CMV: Human society isn't really gynocentric

PPD-Angel · 2018-04-28T01:12:25+00:00

This is just a reminder OP, you are required to participate in your CMV. You are probably busy or something, but in the future post if you have the time to engage and please reply a bit more to your post. Thank you.

crackrocksteady7 · 2018-04-27T17:11:09+00:00

Whichever way you slice it society has massive amounts of wealth going from men to women in the forms of net taxation, welfare payouts to women, public sector employment, women's only scholarships, alimony and "child support" payments, and every damn thing about dating and relationships (not to mention the many forms of whoring camming etc). Men can opt out of some forms of the money sink but not others. The most obvious way to see this is look around, who are the stores catering to who are the restaurants catering to who's making the purchasing decisions. And when you see that women place or influence most purchases despite making a significantly lower fraction of the income there's no other possible explanation. All the green is flowing from cock to pussy.

This is ignoring many many other components of the nonstop gynocentrism men are constantly bashed on the head with but it's the most obvious quantifiable objectively provable aspect.

dakru · 2018-04-27T16:45:29+00:00

I don't know much about claims that welfare is gendered, but here I have a write-up with all sorts of examples of our society's tendency to have less concern for the safety and well-being of men than of women. Some of the examples:

Here in Canada, Aboriginal men are 2.5 times more likely to be murdered than their female counterparts (and 4-5 times more likely to go missing), but despite this there's been a massive amount of concern over the issue of "missing and murdered Aboriginal women". It was a big election issue in 2015, there's currently an official government inquiry into MMIW with a budget of around $50 million, and we get government ministers saying things like "the fact that so many Indigenous women and girls have been lost and continue to be lost is a tragedy and a disgrace and it touches all Canadians".

There's also evidence that crimes against women are punished more harshly in the justice system than crimes against men, which is a pretty big deal. This effect is found after controlling for type of crime, criminal history, and seriousness of crime. If you're skeptical about researchers' ability to adequately control for such factors, one study looked at vehicular homicide, "where victims are basically random and where the optimal punishment model predicts that victim characteristics should be ignored". The finding:

Among vehicular homicides, drivers who kill women get 56 percent longer sentences. Drivers who kill blacks get 53 percent shorter sentences.

It's also pretty common when talking about homelessness for people (including politicians) to single out the minority of homeless people who are women as being especially worthy of our sympathy and action:

Men are more likely to be homeless, but the homelessness of women is commonly seen as especially concerning. Two-thirds of homeless people in Portland, Oregon are men, but the mayor has made it a priority to house all homeless women: “when I see a homeless woman on the street, or in a doorway, my heart is touched, and I know Portlanders’ hearts are touched”. 70% of homeless people in Canada are male, but Dion Oxford of Toronto’s Salvation Army Gateway shelter for men says it’s harder to raise money for men’s shelters: “[s]ingle, middle-aged homeless men are simply not sexy for the funder”.

See also psychological studies like this one:

In a 2016 study researchers performed three experiments and found that both men and women are more willing to sacrifice the lives of male strangers to save others, more willing to subject male strangers to pain for their (the participants’) monetary gain, and likely to indicate that social norms consider it less morally acceptable to harm women.

Some comments on women in combat:

Keeping women out of combat isn’t just about physical strength. A desire to keep women from being harmed is apparent as well. Caspar Weinberger, U.S. Secretary of Defense (1981-1987), said “to be perfectly frank about it and spread all of my old-fashioned views before you, I think women are too valuable to be in combat” (cited in Women in the Military: Flirting With Disaster, page 126). David Benatar (in The Second Sexism, chapter 3) cites a politician in the U.S. House of Representatives: “we do not want our women killed”. And according to Major Thomas H. Cecil of the U.S. Air Force, “[p]olitical tolerance for casualties might be a lot lower if losses included women” (1988 paper “Women In Combat: Pros and Cons”).

Million-Suns · 2018-04-27T17:47:57+00:00

How to Challenge your view with only one link if you bother spending two minutes to read it:

http://www.realsexism.com/

Tedesche · 2018-04-27T16:48:10+00:00

I don't think the world is gynocentric on average either, but you can't deny that there are gynocentric parts to it. Courtship rituals, for example, are almost exclusively set up to cater to women, rather than men. Men perform and women choose, meaning they're both more likely to reproduce and more likely to reproduce with a mate whose genes are preferable to them. Another area is physical safety--women are considered more delicate than men, and so concerns about their physical safety frequently hugely eclipse that for men, even to the point of men being pressured to sacrifice their safety for women.

So, there are without a shred of doubt some gynocentric areas of society, even if society itself isn't gynocentric as a whole.

kick6 · 2018-04-27T16:32:19+00:00

When shit hits the fan it's always "women and children first."

When people are selected to die for a cause, women are explicitly excluded.

But I guess the free-shit parade isn't better for y'all so I'm wrong.

AllahHatesFags · 2018-04-27T19:47:05+00:00

There's a lot of feminist bullshit in this post, let's deal with the obvious ones:

I see these allegations that the world revolves around women and they make me chuckle. Nothing could be further from the truth! Society doesn't give a rat's ass about women.

Then why am I constantly seeing all this bullshit about getting more women in STEM? Then there's the hashtag bringbackourgirls thing where completely ignored the fact that when Boko Haram captured those girls they just outright murdered all boys.

Try applying for assistance (at least in the U.S.) as a single, childless female and they'll laugh you out of the welfare office. You won't be eligible for any more help than would a single, childless man.

That's what you would call "equality" and it's supposedly what feminists are fighting for. But you don't want equality, you want privilege.

Nope, the lynchpin is the fact that men really, really don't want to provide for other men's children.

You seem to be implying that men should want to be cucked into supporting other men's children, which is beyond fucked up.

Hell, they can hardly be bothered to provide for their own!

Divorce rates are extremely high in and mothers get custody of the children 82% of the time in the U.S. So if by "they can't be bothered" you mean that "their children are taken from them and they are forced under threat of incarceration to pay to support them" then I suppose you are right.

Traditionally, society's rules have been made by rich and powerful men. And those same men were the ones on the hook if Chad impregnated five women during the Spring Bacchanalia and then skipped town. Why? Because the rich men were the ones with resources to spare, so they were expected to provide charity. The poor would hit them up, the same way Willie Sutton robbed banks because that's where the money is.

So the rich men did their best to institute rules to discourage the creation of destitute single mothers. They put restraints on both female and male sexuality, limiting it to the context of marriage, to ensure that someone would be around to take care of the kids and that men wouldn't sire more children than they could feed. They made it hard to divorce and discard your aging wife who might be a burden on society.

TL;DR: Muh patriarchy! Did you get that out of your gender studies textbook?

All the rules pertaining to divorce, alimony, child support, etc., aren't really set up to favor women -- they're meant to prevent the rich men who make the rules from getting stuck with the tab.

Tell that to Kobe Bryant or various other wealthy men who got taken to the cleaners in a divorce. What did Vanessa Bryant do that was worth $150,000,000?

reluctantly_red · 2018-04-27T16:23:24+00:00

Reality is always more complex than models. American society is indeed set up to favor the rich (disproportionately men). However, that doesn't mean that the same society cannot be more harsh regarding poor men than it is regarding poor women. At the bottom end there is almost always more aid available to women (even if welfare rules are written in gender neutral language). And its not just government aid -- friends and family are generally much more willing to help a woman who has fallen on hard times.

darla10 · 2018-04-27T16:39:06+00:00

Birth control and abortion give women the power to avoid becoming single mothers.

But a lot of them still do. Because they have no higher calling other than being a mom. Why haven’t men figure this out by now and taken control of their own birth control instead of acting like victims when the woman decides to keep the baby? Oh I know, it’s because they have a drive to spread their seed indiscriminately.....because they also have no higher purpose.

Naebany · 2018-04-27T17:21:39+00:00

You make it sound like men not wanting to pay for other men children is bad. Why would they want it? It's not their responsibility. The fact is that women pay less taxes and benefit from them more than men.

Atlas_B_Shruggin · 2018-04-27T17:15:55+00:00

Try applying for assistance (at least in the U.S.) as a single, childless female and they'll laugh you out of the welfare office. You won't be eligible for any more help than would a single, childless man.

yeh, this is a big weird manosphere lie. "women" get no assistance, but MOTHERS do, ostensibly for "the children"

single able bodied adults dont get dick

SAC-Lawn_Gnome · 2018-04-27T16:41:42+00:00

Your main assertion that society isn't gynocentric seems to be upon your belief that society doesn't treat Women well enough for it to be considered Gynocentric. It seems like you look at the treatment of women in society in a vacuum, not controlling for how society treats Men in comparison to Women.

All the rules pertaining to divorce, alimony, child support, etc., aren't really set up to favor women -- they're meant to prevent the rich men who make the rules from getting stuck with the tab.

It almost seems like you're saying society is only gynocentric, for the benefit of a few rich men, not the people who are directly benefiting from these laws.

abaxeron · 2018-04-27T19:55:51+00:00

Try applying for assistance (at least in the U.S.) as a single, childless female and they'll laugh you out of the welfare office. You won't be eligible for any more help than would a single, childless man.

Young, childless women get assistance in the form of scholarships.

Society doesn't give a rat's ass about women.

Usually, in industrialized nations, the biggest targeted governmental fund is retirement pensions. The military usually comes only second (for big nations) if not third (for smaller ones). In all "big" nations (from population 1 million and up), women outlive men. In all nations worldwide, women retire either at the same age or earlier than men. In early 2010s, in the US, social security pensions for elderly and disabled, alone, transferred 65 billion dollars from men to women annually. That's "billion" with a 'B'. Additionally to that, almost universally, social taxation is regressive; i.e. all women benefit from pension system at the expense of poor men.

Studies in New Zealand, Norway and Denmark have demonstrated women's lifetime net fiscal impact to be significantly negative (around 150k$/p for NZ, around 300k$/p for Denmark, and more than 1M$/p for Norway). The "muh chilrenz burden" argument gets destroyed by the fact that "employment pyramid" looks virtually the same (women occupying the majority of part-time and entry-level positions and constituting the majority of unemployed) for Finland - the country that was praised by OECD statisticians as the nation where men spend more time looking after children than women.

In no nation that I'm aware of, food stamp system or nutritional humanitarian assistance accounts (or ever accounted) for men's higher necessary calorie intake. In some, food stamps are distributed by person, in others - by person and age group. My only results in trying to find a nutritional assistance program that would account for men's higher energy needs - brought me to the UN initiative to provide menstruating women with iron-rich food.

In no nation ever in recorded human history women were subjected to obligations before the State that men were immune to. Counter-examples being, obviously, the draft, recruitment, taxation, Hue and Cry, capital punishment, life sentence, and various forms of forced labor.

UNICEF concluded that with something around 6 exceptions worldwide, stunted development affects predominantly boys. Their proposed solution is.............. to ensure proper nutrition of women, especially in the period of pregnancy and lactation.

Abolition of gendered majorat (male lineage inheritance laws) was instituted specifically to benefit women. As a result, currently, worldwide, inheritance laws benefit women at the expense of men (men work more than women and produce more property and wealth in marriage; daughters inherit roughly half of it).

Division of assets in divorce was instituted specifically to benefit women in case dissolution of marriage was caused by men's fault. Preservation of division of assets in no-fault divorce was instituted specifically to benefit women, period.

Birth control existed and was available historically, with the exception of 19th century.

All the rules pertaining to divorce, alimony, child support, etc., aren't really set up to favor women -- they're meant to prevent the rich men who make the rules from getting stuck with the tab.

How exactly "not giving my ex-wife and her new lover my house that I paid for" would result in "the rich men" "getting stuck with the tab"? At best, child support fits, and it indeed was instituted specifically to punish men who parented bastards. It was never meant to extend onto kids born in marriage that woman decided to dissolve because her hypergamy and nesting instinct told her so.

Finally, rich men get stuck with the tab as a result of these measures JUST fine.

Instead of finding any miniscule excuse to deny the existence of gynocentrism, you really should be offended that it exists. Unlike the supposed "patriarchy", gynocentrism is never documented to "backfire" and benefit men at the expense of women. "Patriarchy", if we go by this silly term, resulted in modern Western women being the safest, richest, healthiest, most educated and most ungrateful women in all human history.

Pope_Lucious · 2018-04-27T19:20:43+00:00

I don’t believe in the MGTOW hardline definition of gynocentrism- that it’s some grand conspiracy brought about by feminism.

But functional civilizations have always valued the security of women at the expense of men. It’s a necessary societal adaptation. Men were compensated with prestige and greater authority as the trade off for the risks they bore.

statsfodder · 2018-04-27T22:44:02+00:00

What i got from your OP is that you are pissed that single childless women are treated like men. "Equality"

Nice work on the obligatory bloop tag line of "men are bad" at the end, nice touch.

AutoModerator · 2018-04-27T16:16:38+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

paccount112 · 2018-04-27T20:10:31+00:00

I think they call this navel gazing

Aaren_Augustine · 2018-04-27T18:38:29+00:00

Arent you the one on her 5th husband? Did you ever have to pay alimony to any of your 4 ex husband's?

the_calibre_cat · 2018-04-27T19:38:12+00:00

Yeah, I can't really blame the rich men (and, in today's contemporary society, rich women) for objecting to that.

If you built something big and useful to millions of people, you should be rewarded handsomely. You should use some of that money to help the less fortunate, but I'm not going to fault you for holding onto the majority of it, spending some of it on some dank shit (like houses and yachts), and maybe investing it into stocks and/or another business.

You shouldn't be stuck with the tab of someone who made some poor decisions in their past, hell, in my experience freeing someone from the consequences of their decisions is often the worst thing you can do. Suffering is a great teacher.

redpillrobert · 2018-04-27T19:54:03+00:00

oh my god you're soooooooo right!

we should form a group

couldbemage · 2018-04-27T22:02:17+00:00

Not only can single child free women get welfare, in the US, but single men can get it too. Anyone with no income can get food stamps.

But WIC doesn't stand for for men infants and children.

There are special women only scholarships.

Women are much less likely to be homeless.

There is a strong hiring bias towards women.

Women retain most of the benefits from when they were considered less capable than men, but most of the downside of those traditional beliefs has been eliminated.

DaphneDK42 · 2018-04-28T01:14:56+00:00

And those same men were the ones on the hook if Chad impregnated five women during the Spring Bacchanalia and then skipped town.

Nobody would have been on the hook since the five babies would probably have been exposed to die. The women would have faced diminished marriage prospects. The fact is that women largely vote for parties which are in favour of extending welfare benefits - coincidently enough benefits mostly to those same women.

Willow-girl · 2018-04-28T16:39:23+00:00

to ensure that someone would be around to take care of the kids and that men wouldn't sire more children than they could feed. They made it hard to divorce and discard your aging wife who might be a burden on society.

But that's only part of it. The primary part was so that women could get husbands and reproduce. Nobody wanted to marry a slut. Men don't want to marry sluts now - they will, but they don't like it. Which is why women lie about their Ns.

Hell, [men] can hardly be bothered to provide for their own [children]!

Not true. Most men aren't deadbeat dads. Those who are, are either (1) too poor to meet their court imposed obligations; or (2) being unfairly kept from relationship with their kids, so they refuse to pay.

artemisthekitten · 2018-04-29T15:03:57+00:00

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5265409/Police-ordered-change-way-recruit-dog-handlers.html

http://www.france24.com/en/20180324-thousands-croatians-protest-treaty-protect-women

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/06/09/trudeaus-new-feminist-plan-commits-95-of-foreign-aid-to-gender-women-and-girls-by-2022.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5670009/Politicians-party-Mail-Sundays-campaign-teenage-boys-HPV-jab.html

The Boko Haram kidnapping - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHhVyeHRxWk

Seems more like some single women are pissed they don't get as much resources compared to other women. It's not that society is not gynocentric, it's more like the society is not gynocentric enough because "I" don't benefit it. I am single and I don't get welfare and that's unfair.

secant128 · 2018-04-30T08:22:28+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/comments/8fsqos/i_saved_15_or_more_on_car_insurance_by_switching/?st=JGLZ6E1P&sh=e5236440

There you go.

Bluetinfoilhat · 2018-05-23T04:30:50+00:00

The men who say that reduce life to getting laid. Anyone with awareness can see most writers, scientist, judges, legislatures, presidents/prime ministers, directors, artist are men or are areas that are male dominated. Most things are directed to men(save advertising due to women buying more) unless specified to women. Hell we have the term "chick flick" or womens literature precisely because men are treated as the default otherwise.

quicklogaccount · 2018-04-27T19:17:10+00:00

It's great that you challenge the standard RP understanding, but the standard RP understanding is true. I also enjoyed your alternative hypothesis, it is based in selfishness.

I'll reiterate it for the sake of argumentation:
"The society is not gynocentric. ALL claims of gynocentric policies are explained by people's aversion to provide for other people's offspring." It is fair to generalize, "ALL claims of gynocentric policies are consequences of other known facts."

So, for the specific case, "aversion to care for other people's children". If that is true and what drives powerful pen is this, then they would use their power to effectively avoid such burden. It is not what happens:

Prejudices and bureaucracy plague adoption processes;
"Be a mother" propaganda faces no objection but from the opposition of "powerful men";
Abortion is abhorred and debated even where it is legal;

It seems to me that every single policy that shows preference for the state to support children or spend money to dictate their upbringing instead of delegating the burden to someone else disproves your affirmation. It CAN'T BE that women are being collaterally benefited by policies to either deliver the state from children or even to benefit children. There's an understanding here, caring for the mother is caring for the children. Not caring for the family. I have no idea if it is ubiquitous, but if it, is, the understanding also disproves the point, since it'd be better to care for the one that has the traditional role of provision.

As for the general case, "can be explained by the existence of other observable forces but gynocentry", it's hard to asses. IF other existent "forces", each known to exist because of other observations, fairly explain the observations about women's policies, then this explanation is probably more likely than the existence of another force that only explains these. The best we can do is explain, plausibly, each claim with an alternative explanation that doesn't require the existence of gynocentry. Fellow RPillers are my guests, but here's some I can't explain:

There are initiatives for housing for women albeit men make up most of the homeless population;
Health campaigns for women are better funded;
It was "risen" to science a field that thoroughly disregards rationality or logical scrutiny of its claims and worse, dedicates itself in building unfalsifiable narratives that were to be ignored in any other area, focused on denouncing one entire gender.

CMV: Human society isn't really gynocentric

Comments

IF YOU FOR EQUALITY YOU WOULD BE OKAY WITH GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTHCARE INSURANCE. AND SINCE YOU’RE NOT, IT MEANS YOU WANT MEN TO SUBSIDIZE WOMEN’S HEALTHCARE.

Title	CMV: Human society isn't really gynocentric
Author	Willow-girl
Upvotes	15
Comments	376
Date	April 27, 2018 4:16 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/8fcvzw/cmv_human_society_isnt_really_gynocentric/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/cmv-human-society-isnt-really-gynocentric.262724 https://theredarchive.com/post/262724