The Intersection of Patriarchy Theory
and Female Accountability
Feminism merely spawns complexity in order to conceal its underlying mindset and camouflage its intentions, but the unifying equation which underlies the complexity may be tersely stated: Feminism = Female Supremacism.
However, this equation must not be nakedly stated, for it would be socially unpalatable and politically indiscreet to appear to advocate female supremacy. What's needed, is deniability. Accordingly, feminism as a sociopolitical organism must undertake a number of covert and distributed operations, in order to move forward circumspectly along the multiple pathways of its intentions.
And so feminism exploits every inherent tendency in the world that might accelerate the world toward a feminist—read female supremacist—state of existence. To put that another way, feminism harnesses those tendencies: horses roaming at liberty in a pasture will not pull your wagon—you must harness them.
In the end, the critical question is not "who exactly is or isn't a feminist?", or even "what exactly is or isn't feminism?", but rather "who or what, directly or indirectly, accelerates the worldly agenda of female supremacism?".
"Feminism" is best identified by the totality of its operations, and by its "fruits". Look for anything that either directly or indirectly strengthens women at the expense of men.
I don't mean to suggest that people or things correctly identifiable as feminists, or as feminism, don't exist. I mean rather that feminism as a cultural phenomenon is greater than the sum of its parts or of its conscious membership, and that the separation between feminism and the rest of the world is like a duotone rather than a boundary.
As I have stated elsewhere , feminism has fuzzy borders. In the vernacular of postmodernism, feminism is imbricated. There are many people or things which mightn't be purely feminist in themselves, yet they accelerate the feminist agenda all the same, because they transmit or validate feminist memes.
Feminism thrives and grows because it taps the immense reservoir of human venality, cupidity, fear, conformity and other psychic crud—especially the female half of this reservoir! Without access to this reservoir, feminism as a movement and as an ideology would crumble and blow away in the wind.
Now, the feminist sociopolitical organism couldn't keep existing solely on the back of such naive and passive support as I have suggested. In order to get going (and to keep going), it needed (and continues to need) an active cadre of self-identified indoctrinated believers—preferably in seats of influence. The organism cannot live without a brain—and a brain needs administrative capacity, otherwise, what's the point?
And so the indoctrinated operators (identifiable as feminists) find ample work, whatever their vocational standing.
And their work. . . is what? It is, to drip-feed the memes of female supremacism into the collective mind through channels large or small. Briefly, to plant suggestions. For although a suggestion is not the same as a command, there is at least a chance it will be taken up. Or, which is equally good, propagated by word-of-mouth!
And when suggestive indoctrinations trickle down the chain from voice to voice, they shade by degrees into enculturations, and therefore into unconsciousness. For culture, as we know, is propagated in naive oblivion. The original composition of a compost is discernible only in the outermost layers. . .
To recapitulate: feminism as a sociopolitical organism is set in motion, and kept in motion, only because indoctrinated operators work to make this happen. The world has gotten poisonous for men only because these pioneering activists and ideologues have worked to make it that way, blazing a trail which larger numbers have followed and trampled into a broad highway.
If not for the pioneering operators, there would be no operation. Their collective presence has the effect of a magnet, which generates a field greater than its own dimension. The field, in turn, activates anything of a ferrous nature within its range.
This field would neither spring into existence, nor continue to exist, were it not for the existence of the magnet. And while it is literally true that the field is not the magnet, it is beyond dispute that field and magnet are jointly comprehended under the rubric of magnetology—together they compose a unitary phenomenon.
This metaphor of the magnet roughly explains why there is "more to feminism than feminism". The indoctrinated operators are feeding certain organizing ideas into the world—propagating them in all directions. And these organizing ideas are implicative or supportive of the occult dogma of feminism— to wit, female supremacism.
The idea of patriarchy is the skeletal framework that holds the entire slamboozle together because, one way or another, everything hangs upon this idea. Patriarchy "theory" runs all through feminism (albeit more commonly implied or assumed than openly stated), and without such a doctrine feminism wouldn't amount to much.
Female supremacism implies moral license for women, because it implies that women are quintessentially more "right" than men, and therefore entitled not only to the benefit of the doubt in most cases, but to extra perks and pamperings as well. But female supremacism by itself is merely an "attitude", and insofar, has need of an "analysis" to back it up. Patriarchy theory provides that analysis.
Patriarchy theory is the device which draws together all of that otherwise random energy, magnetizes it, galvanizes it, points it in a politicized direction, makes it into a coherent cultural undertow. . .
Propagate this narrative among the masses, or even the camouflaged elements of this narrative, and women everywhere will take the idea on board, finding in it a convenient way to conflate their dysfunctional psychic tendencies with what appears to be a transcending rationale—something "bigger than themselves", a Great Excuse From Heaven that parts the clouds and descends to earth like a sparkling column of sunlight.
The narrative, once internalized, spawns a multitude of spinoffs, sub-narratives, sub-memes and hybrids, all of which make their way from mind to mind through a variety of channels, dispersing randomly, like a fog, through the mental environment. Soon, it becomes difficult to define the source, or to occupy any kind of external standpoint.
The "personal" becomes the "political", and so every encounter with a male person becomes (potentially) a politicized moment, framed in the rhetoric of power imbalance. This instills women with a vague, almost mystical sense that some manner of recompense is owed them simply because they are female—and traces of this feeling can percolate into the smallest transactions of life. (The recompense in question being, of course, a restitution of some abstractly-understood thing which "patriarchy" has originally stolen—or so theory would have it.)
Under such a scenario individual lives, motivations and reflexes are negated and subsumed by an ideological requirement, and women are converted into moral robots in the service of a zero-sum game.
Yes, the proclivity of feminism is to bestow moral robot-hood on women. And the razor-thin line which divides moral robot-hood from moral agency, is the line that divides the non-feminist sector from the entire feminist zone of influence. That bright line, precisely, is the boundary.
And the day that feminism commences to preaching that bright line, robustly and full-bloodedly, is the day that the femplex goes into remission. But feminist preachers instead smear this bright line all over the landscape and make it a fuzzy duotone, because the dawning of that day is the last thing they want to see.
For feminism, you understand, has amazingly little to say about ethical behavior toward men. Hear the feminist silence roar! Their sparse words upon that subject are perfunctory and pro forma—rhetorical trinkets at best. In theory, feminism makes moral robots of all women, for it would have women believe that immoral behavior toward men is precluded from the realm of possibility. Were it otherwise women would, in theory, possess moral agency. And with moral agency would come responsibility—to wit, the primordial possibility of transgression.
But the sequestered intention of feminism (read female supremacism) is to endow women with power minus responsibility. For if women were to assume the burden of ethical behavior toward men, they would ipso-facto relinquish feminist power over men, by which I mean the power to deal with men arbitrarily—and female supremacism, in the form of perpetual revolution, could advance no further.
I, the present writer, am pro-choice, meaning that I believe in choice for women: ethical choice. I further believe, as a general thing, that choices have consequences, and that women should not be shielded from the consequentiality of their choices. For to experience the consequentiality of one's choices is an element of freedom not to be neglected and, which is more, indispensable to spiritual evolution. And I believe that women should undergo as much freedom as men would undergo, for I wish to see an efflorescence of their spiritual evolution. Can't we all benefit from such blossomings?