Industrial Revolution

The Illusion of Upward Trajectory Many of us walk through life accepting a specific, linear story about the history of women. We are told that we have been on a never-ending upward path of progress, moving from the dark ages of domestic slavery toward a bright, liberated future. This narrative is so pervasive that questioning it feels almost sacrilegious. However, if we look closer at the actual shift in material conditions over the last two centuries, we find a story that is far less about moral enlightenment and far more about technological displacement. Mary Harrington argues that feminism is not a story of moral progress, but a response to the way technology reordered human life. Before the Industrial Revolution, the household was the basic unit of economic production. Men and women worked together in agrarian or artisan settings. While men often held formal legal power, women wielded significant informal power because they were economically productive members of a joint enterprise. When work left the home for the factory, that interdependence shattered. This shift turned women into economic dependents in a way they had never been before. The early feminist movements were legitimate attempts to fix the legal vulnerabilities created by this new, industrial reality. They weren't fighting against "wicked people" from the past; they were trying to survive a world where the domestic sphere had been hollowed out. Today, we are told that working for a corporate employer is "freedom," yet many women find themselves more atomized and lonelier than their ancestors. True growth requires us to recognize when a "liberation" is actually just a new form of market dependency. The Cyborg Turn and the Death of Care We have transitioned from the industrial era into what Harrington calls the Cyborg Era. This isn't science fiction; it is the reality of a personhood that is inseparable from technology. The pivotal hinge was the Contraceptive Pill. By using biotechnology to suppress a natural, healthy biological function, we didn't just gain "freedom"—we fundamentally reordered the human body to fit the demands of the market. In this new Cyborg Theocracy, the "good" is defined as the pursuit of ever-more freedom underwritten by technology. We have prioritized the "feminism of freedom"—the right to enter the market on the same terms as men—at the total expense of the "feminism of care." The feminism of care recognizes that we are not atomized individuals; we are mothers, daughters, and neighbors who exist in a web of interdependence. When we treat our fertility as a defect to be managed by big pharma, we accept the premise that we are "defective males" who must be fixed to be productive. This has led to a war on the most fundamental human relationships. The market has moved inward, colonizing the body and the soul. We see this in the commodification of reproductive labor, where every part of the journey—from gametes to the womb itself—is now a subscription product or a market resource. This isn't liberation; it's the ultimate enclosure of the human person. The Collapse of Trust and the Rise of OnlyFans The technological shift hasn't just changed how we work; it has decimated how we love. We have moved into a phase of "Big Romance," which Harrington identifies as the self-expressive marriage. We no longer view partnership as a pragmatic, stable union for survival or child-rearing. Instead, we view it as a vector for self-actualization. If a partner stops "optimizing" our personal brand or happiness, we feel entitled to walk away. This consumerist approach to dating, fueled by the frictionless marketplace of apps, has created a tragedy of the commons in the mating market. When everyone is perpetually peering over their partner's shoulder to see if a better "product" is available, trust becomes impossible. The result is an adversarial and exploitative dynamic between the sexes. Platforms like OnlyFans represent the logical conclusion of this trajectory. We are told that commodifying the self into a subscription product is empowering, but it actually leaves both men and women in a state of profound psychic distress. It replaces vulnerability with a transaction. When we treat sex as consequence-free leisure, we ignore the deep psychological and social architecture that makes intimacy meaningful. The "freedom" to package ourselves for the market has left a generation of young people too frightened to extend the vulnerability required for real love. Reclaiming Sovereignty from the Market To move forward, we must be willing to have a "freedom haircut." We have to recognize that infinite optionality is actually a cage. For women, this means reclaiming sovereignty over our own bodies from the biomedical market. We must challenge the idea that we only access personhood if we exert mastery over the things that make us female. Solidarity between the sexes is the only way to survive a dangerous and unstable world. This requires us to move toward a "post-romantic" marriage—one based on radical loyalty and interdependence rather than fleeting consumerist satisfaction. It also means allowing men the space to form one another. Shouting at men doesn't make them better; good men are formed by other good men in shared, single-sex spaces. We need an "Occupy Ourselves" movement. We must refuse to see our bodies as fleshy Lego sets to be disassembled and sold to the highest bidder. Whether it is resisting the routine use of hormonal birth control or pushing back against the commercialization of the womb, the goal is the same: to protect the human from being entirely absorbed by the machine. Growth happens when we choose the difficult, beautiful reality of our nature over the sterile promises of the technological market. It is time to step back from the edge and remember what it means to be human. Conclusion: The Path Back to Connection The story of the last century is one of displacement, where we traded the safety of the household for the "freedom" of the assembly line and the digital app. We have gained convenience but lost the solid ground of community and the sacredness of the body. The future of personal growth lies in recognizing that our inherent strength isn't found in how well we can mimic a machine, but in how deeply we can care for one another. As we look ahead, the challenge is to build a world where technology serves the human, not the other way around. This starts with small, intentional steps: prioritizing stability over optionality, vulnerability over commodification, and the feminism of care over the hollow freedom of the market. By reclaiming our nature, we can finally find the happiness that the digital age promised but failed to deliver.