I'm gonna quote the gender-critical feminist from Tumblr, named fehax0, who coherently explained, why is it extremely hard to intersect feminism with Polish patriotism.
But first, let me tell you, why it isn't hard to intersect both according to me:
- Polish women terribly suffered from occupiers, like Germans, Russians, Ukrainians etc - they were killed, raped and many older Polish women still carry that trauma.
- Existed Polish women who intersected suffragism with Polish patriotism, e.g. Maria Rodziewiczówna, Maria Konopnicka, Maria Skłodowska-Curie, Narcyza Żmichowska etc.
- Detractors of Poland like Israel, Russia, don't even agree with feminism and some males there act like "there is nothing wrong with raping women"
- If there were no Polish nationalism, the liberal parties would allow the very often misogynistic, male muslim migrants into Poland and most Poles including women, don't want that
- Most women still protect their own homes (doesn't mean a woman shouldn't have ability to work or to leave their house), so for many women, I've noticed, Polish patriotism is naturally even if many elements are male-made constructs, sadly (but women led the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, before)
- There is nothing a woman can do about being born in certain country like Poland and most women meekly accept this state, at least some women can br proud of their own country.
OK, that's all.
Now, I'm gonna quote, why is it paradoxically hard to intersect both (trust me, I speak Esperanto, I'm an Esperantist, so I know what is it all about).
If you're not reading allat, scroll to the end for the tldr
A coherent intersection between gender-critical feminism (or really, any feminism) and nationalism—Polish nationalism included—is impossible. Feminism is a political movement aimed at dismantling patriarchy and freeing women from male-dominated structures. Nationalism, on the other hand, is one of those very structures: it is built on patriarchal assumptions about lineage, reproduction, inheritance, and women’s roles within the nation.
Feminism necessarily questions the social constructs that restrict women’s freedom. Meanwhile, nationalism treats constructs such as “nation,” “borders,” and “ethnicity” as natural, timeless truths—even though they were created by male-dominated institutions and have traditionally served male interests (state power, military strength, control of women’s bodies and labor).
This creates several contradictions:
1. Nationalism depends on controlling women’s reproductive and social roles
Nationalist projects frequently hinge on increasing the birth rate, preserving ethnic purity, or maintaining cultural “continuity.” These ideas almost always translate into pressure on women to produce more babies, behave in “proper” roles, and sacrifice their personal freedom for abstract national (MALE) goals. Historically, “national interest” has rarely aligned with women’s autonomy.
2. Feminism requires solidarity across borders; nationalism emphasizes hierarchy and separation
Feminism looks at the global condition of women as a sex class. Patriarchy is not confined to one country; it is a worldwide system, and feminist analysis relies on cross-border solidarity, mutual support, and recognition of shared oppression. Nationalism, by contrast, prioritizes one nation above others, often implying that some women matter more, deserve more protection, or should be more “loyal.” This contradicts feminist principles of universal female liberation.
3. National identity is a male-made construct, not a biological reality
There is no “nationality gene.” Nations, borders, and ethnic categories were created by states (institutions historically governed by men) to organize labor, control populations, and wage war. To treat these constructs as more fundamental than womanhood undermines feminist analysis, which centers material realities (like sex) over ideological ones (like national identity).
4. “National interests” tend to reflect male interests
What is typically presented as the “interest of Poland” (or any other nation) is often a set of priorities that preserve male dominance: economic productivity, military readiness, the nuclear family model, and the expectation of women’s unpaid domestic and emotional labor. These goals rarely align with women’s liberation, bodily autonomy, or freedom from gendered expectations.
5. Feminism challenges hierarchical thinking; nationalism reinforces it
A feminist worldview rejects the idea that one group has inherent superiority over another. Nationalism, however, depends on ranking and distinguishing populations—asserting that “our nation” deserves more, should be protected first, or has a special destiny. This mindset is directly at odds with feminist attempts to dismantle hierarchies rather than create new ones.
In simpler words/ TLDR: Huh?! Of course. You can't really be a feminist with nationalistic views. Feminism is the political movement with the aim to free women from the patriarchy. To do so, it also implements social views (community with women, care for each other) and somewhat globalistic views (the global condition of the female sex. So you can not believe that one nation is better than others, and should be granted more, shouldn't mix, or that we need more white polish babies while the world is overpopulated). If you are feminist, you do not believe the MALE-made stupid constructs like countries/ borders/nations. There is no nationality name in your dna. These constructs are here to keep you trapped, a worker for a company (country), to believe you are Polish before you're a woman. "Polish interests" are just Polish male interests (keeping women subordinate, making babies, giving free household and emotional labor) and they don't intersect with female interests.
Brak komentarzy:
Prześlij komentarz