Discussion in the manosphere about the roots of runaway gynocentrism continues and is unlikely to end in a unified view, though every thinking person agrees that gynocentrism is very real.
A number of MGTOW adopt the biological determinist view that gynocentric-chivalry is embedded in our nervous systems and therefore relationships with women will always be subject to extreme gynocentrism. An equally large number hold the alternative view that gynocentrism is a cultural exaggeration of biological potential and not an inevitable fate for men to suffer.
Aside from those differences over origins, both sides agree that gynocentric marriage – its culture, customs, laws, taboos – must be utterly abandoned, not reformed. Notice here I refer to gynocentric marriage and not to a marriage of the minds, hearts, dreams, goals, projects, and bodies that might come with non-gynocentric relationships.
Can relationships be cleansed of extreme gynocentrism – relationships with mothers, sisters, female colleagues, friends or lovers? Based on fluctuations of gender roles over millennia, I would think yes; male-female interactions can be purged of the extreme gynocentrism we see today. We have been there before, and we can go there again.
Would such a project entail reform of gender relationships? Yes it would, though I prefer to see it as dismantling those infected structures and keeping only the non-gynocentric elements aligning with voluntarism, self-determination, egalitarianism.
Those thinking it possible to nudge a post-gynocentric culture into existence, foolhardy as that may sound to MGTOW fatalists, have already made a few suggestions on how to bring it about.
As mentioned in a previous article a first possible strategy is to undermine the media’s censorship of voices who would criticize gynocentric culture (media censorship of these voices being a major cause for its longevity), creating an awareness revolution the beginnings of which are well underway.
The second strategy – and an act of self-preservation for men – is to starve the cancer of its preferred food, ie. withdrawing from marriage and as many other gynocentric customs as possible to hasten its demise. I’m reminded here of a recent comment by MGTOW buddy August Løvenskiolds:
Avoidance of poison should be a self-evident good. Deepening the divide between men and women is the only way to impress on the larger society that something is badly astray. Society will notice a crack but will be forced to deal with a chasm.”
The three parts of this pithy statement deserve a closer look. August’s contention that the poison of gynocentrism deserves avoiding is a no brainer; ie. subjecting yourself to gynocentric slavery will destroy you from the inside out, and the outside in. It steals your wallet, your freedom and ultimately your sanity. The second part contends that society must first see a crack in its system before registering it has gone astray – a crack that rejection of gynocentric marriage will help widen into a chasm. The last and most important in the context of this article is the comment that society will be forced to address and rectify the problem as the cracks turn into a chasm.
This last point plays directly into the theme of the International Conference on Men’s Issues: Building Bridges Between Men and Women in the 21st Century. We can do that by not repairing the cracks in faulty bridges but by widening them to allow the structure to collapse and make way for a new bridge – one that can withstand the weight of human compassion without crumbling. August, who will be speaking on the topic of ‘going his own way’ at the upcoming conference, is an advocate for tearing down treacherous old bridges and crafting newer, better structures in their place… breaking eggs to make omelets.
Eschewing gynocentric relationships shouldn’t be misunderstood as simple gender-separatism, at least not for many MGTOW. It can also be an act of activism. Think of men withdrawing from marriage as a reversed-gender Lysistrata play where, instead of Ancient Greek women withholding sex as a means to change cultural norms (as in the play), it is now men who withhold something in order to change the culture. A means to an end – that for the sake of which.
The women of Lysistrata did not want to give up sex for all eternity, and I expect a number of MGTOW don’t want to give up interactions with women for all eternity if a non-gynocentric possibility were made available. It is a rational strategy, then, to reject gendered institutions in order to wipe out gynocentrism, after which bridges between men and women can be built.
Having described the activist effect of withdrawal from gynocentric relationships, I’d like to end with a qualifier. MGTOW is far more than a cultural activism project, or far less depending on your view. A MGHOW can ignore the goal of ridding gynocentrism from the world while fully remaining a man going his own way. Noting the activist element is not intended to suggest what MGHOW ‘should’ be doing – he can, and will, do whatever he wishes. As recently summarized by August Løvenskiolds, “One can become MGTOW for risk management, or for political reasons (such as MRAs), or both.”
We need not buy the divisive line that Going Our Own Way should be for the sake of personal benefit only, or for political or cultural benefit only. Among MGTOW who see extreme gynocentric culture as an anomaly, many will have an urge to destroy the beast on a societal level even while doing the same in their personal, private lives.
