Is the neo-Marxist project coming to an end ?-

No, dear Mrs. Stanisławczyk, the neo-Marxist project is not coming to an end. On the contrary, if we take feminism as its primary representative, this project is in the stage of consolidating its victories. Please note the number of women occupying basic positions in the new Biden administration; Please also note the number of Negroes (or speaking the politically correct language: Afro-Americans) in this administration. You see, Mrs. Stanislawczyk, we are in the third world stage of the development of feminism. The third levels of development of ideas are much stronger than the previous two because they are based on double the experience that allows for a dramatic conceptual and practical leap. Exactly according to a Polish proverb: for a wise head two words are enough.

Generally speaking, this third stage of feminism is much more powerful than the previous two. The first was the birth of suffrageist movement in the 19th / 20th century fighting for the right to vote for women. The second wave is the 1960s and 1970s, the youth years of feminism, the years of finding a solid foundation for the entire movement. In the third current state, feminism attacks and it attacks very precisely: #Me Too. Likewise, we are in the third phase of the movement for the equal rights of these African Americans: the Civil War of 1861; the 1960s civil rights movement from Rev King, and the Black Lives Matter-2020ties. Both movements, feminism and African-American, are now in their third stages of development, and hence their strength and moral support for the majority of society is already rooted in its consciousness.

What is the truth of feminism?
The goal of feminism is to fight for the social and customary equality between women and men, which at present is absent in the world:
-economic return pay for the same job and work;
-social equality in reaching the positions of power and social authority
- moral equality in personal relationships, which include the freedom to choose a partner, elimination of domestic violence against women, choice to have a child or not, and many other situations in which freedom and equality of a woman is threatened.
In fact, the battle and strategy of feminism is based, in the US, on the First Human Rights Amendment, which is the basis for the protection of individual freedom and rights in democratic countries (Article 33.2 of the Polish Constitution). This is not only the "macho" issue that Ms Wolczyk mentions; unfortunately, gender inequality is deeply embedded in the organization of our thinking and emotions as well as in the political structure of power. In other words, the inequality between men and women is institutionalized and this institution is called patriarchy because it politically perpetuates the social and moral superiority of men and the inferiority of women.
At the same time, personally, I cannot disagree with the description of the negative impact of feminism on the situation of men or as my physicist colleague says, with "excesses of feminism", which is the main subject of criticism by Mrs. Wołczyk (33 minute of the tape), Polish journalist in Spain.

The first symptoms of this phenomenon were noticed in New York in the late seventies / early eighties. Women were coming from Russia and Poland and were asking, C, what happened to the American males, they are not around, have they disappeared? No, they were battled down by feminists - I replied generally. - Forget about them, forget about American males! We, Poles who are here, are ready for every woman from all over the world!

So, we have here a contradiction in the feminist movement, on the one hand the principle of equality with men as the original motivating force of the movement, on the other hand, the moral and increasingly political disqualification of men as partners.
How to resolve this contradiction? On the one hand, a deeply morally and socially justified motivation for movement, on the other hand, an equally profound attack on equality with males.
There is an interesting solution2. It is "interesting to the square" because it is interesting in itself, and it is interesting because its motivating source is the news from the oppositional High Heels that develop the idea of a man as a father.
The solution suggests creating or formalizing the already existing reality of the fathers' movement as a response to the excesses of feminism.
Why is this an excellent solution? There is a saying of a certain Buckminster Fuller: You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.

The creation of a second dimension in the discussion between the sexes opens up new avenues by which the "excesses" of feminism as an "old" model can be eliminated. It was Einstein who probably mentioned that the resolution of a contradiction cannot be on the same level of thinking as the contradiction itself. To solve it, we have to do it on a higher level of thinking. Introducing a second, paternal dimension to situations allows you to enter this higher level.
For example, the fathers' movement must demand equality with mothers in receiving custody rights of their children and all the related perks. Looking at the situation of a man as the father of a child whose paternity (paternity) is protected by law to the same extent as the mother's motherhood requires a serious change in the understanding of the father's role in the process of raising children (more on this below). This is probably the first example of a compromise that goes through the lines of political division in Poland, in which the so-called, right-wing formulates the problem (in this case) and the left provides material for solving the problem. (I underline, the left provides material that must be properly "cut" to fit the compromise we are concerned with.
This will be the content of the next analysis for the essay in Wysokie Obcasy (01/25/2021) I am a dad, hences a worse version of mum. I am reminded of this by my own daughters - signed Professional Dad.

And here, Mrs. Stanisławczyk, we have to look very carefully at the father's situation in the present feminist climate in order to properly understand and perhaps shape the role of the father which will allow for peace between "matriarchy and patriarchy".
The title of the column I am a dad, hence the worse version of the mother tells us that something is wrong. I see two problems with this title:
1. Using the comparative criterion for two activities incomparable in a fundamental way with each other: motherhood and fatherhood.
2. Self-negativity. If the father sees himself as "inferior", of course his daughters will see him that way as well.
Both points give "matriarchy" an immediate advantage.

I have the impression that the Professional Dad is aware of the situation. For example, he writes. Recently, the media has been rightly criticized for talking about the situation of women in an almost exclusively male group. I also demand of these critics a condemnation of this form of public debate in which only women talk about fatherhood.
He is aware of one of the excesses of feminism here, that one-sided view of the form and role of the father. He also sees a problem in being a "role model" for his daughter: For daughters, the mother is to be the role model. Experts argue that gender divisions are key in the transmission of social values and norms. The problem is that modern mother and father patterns are not very different.
I think, Mrs. Stanislawczyk, that Professional Dad, while embracing the domestic partnership with the family postulated by feminism, is ready for a more decisive statement on shaping this partnership. Only what and where?

You know, Mrs. Stanislawczyk, that during the youth of feminism in the sixties and eighties, this movement developed with the help of the so-called ę "Consciousness rising groups", generally only for women who have analyzed their own lives in the light of developing feminism. I think that you own such a group, the Professional Tata, "Group for the Development of Father's Awareness", where fathers can rethink and guide their fatherhood with themselves. Only then will they be able to shake the hand of the "matriarchy" as equals. This is the way to go.