Orwell was writing about a dystopian world he envisioned, but his words perfectly describe the adherence and vociferous dominance of the “woke world” afflicting Western civilization today. I agree wholeheartedly with him, both in his analysis and in his prescience about what might transpire. Over the past century – and especially since the late 1960s – there seems to be an almost perfect correlation between the increasing independence and political involvement of women in all Western countries with the unraveling of the core nuclear family and the disintegration of Western institutions and culture. Correlation is not causation, but if the correlation is strong enough it approximates causation. What has been happening across the Western world (I cannot speak for other countries) cannot be a mere coincidence.
I also confess that this is a difficult article for me to write, especially since the title is not a misprint: I mean “feminine” and not “feminist,” although some of the more radical feminists have done, and are doing, the greatest damage. And it isn’t because I do not like women. Unlike most men who find women lovable but not likable, I do. Nor is it because writing this article may well cost me most of my female friends.
It is difficult because most of my heroes and most of those I respect today are women. And I mean real women, not men pretending to be women for their own advantage (more than a few athletes, pedophiles, and would-be or actual rapists come to mind). Or more commonly, men whose dementia leads them to think they are women and need therapy rather than acceptance. Journalists like Whitney Webb and Helen Buyniski, influencers like Harris Faulkner or Laura Ingraham and Lauren Southern, politicians such as Kristi Noem and Tulsi Gabbard, writer JK Rowling, activist Naomi Wolf, or doctors like Sherry Tenpenny need take second place to no man.
But they are a minority among women, and I expect they know it all too well. It is also painfully obvious to me that men in general today, at least throughout the West, seem to have become – well, I am not certain whether “feminized” or “emasculated” captures the male condition better. Some of this doubtless represents the genetic consequences of what I call the prolonged and bloody European Civil War (1914-1945). Some reflects the impact that became commonplace after World War II of a so-called “liberal education” which increasingly demeaned traditional male virtues and values. And some may well represent the successful application of a de facto biological targeting of white males, reputedly dropping testosterone levels by up to 50% in a few decades while increasing estrogen levels – “targeted” since whiter males seem uniquely affected.
The Playing Field Today
What I do know and do see is that for whatever reason, my impression is that there are a hell of a lot more alpha women out there today than there are alpha males. That in itself might not be inherently bad, all other things being equal. But all other things are not equal. Over the past half-century or so, as the economic independence and political participation of women have grown significantly in the West (less so elsewhere, of course), the cohesion of most Western societies has grown increasingly ragged and the nuclear family – the basic building-block of the civilization they built – has become increasingly fragmented. Essentially, while some women benefited in some ways from these changes over the past decades, all of the social indications of cohesion and stability have declined.
Many of the most outspoken proponents of contemporary feminism have been Jewish women. But the concept originated with Charles Fournier, an early 19th century French Utopian socialist, and its ideological links with socialism as well as revolutionary socialism (Marxism) are deep-rooted and strong. For that matter, other than the odd warrior woman or ruler, nothing like feminism originated anywhere else than the Christian West. Feminist inveighing against the “patriarchy” notwithstanding, I doubt that an Arab or a Japanese or an Aztec or a Zulu of the same era, for instance, would know what to make of such an odd earlier Western concept as “women and children first,” however much it might have been “honored” mostly in the breach.
Feminism has gone through three “waves” and is now in a fourth incarnation. (I have seen little indication that, except for a few of the leaders, many of the women in the early days thought of themselves as “feminists.”) Concurrent with the growth of the initial first wave of feminism, based primarily on the suffragette movement advocating women’s right to vote, were two other interrelated movements: abolitionism and the temperance movement. Black activist Sojourner Truth was emblematic of women’s role in abolitionism with her now-famous cri de coeur “Ain’t I a woman?”
The Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), whose stated aim was prohibiting the manufacture, distribution, sale, and (presumably) consumption of alcohol throughout the United States, was primarily female-led. The WCTU got their wish in 1919 with the ratification of the 18th Amendment, heralded by a battle-cry of “Lips that touch alcohol will never tough mine.” Men (or enough of them) came along the following year and added to Prohibition the 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote (and implicitly to hold political office).
A darker side to the women’s movement during the first wave appeared and would be repeated later. Within a year of passing the 18th Amendment, it quickly became apparent that it was backfiring, to say the least. As the 1920s unfolded, growing numbers of Americans rejected the concept. Evading the law became something of a pastime. Worse, doing so gave America for the first time a growing organized crime network which began with the importation and sales of illegal alcoholic beverages. Illicit activities such as gambling and prostitution quickly spread as well.
Faced with failure, women who had fought for both Prohibition and women’s suffrage sought to keep Prohibition in place. (I wonder, did they fear that admitting failure with Prohibition might cost them the vote?) Their opposition coupled with influence over some men kept Prohibition in place until it was finally repealed in 1933 – long after its failure was manifest, and more than long enough for the organized crime it spawned to become embedded in our society, with consequences we live with today.
The second wave of feminism began in the 1960s gained renewed impetus from the civil rights movement and the antiwar movement. It continued into the early 1990s with groups such as the National Organization of Women (NOW) which lobbied for greater equality, the “rights of women,” and an end to sexism. The third wave of feminism appeared around the mid-1990s and was steeped in postmodernism and political identity. Third wave “grrls” embraced more “post-feminist,” ambiguous, personally empowered definitions of gender and sexuality. The fourth wave of feminism began around 2012 and returned to a strong advocacy against sexual abuse and sexual harassment as exemplified by the #MeToo movement. There is also a focus on “intersectionality” (the ways in which different discriminations such as race, class, or gender intersect to form new dynamics of oppression) as well as transgender identities such as “nonbinary.”
What matters to me is how these latter three waves differed from the original first wave of the suffragettes:
- The leadership was increasingly dominated by Jewish women, many of them cultural Marxists (i.e., adherents of identity politics), joined by equally radical black women;
- Their goals extended beyond the betterment of women into issues and institutions affecting society (e.g., transgenderism) and even its foreign policies; and
- Their long-term objective – known but largely concealed even in the late 1960s – was nothing less than the destruction of the nuclear family, which as the basic building-block of Western societies meant the destruction of those societies themselves.
Focus on White (European) Women
Since the feminists themselves were generally part of the Western world, it might not be surprising that they focused their attention there. Yet considering that the real goal of the cultural Marxists was undermining Western civilization and the societies comprising it, why did women generally – and white women in particular – go along with it? Four reasons stand out:
- While some women are coldly rational and some men flighty romantics, that isn’t the way to bet, at least in the West. Overall, women – especially young women – in my long experience are generally far more emotional than most men, and (for whatever reason) far more susceptible to ads and fashions and fads than are men in general. So they are a more vulnerable target. Men know this. So do the managers of the Jewish-dominated advertising conglomerates and the Jewish-dominated entertainment industry. And so do the leading feminists and other cultural Marxists.
- Women everywhere are the carriers of the future of their race. Mate a white man with anything except a white woman, and you get something other than a white offspring. Same with white women, of course. But if one focuses on persuading white women that they should mate with black or brown men, you get fewer whites. (Note that the weight of media social pressure and advertising isn’t on white women mating with white or Asian men). The resulting mixed white/black and white/brown offspring are generally and measurably less intelligent – and therefore more malleable – than any combination of whites and Asians, especially East Asians, As the classic “The Bell Curve” makes abundantly clear. This facilitates control.
- Where women – especially young women – go, men – especially young men – will largely follow. This was the experience (with some bumpy times, of course!) of the WCTU, many of the radical groups of the 1960s and 1970s, and the whole “woke” movement today. But the reverse does NOT hold. So in terms of maximizing support and minimizing opposition from white men who are the primary opponent of this shit-storm, co-opting the white women neutralizes and may gain grudging support from white men. This is what has happened from the first wave of feminism on.
- Breaking the traditional bonds between mother and child on the one hand, and man and woman – husband and wife – on the other, fragments the traditional nuclear family. In this way, the cultural Marxists expected to undermine Western civilization and Eurocentric culture by destroying the core foundation stones of both. They are succeeding, and empowering women is the lever they have used.
There are serious and fundamental differences. There have been, and are, some women everywhere who are ruthless predators or outright mercenaries, but women generally appear to me to be capable of greater genuine love than most men – not just love for their children, but for their partners as well. Historically, however, they do not show the same sense for abstractions. A favorite folk song of mine from decades ago accurately went, “Men are born to die in honor, women born to stay alive.” And so it went.
Yet to govern well in peacetime and to lead well in wartime absolutely requires an understanding of such abstractions as “duty, honor, country.” The more men have become feminized and the more women have become the leaders, the less those abstractions have mattered to most, and the worse the governance and leadership have become. Many Western governments have female defense ministers overseeing their armed forces, none of whom has any military experience – and it shows even worse than with men in similar positions who lack military experience. The same goes for the United States in so many ways.
Women are also far more capable than most men of deliberate or unthinking cruelty. It is not mere coincidence that from Celts to Chinese to Comanche (to name but a few), their women were the ones who butchered, wounded, and tortured enemy prisoners (though to be fair, there have been cultures where the men were equally enthusiastic). Men as providers and protectors, women to cherish and nurture children and partners – this has been the bedrock to the civilization we have built.
Is it any wonder that those who hate us and who wish to bring our civilization down in ruins turned first to breaking apart the traditional roles and bonds of men and women, and then to turning women against their men and their children? How else could they “win” and create a “new normal” predicated on pedophilia and perversions that would have appalled the city fathers of Sodom? I would think – no, hope – that traditionalists of even 60-odd years ago would have nailed these creatures to the doors of outhouses or burned them at public stakes, and been certain that the cleansing was well worth any cost.
Internal Contradictions, But Also…?
On the one hand, it ought not to be surprising that women – feminist or not – working in a man’s world did not do as expected, as one female scholar noted. Opening that world to women was predicated not just on equality of opportunity, but of equality of outcome – what the woke Left today calls “equity.” But throughout time, in so many different ways and in so many different places, women expected deference, preference, and protection when and as needed, or when they could not succeed without one or all of those things.
But in many areas, especially the armed forces and the emergency services, deference, preference, and protection was needed, especially where physical strength and endurance are required. For decades, the premise that massive failure of women in any such physically demanding field was politically unacceptable, meant that anything women could not do (or do well) was either made optional, changed to a simple pass-fail outcome, or eliminated. This may be one reason why modern feminists – indeed, large numbers of younger women – make common cause with so many black movements such as BLM. To achieve racial equity requires the same sort of changes for blacks as they do for women, just in different ways. For women, the changes were largely physical, for blacks largely intellectual. But changes were required for both to “succeed” in numbers.
This is not theoretical. When I taught at West Point as a visiting civilian professor in 1978-79, it was the third year in which women at been admitted at the service academies. Already the atmosphere was less military and more collegiate. Yet the Army realized the first year that expecting women to meet the same physical standards as the men meant that most of the women would fail. This being politically unacceptable, the Army set two physical fitness tests, one for women and one for men, with different levels of achievement based on effort. The Army also discarded the GOM (General Order of Merit), which it had had since its inception, understanding that it could not in fairness rank men and women together when their requirements were different.
More recently, the Marine Corps had been ordered to integrate women into its ground combat arms. The problem was that most women could not pass the physical fitness tests for those fields, especially the Infantry Officers Course. So tests women could not pass or do well were eventually made pass-fail, optional, or simply discarded. And so it went, creating a facade of achievement beneath a reality of underachievement.
Similar “adjustments,” fueled largely by the growing number of women – many cultural Marxists – in administrative positions throughout the educational establishment, drove changes in curricula, entrance requirements, and testing. There, however, there wasn’t even a pretense of making such changes on behalf of women. Instead, the emphasis was making “adjustments” for blacks (and to a lesser extent, Hispanics), presumably to compensate for the legacy of a system of slavery that had ended about six generations before they were born.
There was also a growing, actively racist bias against whites and by indirect extension Asians (presumably “honorary whites” because they succeeded even better than whites) under the rubric of “Critical Race Theory” (CRT). Not surprisingly, the two major teachers’ unions, largely under the leadership of Jewish and black cultural Marxists, took the lead in pushing this agenda at all levels.
Entrance tests too difficult for blacks? Give them extra points for being black, or scrap the tests altogether. Grading difficult? Stop grading them. Diagramming sentences and learning cursive writing a challenge? Eliminate them from the curriculum. And so on and so forth, achieving the overt goal of getting more blacks and Hispanics into various institutions and subsequent positions, but failing to actually help them learn anything, or become better citizens. When that was extended to transgenders claiming to be women, the rights and safety of biological women and girls went out the window. Then the homosexual males and radical feminists increasingly dominating the educational establishment (including school boards), as well as state and local governments, gave all their concern to a handful of self-seeking predators or neurotics pretending to be women, and none at all to actual women and girls. (See You Will Regret It!” NCAA Swimmer Breaks Her Silence)
This would be bad enough, but none of this accounts entirely for the sharp leftward surge from women or their increasing predisposition towards violence – even to their own children, both far in excess of young men of their generation. (For those men, the principal problem seems to be spinelessness.) In the 2022 midterms, one demographic overwhelming favored the Democrats with all their appalling policies: unmarried women by 7 to 3. (It was estimated that college-age unmarried women further split 8 to 2 for the Democrats.) And that is absolutely certain to be higher in the next generation, given who runs most schools and what they and young mothers are inflicting on the children. White women are the principal support group of BLM, the principal censors on and off campus, and true to Orwell’s opening dictum, the most reliable supporters of the entire “woke” sewer.
This carries over into the professions. Men are not blameless, by any means. But women – especially young white women – are the principal purveyors of gossip as news, left-wing tropes, fantasy masquerading as reality, and the like. This has impacted every profession, especially academe, law and the courts, and the armed services as well as government. The majority of younger women defend transgenders, even against the interests of biological women and girls – surely an exceptional expression of self-hatred and self-abuse if ever there was one.
They are also the most enthusiastic supporters of genital mutilation of children – even their own children – in the so-called “gender affirming” procedure. And while male violence against children has been declining, female violence has been on the rise. Fathers are noticeable for their virtual absence – any video or picture of crowds supporting, for example, drag queen shows for small children will note the preponderance of enthusiastic mothers.
What Have Women Wrought in the Modern West?
So is the world of politics today any better at any level in the West with women having the vote and serving widely in elected and appointive office? Not in the slightest. The effort over the past decades to force women into roles in formerly masculine occupations (e.g., soldiers, police) is essentially an effort to undermine masculinity, and thus bring down one of the pillars of Western civilization.
Paralleling that effort has been one to persuade women to reject the key principles of motherhood by embracing abortion up to and including live birth; transgenderism, including the genital mutilation of their own children; and exposing young children to pedophiles in a wide range of situations. The effort has succeeded all too well with women. As expected – perhaps I should say as planned? – the women have brought the men of their generations along with them.
The reason for the disruption in our culture, the decline in the West generally, and the U.S. in particular, is painfully obvious. It is a combination over the past 60-odd years of the growing feminization of politics, journalism, law, higher education and the security forces (military and police alike), concurrent with the de-masculization of men – especially straight white men who have become the Left’s all-time favorite object of ridicule and scorn. This combination has made hissy-fits and perpetual outrage standard fare in newsrooms and campuses alike – and has made us all but incapable of stemming the “woke” tide of disaster that threatens to engulf us.
If We Survive
It isn’t all dismal darkness, of course. There is a solid core of older women and seasoned politicians who are entirely sensible. (See Democrats Official Hatred Of Women) There are also younger females, single and married alike, who understand what is happening and are speaking out against it. (See Civic Nationalism and Why Women Created Their Own False Sense Of Reality)
But on balance, the more radical young women have the numbers now. The trends portend an increase in those numbers, and most importantly, the initiative is on their side. In fact, to reiterate Orwell’s dictum because its importance cannot be overstated, women – especially younger women – have flocked in droves to the insanities (because there are more than one) of the “woke world” and its politics. To no one’s surprise, they mostly brought their men along with them. Why this is happening is important, but less so than the empirical fact that it has happened and will continue to happen, barring some significant change in our state of affairs.
We must be honest with ourselves. Even if elections mattered any more (and I do not believe they do), the large and growing numbers of Left-leaning “woke” young women portend a dystopia that will be grim even by the standards of Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm. Of course, to the cultural Marxists who will discard black street fighters as easily and as carelessly as they did biological women and girls once they had served their purpose, it isn’t dystopia at all. It may not be their version of heaven, but it will be victory and vindication.
One thing is certain. If we do manage to survive, we must never let women acquire the economic and political power to create dystopian circumstances again because if they do have that opportunity, they will do so. Some of those who would use young women as tools are still out there and will remain out there with the same goals. We have seen clearly, for instance, how “women’s rights” were bandied about with great acclaim until the “cultural Marxists” no longer needed them and had moved on to other issues on their revolutionary agenda – at which point women’s rights went on the trash heap of history.
Never again can we afford to make changes giving women greater opportunities without first and foremost looking carefully and critically at the implications of those changes for the institutions affected , and for the society as a whol e. There are many places and professions where qualified women can and will excel. But politics, law, higher education, the armed forces (except for health services) and police (again except for some dealing with women and children), and especially the government at any level must be closed to them – and kept closed.
This is not mere misogyny or sexism, which if real are truly abominable and self-defeating. It is the bitter lesson of more than half a century of experience that brought our country, culture, and Western civilization itself to the edge of ruin. The radical, cultural Marxist feminists succeeded (if that is the word to use) in replacing the feminine mystique with a feminist monster whose mortal danger to everything that was good about the West is all too real. That they did it as part of an overall Zionist undertaking, being no more than puppets in many instances, makes it no less real.
Acting on this experience and this knowledge to keep it from resurfacing will be painful, and will disadvantage some truly gifted and patriotic women, and I know it. But we cannot allow the stellar qualities of a few to give access to the demonstrated irrationality and gullibility of the many. Our survival as a civilization depends on it.
Alan Ned Sabrosky (PhD, University of Michigan) is a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran. He served in Vietnam with the 1st Marine Division and is a graduate of the US Army War College.