Toxic Femininity

How the corrupted feminine subverts the masculine solar principle

Today I am going to be discussing the ways in which women subvert the masculine principle. We’ll be looking at two ways in which that subversion can happen. One is a corruption of the Demeter archetype and the other is a corruption of the Aphrodite archetype.

This was originally going to be a follow up to a Telegram post that generated a lot of heated discussion, but I decided I had more to say on the subject than would fit into a neat little post. So I want to start off with what I originally shared, which was a quote on mothers and sons from Jungian psychologist, Robert Johnson, that said:

No son ever develops into manhood without, in some way, being disloyal to his mother. If he remains with her, to comfort her and console her, then he never gets out of his mother complex. Often a mother will do all she can to keep her son with her. One of the most subtle ways is to encourage in him the idea of being loyal to her; but if he gives in to her completely then she often finds herself with a son severely injured in his masculinity.

The son must ride off and leave his mother, even if it appears to mean disloyalty, and the mother must bear this pain. Later, like Parsifal, the son may come back to the mother and they may find a new relationship, on a new level; but this can only be done after the son has first achieved his independence and transferred his affection to a woman, either in an interior way with his own inner feminine side or in an exterior way with a real female companion of his own age.

In our myth, Parsifal's mother died when he left. Perhaps she represents the kind of woman who can only exist as a mother, who dies when this role is taken from her because she does not understand how to be an individual woman, but only "mother.”

― Robert A. Johnson, “He: Understanding Masculine Psychology”

So let’s use this as our launching point and start with the corruption of the Demeter archetype and look at this idea from standpoint of Tradition and also from modern psychology. Two opposing schools of thought, I know!

You’re all probably familiar, by now, with the Traditionalist idea that the masculine has primacy over the feminine, as the active principle has primacy over the passive principle, and the solar over the lunar.

Robert Johnson says that a man needs to be “disloyal” to his mother in order to actualise his masculinity. What does that really mean? No one wants to be disloyal to their family, and especially not their mother, after all! What this means, in practice, is that a man must grow beyond devotion to his mother, rather than serving her needs and whims. In order to become a man, he needs to assert his solar essence and draw his mother into his orbit, rather than the other way around.

One of the reasons the “Southern” Demetrian strains of spirituality are so diametrically opposed to the “Northern” Hyperborean strain that is represented by the World of Tradition is that in the Demetrian matriarchal societies, the mother was held in the highest esteem because, as the one who gives birth, the act of creation was (falsely) attributed to the feminine.

However, the opposite is held by the Hyperborean lineage, and that is that the feminine was produced from the masculine. The active, creative, masculine element came first, followed by the passive, destructive, feminine element. You cannot have one without the other, but the feminine is tied to matter and Becoming- which is necessarily destructive in nature because all matter is subject to time and the laws of entropy-, whereas the masculine is tied to spirit and Being and thus NOT associated with the destructive element because that which is destructive cannot be eternal. In order for the feminine to create anything, it must first be fecundated by the masculine— women do not give birth in a vacuum, they do first need the seed of a man and it is the ACTION of the man that is required for this. Soil produces nothing on its own without a seed being planted.

It is appropriate for a boy to subordinate himself to his mother because he is a boy and not a man, but in order to become a man, he does need to break free of that. He cannot remain in that subservient position forever because he will never develop his solar principle. He is under the regime of the feminine and yes, his masculinity IS severely injured as a result. His relationship with his mother needs to change when he becomes a man. He cannot be her little boy forever and she has to accept this and not try to thwart him. 

The relationship a man proper has with his mother should be similar to that of a king. A king owes his mother respect because she is his mother, but she still needs to bow before him as the king and swear her fealty to him, placing herself into his service. Instead, many mothers want their sons to kneel forever before her as the queen. This is extremely anti-Traditional, but unsurprisingly common in the Kali Yuga. This inverted relationship of mother and son is like a microcosm of the entire social and historical trend of the matriarchal order we currently live under.

It is so common in fact, that modern psychology has a name for it. It is called emotional incest or covert incest. It is when a parent relies on their child to provide the support that they should be getting from their spouse. While it does happen between fathers and daughters, it seems to be vastly more common between mothers and sons. I suspect this is due to the excess of single mothers, who rely on their sons to play the part of surrogate husband, but also because so many men are incapable of providing a stable axis for their wives and so even many married women cope with an unsatisfactory marriage by forming unhealthy co-dependent relationships with their children. 

Here are some standard examples of what emotional incest looks like:

1. Seeking emotional support from child- revealing personal problems (including problems involving husbands/boyfriends), seeking advice, support, and comfort

2. Expecting the child to put the parent’s needs first- probably the hallmark sign of emotional incest is expecting and demanding that the child drop what they are doing and help meet the parent’s needs for love, affection, attention, etc.

3. Failing to support and respect boundaries- disregarding the child’s needs for autonomy and independence, prohibiting or sabotaging the child from venturing out and forming other relationships, as this threatens the parent’s sense of security that they get from their child

4. Being romantically inappropriate with the child- taking them on “dates” or discussing their sex lives with their child, or doing anything else that should be reserved solely for romantic partners

There is no sexual abuse in these relationships, but the parent relies on the child (whether still actually a child in some cases as well as their adult children) for emotional and psychological support, rather than maintaining a healthy relationship with an adult partner on equal terms. The son naturally falls into a subservient role because that is what he has been conditioned to since birth and this is very appealing to the mother. And he cannot ever have a normal, healthy, committed relationship with a wife of his own while he is in a committed, devotional relationship with his mother. In fact, it is not uncommon to see such mothers attempt to interfere in or sabotage their son’s romantic relationships. Nor can he have a healthy relationship with himself or with God when he is pouring so much devotional energy towards the devouring mother.

In the Robert Johnson quote, he says that often a mother will do all she can to keep her son with her and that she will encourage his loyalty. This parasitic relationship is extremely satisfying to her. This is one of many ways that women become a danger to men. I’ve spoken before about how women often use their sexual power over a man, to try to win his devotion and submission to her, and men who cannot control their sexual desires do tend to end up under the thumb of a woman, who then asserts herself in the predominant position. I consider this a form of Aphroditic subversion, and we’re going to get to that next. The Demetrian equivalent of this subversion is the emotional incest we have just talked about. In both cases, there is an attempt (often successful) to make a man a slave to the feminine, to serve her regardless of the cost to his soul. And many men sadly accept this as normal and natural. I have seen just as many men fall to Demetrian subversion as to Aphroditic subversion and I suppose this is due in part to men being raised in a matriarchal culture that teaches them to do this.

So now let’s turn our attention to the more obvious form of subversion: the misuse of sexual power. This is the more Aphroditic type of subversion, where instead of functioning as a reflective light, the woman is functioning more like a black hole. Julius Evola has occasionally referred to the “sucking” nature of woman and I think that imagery is really appropriate when we are talking about the ways in which a woman subverts the solar principle of man, the sucking away of his light into a black hole.

In both cases of Aphroditic and Demetrian subversion, we have the dynamic of consuming instead of reflecting. Of taking, taking, taking all to satiate her endless hungers and desires rather than doing what is Traditional. The Traditional path is the one of fides- of fidelity, of devotion, of giving. Ideally, woman should be adding to the man’s light and encouraging it to shine brighter, rather than eclipsing it or snuffing it out.

Once again, we see the pattern of woman inviting man to serve or worship her. And in the sexual arena, one of the most obvious places to see this is among teenage girls and young women. When a girl hits puberty and starts to become attractive to boys, she notices this. She notices that suddenly boys are very interested in her and that they want to do nice things for her to win her affections and attentions. And she notices that she holds power over them because of their desire for her, that all it takes to get what she wants is to flirt and imply promises.

Now, the average teenage girl isn’t thinking about this consciously. Even many grown women who do this aren’t fully aware of it. They understand the cause and effect and use it to their advantage, but it’s not necessarily something calculated and pre-meditated. This provocativeness is just a natural feminine dynamic, seen even in infants and animals where females display greater attention-seeking behaviours than males, and I think it’s the default setting unless woman is guided by a higher principle, which requires that she exercise her agency to choose that.

Anyway… the typical young woman becomes drunk on her newfound sexual power. And the natural inclination when you realise you have power is to test its limits. So you’ll often see young women using their beauty to manipulate men, using the promise of potential future sex as a bargaining chip, and perhaps that promise is only subtly implied through a casual glance or an artfully revealed body part. And when a man isn’t a steady principle unto himself, which- let’s face it- no teenage boy confounded by his own new flush of hormones can realistically be expected to withstand the awesome power that sex holds over him, and even most adult men remain powerless against it their whole lives- when a man isn’t a steady principle unto himself, then he’s, quite frankly, a sitting duck.

We’ve talked before on this channel about Shiva and Shakti, but let’s quickly refresh. Shakti is our feminine principle. She’s pure energy with no direction. She’ll dance and dance and dance into destruction if left to her own devices. Shiva is our masculine principle. He has no energy himself, but is like a lightning rod. He attracts Shakti through his stillness and when the lightning of Shakti strikes, Shiva is ready to take her energy and direct it into something creative, rather than destructive. If lightning is striking randomly all over the forest, it might start a huge fire. But if it is attracted to a lightning rod and strikes there instead, then perhaps we can use it to at least power our lights.

This principle of the polarity of gender, of this dynamic between Shiva and Shakti, is very important to understand when looking at the ways in which the mother and the muse can subvert a man. Woman becomes destructive without the grounding force of a man she respects. You may as well tell a herd of elephants not to trample you as to tell Shakti to stop dancing- it’s her cosmic function to endlessly dance. The widespread prevalence of this sort of subversion is symptomatic of a bigger problem.

When a man is not a stable principle unto himself, when he hasn’t actualised the masculine principle within himself, then this dynamic between Shiva and Shakti, between the masculine and the feminine, breaks down. Shakti will go on dancing endlessly no matter what, she never runs out of batteries. But Shiva, having no power of his own, if he cannot function as the lightning rod, then he’s powerless against Shakti. 

This is why the conversation about sexual responsibility can’t just start and end with “teach boys about consent.” It also has to include teaching girls about modesty, about not misusing this power for selfish ends, and about how to use it in a way that is appropriate and elevating for both people.

It’s not even about not misusing it just because it hurts boys, but also because girls injure themselves, too, by engaging in such behaviour. Any subversion of the masculine principle leads to a situation where we are all left in darkness and there are no lights left to reflect.

This is why people get concerned about “simps”. I do think in some circles the simp-policing has gotten out of hand, but in principle, one should be worried at least a little bit about simps. We don’t want to see men falling under the sexual power of a woman who is exploiting them. And it is often the case that, for example, many female content creators or influencers or whatever they (we?) are called these days, many of them are relying on the manipulation of the male sex drive for their income. OnlyFans is a great example of this. Instagram, too. But really any platform in which you’ll find a visual presentation of women and their bodies. And social media has really fuelled the “look at me, look at me” culture among women.

The hidden danger is that women are often just not aware of what they are doing. Much like mothers who devour their sons often don’t realise that they are damaging a man, and by extension damaging themselves, neither do women who rely on their sexual power. There can be a lot of psychological baggage wrapped up in why women would do this, things like needing a man to be desirous of them in order to feel a sense of self-worth or to feel secure in their relationship or whatever. I feel like I have to say that because there is too much tendency to characterise subversive women as intentionally malicious, rather than just in a state of modern nescience. Neither do men realise the damage being done to them, oftentimes. 

Generally speaking, I think the culture of social media has not only amplified an already existent narcissism in modern woman, but has also fed into the idea that woman has no value if she doesn’t have sexual value. And the so-called “trad” or “cottagecore” wholesome kind of girls aren’t immune to this either, who tend to present their sexual value through the lens of motherhood. One can come up with many varieties of sexual enticement for men and women are typically quite creative at doing this. But the underlying idea is still that their primary value is sexual.

And this isn’t to say that having sexual value is a bad thing, I’m not making any moral judgments here. It just simply is. But when a woman believes that’s her only or primary value, that is where we are going to run into problems with the Aphrodite archetype. 

However, when a woman believes her primary value is spiritual, sexual value finds its proper level in that hierarchy, and women who are in touch with their spiritual value first and foremost generally don’t tend to use sex as a tool of corruption because they have a higher guiding principle at work.

Remember what I said in my videos on the Traditional paths to heroism: a man’s heroic path is to serve a vision or a principle or an ideal, while the woman’s path is to serve the man, supporting him in his quest and thus partaking in his vision as a result. This cannot happen when the masculine principle is being subverted. Too many modern women, Aphrodites and Demeters alike, wish for men to worship at their narcissistic altars. But then neither the man nor the woman can have any transcendent aim. In destroying man, woman also destroys herself.

My suggestion for men is this: Develop internal self-sufficiency. Cultivate your Shiva principle. Become the unmoved mover. This is what will not only protect you against subversion, but also allow you to shine a light into the world that your mother and wife will be only too glad to reflect.

My suggestion for women is two-fold. The first is, be ever mindful of the subtle and inadvertent ways you might drag a man down. There are ways in which one could say that woman represents the ultimate heroic challenge for man, but that is categorically different than the careless unleashing of the power of Eros or the selfish manipulations. There is a difference between deliberate enticement for a spiritual goal and outright wantonness for banal and profane reasons.

The second is ironically the same as for men: develop your internal self-sufficiency. Develop your animus. Get yourself to a place where you don’t need men to validate your beauty in order to feel worthy and where you don’t need to rely on your sons to fill emotional holes in you. Having a healthy relationship with your inner man frees you from the devouring, sucking tendency that comes with an unbalanced feminine. This goes back to the original quote we started with, and Robert Johnson’s reference to Parsifal’s mother, who died when he left, this idea that some women are unable to exist as individual women, but only as a particular role. You want to be able to exist independently of your relationship to a man, which perhaps counter-intuitively allows you to have a higher capacity to reflect light.

Both men and women need to lift their eyes towards a higher vision. We cannot lay the blame at the feet of one sex or the other. And indeed my purpose with this video was not to single out women as a corrupting influence (and I am not unaware of how it goes in the reverse), but to illustrate certain toxic dynamics in which both men and women participate. This degeneration was predestined from the moment of the creation of the universe. Pointing fingers is a waste of energy. What we should focus on, each of us individually, is what we can do to live in line with our values, regardless of what is going on around us. It’s too easy to blame the other sex and use it as an excuse for why you, individually, cannot or should not become a more noble person. 

The fact that men are failing in their function as a stable axis for Shakti does not give you, as a woman, a free pass to become a temptress or a devouring mother. You don’t get to intoxicate men with sex and hold them under your thumb and call yourself empowered. You don’t get to cannibalise your son because your husband failed you and call yourself righteous.

The fact that women are corrupting men left and right does not give you, as a man, a free pass to become a porn addict or a mama’s boy. You don’t get to enslave yourself to women and then call yourself a king. In fact, the story of the Rex Nemorensis is a good example of why the king must be a runaway slave- as a man, you must free yourself from all enslavements before you can be a king unto yourself, which is the whole idea behind being the stable axis and the unmoved mover. (See “Revolt Against the Modern World, episode 3: Regality” on my YouTube channel for more on the Rex Nemorensis.)

Many people think they need to fix the world in order to have happiness in their lives, but we can’t fix the dynamic between the sexes. That is beyond our capacity as individuals to affect. The world has to play itself out, but you can make choices about how you live your life, about what values you will align with and embody. You can make healthy choices and orient yourself towards the World of Tradition. You can do your best to protect yourself from degeneracy and subversion by setting boundaries around what you allow into your life and psychic space. Man or woman, you can choose whether you behave in line with spiritual principles or whether you go with the profane flow of the modern world. And what the opposite sex does or does not do should have no bearing on your choice to walk a noble path.