Oh this would be such a good post if I actually cared enough to write it all out. But don't you guys think the title is accurate?​ I have seen soooo many men come here whining about why we hate and want to oppress men and how we want to impose FLRs on everyone. Like, buddy? You're kinda obsessed with that image aren't you 💀 and it's not just the men. There's women out there all mad at us for being "patriarchy in a skirt" which is just the cringiest image.

My loves, I get you not wanting female rule to embody the same toxic masculinity male rule had. But thats not at all what we advocate here and your obsession with us doing that to you/men/society kinda is the same vibe as the mencels who come here whining about women wanting to oppress them lol. For those men I can just say "Ew no one wants to oppress you, go away". But what to say to the ladies? No one cares if you don't want to participate in a gynarchy or an FLR. Literally, just don't be a part of it? ​

We don't need everyone to be a part of the gynarchy, just those who want to be. We're just another parallel system; a break-away society, if you will. If you don't like it, go make your own. Trust me, no one needs your non-voluntary ass.

I understand the slimy males who just want to be all in our face about their stupid porn brains, but I really don't get the women who act all pearl clutchy about gynarchy.

There's a certain quality of "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". And I'm sorry to out yall, but I swear these ladies are literally just dominatrix eggs crackin 💀

Am I wrong here?

Edit: This argument might not be valid. I’m not saying this is 100% correct, it’s a thought experiment.

Doesn’t human development start from a female baseline?

Before sex differentiation occurs embryos follow a common developmental path that is more similar to the female pathway. If male development does not begin the body develops in the same direction. Even men have nipples because they form before sex differentiation takes place and we know they don’t have a major biological function.

Like nature starts with the female form first and then later decides whether male development happens.
And then there’s the chromosome side of it. The Y chromosome (Male differentiator) is tiny compared to the X and mostly acts like a switch that triggers male development.

I recently discovered this movement and feel cautiously inclined to support it. My view had already been shifting recently from “patriarchy is unfair” to “patriarchy is fully backwards” as I’ve reflected not only on how much crueler men have been throughout history, but on how consistently better women seem to be at handling power, authority, responsibility, and life in general… not to mention how frankly laughable, by comparison, men’s biological role in reproduction is.

But as a gay man, I’m really wondering how I fit into in this framework, if at all. Reading the materials I’ve found on gynarchy thus far, you’d think we don’t even exist. I believe this post is literally the first mention of us in this sub. It makes sense for us to be peripheral—but not mentioned even once? If gynarchy is ever to be more than a hypothetical, it needs to address our role/place. Yes, there are a lot more straight men, and hetero dynamics are obviously the central concern, but there are a lot of us too.

Maybe the answer is simply, “Support women, support the cause, and focus less on yourself because this isn’t about you.” Fair enough, but that leaves me with an uncomfortable question that doesn’t concern me personally, but does concern many other gay guys: What of those who want kids?

Are you okay with a male-male couple raising a child, assuming the child still has close female role models? Or do you envision a society that outright forbids male-male couples from being parents? (To avoid getting stuck on the fraught topic of surrogacy, let’s also assume I’m strictly talking adoption.)

I’m incredibly curious what y’all have to say about this, and I hope my post doesn’t read as combative. I think some gay men, like myself, are primed to support gynarchy. Others I fear will be uniquely resistant to the idea—more so than most men—and I don’t know what to do about that. Cheers to anyone who takes the time to read this!

This is a short, because people might want a taste before committing to the whole lecture.

But this guy is a remarkably un-dogmatic scientist, he has other lectures holding industrial "science" accountable for its dogmas and is a good listen too. His basic theory is that everything is demonstrably connected, and it appears that women in general are more connected to everything than men are.

This evidence-based super power women hold is a big reason I believe women make better leaders overall.

As pointed out to me by u/DisalgardSigulanne, there is still no one way to go about it. So here are some of my thoughts. This might be very messy because I am more or less thinking outloud.

One thing that really stood out to me is that many people here want to substract from men as opposed to give to women. capping inheritence and education, preventing men from voting, etc. And I think this is stemming from fetishes. This is not only harmful to men but also trans people because they will have another thing to worry about on their plate.

Currently, most people wakes up, go to work, come back, socilze and repeat. No one is leading, no one is involved in politics, so why do we need to change that? just make it so that goverment positions can be filled by women only. I am already not a leader, I don't need to lose some rights so that women become leaders (if that makes sense). I would still like to vote for the candidate that I think is best, having two or more female candidates running for the same position shouldn't be any different than having a male and a female candidates for everyone else

Another point I saw while learking here was education. Specifically that boys will get to certain grade then start working. But why? why can't men still be scientists, engineers, lawyers, doctors? They should still be able to run their own busnisses. It's a private matter

The following is what I think would be ideal but probobly even harder to achieve than a gynarchy:

No capitalsim. Hording wealth is something the patriachy invented to keep a hirarchy. Humans evolved to be social animals. I am not saying we need communism, in fact capitalism allowed for advancments in society. An ideal situation would be any income you make above a certain point would have 80 or even 90% tax. For example, if someone makes 400k a year, the first 200k will be taxed normally like anyone else but the the other 200k will be heavily taxed. (disclaimer, I am no politician and I don't have any background in econonomy or policial science so I don't know if this would work in practice. I am just throwing ideas)

Anyways, these were my thoughts I got over the last few weeks. Please tell me if you agree or disagree and why. Did I misunderstood some points? or does anyone whant to add more?

I also I am not breaking any rules of the sub. If so, I am very sorry

Exactly what the title says! I’m looking for people to join our summer book club on discord where we read feminist literature. Please reach out if you are interested. For reference last summer we read Living a Feminist Life by Sara Amed, The Will to Change by Bell Hooks and Whipping Girl by Julia Serano. We’re still discussing what to read this summer. Questions are welcomed.

I’ve been thinking about a (theoretical) concept within a women-led society and wanted to get opinions.

What if adult men needed a female “guardian” to access certain freedoms? For example, men without a guardian would face stricter rules (like curfews or limited travel windows), while men with a female guardian would have more flexibility because a woman vouches for their behavior and safety in public spaces.

Guardians could be wives, girlfriends, family members, or even friends and women would be free to accept or refuse that role. The idea is that this might reduce resistance to women-led governance if most men could still gain broader access through trusted relationships.

Do you see this as a workable system?

In the last bit of time it seems there is a renewed interest in the foundations and likely laws and/ or rules of living in a Gynarchic system. Obviously these questions can not be answered definitively, on one hand everybody has slightly different ideas and living experience, on the other hand lived experiences of such a society are sparse. I urge everybody interested in this to read up on matriarchies, past and current (Mosuo and Minankabu), they can serve as a well of resources since they existed as societies centered around women for millennia. I personally don't think we can apply this 1:1, since pre-modern societies function differently from post-modern ones, but still they can answer many questions in maybe unexpected ways.

But as a starting point as of now, I'd like to take a look at the personal Manifesto which u/AWomanXX42 posted 2 years ago. I'm urging everybody here to take some time and read it. Let's a have a discussion on it and the Core Principles listed in it.

• Do you agree with all points written down?
• Are there any things you feel are missing?
• Is this an appropriate manifesto for Gynarchist ideas?

Here are some discussions from my side.

>Please note, with regards to the use of the words “superior” and “inferior”, I use them much the same way as one would describe a Captain as a superior/commanding officer and the first mate as being inferior in status to those of higher rank. Both have unique skills they each bring to the table but are not seen as equal in rank/status.

Maybe it's just a minor point, but I think it's really valuable to assign this definitions to these terms. There are too many people jumping to wrong conclusions, either loaded from patriarchal assumptions or sexually loaded. I believe that saying "women are superior to men" can serve as an important piece to be clear about the ideological foundations of Gynarchy. Do you agree, or would you rather make do without these terms?

>4- All families will be matrilineal with the concept of fatherhood and patrilineal descent being removed as the norm. This will be in accordance with the natural order as women are the birthers of the next generation and not men.

I think this point is really concisely put together. This shifts women to the center of all kinds of family matters, where they belong. For many years now have anthropological findings shown that early humans have lived in matrilineal households, which makes a lot of sense, women are the ones giving birth, women have the direct and unquestioned link to the next generation. This puts all power regarding her offspring in a womans hands, of course this allows connections to the (biological) father, the principle does not allow or forbid any of that. I also like how it doesn't assign any family structure. It just lays out the rules. And it makes me excited to see how this would be lived out in practice.

>7- Division of labor will be based on skill with everyone having a role in the running of society based on their abilities. That being said, women will still be the ones to hold all authority.

This is where I disagree a bit. I think "Division of labor [...] based on skill" is a misguided idea of capitalism with the stated goal or "lived reality" of a meritocracy. It's necessary to state the women will be the ones holding all authority. But rather than stating the goal that the division of labor will be skill based, I'd propose that women – and let me be clear, women's decision making is compared to men's consensus based, taking many aspects into account and not hierarchical and commanding – are the ones deciding over questions of labor. I'd like to let open how it'd be like in practice (are there matriarchs acting as the voices of their families, is there a very decentralized decision-making, are there institutions? This is not the point of it). But women are the ones deciding if a person should perform "traditional" work, or stay home to take care of their elderly, also non officially, women are the ones guiding the next generation which line of work may make sense for them. Of course this will not be independent of each persons skill, but my idea is to put women in the center of this and move away from the nebulous idea of skill which has led many people down wrong paths (capitalism/ free market economy and meritocracy).

This was originally a comment, so I should probably give some context first. The discussion was about how rights and privileges would work in a gynarchic society, and how far a society like that could realistically go in giving women more authority or social advantages over men.

Let me start with inheritance. If the answer is "no, sons and daughters should not get equal shares" then the system that makes sense to me is this. Daughters inherit the core family assets, the land, the family home, the family business. Sons receive a smaller share, but not nothing. For example they can receive 5%, with a maximum cap so they are not given too much and the purpose of the system is not undermined. However, the entire economy around this should be regulated and authorized which I will discuss further.

They receive it when they become adults, and it's meant to be used for building their own life, education, learning a trade. This does not prevent them from being productive or successful, they can still work, rise or serve as the CEO of a company owned by their maternal line. A family council run by the women of the family oversees how it's used. The point is not to leave sons with nothing. The point is that sons don't get equal control over wealth that needs to last across generations. The reason is women carry the physical burden of having and raising the next generation and other reasons which we discussed before. Because of that, they have a deeper stake in keeping the family's material foundation intact over time.

Now apply that same logic to everything else. The version of gynarchy I could actually defend to a doubtful person is not about making men disposable. It's about making sure the default flow of authority and resources runs through women. Inheritance tilts toward the mother's line. Custody of young children defaults to the mother with fathers having clear but secondary rights.

For example the father can be given the right to visit in a limited way (once a week etc). This helps us not to destroy the man. I'll explain further.

That's the version I can make a case for to a reasonable person.

Now let me paint "too far," since you asked.

The moment gynarchy stops being a system for running society and starts being payback, it loses everyone except the people who already agree with you. Here are my lines.

If a man can't own things, can't make agreements, can't be heard in court, can't have his body protected by law, that's not a healthy society. But there is a middle ground that makes the difference between a working system and an abusive one. In a gynarchy, a man's legal standing doesn't come from himself. It flows through the woman or women he is connected to, his mother, his wife, or the women's council of his community. He can make contracts because the woman who stands for him allows it. He can own property but the final title traces back to the mother's line. He has rights, but those rights are not self-given. They are granted and recognized by female authority that gave them life in the first place. Being dependent is not the same as having no rights. A child has legal rights without being legally independent. A man in gynarchy holds a similar position. He is protected, treated with dignity, able to function but he is not the one in charge. A man has the right to have essentials of life and the law should protect it.

The moment you force anything on a man's body, forced sexual service, forced reproduction, you've crossed a line. A society led by women should be the one that protects bodily freedom most seriously.

If a woman freely chooses a male partner, a normal family setup, or a traditional life and the system punishes her for it, then you've just built a new set of rules policing women, exactly like the old ones but from the other direction. The whole point of women being in charge should be giving women real choices, not replacing one approved way of living. A woman who wants a husband and three kids in a house with a yard is not a traitor. She's a woman using the very freedom that gynarchy claims to protect. The only difference is that there are no societal structures forcing it on women rather that subset of women has happily chosen it.

A gynarchic system must still be able to describe what a good life for men looks like within it. The purpose of granting men basic protected rights is not to center men but to preserve the stability and moral authority of women’s rule. Men should be protected from physical harm, cruelty, and needless suffering because a well-ordered society benefits women most when those under its authority are healthy and able to serve constructively. Protecting men’s basic well-being ultimately protects the women they serve and the system women lead.

At the end I believe no system is perfect, it can always be refined and fine-tuned over time. We can measure and examine the success of the society by taking and giving rights and move from there.

Came across “Unearth Women”.

There is a magazine and a website;

https://www.unearthwomen.com

Dr. Risling Baldy explains how this tradition prevents teen suicide, educates young women about domestic abuse, and addresses patriarchy.

Through the flower ceremony in particular, young women are honored at a time when the broader American society sends them messages that they are dirty, gross, and “lesser than” males.

Serious question for people who truly support gynarchy and female superiority. Where do you personally think the limits should be? What is "fair" eventually.

I’m not talking about slogans or just the aesthetic of “women in charge.” I mean actual rights, laws, and social structure.

For example:

Should sons and daughters receive equal inheritance?

Should men have the same voting power as women?

Should fathers have equal parental rights?

If a woman assaults a man and a man assaults a woman, should the punishment be the same in both cases? (or theft and public crimes)

Should men and women be treated equally when it comes to social services and public support systems? For example if resources are limited should women receive priority access to housing assistance, financial aid, unemployment support, crisis aid, educational opportunities, or government benefits over men?

Is there a universal law that treats them equal or you want to have first and second class citizens in every aspect, where do you draw the line?

I ask because people seem to envision very different end goals. Some describe a more balanced and structured female-led society inclined towards the philosophy of feminity and masculinity while others push things to the extent that it starts sounding more like a fantasy than an actually applicable social framework and some just express an emotional notion.

So what does the ideal version actually look like to you?

I have noted that people have been asking what does Gynarchy stand for, and I thought perhaps I should say what I think.

I am very much aligned to the sacred feminine ideal. Gaia as mother holding us to her bosom, giving birth to life. The menstrual cycle, which every woman shares, which ties us so closely to fertility and nature. It is highlighting that every hero had a mother, that they fed from our bodies, and we cared and nurtured them. Yet we are always eradicated when history is re-written to suit a particular need.

So obviously I wrote about it.

Gynarchy

Let this be the altar
For the woman who bleeds without apology,
who moans without shame,
who rages without restraint.

Let this be the scripture
the bitch,
the witch,
the whore,
for the mother who mourns,
for the daughter who defies.

We do kneel,
We do not beg.
We do not ask to be loved.

We are the blood in the chalice,
the scream in the hymn,
the fire in the womb.

Come sisters - bring your ruin,
your radiance,
your rage.

This is your temple.
This is your truth.
This is your name,
spoken at last.

Over the millenia, as humans began to use tools, and slowly shifted from an environment where protection from animal predators was necessary, men were no longer quite as necessary either. However, eons of natural selection for stronger, faster, more aggressive males became toxic as there were fewer animal predators. Then, men became necessary as protection from other men, as humanity began to prey upon itself. Rape, pillage, plunder, conquest, capitalism, all the different ways humans try to gain advantage over another, have generally been the purview of males.

We were bred to be soldiers in a battle that no longer exists.

Im feeling controversial bc I'm bleeding and may be out enjoying life for a few days instead of being my usual reply queen self. I might even take a whole ass summer break to get un brain-roddit.

But anyways here's one last banger, I've been trying to get my point across clearly during multiple rando convos over the years, but here's my "micro-grand theory of everything" gynarchy version.

---

Women don't need to do shit. We don't owe you shit. And we arent shit.

Stop pedestalizing us, stop acting like we can help you (we cant, tried for eons), and stop fronting that you love being abused or neglected by us. We give that alllll to ourselves, men get the puniest scraps of our full critique-tongue and you will NEVER know what the full experience is like unless you grew up in a female body in a patriarchal culture, so I don't wanna see any fuckin whining from men about how women are being too negative towards you, or how you're low key getting off on it. Fetishizing what you've put women through for the past few eons is being documented for future review. Women are the one's who get to whine and fetishize our experiences, not you.

🎤💧

---

Votes for Women:

In fact, let's all have our first subreds vote! Shall we make a rule against all male whining? (Crying is OK🤙)

If like 80% of our reputable users agree or, all of our female mods, let's get that going. I want yall all to pitch in and change this sub up for the best while I'm gone. Just suprise me, shake it up. Make me proud to be associated with gynarchism. I'll hyu if anything sux.

---

Ok, those were the potatoes, onto the title of the post and the micro-grand theory...

The Meat of my Argument:

We can't change men, especially not with honey. Vinegar is appropriate here, were seeking to repel the bad men, not attract the good ones. We can only inspire men towards whatever choice theyre going to make anyway by raising our prices collectively. Men only really respect what they've invested in, so we can't fix anything by being nice or easy. It's only fixed by *increasing* the difficulty level so that we know their efforts are real and not just some breadcrumbs performance to get our attention/approval. It's also so that men feel they've invested in something expensive and fragile, which mean women are the one's who need to be convinced and cautiously tended to to fix gender relations - not men.

If a man whines that we've been too hard on them lately, they're saying they haven't yet faced enough hardships. I'm not even talking anything bad or illegal. I'm talking just remove the benefits he gets from patriarchy, and make fights his problem. Make reparations his problem. Make the smashing of the patriarchy his problem.

And throw obstacles in his path towards achieving the gynarchy, so you know he's genuine and willing to put in effort. Basically, gynarchy won't come through systems-first thinking, it will come slowly bubbling up all around us through interpersonal changes of female solidarity and male consequences.

Hello; I am looking to understand your opinions on defense/the military in a system like this. My question is simple: how would you envision an army (if there is one) in such a system?

I am asking this question because I have a fairly strong opinion on the subject. Military forces are the heart of a society's power. A government quickly falls with a disloyal army. So I want to know your opinions to address this issue.

So we have had this here since forever:

>The Gynarchists Creed

>See Her, hear Her, admire and attend Her. To Her, in all matters of substance, defer. (Lee Gotham )

Then it has a link to an article I stopped reading because it seemed like an old man whos been in the BDSM community too long wrote it. I actually had to stop reading because it was all over the place (worse than my writing even) and called Darwin "a intellectual giant among men", that's sic. Bro said "a intellectual". And anyways Darwin is a racist misogynistic low key loser.

This link has to go, imo, and I kinda hate the creed too.

☕️ so, anyone else?

In this society women should as much as possible not have any sort of relationship with them, it can be dangerous and unproductive, do not give them sex if YOU are not having fun, and only do children if we can affort taking care of them alone, we should go to degree that benefit us finaciary and our society, like pls more women in stem. Mariage is a scam and an illusion you can be free by yourselve and get love from other woman not them.

Sorry if I make language mistakes, English isn't my first language.

I have always been a dominant girl and I found myself feeling very out of place when talking to "average" girls back in school and stuff. Recently however I went online and looked for more people like me wich lead me to femdom communities and it lead me here. I love that this is not a man hating community like so many feminism groups are and that both genders have a place here.

I've always felt men should be under woman, and that woman should lead them. I've met manny guys who actually want to be lead by woman as well so it's not just one sided. Men are super valuable and should therefore be used to their full potential. We all know men are physically stronger so it doesn't make sense that they are leading. Woman should arrange and do the planning. Woman score better then men in education which is not a surprise, men are easily distracted. Men are good at hard labour, building, creation...etc. So why are we waisting their and our energy on things they don't use.

I truly believe we need men in the industrial sector like never before. If you replace pointless energy consuming machines with men power you get much happier men, healthier men and you save on infrastructure. 3 out of 4 suicides are men here because they don't feel like they have purpose, and that's no wonder when you put them behind a desk. You also only need one woman to attent to a hand full of men. Not all men have the chance to find love which leads them to manosphere and all that nonsense. I feel like we have to get rid of the idea that a man needs a relationship, as long as he gets female attention they will be fine. Of course relationships should still exist but maybe just not for everyone because just like people say "I'm married to jezus" they can worship woman the same way and they will feel saturated.

That's enough talking for now from me. Just wanted to share some of my vieuws. :)