Summary

The article "Is Feminism a Patriarchal Invention?" explores the complex dynamics of modern feminism, questioning whether it inadvertently serves patriarchal interests and examines the impact of societal changes on gender roles and happiness.

Abstract

The piece delves into the intricate relationship between feminism and patriarchal structures, using the Polish film "Sexmission" as a metaphor for a world where women have ostensibly gained power but may still be operating within a framework designed by men. It suggests that the rise in women's participation in the workforce, coupled with increased divorce rates and a decline in women's reported happiness, indicates a potential misalignment between societal expectations and personal fulfillment. The article posits that the spiritual balance of male and female energies has been disrupted, leading to societal and reproductive issues. It questions whether the current trajectory of feminism, which advocates for equality and protection from male assault, is inadvertently pushing women into roles that compromise their biological and emotional well-being. The author proposes that a return to traditional gender roles, as depicted in Michel Houellebecq's novel "Submission," might offer a solution, where women are cared for and men are discouraged from competition that leads to societal chaos. The article calls for a submission to a grander scheme that allows for the fluidity of gender roles while protecting against the politicization of sexes.

Opinions

The author suggests that every feminist should watch the film "Sexmission" for its insights into modern gender dynamics.
There is a concern that the happiness of women has declined despite gains in wages, rights, and social spaces.
The article implies that the modern world may be experiencing a depletion of male energy and an overextension of female roles, leading to societal imbalance.
It is proposed that the current state of feminism might be contributing to women's physical and emotional exhaustion, as well as the potential neglect of motherhood.
The author questions whether the feminist movement's goals are being undermined by the demands of a capitalist society that prioritizes material achievement over traditional family structures.
The piece speculates that a spiritual equilibrium between male and female energies is necessary for a harmonious society.
It is argued that true political change occurs at the individual level, particularly within the mother-child relationship, which inherently fosters respect for women.
The author references Michel Houellebecq's "Submission" to illustrate an alternative societal structure where women submit to men, potentially leading to greater happiness and societal stability.
The article advocates for the idea that submitting to a larger, perhaps divine, order can provide guidance and protect against the politicization of gender roles.

Is Feminism a Patriarchal Invention?

Who wins, who loses, and who the hell are you in all this?

All women

SPOILER ALERT

In the state-of-the-art Polish film Sexmission (Seksmisja, 1984), a post-nuclear underground world is run by only females.

Every feminist should watch this movie. This weekend. Bring the hubbies.

In it, men have been deemed not only useless but also a hinderance, and procreation takes place in vitro, and propagates exclusively females.

I will not go into all the brilliant points the movie makes about the modern day world and there are many.

The story centers around two men who against all odds happen to find themselves in this all-female ecosystem. They were preserved through cryogenics some time in the past and are now revived.

It is however the ending that is interesting. It turns out that the post-apocalyptic world bunker was a smokescreen. Above it, on land, the world still exists, untainted.

It is inhabited by one single person: a man. This man dresses up as a woman and figures as the supreme leader of the ladies underground.

What in the real world suggests that modern-day feminism is a man’s invention?

People state different life purposes. But happiness and security are surely a democratic bet in general.

Divorces are today sky-rocketing. You could say this is a sign of extrication from supressive inter-sexual norms, to a great degree. You could also say that this is a result of the American Dream intoxicating people one notch too many.

Time is no longer ours. Women are in the workforce more than ever. When can love be cultivated?

A study that began in the 70s concludes that the happiness of women has been in decline to this day. This despite the rise in wages, rights and spaces assigned to them.

Granted, you could say that there remain ways to go in terms of women’s rights. But shouldn’t some political improvement equate to some rise in happinness?

Is something amiss?

It is easy for such a piece to appear conservative and right-wing

One way to avoid the clichés and pitfalls of nuclear family rhetoric that so often belongs to Christian white men is to invoke a spiritual discussion.

Spiritually, earth must exist in polarities of male and female. There must be push and pull, activity and nurture , otherwise there is no life.

What we see happening today is, oftentimes, a depletion of male energy, resulting in emaciation, and mobilization of the female blood for more aggressive types of tasks, such as negotiation or advertising.

It is harder and harder for western women to become pregnant. You could argue: good. There is overpopulation. This is meant to be.

But surely is an unworking uterus a sign of a problem, no matter what plan for it its owner has?

The uterus serves as more than a baby maker. It is part of the system of blood reserves that is directly responsible for nurturing wisdom.

This is part of the Divines Feminine’s deal.

Are you surprised the world seems to you a tad unwise at the moment?

Riling the men is only the second best way to create chaos

The best way is to destabilize the female. To dry her of her wise blood and set her on a path to homelessness (metaphoric or literal) and fatigue, until she is nothing but a tired man — an orphaned adolescent, really.

You can say what you want. That there remain ways to go for feminism to uphold its true purpose, which is equality, respect and asylum from male assault, mental or physical, and that we are nowhere near these goals.

But what needs to happen on the way to said goal?

Do females have to sacrifies their bodies for the industry of money and hurry?

Do mothers need to semi-orphan their children to institutions for political and material achievement?

Do men need to stop competing in a way that cultivates group conscioussness and muscle?

Real politics happen at the individual level. Likely most often within the generic simplicity of the mother and child bond. A child from such a union would never beset to oppress a woman.

Circle closed.

Another right-wing deal?

Although not really.

Listen, Houellebecq may be a Catholic conservative or an agent provocateur for the side which simply wishes to stir the pot, it doesn’t matter. Above all, he experiments.

In one of his latest titles, Submission, which I just finished, he makes a solid point, and an even more solid experiment.

If you are against experiments, you are literally a nihilist. And conversation is just this, experiments.

In Submission, Houellebecq has the Muslim Brotherhood win the French elections. Suddenly, Saudi money is flooding the French insitutions, women’s legs and hair are nowhere to be seen (and this in turn not only diminishes rampant sexual gazing but also thoughts of sex, it turns out), and men are allowed to keep four wives, none of whom are to keep paid jobs.

The idea is that, just as man is to submit to God, woman is to submit to man. This will ensure a couple of things: that the dominant — the intelligentsia — scoop up all the women and pool the population with their dominant genes. Women will be happier because they are taken care of and amid other, adult women, with whom they have their husband in common. It is the ultimate gossip club.

Does this sound like the Divine Feminine to you?

I’m really asking.

What’s the alternative?

Are you asking me?

I am a diagnostician today, masking as a blogger, masking as a feminist.

I do know this much, however, and it is that it is healthy for us to submit to a grander scheme.

Not all of the time. But much of it.

This is the problem with us: our heads tell us things are final, static.

But we can be many things at the same time and return to our primordial purposes as women and men at the end of the day.

But if we are disembodied, we are sure to miss out on the mechanism that protects us from submitting to one specific type of man, the kind who loves to see the sexes in political conflict, and the children crazed and abandoned.

Selah.

More reading:

The Modern Boyfriend

Try to think of couples you know between 30–45 wherein the man dominates the woman.

filipcabramakowski.medium.com