifestyle or thinking style changes. Most don’t really want to self-examine too closely because they’d have to deal with serious ethical and philosophical mismatches in their lives. I wish we could all teleport back to the time of the Second Wave if only to be inspired and enlightened and to see what is possible for women. I find a lot of today’s so-called feminists criticize the hell out of Second Wave feminists for one stupid thing or another – usually ad feminem attacks involving being white or educated or middle class or anti-sex or something made up, clearly showing how far women have fallen intellectually since the Second Wave. I find it embarrassing, but not surprising. Critical thinking is not encouraged these days, and it is amazing how often women read an article or book and completely miss the point, choosing instead, to focus on things that fail to fit their own personal and limited experience of the world.

From what I’ve gathered, once the diversity and inclusivity movement coupled with the pro-male, sex-positivity movement started to gain momentum, the Second Wave was dismantled. It’s sad that men always win, and the loudest women show themselves to be very, very stupid, or perhaps lazy is the better word. I think most women end up giving in to male demands and pretending it is feminism because it is so much harder to do what is needed to be free. It is so much easier to become a slut than a human, for women.

The Diversity/Inclusivity and Intersectional Feminist Movements

One of the most negative and damaging outcomes of the whole forced diversity, inclusivity and intersectional movement is the watering down and sometimes even the complete eradication of potentially very powerful groups, systems, and frameworks. See my 2016 post on what I call the Ice Cube Effect – the watering down of feminism. See also my 2016 post on the problems with intersectional feminism. Inclusivity and post-modern thinking have also depoliticized key political issues for women as a class, namely sex and sexuality, while politicizing nonsense such as identity and emotions. This is a time of censorship. A time where feminists spend more time attacking each other, and especially major feminists of the Second Wave, than they do men – the actual oppressors. I expect non-feminist women to be assholes, but I hear time and time again from women who seem to be on the right track, that they are more often attacked by other women who call themselves ‘feminists’ than by anyone else. It is very strange that this new focus on diversity and inclusivity and intersectionality has resulted in less freedom, more silencing of female voices, and more in-group distrust and abuse. I think this is a very complicated issue that deserves a separate post, but suffice it to say that today’s Western women, especially white women, experience more propaganda and gaslighting about their own experiences than do people in the China I worked in for nearly a decade. I wonder whether Western women are less free than they have been in a long, long time, and end up venting their frustrations on each other because they are not allowed to speak about real problems in a public forum. I think Western feminism, if you can even call it that, needs a very serious paring down and needs to return to its basic roots: a focus on women, or gynocentrism.

At this point, feminism, like Ruth Fisher put it, is a free for all. You don’t actually have to follow any kind of philosophy, framework or guiding principles to be a ‘feminist’. You just have to be a female. And these days, you don’t even have to be a female. A woman has an opinion, and she is a feminist. A television show has a female lead character, and it’s a feminist show, regardless of the content or message. A woman puts on make-up with a fierce intensity, and she is a feminist. A woman devotes herself to housewifery and propping up a male’s career, and she’s a feminist. Do whatever the hell you want! Call it feminism. Anyone can join the club! And to question it these days is mean and disrespectful and grounds for censorship and ostracism. No other sociopolitical movement is so lax, so inclusive. Blacks don’t invite the KKK to their activism. Vegans don’t welcome meat-eaters and hunters to their tofu-socials. But feminism can be whatever you want it to be, even if it hurts women and girls and benefits oppressors: men. At this point, do you understand why gynocentrism is necessary to true feminism? Jeez, I hope so…

I do intend to write something more comprehensive on this topic, but I’ll end this post by saying the following. Real feminism, gynocentrism, can save your life. It’s not easy. It requires hard work, a lot of self-examination and life changes. But it is comforting in the way that a blazing wood fire is at the end of a long, cold day in the woods on a winter’s day, which perhaps only a true Northern person can understand. But I’ve always believed that nothing worthwhile comes without a fight or dedication. And I don’t mean suffering or sacrifice. I mean the kind of effort that kicking an addiction might entail.

♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢