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.