Deconstructing The Feminacra

An April 2026 New Statesman report highlighted a ‘radicalisation’ of young UK women aged 18–30, characterized by extreme pessimism, political alienation, and a deepening divide from men, driven by economic insecurity and a lack of belief in future prospects. This demographic, often more educated yet more pessimistic, is shifting rapidly to the political left and adopting a ‘femosphere’ perspective that frequently views men with distrust. 

In the 1980s the philosopher Jean Baudrillard came up with the theory of the simulacra, or a parallel, fake world which people would watch and with which they would emotionally engage, rather than the real one in which they were actually living. This simulacra is now very much in existence, chock-a-block with culture wars, and feminism has a massive, no-debate foothold within it.

As soon as anyone starts deconstructing this ‘feminacra’ online, that wall of inscrutability that builds itself out of self-interest around feminist-focused posts, some wag will write ‘He needs his hard drive checked’. It’s now as much of a social media cliche as ‘I’ll just leave this here’ or ‘Cry harder’, but the implication is anyone who questions the ‘progressive’ sex and gender-obsessed narrative must be keeping prohibited images of children, or he wouldn’t have said whatever he said (and it’s always aimed at a he).

The quickest way to shift perspective from the thing you don’t want to talk about in the discursive world is to imply your opponent has paedophile tendencies: saying ‘I don’t agree with you’ is just so dull. The tactic is straight out of the ad-hominem toxic feminism handbook, and is as much a prop in keeping the British justice system in its state of bad-faith misanthropia as anything else.

Feminism is the mothership-ism from which all other isms derivate, lest we forget. Along with the shading by inference which nu-feminism controls the media, there is also a sort of jigsaw cancellation or cancellation-by-proxy endured by the likes of John Torode, Kaye Adams, and gender critical poets various, for ‘bullying’, rudeness, or misgendering, etc. Those cancelled, or removed from their jobs, generally tend to be replaced by women.

Little is explicitly said, particularly not to us the plebs; and information as to what the bullying/sexual harassment/intolerable working conditions/Chinese water torture is slow in coming out, presumably to keep the story in the news cycle by dribs and drabs. New marketing by callous PR firms destroy lives by insinuation, never be entirely clear about what the person is actually accused of, and by the time it’s revealed no one cares anymore because it’s an old story.

This is now also the cancel culture employed by the Ministry of Justice: the pitchforkers who moralistically wail through their keyboards from all sorts of political directions, now prevalent on the left and the right, purity spirals abound, and monetised accounts feel they need to increasingly out-outrage each other - Keyboard Warrior’s gotta eat, damnit.

Pop producer and latter day false allegations campaigner Jonathan King’s ‘Is it a good story?’ credo comes from his decades working in the media, and his understanding of what really makes journalists and editors tick. These days this sits uncomfortably alongside campaigning journalism, where every journo is now required to share an apoplectic opinion, and unlike doctors or lawyers, emotionally invest themselves in their stories. In the past this would have been seen as the height of unprofessionally naff. Now it appears to be contractually required.

Every day these journos must bring a new sex scandal, the public seems to never tire of it, and while it might once have involved Tory MPs in fishnets and with snooker balls in their mouths, that’s now just a Green Party village fete, and every media story must refer back to the lodestar of ‘consent’.

Did you consent to being born, either into an increasingly moralistic world, into a dysfunctionally competitive family, or as a butterfly into a chicken coop? The suicidality of ever widening consent laws, where even questioning its political power-grab is met with ‘rape apologist’, ignores the fact that there have always been a multitude of grey areas in sex. This is how nature works, positive and negative, yin and yang.

Women have complained about men since time immemorial, but it’s only relatively recently these complaints have been litigated so intensely. Infuriated by stories such as the Trump election, Brexit, MeToo being exposed as inherently grifty, Johnny Depp’s win and the existence of Andrew Tate, academic feminism in the media has ramped up the putsch.

Dan Wootton, who’s gay, lost his show at GB News after he smiled at Laurence Fox’s comment ‘Who would shag that?’ about Politics Joe’s Ava Santina, who was seen to have belittled male suicide on another show. So even upstart GBN revealed itself, as with The Daily Mail and The Sun, to be being run by media-justice feminists who will not tolerate free banter, however rhetorical. This was a casually rhetorical as Lucy Connolly’s ‘Let them all burn down for all I care’, for which she received an 18 month or so prison sentence. Academic media justice feminism is chronically puritanical, and fundamentally joyless.

Since the days of ‘All Men Are Rapists’, or the 1970s/80s, feminism was in a dungaree-wearing doldrum of unattractive misandry; but the new millennium, with its handy Interweb, changed all that. Now feminists are both sex workers, demanding orgasms or alimony, and lesbian academics, perpetually pressing on levers in the service of the sisterhood, as politically misanthropic as any Trump, Putin, or Adern.

This bureaucratic cynicism trickles all the way down to the culture of omerta at the Criminal Case Review Commission, putatively charged with locating miscarriages of justice, where secrecy and opaque decision making abounds, in the very place where frank transparency is most needed. This overweening misanthropia leads to the citizenry, and the bureaucrats controlling it adopting an ‘evasive’ mindset - not honest, not frank, always seeking to apportion blame or protect other, undisclosed interests. This happens also to be the mindset of the career criminal, constantly suspicious, streetwise, always looking to survival rather than community benefit.

While great gains were made for sex equality through the twentieth century, culminating in the Equality Act 2010 in the UK, feminism has long gone from being about equality to being about power and revenge. They will deathlessly maintain angst and pressure over pay gaps, Violence Against Women and Girls (the massively incentivised VAWG cartel) and institutional misogyny, even while men come bottom in every social score going (except suicide).

It’s as if if the academic feminists acknowledge that parity has been achieved, they’ll have nothing left to fight about. Social media binarises the debate, to a point where no debate is meaningfully possible. Trite as it sounds, love of one’s fellow (hu)man is the answer, at least in the liberal democratic west: but it appears some are too afraid to ‘go there’.

By Sean Bw Parker