Let’s explain one thing.  Author does not sigh nostalgically hearing the term ‘patriarchy’, nor miss ‘the good old days when blissful women spent their lives in kitchens, bedrooms, and kirks’.  While differences between the sexes are a biological fact, what itself is reactionary and penalised point of view today – unequal treatment, discrimination or violence against women are also known reality, not only historical.  And present perpetrators, the true opressors of women, are primarily liberal, globalist capitalism and the transgender industry.

Neo-Patriarchy – crossdresser instead of family man

The contemporary understanding of patriarchy goes beyond the Weberian definition of the father’s power over family members.  Considering the 21st Century Neo-Patriarchy century, we mean the entirety of the exploitation and oppression suffered by women from the men – including these crossdressers who claim to be ‘trans-women’.  And this is by no means hermetic issue, as the slogan of ‘gender self-identification’ is currently one of the main postulates of cultural hegemony.

Pseudo-Feminism with Clinton’s face

Although this new, aggressive interest group is clearly oppressive against women – its claims are often supported by liberal feminists, dominating especially within Western mass culture.  Liberal feminism reduces itself to co-optation of the upper-middle class women among the higher-level beneficiaries of the capitalist system, globalisation, and imperialism.  From this point of view proper measurements of the patriarchy decline would be masculinisation of women, feminisation of the global corporations supervisory boards, number of female generals and, as the final triumph, election of the first ever female president of the hegemonic United States.

Feminism of this type, being just a female version of the liberal cultural dictate, likes to refer to the experiences of historical struggles for the equality and suffragettes’ fight for the recognition of all women’s civil and political rights.  These slogans are still on the feminist agenda to this day, especially regarding states which continue to restrict women’s political powers.  As a result, they are successfully used for the globalist hegemonic actions.  Very selectively, of course, as evidenced by a comparison of the political and professional situation of women in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries allied with the United States – with the guarantees of female political participation and professional development in the Islamic Republic of Iran.  However, these are not topics that mainstream liberal feminism, whose political faces are still Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama, would like to deal with.

Liberation for chosen ones

Women liberated from the patriarchal housework rarely wonder who instead prepares meals, washes, irons, takes care of their children and cleans their apartments.  This is commonly other women’s job and the difference boils down to the fact that their work is waged, usually low.  In developed countries these processes affect particularly females from ethnic minorities and immigrants. Transfer of sexual relations from households to sex workers is part of the same process.  Social reproduction is fuelled by the import of children and brides.  Female employees could be hired directly for giving birth, what to some extent already happens in case of the surrogates industry.  The fact that a White middle-class woman from a core country in not involved in social reproduction and housework does not mean that women are not exploited any more, but only that exploitation and oppression continue against women who are not so fortunate in terms of class, race and place of birth. These transfers are possible as results of globalisation and its components: dispossession, commodification and immigration.

Peripheries are women

Critical element of globalisation was a shift of industrial production from the core countries to the periphery and the emergence of ‘global assembly line’ largely served by the female working class.  Liquidation of rural communities in developing countries was necessary condition for such transformation.  Accumulation by dispossession is performed directly through forced industrialisation, often accompanied with war and ethnic cleaning.  Another, indirect method is so called Western ‘aid’, creating centres surrounded by clusters of uprooted, cheap or even free labour force, which abandoned its former agricultural activities and hold on systems of rationing food, water and other goods sent from the core countries.  In this way, the more evenly distributed social reproduction tasks, typical for natural rural communities are replaced by strenuous primary accumulation in which women are subjected to a double exploitation – from the globalist capitalist production, and within households reorganised on the capitalist pattern.  In fact, in the process of globalisation, the commodified female, racial and climate politic elements are used to maximise global liberal capitalists’ profits

Wars and COVID against Women

This is particularly important question in crisis situations like wars and so called COVID-19 pandemic.  Typical modern imperialists’ claim is that they ‘wage wars for women’s right and liberation’, although women are always the very first victims of any armed conflicts.  Rape and discrimination are constant elements of imperialist aggressions as the Vietnam War. Argument of better care for women’s rights is often used to justify the Zionist, racist regime in Israel, which emphasise gender equality in the Israel Defence Forces.  Female soldiers serve in the occupied Palestinian territories, where they participate in organised violence against Arab women, facing with the ambivalent attitude of Western liberal feminists.

So called COVID-19 pandemic caused the systemic crisis of social reproduction which, however, affected rather the capitalist lifestyle than the foundations of liberal, global capitalism.  The feminised peripheral industries had to work even more intensively to maintain the level of core countries consumption.  Females from racial minorities and immigrants made up the majority of keyworkers in sectors as care, retail, paid domestic labour and cleaning services in the developed countries.  They were excluded from the implemented flexible work arrangements or even social protection shields, which could be enjoyed by employed middle-class women.  But also in their case, formal equality was contradicted by the actual greater burden of household chores.

Crisis situations such as wars and pandemics prove the superficiality of alleged weakening of gender discrimination.  This threat even growths, being implemented with the enormous support of capital, political authorities and cultural hegemony as The New Golden Calf: TRANSGENDERISM.

Already during the first, but especially the second wave of feminism (i.e. in the second half of the 20th Century), a distinction, which is still key to this day, has emerged, influencing our understanding of the concept of gender.  Differences in experience, and hence in interests, foreshadowed a future double track and doubt: whether the system could be changed more effectively by struggling for economic rights, or it is necessary to influence primarily the sphere of Geoculture.  Thus, while equality was one of the main slogans and postulates of the first wave, with time it became at least as important for the female side to articulate differences between the sexes: social, biological and moral ones. With time, this opened the doors to distinction between sex and gender.

Trans-Totalism

Obviously, the level of the present-day Trans-Totalism was reached in stages.  We can put among the fairy tales that it began with one Simone de Beauvoir’s sentence, always quoted from the middle and without further part.  As when author of “The Second Sex” written that “...if [woman] did not exist, men would have invented her” then immediately added that womanless “...exists apart from men’s inventiveness”.  Thus, building an aggressive doctrine, and the entire industry on a one-liner actually related to female indispensability and independence as a being – is clear usurpation.  No, the real sources are completely different and, of course, also arise from the logic of liberal capitalism.  The key was to create suitable market.  When in 1979 Janice G. Raymond described emerging of  “The Transsexual Empire”, the very beginnings of the giant chemical, medical, erotic and show business industry – her book was treated as an important, but niche dissertation about medical ethics.  Today, the value of this sector of economy only in the United States is estimated at $1.5 billion, and Raymond’s book is on the index, the same as an author itself.

Meanwhile, we have faced an intensive creation of demand, going much further than not only de Beauvoir, but also many feminists from the beginnings of the Second Wave could have ever think about.  In only a slight simplification, the imprinted sequence looked like as follows: biological and cultural sex are not exactly the same – only cultural gender counts – there are no biological sex – cultural gender is the proper biological sex.  It has taken only one generation to start from the first, generally correct, observation – and reached final claim, which offends logic, science and common sense.  Along the way, transsexualism was replaced by transgenderism, first occurred in 1992, the first “transgender person” self-identified in 1998, and since it has gone faster and faster.  One by one departments of Women’s Studies were quickly renamed Gender Studies, shifting from women’s issues to aggressive promotion of questions previously understood only in terms of gender dysfunction.  Politicians followed scholars.  Their manifesto was the Yogyakarta Principles, announced in 2006, and then continued to be expanded largely towards the merging of human rights with the principle of gender self-identification.  This is also the direction of cultural attacks, accelerating for several years, sweeping away all the competitive views on sexuality, including the feminist and even lesbian positions, now considered reactionary.

Today, the use of an incorrect pronoun in New York for referring to a “transgender person” is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000, and the Canadian province of Ontario has introduced criminal liability for the same offense.  With The Equality Act 2010, the United Kingdom has extended its anti-discrimination legislation to (trans)gender issues, and the legislation of Scotland goes straight towards state-guaranteed gender self-identification without any medical consultation.  In 15 states and the District of Columbia, most schools’ curriculums include “LGBTQ-Inclusive Sex Education” while California, New Jersey, Colorado, and Illinois imposed LGBT + history teaching.  The first ever document signed by President Joe Biden was the Executive Order urging Congress to ban regulations guaranteeing the exclusive right of biological women to perform in female sports.  Teachers in New Zealand are required to independently and without consulting the parents analyse pupils’ behaviour to detect and encourage candidates to announce a gender self-identification change.  In the UK, between 2009 and 2019, the number of children referred to puberty inhibitor ‘therapy‘ by the public NHS Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) increased for boys by 1,640%, from 40 to 624, and by 5,337% for girls, from 32 to 1,740.  All this as part of a “join in or shut up” strategy directed primarily against feminists (and previously also gays and lesbians).

TERFism – archvillain

Today, women are no longer sent to the kitchen and kirk.  It is enough to call them TERFs, and there are no fines nor penalties for that.  Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminism.  You don’t have to be a feminist or even a woman to be branded with this new stigma of the darkest reaction and fascism.  TERF is a lesbian who refuses to have sex with a “trans-woman”, a sportswoman beaten by one crossdresser and woman in prison raped by another. Obviously TERFs are girls unwilling to use the toilets and changing rooms shared with the boys – because on what basis they judge the gender of these boys?!

Men in women’s clothes grab all women’s social and cultural gains, won by generations of suffragists, waves of feminism and women’s progressive and reformist movements.  The neopatriarchy in core countries today has a distorted face of a crossdresser leaning over our children, just as the version for the periphery is still a global Corpo-Capitalist, supported by liberal feminists, who without any delay (together with the most of gay organisations) bravely stood in the front ranks of the fight against TERFism, although achieving universal recognition of the White middle-class female’s self-satisfied identity will not equal defeating neopatriarchy.  On the contrary, it will only support this bizarre, cross-dressed option, of course at the expense of women from peripheries and core lower classes, as the new masters are above gender differences.

Sex-mission

In this situation, the interests of these interested in true equality between women and supporters of traditional values seem to coincide.  Without restraining liberal globalism, it is impossible to rebuild community, nor to authentically empower human beings of both truly existing sexes/genders.  The alternative is worse than disguisting, it surely annihilates the remnants of human dignity, and offends the intelligence that is supposed to characterise our species.  Therefore, in the face of the offensive of liberal-total transgenderism, taking the position of biological reality remains a kind of timeless sex… mission.  For conservatives and traditionalists that means pressure to rework the gender issues in the same way that Marxists once had to cope with.  Also for them, articulating women’s issues initially seemed unnecessaryś, even harmful, and directly coming from a foreign, or even hostile, ideological agenda.  Similarly, from the point of view of conservative values, the question of defending femininity against the attack of transgenderism is an absolutely necessary refinement of the essence of humanity and personal dignity.  Feminist conservatism is therefore just logical.