Gynarchic fantasies tend towards the extreme. People calling themselves Gynarchists online are more often to be found discussing the dis/advantages of castration than the means of reversing the gender pay gap. In the realm of Gynarchic utopias, Mme Aline D’Arbrant’s excesses spring to mind – and though i dare not criticise the Lady Herself, She does rather risk bringing the cause into disrepute. i don’t recommend you look Her up.
But extremism does not have to be ugly. Take the visions of Nanshakh, where the Female will is certainly imposed by force, but where the viewer perhaps unexpectedly finds himself having to admit – well, yes, it does look like a good idea, doesn’t it. Even if, personally, i’d rather keep my hair.
(Image used with permission. www.nanshakh.com).
Why is this? Is a liberal, democratic Gynarchy conceivable, or is that just another fantasy, too? (By ‘democratic’ i obviously mean universal Female suffrage. i don’t think this would be a contradiction in terms; after all we called ourselves democracies when we had only male suffrage, and not even universal at that).
Why do we feel the urge to be extreme? Why does Nanshakh’s vision have an allure that would be missing from a world where men were stripped of political and economic rights, but not of their clothes?
Perhaps it is because of the fetishisation of absolute power; if the authority of Woman is to be total, then you have to find a way of showing that this ideal has been achieved. i wonder also if it is because Gynarchy is such a radical break with the past that we feel we have to establish a visually different world in order to ensure that we do not drift back to the norms of human society. If that is true, then bringing radical Gynarchic visions into the world now is an important contribution to the cause.
[for more posts, click the Gynarchyworld logo above]