The Reality of Fake Feminism: Separating Fact from Fiction
Questioner: Sir, I hear a lot about feminism nowadays—women liberation movement. So, what is true feminism?
Acharya Prashant: See, true feminism is really when the woman, the female, stops taking being a female as her primary identity. Right? If you want to talk of feminism in the context of women's liberation, then this alone is liberation.
As long as she is fighting for her rights as a woman, she is not liberated. She, first of all, needs to be liberated from the concept that she is a woman. If she continues to be a woman, then her genetic conditioning and biological impulses and physical drives would continue to rule her. And that would obviously make the achievement of her potential as a human being very difficult.
Questioner: What does that really mean? Because there have been just so many ideas that if you want to be liberated, then be more like the man. So, it's you moving from one place to another place. So, you're given one standard, and you shift from that standard to another standard.
Acharya Prashant: No, it's already bad enough that you are a woman. Why do you want to make it worse by being like the man? And that's no indicator of progress in any sense.
If a consciousness that considers itself a woman, starts considering itself a man; how is it progress in any sense? In fact, it is a double bondage, a double whammy. Now you are a woman, and to top it, a man. Biologically a woman, ideologically a man. Is that liberation? That's more conflict; that's more bondage.
Ultimately, when you say feminism, tell me simply, very simply, what do you want? You want the person's welfare, right? That’s the objective, that’s the objective. And her welfare lies in her liberation from body-identification.
Do consider that all the bondages that come to her and trap her, come via her own body. You see, she is entrapped because she is the woman. Stop being the woman; no more traps. Are you getting it?
Questioner: I am getting that conceptually, but how is that practically applicable in…
Acharya Prashant: The woman is trapped by the man because as a woman she aims for safety and security; as a woman, she wants her nest and eggs and kids; stop wanting all those things. How will a man trap you now? How will anybody enslave you now?
And you want those things without knowing that those wants are hardly yours; those are the wants arising from the female body – your cells, your DNA, your hormones—they are the ones that provoke those wants, rather invoke those wants. And the more you keep identified with your physical selves, the more you will adopt those wants as your own. Whereas, those are the wants of the body.
The moment you adopt those desires, somebody will present himself as a candidate to fulfill those desires. And the one who presents himself to fulfill those desires is carrying a hidden handcuff. You will not even realize when you have been handcuffed. Bondages are not generally forcefully imposed on anybody. Bondages are so prevalent because bondages are mostly consensual—the woman herself consents to bondage. And she consents to bondage because she takes herself to be a woman.
Now, many people would be finding it quite absurd. They will say, “But she is woman. Is she not?” Continue taking yourself as a woman, and then you will only get what mother prakriti (physical nature) has in store for you. And mother prakriti does not have empowerment or liberation in store for you. She has in store for you a future circumscribed by the nest and confined to the eggs. Hardly alluring; hardly glorious.
Questioner: So there's these words, that say, “Embrace womanhood” or “Embrace motherhood.”
Acharya Prashant: It's extremely toxic, extremely toxic.
Questioner: That's anti-feminism.
Acharya Prashant: That's anti-liberation. If feminism is true, it would seek to liberate the woman and in that liberation lies her empowerment.
So, if you talk of embracing your feminine traits and such things, that's not doing any good to you. You have to transcend them; you have to let them be. You don't have to empower them, they are already quite powerful. You don't have to embrace them, they are already quite sticky.
What do you mean by embracing your own skin? It's already there, right? You have to transcend it. That doesn't mean that you need to peel out your skin, it merely means that you have to disidentify.
Questioner: So, not give it as much importance to make it your own life.
Acharya Prashant: You see, if you will continue to be a woman and want your due rights as a woman, may be you will get something. But those would be crumbs, peanuts, not worth much.
You would want, for example, what every female in every species wants. What does she want? She wants the male to be the hunter and the gatherer and the provider, and that dependence will remain. At best, feminism, of the kind that you usually see, will succeed in enacting some legislation that will ensure that you are getting due supply of money even when you are not earning. So, you are at home due to maternity or something else, and the law will empower you to have some money. You will legally have some rights over the man's money. That's not the empowerment that you should want. Or if you are separated, then maybe legal provisions can entitle you to some alimony throughout your life or such things. That's hardly empowerment.
In fact, if you are truly a feminist, then one thing you must certainly do: Never be dependent on somebody's money. If there is one thing that is totally against women's empowerment, women's liberation, and true feminism, it is dependence on the man's money. And curiously, we know of several leading feminists who earn nothing at all. They practice their feminism thriving upon the male partner's money. Now what kind of feminism is this?
The lady will say, “You know, I am a true blue feminist.” How much do you earn? “No, I don't earn anything at all.” If you don't earn anything at all, then you are just playing your biological role. You are confined to your biological role. How are you liberated? That could be one necessary mark of a true feminist. She would be not dependent even for a single rupee on anybody else; especially, not on the male partner or male guardian, whosoever.
Questioner: So, all the women who say that we want to have kids—there's a whole who want to embrace motherhood. So, you are saying, obviously financial independence is the first goal. So financial independence and then still having kids, is that something that can be counted under feminism as such?
Acharya Prashant: You see, these are not do's and don’ts. And we are not talking of prerequisites and conditions that—alright if you are earning, then you may have kids; and then, your feminist tag would not be revoked. We are not talking of such things. We are talking of an inner understanding. We are talking of true identification and true disidentification.
It's not about the act of having kids. It's about asking yourself: Why do I want to have kids? What within me is craving for kids? That's the question to be asked, right? And then, if the answer is from the proper center, you may go ahead and have kids. Who is there to stop you? Provided the answer is coming from a center of realization and wisdom. If the answer is coming from a hormonal center and you are executing that answer, God save you.
Questioner: Yeah. Because you talked about legislation and there are actually countries who are considering women empowerment in these terms—that earlier women were allotted maternity leaves. Now, the husbands will also be allotted paternity leave, so that they can take care of the kids together.
Acharya Prashant: There is no wisdom in this. There is just no wisdom in this. This is like equalizing foolishness. So, nobody would be allowed to be less foolish than the other, right? It’s only the woman until now that would be engaging in this kind of biological nest building. And now the man is being condemned to engage in the same biological chakra (wheel). So, it's a kind of equality.
You know, there was this fellow, a man. It was there on his Facebook wall – “I was planning for an outing and a movie this evening and then disc tonight, but I won't go because we are having our periods.” But we won’t go because ‘we’ are having our periods.
So, what we are saying is, the woman is already identified and attached to her body. Now, the man too is identified with the woman's body. The man is saying, “I too am having my periods.” So, instead of disidentification, this is double identification. This is no liberation.
Questioner: This is quite the opposite of what we started with where I said the woman is being asked to rise up to the standard of the man. Right now, the man is being asked to reach the standard of the woman. And that is being called as feminism; that you be more sensitive towards all the bodily needs that I have.
Acharya Prashant: There is this new cult of the more feminine man. Don't you see that? The macho man is fading away. Not that the macho man was any good. It's just that the new trend is more dangerous because it is proceeding in the name of liberation.
Questioner: That earlier you were not allowed to be emotional. Now, you are allowed to be emotional even though you are a man.
