Listen now | Are you practicing feminism—or just patriarchy in reverse?Lovette Jallow breaks down why gynarchy mimics domination, while matriarchy redefines power through responsibility, memory, and collective care.True matriarchy rejects hierarchy entirely—unlike gynarchal frameworks that preserve power through gender swap.
Making a backup account just to comment and get blocked again? Couldn’t be me. I understand boundaries the first time.
I don’t barge into spaces especially ones led by Black women academics and imply they get their knowledge from porn. That doesn’t say anything about me. It reveals your bias and lack of respect.
No one misunderstood you. I’m clearly explaining where you went wrong. That discomfort you’re feeling? That’s accountability.
And let’s be clear: white feminist frameworks especially those born from second-wave anarchist circles are often seeped in racism precisely because they lack intersectional analysis. That’s the point I made, and it flew right over your head.
Now don’t embarrass yourself further. Your presence here is unwanted. Or are you attempting to practice a little Gynarchy on my substack now?
I am asexual. Which makes it even more ironic that you latched onto a passing mention of porn in a 3,000-word research essay while ignoring the actual subject: systems of power, governance lineage, and the Western confusion between matriarchy and gynarchy.
You are behaving like a white feminist whose analysis is no deeper than a puddle after a light rain.
My essay wasn’t about porn. It wasn’t about sex at all.
It was about how replacing patriarchy with its mirror gynarchy is still domination.
But instead of engaging with that, you reduced the conversation to a single word that made you uncomfortable.
As a lecturer, researcher, and someone writing from within a matriarchal lineage, I expect readers to show up with more curiosity than projection.
If that feels like a call-in, it’s because it is.
Asexuality isn’t a shield from accountability when we derail or misread.
I fully agree with everything you say - thank you🙂. I get what you say about "matriarchy" but, as you say, it is a very misinterpreted word. So why use it? Leadership is neither male not female so why use the first half of the word? (Latin: Mater?) "Archy" also, as you indicated, means from a masculine sense (patriarchy) domination and control but when used with the feminine "matriarchy" - it doesn't. It seems very sloppy English! Cannot there be another word for what you are explaining that neither refers to gender nor hierarchical control? This is not a criticism of you but the way words are used.
I get the instinct to find a new term. But language isn’t just about neat definitions, it’s about history, context, and power. Matriarchy has been misrepresented because it threatens dominant systems, not because it lacks clarity. I address this in detail in my Substack Notes if you’d like to explore further. What I’m describing isn’t a gendered mirror of patriarchy, but a lineage of governance rooted in memory, relational ethics, and non-dominance. The word matters because of how it’s been misused.
People need to focus on understanding its meaning which they don’t nor do they live by the values before focusing on the name and label.
My daughter was (and maybe still is) a gynarchist. She continually made anti-male comments in front of her little brother to the point where I had to forbid her from saying those things.
It sounds like your daughter is trying to name the harm she sees from patriarchy but without guidance, that critique can come out as generalizations about men rather than a structural analysis. And that’s common, especially for young people trying to make sense of power and injustice.
Critiquing patriarchy isn’t anti-male, it’s anti-domination. But without nuance, it can start sounding like gendered blame instead of a rejection of oppressive systems. That’s where conversations help.
In my work, I make a clear distinction: matriarchy isn’t about flipping the script or shaming boys. It’s about refusing the script entirely and raising children who know how to hold power with care, not control.
She was 10 years old and her brother was 5 years old. This went on until she was about 11 years old. She wasn't critiquing the patriarchy. She was trying to be feminist but she turned out gynarchist.
You were in charge of raising her. Children don’t become “gynarchists” at 10, they mirror the environments they’re raised in and often name what adults are too uncomfortable to confront.
Children are centered for a reason. They notice patterns, name injustice plainly, and call out what doesn’t feel safe or fair. That isn’t rebellion—it’s wisdom.
Maybe she wasn’t trying to dominate maybe she was trying to teach you something.
It sounds like your daughter was trying to make sense of something much larger than her power, fairness, frustration. That’s not gynarchy, that’s childhood. And rather than pathologizing her attempts to express herself, this could’ve been a moment for guided conversation, not censorship.
If you came here looking for validation of gendered blame, you won’t find it. What I offer is structural context. What you do with it is up to you. I wish you well.
You are subscribing to the belief that children are entirely molded by their parents.
However, Dr Peter Salerno has evidence that narcissism is inborn, hard-wired into the brain.
My experience with raising children taught me that you can't get into their heads and push the buttons. They are perfectly capable of making their own choices. And they do.
I’d recommend reading my estrangement essay before looking for affirmation here. The environment a child grows up in especially one shaped by a parent is not incidental. It defines their understanding of love, power, and safety.
If your child was “pushing back” at ten, that likely wasn’t defiance it was survival. Children mirror dysfunction they’re subjected to, not create it. Narcissistic traits aren’t born; they often develop through early trauma, including emotional neglect, boundary violations, and being made responsible for the emotional well-being of adults what we call parentification.
If your child went no contact, I hope they’re safe and healing. And if they were trying to name injustice at that age, it wasn’t about control. It was likely about trying to be heard in a dynamic where they had too much responsibility and too little care. You were the parent. That matters.
And like i said in my estrangement essay when I meet parents like yourself trying to find validation and affirmation I doubt you know how transparent you actually are.
I'd recommend that you read my source before you start "fixing" me. Go read Dr Peter Salerno.
And she didn't go No Contact with me; I finally went No Contact with her.
After learning about narcissism from experts like Dr Ramani and Dr Les Carter, I found out that she is very likely a Covert Vulnerable narcissist.
It seems to me that you are fixed in your belief that emotional problems in the child are ALWAYS caused by the parents, to the point where it has become a idee fixe. You are emotionally wedded to this idea, and refuse to learn anything outside your comfort zone.
The point about one's identity being tied to their gender resulting in one not developing themselves fully in aspects that dont relate to that gender was a particularly powerful message to me.
So much of who we’re allowed to be gets filtered through rigid ideas of gender, and it’s powerful when we start to notice the areas of ourselves that were left undeveloped because of it. Thank you for sharing that reflection it matters. I think about it often too, and how it impacts those around me. ‘Man’ and ‘woman’ are ultimately social constructs so who are we beyond those labels? And why does the existence of trans people unsettle some so deeply? The discomfort reveals a lot. 🙏🏾✨
It was something I started to think about and notice when I realized I was nonbinary. Even knowing I don’t resonate with the social construct of “woman” it has been hard to shake off the shackles being seen as one, being raised as one, and living presuming I was one for long long have put on me.
We both celebrate and abhor people who cross that boundary. We long a strong woman who is violent like a man but we hate her for being too “manly.” We beg men to be sensitive and understand emotions are okay but when we meet a man who is more emotionally sensitive we deride him for being “such a girl.” (“We” here being society.) I think that both gives conflicting signals to children and young adults who are still developing and figuring out who they are and makes it incredibly difficult for adults wishing to look inward to find those gaps and what they mean.
Making a backup account just to comment and get blocked again? Couldn’t be me. I understand boundaries the first time.
I don’t barge into spaces especially ones led by Black women academics and imply they get their knowledge from porn. That doesn’t say anything about me. It reveals your bias and lack of respect.
No one misunderstood you. I’m clearly explaining where you went wrong. That discomfort you’re feeling? That’s accountability.
And let’s be clear: white feminist frameworks especially those born from second-wave anarchist circles are often seeped in racism precisely because they lack intersectional analysis. That’s the point I made, and it flew right over your head.
Now don’t embarrass yourself further. Your presence here is unwanted. Or are you attempting to practice a little Gynarchy on my substack now?
I am asexual. Which makes it even more ironic that you latched onto a passing mention of porn in a 3,000-word research essay while ignoring the actual subject: systems of power, governance lineage, and the Western confusion between matriarchy and gynarchy.
You are behaving like a white feminist whose analysis is no deeper than a puddle after a light rain.
My essay wasn’t about porn. It wasn’t about sex at all.
It was about how replacing patriarchy with its mirror gynarchy is still domination.
But instead of engaging with that, you reduced the conversation to a single word that made you uncomfortable.
As a lecturer, researcher, and someone writing from within a matriarchal lineage, I expect readers to show up with more curiosity than projection.
If that feels like a call-in, it’s because it is.
Asexuality isn’t a shield from accountability when we derail or misread.
As always your words are stark, affirmative, intelligent, structured, honest, and thoughtful. I so enjoy your work, very much.
I didn’t know how much I needed this. Here’s to Matriarchy ❤️🔥
There are so many statements you make here that awaken a knowing in my body. Thank you for your sincerity and clarity 🙏🏽
I fully agree with everything you say - thank you🙂. I get what you say about "matriarchy" but, as you say, it is a very misinterpreted word. So why use it? Leadership is neither male not female so why use the first half of the word? (Latin: Mater?) "Archy" also, as you indicated, means from a masculine sense (patriarchy) domination and control but when used with the feminine "matriarchy" - it doesn't. It seems very sloppy English! Cannot there be another word for what you are explaining that neither refers to gender nor hierarchical control? This is not a criticism of you but the way words are used.
I get the instinct to find a new term. But language isn’t just about neat definitions, it’s about history, context, and power. Matriarchy has been misrepresented because it threatens dominant systems, not because it lacks clarity. I address this in detail in my Substack Notes if you’d like to explore further. What I’m describing isn’t a gendered mirror of patriarchy, but a lineage of governance rooted in memory, relational ethics, and non-dominance. The word matters because of how it’s been misused.
People need to focus on understanding its meaning which they don’t nor do they live by the values before focusing on the name and label.
Ur work is actually life changing- thank you - I can’t!!!!
Every morsel of post I read!!!!!!
Cant begin articulate but thank you xxxx
This means more than you know thank you. I feel it, even if it’s hard to put into words. Grateful that the work is reaching you. Truly.
My daughter was (and maybe still is) a gynarchist. She continually made anti-male comments in front of her little brother to the point where I had to forbid her from saying those things.
It sounds like your daughter is trying to name the harm she sees from patriarchy but without guidance, that critique can come out as generalizations about men rather than a structural analysis. And that’s common, especially for young people trying to make sense of power and injustice.
Critiquing patriarchy isn’t anti-male, it’s anti-domination. But without nuance, it can start sounding like gendered blame instead of a rejection of oppressive systems. That’s where conversations help.
In my work, I make a clear distinction: matriarchy isn’t about flipping the script or shaming boys. It’s about refusing the script entirely and raising children who know how to hold power with care, not control.
She was 10 years old and her brother was 5 years old. This went on until she was about 11 years old. She wasn't critiquing the patriarchy. She was trying to be feminist but she turned out gynarchist.
Susan,
You were in charge of raising her. Children don’t become “gynarchists” at 10, they mirror the environments they’re raised in and often name what adults are too uncomfortable to confront.
Children are centered for a reason. They notice patterns, name injustice plainly, and call out what doesn’t feel safe or fair. That isn’t rebellion—it’s wisdom.
Maybe she wasn’t trying to dominate maybe she was trying to teach you something.
It sounds like your daughter was trying to make sense of something much larger than her power, fairness, frustration. That’s not gynarchy, that’s childhood. And rather than pathologizing her attempts to express herself, this could’ve been a moment for guided conversation, not censorship.
If you came here looking for validation of gendered blame, you won’t find it. What I offer is structural context. What you do with it is up to you. I wish you well.
You are subscribing to the belief that children are entirely molded by their parents.
However, Dr Peter Salerno has evidence that narcissism is inborn, hard-wired into the brain.
My experience with raising children taught me that you can't get into their heads and push the buttons. They are perfectly capable of making their own choices. And they do.
I’d recommend reading my estrangement essay before looking for affirmation here. The environment a child grows up in especially one shaped by a parent is not incidental. It defines their understanding of love, power, and safety.
If your child was “pushing back” at ten, that likely wasn’t defiance it was survival. Children mirror dysfunction they’re subjected to, not create it. Narcissistic traits aren’t born; they often develop through early trauma, including emotional neglect, boundary violations, and being made responsible for the emotional well-being of adults what we call parentification.
If your child went no contact, I hope they’re safe and healing. And if they were trying to name injustice at that age, it wasn’t about control. It was likely about trying to be heard in a dynamic where they had too much responsibility and too little care. You were the parent. That matters.
And like i said in my estrangement essay when I meet parents like yourself trying to find validation and affirmation I doubt you know how transparent you actually are.
I'd recommend that you read my source before you start "fixing" me. Go read Dr Peter Salerno.
And she didn't go No Contact with me; I finally went No Contact with her.
After learning about narcissism from experts like Dr Ramani and Dr Les Carter, I found out that she is very likely a Covert Vulnerable narcissist.
It seems to me that you are fixed in your belief that emotional problems in the child are ALWAYS caused by the parents, to the point where it has become a idee fixe. You are emotionally wedded to this idea, and refuse to learn anything outside your comfort zone.
Someone is finally saying it!
(My wife and I discuss this a lot.)
Thank you! conversations matter, especially when we’re having them at home too. Sending strength to you both.
Is your book available in English? If so, where can I buy it?
The point about one's identity being tied to their gender resulting in one not developing themselves fully in aspects that dont relate to that gender was a particularly powerful message to me.
So much of who we’re allowed to be gets filtered through rigid ideas of gender, and it’s powerful when we start to notice the areas of ourselves that were left undeveloped because of it. Thank you for sharing that reflection it matters. I think about it often too, and how it impacts those around me. ‘Man’ and ‘woman’ are ultimately social constructs so who are we beyond those labels? And why does the existence of trans people unsettle some so deeply? The discomfort reveals a lot. 🙏🏾✨
It was something I started to think about and notice when I realized I was nonbinary. Even knowing I don’t resonate with the social construct of “woman” it has been hard to shake off the shackles being seen as one, being raised as one, and living presuming I was one for long long have put on me.
We both celebrate and abhor people who cross that boundary. We long a strong woman who is violent like a man but we hate her for being too “manly.” We beg men to be sensitive and understand emotions are okay but when we meet a man who is more emotionally sensitive we deride him for being “such a girl.” (“We” here being society.) I think that both gives conflicting signals to children and young adults who are still developing and figuring out who they are and makes it incredibly difficult for adults wishing to look inward to find those gaps and what they mean.
The video webinar is embedded in the substack.
https://youtu.be/Z_5XItocKXc?si=0mVdWZ0DFE-Xkp3V