Neo-feminism hijacks values of true feminism to pursue only one goal - perpetual civil war between two halves of humanity

In spite of the fact that the tidal wave of political neo-feminism currently sweeping mostly the Anglo-Saxon West – just as is a number of other raw political movements masked as mere social justice movements – has become an extremely delicate topic for many (mostly because of the almost religious sacredness veneer imparted to the subject so that anyone who dares to rationally criticize any aspects of it runs the risk of becoming a victim of demagogic witch-hunt, social smear tactics and ad-hominem attacks on “pseudo-moral grounds”), I venture to express some critical notes on certain facets of this phenomenon – the neo-feminism which, unlike the classic feminism with its undisputed conquests, has some really dubious ends and results.

Of course my notes express only my opinion, not devoid of natural bias, but as any rational criticism directed not at the people but at the idea or phenomenon, they are open for critical discussion and rational counter-arguments (as opposed to ad hominem attacks and smear – almost the only two methods notoriously but unsurprisingly used by the neo-feminism in the social and political space).

IN SHORT

In short, my critical conclusions regarding the present day wave of neo-feminism in the West, especially its Anglo-Saxon part, amount to this:

This movement or phenomenon mostly bears a genuinely political character (term “genuine political” explained below in the next section), pursues as its final goal truly political purposes, not social and moral purposes, whereas the true feminism was aimed at the opposite goal of social and ethical equality, not gaining raw political power and political advantage (true feminism exerted political pressure, just like many things do, but it was never political by its nature and goals).

Neo-feminism is intrinsically directed at building a wall between the two halves of humankind – women and men – the wall of polarization and antagonism, fears and distrust between the two genders, stimulating bellicose archetypes, sowing the seeds of animosity on a social scale in the socio-cultural DNA, as opposed to the genuine feminism the ultimate purpose of which was social, legal and ethical harmony between the two halves of the humankind, dissipation of inequality and biases related thereto, destroying the wall of fears and distrust, creating more understanding between the two sexes and the basis for mutual enjoyment of co-existence and development both on the social and individual level. In its predictable results, if not outright purpose, the neo-feminism effectively destroys, not supports the deep humanist values of the true feminism.

In its methods the neo-feminism uses demagoguery based on fanning fears and distrust, as opposed to the rational argument and critical discussion, and the result of that creates some deleterious cultural perversions, such as, for example, social masculinization of female collective identity and inhibition of some natural intrinsic aspects of the female nature and character.

In very simple layman's terms, instead of using and socially promoting fundamental exclusive advantages of the female nature and character so that, for example, women might have enough power “to grab the men – their sons and husbands – by the scruff of their neck and pull them out of the trenches of war” where they kill each other in their millions on the regular basis due to their male competitive warlike aggressive inclinations, and set them to the more worthy cause of growing new lives and teaching children, women tend towards the opposite propensity of taking a gun, putting on uniforms and burrowing themselves into the same ugly trenches of war on a par with men, trying to prove to men and themselves that they can do the same ugly, deeply male by their nature things no worse than men can do them – the crowning glory of feminism indeed! This is in contradistinction to the classic feminism, one of the desired aim of which actually was the enhancement and promotion of those positive purely female advantages of character that are not sufficiently present in the male nature, promotion of mutual cooperation and knowledge-seeking curiosity in both sexes towards each other, the balancing of the intrinsic male propensity to high risks and excessive competition with the feminine propensity to cooperation and risk mitigation thereby creating a much more harmonious, socially cohesive, friendly and peaceful society.

That, of course, is not what the present neo-feminism does: in fact it is directed at depriving women of their deep natural advantages and identity and inducing them to blindly force upon themselves some intrinsically male characteristics to one degree or another, and the most atrocious aspects of those characteristics too.

In other words, instead of questioning the very moral foundations and social impacts of some “games” and the rules of those games that were invented very long time ago by men for men because of domination of men the present feminism actually accepts them blindly (or on purpose) and tries to force women to compete with men within the systems that from the very start were created by men partially based on very dubious moral grounds and sometimes ruthless premises and visions of human nature and value (or lack thereof) of human life.

Instead of reviewing the ethical and aesthetic aspects of, for example, boxing sport and create new games, women are conditioned by the new feminism into trying to be “equal” to men in their ability to punch each other faces into a bloody pulp, proving everybody how they can be no less mad than men.

Instead of rationally questioning and reforming tectonically the very moral grounds and motivations of the man-created international relationship philosophies and military policies, that have generated thousands of wars and ruthlessly swept away hundreds of millions of human lives (those very lives of sons and daughters that women, thanks to mother nature, give birth to and have special emotional experience and knowledge about), the neo-feminism pushes women to actually be like men and pit themselves against men as equals in succeeding in the same typically aggressive bloodthirsty rules of the perverted game and visions of the societal relations (my personal hope for women's potential to save the world from the claws of the brother-killing modus operandi of the present nation-states created and perpetuated by men I already mentioned years ago: https://dr-world.blogspot.com/2012/02/girls-dont-break-my-heart-save-world.html).

Instead of questioning and fighting the very male-created corporate culture and its underlying perverted (anti)ethical philosophies (especially in the Anglo-Saxon West), according to which the quickest promotion and highest remuneration is given to those who are most aggressive in appropriating merits and ideas, most skilful and manipulative in shifting the responsibility and blame to others, most vociferous and demagogic in the advertisement and PR of fake or stolen achievements, most insistent in demanding higher rewards, women are often cajoled by the neo-feminism to either try to excel in this ugly (un)ethical frame of reference created by men, or just ascribe the problem to the assumption that the root of their disenfranchisement is just a superficial discriminatory attitude towards their gender (whereas in reality many of those men who for one reason or another don't like to behave in the gambling aggressive manner that the corporate culture requires them to, happen to be at the same disadvantage as many women are in the corporate world). In other words, again, instead of “moving chair to the table” the “table is moved to the chair”, and instead of treating the cause to repair the effect, the effect is mendaciously exploited by neo-feminist demagogues to falsify the cause.

The latter example cannot but bring to mind another field that also uses the “leaven” of victimhood, revenge and infantilism upon which the neo-feminism was created and has been fermenting, namely reactions and attitudes towards the deeply perverted elements of sexual culture (as opposed to the culture of intimate love) in the Western society (again, especially in the Anglo-Saxon part of it, and most prominently in the US) and philosophies (or rather the absence thereof) of rectifying that culture.

While at the deepest level the miserable failure of the “sexual revolution” that made the sexual culture in North America arguably even worse in many aspects than it had been prior that revolution (that's not to say it had been particular good before in the first place) is among the most profound causes of the brick wall of misunderstanding, lack of empathy and cohesion, inequity and inequality in many aspects of the social relationship between the two halves of the humankind, the neo-feminism unsurprisingly doesn't address that problem at all but rather parasitically exploits the more superficial consequences of that problem to politically propagate the climate of social vendetta, infinite reparation, hysteria and distrust, subliminally implanting on the collective mind the emotional pattern according to which the cause of righteous, almost religious in its spirit, crusade against millions of men who try to solicit sexual relationship with women by using ethically unscrupulous methods has anything to do with the tasks and goals of real feminism. In other words, the neo-feminism stirs hate towards the agents of bad culture as opposed to the battle with the real socio-psychological causes of this morbid sexual culture.

This was given a special impetus by recent infamous Hollywood revelations and following campaigns. Indeed, the ethical case against those thousands of men who unscrupulously use the power of their position to solicit sexual gratification from women is not different from those individuals who, by quirk of fate, happened to be gay (or bisexual) and abused the power of their position to solicit sexual gratification from other men, with the only exception that the latter cases are rarer in statistical terms (though not unheard-of at all neither at present nor in the past) mainly because of the lesser percentage of gays among men by comparison. This case, while absolutely just in its own right like any other case against the abuse of power for personal interests and gratifications, has little to do with the purposes of real feminism and equality of rights between genders. Yet the social and cultural causes that lead to the creation and self-reproduction of the very perverted proclivity among so many men towards these particular ways of channelizing their sexual force do actually have everything to do with the ultimate tasks and goals of the true feminism, but those deep causes are the last thing that this neo- or pseudo-feminism really wants to investigate and deal with. And not surprisingly so, because if it did want to fight the real objective causes of the problem then its genuine political purposes of the fear-and-hate-based quasi-religious vendetta-oriented crusade would be immediately undermined.

The list of such sad examples goes on with no end, demonstrating this bitter irony when those, who are supposed to change the very values of the institutions and culture, actually compete with each other and other males in trying to prove that they can promote – no worse than males themselves – the same perverted values that have been created and supported by males for males since the dawn of the male-dominated civilization to begin with. What a splendid triumph of the neo-feminism indeed in the 21^st century!

As I mentioned, true feminism by its nature is of a temporary character because feminist struggle is needed only in a society where gender inequality is still present. In this respect the final goal and triumph of the true feminism is to improve the societal culture to the degree where the feminism is not needed anymore, and where the fact that somebody was born a woman or a man means no more than the fact that the person was born on a Tuesday or Friday. So the true honest purpose of feminism naturally leads to the gradual disappearance of feminism, just as the true effort to eradicate drug abuse in the case of success leads gradually to the disappearance of the need of the drug enforcement agencies themselves in the ideal outcome.

That's true, of course, only if the feminism is really true, which means it pursues establishment and eradication of the fundamental causes of the gender inequality from the socio-cultural field.

But it is not the case with the neo-feminism: on the contrary, neo-feminism, as an ultimate parasite, exploits, sponges and feeds upon the fundamental roots of the problems leading to the inequality and walls in the relationship between two halves of the humankind, not only avoiding any investigation and eradication of those root causes but actually trying to perpetuate and augment them. In its radical extremes, the neo-feminism sets sisters against brothers, and husbands against wives. Its goal is war, its method is war, its result is war. It is a form of parasitically motivated breeding of a special type of “latent civil war”, which in its human disastrous consequences in the long term may be comparable with the effects of a conventional civil war.

The behavioural pattern of neo-feminism in the US is quite similar to the modus operandi of the anti-drug or anti-terror or anti-crime agencies in that country, who never pursue the real eradication of drug abuse or terrorist activity, but who are actually interested in creating the conditions in which the drug abuse and radicalization always bloom so that those agencies can exploit those tragedies to justify and bloat their budgets and gain political power within the present state system.

One (but not the only one) of genuinely fundamental problems that have to be solved (but never tackled or talked about in reality) is the total disaster and bankruptcy of the so-called sexual revolution and emancipation in the US and some other Western countries (not because those things are not needed, but because of how perversely they were understood and realized, and because of the kind of socio-sexual culture the “old sexual order” was replaced with), which in its turn created an atrocious self-reproducing culture of sexual relationship and attitudes, manifesting itself in the ever-growing amount of demand for porn, ever-increasing divorce rate, ever-rising and eye-popping rates of sexual assaults and perverse things throughout the fabric of society and its institutions. We still, alas, live in a sexually perverted society as a whole, not just in a society with many individual perversions.

This perverted culture, that has to do with a warp of the sexual part of the collective mind, cannot but play a very important role in impeding true feminism from achieving its goals – and why shouldn't it? Are the sexual forces not simultaneously intersexual forces? Are they not the most primordial forces that already in childhood form the deepest expectations and attitudes of the genders towards each other?

But not only does the neo-feminism have no desire to understand and rectify what is wrong in the bedroom of the nation, but actually it has every interest in preserving the situation as it is as long as possible, because it gives more security to its purely political parasitic project and the pursuit of its political goals.

The neo-feminism is an ultimate political parasite that exploits and sponges on the real problem and, at the same time, purposely nourishes that problem, breeding radicalization, fear and hate and epitomizing the festering wound instead of healing it.

Of course, it doesn't mean at all that all the people who have found themselves involved in that movement have anything to do with the above negative attributes or motives, but it rather means that that viral movement and ideology of neo-feminism cajoles lots of people and their motives into assisting the parasitic purposes of the neo-feminism.

To that I should only add that there is probably only one thing that can be uglier and more morally grotesque than extreme ideological sexism, namely the exquisite intentional exploitation of the bright ideals of feminism as a cover – sheep's clothing on a wolf – and tool for pursuing inglorious political agendas and interest in gaining raw power for the sake of power itself. There is no excuse for those who consciously engage in this malicious strategies, for not only their true motives and goals have nothing whatsoever to do with the ethics and well-being of human society, but the actual values of feminism for them are nothing more than the dust under their feet, and the measure of cynicism and indifference towards any moral values used in pursuit of political gains and required for such manipulation cannot be surpassed even by the conservative “dinosaur-like” elements of the society who still cling to the archetype of male “natural” advantages averagely in comparison to women.

POLITICAL SHAM FEMINISM DISPLACING SOCIAL TRUE FEMINISM

There's still lots of confusion about the vague and manipulative use of the word “political”, so that this term has become a justification and euphemism for any unfair, unjust, and sometimes atrociously immoral courses of action pursued by politicians, the media (who nowadays doesn't stand afar from the former in terms of its “ethics” and goals) and various groups united by common collective interest and goals.

Feminism was and is, first of all, an ethical and social movement, and secondly it doesn't have any absolute timeless status and meaning in the sense that there would not be any need for it in a society where the women and men treated each other and acted as equal human beings, lived in the organic harmony with the lucid understanding that neither men can really realize their man's identity without women nor can women without men, both genders being inseparable parts of one human – in that situation the very notion of feminism would become just irrelevant, non-existent and meaningless.

When we are talking about “political” feminism, just like everything “political”, two absolutely different things can be meant and mixed (sometimes intentionally to “muddy the waters”):

1. The social movement that is strong enough to manifest itself, among other things, in the form of pressure that is felt by the existing political establishment. Thus feminism, which is not political in nature, can have political implications and exert pressure directly or collaterally on the political establishment. This feminism is not political in its nature and doesn't intrinsically pursue any direct political power as such. In fact, it pursues social and moral equality of men and women, and this pursuit may effect the political forces. We will call it simply “social feminism” to avoid confusion.

2. The truly political feminism which is, as anything truly political, directly pursues acquisition of or a gain in political power in some form or another, to one degree or another by a person, by a group of persons, by a class of persons united by common collective political interests. And this feminism, to avoid any confusion with the previous case, we will call simply “political feminism”.

My critical point in simple terms is this: in the wave of the neo-feminism in many parts of the West – especially in the Anglo-Saxon world – a very significant slant is present nowadays towards the political feminism as opposed to the social and ethical feminism, and I find little moral justification for this slant and see some potentially serious damage being done by the political “fake” feminism to the true cause of never-ending development of harmonious, joyous and peaceful society in countries like the US and Canada.

Manifestations of this prevalence of political parasitic feminism over social feminism are sometimes bad and sometimes ugly: one of the main deeply detrimental consequences – and, most likely, goals – of it is building a wall between men and women, pervasively using the antithetical counterposition and polarization of the two halves of the humankind, stirring class feud, distrust and suspicion between human beings of opposite sexes. The political feminism preoccupies the so-called “fair and independent democratic” media and different other groups in business, in non-commercial organizations, political and lobbyist groups and suchlike, the media being probably the most prominent and cynical exploiter of it in its demagoguery.

There have already been very thorough accounts and descriptions of the moral rot lying in the heart of the neo-feminism, so lucidely captured in the documentary “The Red Pill” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mB13NV7rY0&t=6129s) for those who want to acquaint themselves with the essence of the problem in a condensed version. However even the aforementioned documentary work doesn't delve into the true motives and goals of neo-feminism, and the connection between those goals and the methods. Nor do the critical works looking into the true essence of neo-feminism explore enough the role of the mendacious media in all of this – the media that has betrayed its socio-ethical democratic duties in innumerable spheres, the providing of a mouthpiece and advertisement for neo-feminist demagoguery being just one of them (regarding the decay of the media democratic and social function in the West see https://dr-world.blogspot.com/2017/11/ongoing-destruction-of-western-media.html)

Lots of, probably most, people, including me, acknowledge and enjoy the great conquests of the social feminism of the past century and strive for the total completion of its mission: social and moral equality and harmony of the two halves of human beings. Achieving the final purpose of the social feminism automatically implies the end of feminism: indeed, there's no need for feminism when there are no more problems of gender inequality, and the equality of genders is as a natural condition in a normal society as the equality of those born on a Thursday with those born on a Friday.

In other words, those who are really interested in the ethical and social purposes of feminism at the end of the day want to achieve conditions where the very word of feminism will be relegated to history books only. Feminism is not a purpose, feminism is just a name for movement and effort that rectify the historically created pathology of social and cultural inequality of genders and their social relationship.

Social feminism is just a particular case of the general humanist moral principle of the equality of the natural intrinsic value of human life, its dignity and abilities on the collective level, regardless of natural differences. Social feminism doesn't create any new moral values, it just concentrates its effort on a particular type thereof.

The political neo-feminism has basically displaced the true feminism, appropriating (or, simply put, stealing) its name, perceived identity, intentions and declared purpose, hence, in reality neo-feminism is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and like many other inglorious political “viruses” it uses the label and name of its victim (true feminism) to infiltrate the host (in this case the host being the public mind), playing on the stereotypes attached to the real good cause, capitalizing on the perceived good intentions and purposes – exploiting the stolen reputation and image of the real owner of the cause (true feminism). It comes with little surprise that the real luminaries, legends and founding figures of feminism, like Germaine Greer or Margaret Atwood, have started to be viciously attacked and smeared in press and social network sphere by the neo-feminism, because those true owners of the cause threaten to unmask the parasitic imposter. Indeed, some of those giants of feminism did direct the gun of their pen and sword of their tongue at the impersonator, and in less than no time did the neo-feminism propaganda start to lash out in reply to those considered living legends of true feminism, fuming with smear, derision and malice (by way of some examples one can glance through https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/the-metoo-fury-has-spilled-over-into-a-feminist-war).

Under this pretense the neo-feminism uses demagoguery, engineers and augments public fears to realize its political interests, using nothing else but relativistic “morals” (or, more precisely, immorality) according to which the right cause is the one that wins by any means, and the rest are wrong because they are too weak and frightened to challenge the fairness of the victory, its goal and the victory itself (just like Genghis Khan or crusaders justified the mass murders and military terror with the fact that those murders and terror actually succeeded and weren't prevented).

It is not about those in the right becoming deservedly the winners, but it is about the winners becoming “in the right”, no matter at what cost. It is not about the truth awarding victory, but it is about the victory fettering and silencing the truth.

It is not surprising that neo-feminism is saturated with almost fanatical triumphalism, which even at the best of times is not helpful and is morally deleterious. Even more deleterious this triumphalism is in the case of neo-feminism which, as any movement exploiting fear and hate, actually wages a war not just against a certain bad phenomenon and mechanics behind it but against person or persons labelled as the absolute enemy. The exceptional circumstance about neo-feminism is that, unlike many other radical and fanatical movements, it declares not just a person and not just a group of persons but half of mankind – men as a class – as the enemy (of course, the apologists of neo-feminism are in denial of it).

Some aspects and mechanisms neo-feminism exploits to achieve its purposes have to be studied and understood better in order to separate sheep from goats or, more accurately, sheep from wolves in sheep's clothing.

THEFT OF TRUE CAUSE AND AGENDA

Just like any sophisticated political parasite, neo-feminism steals the agenda of fighting for a noble true cause, and, of course, it has stolen it from the true feminism. In Germany in 1930s Hitler's party stole the agenda of fighting against communism and poverty, fighting for economic well-being of the nation, which helped the ugly Nazi regime to legitimize itself in the eyes of many people as a movement with decent goals and values.

The inequality between genders in personal and social relationships, status, rights and freedoms is an iron-clad undisputed fact of history. This inequality has been strongly in favour of men, and feminism was born as a movement that fought for the progress to eliminate this problem – the inequality.

The claim that a particular movement is against something that is universally recognized as bad (in this case the long history of women's position of inequality) gives a better chance for the necessary legitimacy.

Of course, already at this stage the subtle but important deviations can be noticed: whereas the true feminism fights FOR gender equality in the broad universal ethical context (within which humanity as as a whole will gain from the equality of human life values and dignities, justice, and harmony of relationship between the two halves if humankind), neo-feminism puts more focus on fighting a WAR AGAINST gender inequality (this toxic war-like or militant setting already prepares the contextual stage for creating the label of enemy down the road, personification of the enemy and further radicalization based on “righteous” vengeance and retribution).

After this step neo-feminism gradually and seamlessly shifts the focus towards more radicalization: it transitions to fighting not just against inequality as a social phenomenon formed in the course of history for a number of anthropological reasons, but against a “free-willed collective enemy” - a collective agent that represents an absolute evil – and this collective hostile agent is none less than a substantial part of the male half of the humankind who, ostensibly, on the quiet or openly have continued to maliciously promote and fight for that inequality up to the present day (and, by the way, if the best dreams and wishes of neo-feminism were to be granted, this situation should continue forever).

One collateral problem that neo-feminism political technology encounters at this stage is that the true feminism in the West has actually achieved a lot in terms of equality, before neo-feminism has come on stage. Not only that, but with the natural development of general education in the Western society, exponentially growing connectivity of the people, an increase in general perception of human life value, and change of generations have naturally helped the equalization to progress based on those foundations that were laid before by true feminism.

For example, while in some professions, business structures, governmental positions etc women are still underrepresented, the tendency is as positive as unequivocal, and equalization continues. It is not a instantaneous process of course, not least because only a couple of generations before those strata were totally filled with men and it simply takes time and generations, on the one hand, to establish the notion that those professions/functions are as good and interesting for women as for men, and, on the other hand, allow the new generation of women to go naturally through all the steps that are technically needed to get absorbed in those professions/functions.

Unfortunately the (not so) modern institutions themselves, the continuity of human resource and experience in the institutions are intrinsically not very fast in their change – in almost every aspect of change – and the historical process is measured in generations too, not in years.

Yet all these changes have been occurring and continue to occur, and not due to the claimed fake merits of neo-feminism, but because of the stolen achievements of true feminism that provided the rails for that locomotive of new culture and history to go forward.

This is an inconvenient circumstance that could have weakened the legitimization of neo-feminism. To eliminate this problem neo-feminism had to fabricate a false context, an “augmented reality” in the public mind, from which it would follow that the present situation with the gender equality is almost as bad as it was half a century ago, or even worse. This, in turn, requires warping the socio-ethical space itself, or exploiting the already existing warp. Neo-feminism didn't omit to use the existing ethical crisis and leverage it as much as possible in several ways mentioned below.

In the meantime there are so many ugly symptoms of the neo-feminism that a book would be needed to list and describe all of them. One would think that those neo-feminists, who cry on every corner that they care about the disenfranchisement of women in the western developed countries, would actually spend much more time drawing public attention to what is going on with women, their rights and dignity in those sweet bed-fellows of the Anglo-Saxon West like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan – that's, of course, if those neo-feminists were true feminists who consider the life value of all human beings supreme and equal.

And in the case of those countries (like Saudi Arabia) we are talking about the real deprivation of women of the fundamental freedoms – basically legalized, state-supported and culturally accepted enslavement; we are talking about the real risks for woman's life every day, we are talking about retaliation against women and murdering of women in the form of, for example, so called “honor killings” in their own family BY THEIR OWN FAMILY as a mass phenomenon in broad daylight; we are talking about ubiquitous practice of acid-splashing to mutilate women's faces in countries like Pakistan – pretty widespread practice that in terms of its exquisite monstrosity and cruelty can be matched only by the atrocities and experiments of Nazi regime in Hitler's Germany against large swathes of population.

One would expect the ever-so-intrepid supporters of feminism in the big media, like, for example, the British BBC, to talk and criticize and urge action against those practices in those countries every day and night!! Well, the reality couldn't be further from the truth – nothing of that sort! (in the case of the BBC it is probably because Pakistan or Saudi Arabia with all its ugly practices towards women are big friends of the UK government, and the advocacy of the UK state is of course is a much more important agenda and priority for the “democratic independent and ever so pro-feminism” BBC than protection and defence of millions of women).

Of course if subjected to the true rational tests, neo-feminism loses its sheep's clothing very quick, exposing its wolf's predatory essence and absolute indifference to the real sufferings of women in many regions on the planet.

This is not surprising, because, of course, it has never been the true purpose or intention of the neo-feminism to reduce the sufferings of women and real disparity in rights. Rather the opposite is true: neo-feminism is interested in perpetual never-ceasing problems between the two halves of the humankind so that it can sponge and vulturize on those problems in pursuit of its own political agenda, money-lined pockets and raw political power.

Now let's return to the question of how technically the neo-feminism (or “pseudo-feminism – herein I those terms are used interchangeably) achieves its inglorious political purposes while stealing the identity and the past achievements from the true feminism. Let us try (however emotionally difficult it might be) to put ourselves into the shoes of those absolutely amoral and immoral ideologists who have created in their ideological cauldrons and then spread this neo-feminism through (and thanks to) the increasingly irresponsible media and fanatic thoughtless supporters. How actually have they managed to create this “mental virus” so effectively? What chains, gears and pinions does this ugly “machine of latent civil war between two genders” include to make it work? Let's try to go through some nuts and bolts of this parasite:

First of all, like any political radical ideology it is based on radicalization of the audience (and, eventually, the society itself). The radicalization, in its turn, is based on exploiting the quasi-religious (or really religious) irrational belief in the existence of the absolute evil, hence, the absolute ENEMY of the people (Satan incarnate if you will – an emotional equivalent thereof at least), it is based on creating, amplifying and then exploiting the emotions of fear, hate and vengeance on a social scale, directing them not at an idea or philosophy or phenomenon but at a whole class(es) of people – THE ENEMY – seeking the animalistic satisfaction in an attack on certain people (or even a half of humankind) instead of an attack on ignorance.

Creating an enemy of people, presenting mental pictures of sufferings made by the enemy to exploit fear, stir up hate and vengeance is the first pillar of the neo-feminism just like any other radical malicious ideology (like hitlerism, stalinism, racism etc). Creating the enemy requires dehumanizing the classes of people, depicting them as a cartoon agent of “pure evil” that doesn't have any merits and good intentions, that doesn't have any errors or imperfections, that doesn't feel any human pain, but who does evil out of pure evil intention for the sake of evil satisfaction – this is a very important element of the technology of hate, and the fake feminism has as much prowess at using this technology as many other radical hate-and-fear-based radical ideologies.

The second pillar is creation of a narrative that would start and spread a social perversion: the latter is an absolutely necessary condition for any successful radical ideology because perversion can guarantee the sustainability, self-reproduction and robustness of the virus of radicalism – it perpetuates it and makes it self-reproducible. Perversion consists in creating special conditions in which the outcome of the exploited hate and fear is such that on the one hand it brings on some short-term psychological relief for those “infected” with the virus of hate and fear and, on the other hand, inevitably amplifies the same hate and fear in the long-term, breeding even more, not less, expectation of the same perceived threat (source of fear) in future. It acts like a narcotic that brings the necessary short-term relief to the addict at the same time creating even more compulsive need of it in the longer term.

Perversion creates a self-fulfilling prophesy whereby the provoked reaction force is sustained and psychologically satisfied by the ever-worsening results of that very force, and the “measures” used to solve a “problem” amplify the problem, requiring even more of the same “medicine”, yet the reverse of that vicious spiral is “locked” because the victims of the perversion on the one hand feel a short-term relief after each round of same measures and on the other hand feel an unbearable psychological barrier to any critical revision of the “measures” taken in the past because any such revision would mean acknowledging one's own victimhood of one's own actions, the sense of no personal control and insignificance, lost opportunity over long periods of time, the sense of irreversible loss, failure and guilt having existed for a very long time – sometimes over periods comparable with one's lifetime – which in the mind of the victims of the social perversion would mean that they had been damned to be “bad people by mistake”.

The latter presents an enormously difficult psychological barrier to overcome, and it explains why it is so difficult for thousands of former soldiers who served in wars to even consider or have some doubts that that war was wrong, and, by the same token, it explains why it is so easy for the military machine and the State politicians to create and perpetuate the perversion of war and the virus of militarism in a society and a country, for once started, it self-reproduces, often on an increasing scale in generations.

The third pillar of a sophisticated radical ideology is exploitation of some universally embraced moral value(s), but of course not for the sake of protecting that value but for the sake of the ideology's moral legitimization, trustworthiness and distinction – this pillar is the “sheep's clothing” part. But not any universally accepted values are chosen for that, but some of those that appeal to public sensibilities and arouse emotional reaction the most.

Thus such a value can be (and is) used by neo-feminism as a poster child – certain simple and easily understandable “sacred” values that neo-feminism poses itself as the only custodian of but in fact exploits those values as a shield, just like a cancerous tumour that grows on the life-critical tissues and becomes protected from surgical removal by the mere fact that it is hard to touch it without risk to life.

Just as some terrorist groups sometimes shield themselves with kidnapped innocent people and children to make any attack on them very difficult and seemingly unjustified so does neo-feminism use the “poster-child” method, protecting itself from any rational criticism.

In the process, of course, neo-feminism exploits ruthlessly a selected group of real victims of gender inequality or gender-related crimes, co-opting them and using them as a “live shield” and, at the same time, as a legitimization of itself as the only custodian of the victims – here “MeToo” part comes in.

Because the exploited victims become double victims due to the artificially induced collective perversion (see above “the second pillar”) their exploitation by neo-feminism becomes very firm and self-perpetuating: just like in the case of the so-called Stockholm syndrome (where victims start to be protective of their own kidnappers), even if faced with the evidence that their woes and sufferings have been cold-bloodedly used by neo-feminism for the political purposes, the exploited victims would tend to protect the “parasite” that attached itself to their body as their host.

We will call this pillar a “poster child”

The fourth pillar is fake historical legitimization: neo-feminism proclaims itself as the natural and only heir to the real feminism and its cause. This act is basically the kidnapping of the name and genesis and it gives the neo-feminism in the eyes of the public historical legitimacy: it creates an impression that neo-feminism is not just “a self-proclaimed ruler” that mushroomed out of nothing, but that it is a legitimate inheritor or continuation of something with a recognized and respected historical background.

Now, how are those elements/mechanisms, in a step-by-step process, are practically realized by the cold-blooded architects of the neo-feminism “theology”?

The first step creates the “poster-child” and then uses it to create the first pillar (hate and vengeance). Sometimes a historical opportunity or new conditions are needed for this step and sometimes a technological change can be a necessary catalyst (like sufficient development of the internet-based social connectivity). In the case of the neo-feminism the best possible opportunity was “MeToo” movement (or rather victims that started that movement).

MeToo wasn't intrinsically a feminist phenomenon at the beginning, it was re-defined and hijacked by the neo-feminism pretty soon after. The degree of cultural corruption in corporate business in general and, let's take this pivotal example, in Hollywood in particular had been pretty well-known for years before MeToo started (which doesn't, of course, negate any justifications, rightful motivations and moral necessity for that movement to be started).

One well-known aspect of this corruption consists in the culture of personal profiteering by exploiting the system, corporate positions (and power of those position) with total disregard to any moral values. In this context profiteering or “bribery” in the broadest possible sense means any gains and benefits, including plenty of those that cannot be directly expressed in monetary terms.

The culture of normality of the exchange and commodification of such benefits between persons along the verticals as well as parallels in the corporate structure is another aspect of this corruption and it infected not only those in the higher positions of power but also many of those in the lower positions: the culture of exchange of the benefits became a pretty accepted inter-corporate language, and Hollywood – an especially rotten species – not surprisingly played an especially prominent role in the catalyzing MeToo. It is not surprising that sexual gratification became commodified in this cultural environment a long time ago – so much so that, indeed, such a term as “casting couch” entered the most authoritative dictionaries of the English language, including the Oxford Dictionary with the entry examples like: ‘she was no stranger to the casting couch’ (see https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/casting_couch).

Indeed, as things stand right now in Hollywood, there is little rational doubt that if the majority of men in Hollywood were gay then the attempts to use sexual gratification between men and men would go rampant no lesser degree than in the present heterosexual situation.

It is also of little doubt that this type of corruption, even if not in the same degree, was and is supported from both sides: it is often not the real physical force or duress under the pain of economic hardship and such like that motivates some of the female participants to accede to or even contribute to the establishment of this kind of “sexual barter”, but rather it is things like a chance for an excellent career with a million dollar compensations in future and the temptation of reaching the glitz and glamour of the upper echelons of the Hollywood world and stardom – some gains definitely not belonging to the fundamental rights or life basic necessities or even normal good dignified quality of life.

While the corrupted and sexually perverted Hollywood culture of relationships and corporate culture in general are a huge problem in its own right (as well as the separate problem of socio-sexual perverted culture in the US in general) and needs really serious study and complex treatment, this problem has little to do with the inequality in rights between genders or even discriminatory judgment or chauvinism towards women in terms of considering the fundamental value of human dignity and human life different for the two halves of the humankind (rather the problem is to do with the general depreciation of the human life value and dignity).

And, of course, the core ideologists of neo-feminism know about it all too well. In fact, fake feminism is inherently interested in letting this totally perverted socio-sexual culture (especially strongly blooming in the US) go on forever, because that gives fake feminism an indefinite time and opportunity to parasitize it (just like Pentagon and security agencies parasitize terrorism, bloating their budgets and fortifying their political power, fighting it for appearances of “good cause” and, at the same time, supporting, multiplying and perpetuating it through providing political and military conditions at twice the speed of fighting it).

In a next step, the ideologists of the fake feminism exploited the degree of publicity, furor and the advantage of the social network connectivity in the 21^st century to select and leverage the ugliest cases of the bad sexual and corporate culture in the most prominent cultural cesspits like Hollywood, and, at the same time hijack the custody over the victims of those bad cases and mendaciously put the flag of “feminism” over the “hijacked ship.”.

They in a calculated focused way exploited the power of the social media to the fullest to appeal to and capture into the orbit of their propaganda thousands of female victims of bad corporate culture, exploit their trauma (by “rubbing salt into it”) and the natural propensity of victims to crave for moral compensation and relief.

At the same time the neo-feminism created the aura of its moral supremacy and unchallenged purity playing the role of the vociferous and only defender of those victims with the true aim of building the moral monopoly of voice on any social issues and problems that impact women (and sometimes men alike, but that's beside the point for fake feminism), however far those problems can lie from the actual field of the true feminism.

Indeed, suffice it to be a humanist to unequivocally deprecate the bad treatments of women in the corporate culture and honestly look for a rational remedy and solution to those problems, but of course it is precisely the desire to appropriate the ownership – moral monopoly – that motivated the fake feminism to “hijack” the custody of the problems and their victims most of which at their root actually have little to do with gender inequality to start with.

Exploiting the trauma-induced reactions and natural thirst for relief of pain in the victims, the fake feminism first consolidated those victims and their support around itself, totally understanding that after thousands of victims had “subscribed” - put the signatures of loyalty – to the fake feminism custody later it would be extremely hard psychologically for the same victims to repudiate their “membership” of or “loyalty” to that parasite movement because for a victim of bad treatment/experience it is much more difficult than for an unaffected observer to rationally analyze the situation and recognize later that actually the victimhood-induced error of joining the treacherous bandwagon of fake feminism under the influence of mendacious propaganda not only didn't make the reality better but actually made the it worse.

Just as the pernicious ignoble propaganda of militarism implants some specially structured lies in the youth that later are very hard psychologically to repudiate for the victims of those lies (so that wars could be fought indefinitely and the virus of militarism can self-reproduce), so does the pernicious propaganda of the neo-feminism implant its lies through exploiting the suffering-induced natural bias of the victims, so that later it is very hard to recognize the error and repudiate the affiliation with and loyalty to fake feminism.

Indeed, in this sense the female victims of bad treatment often end up being double victims: first because of the bad treatment, and then because their trauma was cynically exploited by the political-power-driven parasitic entities like neo-feminism.

It is not easy for a human being, no matter female or male, to recognize and reconcile oneself with such a lack of control in front of the bad forces of exploitation, but it is even more difficult to do so when a connected community is formed with the loyalties and goals based on deception. Thus, through the creation of perversion, the parasite of the fake feminism perpetuates the loyalty of its main host – the victimized supporters – and uses that loyalty as a “(im)moral” shield and political ram, like an abused child that was hijacked by a second abuser to be twice abused for the political purposes. The same “poster child” is used to galvanize the media that even without “help” nowadays seeks stories that have little to do with reflection of reality and truth, and more to do with sensationalism and vultirism.

The more the victims of bad treatment support the “common cause” (hijacked and presented by neo-feminism), the more of instantaneous psychological relief the victims feel, and, at the same time, the more they do so the more new cases of bad culture and bad treatment appear because, if anything, the fake feminism is interested in the never-ending problems and victims, NOT in real rational studies and recipes of how to lower and eradicate the bad cultures and reduce the number of victims.

In this respect it is not different from, e.g., drug-control enforcement agencies whose financial and political motivation has nothing to do with eradication of drug abuse and drug smuggling, but, on the contrary, it is caused by their drive to continue the never-ceasing apparent fight with drugs and drug dealers wherefore everything is done to perpetuate and, if possible, increase the presence of drugs, drug abuse and drug smuggling.

Yet fake feminism hijacking female victims and consolidating them around itself as the “fake custodian” is not the end step of its parasitic cycle. The control over the victims alone is not enough for its purposes.

The next step is the use of this moral monopoly of custody over the most outstanding victims as a tool of universal moral legitimization of the fake feminism in the eyes of the rest of the society. First, as was mentioned, fake feminism captures the female victims of bad cultures and treatments, wraps them around itself, and uses them as a poster-child. Indeed, in the present climate of the “political correctness” (a specious concept masking a massive attempt to shut the freedom of speech and sow the fear in the hearts of everybody who dares to address and critically study the issues and search for the truths that can be felt as inconvenient or even painful for different groups of people), it is mentally difficult (and not objectively risk-free nowadays) to call into question the morality, intentions and motives of an entity or person who appears to claim its unlimited love, care and assistance towards a large group of weak, victimized and defenceless people – the “poster-child”.

Unfortunately in our (not-so) modern society people still carry those quasi-religious (un)ethical stereotypes according to which declared good intentions are hardly questionable, and for very many people it is still hard to imagine the whole extent of the inhumane cynicism and lies when it comes to the words and acts of political movements and groups, not least neo-feminism ideologists.

After hijacking the female victims and moulding them into the connected community under the umbrella of “feminism” fake feminism uses the female victims as a live shield against any criticism, however rationally justified, not unlike the manner in which the ugly terrorism uses hijacked victims as a live shield to attain its ugly political ends (and, not to forget, terrorism by definition is driven by the political purposes and motives).

Everyone who dares to question the motives, intentions and morality of the fake feminism is immediately at risk of being personally attacked and falsely accused by fake feminism through throwing the mud of mendacious allegations at any such critics to the effect that everyone who dares to criticize it is actually against the true victims and real feminism values. The rational criticism of fake feminism at this stage may inevitably create some form of pain for the said group of victims, but it is so only because neo-feminism took special care before that to condition that group of victims as an integral part of itself in such as a way where any criticism again neo-feminism would be perceived as criticism and cold attack at the victims – at least in the eyes of the victims themselves (just like any fire aimed at kidnappers can be injure the innocent hostages which were lined up by in such a way by the kidnappers as to expose hostages maximally to any attempted fire and make the best live shield out of them).

Now, after the seeds of social perversion have been planted and grown by the neo-feminism, and it has gained the monopolistic custody over the real victims of either real sexism or just inhumane culture and corruption, it starts to use this “poster-child” shield to justify and protect its further expansion: at this stage the neo-feminist task of spreading the virus of antagonism, polarization and moral relativism, and gaining a good army of radicalized “quasi-religious” supporters becomes an easy undertaking.

The underlying false perverted dilemma used by neo-feminism to leverage the conscription of new supporters can be presented in a simplified form like this: “Are you for us or are you against those poor victims? Are you for us or are you against the values of feminism (that they mendaciously quote as their fake feminism property)? Are you for us or do you hate women? Are you for us or are you sexist?”. All these fast and hard methods have been tried and tested so many times by the ugliest radical ideologies before.

The calculated stirring of antagonism, polarization, hate and vengeance against the declared imaginary “absolute enemy” (that in reality can flexibly and conveniently be anyone who dares to say a word of dissent from neo-feminism propaganda) appeal to some of not the best instincts endowed upon us – humans – as a species by mother nature through the previous millions of years of evolution. All of us people have to one degree or another different accumulated stresses, fears and discontents from time to time, and the venting of those discontents in the form of vengeance towards a certain class of people or persons is a tendency that can be inhibited only by the rational education, rational study, collective problem-solving and the forces of social human solidarity – those forces of rational reason and social consciousness that the radical neo-feminism tries to suppress and replace with the forces of blind confused animal instincts alone (that in discussions are very often conveniently called “feelings” or “hurt feelings”, often when it suits inglorious political ends of those who refers to those hurt feelings).

TRUE FEMINISM AS A BRANCH OF HUMANISM CAN STOP NEO-FEMINISM VIRUS

Not thanks to but in spite of the pernicious social harm brought on by the war-seeking-and-wall-building fake feminism in the 21^st century, the conquests of the humanism, intrinsically aimed at the recognition of the universal value of human life and the equality of this value for all people of all genders, were impressive in the 20st century and continued to develop in the 21^st century against the background of better education, better social connectivity, change of generations with progressively better life experience.

It is not unimaginable that the current trajectory with time will lead to the total – practically indistinguishable in terms of differences – equality of rights between the two halves of the humankind in the developed world and the US, even as measured by the outcomes in terms of the male/female representation ratio in different organizations.

Here it is worthy of note that the equality of outcome is one of the items most heavily exploited by the fake feminism demagogues who like referring to the outcome inequality in a number of cases as an ostensible sign of discrimination, mendaciously refraining from mentioning lots of cultural and socio-economic factors that naturally make the gender representation equalization in different institutions not an instantaneous but gradual process even under the conditions of total equality of rights and attitudes, and, imaginably, even with the preferential opportunities for females; nor do those demagogues hasten to mention that the equality of genders in dignity, abilities and value of life does not mean sameness, and it is nothing else but a religious statement to say that the two genders biologically – evolutionarily, if you like – should be absolutely identically, to the same degree, naturally predisposed to any type of physical and mental activity and, therefore, must needs be represented in absolutely equal relative proportions. Using this quasi-religious dogma as a ground to create preferential conditions for candidates of one gender or the other for positions and jobs in any institutions amounts to nothing else but to equally outright and outrageous discrimination – but that is exactly what neo-feminism promotes, and not without “success”. Well, at the end of the day it is not surprising at all that the fruits coming from the neo-feminist ideological garden actually serve and generate gender discrimination: after all, this is one of the main features of radical political ideologies – falsely declaring some good purpose and appropriating some universal moral value and, at the same time, doing everything possible to perpetuate the opposite of that purpose and that value.

Yet even this total gender equality in rights, positions and attitudes may not solve probably a more topical problem in the 21^st century (especially in the US), namely the problem the RELATIONSHIP between the two genders – the two halves of the humankind.

Indeed, it is not so difficult to imagine a situation where in a particular institution or community both sexes enjoy the same rights, the same numerical representation at all levels, the same financial and other institutional positions and treatment, yet, at the same time, both genders do not trust each other, counterpose themselves one to the other, tend to flock together around quasi-religious ideas of their collective masculine and feminine identities existing separately from each other in the atmosphere of a destructively competitive antagonism, copying the worst natural predispositions and inclinations of the opposite sex and neglecting the strong and positive aspects.

This flies in the face of the idea of humanism and one of its domains true feminism: the goal of pulling down the wall between the two sexes and making the social and economic life so much richer and more productive because of the natural complementarity of the male and female halves of humanity. This situation is not only possible but actually probable, taking into account the never-ceasing effort of the fake feminism directed precisely at augmenting and leveraging that kind of perverted tendencies in the relationship between sexes on a social level.

In other words, the triumph of the pure formal feminism (the true one but represented by the formalism of its goals), though commendable, is not sufficient to prevent really bad culture of relationship between the two sexes whereby not the best but the worst aspects of both sexes are brought forth and multiplied by each other.

Put even simpler, formal feminism can prevent formal inequality, but it cannot teach the two sexes to LOVE each other on a social scale, enjoy each other, celebrate each other and see their respective reflection in the collective mirrors of each other in their relationships on a social scale.

One perverted myth, nay, archetype, so much leveraged and exploited (but not invented) by the fake feminism, is that the female and male identities are some “God-given” static things that not only don't depend on the connection and co-existence with the opposite sex, but actually should be preserved by more isolation of sexes from each other. This social toxic perversion of “otherness” and “antagonism” as necessary preconditions for the gender identity, as opposed to complementarity, is cultivated from the very childhood, and predisposes possible toxic relationships on a social scale, lack of inter-sexual empathy, impossibility to see the commonality of things in both sexes and learn from each other in the areas of difference.

The statistics of male sexual assaults, use of sex as a “means of payment” in the corrupted and perverted culture in many institutions, jokes and harassment, are really surrealistically high in the US in the 21^st century – one would need to go any further than looking at more than 20 000 sexual assaults every year in the US military (e.g. see https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/05/02/despite-efforts-sexual-assaults-nearly-40-us-military.html), bearing in mind that the statistics of men sexually assaulting men is impressive too and on a steep uphill trend: (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/10/us/men-military-sexual-assault.html).

Denmark, a country that boasts one of the best levels of gender equality on Earth, has less than a boast-worthy rape culture (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47470353), and, at the same time, has an increase in the domestic and intimate violence against men versus decline of that against women in relative terms (https://eucpn.org/document/danish-policy-on-domestic-violence) – that's a good example of how the triumph of pure feminism does little to help society and its peace and prosperity.

Yet, probably this situation where the frequency of intimate violence by women against men becomes the same or higher than the opposite case is 'mission-accomplished' for neo-feminism, which never cared about human life, dignity and the harmonization of gender relations in society. The increase in the total amount of domestic violence and broken lives and relations is no trouble at all for the fake feminism ideology, as long as females learn and use this “art of violence and lies” no worse, and preferably better, than men.

The statistics of domestic violence in Canada have practically reached gender parity, which doesn't make things better nor in terms of the total amount of human suffering, nor in terms of the better happiness of the society due to co-existence and mutual dependence of the two types of human beings – male and female.

In the meantime there's little doubt that the culture of using sex by some females as a weapon of achieving practical benefits (be it career-related things, or “gold-digging” etc) does exist as the other ugly side of the same rotten coin, complementing and leveraging male cultural perversions.

Indeed, it is a really cruel irony that the ultimate gift of mother nature – intimacy that is designed for love and unity between the two halves of humankind, producing family and new life out of love – is used by humans as a weapon of war, as a means of payment, as a subject of cynical jokes and humiliation; and not a single doctrine alone about the formal equality of the two genders in rights and freedoms is going to repair one iota of this kind of perversions, except to equalize them on both sides in relative terms and augment them in absolute terms (which is pretty much the ultimate triumph of anti-human fake feminism).

All these problems have nothing whatsoever to do with discrimination or lack of any fundamental belief in equality of human rights, abilities and dignity, or even lack of equality of outcome in terms of economic and social representation of both sexes (the aforementioned Denmark has reached very good results even in that field, yet it doesn't change other sad gender-related realities in that country).

These problems are only to do with a deep lack of understanding of the human life value, therefrom ensuing lack of empathy, not least to the opposite sex because of even less understanding of the human life value of the opposite sex, both sexes being abundantly capable of falling into this perversion and cynically exploiting each other.

Thus, it is not surprising that the practical result of the fake feminism approach is to only guarantee that all of these evils and flaws, that typically and historically were done and were possible to be done mostly by men, will be done by women to no lesser degree than by men, with the total amount of suffering and destruction brought on society as high as practically possible.

To solve the core problem – the problem of lack of empathy, unity and harmony between the two halves of humanity – any type of formal feminism is not sufficient or even relevant: at best it will help to deter by the force of law – only to a degree – the amount and magnitude of the consequences of the bad culture of relations and social attitudes between the two genders.

Solving this problem is impossible without defeating the extremely harmful archetype (and lie insofar as the fake feminism spreads and entrenches this archetype in society even more) that gender identity is formed without the need of existence of the opposite gender or in an antagonistic opposition to the other gender, and that the normal gender identity is “self-sufficient”, independent of the opposite gender and, therefore, should be developed in isolation from or even in antithetical opposition to the opposite gender.

In simple words, the perverted mendacious archetype that makes women identify themselves as the ones that are NOT men and the ones who are antagonistic to men, and that makes men identify themselves as the ones that are the opposite of women, should be destroyed.

Men cannot really feel fully like men, understand and be completely happy with their own manhood and male identity without seeing their own social reflection in the mirror of the female part of the society and feeling and recognizing the female part of their own nature, and women cannot feel fully like women and understand and be thoroughly happy with their womanhood without seeing their own reflection in the mirror of the male part of the society and feeling and recognizing the male part of their own nature.

Men can really feel and be fully men only when they socially exist with women, and women can really feel and be fully women only when they socially exist with men. WE – MEN AND WOMEN – NEED EACH OTHER TO TOTALLY BE AND FEEL WHO WE ARE AND OUR GENDERS. We cannot be separately men and separately women separately from each other - in a “vacuum”. The existence of women makes men and their social gender identity fundamentally possible, and the existence of men makes women and their social gender identity possible. The two genders are totally entangled within one whole of humankind.

It is not the warped archetype of antithetical insuperable difference that should be placed as the cornerstone of social relationship of the two sexes, but complementarity, learning from each other, mutual enrichment, in which the male part of humanity strives to understand, recognize and enjoy the lesser female part of their own character, and, vice-verse, the female part of humanity tries to understand and develop the lesser male part of their character, both sexes naturally always having some part of their characters “borrowed” from the opposite sex from the very birth as a “special gift of Nature”.

And all those things MUST be inbuilt, as the cornerstone, in the very foundations of the inter-gender relations already in early childhood because if they are not, then no fountains of wisdom, falling on the deaf ears of the ossified adults, no formal conclusions of the ethical philosophy, human right treaties and lectures on feminism will be able to remove self-perpetuating perversions in the relationship between the two halves of humankind.

Only this paradigm can set the ethical and aesthetic pillars not just for tolerant coexistence but for prosperous development and collective social happiness of the two halves of humanity (which, by the way, expresses itself not only on the collective but also on personal and family level).

The two sexes have to be encouraged already in their childhood to love each other, form the right positive expectations towards each other, learn from each other, study each other, treasure each other and care about each other based on the understanding that their very existence and their normal gender identity (as opposed to the perverse one) are critically dependent the opposite sex and on on experiencing their gender reflection in the social mirror of their respective opposite gender. If these normal and natural archetypes aren't created in childhood then they will never be created during adolescence or in adulthood.

It goes without saying that this requires categorical opposition to “clustering” and isolating female kids and make kids in their respective separate environments – “compartments” - even if the walls of those compartments aren't physical or administrative.

Not only that, but this paradigm imperatively demands society to do everything to create maximally mixed environment, where male kids are not just allowed but actively encouraged to interact with and be involved in the female environment and vice verse (which doesn't negate the need to manage that mixed environment).

Unfortunately all this is completely the opposite of what is going on now in reality (probably with very rare exceptions seen in “the 22^nd century countries” like Finland).

Children are stuffed into the “Procrustean bed” of artificially made perverted gender identities from the very outset based on the toxic stereotype of oppositeness and otherness in relation to the opposite sex in a whole number of false attributes and rewarded behaviours, ranging from the type of games played to the types of clothes worn, THEIR BODIES AND THE BODIES OF THE OPPOSITE SEX, appearances and images, interests, preferred environment etc etc etc.

Thus, first of all, the creation of damage should be stopped before the above mentioned improvement can be implemented, and that cessation of damage may already automatically solve a lion's share of problems. Let kids themselves develop the sense of what their gender is and how that gender is inextricably connected to the opposite gender, what part of their character actually reflects the characteristics of the opposite sex.

A simple question can illustrate the deplorable state of affairs due to the perverted gender pictures enforced by society on children right from the start: why is it so that in the 21^st century even in the so-called developed countries there women have so few friends among men and men have so few friends among women? Why indeed! Definitely not because of the medieval rubbish to the effect that they are so different. While in our age (not different from the medieval times in this respect) may people perceive the rare occasion of normal and deep friendship between a man and a woman as rather an exception and paradox, actually it is the usual familiar reality that presents the biggest paradox – the paradox of almost total absence of normal friendship between men and women in society (indeed, one shouldn't be the shrewdest sociologist to reasonably assume that such friendship would really make so many problems related to lack of intersexual empathy and sympathy and discrimination just non-existent).

From the natural perspective it seems reasonable to expect the opposite situation (more friendship between the opposite sexes than the same): certain differences between men and women in their natural (not culturally induced!) predispositions and characters impart more mutual interest, enrichment and benefits of all kinds to the friendship between individuals of opposite sexes in comparison with the same.

Nor is there any relevant explanation of this “self-created paradox” coming from the childish drivels (or self-fulfilling prophesies) along the lines of accusing the “almighty bad magician” force of sexual attraction that is ostensibly so uncontrolled and feared as to render any friendship between the opposite sexes impossible and threaten the institution of family (indeed, there's not too much to fear in that respect, since that very institution of family has been half-destroyed already, and not by the friendship between men and women but rather by the aforementioned lack thereof).

We, men and women, as fundamentally same human beings, from the very beginning have the same core values, with by far the most of our character being the same, with only some aspects being different – and different conditionally too.

In the overwhelming majority of our interests and requirements we are initially the same, and there doesn't need to be any special labour involved to “build any bridges” for all this common shared ground unless, of course, those bridges are artificially burned in kids by their own families and institutions in our warped cultural environment.

It is not that boys somehow have a natural predisposition to play with toy guns and miniature soldiers and wear pants, and girls somehow have some innate predisposition to play with dolls and wear longer hair and skirts, but it is because society forces on them those false attributes, roles and identities – the WALLS – simultaneously making them feel ashamed or confused if they feel interest in what is artificially segregated as behaviours, appearances and interests ascribed (and prescribed!) to the opposite sex.
Society makes the two halves of new little humans different, so that later this wall of difference may be used to program the self-reproducing toxic antagonism between the two sexes, and “artificial identities” based on that very antagonism and antithetical perceptions.

Society itself builds the ugly WALL between the sexes in kids – poisons them with the toxin of gender antagonism – and then, when they grow into ossified adults with these perverted archetypes, the same society laments through the mendacious mouth and the forked tongue of fake feminism over the problems in the relationship between the two sexes (predominantly lumping all the blame on only one sex too) – that very fake feminism that actually does everything in its power to leverage and augment the deleterious effects of those toxic stereotypes, and does it consciously for its own benefits.

Thus boys and girls in their childhood should be grown in the conditions where they very closely interact with each other and don't develop “artificial” and “warped” gender-identities, but develop naturally their identities that are defined not as something antagonistic to the opposite sex, but something deeply complementary and existentially dependent on the opposite sex.

Though there are some special differences and predispositions characteristic of belonging to one or the other of the two sexes, even those differences and predispositions in one sex are not totally unconditional and “incomprehensible” for the other sex. In other words, even if women have some inclinations and characteristics that “intrinsically belong” to “female nature”, it doesn't mean that men don't have any ability to understand, empathize with, be curious about and enriched with those inclinations and characteristics, and find a reflection of those female characteristics in their own feminine part of their character.

Any boy coming into this world and growing, initially has a certain feminine part of his character – it is not as if there is some “metaphysical” part of female nature totally separated from him forever as if a parallel universe cut off by the event horizon (nor are any girls foreign to even most profound elements of the masculine nature). But it is our semi-barbarian society, not Mother Nature, that depicts and makes the sexes separated as if they are parallel universes (with the self-fulling perverted prophesy of them indeed becoming parallel universes).

Naturally kids aren't (and why should they be?) “gender-monolith” in their character, but boys have more masculine nature and a lesser (but none the less important for that!) part of feminine nature, and girls have more feminine and a lesser part of masculine nature. Those “lesser parts” are the most important bridges to the opposite sex insofar as the character may be gender-specific. Roughly speaking man is not (and why should he be?) supposed to feel as some imaginary mythical “100% man”, but he is supposed to feel as, figuratively speaking, “75% man” and “25%” woman (of course these numbers here are not for quantitative claims but for the qualitative illustration of the idea), and vice-versa.

Thus initially it is not only allowed by nature, but it is in the normal course of nature that girls and boys are and should be naturally very curious towards each other and towards those qualities and parts of nature of each other which each of the two sexes has as the minor part.

There is nothing fundamentally preventing boys from getting interested in playing with dolls with girls, and girls from taking interest in with what we “branded” (figuratively and literally speaking on the brains of our sons) as male toys.

Yet it is society that makes boys feel abnormal or even ashamed regarding that minor feminine part of their nature and character, crippling “the free gifts of nature”in its children and then crippling its throat shouting from the TV screens the front pages of the press about the scandals and atrocious culture of the relationship between these two isolated – “parallel” – gender universes that were separated and stolen from each other from the outset.

Instead of allowing men to become internally even “more of a man” through taking pride in and developing their minor feminine part of nature within the commonly created and mutually enriching mixed gender environment, they are from the very outset are reproached (explicitly or implicitly) for having the traits of character that are rather feminine in nature (the “macho” cult is a special extreme in the manifestation of that theft of the feminine part from men in their childhood, where boys are taught that some “girl's weaknesses” are a shame to male identity).

But if society will recognize the fundamental complimentary, interdependence and oneness of the two genders, and if society will seriously acknowledge that men cannot really be totally “fully realized men” without women, and women cannot be totally women without men and without mutual development of their minor parts of character corresponding to the opposite sex, then most of those problems, that are so mightily parasitized by fake feminism, will naturally vanish.

WE CANNOT BE REALLY MEN AND WOMEN WITHOUT EACH OTHER – we are parts of each other and we contain parts of each other in ourselves.

If we stop fighting mother nature, and we stop this self-perpetuating vicious cycle of cooking and warping gender-identities then the holistic, harmonious and mutually-enriching relationship between the two genders will become equally as possible as natural.

As is often the case, a great part of the solution to the problem mostly lies not in what needs to be done, but in what must not be done, for it is often not the lack of solutions to the problems but the creation of the problems in the first place that brings about deplorable outcomes.

INTIMACY CULTURE

Within the aforementioned context it is still impossible to omit a special, critically important aspect, namely INTIMACY and the ATTITUDE TO BODY. The former – intimacy – is what in Western culture has been replaced with “sex”, totally separating it from love and all the rest of intersexual interactions as if it is something absolutely isolated that bears no relation to all other manifestations of the intersexual relationships, perceptions and their culture.

We still live in the semi-barbarian and semi-infantile society (and barbarianism and infantilism often go hand in hand) where for many parents it is still much easier to explain to their little sons in their childhood how wars are fought and how guns work and how they kill people, than how a new life is conceived out of love (and, ideally, for the sake of love), how the birth of new life takes place, and what the ultimate gifts of nature and triumphs of billions of years of evolution are that make it possible for girls to develop, bring into the world and nurture a new life made “out of love”.

Indeed, we still live in a society and in a world where many parents feel much more confident and comfortable explaining to their little kids what war and death are than what love and birth of new life are.

In many ways, the society is still much more afraid of LOVE AND LIFE, then of WAR AND DEATH.

We still live in a barbarian infantile society where probably as much as 50% of jokes and humour – be it on the level of everyday social interactions or institutionalized TV shows, books etc – are tied to the theme of sex and those parts of human body that mother nature developed through millions of years of evolution to make love, new life and even those very two genders possible to exist.

It is amazing how many jokes can be seen and heard already in the kindergarten, let alone school, in relation to the opposite sex, the body of the opposite sex. Well, if already in the childhood the disrespectful, cynical and joking attitude is cultivated towards the opposite sex, the body of the opposite sex, the intimacy and the adult intimate relationship, how can society seriously hope that the institution of marriage and family is going to be good, firm and happy, and that the leprosy of sexual crimes, assaults and commodification of sex in institutions is going anywhere any time soon?

Not only that, but the very nature of these jokes, and even a goodly part of the idiomatic English language is of a really bad nature that presents a mixture of contempt, fear of weakness, lack of control and exposure, denigration and defiance to the most profound force of nature inbuilt in our bodies and minds. That very force and those same mental and bodily mechanisms responsible for love, family, birth of new life and social cohesion are still actually feared and ridiculed (out of fear), not embraced and celebrated. That subprime creative force is perversely used not to create a more empathetic, hence, happier and more peaceful society, gluing the two genders, but as a weapon, a self-inflicted curse, a monetized tool in political and corporate world, and this status-quo is equally accepted and supported by both sexes.

We still live in a society that mendaciously prides itself on ostensibly recognizing and even celebrating the revealing truths discovered by the genius of Sigmund Freud, whereas in fact the latter wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry (or both) at how in substance all those truths were perverted, hypocritically put on a pedestal only to avoid putting them into effect for the benefit of the society.

Is it those thousands of sexual assaults at the American Military Academies that are the ultimate fruit of the so-called sexual revolution and emancipation?! Is it this massive avalanche of porn and pornographic culture on the Internet that shows the triumph of the sexual revolution in the West, especially in the Anglo-West? Is it the ever-increasing amount of sex-tourism and sex-trafficking/slavery of immigrants and immigrant teenagers that is supposed to demonstrate the glory of the sexual liberation and enlightenment in America?! Or is it because Freud's teaching was wrong? Well, it seems to be the opposite: it is because Freud's teaching has never been really put into work, and. instead, a grotesque chimera, an ugly hybrid has been built based on some cherry-picked Freudian recipes combined with the old Christian archetypes when it comes to the questions of intimacy and fundamental attitude towards body.

Indeed, in this situation, it would be surprising NOT to see those cultural perversions en mass that manifest themselves in the aforementioned sexual assaults, using sex as a bargaining or political tool, a coin for exchange of services etc in the corrupt social and institutional cultures. In both these paragraphs the term “sex” indeed is more than justified by the context as opposed to the term “intimacy”.

When girls and boys are in their early childhood they can't understand neither the monumental doctrines of humanist philosophers, nor the history and meaning of human rights, nor the essence of the true feminism teachings and such. Hence when boys and girls have already grown up into adults who can formally understand those doctrines and teachings, none of all this corpus of humanist literature and knowledge is going to change their attitude towards each other and their own sex, because by this point of time it is too late.

No true feminism movement (let alone fake feminism), no legal bounds, no institutionalized propaganda are able to change those deepest archetypes about the value (or rather lack thereof) of human life and its dignity and beauty, including the value of the life of the opposite sex. Once the fundamental attitudes and expectations towards the opposite sex and the body of the opposite sex have been mangled in the early childhood, no political noise, philosophical treaties or fear-based teeth of law are going to change or “rewire” this “perversely hardwired mental program”.

All these archetypes are formed in early childhood in the existing cultural environment, and the attitude to body, including the body of the opposite sex, plays a fundamental role in this process – definitely it is not the works of Freud or Voltaire that are the source of love or hate or fear towards the opposite sex and its body.

The opposite is also true: if since the dawn of their childhood most children had been conditioned (or rather allowed) to develop deeply positive and, actually, natural, expectations from and attitudes towards the opposite sex, so that boys and girls would see each other and each other's bodies as the very precious source of happiness and joy of their life and, even more importantly, their future adult life, then we probably would neither need nor see any feminism (which would not upset true feminists, by the way), let alone the fake feminism.

For that to happen it is not enough just to provide the usual social and physical exposure of the kids of opposite sexes to each other, but it is imperative to make such exposure, not least in their minds, the prevailing norm, so much so that children's friendships and social interactions with the opposite sex should be more encouraged and praised than those between the same sexes. It requires reviewing and turning upside down what we see as “natural” and accepting that it is not natural for girls to cluster with girls and boys cluster with boys to a higher degree and over longer times than sharing time together in their childhood.

It is not enough just to provide to kids the dry knowledge and education about “sex” as some inevitable corollary or aspect of adult life, but it is imperative to provide the knowledge about the intimate relationship (as opposed to “sex” which in the perversion of the Western culture became the same as or substitute for intimacy) and FORM DEEPLY POSITIVE ATTITUDES AND EXPECTATIONS AND OPTIMISM in kids in regard to the sacred role of intimacy in their future life and the sacred role of the body of their own and the opposite sex in their their future life and their future happiness.

Kids in their childhood start to develop the concept of value of human life and of their own life through, among other important things, their own body, parental interaction and caress, and if there is an ugly gap between what kids understand and perceive as love and the dry information - “education” - about “sex” (instead of intimacy which is not something fundamentally different from the intimacy between kids and their parents) then the chances are perverted stereotypes will be developed about the opposite sex, its body and intimate relationship with it.

Thus it is not enough just to teach kids about “sex”, but it is imperative to teach them about the intimacy as a form of caress and expression of love, so that the very ethical and aesthetic context of this critically important education is based on cultivating in kids the vision of intimacy as the form of respecting, loving and delivering caress to the opposite sex through the intimate interaction, and not as some totally isolated form or “parallel reality” to the caress that they – kids – experience in their normal interactions with parents and each other.

if neo-feminism was really interested in mitigation and elimination of the amount of suffering and pain created by the bad perverted culture of the relationship between the two halves of the humankind, it would really study rationally the roots of the problem and be busy with destroying the walls between the two sexes instead of erecting them.

But, of course, as was mentioned before, neo-feminism is doing the complete opposite because its cynical “cannibalistic” objective is the opposite: triggering and flaming the never ending “civil war” between sisters and brothers, sons and mothers, wives and husbands, against which background its faked nice intentions would give them more raw political power in society and its institutions.