The Manipulation Matrix
How ‘Empowerment’ Became a Trap for Women?
Modern society often champions ‘female empowerment,’ yet a deeper look reveals a complex web of social engineering that may subtly undermine genuine liberation. This essay unpacks the critical perspective that contemporary feminism, far from achieving its goals, has entered a phase of internal decay, becoming a tool wielded by unseen forces. From the illusory freedom of the ‘sex worker’ ideology to the ephemeral nature of beauty as power, we explore how superficial gains might be trapping women in a cycle of short-lived influence and long-term devaluation.
Unmasking the System of Manufactured Consent
In an era that ceaselessly champions ‘empowerment,’ particularly for women, it is crucial to pause and ask: what if the very narratives of liberation are subtly crafted mechanisms of control? What if, beneath the shimmering surface of societal progress, lies a more insidious architecture of manipulation? This is the disquieting question that challenges us to look beyond the celebratory rhetoric and into the hidden gears of social engineering. We are invited to consider a perspective that posits modern feminism, once a vital force for change, has not only stalled but has become an instrument within a larger system designed to create isolated, consuming individuals, rather than truly free and collective citizens.
The concept that female power, as often presented today, is not an authentic assertion of strength but rather an illusion—a construct meticulously designed by forces seeking to maintain illegitimate power—strikes at the heart of our contemporary understanding of gender dynamics. It suggests that the trajectory from historical figures like the suffragettes to modern phenomena such as OnlyFans is not a linear path of advancement, but a spiral into a state of heightened vulnerability and systemic exploitation. To truly understand this claim, we must dissect the arguments that expose the internal contradictions of the movement, the economic precarity disguised as liberation, and the ultimately ephemeral nature of a power rooted in superficiality.
I find myself grappling with the echoes of historical critiques that warned against such unseen forces. Thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre, often associated with existential freedom, are paradoxically cited by some as having influenced figures like Simone de Beauvoir in ways that could be interpreted as a continuation of male intellectual dominance rather than pure female autonomy. This isn’t to diminish the genuine struggles for equality, but to critically examine where these movements have been steered, and by whom. The real danger lies not in seeking freedom, but in unknowingly embracing a gilded cage designed by those who profit from our perceived liberation.
The Decaying Fabric of Modern Feminism
Alain Soral, a provocateur and keen social observer, frames contemporary feminism as a movement in a “descending process.” For him, the pioneering phase, marked by figures like the suffragettes and culminating with Simone de Beauvoir’s seminal work “The Second Sex,” has long passed. We are now, he argues, in a period of advanced maturity and decline, characterized by the “exacerbation of its internal contradictions.” This isn’t just an observation; it’s a stark warning that what once was a unified charge for rights has fragmented into internal squabbles and ideological cul-de-sacs. The primary vocation of feminists today, Soral claims, is increasingly to “argue amongst themselves.”
This fragmentation is evident in the proliferation of sub-categories and conflicting agendas within the movement. When the energy once directed outward, towards systemic change, is turned inward, it inevitably leads to a weakening of purpose and impact. I often see this dynamic playing out in online discourse, where purity tests and ideological schisms replace substantive debate. Moreover, Soral asserts that feminism has failed to abolish class struggle, merely reconfiguring it. He paints a vivid picture: the “great feminist,” celebrated for her achievements, often relies on a “hidden heroine” – her cleaning lady – to make her liberation possible. This dynamic exposes a fundamental hypocrisy: one woman’s freedom built upon the unseen labor of another, perpetuating the very class-based power structures it claims to dismantle.
The true tragedy is not that we suffer, but that we are in denial about our suffering, especially when it is dressed up as liberation.
– Slavoj Žižek
From ‘Sex Worker’ to Digital Devaluation: The Illusory Trajectory
One of the most unsettling trajectories critiqued is the evolution of female liberation into the “sex worker” ideology, with platforms like OnlyFans and Instagram presented not as empowerment, but as the logical, destructive endpoint of a specific feminist strain. The concept of the “sex worker” is identified as a key ideological precursor, framing prostitution as a form of emancipation from patriarchal prohibitions. Soral attributes this idea, in part, to what he calls the “pornocrate” Ovidie, an individual who, in his view, intellectualized a role that is fundamentally exploitative.
This promotion of sex work, I believe, is often dismissed as a superficial media strategy that cannot withstand “serious work” and critical analysis. Referencing philosopher Michel Clouscard’s distinction between the “frivolous and the serious,” Soral argues that such platforms represent a profound misdirection. The economic unsustainability of OnlyFans, for instance, becomes apparent when subjected to scrutiny. If “everyone is on OnlyFans selling their ass,” the market inevitably neutralizes itself due due to a lack of consumers with disposable income. This commodification of intimacy, far from empowering, becomes a race to the bottom, where fleeting attention replaces genuine value, leading to long-term devaluation in both personal and societal spheres.
The Ephemeral Nature of Beauty as Power
A central, and perhaps most controversial, thesis asserts that the primary source of female power is sexual attractiveness, which is inherently temporary and deeply dependent on male desire. This perspective posits that female power originates from intrinsic male sexual frustration. “Man wants to fuck,” Soral asserts, while a woman “can refrain from fucking for a long time” in search of a secure situation. A woman’s power, therefore, lies in her ability to leverage this dynamic—a power rooted in negotiation, in withholding and granting access.
However, this power, rooted in “physical freshness and youth,” is alarmingly short-lived, estimated to peak between the ages of 15 and 30. The emphasis here is purely physical: a woman’s body, described as “essentially fat” held up by skin, inevitably sags over time, unlike muscle. This starkly contrasts with male attractiveness, which is presented as more durable and based on different criteria. Soral provocatively claims it is possible to be a “handsome old man,” but “a beautiful old woman does not exist,” arguing that aging is a “masculinizing” process for women. He recounts a telling anecdote of informing his sister that men only feign interest in her intelligence because they desire her sexually, implying that once she is no longer “fuckable,” his intellectual work would grant him conversational dominance. It’s a brutal, unfiltered assessment, but one that forces us to confront uncomfortable truths about how society often values women.
A Woman’s Three Relentless Rivals
In this framework, a woman’s social standing and power are defined by three primary sources of competition, highlighting what is termed the “radical immorality” of male-female relations. These rivals aren’t external forces of injustice but intrinsic competitors that dictate a woman’s place in the social hierarchy:
The Richer Woman: This competition reflects the persistence of class struggle. A bourgeois woman, through her economic standing, often dominates her working-class counterparts, like her cleaning lady. Her “liberation” is facilitated by the labor of others, exposing the class divisions that feminism often fails to transcend.
The More Beautiful Woman: This rivalry is centered on the attention of socially dominant men. Soral bluntly states that it is a “fundamental injustice” that “beautiful women go to socially dominant men.” This highlights how societal power structures are deeply intertwined with physical attractiveness and male desire.
The Younger Woman: This rival embodies the temporal nature of beauty. As a woman ages, she is inevitably replaced by a younger, more physically attractive rival. This relentless march of time ensures that power based on ephemeral beauty is constantly challenged and ultimately lost, leaving women in a precarious position.
These rivals underscore a harsh reality: for many, power and status are not earned through merit or inner strength, but are granted, borrowed, and ultimately fleeting, based on external, uncontrollable factors.
The Illusion’s Cost: Long-Term Consequences of False Liberation
The discourse argues that participation in the “sexual liberation” economy leads to profound long-term devaluation. A woman who “sells her ass” on OnlyFans, for example, becomes “morally burnt” and devalued for marriage. Using a car analogy, she is no longer “first hand” (première main)—a used commodity, rather than a pristine article. Once her ephemeral beauty fades, she is left as “not much,” allowing the “ugly, educated woman” to gain the upper hand in a more stable, intellectual sphere. This is a cold, calculated view, but one that forces us to question the true costs of instant gratification and superficial empowerment.
Hollywood careers, such as those of actresses like Julia Roberts, are cited as case studies illustrating the roughly 10-year peak of female beauty-based power, after which they are often replaced and forgotten. This reinforces the idea that an identity built on fleeting physical attributes is inherently unstable. The ultimate, and most provocative, argument here is that the concept of female power promoted by feminism is an illusion—a construct of “white males over 50” who use the “naivety, ambition, and stupidity of women” to maintain their own power. “Behind every feminist... there is a white male capitalist over 50 who manipulates,” Soral concludes, citing Jean-Paul Sartre’s influence on Simone de Beauvoir as a historical example of this covert manipulation.
The fundamental lie of our age is the insistence that individual gratification is liberation, when often it is merely a more sophisticated form of bondage.
– Alain Badiou
Motherhood: The Unseen Pillar of Authentic Female Power
In stark contrast to the “cultural whore” (putain culturelle) image promoted by what is deemed modern feminism, the analysis identifies motherhood as the authentic, eternal source of female power. Citing Jean Eustache’s poignant film “La maman et la putain” (”The Mother and the Whore”), the argument posits that a woman’s historical power stems from her unique, undeniable role in childbirth. Men, it is argued, need women to produce heirs, creating a visceral and enduring bond between a mother and child—a bond that transcends transient attractions and societal whims.
The lasting respect afforded to a woman, this perspective contends, comes from her role as “the mom” (la maman), not as a “femme fatale” or a fleeting seductress. Modern feminism, by framing motherhood as an alienation imposed by the patriarchy, rather than a natural and profoundly powerful state, is accused of foolishly occulting this true source of power. The recommended path, therefore, is not the pursuit of ephemeral influence, but the embrace of enduring value: a woman is better off becoming “a mother who has done higher education” than a “little bitch” who capitalizes on her short-lived physical assets. This path, it is argued, offers a more controlled, pleasant, and respected life in the long run—a life built on substance rather than illusion.
Navigating the Labyrinth of Social Engineering
This entire phenomenon is framed within a broader, more chilling critique of the current socio-political system, which is accused of deliberately manipulating the populace. The “system,” as described, desires “isolated, relatively depressive, and consuming individuals,” rather than “enlightened citizens with a collective political vision.” This isn’t accidental; it’s a meticulously planned process of mass stultification referred to as “social engineering” (ingénierie sociale), a term attributed to Lucien Cerise. It involves specific manipulations targeted at every demographic—boys, girls, young, and old—designed to maintain the status quo.
The ultimate purpose of this elaborate social engineering, I’ve come to understand, is to make the population refractory to abusive and “illegitimate power,” thereby ensuring the current power structure remains unchallenged. To break free from this matrix, we must cultivate a profound skepticism toward easy narratives of empowerment and question the sources and beneficiaries of every societal trend. The path to true liberation, for all genders, begins with recognizing the chains, however gilded they may appear, and understanding the architects who profit from our collective ignorance. Only then can we begin to forge a genuine collective political vision, one rooted in enduring values and authentic human connection, rather than the fleeting illusions of manufactured consent.