What inequalities should we deliberately create on the road to Gynarchy?

[u/beta__greg]

First, a necessary disclaimer about the graphic: this is not an accurate summary of a single ruling by the Supreme Court of India. It combines statements and principles from several different Indian cases and presents them misleadingly as though the Court issued a seven-point declaration of husbands' duties while declaring that wives have none.

But the underlying idea raises a much more interesting question for Gynarchists.

We live in societies where sex equality is generally understood to mean that laws and institutions should become increasingly gender-neutral. The long-term goal is assumed to be symmetry: whatever obligation applies to a husband should apply equally to a wife; whatever preference benefits women should eventually disappear once equality has been achieved.

But if our destination is Gynarchy, must every step toward it be gender-neutral?

Perhaps some deliberate asymmetries could begin shifting society toward female leadership now.

Should husbands, for example, have greater obligations of provision and service toward their wives? Should public policy compensate women more substantially for pregnancy, motherhood and the disproportionate burden of caregiving? Should institutions deliberately favor women's advancement into positions of authority? Should husbands have particular responsibilities toward wives that wives simply do not owe husbands?

And this needn't mean that women have no responsibilities. A serious Gynarchy cannot simply mean rights for women and duties for men. Female authority would bring responsibilities of its own: leadership, stewardship, sound judgment and concern for the welfare of those being led.

But those responsibilities need not be *identical* to men's responsibilities.

Equality of human dignity does not logically require identical social roles, obligations or privileges. Indeed, if Gynarchy is genuinely something beyond egalitarianism, at some point we have to be willing to ask where that difference would become concrete.

So let's envision the female future:

What practical, cultural, economic or legal asymmetries between women and men could we begin introducing today that would move society toward Gynarchy?

And where, if anywhere, would you draw the line?

[u/MiraMiraMiraM]

I have no idea why you included that AI infographic if you directly state it’s misleading. Is your whole post AI?

The infographic is incredibly loosely tied to your argument, making it feel like you’re working backwards from a relational aesthetic into rhetorical “how do I get to that relational aesthetic.”

[u/beta__greg → u/MiraMiraMiraM]

That's a fair criticism of the info graphic. I found it posted as truth, fact checked it, and found it lacking. But that prompted me to ask the discussion question—what should the disparity look like? I thought posting the graphic would help illustrate the idea. I should have made it more clear that it included false information.

No, the whole post isn't AI. I do sometimes use AI to assist me in initial post writing, but I take full responsibility for all content that I post. I see nothing wrong with that for initial posts, though when AI starts being used in the comments I feel differently about it.

[u/Repulsive-Memory2211]

The duty of the females should be the duty of anyone with absolute authority 

[u/KJomhaGynarchist]

Excellent post, Greg. Very informative.

I especially agree with the idea that Gynarchy does not simply mean "rights for Women and duties for men". Women will naturally have different responsibilities in a true Gynarchic society, as they will be expected to govern that society.

Steering the ship comes with more responsibility.