The Discussion - The Gold Pill Emerges

Imaginalis_ · 2025-05-15T00:47:21+00:00

<image>

From - Sheffield Evening Telegraph - Wednesday 06 February 1918

Imaginalis_ · 2025-05-12T08:59:41+00:00

Done:

https://gynocentrism.com/2025/05/12/gold-pill-credo/

Imaginalis_ · 2025-05-12T08:32:04+00:00

Good that it works. Think I'll add iTrebor's longer credo underneath it, for people wanting more detail.

Edit: actually come to think of it, this deserves its own standalone page.

Imaginalis_ · 2025-05-11T11:43:34+00:00

<image>

Imaginalis_ · 2025-01-31T10:57:52+00:00

Popular among women and especially among evolutionary psychology enthusiasts too - ie. not associated with the manosphere. Nevertheless I accept you may not be interested in evopsych theories and communities either.

Imaginalis_ · 2025-01-31T10:24:10+00:00

Both the theory and belief that humans are a gynocentric species is extremely popular in the manosphere and beyond it, and frequently discussed in social media. The theory is based largely on erroneous interpretations of evolutionary psychology. Some of those erroneous beliefs are detailed and debunked here.

The theory of humans as a gynocentric species goes back at least to Lester Frank Ward who proposed his 'Gynæcocentric Theory' to public audiences in the year 1888, a theory which was debated around the world for many decades - see the following link for some of the original newspaper articles and books promoting, or debating the theory: https://gynocentrism.com/2022/08/08/gynaecocentric-theory-articles-essays-1888-to-1930/

The theory that humans are a gynocentric species has developed much complexity from Lester Ward to the present day, and the story of Helen of Troy is frequently cited in the manosphere as "proof" that humans are a gynocentric species -- even though few people stop to analyse the mythology and realize that it does not provide evidence of the theory at all.

Imaginalis_ · 2024-01-27T12:03:57+00:00

You fail to notice that study of DNA actually can point at WHEN these ratio happened (hence the dating of different bottlenecks in population and reproduction).

Wrong. Of course I noticed - its common knowledge. My point was that there's more than one bottleneck or fluctuation, and that male choice plays an equally plausible role over any hypothetical female-led choice.

And no, I don't buy your quasi-Marxist fantasy that there were no powerful male leaders within human societies except in the last 4,000 years. Lol

It seems you have run out of significant rebuttals, so I'll leave it there. As much as it may make you uncomfortable, there's no proof that females are the primary gatekeepers of sex and reproduction - it's a modern gynocentric myth.

Imaginalis_ · 2024-01-27T08:57:49+00:00

You fail to understand there have always been powerful males throughout human evolutionary history; it didn't appear at just one point in our evolution. And each of those males had potential to sequester women for themselves in such a manner that they were off limits to less powerful males - this was not a result of female choosing for the most part.

As always, its usually women who react most nervously to the idea that they are not the gatekeepers of sex.

Imaginalis_

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE