#patriarchy theory

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/specious

1 : having a false look of truth or genuineness : sophistic specious reasoning 2 : having deceptive attraction or allure 3 obsolete : showy

--

Noam Chomsky: If you look at what's happening, I think it's pretty easy to figure out what's going on. I mean, suppose you are a literary scholar at some elite university. Or, you know, anthropologist or whatever. I mean, if you do your work seriously, that’s fine, you know. But you don’t get any big prizes for it.

On the other hand, you take a look over in the rest of the university and you’ve got these guys in the physics department and the math department and they have all kinds of complicated theories, which of course we can’t understand, but they seem to understand them. And they have, you know, principles and they deduce complicated things from the principles and they do experiments and they find either they work or they don’t work. And that’s really, you know, impressive stuff.

So I want to be like that too. I want to have a theory. In the humanities, you know, literary criticism, anthropology and so on, there’s a field called theory. We’re just like the physicists. They talk incomprehensibly, we can talk incomprehensibly. They have big words, we’ll have big words. They draw, you know, far-reaching conclusions, we’ll draw far-reaching conclusions. We’re just as prestigious as they are.

Now if they say, well look, we’re doing real science and you guys aren’t, that’s white male, sexist, you know, bourgeois or whatever the answer is. How are we any different from them?

==

I worry that when I describe this idiocy as "fraud," people think I'm exaggerating, being hyperbolic or otherwise overstating it.

I'm not. If anything, I'm understating it.

All of this postmodern crap we're dealing with is completely fake. All this ridiculous intersectional jargon is a big grift. All of these domains producing this ridiculous nonsense are bogus and corrupt. All the scholarship they produce is fraudulent. It's fake from top to bottom.

All of it.

These people are cloaking asinine retardation in fancy words to cover up how asinine and retarded this asinine retardation is.

The people producing it are shallow and stupid. Not to mention, envious and spiteful about the status and authority of science. They just use absurd jargon to hide that fact and trick you into thinking it's too deep and profound for you to understand. But when it's decoded into simple English, à la the Tweet summaries above, the retarded, moronic nature becomes obvious.

The response to this kind of ridiculous shit needs to be laughter and derision, not tenure or a tertiary qualification.

We have to get rid of it because it's destroying our societies.

[freyasfatale]

being careless of male validation has brought me to a point of extreme happiness and freedom.

I am a sex trafficking/work survivor. I am a domestic violence survivor. Unfortunately, my rape is on the internet many times over.

when I had to return to my hometown at 19 after being trapped for 6 months in that industry, I was not welcomed in my patriarchal, Christian West Virginia small town. I was humiliated, harassed, and shamed for years. constantly being told no man would ever love me or want me, that I was a used car, ran through, more dicks in me than years of my life, as well as ignored, fetishized, preyed upon, etc by men used to haunt me. This was when I cared about being a wife and mother to a man and his children.

Through radical feminism and the community, I no longer care. I found a community of women who understand what I went through and believe me, and who know that the oppression of my sex is why I endured such trauma. So when a man tells me “you did porn, who would want to be with you”, like my abusive ex did, it means nothing to me. My worth is more than whether or not men want to date or fuck me. I do not wish to marry or bear children to a man. I am free.

And by the way, not sure why the moids are both so obsessed with penetration while neglecting the fact that lesbians exist, and I am one.

[dreamyintersexouppy]

the way people on here use "trans inclusive radical feminist" reads as such a nonsense term that borders on "these new woke trannies have gone too far" and then you realize that it's used to label transfeminist trans women as harassment targets just like accusations of incest or pedophilia are and it's clear that how it reads is pretty accurate to what it means to the people using it that way

[letherightonein]

Why "male loneliness epidemic" is a male supremacist psyop [corrected ver.]

I said in a former post that the "male loneliness epidemic" is not real and is a male supremacy psyop, and I want to explain more broadly why it is.

Manosphere

If you don't know about it yet, there is a thing called "Manosphere", a name that stands for a group of communities created by men and oriented towards men. Manosphere is composed of incels, redpill, blackpill, MGTOW and MRA ideologies.

Incels are "involuntary celibates", men who want to date but can't do it. The term was created by a woman called Alana (invcel) and mostly referred to people who felt isolated and incapable of forming romantic relationships or trapped in a dying relationship. But nowadays it is tied to a broad ideology that I will explain later.

Redpill stems from the Matrix scene where Neo has to choose between the redpill and the bluepill, being the redpill the one who will awaken him. The whole ideology started to take its form in pick-up artistry forums such as SoSuave, and states that in order to mate and get laid a lot you have to become a "high value male", while also understanding "female nature". The original big three exponents of this ideology were Rollo Tomassi, Chateau Heartiste and Roosh V, but nowadays only Rollo remains moderately relevant.

Blackpill is the most pessimistic and nihilistic version of the redpill, it is tied to incels but is not exclusive of them. It focuses on biological determinism, and states that the most important thing on mating is looks. That seems innocent at first sight, but this ideology also states that most men are not attractive to women, and they are having a soft harem relationship with “Chad”, a highly attractive man, in detriment to average men and creating incels in the process.

MGTOW started as an independent community, with a first manifesto written in 2001 in a male focused forum. In the manifesto they advocated in favor of a society with enforced gender roles and a smaller state. But nowadays they are connected to redpill and blackpill. It is mostly overlooked, but in Spanish communities there are also two other manifests, MGTOW 2.0 and MGTOW 3.0. I don't know if there is a fourth one nowadays, but they help to understand the transition MGTOW has made over the years and how manosphere ideologies have been adopted by this group.

MRA stands for Men's rights activism, also called Men's rights Movement (MRM). The father of the movement is Ernst Belfort, who wrote against women's rights and the "legal subjection" of men, in response to feminists and John Stuart Mill. Nowadays it is also tied with redpill, given that prominent figures of the movement promote or believe in redpill ideology, such as Paul Elam or Karen Straughan.

In 2014, Cassie Jaye who was allegedly a feminist by that time, did a documentary on MRA called "The Redpill". It's not clear why she called it that way, but it is suspected that it was with the purpose of dragging more people on the redpill. It is also said that she received money from r/Theredpill subreddit. The documentary was international, since it reached both English and Spanish audiences (I don't know much about other languages/countries). It exposes a lot of problems men face, such as dying in war, losing custodies and domestic violence, but never explains what MRAs do to help those men.

That term

Once you become familiar with all these communities, you start to see how they are all the same. They share the same stats, the same studies, the same terms, the same narratives. The only thing that changes is the label, if the members can or not to have sex with women, if the members want or not to have sex with women, and if the members "care" or not about society.

One of the core terms that is transversal to almost all communities is "Hypergamy". (The central one on MRA is Gynocentrism). And it is a tricky one.

Men in these communities are used to gaslight and belittle external people, but also they bully each other constantly. In Spanish, for example, MGTOW ones used to dedicate long livestreams and called each other cucks, betas, manginas, etc. One point of discussion and "artistry" in the manosphere is hypergamy. It has inspired long videos, live streams, books, blogspots and debate among its members. Entire communities have been divided over this concept, and others have been created.

In their videos and "private" spaces they call any woman hypergamous. I remember when MacKenzie Scott divorced Jeff Bezos, and she was called hypergamous by these people, arguing that she planned it all - “they marry the provider and once they secure their money, they go with someone they really like”- and ignoring that she divorced because Jeff cheated on her. 

“Hypergamy” in short, is mating “up”, but the manosphere twists this term to make it fit anything women do. Women who date men who are more attractive than them are hypergamous, women who date men who are less attractive than them but have money are hypergamous, women who date men with less education than them are hypergamous. Women who rate men "below average" (another male bullshit story) are hypergamous. 

Women's nature is hypergamous and male nature is not, even if men also leave their geriatric wives for 20 year old women, even if men also cheat with a more attractive mistress, even if men marry more educated women, even if men marry women with more money. They are not hypergamous, they are polygamous, but also don't mind settling with a woman given that "women choose" and men barely have any chance with women. 

Anything a woman does is hypergamy. Except when you call them out and tell them it's all fake, or where is the inner consistency, given that they call marrying a poor man and a rich one “hypergamy”. Then, they come with studies on hypergamy. "How can you say that women are not hypergamous if this study says that they 'marry up'?". Suddenly the term only applies to marriage, behind are left all those theories over “Chad” being picked by all women.

Hypergamy, in academia, is a term used by social scientists that is related to marriage and the act of marrying up in social class, annual income or status. Since superior education in the west is a high sign of status (repeated two times in a list of status signals among men and women across 14 countries), studies on the subject account for income and degrees. 

The research found that women are married to men who earn more than them, but don't have more education than them, so men are "marrying up" in status. Such a trend has not substantially changed among decades. Nevertheless, it is recognized that it doesn't translate on men being the breadwinners, given that most marriages are dual income, and that hypogamous marriages, where the man has less education than the woman, are becoming more common.

Nothing about women making heartless plans on marrying with the rich one, divorce him and then mate with “Chad”, nothing about women sleeping mostly with “Chad”, certainly nothing about hypergamy being exclusively female. But it's enough for them, even when the second they provide those studies they make it clear they are being dishonest. The seeds have been planted; women are choosing only the rich ones to marry, leaving poorer men single. The one who is debating them and the ones watching the exchange, only have to start to believe that female hypergamy is rising, being amplified by technology and being extended to other aspects of relationships.

The Lie...

...and how everyone decided to believe it

As we have seen, the manosphere term is not the one that social scientists use. It is whimsical and doesn't make sense...on the surface. The magic is in repeating that women are hypergamous, that they will choose all the time only a few men and let the rest sexless, single or childless, that sexual revolution and women's freedom of choice is a disaster and contrary to civilization. If the lie is repeated enough times, people will start to believe it. 

And well, it worked. It worked so well that feminists, instead of checking the data, seeing the male strategy and debunking the nonsense, decided to repeat the same lie. “Women are choosing better, women are making men single and sexless! Pussy Power!”. There is literally a book on this. 

White supremacists also adopted the term, and the manosphere also adopted white supremacists perspective; they quote the work of Roger Devlin, Sexual Utopia in Power from time to time. 

Authorities regarded as “thinkers”, such as Jordan Peterson, and a long list of influencers also adopted the narrative and repeated it to the public. 

Normal people also believe in it, in 2019 The WaPo decided to craft and release a graph that, until today, is made viral countless times in social media, indicating that “men are in crisis” given that “ a third of them are sexless”. They repeat that there is a “male loneliness epidemic” and it’s implicit that women are the problem; “they should lower their crazy standards, they should stop being delusional”.

Women are rating 80% of men below average! They are delusional! Their simps make them believe they are 10/10!

It's extremely easy to fall in the rabbit hole. They start hearing about a disbalance on the distribution of sex, or dating, or in dating apps matches. They start hearing about a singleness crisis among men, and they have already accepted that such disbalance, such crisis, is a modern thing, because no one seemed to talk about it in the past. (right?)

They hear about male loneliness and mental health issues, and they understand that the disbalance is a bad thing. So they are one step away from starting to believe that mating is a process that should be regulated and controlled by the state, religion or cultural norms. Like, one click away from watching Jordan Peterson saying exactly that.

The manosphere has been repeating this idea for more than 10 years. At least one decade feminists had to stop this shitshow and they didn't, which is surprising given that the whole thing is perfectly summarized in the white supremacist essay I linked above. But they didn’t, because at some level, this meme also can benefit liberal feminism. The ones who spread and believe in this idea don't care about the data, they want the narrative, and it can be used to promote diverse agendas. So, instead of debunking and calling out, they chose to use the narrative for the feminist cause and they are now losing. Women are losing. Women lost.

The truth

While the General Social Survey graph from 2018 is made viral again and again on social media, the same survey on more recent years is completely ignored. 

The most repeated bunk of the last couple years.

Reality is that in both 2021 and 2022, the sexless in those years were below 20%, which is consistent with former years. Most men and women were having sex. In 2021, women even reported being slightly more sexless than men -but no one threw a tantrum over a “female loneliness epidemic”.

The survey also included a variable to measure people who were sexless for the last 5 years. Less than 10% of men and women reported being sexless that amount of time. It indicates that there is not “soft harem” around “Chad” or “Alpha males”, but people are having sex in a 1:1 ratio, and that most of the time, for every sexless man there is a sexless woman.

It is also repeated constantly that there are more single men than women, and it is suggested that it is because women are part of soft harems with High Value Males. This idea has been repeated so many times that even researchers have adopted it.

But the truth is that this disparity has been a thing for decades, even a century.

Before the sexual revolution, when everyone was married (right?), there was also a disparity between single men and single women. The key here is that the disparity exists between young people, and the most near explanation is age gap relationships; young men are more single because their female counterparts are dating slightly older men. But also, nowadays single people report less interest in having a relationship; men are not suffering for their “involuntary celibacy”, they are not into it.

I't curious how the "women and men are different" crowd swear that single women are looking for casual dates with "high value males" when it has been proven over and over that men have a higher sexual drive.

It’s also said that Dating apps have caused a disaster on the “dating market”, given that women nowadays have instant access to “high value males” and can ignore average men, while they are there longing for the minimum chance. Again, the idea that women are into a soft harem with “Chad”. This idea doesn’t hold reality, it’s true that by taking into account raw data, it seems that women have much more matches than men, but the major factor ignored is the gender ratio within dating apps; when adjusting that, matches become even, again fulfilling the expected 1:1 ratio between men and women.

It’s also stated that dating apps have increased “hook-up culture”, but that doesn’t seem to be true. Here's a deep dive on dating apps and dating.

Academic naiveté(?

Manosphere gives a final push for the hypergamy narrative by quoting the experts on the matter. And somehow, researchers don't have a problem with it.

It has been said -by prominent figures like David Buss- that there is or will be a mating crisis among educated women, because there will be a shortage of high income husbands. They say "women don't marry because there are not enough economically attractive men". And with "don't marry" they understand "remain single and childless".

That crisis doesn't exist. Marriages between college educated people are the longest ones, there are less widows and divorces even. Educated women are more likely to be married than the opposite.

The focus also is steady on marriage, and I suspect that’s because their narrative perishes if they actually start to value mating and reproduction instead. In the US, at least 40% of all births are out of wedlock, and that figure increases if we take into account other American and European countries. Maybe women are not marrying out of “lack of economically attractive men”, but they are still reproducing with them. More bluntly: women are having kids with men that can’t buy a ring, but they keep saying that women are “too picky”.

The real crisis, if there is any, is happening among classes, the poor are poorer and the rich are richer. They are sharing their assets with each other and forming strong families while the poor prioritize reproduction since they can’t afford marriage and everything that entails.

Ironically, equality and women's choice have achieved what these men are apparently longing for. The secretary marrying her boss or the nurse marrying the surgeon is becoming a thing of the past -or probably it was never a thing. The doctor is marrying another doctor, the boss is marrying a woman with a Phd. Rich men are not dating down, even when rich they marry rich women, not the cashier 20 years younger than them. 

To counteract this they quote Leonardo Dicaprio and his creepy behavior, without noticing that the man is not marrying or having children with those women. While even richer men are married and with kids with women at their level.

The future

It's clear to me that the agenda is settled, and they will do anything that can reinforce it. If we push for the truth to be known, they probably won't be able to use sexlessness or the singleness gap as a thing, so they have created a new term: "dysphoric singlehood". And they will start measuring it soon. 

The stats, the terms, the memes will change. But the core will remain the same. Women’s choice is dangerous, it leads to the creation of more incel men and to degeneracy. "Women will destroy civilization" at worst and "women's nature causes pain to men and it should be controlled or put in check" at best. And there are and there will be groups who will propose tight control from men over women as a solution.

Call to action

Nowadays, as I have said, this conspiracy is shared by a lot of different groups with different interests, but are more tightly enforced by male supremacists.

As feminists are interested in women's well being and freedom, they shouldn’t make male supremacists work easier by repeating their lies. Sadly, I have seen countless times feminists, here and in other places, spreading manosphere lies, mostly because it serves to a temporal sense of victory over men or because it can feed the “patriarchy hurts men too” libfem bit.

But feminism shouldn’t prioritize fantasy over reality, even if it’s rough; almost everything remains the same in the heterosexual world, women are still dating, having sex, marrying and having kids with men in large numbers. Incels are tiny outliers in the big scheme of things: nothing is rising.

Our sisters should know the truth, our nature is not contrary to civilization, our choices are not detrimental, we shouldn’t be controlled. Nature runs its course.

Conclusion

It is important to understand that evolution doesn't allow everyone to reproduce. It's nothing new that some men and women didn't pass their genes, this was a thing in the past and will always be. 

Mating, having sex and therefore, reproducing is not a right. The whole point of evolution is that effective subjects make it, and the few remaining ones are left behind. This process is not being blown up by technology or women having more freedom. 

The influence of women on reproduction is discussed, but given that even in cultures with arranged marriages the future wife has a word on it and mothers, who are also women, have also a said in who the husband should be, I highly doubt that there was a long period of time in human history where women had no choice at all. It doesn’t seem to be consistent with reality to believe that women are programmed to only like a few men.

About data on human relationships, I think it’s important to be skeptical from now on of every viral graph and any “too perfect and bright” theory. If it relies on a result given in only one year, it’s bunk. If it incites a moral panic, it’s bunk. If multiple sources don’t show a clear trend, it’s bunk.

Doesn’t matter if it comes from your respected professor, that influencer or popularizer that you like, that intellectual that always transforms big chunks of information into easy concepts to get. Don’t trust, they are probably wrong. If your grandma knows about it, you are late in your contact with reality by at least 20 years.

[autogyne-redacted]

(Coercive) Gender is a power structure that works to produce certain classes of subjects (men, women, and others) that are useful to the broader political system (the nation, civilization, etc), and to structure relations within and between these groups. 

While gender presents itself as natural, it is far from stable, rife with tension and contradictions that are necessary to its functions. You *are* a man, fundamentally, (passively, unchangeable part of your essence) if you are camab, but you also must *be* a man (actively, complying with the expectations of masculinity). Even if we only look at relatively normative cis men, it's extremely common to feel alienated from the ideals of manhood (“I don't feel like a real man” is a common refrain). 

A certain amount of distance from the ideals of gender is normal, and part of what makes it a useful motivating system. But the system is backed by coercive force, which reveals itself as people deviate more dramatically from gendered expectations. 

Everyone has friction with gendered expectations – both as they grow up and in ongoing ways –but the naturalized, path of least resistance is to identify with your assigned gender, strive to live up to its expectations, and to give up on the sides of yourself that would put you into open conflict with it. 

While the exact details of masculinity are highly variable (over time, and from group to group), common threads are displaying power/competency/dominance and avoiding weakness/femininity. This is structurally tied to being able to produce soldiers, workers, and for men broadly to serve as a class of enforcers. 

The coercion used to produce womanhood as a class has generally been viewed as part of misogyny (and while it’s experienced unevenly, it’s a broad force meaningfully acting on all women and all ppl expected to be women). The coercion that produces manhood forms a core aspect of transmisogyny, and it's primarily focused on a small minority of people, which is part of what leads to the intensity of transmisogyny. Transmisogyny carves away, and what's left is normative manhood. 

In this way, transfems can constitute a kind of sacrifice class. Wherein gratuitous violence against small minority gives potency to the implicit threat when others are told to “man up” or “stop being a sissy,” and tries to render it unthinkable to be anything other than a compliant man.

[thediaryofarevolutionist]

Sometimes I just wish I was ignorant and didn't know anything. I wouldn't care about politics and would no longer break down when I find out about injustice against women. I just can't do it. I'm not strong enough and this misogyny is getting to me. It’s tearing me apart. I feel paralyzed and don't understand why women must go trough this. All i want is women to be safe and liberated but i dont see any hope.

[mizandria]

something shifted in my brain

[isawthismeme]

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

Someone smarter than me needs to do an in-depth analysis on how swift weaponizes sex. So many of her lyrics involve cheating as revenge and picking fights with her partners about other girls. She makes it sound like some godly privilege to be with her and if she masterminded her way into your life you're just soooo lucky. Even "touch me while your bros play GTA" plays into that. Like "why would you want to have fun and game with your friends when ill let you finger me". (Sidenote a bunch of her lyrics and all of Me! sounds like an abusive partner daring you to leave and dare to find someone better) It's creepy how she's so juvenile and egotistical at the same time. She's mastered the "any mention of my bfs, even the underage ones, is slutshaming" move and uses it to get out of any criticism. Like, have all the sex you want be safe whatever but don't act like some sad little girl who got taken advantage of when the game you started goes poorly.

Ask, and ye shall receive. Because this a very insightful observation! Thanks!

It is true that Swift clearly uses sex and sexuality like a "gotcha" moment. I was always quite perturbed by her songs that glorify cheating. It's just so strange, but I think it ties into her enjoyment of revenge fantasies. Anyway, I was planning to write about how Swift's music often engages with and reinforces heteropatriarchal social standards. I think your idea adds an interesting new layer to the ways in which she manipulates through sex- both in the performance of passivity to masculine authority, as the patriarchy, and the ways in which she commodifies female sexuality by weaponizing it.

You're right it's incredibly egotistical and juvenile.

Also, I have a major bone to pick with the way Taylor Swift uses feminism to shut down criticism- like OMG do I have a problem with her there. She's only ever spent her career crying about how "women who talk bad about me are bad women" yet, she never really does or says anything actually feminist. In fact, most of her music, like I said above, reinforces the patriarchy. She herself is guilty of so much slut-shaming, too. I will go into detail, with a real argument, in a separate post soon. And I thank you for pointing out the weaponized sexuality aspect of her, often, overtly patriarchal tone.

BTW- "ME!" is Such a weird song -> "I know that I went psycho on the phone" uhh... excuse me?

[bellasophies]

In patriarchy, wether you like it or not, when you are pregnant, you are giving a man a child. We are still using phrases like “She is pregnant with his baby” and so on. That’s because women are walking wombs, her DNA in the baby is irrelevant. His is all that matters.

Not to mention that in capitalism, women are just the birthing stock for the next generation of workers.

It is irrelevant if you as a woman WANT to have a baby or not. This is what it means in patriarchy. Having a baby is expected in patriarchy, while choosing not to have one is not, it’s disruptive to the system.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

[freyasfatale]

“Illegal immigrants are being deported because they commit violent crimes”.

The ones that are committing these violent crimes, such as rape and murder, are male.

The ones who are fleeing their countries from said rapists and murderers, are female.

We have a similar issue regarding rape and murder of women and children, and they aren’t being deported nor prosecuted properly.

The issue lies not within the country of origin of these “illegal” immigrants, but within their sex. The fault is of the Y chromosome and that alone, which withstands to uphold patriarchy.

Let’s eliminate all males, regardless of where they were born.

[plantsucc]

quick question, why are some trans people deciding to post the exact same way as TERFs recently?

"trans ""men"" aka TIFs aka theyfabs talking about the transphobia and misogyny they've experienced will inevitably make them realise they're just manipulated and weak-minded feeeeemale girl wombyns and then they'll detransition into TERFs!!" has been said by both TERFs and by a few trans people who seem to have some sort of intense hatred towards trans men, usually a hatred based on hypotheticals and strawmen.

ima be honest, trying to integrate radfeminism and misandry into transgender theory will never work because this is the kind of "theory" that results from it. let's just hope this stuff stays in the depths of tumblr and I won't have to hear something like this irl lmao

[notsoanonymousfemcel]

marxist feminism

as much as i appreciate and agree with marxist feminism and what it has done for feminist theory and organizing, when they (Marxist feminists) start talking about how women's oppression stems from capitalism they lose me. the patriarchy predates capitalism, after the fall of capitalism patriarchy will still be here.

[vaguely-human-man]

Trump and all his cronies want to erase trans, nonbinary, and intersex people because we pose a fundamental threat to the power structures and base lies that uphold misogyny, the patriarchy, and white supremacy. The largest of those lies, of course, being that there are fundamental aspects of how a person is born that naturally determine who they will be, how they will act, and what role they will play in society, and that it is 100% okay to measure worth and treat certain groups of people differently based on those aspects of their birth.

If we acknowledge intersex people exist we must also acknowledge that biological sex is not binary but rather bimodal. If we accept that biological sex is not binary, it becomes more and more obvious that much of the perceived sexual dimorphism and differences in behavior between males and females is socially constructed and that gendered violence or misogyny are therefore completely unfounded. If you realize that gendered differences are largely socially, culturally, and systemically constructed you start to realize the same is similarly true of race. If we acknowledge trans people as being their true gender then you must acknowledge that gender itself is a social construct. If we acknowledge gender and race as social constructs, any justification for systemic differences in treatment completely falls apart.

And most of all, if you acknowledge or validate that people are not bound by the circumstances of their birth you cannot continue to bind them to those boxes and that means you lose control.

They want you to believe that the power structures in place are natural and immutable, that racism, misogyny, and a whole host of other forms of discrimination are justifiable and in fact normal because different types of people are simply too dissimilar to ever achieve true equity.

That is a lie. A bald-faced fabrication. Remember this for the next four years and always. We are more similar than we will ever be different, and a world where everyone is treated genuinely fairly is perfectly possible.

[alsmediadissection]

˗ˏˋ feminism in Wicked ´ˎ˗

!! i want to preface this by saying i'm not a professional critic, and this is not a 100% guide to anything either. do not take anything i type online to absolute heart, this is simply my personal interpretation of this piece of media !! (i also want to mention that i did not read the Wicked novel/series by Gregory Maguire)

! CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR ACT 2 IF YOU HAVE NOT WATCHED THE WHOLE MUSICAL !

Wicked is a deeply feminist narrative that centers on the lives, agency, and growth of its female characters in a world dominated by patriarchal systems and expectations. Through the journeys of Elphaba and Glinda, the musical critiques traditional gender roles, explores the power of female solidarity, and challenges the societal constraints placed on women. The feminist themes in Wicked resonate strongly, offering a nuanced exploration of women navigating oppressive structures while forging their own identities and paths.

Wicked is a piece of media which challenges traditional gender roles. Elphaba and Glinda are presented as multifaceted characters who defy conventional archetypes of women in media.

Elphaba:

Elphaba is an unconventional heroine. Her physical appearance—her green skin—sets her apart from society's standards of beauty, and her intelligence, ambition, and assertiveness mark her as an outsider. She resists the expectations placed upon her, refusing to conform to a world that demands compliance and superficiality.

Her defiance of the Wizard and her commitment to justice make her a feminist icon, embodying the refusal to accept systemic oppression. Elphaba’s journey represents the struggle of women who challenge patriarchal structures and are subsequently vilified for their resistance.

Glinda:

At first glance, Glinda appears to embody the archetype of the "perfect woman" in a patriarchal society—beautiful, charming, and eager to please. However, her journey reveals a deeper complexity. Glinda learns to question the value of her societal approval and embraces personal growth over external validation.

Her evolution from a self-centered individual to a leader who prioritizes empathy and justice showcases her feminist awakening, as she moves beyond the constraints of traditional femininity to assert her agency.

Wicked is as well a beautifully written representation of female solidarity and rivalry. The relationship between Elphaba and Glinda is central to the narrative and serves as a feminist counterpoint to the trope of women as adversaries. While their initial dynamic includes elements of rivalry—largely rooted in societal expectations and misunderstandings—they ultimately form a bond based on mutual respect and love. Their relationship highlights the power of female solidarity. Elphaba inspires Glinda to think critically and challenge the status quo, while Glinda supports Elphaba in moments of vulnerability, such as during “Defying Gravity.” Their bond transcends their differences, emphasizing the importance of women lifting each other up in the face of shared struggles. The love triangle with Fiyero, while present, does not define their relationship. Instead of becoming bitter rivals, Glinda and Elphaba prioritize their friendship and growth over romantic competition, subverting a common narrative trope (finally escaping the trope where bffs fight over a guy).

Wicked as well challenges and critiques the patriarchal systems (patriarchy). The oppressive systems in Oz—embodied by the Wizard, Madame Morrible, and the societal discrimination against Animals—serve as allegories for patriarchal power structures. Elphaba and Glinda's struggles within these systems highlight feminist themes. The Wizard represents patriarchal authority, using charm and deceit to maintain control. He manipulates both women, attempting to co-opt Elphaba’s power and using Glinda as a figurehead to perpetuate his rule. Their eventual resistance to his influence underscores their feminist rejection of patriarchal control.Although a woman, Madame Morrible serves as a tool of the Wizard’s regime, perpetuating oppression rather than resisting it. Her character reflects how women can internalize and enforce patriarchal values, contrasting sharply with Elphaba and Glinda’s journeys toward liberation.

Equally importantly, Wicked has themes of female agency and voice. Both Elphaba and Glinda grapple with finding and asserting their voices in a world that seeks to silence or commodify them. Elphaba’s refusal to be controlled or silenced is a powerful assertion of agency. Her iconic song, “Defying Gravity,” is a feminist anthem of self-empowerment, as she embraces her identity and takes control of her destiny, regardless of the consequences. Glinda’s journey from superficiality to activism reflects her growing recognition of her own agency. By the end of the musical, she asserts herself as a leader, using her platform to work toward justice.

On a more complex note, Wicked also has the intersection of feminism and intersectionality. Elphaba’s green skin serves as a metaphor for discrimination, highlighting the intersection of feminism with broader struggles against racism and other forms of marginalization. Her experience of being ostracized for her appearance parallels the experiences of women of color and other marginalized groups, underscoring the need for an inclusive feminism that addresses intersecting systems of oppression.

OH AND NOT TO EVEN MENTION THE AWESOME RECLAIMING OF VILLIANY AND POWER?? A feminist reading of Wicked also involves reclaiming the concept of the “witch,” historically a term used to vilify and suppress powerful women. Elphaba’s transformation into the "Wicked Witch of the West" reflects how women who challenge societal norms are demonized, yet she reclaims this label as a badge of empowerment. Her story critiques the societal tendency to villainize ambitious, outspoken, and unconventional women.

Wicked is a profoundly feminist work, celebrating the complexity, agency, and resilience of its female characters. Through Elphaba and Glinda, the musical critiques patriarchal systems, challenges traditional gender roles, and highlights the transformative power of female solidarity. By centering women’s voices and experiences, Wicked offers a timeless message about the importance of resistance, empowerment, and redefining what it means to be a strong and “good” woman.

thank you Wicked for giving us well written women.