Talk:Gynocentrism

Only 2 scholars?

Why does this page only cite two scholars and that in almost every textblock.. Almost every 2-5 Sentence it cites Nathanson and Young.. And the text surely does not have to repeat that N and J think "Feminist secretly want women to control the world and when they say they want equality then they lie" TREE times.. That thing doesn´t magically become true if you repeat it at nauseum.

Okay for that to exist, the concept of Gynocentrism would have to exist outside of the work of historians and MRAs and the ilk...and it would have to exist academically outside of the works of those two humans for other people to produce meaningful critique.. It could be possible that nobody takes those seriously.. But even hat should be noted anywhere maybe?

Please tell me whether there are any other reliable, credited scholars that write about this concept and accept it as valid thing (outside of history that describes old native societies) other than those two.

p.s (not even the spelling-check on my pc recognizes the word)

Gynocentrism, gynecocentrism, and matriarchy

This talk page had a redirect to Talk:Matriarchy, which I deleted, since the article is not currently a redirect. I debated putting back the redirect from Gynocentrism to Matriarchy instead, or requesting a move to Gynecocentrism (currently a redirect to Matriarchy) as was done once before, but I decided to go with the simplest solution. See the editing history currently located at Gynecocentrism for more on this term. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Any evidence that gynocentrism actually exists on any society

Either we should make clear that gynocentrism is a purely theoretical subject (like tales about an Amazonian past) or we should bring some evidence. If evidence can't be found we should delete this article. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

How about no? 66.68.87.193 (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

How about Dianic Wicca?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Family law,rape courts, school systems, divorce laws, abortion adoption and child support etc...Eggilicious (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC).

To answer Sonicyouth86's original question, Gynocentrism does not refer only to overall social institutions (and so is not simply a synonym for Matriarchy), but can be a practice or habit of mind of individuals or relatively small groups... AnonMoos (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with AnonMoos, gynocentrism is not a pervasive matriarchy that Sonicyouth86 appears to conflate it with. Therefore lack of neutrality appears to be in the comment posed by Sonicyouth86 who suggests: "...we should make clear that gynocentrism is a purely theoretical subject". No, it is not a purely theoretical subject; examples of gynocentrism are countless, ranging from benign ones like Mother's Day, to problematic examples such as reduced sentencing for female criminals in comparison males who have committed the same crime.[1] But whether benign or problematic, I think it is helpful to distinguish between gynocentrism, and gynocentric-culture (ie. matriarchy), as in the following quotes:

"...it’s important to make a distinction between gynocentrism (that is, individual gynocentric acts, customs, or events) and gynocentric culture (a pervasive cultural complex that affects every aspect of life)." [2]

"It’s easy to overstate the import of specific examples of gynocentrism when in fact such examples may be equally balanced, culturally speaking, by male-centered acts, customs, or events which negate the concept of a pervasive gynocentric culture. Here we are reminded of the old adage that one swallow does not make a summer, and that likewise individual gynocentric acts, or even a small collection of such acts, do not amount to a pervasive gynocentric culture."[3]

Regarding gynocentrism the most comprehensive collection of definitions, historical examples of use, and associated words I was able to find on the www is recorded here; Gynocentrism: Definitions and Early Mentions. Whilst the article could definately be improved I don't find it inaccurate nor out of line with the basic dictionary definitions, and recommend the neutrality tag be removed if there is no coherent rationale for its presence.124.150.96.83 (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the sub-topic 'Gynocentric Culture' could be added to the article as a clarification of the difference. 124.150.96.83 (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

From what I read above, no coherent argument has been forwarded for use of neutrality-check tag. Neutrality-check tag has been removed pending coherent explanation for neutrality violation. 124.150.96.83 (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality: Article missing key references, focuses disproportionately on criticism

I have concerns with neutrality and accuracy. The article description contains mainly criticism or conjecture of what gynocentricism is or does by critics of gynocentricism (e.g., "may easily pass into misandry," "it can shade into ... disparag[ing] men"). Certainly criticism of gynocentricism is appropriate to include in this article, but presently the article is largely ONLY criticism (appearing under both "Description" and "Criticism"), and it lacks historically relevant quotes or references to theorists who use gynocentricism as a theoretical framework such as Charlotte Gilman Perkins in Our Androcentric Culture. (This work, as well as Herland, should be referenced in this page.) And do feminists theorists themselves liken gynocentricism to misandry, or is this mainly the position of critics? Again, criticism is fine, but we should also hear how Perkins and others define its theoretical use. Swanwonder (talk) 05:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the article should be renamed Anti-Gynocentrism, to go along with its current content and point of view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.102.193 (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

2017

I found it curious that the section called "Criticism" contains no criticism on gynocentrism, unlike one would expect. Apart from the content being a mess with no structure, it should probably be distributed into other sections or renamed "Btw, did you know?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.157.90 (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Difficulty in etymology

Don't want to get too technically linguistic, but gyno- is not actually the ancient Greek form for "woman". It's probably actually a back-formation from "gynocracy" which is in turn a haplology for "gynaecocracy"... AnonMoos (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Wording

"or specifically a feminist" Why is this here? how is it at all relevant?

"in the way people’s lives were lived." why is this past tense?

"Elements of gynocentric culture existing today are derived from practices originating in medieval society such as feudalism, chivalry and courtly love that continue to inform contemporary society in subtle ways." TIL courting isn't a part of modern society. [edit: elements of it are, which was the point being made].

"Nancy Fraser question the assumption of a stable concept of 'woman'" So feminist's are trying to move the goal posts by redefining yet another word so it can't be used against them, why are we supporting these actions again?

"Sommers also writes that the presumption of objectivity ascribed to many gynocentrist theories has stifled feminist discourse and interpretation.[16]" YOU CAN NOT LINK TO ANOTHER WIKI ARTICLE TRYING TO DISCREDIT SOMEONES FUCKING VIEW THAT BREAKS WP:NPOV This is being remove immediately, and if it comes back the article is being locked.

if I don't get a response by tomorrow, I'm rewording those quoted lines to be more accurate.

This article also needs to be added to the Men's Rights Portal.

Quote-

"or specifically a feminist" Why is this here? how is it at all relevant?

It's generally understood that feminism is the most recent form of gynocentrism (focusing on women and their issues), and several dictionaries state feminism as an example of gynocentrism, including Oxford. 118.208.86.204 (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Misandry

should "(the hatred and prejudice towards men)." be changed to the hatred and prejudice against men? I feel like towards is slightly confusing here, but yet again against doesn't seem to fit perfectly either. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Everyone should take a quick read of the 'Androcentrism' wikipedia page. Absolutely no mention of misogyny as the obvious outcome of a male perspective/worldview. Why under the Gynocentrism page is there an immediate assumption of misandry when talking about female perspectives? It's pretty sad that the Androcentrism page is clear, concise with facts and references, while the Gynocentrism page is poorly and minimally written, with questionable references; if this isn't proof-positive of the world's Androcentrism and continued lack of female viewpoint in the public sphere, I don't know what would be. Can't we take the same headings utilized in the Androcentrism page to flesh out the Gynocentrism page? Soozsee (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Please keep lede neutral: ie. free of men's rights and feminist definitions

Please keep lede neutral based on Oxford Dictionary and not on idiosyncratic definitions by men's rights and feminist groups respectively.

Oxford definition; "Centred on or concerned exclusively with women; taking a female (or specifically a feminist) point of view."

The term gynocentrism has been in use for over a hundred years, since long before feminists and men's advocates started using the term.

58.7.225.12 (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Sources that support supposedly idiosyncratic definitions are still usable. How the word's meaning and usage have changed over time are useful for an encyclopedia article. Grayfell (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't use idiosyncratic definitions for the lede. Men's rights and feminism have political agendas that can be addressed further down in the article. 124.170.189.79 (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Labeling something idiosyncratic doesn't make it invalid. The lead should summarize the body of the article, and that includes political agendas. Marija Gimbutas' work about Europe is valid but controversial, and it is not so clear-cut that it should be presented as the mainstream academic consensus regarding all civilizations. Per WP:BRD please finish this discussion before restoring to avoid edit warring. Grayfell (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There are two opposing perspectives in the description and understanding of gynocentrism, the one by feminists stating that gynocentrism centers on the point of view of women without excluding other points of view - ie. that gynocentrism is a different perspective without replicating the error of making a hierarchical ranking of those perspectives. The alternative finding by scholars Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson (and many others) state that ideologically, the overriding focus of gynocentrism is to prioritize females hierarchically. So there are two diametrically contrary views. Please keep the lede NPOV by discussing these contrary perspectives lower in the article OR present both of them in the lede in stead of trying to champion the feminist-only perspective. Personally I think those views should not be in the lede but if you insist on placing one in the lede please place them both there. Also, failure to do so is creating an unnecessary edit war. 124.170.162.237 (talk) 07:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Young and Nathanson carry next to no weight. Their books are not taken seriously by anyone other than men's rights activists. Fyddlestix (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

and with this statement, your biases become perfectly clear. This is why your edits keep being removed.

I tried finding out who has cited Young and Nathanson's work in any significant scientific journals, but found out that they have no peer-reviewed scientific publications in the first place. Thus the onus is on the poster above me to provide some reference as to who exactly, apart from men's rights activists, takes Young and Nathanson seriously and why should it be relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.157.90 (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe they are both professors specializing in religion and sociology, but someone would have to check. Google Scholar has a few thousand references to them. 118.208.86.204 (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Should those sources even be accepted?

The majority of this article uses three rather irrelevant sources:

• Peter Wright's book is a self published one and is basically original research, yet it is given academic weight in this article.
• I can't even find anything specific on Paul Nathanson, except that he is a researcher on religious studies.
• Katherine K. Young is apparently also a professor of religious studies. I hardly think this qualifies them as relevant sources for this article, unless it's specifically about gynocentrism in religion.

CorvusMonedula (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Whatever the state of this article was when this issue was brought up, it is now properly sourced with many references, the vast majority of which are not related to these three mentioned people. With the issue solved, I have removed the template. - LilySophie (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I am in agreement with you. Nathanson and Young are not minimally reliable for our subject.

A few reviews of their ill-famed series:

By Marc. A. Oulette.

By Michael Dorland

By Wendy Griffin

By Melissa Scowcroft

By Kathryn Hughes - the most positive of the lot.

Ending with an interesting story. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Reversion of edits.

@Generalrelative: Hey, what gives with the reversions of my edits? Almost all of those are to studies, and most of the rest were to thesis published on university websites. Those that aren't are to reliable news sources. I made absolutely sure to use the best sources I could. If you object to one specifically, please let me know - but the removal of so many valid and reliable sources under the guise of them being unreliable makes me feel like I'm being trolled. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

What does WP:RSP say about Quillette, a source you attempted to add twice? As for the rest, you seem to have entirely ignored the advice given to you by numerous editors over at Talk:Male privilege about WP:OR and specifically WP:SYNTH. If the publications you're summarizing do not explicitly discuss the topic of the article, they do not belong in the article. Continuing to not understand this despite having it explained again and again may be considered disruptive. Generalrelative (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry @Generalrelative: I didn't know Quillete was in there and will remove it if I re-add the info. However, all of my sources explicitly talk about issues specifically related to this topic. I can't find anything in WP:SYNTH that invokes a need for spesific keywords. Just that the studies are spesificlly about the topic at hand, and convey information about the topic of the article without using them to come to conclusions they do not. Since Gynocentrism is defined as "bias towards the female and against the male" I think that WP:SYNTH supports what I added. Would you help me make a new version of this without the unapproved Quillete source? If so, I would be very grateful. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: How about if I removed Quillette, re-added the section, then we both had a go editing it? At the very least, I think there needs to be something. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not convinced that any of this material belongs in the article, per WP:OR and specifically WP:SYNTH, as I mentioned above. Note that, per WP:LISTEN, If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed. You are getting very close to that point. See the advice I recently left for you on NightHeron's talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: I'm genuinely not trying to be disruptive here, and I don't see why my sources would be seen that way. All of them are related to Gynocentrism. For example, positive bias towards women in the courts. isn't that a textbook example of it? After all, the headline of the text literally says "Anything can be gynocentric when it is considered exclusively with a female point of view in mind." So this is not a stretch in any way, shape, or form. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: I added more dictionary sources and removed some duplicate citations from a sentence. Do you approve? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@NightHeron: How does SYNTH apply when these are literal examples of the thing in question? Nothing I can find in the rules say you have to invoke the title name. If you cannot show me the line forbidding me from citing examples like that, I will undo your revert. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not the sources invoke the title name, they have to say explicitly that they're talking about gynocentrism (possibly calling it by another name). Otherwise it's only your opinion that those examples are intended by the sources as a criticism of gynocentrism. For example, it would obviously be easy to cherry-pick government stats in such a way as to claim that women have privileges over men, but that's not allowed on Wikipedia,per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. NightHeron (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so Nick doesn't have the time to talk about my 200 years of bias towards women in the courts study. If you guys don't have a compelling argument against it, I'd like to add it. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Since my only response to you at this point is in regards to your behavior I have replied on your user talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)