I’m starting to put together a hypothesis as to what the gender order is. I tend to reject the feminist idea of patriarchy as a distortion of anthropology - and its recording of male led societies.

But I’m wondering if we go back to anthropological patriarchy we might actually find what we’re looking for. What if gynocentrism is patriarchy, and therefore neither of is at root a description of which sex has power but of how class controls gender roles? Maybe patriarchy was a class structure built by the female majority’s mate selection and need for males to offload risk and violence onto. This produces a make chief led order, to make a gynocentric society for women to have the safety and stability needed for the dangerous and most valuable chore of childbirth.

Reproducing being the key to society’s survival and wombs being worth more and requiring more stability/ time/ resource investment than balls. 9 months vs. the time to ejaculate ( 5 minutes to an hour).

This makes women a middle class. Bugs contained within such a society and all sorts of blowback : Male elites face manipulation / plots by elite female spouses who have slipped out of the female middle class or harems. They in turn may be killed by their husbands or the mob if they are seen as vying for the male chief role.

The lower class majority - males , practice for the chance to climb, and thus some are a danger to lower class female minority- who are a danger ( and power) to them in turn as even lower females can still petition the elite males to discipline any normal males. Nonconformist majority member males may be crushed by both sexes for failing proof of combat readiness against other tribes males who want to kidnap womb /exploit womb value. This is also the root of homophobia. Females who don’t wish to be broodmares or live in a harem may be cruelly discarded or forced.

We know there were split class structures in history, i.e. tribal democracies nine months a year monarchies - with a chief scenario three months per year. I will call what we got in patriarchy/gynocentrism a staggered stance class structure.

Therefore we have a male minority as upper class - more favored ruler - except for the harem escape to queen scenario. They intervene for and represent female rights and safety. Most females are the middle class with most males alongside, but below them forming a lower tier. They are lower in their actual value and women can wield the chief against but higher in emergency /prospective value as women are not prospective chiefs/war generals. This explains the formal and empty authority even lower tier males have over females of the same tier, that feminists mistake for real permanent control. It only activates in states of emergency or references to such.

The male tier goes all the way down to bottom as cannon and labor fodder ,as they have less reproductive value and lower tier sperm. Even an outcast female is more valuable, because of her reproductive capability for the tribe and even a rebellious female can be forced into that role – which does require keeping her alive.

I’m actually not sure what to call this society but it’s the backbone of ours. It’s tempting to say that it is patriarchy, and as the feminist say “patriarchy oppresses the males too”. But, the problem with that is the feminist mean the males at each level have more power than females at the same level, all the time , and they’re only oppressed by males above them (who also oppress the females, when as we see they also largely represent and assist them).

This is a rough sketch. Not sure what such a society should be called, possibly something like “male gynocentrism.” Or military gynocentrism.