Is radical feminism a kind of modern-day religion?

It’s an interesting question because, just like Gnosticism, radical feminism seems to push this “hidden truth” that men are inherently oppressors and women are victims. It’s almost like it creates this black-and-white view of reality that just doesn’t line up with how society actually works.

Gnosticism originated in the early Christian era, drawing from Greek philosophy and Eastern religions. It teaches that the material world is flawed or evil, created by a lesser god (the Demiurge), while true knowledge (gnosis) comes from the divine realm. Gnostics believed salvation comes through this secret, spiritual knowledge, revealing the divine spark within each person. This worldview often rejects material reality in favor of a hidden, “higher” truth.

Radical feminism, like Gnosticism, frames the world in terms of an oppressive system—patriarchy—where men are the oppressors, and women are the victims. It often rejects traditional structures as inherently flawed and promotes a “hidden truth” that only those enlightened by feminist ideology can see. Both ideologies present a distorted view of reality, leading followers to see societal problems as absolute and all-encompassing, often ignoring the complexities and nuances of human interactions and progress.

The problem with this is that it distorts reality. It paints gender relations as a battle, which makes people act in strange, even self-destructive ways. Instead of focusing on progress for everyone, it promotes this narrative that men need to be torn down for women to rise up. But history doesn’t support that. Look at how women’s empowerment has often paralleled men’s empowerment—when both are uplifted, society moves forward.

Women’s rights and gender equality is a modern phenomenon, an anomaly within human history, and effectively an experiment which will only persists if certain foundations of society are maintained. Western societies were able to create circumstances where men are empowered, through the protection of individual rights, freedom of speech, regular elections and increased opportunities driven by technological advancement. This mainstream empowerment of men throughout the 18th and 19th century fostered an environment where men came to possess the psychological stability to permit the empowerment of women by the 20th century.

Men who are disempowered and lacking in opportunity, and do not possess a sense of self-empowerment, derive their psychological stability from controlling women, both through their physical presence, and their capacity to render women dependent on them through pregnancy. This social dynamic can be found both currently and historically in every culture and society, although it may manifest itself in diverse ways depending on cultural factors, as it has been an essential mechanism for the perpetuation of the human race surviving under harsh conditions.

Women fare better in democracies because the psychological stability of men—fostered by equal rights, opportunities, and societal engagement—creates a more supportive environment. When men are empowered and have a stable role in society, they are less likely to revert to controlling women for their own psychological stability, allowing women’s rights and opportunities to thrive alongside their own.

Think of men’s empowerment as like the shell of an egg, and women’s empowerment is the embryo inside. The shell protects and supports the growth of the embryo. If you smash the shell, the embryo doesn’t survive. It’s the same with society: disempowering men or dismantling traditional structures (“The Partiarchy”) isn’t going to lead to progress for women; it’ll harm both, with women suffering the most. The idea of Patriarchy within radical feminism is basically a conspiracy theory.

So, is radical feminism a modern-day religion? It’s worth considering. When we act on these distorted views, it leads to policies and actions that don’t help anyone—least of all the women it’s supposed to empower.

The question could also be asked for other Woke ideologies as well.

Modern? It’s been going on since before the 60s. I still remember my mom learning to drive. All the cigarette ads told her, “You’ve come a long way not baby” 1968, now that was the year women could smoke in the street. Wow! What liberation. 2007, was the year they could tell men to quit smoking in the street.

A couple of clarifications, please:
Permit the empowerment of women? But men had to have it first?
By the 20th century? Never before that?

I’m dubious about the assertions you’re making throughout your post. Please show your work. (In other words, from what sources are you gathering data for these conclusions?

Well its true, men did permit the rights of women. Men wrote and signed laws/amendments to permit women voting, and other rights, even before women were elected in their own right, depending on the country/state… So yes, men had to be empowered to permit the empowerment of women. For most of human history people live in poverty and were very much disempowered.

And yes, there were women’s rights movements or in effect before the 19/20th century, but they never went as far as it has come today, within the social framework we live in today.

I don’t deny existing rights held by women, but the concept of sex equality that is enjoyed today is a modern development, resulting from the social empowerment of 18th and 19th century.

You seem to have a very narrow (and inaccurate) view of cultures across time and this planet.

1 Like

You have heard of the suffragette movement right? I don’t think permit is the right word there. Like saying the Nazis permitted the allies to win the war, by surrendering.

1 Like

Can you elaborate on that?

Yes, I can.

(Twenty character rule)

2 Likes

Please do it; I’m curious.

I don’t take people seriously who use the word woke in that context.

1 Like

Bullshit.

I am a feminist, and equality is about removing barriers (like the glass ceiling) so that women can participate in society on an equal footing with men.

I do concede that there have been times and occasions when there have been negative consequences from feminism but–by and large–we are in a much better place then we were even 30 or 40 years ago.

The idea that feminism is a religion is garbage.

2 Likes

LOL, I’m not a feminist, don’t believe in the ‘glass ceiling,’ I agree that women are in a much better place than they were 30 or 40 years ago. I want to reverse the current abortion decision asap. And, I agree 100% the idea that feminism is a religion is ‘GARBAGE.’ I don’t even have to agree with feminism to see that.

2 Likes

I’m guessing that is projection on your part, not reality.

They are very real in the corporate world.

1 Like

Yes, projection… I agree with gender differences and what they call a ‘sticky floor.’ The sticky floor in business is a discriminatory employment pattern that keeps workers (predominantly women but men too) stuck in low-paying, low-mobility positions. This is paired with some significant social factors.

The Leadership Gap: 20 Revealing Male vs. Female CEO Statistics

My point was not that prejudice does not exist, There is no magical thing called a glass ceiling., Sorry, I realize I was not clear.