You are on page 1of 11


Neo feminism. There is something about feminism that does not sit right. Heres a controver

I have a controversial belief: everything was perfect in the world of gender before feminism so far as
the organisation of the genders goes. In a world where Feminism is focussed on a fight for equal pay
and is searching always for an equality of the genders this is not the common view. But I am sure you
will agree with me or at least admit I have a point before the end of this article.

So how is it possible that everything could possibly have been okay in the world where
women had to be housewives while men went out to work and win bread? Surely both sexes should
have equal opportunities?

I accept your point my theoretical friend but I would ask you to consider this: what has
Feminism done for the feminine? Let me first spell out what I mean by the masculine and feminine.

I once read that the reason why homo sapiens became supreme and the Neanderthals
became extinct lies in the difference in our hunting habits. As you will have heard hour ancestors
were hunter-gatherers. This means that we divided the work of acquiring food into two different
approaches. The men went out and hunted whilst the women and children gathered fruits,
vegetables, nuts, seeds and so on. In Neanderthal society on the other hand everybody went on the
hunt. Their diet was predominantly meat based and so the whole society is thought to have gone
out hunting.

Why would this make us more likely to succeed? One aspect would certainly be a more
varied diet but also one must think of the hunt. Since the women and children of the Neanderthals
also went on the hunt they were more vulnerable and it was inevitable that more of them would get
injured. In contrast among our own ancestors the women and children partook in the safer activity
of gathering. While the men were at risk the women and children were safe. Thus each of the sexes
had their own role in primitive society. Men were more likely to get injured and/or die but after all it
only take a single man to pollinate a village of women. The vulnerable groups of women and children
were protected.

This leads to separate roles in society. One could call Neanderthal society an equal society in
which the men and women were equal beneficiaries. A truly post-feminist society one might say
where women are equally responsible for bringing home the bread as men.

However we thrived on the division of labour. And this would of course lead to a certain
type of evolution on either side. The types of abilities needed for men would be strength, spatial
intelligence, a calm heart and a hard one too for the business of hunting. On the other hand the
traits cultivated among the women would be more social interaction and softer traits. They were the
ones who tended camp and cooked food and looked after everybody.
What has feminism done for the feminine? Is it possible that feminism has shot its eponym in the
foot? Feminism has done a lot for women but it has been a disaster for the feminine. When men
went out and worked and women stayed at home things were not perfect. There was discontent in
the soul of women at their lot in society and being treated like second class citizens. There were two
ways to deal with this lot. Women needed equal rights. This also had two ways.

Feminism as we know it took the right hand path. In the world where only men could go out
and work and married women would have to stay at home with the kids it seemed like women were
being left outside in the cold. It seemed like there was a party going on in the bigger world and they
were trapped in the home. How could women not thirst for this bigger world where all glory and
riches were won? How could they not feel dissatisfied for what lay out there while they were locked
up at home in anonymity? And so Feminism happened and women entered the workplace and
showed themselves equally capable of holding their own. Since then they have fought for
recognition of this status of equal and showed themselves far from an inferior race but at least the
equals of their male counterparts in this world. Woman have been redeemed of any such insults
except by pockets of holdouts who cannot be converted. At least any reasonable man or woman will
now readily admit the equality of the sexes.

So much for the equality of women and men what about the equality of the masculine and
feminine? Has there been anything said on this? Is there anybody who has had the courage or the
insight to say anything on this matter? I hear no such voices around me and yet the question echoes
in my own soul. Now women have entered the mans world and have showed themselves more than
capable. They climb the many career ladders and are just as able to climb to the top and command
positions of power. And yet. Am I the only one who feels that something has been missed? Women
have entered the competitive workplace and shown that they can fight like lions for jobs and
promotions. That they can work like oxen and stay late at work and be dedicated to their post. And
yet do we not see what has happened? Women have become equal to men. But the feminine is in a
worst state than it has ever been in.

The plight of the feminine has been exacerbated a hundred times over by the movement
which ironically is eponymously named for it. Women have become masculinist. They have gone out
into the world and they fight to climb the ladders. They beat out men they compete against their
fellow women. They have banded together and are now fighting for equality of pay. They refuse to
take no for an answer. While I see incredible strength and tenacity in this I see nothing of the
feminine. The virtues of the feminine are soft. The father rules with an iron fist but the mother with
a soft and loving heart. As hunter-gatherers the men go hunting out in the big bad world and get
injured and bring back big game whilst the women gather and engage in socialising in raising the
young in the activities of social beings.
Feminism hasnt begun yet. Feminism is no closer to happening now than it was when women were
obligated to be housewives and men obligated to go out and work and win bread. Obviously I am
thinking of feminism in a slightly different way here than we normally speak of it so you are probably
wondering what exactly I am meaning here. Feminism as I think of it is to do with the feminine. This
seems straightforward enough. And then we get to talking about what exactly we mean by feminine.
Of course it is the dynamic opposed to masculine but still that is not directly clear.

For a start I will keep it simple and say that feminism is connected with the stereotype of the
woman and masculinism with the stereotype of the man. In a post-feminist world this is not such a
simple thing; the stereotype remains and yet is distorted by experience and the world we live in such
that it becomes very dubious. So lets return to the time of housewives and bread-winners.

The traits of the stereotypical housewife of what I always picture in my head as that
nostalgic era in the United States after world war two when America for a brief period was on top of
the world but not so on top of it that it is decaying. I guess that puts us in 1950s America, before
Kennedy and Vietnam and after WWII. I picture the housewife as this soft character. She is effusive,
loving, nurturing. She is master of all the homely trades. She is the doting mother of her children.
She is the foundation of the community. Her personality is light and fragile, loving and joyful. The
man in this picture has a stern upper lip. He is a serious character who thinks of the big world and is
patriotic and full of duty and sincerity. He is the hand of discipline. He is driven and proper. His is a
more hard virtue. He does not show emotion for that is a sign of weakness. He works hard and
supports his family. He is the upholder of society.

Here then is perhaps a caricature of the masculine and feminine dynamic. He is hard,
disciplined, hard-working, dutiful and taciturn. She is light, fragile, full of love and full of joy. To him
she is silly and superfluous. To her he is over-serious and scary.

There is an inequality in this couple which feminism sought to right. What was seen to be
the problem was that the woman was seen as being lesser than the man. She was seen as incapable
of raising her mind to his level. How could this creature be so serious as a man and do the work of
the mans mind and hands? Because of the way she was it was seen that perhaps she was devalued
and seen as a lesser being incapable of the heights that the man achieved. Here is the challenge and
here is the crossroads.

The way that feminism reacted to this challenge was by setting out to prove that anything
you can do we can do better. And so women entered the workplace. Women studied and worked
and climbed the career ladder. Fast forward a few decades and women are now proving themselves
in every corner of the working world. They have shown that they too can be intellectuals and
scientists and body builders and accountants. Truly anything men can do women equally can do.
Now the struggle continues as we seek to equalise the pay margin between men and women doing
the same job. And yet have we not been fooled by a red herring?

Is all this not masterful misdirection? Have we not, in answering the challenge thusly,
forfeited the challenge before we begin? We have shown that women can do anything that men can
do. But was this the point? Is there not this dysfunctional dynamic here as well as in the rest of the
world? Who are the feminists now arguing against? As a man who grew up in a womans world I
can say that it is crippling. I love you to bits but you have caused me so much tension and anxiety
and crises of identity that I cannot even begin to express. You are always looking for a nice guy as
feminism is always seeking equality. It is to get to that father figure who never cared. It is to
conquer that distant figure who will not be conquered. What you cannot see is that you have lost
yourself to him and as he left his world a wasteland so he has perpetuated a cycle of wastelands in
which our young men are now crippled and polarised within today.
Attachment. What is the feminine? It is the mother. What is the mammal? It is the species of the
mother. It is where all this game has stepped up a little.
Feminism hasnt begun yet. So-called feminism which I shall henceforth call Womanism was
the smokescreen which allowed the real problem to remain hidden. Two distinctions are to
be made: masculine and feminine and man and woman. There has been a movement for
women (so called feminism more properly the Womans Movement or as I shall call it:
Womanism). There has been no feminine movement as of yet. It is beginning but in a sense
it cannot find its identity it does not know what it is because there already seems to be a
feminism out there. All the finest movements are not just for people but for an idea. India
was like that, so was the Soviet Union, so too India.
Now Womanism what has that been about? Evening the scales between man and woman.
That battle is still being fought. 50 years on since the real outbreak and still women do not
have equal pay. Perhaps this is because they do not deserve it? Does the market not
naturally determine the true value of something? Now how does that make you feel when I
say that? I bet you feel very pissed off. I bet you think I am some kind of nastiness. Will you
keep your mind open long enough to understand what I mean or are you already sharpening
your pitchfork. Be careful with that you dont want to drive another voice underground
where it shall unify with those populists who are spreading through the underground and
taking over the world. They are silent because they know your sting and your shame and yet
it does not change their views.
Is it an insult to women that the present system values them less than men? That is a bone
for you to chew on and I could leave you with that for long enough and who knows where it
would get you. In case you have not the nose to digest it let me draw it out a bit more for
What is the nature of this system? Is capitalism based on cooperation or competition? Is it a
hunters game or a gatherers game? Can you see it yet? Do you remember who made all
this happen? That is right it was not the hunter out chasing after the buffalo it was the
women who were out gathering nuts and seeds and discovered they could cultivate some.
What a nurturing genius! Do you really think a man could have the tender heart to have
begun agriculture? Come off it. Behind every great man is an even greater woman. That my
friends is a fact. That man would like to repose in the sunshine of his woman but she drives
him onto greater pastures. He would hunt shag sleep and die a happy man. The woman
however will always walk into a shitty house and see potential. She sees possibility. She is
the one who drove us into this mess. She then put her man to work on her work of
nurturance and then one day she woke up a few thousand years later to discover that she
no longer had the power. Her vision had swallowed her. Villages became cities and fig leaves
became togas and then she realised that she was in second place. The hunting no longer
took place out there in the wild but in the great wilds of the cities. Hunting for status
hunting for money hunting for huntings sake. Fast forward again and the togas become
suits and the world becomes a globalised capitalist market.
So tell me where in all this is the nurturing genius? Is she out there hunting with the men in
the cutthroat competitive world or is she at home as ever loving and cooperating? Would
you argue that teaching sheep to wear lions clothing is feminism? No no no. Now dont get
me wrong there are women out there who are more masculine by myself and this whole
turn of events has really played in their favour but for the rest of us well its not been very
useful I am afraid. There is a certain liberation with all the anxieties that accompany such
Feminism as womanism:
Feminism has seen women enter the workplace. Before they were stuck and home and had
to give up their jobs and raise families and be dependent on men. Now women too can be
independent and have proven that they can go wherever men have gone. They have proved
themselves and now they seek only for this to be recognised.
What world have women entered and what have they left behind on this feminist
movement? The world they have entered is the free market capitalist economic workplace.
This marketplace is built on competition. Companies compete on the price and quality of
their products. Within these companies the workers compete for the promotions and pay
rises. What we are really rising in on a broader scale is status. It is the esteem of our fellow
men and women. We want to assert our place in this world and rise to the highest point
that we can. Once upon a time this was reserved only for men. With feminism women have
now entered this market and are engaged in the same games as were once reserved just for
the boys.
In the old paradigm of man at work woman at home there was discontent.
Something had to change. It seemed that women had the raw deal. They did not have
respect. And so feminism sought to earn for women this respect. Now women are out there
earning this respect every day and showing the capacities of their gender. The problem that
was found with the old paradigm was that women were not allowed to engage in the arena
of esteem. Status was reserved for the working men. The solution then seemed simple:
knock down the barrier that stopped women from getting to the land of esteem.
What if there was a deeper rot? Could it be that the true problem was not that there
was a barrier keeping women from the marketplace of status but rather that the status was
reserved only for the marketplace? Let us restate the question: why was status only on one
side of the line? Why was and is status only accorded to those who are out fighting in the
competitive world? Why are careers and work the only source of prestige in the world? Why
is what we do for a living more important than what is going on at home? Am I understood
or must we step back and look at the broader landscape?
Is the world of the marketplace masculine or feminine? The foundations of this
marketplace are laid in the word competition. That is the whole game. It is what drives
prices down and quality up. It is what is supposed to drive the best to the top and leave the
laggers at the bottom or perhaps more cynically framed drives the cold and cutthroat to the
top and the weak to the bottom? Shall we get into what the work weak means? Is it to be
too compassionate for ones fellow man or not to be compassionate enough?
Have I been understood? This is a mans world. Or more accurately it is a masculine
world. The masculine is the nature of the hunter. The feminine is the nature of the gatherer.
It seems in all this talk of equality we have forgotten that we are born of a dichotomy. We
are born on a division of labour. Not mind you division of labour as we have it now which is
really just different types of hunter. No the fundamental dichotomy was between hunter
and gatherer. The one tracked and killed animals the other gathered fruits and nuts and
nurtured the children and the elderly. The one was the social glue the other brought home
the meat. The one had the intelligence to outsmart animals, to formulate strategies and
think coldly enough that the killing of the animal did not weigh on the conscience but rather
brought one esteem. A sharp mind and a strong arm were the pride of this one. The other
was a creature of emotions and nurture. It was about love and connection which were the
necessary ingredients for a creature who was to raise the young and look after the old. It
was the nurturer and lover. A heart was required by this other.
I shall say it again: this is a masculine world. Feminism has let women loose upon this
marketplace. It has enabled them to climb this ladder and assert themselves. It has enabled
women to show how competitive they can be, how hard they can work, how drive they are.
And women have risen to the challenge. Has it all been one big red herring though?
Why are 25% of American women in their forties and fifties on antidepressants?
Why is it that those women born to the mothers who championed feminism in this world
are suffering thusly. And why is it that on this side of the Atlantic in the UK the number one
killer of men under 45 is suicide? This is a mans world but it would be nothing. Nothing.
Without a woman. Do we begin to understand the truth of this statement.
Feminism has not begun yet. The Womans Movement has achieved its goals or is
well on the way to achieving them but what if on reaching the top we find that the ladder
has been up against the wrong wall? We have cemented the hegemony of Masculinism.
Feminism has not begun yet.
What could feminism mean? It means an equalling not just of men and women but
of the masculine and feminine. Feminism has brought balance to the sexes but not to the
fundamental dynamic. Status and respect are accorded based on your position and your
place, on how competitive you are and how much money you earn. This is all Masculinism.
This is all hunter. Where are the virtues of the gatherer: the one whose pride is in the heart
and the nurturing of those around them, the one whose nature is cooperation not
competition. Where is the real Feminism to build on the foundations of this Womanism?
Where is the Feminism that faces the mental health crisis that is swallowing our society
while our drug companies try to keep up? Where is the Feminism that nurtures the young
the sick and the old? Where is the Feminism which is the foundation of all community, that
golden most tangible of all intangible things, which is dying a death in our society today?
Where is the Feminism that can restore balance to the hearts of a society consumed by
intellect and intelligence? I see it rising already but this movement has no name. I see
writers speak of emotional intelligence, of healing the psyche, of shame and guilt and all the
skeletons in our closet which we have ignored in our scaling of the mountain of success. I
see this movement beginning but it has not yet seen its unity, the thread it is weaving which
brings the feminine and the masculine back into balance. It does not see because its true
name has already been usurped by a well-intentioned misnomer. Real Feminism hasnt even
got started yet. It needs to get a move on though because this world is in desperate and
dangerous need of this counterweight. It is possible we are already too late.