The State of Feminism : MARION WOODMAN
Interviewer:
You've said that a lot of men are shocked because they aren't really in touch with what's going on with women today. I have no doubt about that. But I'm wondering whether you can describe what you think is happening with women today in that sense?
Marion Woodman:
I think that more and more men are waking up.
Most women, for centuries, have not expressed their real strength. They thought the feminine thing to do was to be subordinate, not to appear too strong because they might lose their man, not to appear too intelligent, to be the support for their men, and certainly to take on the victim role whenever necessary.
That's true in men as well: their feminine is made victim of their masculine.
Women do it to themselves, victimise their own femininity with their inner masculinity.
Their inner betrayal is appallingly clear in dreams.
I think what's happening now is that women are learning more and more who they are.
They are expressing their own values, their own experience of.themselves.
Even if it's going to cost them their relationship, they are putting their own sense of reality ahead of a relationship that is costing them their own identity.
More than that, I think.they are valuing their men more.
They are seeing their men as human beings and loving them as human beings and saying,
"I love you enough to say this is who I am and I will no longer pretend to be someone I am not. I will no longer try to live up to your image of me. I love you enough to be honest. This is who I am."
Men are still inclined to project their perfect inner woman onto their partner, so they can't understand what's going on when the outer woman does something their inner woman would not do.
It comes as a mighty shock and often the man insists, "That's not who you are."
A projection is a very real thing. It's real energy. If I'm projecting on to a man my adoration of him, that energy is like crutches holding him up. My energy is supporting him. If I take that projection away, suddenly he's without crutches, so it's a terrifying moment in a relationship; he not only loses the image he thinks he loves but loses the powerful support of the projection.
Conscious women are pulling back the adoring projection.
It hurts but it's much healthier. It lets a man be who he is, a human being trying to find himself, just as the woman is.
It allows for real love.
Commenter
Complete nonsense, and the data backs this up. More and more people are choosing to be single and celibate even among young adults. This is due to the feminists constantly coming out with nonsense like this. Women are not more conscious, they are adrift lost, and young girls are at more danger to unscrupulous men due to the undoing of traditional roles and family units by the critical theorists. This is no longer an ideological debate, the proof is in the data of a sharp rise in sexual attacks, young women expecting and considering it normal to be sexually mistreated. The constant focus on sex, porn, the dismantling has only broken society. I don't know what world this woman lives in but it is certainly not the real world.
Conservatism has no actual views on the details of female emancipation just like they have none on evolutionary biology. It is just not in their interest to have them. To do so they would need to abandon if not scripture then ideas about universal principles or divine orders.
commerntor:
I am not sure where you got that idea from. Conservatism absolutely has a view on female emancipation and has a solid grounding In evolutionary biology. Especially the more traditional Liberal conservatism which values all debate and ideologies as provided valid points to the dialectic. The mistake others make of subscribing to just one ideological approach, say feminists, is that viewing life through just one lens you distort reality and facts to fit that monoscopic view. Even when prevented with valid factual evidence ideologies such as woke or feminists simply deny them or play semantic games in an attempt to maintain that mono framework. This is extremely dangerous and harmful to society and does nothing to foster and attitude of understanding or cooperation. They insist on keeping the pendulum pushed to one side rather than letting it settle back in the centre, with the centre being more true to reality and avoiding the danger of narcissistic ideological consumption of the individual.
Your assertion that conservatism is grounded in evolutionary biology is, at best, a selective interpretation of science. Evolutionary biology describes patterns of adaptation, survival, and change but does not prescribe moral orders or validate specific ideologies. It is descriptive rather than prescriptive. While conservatism may invoke biological principles to justify traditional roles or hierarchies, such as gender roles being “natural,” this approach often cherry-picks evidence while ignoring findings that support adaptability and egalitarianism as key components of human survival. For example, cooperation, social innovation, and flexibility are central to our evolutionary success—principles that challenge the rigidity often associated with conservatism. If conservatism were truly aligned with evolutionary biology, it would emphasise adaptability and ongoing social evolution rather than clinging to past arrangements under the guise of stability.
The same tendency to avoid nuance and specificity is evident in conservatism’s approach to female emancipation. Historically, conservative movements resisted women’s suffrage, education, and workplace equality, not because of biological or philosophical rigour, but because these changes disrupted entrenched power dynamics. Even today, modern liberal conservatism supports aspects of female emancipation only conditionally: women’s rights are tolerated as long as they don’t undermine so-called “family values” or traditional gender roles. This is not genuine engagement with the issue; it is a strategic limitation of change to a pace and scope that doesn’t threaten the existing framework. Conservatism’s reluctance to grapple deeply with female emancipation supports my original critique: it avoids specifics because doing so would undermine its reliance on universal principles, divine orders, or immutable traditions.
Your metaphor of the pendulum settling in the centre, where truth allegedly resides, is simplistic and misleading. History shows that the “centre” is not an objective reality but a product of prevailing power dynamics. For instance, the demand for women’s suffrage was once radical but is now mainstream. In this sense, what conservatism often frames as centrist or balanced is merely a reflection of the status quo—a position maintained by resisting the very progress that redefines the centre over time. The pendulum does not settle naturally; it is dragged toward justice by forces of change that conservatism often opposes.
Additionally, your critique of feminist and “woke” ideologies as narrow or dogmatic misunderstands their purpose. Feminism, for example, is not about distorting facts to fit a singular worldview but about exposing the distortions inherent in patriarchal systems and offering corrective frameworks. Many feminist approaches actively engage with nuance, debate, and evidence, challenging the very rigidity that you attribute to them. Ironically, dismissing these movements wholesale reflects the same ideological inflexibility that conservatism claims to oppose.
A deeper flaw in conservatism is its reliance on abstract principles like “order” or “nature,” which are inconsistently applied. For example, it often invokes natural gender roles to argue against equality while ignoring the fact that capitalism—a system conservatives frequently champion—is entirely unnatural in its design and outcomes. Similarly, appeals to tradition or universal principles overlook the reality that many traditions, such as slavery or colonialism, were themselves disruptive and harmful. This selective use of principles undermines conservatism’s claim to intellectual coherence and moral authority.
When conservatism critiques ideologies like feminism for being rigid or monolithic, it fails to acknowledge its own inflexibility. The conservative insistence on preserving hierarchies and norms often prevents meaningful engagement with opposing perspectives, despite its claim to value open debate. If conservatism were truly committed to intellectual openness, it would engage with these movements on their own terms rather than dismissing them as destabilizing or dangerous. This failure to engage highlights my initial critique: conservatism avoids specifics not out of strategic silence but because engaging with them threatens the stability of the overarching framework it seeks to protect.
Conservatism’s resistance to specificity may seem like a pragmatic choice to preserve order in a complex world, but in practice, it reveals a deeper flaw. Its commitment to stability and continuity often blinds it to the necessity of addressing systemic inequities or adapting to new realities. By clinging to universal principles and resisting systemic change, conservatism is poorly equipped to deal with modern challenges that require bold, evidence-based action. This is why its approach to issues like female emancipation or evolutionary biology feels not just evasive but intellectually shallow.
Your defense of conservatism as the best framework for integrating diverse ideas and fostering balance falls apart under scrutiny. Conservatism does not seek true balance; it seeks to preserve the existing order by framing resistance to change as centrism. This is why the pendulum metaphor is so flawed: it implies that balance is a natural and desirable state when, in reality, the so-called balance conservatism defends is often an entrenched system of inequality. Radical shifts are sometimes necessary to correct these imbalances, and conservatism’s preference for incrementalism fails to address the urgency of such moments.
My critique of conservatism as avoiding specifics to maintain its reliance on divine orders or universal principles remains central to this argument. While some strands of conservatism may adopt a secular or pragmatic approach, the broader framework remains tied to the idea that tradition, hierarchy, and stability are inherently good. This commitment to generality and abstraction over specificity and evidence limits conservatism’s ability to evolve in response to modern realities. Rather than engaging directly with topics like female emancipation or evolutionary biology, conservatism selectively incorporates ideas that do not disrupt its foundations, thereby limiting the scope of meaningful change.
Conservatism, like any ideology, has its strengths. Its emphasis on stability, continuity, and incremental change can be valuable in preventing societal upheaval. However, these same qualities make it resistant to necessary progress, particularly when that progress challenges entrenched hierarchies or traditions. While conservatism’s commitment to balance and caution may appeal to those wary of rapid change, it often results in the preservation of inequities under the guise of stability. If conservatism is to remain relevant in addressing contemporary challenges, it must move beyond its reliance on vague principles and engage with the specifics of a rapidly changing world. Otherwise, it risks becoming not a framework for thoughtful debate but a barrier to progress disguised as moderation.
Commentoirt:
you couldn't have read what I wrote. I said Liberal conservatism. It has well been established in the evolution field that evolution has ground to a halt. There is no need to adapt any further. As a species we are better suited, biologically and evolutionary in traditional roles. Woman as carer and the main child carer, with men as provider. You simply cannot force an evolutionary change because your personal monoscopic lens is unhappy with the "apparent" injustices you see. Feminism has directly led to women being totally adrift and unhappy in what that movement has funnelled them into. One example is only fans and women sleeping with a 100 men in a day. More babies killed in abortion as they are seen as an inconvenience than the Nazis killed. The emancipation of women was a positive move, thar is why the Conservative party has had a woman Prine minister. There are some women who can achieve this, but the vast majority would be happier with traditional roles. Those traditional roles are not the oppressive nature Feminists would have you believe. To me you seem an NPC simply spouting well rehearsed arguments that are not yours. You don't have your ideas, they have you. That you appear to so lacking in the latest notion that we stopped evolving as we reached the perfect balance for our species is very telling. I am not going to mention cultural supervision and the real reason critical theories are dominating in the collapse of the West as that will be beyond what you can understand. As a person of faith I believe we were made to live in traditional roles. One further point that you would not understand is that there is another project under way to nudge is into sexless cyborgs. That is the true "push" behind gender theory and another force deliberately attacking Western traditional roles in order to facilitate this forced evolutionary jump that will only end in disaster. Both of those points will be beyond your grasp. You are, in the words of those who implemented culture subversion, a useful idiot, brainwashed and spouting that in a deliberate attempt to weaken the West. A famous quote fits this debate. If a person sees a gate in the middle of nowhere, thinks to themselves, I see no reason for a gate to be here, so they remove it. Unaware of the reason, and one they can not see or understand why someone has put it there. Come back when you have your own ideas from a greater reading of just your own field and one that supports the ideology you have been fed. Plus, if you do that and can show you are more than just an NPC, I might take you out on a date. I said might, so don't get over excited and star doing girly stuff like thinking of what colour your wedding dress might be.
This response is both conceptually and rhetorically chaotic, blending pseudo-scientific claims, ideological assertions, and personal insults, making it difficult to take seriously as a meaningful argument.
The claim that “evolution has ground to a halt” is a misunderstanding of how evolution operates. Evolution is not a process that ceases once a species achieves a particular state of existence. Rather, it is ongoing, shaped by genetic variations, environmental pressures, and other factors that influence reproductive success over generations. While modern society has altered certain selective pressures—for example, advancements in medicine reducing mortality rates—it has not stopped evolutionary processes. Research in genetics, epigenetics, and anthropology demonstrates that humans are still evolving in response to factors such as diseases, diet, and even cultural practices. The idea of a “perfect balance” is biologically unfounded because adaptation is context-dependent, and environments—both natural and cultural—are constantly changing.
The assertion that traditional roles are biologically and evolutionarily optimal oversimplifies human history and diversity. While caregiving and provisioning roles existed historically, these divisions were not universal, nor were they solely based on biology. Archaeological and anthropological evidence shows that many societies had fluid and overlapping roles for men and women depending on environmental and social needs. Furthermore, the notion that most women would be “happier” in traditional roles assumes a homogeneity of preference that is unsupported by evidence. Human beings thrive in diverse ways, and individual fulfillment cannot be reduced to a single model of social organization.
Blaming feminism for societal trends like “OnlyFans” or high abortion rates is not only reductive but also a distortion of causality. Feminism did not create these phenomena; rather, they are the result of broader cultural, economic, and technological dynamics. Feminism’s primary aim is to expand the range of choices available to women, including the ability to participate in the workforce, pursue education, and make decisions about their own bodies. The argument that abortion is comparable to Nazi atrocities is not only inflammatory but ignores the complexity of reproductive rights debates. Decisions about abortion involve deeply personal, medical, and ethical considerations that deserve thoughtful engagement, not hyperbolic comparisons.
The claim that feminism has left women “totally adrift and unhappy” is also problematic. While societal shifts have created new challenges—such as balancing work and family—numerous studies show that access to education, economic independence, and reproductive rights contribute positively to women’s well-being. Traditional roles, on the other hand, have often constrained women’s autonomy and opportunities, leading to dissatisfaction and a lack of personal fulfillment. If some women prefer traditional roles, feminism supports that choice; what it opposes is the imposition of those roles as the default or only option.
The suggestion that gender theory is part of a deliberate “project” to create “sexless cyborgs” is a conspiracy theory devoid of evidence. Gender theory is an academic and social framework designed to understand and explore the complexities of gender identity and expression. It is not an attack on traditional roles but an effort to broaden understanding and inclusivity. The idea of a coordinated effort to subvert “Western traditional roles” is similarly unsupported by credible evidence. Cultural changes are complex and driven by many factors, including globalization, technology, and evolving social norms. To attribute these shifts to deliberate sabotage is to oversimplify a multifaceted phenomenon.
The “gate in the middle of nowhere” analogy assumes that all traditions or societal structures exist for valid and necessary reasons. However, history demonstrates that many traditions—such as slavery, colonialism, and gender-based discrimination—were harmful and required dismantling. Questioning and reforming traditions is essential to progress. Just as you would not preserve a gate that no longer serves a purpose or actively harms those around it, outdated societal norms should be re-evaluated to reflect contemporary realities and ethical standards.
The personal insults in your argument—accusing others of being “brainwashed” or “NPCs”—do not strengthen your position. Dismissing someone’s views as unoriginal or indoctrinated without engaging with their substance undermines the very debate you claim to value. Intellectual discourse thrives on mutual respect, evidence-based reasoning, and a willingness to consider opposing perspectives. Resorting to name-calling detracts from any meaningful engagement with the issues at hand.
Finally, the idea that women should “prove themselves” to merit your respect or approval, as suggested by your comment about taking someone on a date, is condescending and irrelevant to this discussion. Reducing an intellectual exchange to a patronizing joke about “wedding dresses” trivializes the very issues you claim to care about, further weakening your position.
In summary, your arguments rely on misconceptions about evolution, oversimplifications of gender roles, and conspiratorial thinking. Progress requires engaging with ideas critically, basing claims on evidence, and embracing complexity—not dismissing others with patronizing remarks or inflammatory rhetoric. Thoughtful dialogue is rooted in respect and a genuine exchange of ideas, qualities that your argument, unfortunately, lacks.
Commentor:
yep definitely an NPC, playing the Gatekeeper card on both what is science and how to debate. You are only digging yourself deeper. As I said, I didn't expect you to understand and clearly you don't. Humour is a valid response and this is a Facebook post, not an academic debating hall. I used humor as it is very clear you do not understand the many points I raised and I did not expect you to after reading what you wrote. The loser in a debate often resorts to attacking the mode of the message and the actual message with terms like pseudo-science. You have completely brought into the critical theory culture and can only see through that lens as your weak attempt to devalue my gate analogy demonstrates. As I said you are an NPC, a useful idiot intent on bringing down the West and pushing the diversity lie ignoring the many harns this is currently throwing up in society. It really is no use talking to you for you would argue that black is white even when presented with evidence to the contrary. This is one of the key aims of cultural subversion. The only hope for the West is Trump and hopefully a return to the right in the UK. The critical theorists have lost, not just ideologically but in reality. Trump can save America from the brink of disaster. Britain is very close to entering a recession and the left, based solely on critical theory is collapsing every institution in Britain. But this was always the aim of the envious left, to burn down and destroy the systems they fail to understand and are envious of. The many harms done by gender ideology, and feminism have been a gross mistake. I am completely justified in blaming feminism for my fans and it constantly pushes sexual freedom on young women without taking any responsibility for the damage that causes. They attack the patriarchy, rightfully in some cases, but they strive for equality with men in the worst of male behavior. The Laddette culture. The idea that it is perfectly acceptable to have as many sexual partners as you want, drink, and behave as the worst of men, has left many women open to abuse and turned people into the worst of what it means to be human. Abortion is a stain on a civilized society that will never be washed off. Women choose abortion, killing babies, so as not to hamper their lives or careers. This is the same equivalent of the Incas sacrificing babies for prosperity. Over 9 million babies have been killed. We have a society built on the blood of innocents and that stain will remain forever. I do feel really sorry for you as you have completely been brainwashed and refuse to see the truth and facts right in front of your eyes. The reason why the West is collapsing is precisely due to the removal of "gates" that people did not understand the reason for. Society will not work, evolutionary we won't function without those gates. Many have swapped the safeguards of those gates, developed over thousands of years and encoded in our DNA, for false ideological gods, which only seek to dismantle. Your ideologies are idols that you worship and like any religious fanatic you refuse to see what is right in front of your eyes in defense of your "Gods". It is extremely difficult for individuals to admit they are wrong and change course but I sincerely urge you to, in order to protect your own sanity and joy.
This response just adds more layers of hyperbole and emotional rhetoric while doubling down on unsubstantiated claims and dismissive attacks.
It reveals a continued reliance on personal insults and sweeping generalizations rather than engaging substantively with the points raised. Accusing someone of being an “NPC” or “brainwashed” does not constitute an argument—it’s a rhetorical tactic that avoids addressing the complexities of the issues at hand. It undermines the intellectual rigor you claim to champion and shifts the focus away from meaningful debate.
The use of humor in your post may have been intended to disarm or entertain, but humor does not absolve an argument of its intellectual flaws. Dismissing critiques of your claims as merely “attacks on the mode of the message” is ironic, given that you repeatedly dismiss counterarguments based on who presents them, rather than engaging with their substance. If you genuinely value debate, you would address the evidence and reasoning offered, rather than deflecting with accusations of ideological blindness.
Your repeated assertion that feminism, critical theory, and diversity are to blame for societal harms oversimplifies complex issues. For example:
1. Blaming feminism for societal challenges: Feminism is not a monolithic force imposing a single worldview. It encompasses diverse perspectives, many of which aim to empower individuals to make choices about their lives—whether those choices align with traditional roles or not. Feminism does not "push" sexual freedom irresponsibly; rather, it advocates for the autonomy to make personal decisions. The consequences of societal shifts, such as changes in gender roles, reflect the interplay of economic, cultural, and technological forces, not the singular influence of feminism.
2. Misrepresenting abortion: Comparing abortion to Incan child sacrifices is inflammatory and disregards the ethical complexities surrounding reproductive rights. The decision to have an abortion is deeply personal, influenced by numerous factors including health, economic circumstances, and personal values. Framing it as a moral stain ignores the reality that these decisions are often made with great care and gravity. A civil society respects individual autonomy and supports people in making informed choices rather than resorting to moral condemnation.
3. Evoking “gates” and tradition: Your repeated invocation of “gates” suggests a belief in preserving traditions without necessarily interrogating their utility or fairness in contemporary society. While some traditions may indeed serve important stabilizing functions, others perpetuate inequality or injustice. Progress involves critically examining which “gates” should remain and which should be removed or adapted. This is not cultural subversion but the process of growth and adaptation that has characterized human societies throughout history.
4. Critiquing diversity and gender ideology: Diversity is not a “lie” but a reality of human existence. Embracing diversity enriches societies and fosters innovation, understanding, and resilience. Gender ideology does not seek to dismantle humanity but to expand our understanding of it, allowing people to live authentically and inclusively. Reducing these movements to conspiratorial “attacks” ignores the lived experiences of countless individuals who benefit from greater inclusivity and understanding.
Your framing of societal change as a “collapse of the West” is deeply alarmist. Societies evolve, encountering challenges and disruptions, but this is not equivalent to collapse. Historical evidence suggests that adaptability, not rigid adherence to tradition, is the key to resilience. The solutions to contemporary challenges lie in constructive dialogue and cooperation, not fearmongering or retreating into ideological purity.
The suggestion that societal decline can only be averted by figures like Trump or a return to conservative governance oversimplifies political and economic realities. Political leaders and movements are part of broader systems, and no single person or ideology can “save” a nation. Societies thrive when they embrace pluralism, debate, and evidence-based policymaking.
Finally, the notion that people are “worshiping false ideological gods” and must “protect their sanity and joy” by aligning with your worldview is deeply patronizing. True intellectual growth comes from engaging with a range of perspectives, questioning assumptions (including one’s own), and recognizing the complexity of human existence. Your framing dismisses anyone who disagrees with you as incapable of independent thought, which undermines the very principles of mutual respect and critical inquiry that underpin meaningful dialogue.
Your response doubles down on dismissive rhetoric and ideological rigidity without substantively addressing the critiques raised. Progress requires dialogue grounded in evidence, mutual respect, and a willingness to consider alternative viewpoints—not ad hominem attacks or apocalyptic proclamations. Let’s strive for that kind of conversation, where ideas are tested and refined rather than rejected outright based on their origin.
