I would like to preface this by stating this post primarily refers to the mainstream usage of the term 'patriarchy', which is commonly invoked as a catch-all term with the purpose of villainizing men, painting them as inherently privileged, and absolving women of responsibility. This post is quite long-winded, and originally, I was planning to condense all the ideas and topics into a single, large section. However, I have opted against that, since it would have made it overly lengthy and discursive. The post is separated into two sections: the first, primary section — in which I present the central ideas — and the second, in which I offer additional commentary, citations, and interesting things I have come across. The second section is meant to act as supplementary work and is quite lengthy, as I went somewhat overboard.
For the past few months, I have been studying epistemological examination, and one notion that I wanted to delve into is the purported "patriarchy" — the ever-present system that is constantly thrown around to pin the blame on men, and avoid accountability on the part of women—you will see examples of that often, such as 'Who set that system up?' [1]. But the truth is, if patriarchy is everywhere, nowhere, historic, present, abstract, embodied, structural, semantic, and spiritual—then what you call patriarchy is no longer a system. It’s a theodicy. This post will likely be water to many of you, but I still felt like writing it, especially because it's a slightly more in-depth examination of this topic, specifically how the concept of "patriarchy" functions, and how it's used by the masses—not as a social theory, but as a theodicy.
To begin, in theology, a theodicy is a justification for why evil exists in a world supposedly governed by a benevolent God. It exists to preserve belief, not to explain reality—it's often illogical and requires mental gymnastics. And that’s exactly how the modern feminist idea of patriarchy functions.
The "patriarchy" is invoked as this invisible, omnipresent, male-dominated power structure that supposedly explains every "hardship" women face—which are typically made-up, exaggerated, and a result of a deliberate misrepresentation of facts and reality. But when men face disproportionate suffering? Somehow, that too is chalked up to “patriarchy”—as if men built a system to oppress themselves. This, to me, is quite frankly such a hilarious concept, and it goes to show how far they are willing to strive in an attempt to avoid accountability and pin all the blame on men. Just blame every single societal ailment on a mysterious "patriarchy" — I suppose that is much easier than addressing the detrimental problems that plague our society, most notably affecting men in particular.
Originally, patriarchy referred to systems where men held overt, legal power over women—think ancient tribes or literal male property ownership—and such systems didn't emerge with the intention of specifically oppressing anybody; it was simply how humans developed, and the system that functioned well. It was a system that also made sense from an evolutionary perspective, and from a general perspective that considers the innate advantages that women possess due to them being the selective sex, so even if we do concede a patriarchy existed, it certainly wasn't the way feminists like to portray it, and women held many advantages even within it, since human nature is inherently gynocentric. From my observations, I also came to the conclusion a form of presentism is occurring here—a projection of present ideas, beliefs, and values upon the past. Presentism essentially describes the phenomenon of fallacious application of modern lens, and a misrepresentation of the past, which inevitably leads to flawed interpretations of past systems and values. Feminist presentism assumes that modern "egalitarian" values are timeless truths, and therefore all deviation from them in the past was necessarily unjust. But historical cultures had different value systems, and their structures can only be understood relative to the constraints, threats, and technologies of the time—but I digress. The point is, today, patriarchy is a slippery term used to describe anything feminists dislike. A woman is catcalled? Patriarchy. A woman is a CEO? Tokenism—still patriarchy. A man is homeless? Patriarchy made him toxic. It’s tautological.
Now that we got the definitions and the premise out of the way—I want to present the concept of epistemological falsification, which is, as introduced by Karl Popper, the principle that a theory can be considered scientific and epistemically sound only if it is testable and potentially falsifiable through empirical observation. This means that a scientific theory must be able to be proven wrong by evidence, not just confirmed. It's a core concept in the philosophy of science, particularly in distinguishing science from non-science. In the case of the patriarchy, at least as purported by the majority of the populace—it is unfalsifiable.
Try to present any counter-evidence, and you'll get absurd mental gymnastics:
At this point, what would falsify the theory? Nothing. That’s the point.
The problem with the modern feminist conception of “patriarchy” is that it has devolved into a theory that absorbs counter-evidence rather than being challenged by it. Anything that is contradictory to the ideas it purports, simply transforms into evidence for it, which is illogical and preposterous. There is no imaginable state of the world that falsifies the theory. And according to Popper, that means it ceases to be science—it becomes pseudoscience.
I would also add that Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, introduced the idea of paradigms, which are dominant worldviews that define how scientists interpret data. Within a paradigm, anomalies can build up over time, but the system resists change until a paradigm shift occurs.
If we apply Kuhn’s framework here, feminism operates within a patriarchy-as-paradigm framework. Any data about gender must be filtered through it. Even when mounting anomalies appear—e.g., male suicide, sentencing disparities, educational decline in boys—the paradigm remains intact. These aren’t signs the theory is wrong; they’re interpreted as evidence that the patriarchy is just deeper, more insidious, or more internalized than we thought.
Kuhn argued that revolutions occur when the cost of ignoring anomalies exceeds the cost of changing the paradigm. But with patriarchy theory, the opposite happens: the more anomalies appear, the more elaborate the explanations become.
Imre Lakatos refined Kuhn’s ideas by describing research programs, which are theories with a “hard core” that is protected by an adjustable “protective belt” of auxiliary hypotheses.
In a progressive program, new data leads to predictions and discoveries. In a degenerating program, data is explained away through ad hoc modifications, just to preserve the core belief.
Patriarchy theory is clearly in the degenerating phase:
When women dominate education? “Still patriarchy—schools teach girls to please authority.”
When women have more reproductive power? “It’s still patriarchy—men fear female sexuality.”
If men are structurally privileged, then they must generally benefit more than they suffer from that privilege. Yet no matter what the data shows, the hard core assumption that men created and benefit from a system that oppresses women—remains untouched. And to me, that does not look like growth; rather, it's theological preservationism masquerading as social science.
Before I move on, I'd like to analyze this from opposing viewpoints, as some may argue that I am engaging in scientism—which is, in and of itself, quite rigid, as it's a framework that argues science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. I see it as an old trope—when one's ideological framework can't meet basic evidentiary standards, accuse the critic of scientism. But the truth is, if a theory makes causal claims about society—about outcomes, distributions, structures—it is pretending to be descriptive. And once you claim to describe, you are making empirical claims. You don’t get to assert causality and then escape falsifiability. I don't necessarily believe a system must be material—but must it be coherent? Yes. If you’re calling “patriarchy” a system, and that system produces observable outcomes, then it is subject to the same scrutiny as any other causal explanation. Furthermore, if multiple frameworks claim to explain modern gender structures, we must evaluate which one has the fewest assumptions, the broadest scope, and the greatest predictive value. 'Patriarchy' increasingly requires ad hoc explanations to survive anomalies, whereas gynocentrism or evolutionary reproductive theory, offer a more parsimonious and falsifiable account.
Lastly, I would like to explain these ideas in more detail and analyze common "patriarchal" ideas—and why they fall apart under scrutiny. The truth is, there is no such thing as a patriarchy in the way it is typically portrayed. The so-called patriarchy is better understood as a manifestation of biological differences between men and women. Furthermore, as previously said, the system is better described through a gynocentric lens—one that emerges from human nature, and is amplified by social, cultural, and technological factors.
Let me explain with some examples. Feminists often criticize the objectification of women, yet men are objectified as well. It may be true that women are objectified more frequently in media and entertainment—but why is that? The answer is simple: men tend to enjoy looking at women more than women enjoy looking at men. Generally speaking, men are more visually attracted to women, which is evident in disparities in physical attractiveness ratings between genders [23]. That’s part of the reason why more men consume pornography—because they are more sexually attracted to women and often experience greater unmet sexual desire, since their access to women is typically limited unless they meet the cartoonishly high standards imposed on them. This dynamic is best explained by supply and demand. I would also add that women still consume a considerable amount of porn, especially through different forms such as erotica, which is not exempt from objectification of men and is arguably worse; they are also the primary buyers of sex toys, which are the most direct form of objectification. Moreover, other forms of objectification—such as being reduced to utility—affect men significantly more.
Now consider the question of why there aren’t more women in STEM fields. This, too, likely has biological roots. The truth is, in highly "egalitarian" and feminist countries like Sweden, where people are free to choose their educational paths, the gender gap in STEM fields is even wider than in less progressive nations. This phenomenon is known as the "gender-equality paradox" — a phenomenon that can be explained by the idea that when people are more free to choose, they follow their interests, which may be influenced by innate preferences. Needless to say, gender differences in general and specific types of intelligence are likely another contributing factor. This suggests that the differences are more biological than cultural.
Another frequently asked question is why there are fewer women in politics. A large-scale study found that women, on average, are less interested in politics than men. Interestingly, the gender gap in political interest was wider in developed, modern societies than in developing ones. This demonstrates that fewer women pursue political careers simply because they are less inclined to engage in political activity, and not because of systemic exclusion.
It's quite absurd and laughable, as it attempts to frame our "views" of women as ones shaped by the so-called patriarchy—a notion which is demonstrably false—since our views stem from scientific observation of human nature, and the countless bad experiences we have endured in this gynocentric society. The list of problems it presents is also ridiculous, as no rational explanation could tie those to a mysterious patriarchy, and if inquired, they would likely resort to the same tautological explanations to preserve their flawed belief, in order to absolve women of blame, and attribute it to men. Furthermore, this infographic is susceptible to the very same unfalsifiability I have previously discussed, for it attributes all ailments to a patriarchy without offering any reasonable explanation.
Now, I will structurally dismantle the ideas conveyed in this image:
1. "Incels see these as problems caused by women" — this is a blatant misrepresentation of the views we hold; the majority of us do not attribute the entirety of the blame to women—despite their responsibility for a predominant number of problems. In truth, we recognize the multifactorial nature of such problems, which emerge due to a variety of reasons, such as the inherently gynocentric nature of humans, technology, globalism, modern decadence, simps, and more. Moreover, when we do attribute blame to women—and rightfully so—we do so based on observations of their actions, as well as their direct responsibility and complicity in our suffering. If women are hypergamous, privileged, and they dismiss male suffering as irrelevant—blame will inevitably be placed upon them, and that blame would be rational, not misplaced.
2. "Pressure to be hypersexual" — this is biological reality, not an ideology imposed by men. Male sexual drive is higher on average, which is related to evolutionary factors. Moreover, this pressure is actually reinforced by women who ridicule low-status men, shame virgins, and selectively reward hypermasculine behavior in dating markets. If anything, the “pressure to be hypersexual” is part of a female-curated sexual economy, not a male-imposed one.
3. "Loneliness and isolation – not asking for help" — men didn’t sit down and decree, “Let’s suffer quietly forever.” This is a product of natural selection and social role stratification, not a conspiratorial system created to oppress women. Furthermore, all one must do is observe the behavior women exhibit when a man shows vulnerability; it typically ends with mockery, humiliation, and cruel indifference.
4. "Body image insecurities" — If they genuinely think men oppress themselves with unrealistic body standards, they are misidentifying the source of influence. Female hypergamy and mate selection are the cause, and they're not driven by the mythical "patriarchy."
5. "Lack of mental health support and resources" — who is in charge of much of the modern health and education bureaucracy? Who do politicians pander to? Women, the demographic that votes more, consumes more, and dominates sectors like psychology and education.
If we lived in a society truly run by men for male benefit, wouldn't these services be better funded and targeted toward us? Instead, men are demonized, neglected, and expected to "man up." To call a society shaped around female priorities a patriarchy is ludicrous. This is a clear case of gynocentrism.
Moving on to the bottom part:
1. "Seeing encounters with women as transactional" — this is a consequence of modern dating markets, not patriarchy. Men are not crazy to notice that effort doesn’t guarantee reciprocation, and women benefit from immense sexual choice. When you reduce men to utility, don’t act surprised when some begin to expect outcomes from that utility.
2. "Victimhood – 'I was a nice guy, hot girls are just bitches'" — true, but the part about "hot girls" is a strawman. This is a legitimate reaction to a system where men are treated as disposable unless they meet ludicrously high standards, and denied of love and pleasure because of immutable physical traits.
3. "Normalizing violence against women" — in reality, however, incels are one of the least violent groups on earth. The men most likely to normalize violence against women, and also act upon it—are the very men women flock to.
It's also worth mentioning that ironically, violence against men, whether in prisons, war, or relationships, is routinely ignored by these people; it's significantly more normalized and is often minimized. That only serves to strengthen my point—that society is gynocentric, not patriarchal. This perfectly exemplifies the paradigm entrenchment which these people engage in; they filter the data selectively in an attempt to fortify their flawed perception, and to maintain the hard core assumptions of their 'research program.'
4. "Think they’re entitled to sex just because they’re men" — another dishonest generalization. Most men don’t feel entitled to sex; they feel despair at total exclusion. There’s a difference. Furthermore, the vast number of men who attempt self-improvement disproves this notion entirely, for self-improvement is conceptually antithetical to the notion of inherent entitlement.
To conclude, this infographic demonstrates precisely the epistemological issues that I have described; it misrepresents our views, and proceeds to pin all of our problems onto a mystical force called the 'patriarchy.' In truth, however, none of these problems necessitate the existence of that system, and can be explained more parsimoniously through gynocentrism and female privilege.
This idea that “patriarchy hurts men too” is the favorite feminist failsafe—as if that preserves the coherence of the theory. But this is equivalent to saying “God gives you cancer to test your faith.” It’s not a real explanation. It’s a weak reframing that allows them to claim concern while still preserving the central narrative that men are at fault.
If a theory both privileges and victimizes men—without a clear mechanism or consistent pattern—then what exactly is its predictive value?
The truth is: men hurting doesn’t falsify patriarchy in feminist eyes—in truly absurd fashion, it confirms it. That’s how you know it’s a theodicy. Every data point loops back to the same metaphysical blame.
Sometimes they do attempt to offer falsifiability to it, commonly by referring to political representation and positions of power, but that is, in a sense, an apex fallacy—as it ignores the masses of men who are treated as second class citizens. It also ignores the reality that women hold significant influence over politicians—who often cater specifically to women and their needs, as well as the fact that this disparity could also have biological and evolutionary roots. Furthermore, one should not forget that this is merely shining light on a single power structure, which is solely one among many—social, cultural, sexual, etc.
The modern feminist concept of patriarchy no longer functions as a social theory; it functions as a doctrine of collective guilt. All men are born tainted, whether they benefit from the so-called system or not. It is, in effect, a secular version of original sin: men are inherently suspect, and their very presence in the world is tied to oppression—even if they are homeless, mentally ill, or driven to suicide.
The man who works 12-hour shifts in a freezing meat-packing plant to support a family he will lose in a custody battle? Patriarchy. The boy who fails in a feminized education system designed to reward social compliance over curiosity? Patriarchy. The lonely man who will die alone, unloved, discarded by a hyper-selective sexual marketplace? Patriarchy. The woman who capitalizes on men's loneliness and exploits them through platforms such as OnlyFans? Patriarchy.
How convenient. The same invisible force oppresses women by giving them "too little", and men by giving them too much—of pain, expectation, and burden. It is a moral fail-safe, where no matter who suffers, men are to blame.
But anyone with a functioning brain knows that when a belief system becomes so elastic that it explains everything, it ceases to explain anything.
The truth is, if men actually ran society in a self-serving way—would we allow:
Ourselves to be mutilated at birth?
Ourselves to die in wars we’re drafted into while women are protected?
Ourselves to rot in prison for longer sentences?
Ourselves to be discarded in the dating market based on looks and height?
No. A system that consistently sacrifices men is not a patriarchy. It’s a gynocentric social order under the guise of a purported patriarchy.
In short, the patriarchy—at least in the way it's commonly presented—isn’t a testable, rational framework. It’s an unfalsifiable, theodical belief system designed to preserve a worldview where women are always victims and men are always to blame, regardless of reality.
And like all bad religions, it punishes heretics who point this out.
References and Appendices:
[1] While working on this post, I came across a comment section that echoes the ideas I have expressed perfectly—women and intellectually challenged animals pointing the finger of blame at the 'patriarchy' and at men. The behavior is exactly as I described: the blame is pinned on men, and women are freed of the burden of accountability. All the while, feminist ideology and so-called 'anti-patriarchal' values and actions are nothing more than gynocentrism in disguise. The poster himself fails to understand that the system in question isn’t even what he thinks it is, but the comments are the relevant part anyway.
So, men are benefiting from MGM being legal? From being the majority of the homeless? The majority of suicides? Being disadvantaged in courts? Facing sexual market disparities? Draft laws? Workplace deaths? Custody settlements? And women being responsible for 85% of consumer spending? That totally sounds like a system that benefits men.
The system does not benefit men in any apparent way, and if probed, she would either resort to tautological reasoning or apex fallacies. In fact, I attempted to confront her—and that’s exactly what she did. She also outright denied statistics that contradicted her dogma.
It's hilarious how the existence of a patriarchy is automatically assumed yet never questioned. Discarding that flawed assumption, one must understand that women are not merely passive observers incapable of inflicting deleterious harm; in fact, they are dangerous creatures who possess the capability to corrupt society and drive it toward decadence and degradation. This is especially true given their group cohesion and hive-mind behavioral tendencies [24]. The truth is, women are a major force in shaping the current rotten state of affairs, and they hold significant responsibility—which, unfortunately, they will not suffer for. Also, as I have previously stated: this person is utilizing the term patriarchy in a malicious manner with the goal of absolving women of responsibility, for women can't possibly be in the wrong; it must be the patriarchy.
This is truly the peak of women's logic here.
You heard her, guys! These are the actions we must take to dismantle the so-called 'patriarchy.' Seriously, this is downright laughable, and I find it hard to believe someone wrote this list seriously. All of the things listed here are merely ways to reinforce an already gynocentric society, and it would be foolish to engage in any of these cucked activities. Furthermore, the last part is not just naïve—it’s utterly delusional.
Let me be perfectly clear: no amount of pandering or self-sacrifice will make women “advocate for men” in any meaningful, systemic way. The idea that women will return favors simply because men support their ridiculous causes is a fantasy rooted in wishful thinking and delusion. This reply is exactly what I previously described: advocacy for further gynocentrism and female supremacy under the guise of fighting "patriarchal values" — and unfortunately, many men fall victim to this nonsense.
---
[2] To me, male genital mutilation, also known as circumcision, is truly one of the most detestable, abhorrent, and barbaric practices which persists in modern society. It is nothing short of appalling that a society that preaches morality, civility, and so-called empathy allows such a morally repugnant violation of human rights to occur. How anyone can justify the purposeless mutilation of a body part that evolved for a reason and serves multiple biological functions is beyond me. Studies have been conducted regarding the downsides of circumcision, most notably, reduced penile sensitivity—caused by the removal of special nerve endings and the keratinization of the mucous membrane. Keratinization refers to the natural reaction of the sensitive inner skin and glans of the penis to exposure to air, and friction with underwear—which is caused by the lack of protection that the foreskin is meant to offer.
---
[4] Freeman, A., Mergl, R., Kohls, E. et al. A cross-national study on gender differences in suicide intent. BMC Psychiatry 17, 234 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1398-8
---
I cited the study about suicidal intent, as it demonstrates a pattern of behavior which many of us were likely aware of: that women's intent is generally not as serious as men's, and is typically a result of attention seeking behavior. Furthermore, these findings poke holes in the feminist notion that women attempt suicide at higher rates, since it is based on the erroneous assertion that intent is equivalent in all cases, and it doesn't take into account the effectiveness of the chosen method.
web.archive.org
[5] Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR)
---
In addition to the disparity in the number of homeless people—men are unfortunately more likely to be unsheltered, which further exemplifies the apparent female advantage in the modern gynocentric landscape:
[6] Worker Injuries and Illnesses by Sex
---
[7] 2023 Demographic Differences in Federal Sentencing
---
---
This came to my attention after @GeckoBus made his fantastic thread about the topic, and is particularly relevant to the issues I have discussed. If you have yet to read it, I'd highly advise you do so, as it breaks down many issues that plague the modern societal landscape, while also being pertinent to further matters I will go over:
incels.is
[10] Embry, R., & Lyons, P. M. (2012). Sex‑based sentencing: Sentencing discrepancies between male and female sex offenders. Feminist Criminology, 7(2), 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085111430214
---
[12] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/womens-justice-board-begins-plans-to-send-fewer-women-to-prison
[13] Sánchez, Pina, and Louise Harris. Sentencing Gender? Investigating the Presence of Gender Disparities in Crown Court Sentences. University of Leeds, 2020. https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/154388/
And what I really wanted to mention is the nonsensical claim that male violence against women is different because it is “rooted in structural inequality”. This is not an empirical argument; it is a circular ideological assertion. It does not withstand epistemological scrutiny, particularly under Popperian falsifiability. They define the structure as male-dominated, then attribute all male misbehavior to it, and then use that behavior as evidence for the structure. It's the very same tautological reasoning I have previously discussed.
You cannot empirically test whether coercion arises from "patriarchal structure" unless you first demonstrate that such a structure exists, in material terms, and show causality. But as I already argued, feminists do not demonstrate causal mechanisms between societal power structures and individual acts of abuse. They instead assert it axiomatically, which is pseudoscientific by definition.
Furthermore, the claim that “men do not experience domestic abuse as part of embedded, structural inequalities against their sex” is demonstrably false if we look at institutional responses:
If this isn’t embedded inequality, what is?
This system not only ignores male suffering; rather, it actively invalidates and delegitimizes it. In other words: the system is structurally anti-male. That directly contradicts the claim of a “patriarchal” system that advantages men at women's expense.
And just as previously outlined: the argument assumes female innocence and male guilt—akin to the original sin doctrine.
---
[16] Statistics on Male Victims of Domestic Abuse
[17] Women Match or Exceed Men in Relationship Aggression
[18] https://www.justice.gov/archives/ovw/blog/updated-definition-rape
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
I must emphasize just how malicious the use of the skewed statistics of rape truly is—utilized to vilify men, and to paint them as animalistic simians that are the primary perpetrators of rape, when ironically, this misrepresentation of facts only serves to prove the gynocentrism within our society, and the immense privilege women hold. It is quite telling that very few studies on made-to-penetrate rape exist, as that would significantly undermine the narrative they cling to.
---
---
---
---
[19] Stemple, L., Flores, A., & Meyer, I. H. (2017). Sexual victimization perpetrated by women: Federal data reveal surprising prevalence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 302–311.
[20] Caricati, L., Baldini, S., & Bonetti, C. (2023). Female‑to‑Male Sexual Assault: The Role of the Perpetrator’s Attractiveness and Attributed Emotional States on Victim Blame. Violence and Victims, 38(3), 396–413.
[21] https://gwern.net/doc/sociology/2021-dimarco.pdf
[22] Statistics on the Purchasing Power of Women Women and Global Spending
So women basically dictate the economy, control the narrative, hold the purse strings, and still somehow men are "privileged"? This is what a gynocentric society looks like. And yet they still play the victim card like they’re oppressed. How do you control most of the spending and wealth in a country and still act like society is stacked against you?
---
[23] Costa, M., & Maestripieri, D. (2023). Physical and psychosocial correlates of facial attractiveness. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 19(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000331
---
---
[24] The in-group bias of women is another topic I would like to bring forth, as it is a crucial aspect of the subject of gynocentrism, and it grants us the opportunity to better understand female nature, as well as the inherent advantages they possess, and the biases inherent to their psychology. To put it simply, the minds of women are governed by an in-group bias that is 4.5 times stronger than that of men, which is truly disturbing—albeit not surprising. These findings demonstrate a perspicuous reality: women are more likely to favor each other and show increased preference for the well-being of other women—as opposed to men, who do not exhibit a similar bias. In fact, men are more likely to favor women, extol them, and idealize them. This dynamic can clearly be seen in the intrasexual behavior of both sexes, where men are in a perpetual state of competing with each other vehemently, while women exhibit such behavior noticeably less.
---
---
To quote @GeckoBus, who put it very nicely:
I must admit—this post is far longer than I originally intended for it to be (even after trimming it significantly), and I highly doubt many of you will read it, but for what it's worth, I enjoyed writing about this topic.
Requested tag: @Stupid Clown
For the past few months, I have been studying epistemological examination, and one notion that I wanted to delve into is the purported "patriarchy" — the ever-present system that is constantly thrown around to pin the blame on men, and avoid accountability on the part of women—you will see examples of that often, such as 'Who set that system up?' [1]. But the truth is, if patriarchy is everywhere, nowhere, historic, present, abstract, embodied, structural, semantic, and spiritual—then what you call patriarchy is no longer a system. It’s a theodicy. This post will likely be water to many of you, but I still felt like writing it, especially because it's a slightly more in-depth examination of this topic, specifically how the concept of "patriarchy" functions, and how it's used by the masses—not as a social theory, but as a theodicy.
To begin, in theology, a theodicy is a justification for why evil exists in a world supposedly governed by a benevolent God. It exists to preserve belief, not to explain reality—it's often illogical and requires mental gymnastics. And that’s exactly how the modern feminist idea of patriarchy functions.
The "patriarchy" is invoked as this invisible, omnipresent, male-dominated power structure that supposedly explains every "hardship" women face—which are typically made-up, exaggerated, and a result of a deliberate misrepresentation of facts and reality. But when men face disproportionate suffering? Somehow, that too is chalked up to “patriarchy”—as if men built a system to oppress themselves. This, to me, is quite frankly such a hilarious concept, and it goes to show how far they are willing to strive in an attempt to avoid accountability and pin all the blame on men. Just blame every single societal ailment on a mysterious "patriarchy" — I suppose that is much easier than addressing the detrimental problems that plague our society, most notably affecting men in particular.
Originally, patriarchy referred to systems where men held overt, legal power over women—think ancient tribes or literal male property ownership—and such systems didn't emerge with the intention of specifically oppressing anybody; it was simply how humans developed, and the system that functioned well. It was a system that also made sense from an evolutionary perspective, and from a general perspective that considers the innate advantages that women possess due to them being the selective sex, so even if we do concede a patriarchy existed, it certainly wasn't the way feminists like to portray it, and women held many advantages even within it, since human nature is inherently gynocentric. From my observations, I also came to the conclusion a form of presentism is occurring here—a projection of present ideas, beliefs, and values upon the past. Presentism essentially describes the phenomenon of fallacious application of modern lens, and a misrepresentation of the past, which inevitably leads to flawed interpretations of past systems and values. Feminist presentism assumes that modern "egalitarian" values are timeless truths, and therefore all deviation from them in the past was necessarily unjust. But historical cultures had different value systems, and their structures can only be understood relative to the constraints, threats, and technologies of the time—but I digress. The point is, today, patriarchy is a slippery term used to describe anything feminists dislike. A woman is catcalled? Patriarchy. A woman is a CEO? Tokenism—still patriarchy. A man is homeless? Patriarchy made him toxic. It’s tautological.
Now that we got the definitions and the premise out of the way—I want to present the concept of epistemological falsification, which is, as introduced by Karl Popper, the principle that a theory can be considered scientific and epistemically sound only if it is testable and potentially falsifiable through empirical observation. This means that a scientific theory must be able to be proven wrong by evidence, not just confirmed. It's a core concept in the philosophy of science, particularly in distinguishing science from non-science. In the case of the patriarchy, at least as purported by the majority of the populace—it is unfalsifiable.
Try to present any counter-evidence, and you'll get absurd mental gymnastics:
- Male Genital Mutilation is legal and normalized; female genital mutilation is outlawed globally and condemned. — "Still patriarchy; men normalized their own pain to serve toxic masculinity." [2]
- Men commit suicide at 3–4x the rate of women. — "That’s because men don’t express their emotions, which is caused by... you guessed it, patriarchy." [3, 4]
- Men make up the vast majority of the homeless. — Ignored. [5]
- Men dominate the most dangerous and underpaid jobs. — "Because they don’t let women in!" [6]
- Men get longer sentences for the same crimes, and are less likely to win custody battles. — "Well, women are better caregivers" (funny how the patriarchy is selective in empowering women only when it benefits them). [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]
- Men are more likely to be victims of violence, but get less support. — Silence. [14, 15, 16, 17]
- Asymmetrical rape laws exclude "forced to penetrate" cases. If a woman forces a man into sex, she often walks away free. — Must have been the patriarchy! [18, 19, 20, 21]
- Sexual market disparity? Women control it entirely post-sexual revolution. Hypergamy is rampant. Women chase the top percentage of men, leaving millions completely excluded and at a severe disadvantage. — "Men are entitled!"
- Women drive 80% of consumer spending through their purchasing power and influence. — "That's just because men made them care about shopping!" [22]
At this point, what would falsify the theory? Nothing. That’s the point.
The problem with the modern feminist conception of “patriarchy” is that it has devolved into a theory that absorbs counter-evidence rather than being challenged by it. Anything that is contradictory to the ideas it purports, simply transforms into evidence for it, which is illogical and preposterous. There is no imaginable state of the world that falsifies the theory. And according to Popper, that means it ceases to be science—it becomes pseudoscience.
I would also add that Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, introduced the idea of paradigms, which are dominant worldviews that define how scientists interpret data. Within a paradigm, anomalies can build up over time, but the system resists change until a paradigm shift occurs.
If we apply Kuhn’s framework here, feminism operates within a patriarchy-as-paradigm framework. Any data about gender must be filtered through it. Even when mounting anomalies appear—e.g., male suicide, sentencing disparities, educational decline in boys—the paradigm remains intact. These aren’t signs the theory is wrong; they’re interpreted as evidence that the patriarchy is just deeper, more insidious, or more internalized than we thought.
Kuhn argued that revolutions occur when the cost of ignoring anomalies exceeds the cost of changing the paradigm. But with patriarchy theory, the opposite happens: the more anomalies appear, the more elaborate the explanations become.
Imre Lakatos refined Kuhn’s ideas by describing research programs, which are theories with a “hard core” that is protected by an adjustable “protective belt” of auxiliary hypotheses.
In a progressive program, new data leads to predictions and discoveries. In a degenerating program, data is explained away through ad hoc modifications, just to preserve the core belief.
Patriarchy theory is clearly in the degenerating phase:
When women dominate education? “Still patriarchy—schools teach girls to please authority.”
When women have more reproductive power? “It’s still patriarchy—men fear female sexuality.”
If men are structurally privileged, then they must generally benefit more than they suffer from that privilege. Yet no matter what the data shows, the hard core assumption that men created and benefit from a system that oppresses women—remains untouched. And to me, that does not look like growth; rather, it's theological preservationism masquerading as social science.
Before I move on, I'd like to analyze this from opposing viewpoints, as some may argue that I am engaging in scientism—which is, in and of itself, quite rigid, as it's a framework that argues science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. I see it as an old trope—when one's ideological framework can't meet basic evidentiary standards, accuse the critic of scientism. But the truth is, if a theory makes causal claims about society—about outcomes, distributions, structures—it is pretending to be descriptive. And once you claim to describe, you are making empirical claims. You don’t get to assert causality and then escape falsifiability. I don't necessarily believe a system must be material—but must it be coherent? Yes. If you’re calling “patriarchy” a system, and that system produces observable outcomes, then it is subject to the same scrutiny as any other causal explanation. Furthermore, if multiple frameworks claim to explain modern gender structures, we must evaluate which one has the fewest assumptions, the broadest scope, and the greatest predictive value. 'Patriarchy' increasingly requires ad hoc explanations to survive anomalies, whereas gynocentrism or evolutionary reproductive theory, offer a more parsimonious and falsifiable account.
Lastly, I would like to explain these ideas in more detail and analyze common "patriarchal" ideas—and why they fall apart under scrutiny. The truth is, there is no such thing as a patriarchy in the way it is typically portrayed. The so-called patriarchy is better understood as a manifestation of biological differences between men and women. Furthermore, as previously said, the system is better described through a gynocentric lens—one that emerges from human nature, and is amplified by social, cultural, and technological factors.
Let me explain with some examples. Feminists often criticize the objectification of women, yet men are objectified as well. It may be true that women are objectified more frequently in media and entertainment—but why is that? The answer is simple: men tend to enjoy looking at women more than women enjoy looking at men. Generally speaking, men are more visually attracted to women, which is evident in disparities in physical attractiveness ratings between genders [23]. That’s part of the reason why more men consume pornography—because they are more sexually attracted to women and often experience greater unmet sexual desire, since their access to women is typically limited unless they meet the cartoonishly high standards imposed on them. This dynamic is best explained by supply and demand. I would also add that women still consume a considerable amount of porn, especially through different forms such as erotica, which is not exempt from objectification of men and is arguably worse; they are also the primary buyers of sex toys, which are the most direct form of objectification. Moreover, other forms of objectification—such as being reduced to utility—affect men significantly more.
Now consider the question of why there aren’t more women in STEM fields. This, too, likely has biological roots. The truth is, in highly "egalitarian" and feminist countries like Sweden, where people are free to choose their educational paths, the gender gap in STEM fields is even wider than in less progressive nations. This phenomenon is known as the "gender-equality paradox" — a phenomenon that can be explained by the idea that when people are more free to choose, they follow their interests, which may be influenced by innate preferences. Needless to say, gender differences in general and specific types of intelligence are likely another contributing factor. This suggests that the differences are more biological than cultural.
Another frequently asked question is why there are fewer women in politics. A large-scale study found that women, on average, are less interested in politics than men. Interestingly, the gender gap in political interest was wider in developed, modern societies than in developing ones. This demonstrates that fewer women pursue political careers simply because they are less inclined to engage in political activity, and not because of systemic exclusion.
How the 'Patriarchy' Comes Into Play in the Context of Incels — Analysis
To illustrate the aforementioned concepts clearly and structurally, I present an infographic I came across online—one that directly pertains to the matters at hand, particularly within the context of incels. It refers to the patriarchy as a catch-all—exactly as I said—and attempts to argue much of the suffering we endure, and the views we hold, are a result of it—which is nonsensical.It's quite absurd and laughable, as it attempts to frame our "views" of women as ones shaped by the so-called patriarchy—a notion which is demonstrably false—since our views stem from scientific observation of human nature, and the countless bad experiences we have endured in this gynocentric society. The list of problems it presents is also ridiculous, as no rational explanation could tie those to a mysterious patriarchy, and if inquired, they would likely resort to the same tautological explanations to preserve their flawed belief, in order to absolve women of blame, and attribute it to men. Furthermore, this infographic is susceptible to the very same unfalsifiability I have previously discussed, for it attributes all ailments to a patriarchy without offering any reasonable explanation.
Now, I will structurally dismantle the ideas conveyed in this image:
1. "Incels see these as problems caused by women" — this is a blatant misrepresentation of the views we hold; the majority of us do not attribute the entirety of the blame to women—despite their responsibility for a predominant number of problems. In truth, we recognize the multifactorial nature of such problems, which emerge due to a variety of reasons, such as the inherently gynocentric nature of humans, technology, globalism, modern decadence, simps, and more. Moreover, when we do attribute blame to women—and rightfully so—we do so based on observations of their actions, as well as their direct responsibility and complicity in our suffering. If women are hypergamous, privileged, and they dismiss male suffering as irrelevant—blame will inevitably be placed upon them, and that blame would be rational, not misplaced.
2. "Pressure to be hypersexual" — this is biological reality, not an ideology imposed by men. Male sexual drive is higher on average, which is related to evolutionary factors. Moreover, this pressure is actually reinforced by women who ridicule low-status men, shame virgins, and selectively reward hypermasculine behavior in dating markets. If anything, the “pressure to be hypersexual” is part of a female-curated sexual economy, not a male-imposed one.
3. "Loneliness and isolation – not asking for help" — men didn’t sit down and decree, “Let’s suffer quietly forever.” This is a product of natural selection and social role stratification, not a conspiratorial system created to oppress women. Furthermore, all one must do is observe the behavior women exhibit when a man shows vulnerability; it typically ends with mockery, humiliation, and cruel indifference.
4. "Body image insecurities" — If they genuinely think men oppress themselves with unrealistic body standards, they are misidentifying the source of influence. Female hypergamy and mate selection are the cause, and they're not driven by the mythical "patriarchy."
5. "Lack of mental health support and resources" — who is in charge of much of the modern health and education bureaucracy? Who do politicians pander to? Women, the demographic that votes more, consumes more, and dominates sectors like psychology and education.
If we lived in a society truly run by men for male benefit, wouldn't these services be better funded and targeted toward us? Instead, men are demonized, neglected, and expected to "man up." To call a society shaped around female priorities a patriarchy is ludicrous. This is a clear case of gynocentrism.
Moving on to the bottom part:
1. "Seeing encounters with women as transactional" — this is a consequence of modern dating markets, not patriarchy. Men are not crazy to notice that effort doesn’t guarantee reciprocation, and women benefit from immense sexual choice. When you reduce men to utility, don’t act surprised when some begin to expect outcomes from that utility.
2. "Victimhood – 'I was a nice guy, hot girls are just bitches'" — true, but the part about "hot girls" is a strawman. This is a legitimate reaction to a system where men are treated as disposable unless they meet ludicrously high standards, and denied of love and pleasure because of immutable physical traits.
3. "Normalizing violence against women" — in reality, however, incels are one of the least violent groups on earth. The men most likely to normalize violence against women, and also act upon it—are the very men women flock to.
It's also worth mentioning that ironically, violence against men, whether in prisons, war, or relationships, is routinely ignored by these people; it's significantly more normalized and is often minimized. That only serves to strengthen my point—that society is gynocentric, not patriarchal. This perfectly exemplifies the paradigm entrenchment which these people engage in; they filter the data selectively in an attempt to fortify their flawed perception, and to maintain the hard core assumptions of their 'research program.'
4. "Think they’re entitled to sex just because they’re men" — another dishonest generalization. Most men don’t feel entitled to sex; they feel despair at total exclusion. There’s a difference. Furthermore, the vast number of men who attempt self-improvement disproves this notion entirely, for self-improvement is conceptually antithetical to the notion of inherent entitlement.
To conclude, this infographic demonstrates precisely the epistemological issues that I have described; it misrepresents our views, and proceeds to pin all of our problems onto a mystical force called the 'patriarchy.' In truth, however, none of these problems necessitate the existence of that system, and can be explained more parsimoniously through gynocentrism and female privilege.
The Patriarchy is a Religious Dogma
Much like how the religious explain natural disasters with “God’s mysterious plan,” feminists explain male suffering with “patriarchy hurting men too.” It’s circular, emotionally manipulative, and immune to reason. And its primary purpose is to assign the blame to men, and to free women from the burden of accountability, because if everything is the fault of the 'patriarchy' — everything is men's fault. Such logic is obviously nonsensical, even within its own framework, for it also assumes women are merely passive observers incapable of any ill—which is false. As a matter of fact, it's often women who advocate for, and instill harmful behavior in their male children—the very same behavior that contributes to our suffering, and should be labeled as 'gynocentric', not 'patriarchal'. Some may try to reconcile with the fact that women themselves support the very same structures and behaviors that are described as 'patriarchal' by attributing the blame to the patriarchy, which is tautological reasoning, again—no accountability. The whole thing is just absurd.This idea that “patriarchy hurts men too” is the favorite feminist failsafe—as if that preserves the coherence of the theory. But this is equivalent to saying “God gives you cancer to test your faith.” It’s not a real explanation. It’s a weak reframing that allows them to claim concern while still preserving the central narrative that men are at fault.
If a theory both privileges and victimizes men—without a clear mechanism or consistent pattern—then what exactly is its predictive value?
The truth is: men hurting doesn’t falsify patriarchy in feminist eyes—in truly absurd fashion, it confirms it. That’s how you know it’s a theodicy. Every data point loops back to the same metaphysical blame.
Sometimes they do attempt to offer falsifiability to it, commonly by referring to political representation and positions of power, but that is, in a sense, an apex fallacy—as it ignores the masses of men who are treated as second class citizens. It also ignores the reality that women hold significant influence over politicians—who often cater specifically to women and their needs, as well as the fact that this disparity could also have biological and evolutionary roots. Furthermore, one should not forget that this is merely shining light on a single power structure, which is solely one among many—social, cultural, sexual, etc.
The modern feminist concept of patriarchy no longer functions as a social theory; it functions as a doctrine of collective guilt. All men are born tainted, whether they benefit from the so-called system or not. It is, in effect, a secular version of original sin: men are inherently suspect, and their very presence in the world is tied to oppression—even if they are homeless, mentally ill, or driven to suicide.
The man who works 12-hour shifts in a freezing meat-packing plant to support a family he will lose in a custody battle? Patriarchy. The boy who fails in a feminized education system designed to reward social compliance over curiosity? Patriarchy. The lonely man who will die alone, unloved, discarded by a hyper-selective sexual marketplace? Patriarchy. The woman who capitalizes on men's loneliness and exploits them through platforms such as OnlyFans? Patriarchy.
How convenient. The same invisible force oppresses women by giving them "too little", and men by giving them too much—of pain, expectation, and burden. It is a moral fail-safe, where no matter who suffers, men are to blame.
But anyone with a functioning brain knows that when a belief system becomes so elastic that it explains everything, it ceases to explain anything.
The truth is, if men actually ran society in a self-serving way—would we allow:
Ourselves to be mutilated at birth?
Ourselves to die in wars we’re drafted into while women are protected?
Ourselves to rot in prison for longer sentences?
Ourselves to be discarded in the dating market based on looks and height?
No. A system that consistently sacrifices men is not a patriarchy. It’s a gynocentric social order under the guise of a purported patriarchy.
In short, the patriarchy—at least in the way it's commonly presented—isn’t a testable, rational framework. It’s an unfalsifiable, theodical belief system designed to preserve a worldview where women are always victims and men are always to blame, regardless of reality.
And like all bad religions, it punishes heretics who point this out.
References and Appendices:
[1] While working on this post, I came across a comment section that echoes the ideas I have expressed perfectly—women and intellectually challenged animals pointing the finger of blame at the 'patriarchy' and at men. The behavior is exactly as I described: the blame is pinned on men, and women are freed of the burden of accountability. All the while, feminist ideology and so-called 'anti-patriarchal' values and actions are nothing more than gynocentrism in disguise. The poster himself fails to understand that the system in question isn’t even what he thinks it is, but the comments are the relevant part anyway.
So, men are benefiting from MGM being legal? From being the majority of the homeless? The majority of suicides? Being disadvantaged in courts? Facing sexual market disparities? Draft laws? Workplace deaths? Custody settlements? And women being responsible for 85% of consumer spending? That totally sounds like a system that benefits men.
The system does not benefit men in any apparent way, and if probed, she would either resort to tautological reasoning or apex fallacies. In fact, I attempted to confront her—and that’s exactly what she did. She also outright denied statistics that contradicted her dogma.
It's hilarious how the existence of a patriarchy is automatically assumed yet never questioned. Discarding that flawed assumption, one must understand that women are not merely passive observers incapable of inflicting deleterious harm; in fact, they are dangerous creatures who possess the capability to corrupt society and drive it toward decadence and degradation. This is especially true given their group cohesion and hive-mind behavioral tendencies [24]. The truth is, women are a major force in shaping the current rotten state of affairs, and they hold significant responsibility—which, unfortunately, they will not suffer for. Also, as I have previously stated: this person is utilizing the term patriarchy in a malicious manner with the goal of absolving women of responsibility, for women can't possibly be in the wrong; it must be the patriarchy.
This is truly the peak of women's logic here.
You heard her, guys! These are the actions we must take to dismantle the so-called 'patriarchy.' Seriously, this is downright laughable, and I find it hard to believe someone wrote this list seriously. All of the things listed here are merely ways to reinforce an already gynocentric society, and it would be foolish to engage in any of these cucked activities. Furthermore, the last part is not just naïve—it’s utterly delusional.
Let me be perfectly clear: no amount of pandering or self-sacrifice will make women “advocate for men” in any meaningful, systemic way. The idea that women will return favors simply because men support their ridiculous causes is a fantasy rooted in wishful thinking and delusion. This reply is exactly what I previously described: advocacy for further gynocentrism and female supremacy under the guise of fighting "patriarchal values" — and unfortunately, many men fall victim to this nonsense.
---
[2] To me, male genital mutilation, also known as circumcision, is truly one of the most detestable, abhorrent, and barbaric practices which persists in modern society. It is nothing short of appalling that a society that preaches morality, civility, and so-called empathy allows such a morally repugnant violation of human rights to occur. How anyone can justify the purposeless mutilation of a body part that evolved for a reason and serves multiple biological functions is beyond me. Studies have been conducted regarding the downsides of circumcision, most notably, reduced penile sensitivity—caused by the removal of special nerve endings and the keratinization of the mucous membrane. Keratinization refers to the natural reaction of the sensitive inner skin and glans of the penis to exposure to air, and friction with underwear—which is caused by the lack of protection that the foreskin is meant to offer.
---
[3] WISQARS Leading Causes of Death
[4] Freeman, A., Mergl, R., Kohls, E. et al. A cross-national study on gender differences in suicide intent. BMC Psychiatry 17, 234 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1398-8
---
I cited the study about suicidal intent, as it demonstrates a pattern of behavior which many of us were likely aware of: that women's intent is generally not as serious as men's, and is typically a result of attention seeking behavior. Furthermore, these findings poke holes in the feminist notion that women attempt suicide at higher rates, since it is based on the erroneous assertion that intent is equivalent in all cases, and it doesn't take into account the effectiveness of the chosen method.
r/MensRights - Debunking the "women attempt suicide more" myth once and for all.
355 votes and 71 comments so far on Reddit
web.archive.org
---
In addition to the disparity in the number of homeless people—men are unfortunately more likely to be unsheltered, which further exemplifies the apparent female advantage in the modern gynocentric landscape:
[6] Worker Injuries and Illnesses by Sex
---
[7] 2023 Demographic Differences in Federal Sentencing
---
[8] Gender Differences in the Sentencing of Felony Offenders
[9] 5/6 Male UK Prisoners would be free if they were Women
---
This came to my attention after @GeckoBus made his fantastic thread about the topic, and is particularly relevant to the issues I have discussed. If you have yet to read it, I'd highly advise you do so, as it breaks down many issues that plague the modern societal landscape, while also being pertinent to further matters I will go over:
Male Rape - The Real Rape Culture + 5 out of 6 men should not be in Prison
Reynhard Sinaga is a serial rapist who was convicted of 159 sex offenses, including 136 rapes of young men [1] Introduction A lonely voice cries in the cyber steppe. For you, the gecko shall rise once more. Our anonymous thread requester wanted me to warn all you sub4 twinks. There has been...
incels.is
---
[11] Nearly 80% of custodial parents are mothers, while fathers make up only about 20%
[12] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/womens-justice-board-begins-plans-to-send-fewer-women-to-prison
[13] Sánchez, Pina, and Louise Harris. Sentencing Gender? Investigating the Presence of Gender Disparities in Crown Court Sentences. University of Leeds, 2020. https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/154388/
[14] Homicide Statistics by Gender
[15] While looking into this topic, I came across this ludicrous feminist drivel, which is a hallmark of what I discussed in this post:
First off, the claim that women experience more repeated and severe abuse is based on police reports and survey data, which are flawed due to underreporting bias—especially when it comes to male victims. Multiple studies show that male victims often underreport abuse due to societal stigma, disbelief, or fear of being mocked. When men do report, they are less likely to be taken seriously or supported. It is only a natural outcome that a disparity in the statistics would emerge, since we live in a highly gynocentric landscape.
And what I really wanted to mention is the nonsensical claim that male violence against women is different because it is “rooted in structural inequality”. This is not an empirical argument; it is a circular ideological assertion. It does not withstand epistemological scrutiny, particularly under Popperian falsifiability. They define the structure as male-dominated, then attribute all male misbehavior to it, and then use that behavior as evidence for the structure. It's the very same tautological reasoning I have previously discussed.
You cannot empirically test whether coercion arises from "patriarchal structure" unless you first demonstrate that such a structure exists, in material terms, and show causality. But as I already argued, feminists do not demonstrate causal mechanisms between societal power structures and individual acts of abuse. They instead assert it axiomatically, which is pseudoscientific by definition.
Furthermore, the claim that “men do not experience domestic abuse as part of embedded, structural inequalities against their sex” is demonstrably false if we look at institutional responses:
- Shelters for male victims are nearly nonexistent, while many exist for women.
- Police often arrest the man even when he is the victim, due to “primary aggressor” policies.
- Legal bias in courts overwhelmingly favors women in abuse allegations and custody.
- Societal perception ridicules male victims or denies their experiences outright.
If this isn’t embedded inequality, what is?
This system not only ignores male suffering; rather, it actively invalidates and delegitimizes it. In other words: the system is structurally anti-male. That directly contradicts the claim of a “patriarchal” system that advantages men at women's expense.
And just as previously outlined: the argument assumes female innocence and male guilt—akin to the original sin doctrine.
---
[16] Statistics on Male Victims of Domestic Abuse
[17] Women Match or Exceed Men in Relationship Aggression
[18] https://www.justice.gov/archives/ovw/blog/updated-definition-rape
I’m sure many of you are well aware of the asymmetry in the legal definition of rape, which excludes made-to-penetrate cases. This leads to a statistical disparity that is frequently used to demonize men while minimizing their experiences. Putting aside my personal views on the subject, it’s clear there is an ongoing injustice and a lack of fairness in determining who is recognized as a victim. Those of you who read the Wiki are likely aware of the CDC’s findings on this issue, which show that under fair definitions, men and women both rape and are raped at similar rates—at least within the past 12 months. The lifetime figures reveal a disparity, though that may be due to generational changes such as the millennial shift and other contributing factors. Furthermore, lifetime prevalence statistics have been challenged because of their susceptibility to inaccuracies:
Has ‘lifetime prevalence’ reached the end of its life? An examination of the concept - PMC
Many cross-sectional surveys in psychiatric epidemiology report estimates of lifetime prevalence, and the results consistently show a declining trend with age for such disorders as depression and anxiety. In a closed cohort with no mortality, ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
I must emphasize just how malicious the use of the skewed statistics of rape truly is—utilized to vilify men, and to paint them as animalistic simians that are the primary perpetrators of rape, when ironically, this misrepresentation of facts only serves to prove the gynocentrism within our society, and the immense privilege women hold. It is quite telling that very few studies on made-to-penetrate rape exist, as that would significantly undermine the narrative they cling to.
---
---
---
---
[19] Stemple, L., Flores, A., & Meyer, I. H. (2017). Sexual victimization perpetrated by women: Federal data reveal surprising prevalence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 302–311.
[20] Caricati, L., Baldini, S., & Bonetti, C. (2023). Female‑to‑Male Sexual Assault: The Role of the Perpetrator’s Attractiveness and Attributed Emotional States on Victim Blame. Violence and Victims, 38(3), 396–413.
[21] https://gwern.net/doc/sociology/2021-dimarco.pdf
[22] Statistics on the Purchasing Power of Women Women and Global Spending
So women basically dictate the economy, control the narrative, hold the purse strings, and still somehow men are "privileged"? This is what a gynocentric society looks like. And yet they still play the victim card like they’re oppressed. How do you control most of the spending and wealth in a country and still act like society is stacked against you?
---
[23] Costa, M., & Maestripieri, D. (2023). Physical and psychosocial correlates of facial attractiveness. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 19(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000331
---
---
[24] The in-group bias of women is another topic I would like to bring forth, as it is a crucial aspect of the subject of gynocentrism, and it grants us the opportunity to better understand female nature, as well as the inherent advantages they possess, and the biases inherent to their psychology. To put it simply, the minds of women are governed by an in-group bias that is 4.5 times stronger than that of men, which is truly disturbing—albeit not surprising. These findings demonstrate a perspicuous reality: women are more likely to favor each other and show increased preference for the well-being of other women—as opposed to men, who do not exhibit a similar bias. In fact, men are more likely to favor women, extol them, and idealize them. This dynamic can clearly be seen in the intrasexual behavior of both sexes, where men are in a perpetual state of competing with each other vehemently, while women exhibit such behavior noticeably less.
---
---
To quote @GeckoBus, who put it very nicely:
---
I must admit—this post is far longer than I originally intended for it to be (even after trimming it significantly), and I highly doubt many of you will read it, but for what it's worth, I enjoyed writing about this topic.
Requested tag: @Stupid Clown
