Complex stuff, but one thing is clear: radical Leftist woke-fems, since the 80s, have done little to advance womens rights, which were already going in the right direction - they have though birthed a far right toxic masculinity and global resurgence of misogyny. Horrible though it is, all humans act out of their own logic, and any man under 40 who has endured this endless onslaught of manhating since the 80s, well who can blame them?
Women, conservative or liberal, who fight for equality, but also love men, praise male virtues, and well usually, like to kiss men - they have the balance right.
Correction, progress, respect for girls and women - but this insane academia/high school/popular media attack on all things man has run its course.
Its not only turning men (and women) in the West to the right. Its turning the authoritarian patriarchal hellholes of the rest of the planet Fascist: they are watching us. They cite us.
The fantasy of “radical Leftist woke-fems” obviously hits Sian and Tara’s buttons. Loving men and praising them occasionally doesn’t make up for the need for safety in public/private spaces. Violence done to women shows no sign of reducing. Feminism doesn’t need patriarchy - women need a fair playing field, that’s all.
My argument is that The Patriarchy is analytically and theoretically useless—but ideologically indispensable to feminism. I never said anything about “Leftist woke-fems,” though I’m fairly certain Judy (they/them) Butler exists.
You write as if women, as a population, are under constant siege in public and private spaces. In most places, that’s not reality—it’s ideology. Feminist discourse continues to circulate the image of Woman as perpetual prey—not because it reflects material truth, but because it enables moralizing and accrues value in the oppression economy.
No one opposes safety in public or private. That’s precisely what makes “safety” such an effective ideological frame: it’s basically a moral truism masquerading as political argument.
As for your sweeping, population-level claim that violence against women is increasing: that’s what you believe, not what you know. In most high-income countries, rates of violent crime—including intimate partner violence—have been declining since the 1990s. Ask yourself: what kind of dataset would need to exist, and how would one design a rigorous study to determine where, when, and why “violence” (in its many forms) is rising or falling?
What’s clear is that the feminist ideology of universal female vulnerability does not differentiate. It is also conveniently blind to violence perpetrated by women.
For too long, feminists have played fast and loose with facts. Feminist discourse tends to inflate perceived harm into moral absolutes, regardless of legal or empirical thresholds. Treating all self-reports as proof of systemic male violence is a key way the fantasy of The Patriarchy is kept alive. Ideology overrides material reality—and in return, offers enjoyment: righteous victimhood, endless grievance, moral superiority.
But it’s no mystery what actually improves public and private safety. It’s not smashing The Patriarchy. It’s not shaming “toxic masculinity.”
It’s material conditions: economic security, strong public services, and accountable legal institutions
Violence thrives in precarity, not patriarchy. Feminist ideology narrates violence as men run amok. This personalizes structural failures and turns class contradictions into moral dramas.
Finally, “women just want a level playing field” sounds reasonable—until you ask what it actually means. It smuggles in all kinds of unexamined assumptions about fairness, success, and male wrongdoing.
So let me ask: What do you mean by “level playing field”?
– Equality under the law? Already achieved in most countries.
– Identical outcomes? That’s social engineering—and usually requires coercion.
– Freedom from difficulty or consequences you don’t like? That’s utopian.
What’s wrong with the current field—specifically the one you play on?
-Can women vote, work, own property, get divorced, sue their boss?
-Are they outperforming men in higher education?
-Is the highest suicide rate among single men over 40?
Do you assume any female disadvantage is evidence of systemic oppression and
and any male success is inherently suspect?
What if the playing field is reasonably level and the outcomes still aren’t symmetrical?
What if the fantasy of fairness is doing the real ideological heavy lifting?
My comment about leftist woke-fems was really a riposte to Sian's comments which were supportive of your theme, as I read them. I referred to the need for safe spaces for women not because they are under constant siege, but because the threat of male intrusion is constant. It doesn't have to happen all the time for it to be feared. Perpetual prey is a rather dramatic presentation of a female role in society, but it doesn't take long after puberty for young women to become aware of male interest, which is not always respectful (grooming gangs?). I said that violence against women shows no signs of reducing not that it is increasing. Data on violence is difficult to get hold of, especially since it is not always reported to the police. And since the rise of transgenderism it isn't accurately recorded (in the UK). Universal female vulnerability is obviously not a helpful image to promote. I have always been more interested in survivorhood and resilience, as well as self-defence and physical fitness. But these are not always available to all women. Violence perpetrated by women, although it happens, is generally in far smaller numbers than that done by males. Look at prison stats. I can't get too excited by your references to the Patriarchy and feminism - maybe I'm just from an older generation when we laughed at people who talked about 'the patriarchy'. A level playing field to me means removal of stereotypical attitudes towards women in courts of law (witness the awful rape stats, again in the UK); better pay and pensions for women who are raising children and so have breaks in their employment record; access to better and more flexible child care once a woman goes back to work; and support for them to be with their children for longer when the child is under three years old (part-time work).
As far as I can tell, there is no patriarchy; it's a phantom.
In my county and state, I am represented by women in the state legislature (assembly AND senate), the U.S. senate, the governorship, and my county executive, treasurer and till recently, clerk. Several women sit on the State Supreme Court and Family Court bench in my county.
A woman can sue a man and take his sons, his land and his wealth. Just about anyplace I go, a woman is in charge.
Maybe I am missing something.
Someone please explain to me how this is a patriarchy.
Good observation...I come from a long, long line of the House of Prick tracked through my paternal grandfather back to Baron von Schlong in 15th century Freiburg.
The "male gaze" is a theory of cinema that has nothing to do with how men in their bodies look at women. Educate myself? What do you know about my level and type of education? What do you know about what I think about Aristotle? Is your whole post a bait and switch? The you who is commenting does not sound like the you who is the author of this article. If you are being ironic, stop.
You seem to be arguing that if I don't think your insult is funny, I have no sense of humor. And if you're such a good writer, why do you need emojis? Are you regressing to pictograms because you're losing your grip on the patriarchal, goddess-conquering phonetic alphabet?
So, there's no time for the elements of argument or the difference between feminist criticism and the critique of feminism at Smashing the Patriarchy School?
But thanks for the tip! That cover alone supports my thesis. 😆 And "Patriarchy Inc." would certainly be a more honest name for feminism today. 😉
If time permits, I will add a review of this likely tour de feminist desire to the Pervert’s Guide to Feminism series:
yep exactly Tara -- feminism is patriarchy, inc...that's hilarious...note that the first analysis of "feminism" is always based on a war between the sexes. the human race is divided in half. someone please tell me one idea from feminism that fosters cooperation. anyone?
I wanted to respond to you on Jennifer Bilek's Facebook wall, but it would seem that you blocked me. I was going to make a suggestion: Why not publish Tara's series, which ultimately will be an excellent book, under Spinifex Press? You have, I am afraid, completely lost the plot in your interpretation of her work. She is not anti-feminism (or anti-feminist for that matter--she is making a robust critique of the "cat ate my homework" for feminism. The Patriarchy has been deracinated and its ruse obviated. Many feminists (not all) pull this rabbit of The Patriarchy out of the hat whenever in a tight corner. What are feminists doing to address violence? Not only violence to women by men, but violence to other groups, including men, and violence BY women? Feminism that adheres to this rhetorical model falls flat and enters into an aporetic space of excuse-making: "Men are also affected by The Patriarchy!" and "Woman aren't responsible for their violence because of The Patriarchy!" And then when you have a man who comes along and tells men to check their shit out, to make their bed, to stop being violent (eg. Jordan Peterson), what do these feminists do? They call him a misogynist and a Patriarch because these feminists can't and/or won't listen to his Jungian patterns of analysis which is, at the very least, interesting...and often true. I fear, Renata, your intractibility to respond coherently to Tara's piece is just more evidence of what she has claimed. I will repeat my offer here, and it is a robust offer, that you submit a riposte and I will run it solong as it is devoid of all ad hominem and logcial fallacies. I think that if you truly believe that The Patriarchy is real and not ideology, than I would expect that you can comfortably defend your ideas. Saying that you have studied feminism for forty years and written books on The Patriarchy is what is called a tautology. So too have the TRAs written many books on why lesbians have peni and why sex is a scientific complot. A robust feminism should surely be able to withstand critique.
I will hopefully find your piece in my inbox soon.
This is an astute analysis. The notion that there is a man waiting around every corner who wants to rape you is a sexual fantasy.
Feminism is also absexual — which means deriving sexual pleasure from suppressing and disrupting the sex and sexual relationships of others. The extent to which feminism in the past has proffered itself as libertine or as "sex positive" is bait and switch. It is a repressive, abusive fundamentalist cult that leaves the Church of Rome in the shade.
Complex stuff, but one thing is clear: radical Leftist woke-fems, since the 80s, have done little to advance womens rights, which were already going in the right direction - they have though birthed a far right toxic masculinity and global resurgence of misogyny. Horrible though it is, all humans act out of their own logic, and any man under 40 who has endured this endless onslaught of manhating since the 80s, well who can blame them?
Women, conservative or liberal, who fight for equality, but also love men, praise male virtues, and well usually, like to kiss men - they have the balance right.
Correction, progress, respect for girls and women - but this insane academia/high school/popular media attack on all things man has run its course.
Its not only turning men (and women) in the West to the right. Its turning the authoritarian patriarchal hellholes of the rest of the planet Fascist: they are watching us. They cite us.
The fantasy of “radical Leftist woke-fems” obviously hits Sian and Tara’s buttons. Loving men and praising them occasionally doesn’t make up for the need for safety in public/private spaces. Violence done to women shows no sign of reducing. Feminism doesn’t need patriarchy - women need a fair playing field, that’s all.
My argument is that The Patriarchy is analytically and theoretically useless—but ideologically indispensable to feminism. I never said anything about “Leftist woke-fems,” though I’m fairly certain Judy (they/them) Butler exists.
You write as if women, as a population, are under constant siege in public and private spaces. In most places, that’s not reality—it’s ideology. Feminist discourse continues to circulate the image of Woman as perpetual prey—not because it reflects material truth, but because it enables moralizing and accrues value in the oppression economy.
No one opposes safety in public or private. That’s precisely what makes “safety” such an effective ideological frame: it’s basically a moral truism masquerading as political argument.
As for your sweeping, population-level claim that violence against women is increasing: that’s what you believe, not what you know. In most high-income countries, rates of violent crime—including intimate partner violence—have been declining since the 1990s. Ask yourself: what kind of dataset would need to exist, and how would one design a rigorous study to determine where, when, and why “violence” (in its many forms) is rising or falling?
What’s clear is that the feminist ideology of universal female vulnerability does not differentiate. It is also conveniently blind to violence perpetrated by women.
For too long, feminists have played fast and loose with facts. Feminist discourse tends to inflate perceived harm into moral absolutes, regardless of legal or empirical thresholds. Treating all self-reports as proof of systemic male violence is a key way the fantasy of The Patriarchy is kept alive. Ideology overrides material reality—and in return, offers enjoyment: righteous victimhood, endless grievance, moral superiority.
But it’s no mystery what actually improves public and private safety. It’s not smashing The Patriarchy. It’s not shaming “toxic masculinity.”
It’s material conditions: economic security, strong public services, and accountable legal institutions
Violence thrives in precarity, not patriarchy. Feminist ideology narrates violence as men run amok. This personalizes structural failures and turns class contradictions into moral dramas.
Finally, “women just want a level playing field” sounds reasonable—until you ask what it actually means. It smuggles in all kinds of unexamined assumptions about fairness, success, and male wrongdoing.
So let me ask: What do you mean by “level playing field”?
– Equality under the law? Already achieved in most countries.
– Identical outcomes? That’s social engineering—and usually requires coercion.
– Freedom from difficulty or consequences you don’t like? That’s utopian.
What’s wrong with the current field—specifically the one you play on?
-Can women vote, work, own property, get divorced, sue their boss?
-Are they outperforming men in higher education?
-Is the highest suicide rate among single men over 40?
Do you assume any female disadvantage is evidence of systemic oppression and
and any male success is inherently suspect?
What if the playing field is reasonably level and the outcomes still aren’t symmetrical?
What if the fantasy of fairness is doing the real ideological heavy lifting?
My comment about leftist woke-fems was really a riposte to Sian's comments which were supportive of your theme, as I read them. I referred to the need for safe spaces for women not because they are under constant siege, but because the threat of male intrusion is constant. It doesn't have to happen all the time for it to be feared. Perpetual prey is a rather dramatic presentation of a female role in society, but it doesn't take long after puberty for young women to become aware of male interest, which is not always respectful (grooming gangs?). I said that violence against women shows no signs of reducing not that it is increasing. Data on violence is difficult to get hold of, especially since it is not always reported to the police. And since the rise of transgenderism it isn't accurately recorded (in the UK). Universal female vulnerability is obviously not a helpful image to promote. I have always been more interested in survivorhood and resilience, as well as self-defence and physical fitness. But these are not always available to all women. Violence perpetrated by women, although it happens, is generally in far smaller numbers than that done by males. Look at prison stats. I can't get too excited by your references to the Patriarchy and feminism - maybe I'm just from an older generation when we laughed at people who talked about 'the patriarchy'. A level playing field to me means removal of stereotypical attitudes towards women in courts of law (witness the awful rape stats, again in the UK); better pay and pensions for women who are raising children and so have breaks in their employment record; access to better and more flexible child care once a woman goes back to work; and support for them to be with their children for longer when the child is under three years old (part-time work).
As far as I can tell, there is no patriarchy; it's a phantom.
In my county and state, I am represented by women in the state legislature (assembly AND senate), the U.S. senate, the governorship, and my county executive, treasurer and till recently, clerk. Several women sit on the State Supreme Court and Family Court bench in my county.
A woman can sue a man and take his sons, his land and his wealth. Just about anyplace I go, a woman is in charge.
Maybe I am missing something.
Someone please explain to me how this is a patriarchy.
Whatevs Eric. Go read Dworkin and think about how you get to walk down the street without being assaulted by the “male gaze”.
Get that T level checked you’re sounding borderline toxic.
P.S. There are some child brides in Nepal and Aristotle said men are superior to women.
Do better, educate yourself.
😉
BTW until now, I thought Aristotle was a boring idiot. But thank you for getting me to reconsider.
You’re welcome.
And thank you for illustrating that while The Patriarchy doesn’t exist, pricks most certainly do.
Good observation...I come from a long, long line of the House of Prick tracked through my paternal grandfather back to Baron von Schlong in 15th century Freiburg.
The "male gaze" is a theory of cinema that has nothing to do with how men in their bodies look at women. Educate myself? What do you know about my level and type of education? What do you know about what I think about Aristotle? Is your whole post a bait and switch? The you who is commenting does not sound like the you who is the author of this article. If you are being ironic, stop.
Stop being ironic? Never. You sound as humourless as The Patriarchy devotees. 😏
You seem to be arguing that if I don't think your insult is funny, I have no sense of humor. And if you're such a good writer, why do you need emojis? Are you regressing to pictograms because you're losing your grip on the patriarchal, goddess-conquering phonetic alphabet?
It’s called banter, not making an argument. I took your question to be rhetorical.
Clearly, you have a great sense of humour and are a very quick-witted. My bad.
You are discovering that my unrated Grand Master biting satirical wit is real panty dropper. Good girl!
More reading on Patriarchy for Tara after all this new drivel! https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/816P+riR2wL._SL1500_.jpg
So, there's no time for the elements of argument or the difference between feminist criticism and the critique of feminism at Smashing the Patriarchy School?
But thanks for the tip! That cover alone supports my thesis. 😆 And "Patriarchy Inc." would certainly be a more honest name for feminism today. 😉
If time permits, I will add a review of this likely tour de feminist desire to the Pervert’s Guide to Feminism series:
https://morbidsymptom.substack.com/p/a-perverts-guide-to-feminism
yep exactly Tara -- feminism is patriarchy, inc...that's hilarious...note that the first analysis of "feminism" is always based on a war between the sexes. the human race is divided in half. someone please tell me one idea from feminism that fosters cooperation. anyone?
Greetings, Renate,
I wanted to respond to you on Jennifer Bilek's Facebook wall, but it would seem that you blocked me. I was going to make a suggestion: Why not publish Tara's series, which ultimately will be an excellent book, under Spinifex Press? You have, I am afraid, completely lost the plot in your interpretation of her work. She is not anti-feminism (or anti-feminist for that matter--she is making a robust critique of the "cat ate my homework" for feminism. The Patriarchy has been deracinated and its ruse obviated. Many feminists (not all) pull this rabbit of The Patriarchy out of the hat whenever in a tight corner. What are feminists doing to address violence? Not only violence to women by men, but violence to other groups, including men, and violence BY women? Feminism that adheres to this rhetorical model falls flat and enters into an aporetic space of excuse-making: "Men are also affected by The Patriarchy!" and "Woman aren't responsible for their violence because of The Patriarchy!" And then when you have a man who comes along and tells men to check their shit out, to make their bed, to stop being violent (eg. Jordan Peterson), what do these feminists do? They call him a misogynist and a Patriarch because these feminists can't and/or won't listen to his Jungian patterns of analysis which is, at the very least, interesting...and often true. I fear, Renata, your intractibility to respond coherently to Tara's piece is just more evidence of what she has claimed. I will repeat my offer here, and it is a robust offer, that you submit a riposte and I will run it solong as it is devoid of all ad hominem and logcial fallacies. I think that if you truly believe that The Patriarchy is real and not ideology, than I would expect that you can comfortably defend your ideas. Saying that you have studied feminism for forty years and written books on The Patriarchy is what is called a tautology. So too have the TRAs written many books on why lesbians have peni and why sex is a scientific complot. A robust feminism should surely be able to withstand critique.
I will hopefully find your piece in my inbox soon.
In solidarity!
Julian Vigo
This is an astute analysis. The notion that there is a man waiting around every corner who wants to rape you is a sexual fantasy.
Feminism is also absexual — which means deriving sexual pleasure from suppressing and disrupting the sex and sexual relationships of others. The extent to which feminism in the past has proffered itself as libertine or as "sex positive" is bait and switch. It is a repressive, abusive fundamentalist cult that leaves the Church of Rome in the shade.