Counter Narrative | Soft Feminism, Hardcore Destruction
A reflection on a post that came to my knowledge
Someone posted on facebook, in a noble and thoroughly confused moment, that feminism is a “theory for women to produce” but for men, it’s about cultivating kindness and empathy—so they may eventually be disarmed of their inner colonizer. To the casual scroll-through eye, it reads like an Instagrammable revolution. But when you slow it down, pour yourself a cup of strong qahwa, and think—really think—you start to feel the full gravity of what this line of thought entails. Spoiler alert: it isn’t gender justice. It’s civilizational evaporation.
Let us begin with the smuggled premise: that man, by practicing “traditional manhood,” is inherently oppressive, and that he must now trade strength for softness, certainty for confusion, and ultimately, will for withdrawal. This is the spirit of what I call Soft Feminism—the velvet-gloved variant of modern ideology which doesn’t need to debate you; it just emotionally audits you until you agree. But beware: the softness is on the surface. Its underside is steel—an epistemic steel that cuts the roots of a civilization with surgical precision. That’s the Hardcore Destruction. Soft feminism may sound polite, even progressive, but its real work is hardcore destruction: of gender metaphysics, of tradition, of any hope that man and woman are complements in a divine grammar, rather than contestants in a power seminar.
This brand of feminism is not merely about fairness. It is a psychological ritual of male disarmament. No, not disarming the abuser—but the very masculine archetype of strength, decision, and protective authority. That role, once viewed as noble, is now cast in the costume of the oppressor, colonizer, and moral failure. The accusation? That man exists—traditionally. His guilt? Ontological. Here is the sleight of hand: It gives the illusion of progress by substituting metaphysical truths with emotional sentiments. Your empathy is now a replacement for your ontology. Your power must be doubted because of your chromosomes. Your fatherhood is suspect until cleared by theory.
And to make this pill easier to swallow, it’s wrapped in kindness—because who, after all, wants to argue against being nice? But what does this kindness cost? It costs the fitrah—the natural balance. The idea that men and women, while equal in dignity, are profoundly different in design. It costs the entire architecture of meaning in which gender was not a battlefield but a divine partnership. As I argue elsewhere, when religion lies naked and out in the open, devoured by the modern glutton who was once simply starved of meaning, what takes its place? Theory. Theory built on trauma, designed to invert everything sacred. The man becomes the mistake, and the woman the project of correction.
This feminism, clothed in moral warmth, rides on the shoulders of deeper assumptions: that all power is inherently oppressive, that all tradition is inherently patriarchal, hence oppressive, and that the past is only to be studied for purposes of indictment. And where does this road lead? Towards what I call the Nihilist Dystopia—a society that has first killed its culture, then buried its religion, and now, like a ghost of itself, haunts every new generation with questions that once had answers.
The tragic irony? In trying to liberate women from traditional marginalisation, it ends up liberating no one—but merely relocates the chains. For in this soft revolution, man becomes woman, woman becomes ideology, and ideology becomes God. We are told to be kind. But if kindness means amputating your history, evacuating your moral backbone, and sitting politely as your soul is psychoanalysed by postmodernism—then forgive me, I’d rather be rude.
Some call it gender justice. I call it civilizational retreat. And when retreats are institutionalized, they’re no longer personal decisions—they are the first acts of cultural suicide. Soft Feminism is the velvet noose. Don’t be surprised when you can’t breathe.
