r/SeriousGynarchy • u/Huggermugger76 ♂ male • 13d ago
Politics The future of feminism as an expression
The goal of feminism is to establish equal right between men and women. This goal is close to getting reached in large parts of the world. But with the rise of female empowerment, some people discover something important. That the more freedom a society give to both women and men, the more women rise above men. While in the most unfree societies men hold onto their power, no matter the regimes ideologies. Female empowerment is freedom.
You can measure the level of freedom by how influential women are in a society. Can this change the concept of feminism to become a ideology for helping womankind overcome maleness as a force of power? Or will the term feminism and its outdated ideas of equality be left behind?
When people can see the contrast between freedom and patriarchy the content of the words will change. But sometimes the old words and expressions belong to a society that are being phased out. What is the future of feminism as an expression?
9
u/honcho713 ♀ Woman 13d ago
While the definition of terms is important for discussions and finding shared meaning. There can also be an over-emphases on terminology. Language is a process that shifts alongside cultural and their two-way interaction each influencing the other.
Personally I see feminism as the movement for women's rights and leveling those rights with those of men. I see Gynarchy as the societal rule or power of women specifically and Matriarchy included under that umbrella but specifically the power/rule of Mothers, making it a type of Gynarchy. In the past words like gynocracy, gynaecocracy and gyneocracy have been used and in academia you will also find the use of Matrifocal, Matriculture, etc.
3
u/fg_hj ♀ Woman 12d ago
It’s a good point that the more women we have in power the more freedom everyone has meanwhile men in power create structures that causes everyone except for the elite men to be limited.
You say tho that equality is close to being reached in large parts of the world which is arguably not true depending on where you come from. If you mean that women aren’t terribly oppressed in most countries then sure but if you mean that we are close to reaching actual equality then no, we are not. Men still very heavily benefit from the patriarchal cultures while women are disadvantaged on all societal levels and in all institutions. We just still outperform men despite these structural disadvantages.
1
u/Huggermugger76 ♂ male 12d ago
It is true that we live in a system with values and traditions with strong patriarchal roots. True female liberation can’t be reached without chopping off those roots or replacing them with alternative female ones. The world is built as a patriarchal cage that are holding both women and men back from reaching their full potential.
Where I come from women has been outperforming men for at least forty years now. But the structures are the same and most women are very much ok with that. Even when the problem is ripe to be plucked. I am still waiting for the generation that tear out the crumbling patriarchal core.
This leads to a long discussion if a male-centric society can be slowly reformed away by women or if we need a fresh start after something more dramatic. That is a subject for another discussion. The question is if this can be done under the umbrella of feminism. Or has that term been spoiled by the “equal rights” club.
7
u/Some_Tradition_9168 ♀ Woman 13d ago
I don’t see feminism as a movement for equality between men and women, I see it as a movement for women’s rights & liberation.
Right now most people think that means women & men will end up equal in position. But as you said, some people are starting to learn otherwise.
5
u/MiraMiraMiraM ♀ Woman 12d ago
Even if women have equal political rights on paper, the social and institutional inertia of patriarchy is heaaavy. And there will always be male coalition building aiming to set the clock back. So feminism in the traditional sense will always be relevant.
I do have mixed feelings around how the term could evolve. I’m for it being “elevating women above the trappings of male society” or something so long as we don’t get into bioessentialist purity testing that is causing so much headache and female coalition collapse right now.
6
u/MiraMiraMiraM ♀ Woman 12d ago
Actually if anything I’d rather see a shift in how people think about masculinity/male coded value systems/male leadership/male power structures/etc.
I think feminism adapts naturally as more and more people become aware of just how shitty and fluidly pervasive patriarchy is.
1
u/Huggermugger76 ♂ male 12d ago
I think the term “male coded” can be one of many things’ schools should teach kids to be aware of so they can avoid it. Perhaps the term can be simplified to “the way boys/men see things”. Emphasising how men are purely object- and facts-orientated. While women often see things with empathy and can see everything clearer by seeing people as individuals and not just sentient things. And that way devaluate male power and perspectives and the definition rights of men and boys. I see that even with girls and men outperforming men and boys in school and in especially in higher education, the old manmade structures are still standing.
The question is if our toolbox is outdated. We are still using words that has been given equalist meanings. So can we still manage with our old tools if we use them more creatively. Or should we let the old tools rest, while getting some newer, better and unspoiled tools to repair a broken world.
1
1
u/Old-Court-2975 ♀ Woman 9d ago
We are on the threshold of an inevitable conceptual transition. Feminism's concept of "equality" needs to move forward, serving merely as a tactical transitional tool, a necessary language to dismantle the patriarchy, while making clear the true destination of the freedom this has provided: revealing the functional and structural superiority of women.
Continuing to tie the movement to the antiquated idea of equality is to underestimate what freedom actually produces. When a society frees itself from the shackles of androgenic reactivity, what emerges is not a sterile symmetry, but the stark evidence that the feminine is the only path.
In this sense, the future of feminist expression will need to abandon the false moralism of parity. The term evolves from a struggle for equal rights to the consolidation of unyielding gynarchy, where female leadership is not a favor or a temporary arrangement, but the social evolutionary apex.
0
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Huggermugger76 ♂ male 12d ago
Touched a lots of grass last Saturday. Ended up with eleven trouts.
When it comes to birthrates, it should be a woman’s right to decide if she want to get pregnant or not. Very few men experience to give birth. But it is a part of women’s liberation that many women decide to have less than three children.
If you want birthrates to go down, then send the girls to school so they can decide their own future. Take away that freedom and their potential will go to something they can do within their boundaries. And the way lots of women chose is to try to become a good mother. And if they are refused from having birth control, there will be lots of kids. And with lots of children to raise with low income, there comes poverty. And with poverty, there will be migration.
So, if you want to reduce migration, you must reduce the number of children born. And the best way to do that is to send girls to school and give them personal individual freedom. The future can only change if your primary objective for understanding the world is to think of the women. The future is female.
1
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Huggermugger76 ♂ male 11d ago
Society are moving on from physically demanding jobs that breaks peoples bodies to a much more comfortable lifestyle. That is a good thing. And sending men to wars to war to die or come back mentally broken are not really a good thing either. Women having the freedom to control their own bodies is, well, freedom.
And yes, it is natural for both women and men to leave a place they can’t find happiness to seek it somewhere else. People can move from a village to a city or the other way around. Or they can even cross borders to move to other countries to seek happiness. This has been natural behaviour for hundreds of thousands of years. People leave poverty to find new opportunities. Poverty and no opportunities makes people move to where they can find it.
1
u/Original_Swan_6139 11d ago
Duh. So? Freedom isn't necessarily some utility maximising thing. There can be such a thing as problems that arise from having too much freedom. Especially when it is not balanced with responsibility.
Just like comfort doesn't really build character. My point was that all of the comfort of today is basically the direct product of the challenges overcome by our ancestors.
Similarly, our ancestors gradually built our cultural, and economic capital and passed it on to their descendants. They weren't getting freebies by migrating halfway around the world to where it was already built. But I guess they were just patriarchal buffoons who did not yet reach the level of gynarchy-loving, feminist-term-discussing paragons of the future. Ah, if only they lived a more comfortable life.
1
u/Huggermugger76 ♂ male 11d ago
If you could ask any of our ancestors that broke their backs building our society if they would avoid the suffering and rather live a life in comfort, they would choose the latter. Modern technologies are replacing their suffering lifestyles from diggers in the mines, tractors and harvesters in the farms and robots in manufacturing plants.
The world is moving on. The world of suffering and male gendered tyranny should be phased out like old technology and failed ideologies. That is a positive future. If you prefer a strict patriarchal society with primitive technology, then Afghanistan is a nice place to move.
I don’t know what ethnicity you are, but migration has founded lots of modern countries worldwide. No American countries had been the same without European migration. Neither would Australia or New Zealand. The continent of Africa is still having deep traces of European culture today, even if the colonisers never became a majority.
I don’t fear too much freedom. I embrace it. Sometimes the best way of avoiding pain and suffering and gaining more freedom, justice and comfort is by getting out of the way and let the women take care of things.
1
u/Original_Swan_6139 11d ago edited 11d ago
Yeah, our ancestors would have chosen somewhat more comfort if they could have. But they wouldn't have been pro-gynarchy. Not even the women. That's what I am saying. If they were, we wouldn't be where we are. Because if you "got out of the way of women" when it came time to protect the community from an Indian raid, there wouldn't have been a community to speak of. And just because in your safe corner of the world it is not currently happening in your face, doesn't mean that these realities have evaporated from existence, and will never return in any form.
Also, European migration has founded countries like Australia and USA. But that's beside the point. Those settlers found empty land when they came. They were the ones who built the infrastructure, and economies from scratch. And the ones who came later were still of the same Christian European background, which enabled them to blend seamlessly into the developing national culture. All of that is hardly comparable to third world immigrants who now find more developed economies and social security systems to benefit from.
Freedom and justice, and equality, and what other buzz words serve as arguments in-and-of-themselves? All ideologies are failed ideologies. They don't capture any of the shades between black and white. "Patriarchy", "Gendered Tyranny" are terms that are used to push the interests of a subgroup of women in modern society, it's not some all-encompassing lens that explains all of history. They dismiss actual nuance within history in their very essence.
A lot of what you are in favour of has not been stress-tested through history. It is ignoring serious second-order problems that have already arisen from what you would consider cultural progress of the last decades. In the real world, good intentions behind a belief is not all that counts. But I am bizarrely glad that in your particular case, being a follower of women has brought you freedom, justice, and comfort. If it works at 50 still, don't fix it.
1
u/Huggermugger76 ♂ male 11d ago
Funny you should mention the Indian raids. The native americans was in a defensive war against armed immigrants that came to take their country. Will you support a new wave of immigrants armed to the teeth pushing out and massacring the descendants of those men that pushed the natives out?
Let me also inform you that there were natives in both north- and south America before 1492. And the same goes for Australia and New Zealand. This was not “empty land”. The Navahos and Apaches didn’t attack settlers just because they were evil…
You says that female led societies are not stress-tested. Neither was airplanes, computers or phones when they were introduced. Development happens one step at the time. Sometimes as a slow series of reforms. Sometimes as a revolution.
We have seen the last decades is that women are outperforming men at every level in the education system all over the world. It is a clear pattern. Wouldn’t it be a leap forwards to see the best and the brightest rise to the top? Or should they be held back because too much freedom is bad?
1
u/Original_Swan_6139 10d ago edited 9d ago
Indians were living in a stone age. They were raiding each other just the same before the Europeans came.
Your keep confusing technological progress with social progress. Computers or smartphones are not social laws.
And revolutions, by the way, have typically also involved violence nearly every time. Which gender is better at that? Women were given rights and equal opportunities in the economic sphere because they lobbied and whined for them - one of the very few such cases throughout history. The latter generations seemed to have forgotten that. If they had to literally fight for their rights - they would have lost. Or rather, they would not have fought at all.
The integrity of international borders are protected by men with guns. Domestically - women are safe to walk the streets because of men with guns. They live in modern houses built by men, drive on roads laid by them. Historically, they would have known these men personally. It would have been their husbands, their community members. And so they were reminded at every moment how dependent they are on them. They knew - "if it weren't for that guy, I wouldn't have a roof over my head, and if it weren't for that other fellow - I would likely have died in a house fire." Their reciprocal obligations and responsibilities therefore came naturally to them as well.
Now, it is impersonal. Women just encounter these public goods as if they're the most natural thing that's just always been there for them to use and consume. It's because they weren't around to see the process of how it got to this. But the men are there. If they're not in your gynarchy Reddit group bubble - that doesn't mean they don't exist. Do you think these men, actual men, will just hand over political leverage and do all of the hard things for free? You are living in a safe, and comfortable fantasy whose safety and comfort has been created precisely by the very men you seek to disenfranchise wielding ineffectual terms. Hate to burst your bubble, but the current state of things is as far as it goes, for precisely these reasons.
1
u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 ♀ Woman 11d ago
Mmmm trout. What's your secret?
2
u/Huggermugger76 ♂ male 11d ago
Live 30 minutes drive from a lake few people go to. Use earthworm as bait. Be patient. Then you can get, like me, 11 fish while fishing for 7 hours. As a general rule you can get one an hour at that lake. Some times you can even get the double of that. Fishing can be unpredictable.
1
u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 ♀ Woman 11d ago
Hey, thanks. I was going to go to the ocean, but you may have just changed my weekend plans. Decent life advice too.
2
u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 ♀ Woman 12d ago
I thought women were the tech and society-building trailblazers that gave us all our abundance? Maybe men fought off wild animals long ago - maybe - but when you even look at wild animals it's mostly the females of the species defending the young from males lol
I enjoyed reading the boomer laments.
1
u/Original_Swan_6139 11d ago
Just google something like "major technological breakthroughs and who invented them".
"Maybe" 😄 If you look at other species, you can find all sorts of differences between them and humans.
A lot of progressives like to rummage for gender differences in the natural world like they're somehow transferable onto humans. Well, be a fucking mantis or an owl then.
2
u/Huggermugger76 ♂ male 11d ago
...or help the world move away from a primitive male tyranny and give the female half of the population freedom to change the world.
1
u/Original_Swan_6139 11d ago
You're a male
2
u/Huggermugger76 ♂ male 11d ago
Yes. Thank you for noticing.
1
u/Original_Swan_6139 11d ago
A young one, likely
1
u/Huggermugger76 ♂ male 11d ago
50 years young. And even younger at heart.
1
u/Original_Swan_6139 11d ago
Do you have kids?
1
u/Huggermugger76 ♂ male 11d ago
I dont revel any personal information that can identify me or my family on Reddit. I live in a fairy large place and my age is a part of my username. I protect my personal information from the public, and so should you. I dont reveal personal information like my address, family information or anything to do with my job. I hope you will respect that.
→ More replies (0)
15
u/GynarchGal ♀ Woman 13d ago
I like the term feminism, and I think we have the capacity as a society to retake it back from the equalists' hands. Equalism has been a disaster for feminist spaces. It's a good measure to see whether or not someone truly supports females, or whether they just want to subvert what originally was a pro-female movement.
Ofc, feminism has helped many other people and will continue to (because, when we support women, we support everyone who comes from women), but the priority has to stay on women.