We've always been gynocentric. Even the oldest religions have a basis in gynocentrism.

No. I disagree. This is of those "evolutionary psychology" myths which is simply a modern rationalisation of the behavior observed in current society, as is the rest of your comment (evolutionary psychology is bunk, but that is a topic for a different time).

Human society has always had a basis in differing roles for men and women, not gynocentrism per se. I'm not sure what you mean by "the oldest religions", but it's clear to me that Christianity, as an example, is patriarchal, not gynocentric. The difference is that under patriarchy, it is the male role to lead society and men have natural authority over women. Part of the role may be to provide for and care for women in their families and societies, but this is an example differing roles of men and women (equally, women were expected to care for their families and societies including their men, using their feminine abilities and talents).

That "gynocentrism" is natural is a myth usually justified by modern thinking that is inherently flawed. For example, a common "evolutionary psychology" argument is that women are more intrinsically valuable, usually justified based on something to do with how many babies a man vs a woman could have, which makes no sense since the limiting factor in human populations is the ability to successful provide for the population and raise children to adulthood, for which men play a more important role than women. This is the reason males (boys) have been historically valued more than females (girls). We can see that even today in countries such as China.

It is only feminist societies in which this is reversed. Yes, this is partly to do male roles in Western society becoming less important as there is less of a need to physical strength, but in is more to do with the prevailing attitudes in society rather than reality. Even in modern Western societies women do not survive independently of men, their survival is still supported by men except not men in their families, but the men who do all the useful jobs like maintaining the food and water supplies, electricity and transport, mining resources and building homes etc.

I also disagree that the "natural" sexual strategy of humans naturally follow is "a tournament species". This makes no sense. Humans have always lived in societies. While there may have been examples of successful "tournament" human societies when one man gets all the women, this is generally a poorly surviving society as it requires other means to coercing the majority of men (who have no wives or children) to defend and provide for that society. As opposed to a society made up of stable families, in which all members of the society have a strong stake of their own in maintaining the society. In the latter example, it does not mean there is no hierarchy in the society. The "best" men (who win "tournaments") still get the "best" women. But the men below that also get women, simply not the "best" ones.

That and free hard-core porn on demand. Imagine the twisted perception of women and sex that comes from that cocktail.

Feminism and pornography (or at least sexual liberalisation) go hand-in-hand. Female power is largely derived from the ability to manipulate men using female sexuality.

While it's true that pornography corrupts the minds of boys and men, in my view, the biggest issue of this is that it enslaves boys and men to their sexual passions, making them good servants of "sexual-liberated" girls and women, who can use their sexualities to manipulate boys and men to achieve their own aims.

Another example of this is the prevalent attitude in Western societies that the amount of pre-marital sex a man has is an indicator of his "value". In other words, a male who is a successful fornicator is a "high-quality" man. How can this be? This only makes sense in a perverted feminist world where the most "useful" men are those that women can have sexual power over.

For boys and men to rise above feminism and become anti-feminist, they do need to be chaste and stop using pornography and fornicating. They need to take control of their lives so they can no longer be manipulated by shitty women using sex to control them.

(Another issue is that the rise of feminism has meant that male-female relationships have been badly corrupted, which means that many men and boys who want to do the right thing and contain their sexual passions within a monogamous relationship, as God intended, are unable to do so without ending up in bad relationships. Luckily, the part of solution to this is again male chastity - as this men to filter prospective partners better prior to entering into a relationship that could result in children, leaving him tied to her for life, whether or not she will be a good wife or mother. In other words, chastity better equips men to say "no" to a bad deal).

Do you know why men open doors for women? Because women walk behind the man, always. chivalry wasn't ever really a thing except for the tradcucks who have always been tradcucks throughout the ages. weak men.

it started out as her acknowledging her place, and you putting her there, daily. it ended up men serving bossbitches and never meeting their eyes without permission.

Then they use very specific examples, like look at Salma hyek and how she's still hot at 50. Bitch most women aren't Salma hyek