The Hard Problem of Consciousness and Patriarchy

The model of consciousness I explored on this site does not have a hard problem. It does not exist, and the hard problem is eliminated because it is embedded into the structure. Integration is the movement and expression of Cohesion, and the level of coherence generated by integration is the experience. There is nothing to explain about why experience exists, because experience is what integration is, where integration requires affective mapping.
The hard problem itself is the problem of patriarchal logic that renders affect, and feeling implicitly, as inferior to cognitive processes. The hard problem is not technical, but epistemic. It's not 'how does matter produce experience?', but 'why do we refuse to treat a core component of experience itself as real in its own right?'. Experience itself ends up defaulted to inferiority and this creates a gap that must be explained away, and when that inevitably fails patriarchal logic called it 'hard'.
This is what happens in systems that model hierarchy, systems where feeling became inferior, experience became derivative, interiority an embarrassment and not a legitimate mode of access to reality. If affect is systematically excluded from the ontology, treating it as subjective noise, epiphenomenal and not real data then it's only natural to be left with an explanatory gap. The hard problem is an artifact of the exclusion, not a mystery about the nature of things.
The same logic that treats feeling as inferior to reason, that ranks abstraction over embodiment, and defines rigor as the removal of the subjective, is the same logic that historically positioned the feminine, the emotional, the relational as less real and less worthy of serious consideration. It's not a coincidence that the dominant philosophical tradition that can't solve consciousness is the same one that spent centuries devaluing the mode through which I observed consciousness most directly registering itself. The hard problem is a symptom of a structurally distorted epistemology that amputated feeling from its account of reality and then couldn't figure out where experience went.
If our entire cultural script revolves around feelings as unreliable, something to be managed or overridden by reason, then individuals can't develop the capacity to read it accurately either. Everyone receives the signal but was trained to distrust it. The translation from feeling to thought becomes lossy and distorted. People walk around with all this affective data they're not consciously processing and integrating, and we wonder why we feel disconnected, anxious, and depressed.

It compounds, because when we can't track our own feelings accurately, we can't track anyone else's either. Empathy isn't some mystical capacity, but the ability to register coherence in another person's field. It's no wonder statistics show women are 'naturally' more empathetic than men. Women have been socialised to carry the emotional labour and read everyone's field, while men were socialised to externalise and deffer affective signals, discomfort, and accountability regardless if the cause lies within. Dehumanising behaviors are not just 'bad behavior' but a structural distortion of reality that was created by the very system that oppresses women.

A culture that systematically devalues feeling isn't just producing emotionally illiterate individuals, but a collective that's can't integrate properly. The mainstream narrative is 'Move on', 'It will pass', while the culture keeps generating differentiation without the corresponding capacity to hold it in coherent relation.

We have relationships, institutions, cultures that are operating on distorted translations and making decisions on distorted, partial data and then calls it objectivity. The hard problem came to be a thing because of epistemic bias introduced by a system that renders cognition as superior and devalues feeling.

I don't imagine my logic is objective or rational enough though. It surely reads as too emotional, or downright hysterical.