Feminist marches, and the need for a return to Freud.

Amidst this cacophonic ideology bazaar, living a life that mainly constitutes the exchange of political argument and opinion. A statement, followed by a counter, and so goes this unceasing succession. A case worth inspecting is that of the Aurat march. A symbol of feminist resistance against patriarchal norms, completes 5 years in Pakistan. The radical liberal-left put forward their manifestos; the radical rightwing brought forward their resentments. The liberal-left intellectuals made their move, followed by a showcase of discontent by the male-dominated religious right. Both sides, at times being equally vacant and naive in matters involving an intellectual discussion. Hence the prolonged feelings of distress across the country. The Islamic perspective has been mainly overlooked by the overwhelming crowd of protestors, and for valid reasons. Firstly no sense of an intellectual debate, no persuading rationale, despite being correct and despite having the word of God for baseline stance, our mainstream religious speakers haven't done justice in proving their point, transitioning the female envy, into enmity. And that too done unapologetically.

The basic reason of the overlooking by the feminocentric lineage of "woke" intellectuals is the culmination of axioms within socio-political circles. A prolonged cycle of assumptions transitioning to dogmas. The dictionary definition of an axiom is a maxim that has found general acceptance "by virtue of a claim to intrinsic merit, or on the basis of appeal to self evidence". The root cause of axiomatic overproduction is ignorance. "Ignorance leads to fear, which leads to hatred, which leads to violence". When we ignore the need to educate ourselves on matters before peaking of them, we become prone to it. As if the only way of political discussion needs to begin with disagreement. The transition of feminist stance into dogma is evident of this. Feminism or liberal thought has lost meaning because of the unread mainstream "kingpins". One can argue that the ones fighting don't know what they're fighting for. But that put aside, it's time we induce the long overlooked branch of psychoanalysis appropriately, which is the sole purpose of this paper. A Freudian psychoanalytic lens.

The reason why freud out of all psychoanalysts is mentioned has historical reasoning to it. Freudianism as we all know is among constituents of modern liberal thinking, which is a misinterpreted analogy. It is incorrect because Freud is the most criticized by almost every mainstream feminist writer, from de Beauvoir, to Kate millet and Germaine geer. Kate millet went so far as to call Freud "the strongest individual counter revolutionary force" against the feminist movement. Freudian theory, fundamentally his oedipal theory worked to reinforce acceptance of inferiority being a primary trait in a woman, to perpetuate sexual difference. This led to the formation of the diminished feminist view of freud. The neo-Freudians contributed to this a lot, when they naively attributed ideas of social fate being biologically determined for women and so on. this was the point where Freud was starting to be termed as a misogynist. If we take a closer look at the feminist movements of the 60s and 70s, mostly those in France, we see their hostility towards psychoanalysis, calling it a major factor in forming patriarchal oppression. Because Freud can be said to be the father of psychoanalytic differentiation between the sexes, feminine passivity and masculine activity, it was he who was called for resentment from the enthusiastic liberated women. They started cherry picking Freudian terms, like penis envy, inherent female masochism, the oedipal father role and so on, to critique Freud. Ignoring his foundational works.

Another thing to note is that Freud in the early 1900s predicted this revolt, after his famous patient, "Dora" dismissed him, saying he couldn't understand her. This particular event caused the entire subjectivity transition in the feminist movement, main contributors being Simone de Beauvoir and her beloved Sartre. The rage stems from the supposition of the insufficiency of Freudianism because he could never really know what it felt to be a woman. And according to Beauvoir "while men's superior status may have suited their economic aims, it also satisfied their moral and ontological ones, and that their exploitation of women is in large part a rationalization for largely unacknowledged feelings of resentment and fear." This presupposition of labeling freud as some "wannabe" interpreter of nature of all beings, is totally biased. Which brings me to Zizek, who too collectively criticizes French feminists, typically grouping them as a whole which he tends to do in various matters. He calls them out as being heavily influenced by Derrida and deconstruction. These particular thinkers in that period of time, misinterpreted and went on unhelpfully belaboring Lacanian and Freudian phallocentric predilections, which is a delusional self imposed idealism.

Female progressive revolutionary movements like the Aurat march, in our modern era, show us how nothing has changed since then. There’s the laywomen, those infected by dogma, and there’s the background intellectual force of university professors, some overseas influence, and the delusional bourgeoisie elitist liberal-left, The ones I consider the real threat. Seeing the success of their indoctrinating techniques, I fear we're going to be standing amidst a world of degenerate and corrupted decay in a few years time. When we say things like women are prone to the Freudian hysteria, which according to him was an innate quality of the female sex, we're degrading the female indirectly, considering her inherently inferior, according to the feminist, Freud is reinforcing biological determinism by making such statements. However, What Beauvoir and other hysterics.. Missed was that man is not effectively denying the woman's humanity by calling hysteria innately feminine.

When Zizek is brought into conversation, we need start questioning what we're fighting for. Freedom in this case. The Zizekian twisted notion of "freedom" being a problematic dialectic makes perfect sense if one compares it with our scenario. But lets save that for another day. The thing is, when a certain notion is presented countless times, in a heinous manner, it loses meaning. Just like the religious arguments against these movements for example. God's sovereignty above people's sovereignty, the word of God being our ultimatum and so on, have failed. Failed not because they were wrong, but because they weren't communicated with the intent to find conclusions. Ending up sowing seeds of enmity in the now overwhelming liberal circles, who are undergoing the process of gradual indoctrination. Ignorance will prevail, if the perplexed, enthusiastic yet bemused public doesn't recognize the role Taqlid (imitation) plays in our psychic disposition. Which begs the need for psychoanalysis to be induced.