Gynocentric economies eventually lead to low birthrates

Population growth is tied to economic growth. Gynocentric culture initially seemed great for promoting economic growth as it stimulated men to work harder to buy more for women – not to mention women buying more for themselves and thier families.

So the gynocentric ethos is great for creating a booming economy…… until it isn’t. It leads eventually to narcissism and the collapse of the birthrate (kids get in the way of gynocentric narcissism, a disposition which is directly opposed to family love).

Earning & spending on gynocentrism is great for the money machine…. until there’s negative birth rate. Then its game over.

The obvious economic fix now is to swap out gynocentrism in favor of family-centrism. The two can’t co-exist because they are opposed motives. So for all those people wailing about the need to have more kids, there’s just one thing you have to discard first… and then it will be all systems go. Good luck!

With that summary of the topic, let me now go back and explain what I mean by a gynocentric economy.  It’s an economy that supports women as the primary household buyers and spenders who make the larger share of major buying decisions whether that be a car, house, overseas holiday, household food, goods, furniture and decor.

As corrolary to woman as spender, men are upheld as the primary money earners who labor to make women as financially comfortable as possible. Note that this kind of arrangement is not universal or essential; the economic setup can be equally geared to the family as primary economic unit, of which I’ll say more in a moment, instead of the gendered hierarchy of women as primary economic conduit.

A recent comment by American traditional conservative Charlie Kirk explains the ‘man as earner / woman-as-spender’ custom, which he published on platform X in December 2024 as follows:

CHARLIE KIRK: “Let me tell the men out there, you do not spend a dime on video games or sports games or things for yourself until your wife does not have to worry about finances. You come last in the family when it comes to finances. Period. That is your job.” 

This wedding of money to women’s happiness has been a speciality of American culture and economics for the last two centuries. For example, in the year 1903, international culture critic Max O’Rell observed the following:

“The American man is the most devoted and hard-working husband in the world. The poor, dear fellow! He works, and he works, and he works, and the beads of perspiration from his brow crystallize in the shape of diamonds all over the ears, the fingers and the neck of his interesting womankind. He invites her to share his pleasures, but he saves her the trouble of sharing his anxieties. The burden of life from seven in the morning till seven in the evening rests on his shoulders alone.”

In similar vein, The Independent newspaper published the following summary in 1909:

“In Europe the aristocracy is largely relieved from drudgery in order that they may cultivate the graces of life. In America the attempt is being made to relieve the women of all classes from drudgery, and we are glad to see that some of them at least are making good use of the leisure thus afforded them. It is a project involving unprecedented daring and self-sacrifice on the part of American men, this making an aristocracy of half the race. That it is possible yet remains to be proved. Whether it is desirable depends upon whether this new feminine aristocracy avoids the faults of the aristocracy of the Old World, such as frivolousness and snobbishness.”

More on the theory behind collapsing birth-rates

First premise: Gynocentrism fosters narcissistic behavior in women. (hold that thought)¹

According to a 2019 study,² individuals with higher levels of narcissism in young adulthood were less likely to have children by midlife, which indicates that narcissists may have fewer children. This study found that vanity, a facet of narcissism, was associated with fewer children and less stable relationships, suggesting a potential link between high narcissism and having fewer children.

Second premise: A gynocentrically oriented economy, such as we have in the West, thrives only until the generated increase in narcissism reaches critical mass and negatively impacts the birthrate, resulting in a weakened, vulnerable economy.

Contrast with Asia

By way of contrast, when I talk to older Asians about their work ethic and spending habits, they usually say they are doing it “for the family” instead of for wife or women. However, the problem we have in much of the world today is that these two models – gynocentric economics vs. family economics – are clashing and causing birth-rate paralysis, with family economics getting crushed under the weight of a growing, but increasingly maladaptive gynocentric economy.

As an aside, I note the different pitch some older Asian women make to husbands. They nudge husbands to man-up “for the family” instead of “for women,” and as part of that framework the women sees her own role as equally requiring her to ‘woman-up’ for family in terms of economic contributions.

Sadly, most younger Asian women have now caught the gynocentric virus, and their language has changed to saddling husbands with the need to economically man up for her and to provide an economic pedestal for her to sit on…… hence why there’s a birthrate problem growing in Asia too.

Whatever the future brings, one thing is absolutely certain: there will be increasing hardship due to the collapsing birthrates around the world. At some point cultures will be forced to make a shift away from the negative costs of gynocentrism, and toward a traditional family-centrism that forms the basis of all healthy societies – societies that showcase healthy birth rates, and allow for sustainable economies that depend on them.

Sources:

[1]  Wright, P. (2020). GYNOCENTRISM AS A NARCISSISTIC PATHOLOGY. New Male Studies, 9(1). and Wright, P. (2023). GYNOCENTRISM AS A NARCISSITIC PATHOLOGY PART 2. New Male Studies, 12(1).

[2] Wetzel, E., Grijalva, E., Robins, R. W., & Roberts, B. W. (2020). You’re still so vain: Changes in narcissism from young adulthood to middle age. Journal of personality and social psychology, 119(2), 479.