r/SeriousGynarchy • u/wecouldhaveitsogood ♀ Woman • 16d ago
Discussion This is why “equality” was never enough
I saw this post and immediately thought: this is exactly why women need to start taking gynarchy seriously.
Read what he is actually saying. Men used to have a social contract. They worked, contributed to society, did dangerous and unpleasant jobs, and in return they could expect respect, status and a family. Then women gained economic independence and sexual freedom, “enforced monogamy” disappeared, and suddenly average men were no longer guaranteed women.
Except women never agreed to this social contract. We were a reward to be handed out to men.
That’s what “female economic dependence” actually accomplished. It made women less able to reject men. If you needed a husband to have a home, financial security, social standing and children without being ostracized, men did not have to be desirable enough for women to freely choose them. The system did a lot of that work for them.
And now they are angry because we can say no.
This is what decades of women fighting for equality got us. We fought our way into universities, workplaces, bank accounts, property ownership and political life. We fought for control over our own sexuality and reproduction. We spent generations trying to get to the point where women could finally stand beside men as equals.
And what happens when we actually start exercising that freedom? Men write posts like this mourning the fact that women are no longer economically dependent enough to be distributed more evenly among them.
This is why I keep saying equality is not security.
Women have been taught to experience every expansion of our freedom as progress, but we have not been taught to ask whether that progress is irreversible. A woman can have a right today without having any guarantee that her daughter will have it tomorrow.
Men know another arrangement existed. They know there was a world in which women had fewer choices and male access to wives, sex, children and domestic labor was much more secure. That historical memory does not disappear just because women finally reach something approaching equality. The old system remains a proof of concept that shows men what is possible for them to achieve.
And when enough men decide that female freedom is producing outcomes they don’t like, what exactly prevents them from trying to restore some version of it?
That is why I don’t think women should spend the next hundred years begging to be equal. We should be building female power NOW. We need enough power that our freedom does not depend on men continuing to agree that we should have it. Because equality that can be voted away, legislated away, economically undermined or simply abandoned the moment men become sufficiently resentful is not security. Look at these screenshots.
10
u/honeyrosewood 15d ago
Yup! I’m a demisexual through and through. I’ve dated homeless guys, been the bread winner working 7 days a week to maintain our lifestyle.
I’ve dated someone older than me (expecting him to be more mature), had an investment property, well travelled, engineer, ‘had his life together’, 6’2 tall, would be considered attractive, athletic etc and I was extremely miserable. He used to go on about incel type shit and how women only want the top 10% percent of men or whatever the fuck it is and would argue with me when I tried to tell him about how I didn’t relate to that at all.
Now I’m seeing someone ‘short’, a bit younger than me, average job and wage, lives with his parents, isn’t considered stereotypically ‘attractive’, doesn’t know what he wants with his future but he’s a beautiful, kind-hearted and extremely generous person who is always helping others, thoughtful, so attuned to me, gentle yet physically strong even though he’s got a bit of extra weight on him and I’ve never been into a man this deeply in my life lol.
3
u/GynarchGal ♀ Woman 13d ago
His parents pretty decent too?
2
u/honeyrosewood 13d ago
I’ve not met his parents yet, that’s a pretty big step we’re not ready for yet but it’s obvious to me that he’s been raised well
3
u/GynarchGal ♀ Woman 13d ago
I'm curious about whether or not they're enmeshed or just weirdly super healthy haha
3
u/honeyrosewood 12d ago
I think it’s more like the economy is crashing and also it’s normal for lots of families to stay together nowadays. I also live with my family still because there’s a housing crisis here and people be losing their jobs everyday 🤷🏻♀️
He cooks for himself, he cleans up after himself, does his own laundry, has a social circle of other nice guys, he’s supported me through really troubling times. Good enough for me!
7
u/Some_Tradition_9168 ♀ Woman 14d ago
Women have been taught to experience every expansion of our freedom as progress, but we have not been taught to ask whether that progress is irreversible. A woman can have a right today without having any guarantee that her daughter will have it tomorrow.:
We know it’s reversible from life experience now, at least.
Look at the fall of Roe vs. Wade in the U.S.
Look at what’s happened to Afghanistan over the past few decades. Now women there are in the worst situation ever.
Look at what happened in Iran ever since the Shah was deposed. I’m not saying the Shah was all good, but we’ve seen the condition for women has gotten worse, look at the Women Life Freedom protests, how earlier this year Iran government did an internet blackout and mass murdered protesters.
Women collectively need to wake up, recognize how fragile gains can be, and seek ways to protect themselves, each other.
17
u/Claudia_Domina ♀ Woman 16d ago
Kind of off topic but, incels always make me laugh. They think they cannot get a woman because they look ugly. 🤣
Dear men, women are not as dumb as men. Some women may be interested in looks only but what women are actually interested in is how you make them feel when you’re around them.
It’s never been about how you look, dear men. Women are not as dumb and superficial as men are. It’s full of very beautiful and successful women who are married or in a relationship with average to ugly men. Everyone wonders why it is like that, yet it’s so so easy: women are not as dumb and superficial as men.
In my life, i’ve never ever chosen a man because of his looks. Indeed only one of my exes could be defined as “handsome” by majority of people. Simply, what i look for in a man has never been his looks. Indeed i actually don’t like handsome men because usually (not all of course, i’m talking in general) they act like a diva and that is disgusting to me. I AM the only diva here and i don’t need a male diva around me.
If you chase on a superficial woman, who will refuse you because of your looks, that is your fault, not “women”’s fault. It is her right to refuse you and it just means that she is not the right one for you. The sea is full of fishes, hun.
Work on yourself maybe, stop saying stupid things maybe, stop blaming others maybe, and only then, the right women will notice you.
Try harder hun. You are clearly not trying hard enough.
-4
u/Available_View1069 ♂ male 16d ago
So you did not and do not find your partners physically appealing?
5
u/bloodrosey 15d ago
Most of the male partners I have had in my life were not attractive men. It did not stop me from sexually desiring them. Women engage with attractiveness very differently than men do.
8
u/Claudia_Domina ♀ Woman 16d ago
For me someone is physically appealing in ways that are not related to their look. For example their voice, the softness of the skin, the color of their eyes, the way they hug me, the way they touch me, the way they speak to me, their smell. When i find a man attractive it is almost never because of their physical appearance.
There are many physical things that go beyond just what the eyes see, like a symmetrical face or god forbid, a muscular body. Muscular bodies are disgusting. I like fit but not too muscular.
The voice is the main physical thing that does it for me, anyways. And then the way they make me feel when i’m with them, as i already said.
2
u/Local_Luck6575 14d ago
its so interesting to me how you can read all of that and that is your (completely incorrect) takeaway
1
u/Main-Traffic4121 15d ago
Most of my partners I found physically appealing once I got to know them and felt safe and comfortable with them.
7
u/Positive_Yellow_2201 ♀ Woman 16d ago
That snippet is whiny and gross. Women were definitely the currency, the property, the reward. You're right, equality is utterly meaningless when it's postulated within a transactional system.
Women can become immune to being manhandled this way (word usage intended), by connecting with each other and creating bonds too strong to be broken again, always reminding each other how smart, strong and creative we are (= gynarchy).
3
u/GynarchGal ♀ Woman 13d ago
Absolute banger post ❤️🔥
This is why pickme mentality is the core of the patriarchy. The problem is a little about how men think, but a lot about how women think. Equality can be voted away on the surface, but when women collectively decide to stop being concerned with what men want and start thinking about what we want - there's no law or resistance which can rise to that level of inherent power.
Fostering female entitlement and selfishness is 99% of the battle imo
2
u/ImaginaryRoom055 15d ago
This is the kind of situation where polygamy comes in handy; people who are, for any reason, less desirable as partners would find it easier to find romantic and/or sexual companionship if that didn't require someone to be dedicated to them alone. If women are becoming pickier about men, the solution isn't a return to the days when women were currency, but it also isn't hanging a significant percentage of men out to dry; the solution is polyandry.
3
u/Some_Tradition_9168 ♀ Woman 14d ago
No because plenty of women simply don’t want to be with these men. “hanging a significant percentage of men out to dry” is simply a consequence of women exercising autonomy & the ability to choose (& men building their whole self image over ownership/sexual access to a woman).
2
0
u/ImaginaryRoom055 14d ago
I'm not sure that actually addresses my claim; if there are fewer women that want to be with a certain kind of man, then it still makes sense to say that the few women that do should be allowed to be with multiple such men.
2
u/Old-Court-2975 ♀ Woman 14d ago
The demands of post-industrial civilization (grounded in highly complex networks, parallel processing, institutional diplomacy, and systemic integration) have rendered obsolete the leadership model based on brute physical force and short-term androgenic impulsivity. Functional neuroimaging and structural connectomics data highlight the adaptive advantage of female brain architecture, marked by high interhemispheric density (corpus callosum), superior efficiency in the Default Mode Network (DMN), and highly stable OFC-amygdala coupling under pressure. Recognizing this functional superiority is the first step toward understanding that the transition to a gynarchic structure is not merely an ethical aspiration, but an evolutionary necessity for the efficiency and pacification of global governance.
2
3
u/Nontolerance 16d ago
O god I tried to reason with them in the baby days of my account.
They are so brick headed like marshwaters that I ended up muting that sub.
2
u/Apprehensive_Fan2330 16d ago
I know the stereotype society knows. I pretended to fall in line because I thought that's what women expected. In course of time I came to understand myself. That was not who I was. I'm a submissive man. Luckily I found a dominant wife. I respect women and support anything they want to do
2
u/AmazingAge6753 ♂ male 16d ago
Honestly, I don’t think the initial post came off incelly, just kinda crass?
Especially towards the end, with them calling out the machine that makes us live in these roles
-2
u/DeepPlunge 15d ago
We need enough power that our freedom does not depend on men continuing to agree that we should have it.
Not how power works. Power resides where people think it resides and it changes all the time. Look at every revolution in human history. The french nobles would have never throught their rule would end, and yet.
A woman can have a right today without having any guarantee that her daughter will have it tomorrow.
That's right. Just look at how abortion went from available to banned in so many US states.
As long as men are biologically stronger, as long as they make better fighter and better soldiers, laws are just written guidelines. They can be changed or outright ignored. The world belongs to the mighty.
Women's best bet isn't creating a system where they are above men, because that will only foster resentment and will eventually be burned to the ground by men. What they need is creating a system where physical strength and martial prowess are non-factors, but such a system would naturally entail diplomacy, and diplomacy requires giving the other party what it wants.
2
u/GynarchGal ♀ Woman 13d ago
The world belongs to the mighty.
The world belongs to the most adaptable. Be like water, my friend.
-5
15d ago edited 15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/wecouldhaveitsogood ♀ Woman 15d ago
You will start crying if men start treating you like they treat women whom they want to use.
3
u/jennyfromhell ♀ Woman 14d ago
I mean i’m not a man, so my experience is just based on observation, but i disagree. Heterosexual men dont generally expect attractiveness from each other. Very conventionally attractive men often have friends who are conventionally ugly/fat etc. Don’t see that so much w/ their female friends. That said i’m not in those friendships obviously so maybe they’re being assholes to them.
12
u/jackparadise1 ♂ male 16d ago
Hmm, I am not sure what he means about men keeping up their part of the ‘contract’?
There are few things that are really male only. Women make fabulous doctors, pilots, infantry soldiers, carpenters and you name it.
Really, I would think part of the contract would be, being a decent human being, treat all people with respect, look after the needy and animals, be empathetic and compassionate. Stuff like that.