It is no secret that women are oppressed, beat up and kept down in countless ways, in cultures all over the world. We certainly have never had the need for a 'masculinist' movement, in demand of male rights. Perhaps an ancient history of matriarchal influence is why we find ourselves here.
Women have been systemically relegated by the seekers of power in our society. If the divine feminine was truly celebrated, revered and embodied -- and equally, if the true nature of the divine masculine was embodied -- our society would be shaped by quite a different balance of interests and influences; ones that would not have supported the rise of today's most powerful, war-driven institutional structures. The radical patriarchy.
Unfortunately, like most "movements", the second-wave feminist movement ultimately became "controlled opposition" in some regards, overrun by the ideals of the masculine institution. While the second wave sought to combat social and cultural inequalities, and to an extent was successful in that regard, it by no means caused a revolution in the way our society operates; only the way families and workplaces are run, increasing the time and energy women typically spend "providing" instead of "nurturing". Adding to the expectations caused by our increasing masculinization of female social roles, the increased necessity for dual-incomes means mothers often don't have the choice to engage their time in raising their children, as our grandmothers did. Instead, both parents must typically work just to survive financially. Make no mistake, this trend a deliberate economic construct. The role of mother has been squeezed out of common practice by economic design, and those who can subjected to the social burden of (patronizing) qualifiers like "stay at home mom" or "working mom" (as opposed to working dads who are simply called "dads"). Meanwhile, carers and other nurturers are undervalued and poorly remunerated for their contribution to society, if at all.
Writes Jay Dyer in his article for Jay's Analysis,Why Billionaire Oligarchs Bankroll Feminism:
" It is a fact that almost all so-called "liberal" movements have been funded, co-opted, used and harnessed by the money power as a means of psychological warfare for the destruction of the existing order. Feminism is no exception to this, and like Marxism, had the backing of powerful financial interests which could utilize the "liberation" by appealing to the" naà ¯ve ignorance of youth, as the world witnesses with Mao's cultural revolution.
Thus, just as the banking elite funded revolutionaries in Russia and Chinato destabilize the existing regimes, so with feminism and "women's liberation," the destabilization of the masses could be more easily accomplished, not just through altering social structures, but also through attacking gender. The attack on gender is a long, scientific process that began with women's liberation and has now consummated in the synthetic rewrite of all nature. Along this long, technocratic and scientistic path, the oligarchs reasoned that the inversion of all existing orders through subversion would result inthe feminization of men, and the masculinization of women.
As a result of this trend, women are certainly working more than at any time in history, yet the number of women in key decision making roles still remains relatively low. More importantly though, the influence of "feminine" virtues (sustainability, compassion) on what those roles actually achieve has remained all but non-existence. Currently, the most influential direction setting in our society happens at a corporate and government level (arguably the same thing) which are competitive in natue. So, while the second wave feminist movement achieved equal right for women to perform important roles within heavily masculine institutions, there was no energetic shift toward embodying the sacred feminine energy within those institutions themselves. Rather, to be "successful" in corporate and government, women adopt mannish standards of appearance, bolstering the suit and tie with shoulder pads and a requisite killer attitude. Meanwhile, feminine ideals fail to penetrate these institutionalized structure, awhile successful women routinely trade their femininity at the door, adopting instead the worst qualities of men.
"Hasn't she got balls!", they say, as she steers her fracking corporation to record profits. Hilary "Hard Ass" Clinton, Gina "The Coral Reef Bulldozer" Reinhart and Margaret "The Iron Lady" Thatcher are three perfect examples of this archetype. Masculine energy, with breasts.
When we honestly assess the energetic state of our world today, we see that the feminist movement has not achieved any significant change to the masculine priorities and practices that underpin our society's most influential institutional structures. Instead, the forces of bastardization -- the radical patriarchy -- ensured that the feminist movement became "controlled opposition" in many ways, minimizing its focus and therefore its impact on issues of genuine social direction. In fact, the over-sexualization of the "ideal" female archetype is in part the slingshot effect of this interference we see still playing out today. Deliberate manipulation of the feminist ideals over time has seen the movement inadvertently facilitate the rise of the "It's my body and I'll flash the paparazzi if I want to" ethos that has become so prevalent in establishment media today; some fine examples include Britney "I attract $300 a ticket to mime and grab my own breasts on stage" Spears and the other one" Oh, you know the one! That "good girl gone bad" story that was all over the news last week. What was her name again"?
So while the initial intentions behind the feminist movement, and indeed some of the rights that were recognized along the way, were clearly very valuable, its success was limited by deliberately steered objectives. Although some may see "women's liberation" as a mostly done deal, so far, the limitations instilled within the movement have ensured its perceived successes fell well short of bringing about the Divine Feminine Revolution one might have hoped (or in the case of the establishment, feared).
Just as the divine feminine has been relegated, the role of "the male" in our society has conversely manipulated. The overly sexualized female ideal is matched by similarly unrealistic male ideal, one that is essentially built for war. And while the increasing absence of parents and other adult influences leaves children with less parental guidance, our children are collecting influences wherever they find them; school, media, internet, and each other.
The distorted expression of the masculine within our institutional structures and the desecration of the divine feminine, as constructed by those institutional powers, is evidenced by the rather un-divine expressions of masculinity and femininity that are so embraced and embedded in our society. From Barbie and G.I. Joe to Miss Universe and Uncle Sam, the heroes and princesses archetypes serve to steer the collective mindset toward accepting constant distortion of the masculine and feminine, and to engage in the roles these archetypes embody; the passive beauty and the powerful warrior. Our society has accepted those archetypes and at the same time, the rule of an overtly masculine paradigm -- one where a competitive economy, military complex, over-consumptive industries and energy systems, and exclusive power structures (that are faultlessly self-serving) are given value. Thus, we consider it normal business practice to engage in industrial practices that threaten all life on our fragile, life-giving natural environment.
So how do we best overcome our society's current conditioning? Through the power of our words.
A Matriotic Revolution?"This is my voice, my weapon of choice-- ~ Ms. Grace Jones, "This Is Life".
Theosophy and philosophy universally point to the primal importance of communication. Diverse religions concur that the word begins it all, and this idea is particularly reflected in The Bible and in the Aum/Om (a mantra of Hindu origin). Even the United States 'Bill of Rights' begins with the First Amendment, the five points of law that not only protect the inherent human right of U.S. citizens to communicate freely but which recognize the importance of communication to a healthy, dynamic and functional society.
George Orwell, author of 1984, wrote in his essay Politics and the English Language.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
