THEORYBack to the basics - gynocentrism. (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor

What is gynocentrism?

The idea that women are the center of humanity. The notion of women and children coming first (and that sentence has women before children). The idea of a pussypass and the origin of many double standards that exist in the world. Let's delve into why women are the center of humanity.

Reproductive priority

From a reproductive standpoint, sperm is cheap and eggs are expensive. It takes little effort and energy for a man to ejaculate and he can produce endless sperm daily well into his 70's and maybe even past that age.

OTOH, a woman has a much shorter age range within which she can have children, it has to be done within a small window of time within her cycle and once she's pregnant, she's out of commission for at least a year. This is why a single man can impregnate many women. This results in men being a lot less valuable for the purposes of reproduction.

Protecting the weak

It's hardwired into the human psyche to protect the weak. This is true in a very general sense although it's application may vary greatly from one person to another and from one society to another. The basic value is there universally. Child molesters are beaten in prison by murderers. It's unacceptable to abuse children, unacceptable even for criminals. Likewise, when a woman cries, her husbands protective instinct kicks in.

Biologically speaking, men are stronger than women. Women are not only physically weaker, they're also more vulnerable when pregnant and after childbirth.

It's often said in TRP - men love women, women love children, children love dogs. There's a biological drive for men to love women and crave their closeness. This need that men have to love women is one of the most powerful male needs! However, women don't have this super powerful need to love men. Women have that need directed at their children. Children in turn love that which is beneath them in the biological food chain. This permanently places women at the center of humanity! (Whether women are capable of love, see the post linked below).

Center of society

Throughout history men ran society. Men worked, men, invented, men produced, men governed. Men had all the hard power. However, women had the soft power, the influence that's much more powerful than power. As strong as a man may be outside the home, he's biologically wired to have this crazed need for love, sex and female approval, causing him to melt like butter before her.

Men may be physically more powerful than women, but women hold great sway over men. There's nothing more that a man wants, than to pleas women. To give to her, to support her, to pay for her and to do anything in the world for her just to get a little love, sex and female approval.

From the standpoint of being weak, children are also weak. From the standpoint of the insane male need for love, sex and female approval - women are the most valuable people in the world! Even more so than children. While children grow up and are eventually not children any longer, women are always women and are always at the biological center of humanity.

Indeed, what wouldn't a man do for women? Throughout history, men worked backbreaking jobs, fought wars and died early deaths just to protect and provide for their women. A man is biologically programmed to do anything and everything - even giving up his own life - for the benefit of women. This is gynocentrism.

Some examples of gynocentrism

  • That men are demonized, ridiculed and shamed as basement dwelling losers for going their own way but for women it's a perfectly legitimate choice because "I don't need no man".

  • Low libido is acceptable for women but not for men.

  • The uproar over sex dolls for men and the acceptance of a plethora of sex toys and machines for women.

  • Women being absolved of responsibility, men being given responsibility even in a world of equal rights.

  • The assumption that men are bad and have ill intentions and women are good and have good intentions.

  • Receiving help from random strangers.

  • Lighter sentences for the same crime.

  • "If mommy is happy, everyone is happy" and "happy wife, happy life".

  • When a woman cries, people stop to help. When a man cries he's told to knock it off.

  • Female depression being taken seriously, male suicide being laughed at.


Women are the reproductive center of humanity, the nurtures of the young, the weaker sex and the object of the all powerful male need for love, sex and female approval. Thus, women are the center of the human universe. This is biologically driven. This is gynocentrism.


Edit - Back to the basics - are women capable of love?

[–]LatterDaySaintLucia 27 points28 points  (15 children)

Solid explanation. But do women really not love men? I'd be gobsmacked if someone tried to argue that my overwhelming, passionate, giggly, heart-fluttery adoration for fellows is really just me being excited to have cute kids someday and nothing more.

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points  (2 children)

To the best that I can figure it out, a woman’s love is closer to infatuation. Everything I say here is speculation. Feel free to disagree or critique.

Men are a bit of a mystery to women. As a result women will feel overwhelming adoration, but the difference between adoration and love is that adoration dies when the magic dies. A woman’s love can turn into contempt if her beau is a drunk captain. A woman can also experience degrees of love, from thrilled to I’ll take it. Men only are binary. It’s fight to the death for you or I’ll pass. There is no in between.

This is how mothers love children. A mother would throw herself on hot coals for her children but most won’t for her man. Men would throw themselves on coals for women. (Why wouldn’t you shield your man with your body if there’s a shooter but would for your children. Is his body more immune to bullets or does love flow downhill?)

Plus there is also the light switch effect where a woman interprets the course of her feeling based on her current emotional state. It’s why a woman can break up and say “I never really loved him” but a man cannot.

These are just some of the differences I’ve seen.

[–]czardines 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I think this is an interesting point you made.

While yes, I do think I would throw myself on hot coals to save my partner, if it came between him and our son, our son wins.

I love both dearly. I never want to be parted from either of them. If I lost my partner, I think would be able to muster enough strength to keep on living, albeit difficult to do so. If I lost my son, that would be it for me. The love I have for him is an end all be all love - it does define me in a way. My love for my partner isn't defining, it's a happy part of my life.

[–]CleburnCO 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Define love.

The way men define love...no, women do not love men.

Men want to be loved in the way that women love their children. That is impossible.

There is a saying, men love women while women respect men and love children.

It's fairly accurate once you get past the new puppy stage of a relationship.

[–]WhisperTRP Founder 5 points6 points  (3 children)

[–]lespetiteschoses 1 point2 points  (0 children)


[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Thank you for linking this!

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

But do women really not love men?

Good question which really deserves its own post (Hopefully later in this series)

Short answer - Women can and do love men, but not to the degree that men love women. Not even close. Many men come to this realization the hard way.

Additionally, the love of a wife to her husband is a completely different type of love. A love that's very powerful while it's there but just isn't there 24/7.

[–]lespetiteschoses -3 points-2 points  (4 children)

women absolutely do love men, and yes to the same degree than men love women. it is a different kind of love with different characteristics and requirements, sure. loneliness is simply using a male-centric definition of love which is why he sees a discrepancy in the "amount" of love.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Right, this is one of the pieces of RP theory that is either explained badly when shortened to that not-so-cute little aphorism or is men's inability to get into women's minds.

And I think that it's that the aphorism is overly simplified and when men are burned, it feels good for them to think "she couldn't love me".

[–]lespetiteschoses 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Yeah. I've clearly struck a nerve with some of the guys here. Of course if you only look at love from your own perspective it's going to look like you're doing more of it - but that's just solipsism. It's natural to feel that way but it's not right.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 2 points3 points  (1 child)

There is an adaptability that women have that I think men confuse as "not love". In evo psych terms it makes some sense - men fight for their country (land/people/whatever) to the death while women are dragged off by the conquerors. We'd have to learn to keep going under these sorts of circumstances and the women who learned that would have genes that would continue into the next generation.

So women have the ability to move on from a man, perhaps more quickly than men can move on from women (idk). And from the men's side, this probably looks a lot like women don't love them as much as they love us. But I don't think moving on means that you have no affection or lingering emotions towards a past man. It means that for the sake of adapting to life, you relegate the past to a fond memory and move forward.

Also, of course you struck a nerve, you disagreed with one of the phrases of RP that is repeated without thought but at least a portion of the people saying it.

[–]lespetiteschoses 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes exactly. You really can't compare male and female love, they serve entirely different purposes. When a man complains that a woman doesn't love him in the way he loves her, it's like complaining that an apple isn't an orange. My husband also doesn't respect me in the same form that my respect for him takes, but I would never complain that he respects me less. He feels a huge amount of respect for me, it's just different.

[–]Kiddingyoself 12 points13 points  (10 children)

I think people need to keep the purpose for the genders, and their roles, in mind. In some ways, the husband/fathers's, and perhaps even just a man's, job is to die first. Or, do whatever it takes to protect his family, or community, even if it means die trying. In the same context, in some cases it's the mother's job to die next (before the children). If there is a son involved, and he's around 12 years old, arguably his role is to protect his family to the death before his mother. Maybe if he's an only child that isn't the case, and maybe it is. If he has younger siblings, it's his job to die next if needs be. His family can go on without him, but would be lost without either parent.

The discussion about who loves who more.. I think it's missing the point. "Love" probably falls very short in describing what's happening in these relationships.

The man must be will to dive head first into mortal danger to defend his family. Not because it's romantic, or it sounds cool, but because that's how humanity has made it this far. If it had made it this far some other way, then that other way would be what was called for out of husband/fathers.

Women are quality control. They must be level headed when picking a captain, or everything goes poorly. After she has chosen, and especially chosen well, I wouldn't be surprised at all if most people agreed that she loves her husband as much as he loves her.

Every day of a relationship, both participants make the choice to continue in it. That doesn't happen without women first choosing wisely, and then a lot of mutual "love".

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 5 points6 points  (6 children)

"Love" probably falls very short in describing what's happening in these relationships.

I think this is an accurate assessment of the problems with this concept. To my mind, it is more a chain of command showing who is responsible for protecting who on an innate lizard brain level.

Men protect/care for women so that women can protect/care for children (and if we want to throw the family dog in there - children care for the family dog to learn how to care for and protect others when they grow up).

And even aside from who runs into danger first, you can see this when a newborn enters the picture. Dad has to make sure Mom is cared for because Mom's entire focus is keeping a screaming newborn alive and fed and not thrown out the window. Does that mean that Mom doesn't love Dad? Absolutely not, it means that our genes have dictated that this is the most logical chain of care. Not love...care which equals genetic survival for both Mom and Dad's genes.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Good point.

The point you made in the other comment is also good - that the concept of "she's incapable of love" is inaccurate, often projection from a place of hurt and often poorly explained. A more accurate statement would be - she can't love him the way he loves her. Male and female love are very different and express themselves differently. The different types of love emanate from our biological imperatives. I'll address the issue of love in a future post. This post was to lay down the concept of women being biological priorities over men.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 5 points6 points  (4 children)

she can't love him the way he loves her

And since we're on RPW - there is a corollary to this that is never spoken -- he can't love her the way that she loves him.

For every man who wants to be loved for more than what he can provide (ie: for just being himself) there is a woman who wants to be loved for more than just sex or her looks.

Hopefully the lifetime commitments that we make to each other do go further than these initial love-attraction-infatuation terms but love is an area that there is a disconnect between the genders and we both struggle to live with the other's definition of love sometimes.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

For sure!

Which is why it's a topic in its own right. When I do a write up on it, I'll do my best to cover both sides of this coin.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 2 points3 points  (1 child)

You brought it up in the post. Can't help the turn the comments take ;-)

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, I know. I just don't want to address the issue in a half assed manner, I want to make sure to address it full assed. 😂

[–]lespetiteschoses 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps then you want to update your post where it says that men's powerful drive to love their partner is absent in women. This is entirely untrue.

[–]CleburnCO 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think you just explained why birth control pills killed society in terms of mate selection no longer being a big decision....IE...the captain selection process was replaced by sex without babies or consequences...in theory.

[–]lespetiteschoses 1 point2 points  (0 children)

this is a great explanation :) love is what we feel in order to carry on our relationships in a way that works and has worked for generations.

of course it's going to manifest differently in men, women and children - it doesn't mean one loves less, just that our love serves a different role in the family unit.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The man must be will to dive head first into mortal danger to defend his family. Not because it's romantic, or it sounds cool, but because that's how humanity has made it this far. If it had made it this far some other way, then that other way would be what was called for out of husband/fathers.

Good point. Throwing yourself in harms way is a biological imperative, not necessarily love. Gynocentrism is a biological imperative and that's the point of this post. Love was brought in as a side point because the way we love each other emanates from our biological imperatives.

Every day of a relationship, both participants make the choice to continue in it. That doesn't happen without women first choosing wisely, and then a lot of mutual "love".

TRP idea that "she'll never love you the way you love her", is a different discussion for another day and will hopefully be covered in a future post.

[–]taytaymonay0108 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Thank you for this explanation. I haven't really heard about this before. It leaves me asking: So where does this leave women who don't want to have children? I am a woman in a committed relationship, close to marriage, where we have said we most likely will never have kids. Does this mean I'll be missing out on some kind of special love? If I do miss this love, will I be any less of a person because of it? This is in no way trying to critique what you said, I'm honestly curious because I never thought about this.

Edit: I realize as I'm reading more of the comments that this post is more about the biological "love" between men and women and how the roles play into that so my comment may be a little out of place, but I am still curious if anyone would like to weigh in on it.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good question. As you gleaned from the comments, this is more about what's biologically true and not so much about the way you should or shouldn't be treated.

The biblical idea of man being created in the image of God implies that every human being has intrinsic value even if they offer to tangible utility to society (Example, the old and sick). OTOH, some societies would send old people off a mountain when they could no longer contribute to society.

TRP is amoral. This means it's a discussion about what human, male and female nature is. How you act based on this knowledge is up to you. What your morals ought to be is outside the preview of TRP.

[–]WonderfulandValuable 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I wonder if men are unable to perceive a woman love as such. They look for different expressions of love - do not see them and assume Women are unable to love.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a simplistic way to look at it. It's the initial proper reaction. However, upon contemplation, it's more than that. This will be covered in a future post.

[–]brockliz 1 point2 points  (1 child)

As a woman.... Two questions. What about if a woman hates and does not want a child / animal etc - and neither does the male? Genuinely curious what your thoughts on love are the . Is it more If a love the man wants because he’s getting what he wants IR is it a negative ?

As for love, i wouldn’t see it as infatuation at all - unless i just am not 100% into him and dreaming of the real man i truly love :)

We do love different though. A woman is very vocal while a man shows with actions. A woman will show with actions as well - cooking, massages, sex of course, taking full care of them after a day of work...but that isn’t necessarily love. Woman love with their feelings and emotions so so much more than their actions - which i understand why some men would confuse with infatuation. Infatuation is when you are dreaming of something unrealistic that he cannot be though :) some do love our men for all they truly are . Others become infatuate posting gushing things & photos online to escape the problems & prove to the world how they feel (what i see w those around me). Men on the other hand, aren’t as vocal with love but they will do anything for their girl - including die for them. I do see a lot of that ego and being the male role & then coming into bloom at what they are really good at - protection. In today’s society there aren’t bandits / cowboys etc running around where men get to excercise those desires of fighting for themselves and a woman, many work office jobs and never get their hands dirty, so I’m sure those men do it to also prove they are a manly man. Men do it also for themselves - not just their lady. I think it’s being twisted to make a man sound like they’d only do it for their girl above . But again I’m a female could be very wrong w how a man loves !

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What about if a woman hates and does not want a child / animal etc - and neither does the male?

Doesn't matter what your personal choice is. Your personal choice not to have children doesn't change biology.

Genuinely curious what your thoughts on love are

I'll be writing another post on that subject.

[–]tokinbl 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Interesting read, some good points, some broad generalizations, and some points to disagree with.

One of which was, where you stated women are more valuable because of their biological clock.

I think it would be contrary, as women age past that reproductive stage their value goes down in respect to that.

However as men age their value goes up because they tend to have resources necessary to succesful reproduce and give their genes a head start.

As a species genetically programmed to seek the mate that will give our offspring the highest probability of survial, younger women seek older men and vice versa since they're both in their optimal resource contribution stages.

Where else younger men dont seek older women as much.

Tldr: Speaking from a purely numerical point I disagree with your statement because older men (resources/money) and younger women(higher reproductive capabilities) are the optimal pairing. Women go down in value and men increase (generally).

What do you think?

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

What do you think?

I think you're speaking about sexual value and this post is about a broader idea of your perceived value as a human being. It's idealistic to think that all human beings have equal value, but we're biologically programmed to value some humans over others. We instinctively value women over men. This is gynocentrism.

I don't disagree with what you say here regarding SMV.

[–]tokinbl 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for clarifying that, now I have a better understanding of what the post was about.

[–][deleted]  (3 children)


[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

If you do not have time to write a fully developed and complete comment, you should wait until you do have time to fully explain your thoughts. Response should always contain actionable advice or help the OP to better understand the male/female dynamic.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)


    [–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Happy to comply with your ban request. Don't waste our time collecting karma or whatever other nonsense this is.

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)