Feminists abandon their winning strategy

Summary: Feminists have won many victories in the past century by marching under the banners of freedom and equality, giving them the moral high ground. Now they have abandoned those principles, beginning a new and hotter phase in the gender wars. This is a follow-up to William Lind’s article about Losing at the Moral/Strategic Level.

“Never play with insurrection, but when beginning it realise firmly that you must go all the way.”
— Advice from Lenin to aspiring revolutionaries.

Women Winners - dreamstime_45817549
ID 45817549 © Mbolina | Dreamstime.

As documented in so many posts here, feminism has triumphed to an extent undreamed of by its advocates 50 years ago. This ideology has conquered most of the major institutions in America, and strongly influences most of the remained (e.g., the military, conservative Christian churches). They are in the last phase, pursuit and destruction of a fleeing foe. Their revolutionary series of victories result from following the advice of the master strategist in such things: Lenin in “Advice of an Onlooker” (8 October 1917).

  1. “Never play with insurrection, but when beginning it realise firmly that you must go all the way.
  2. “Concentrate a great superiority of forces at the decisive point and at the decisive moment, otherwise the enemy, who has the advantage of better preparation and organisation, will destroy the insurgents.
  3. “Once the insurrection has begun, you must act with the greatest determination, and by all means, without fail, take the of offensive. “The defensive is the death of every armed rising.”
  4. “You must try to take the enemy by surprise and seize the moment when his forces are scattered.
  5. “You must strive for daily successes, however small (one might say hourly, if it is the case of one town), and at all costs retain ‘moral superiority’.”

Holding the moral high ground has contributed to many of America’s greatest victories. It weakened the resolve of the British in the Revolution, and prevented them from aiding the South during the Civil War. It empowered us during WWI and WWII.

There are winners at chess.

Feminists also have followed the precepts of the late, great strategist John Boyd given in “Patterns of Conflict

“{I}nfiltrate a nation or regime at all levels to soften and shatter the moral fiber of the political, economic and social structure. Simultaneously …strip-away potential allies thereby isolate intended victim(s) for forthcoming blows. To carry out this program, a la Sun Tzu …

“– Probe and test adversary, and any allies that may rally to his side, in order to unmask strengths, weaknesses, maneuvers, and intentions.

“– Exploit critical differences of opinion, internal contradictions, frictions, obsessions, etc., in order to foment mistrust, sow discord and shape both adversary’s and allies’ perception of the world thereby: create atmosphere of ‘mental confusion, contradiction of feeling, indecisiveness, panic’ …Make it difficult, if not impossible, for allies to aid adversary during his time of trial.” (Chart 69)

But Cleo, the muse of history, has a long list of those who won battlefield victories who lost their wars. The British vs. the colonists in North America (1775-1783), the Americans in Vietnam (1965-1972), the Nazis in Europe (1939-1945), and Americans in the Long War (2001-today). America’s two entries on this list have the special distinction of always winning on the battlefield but failing to win the war.

Colonel Harry G. Summers, Jr. (Chief of the U.S. Delegation): “You know you never defeated us on the battlefield”

Colonel Nguyen Don Tu (Chief, North Vietnamese Delegation): ”That may be so, but it is also irrelevant.”

— From Summers’ On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War (1982).

A new phase in the gender wars

What might defeat the onrush of fourth generation feminism, with its emphasis on the superiority of women, crushing of boys, mob tribunals (“always believe the woman’s accusations, no matter how unfounded – unless they are against Bill”), and breaking gender roles? Answer: feminists no longer follow Lenin’s rule #5 – “at all costs retain moral superiority.” William Lind described how losing at the moral/strategic level has led to repeated failures for America’s foreign policy. That might be the fate of feminism.

The first three waves of feminism advanced under the flags of equality and freedom, the two trumps in American history. Votes for women! Free love – free from patriarchal limits (a movement continuing today against “slut-shaming”). Freedom from their marriage vows. Equal opportunities for education and employment.

But over time the Movement’s goals have shifted. Equal access to education evolved into oppressing boys, so that girls have moved decisively ahead. Free love – spontaneous, unregulated – evolved into a regulated process requiring verbal consent at every step plus forms and apps. Regulations on what men say and look at and decorate their spaces (the environment must be regulated to be female-friendly, no matter how intense the regulations required).

Now the Movement has entered a new era. Feminists push to change millennia-old rules of justice, such as presumption of innocence. Major institutions are explicitly biased against men, such as family courts, much of the major media, universities, and an increasing number of other organizations.

New vistas lie ahead for fourth generation feminists. Professor Suzanna Walters asks “Why can’t we hate men?” “Culture critic” Wednesday Martin advocates the next step in having it all is using sex as a weapon: “What if women went on a sex strike before the midterms?” Such a strike would force “making sex female-focused and female-pleasure-centric. …cease to consider what women like and want as foreplay and reframe it as the main event.” This will “begin to force other shifts in thinking in important ways.” That last sentence is certainly true, but probably not as she intends.

Feminism has advanced due to its broad support among men. Now men are – slowly – realizing that the meaning of feminism has changed. Feminists no longer march under banners that compel their support. Feminists have abandoned the moral high ground, instead pursing naked self-interest. I cannot see how this will influence the future. But I predict it will have a large effect. This is the next phase of the gender wars. Expect the unexpected.

My prediction: look for a surprise end to the gender wars as men stand together.

For More Information

Ideas! For some shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about women & society, and especially these about feminists’ victory…

  1. Feminist revolutionaries seized control of colleges. Now come the tribunals…
  2. Professor Suzanna Walters asks “Why can’t we hate men?”
  3. Feminists conquer the Evangelicals.
  4. Feminists are winning the the war on boys.
  5. Women unleash their rage! Beta males revolt!.
  6. Red Robin recruits for the alt-Right (unintentionally).
  7. Christian films show the feminist revolution’s victory.

New books about women’s righteous grrl-power rage

Rage Becomes Her: The Power of Women’s Anger by Soraya Chemaly (September 2018). She her on NBC News explaining “why we need to rethink the way we think about women’s anger, and how we can use it for social good.”

Good and Mad: The Revolutionary Power of Women’s Anger by Rebecca Traiste (October 2018). See an interview with her at The Nation and “Women Are Furious. Now What?” – a review of her book in The Atlantic.

Rage Becomes Her: The Power of Women's Anger
Available at Amazon.
Good and Mad: The Revolutionary Power of Women's Anger
Available at Amazon.

6 thoughts on “Feminists abandon their winning strategy”

  1. Larry Kummer, Editor

    An important article about America’s changing family structure

    The article has lots of hand-waving about causes, but it states the facts far more clearly than most articles about the evolution of America’s family structure. But the article buries the lede, with the big conclusion in the last paragraph (giving a different message than the bulk of the article).

    The Not-So-Great Reason Divorce Rates Are Declining” by Joe Pinsker at The Atlantic — “What’s changed isn’t marriage, but the types of people who are likeliest to get married.”

    “In the past 10 years, the percentage of American marriages that end in divorce has fallen, and in a new paper, the University of Maryland sociologist Philip Cohen quantified the drop-off: Between 2008 and 2016, the divorce rate declined by 18% overall.

    “After accounting for the rising average age of married Americans and other demographic shifts during that time, Cohen found “a less steep decline – 8% – but the pattern is the same.” That is, the divorce rate in 2016 was still lower than one would have predicted if the demographics of married people were the same then as in 2008.

    “When I asked Andrew Cherlin, a sociology professor at Johns Hopkins University, how to make sense of this trend, he opened his explanation with something of a koan: “In order to get divorced,” he said, “you have to get married first.”

    “So, looking at married couples alone doesn’t capture the true nature of American partnerships today. “If you were to include cohabiting relationships [in addition to marriages], the breakup rates for young adults have probably not been going down,” Cherlin says. In other words: Yes, divorce rates are declining. But that’s more a reflection of who’s getting married than of the stability of any given American couple.”

    Prof Cherlin’s conclusion is probably false. Break-up rates among cohabitating couples are much higher than divorce rates. So young people cohabitating instead of marrying will increase break-up rates.

    But that experts at least see the trend is progress, even if they don’t yet see its obvious effects.

  2. My guess would be for the next twenty years that marriage rates will continue to fall generally, disproportionally more wealthy will be married and home owners, disproportionally more uneducated, but employable will be cohabiting and renting in a life of serial monogamy. The less educated and less employable will make up a large proportion of the single never marriage rarley partnered mothers and the uneducated males will make up an increasing number of the never married rarely partnered single renters.

    Religious, military and other more traditional thinkers in pre-dominantly rural areas will buck this trend, but follow it in general terms ie more Officers married than enlisted men, more NCOs in serial monogamy than Officers and career privates generally less likely to be in longer term relationships, but paying for children they fathered outside any serious relationship.

    It would be interesting to see if marriage was universal before say 1850 or 1900 and whether we are really following an older trend. I did once see a birth record at a local church from the 1680’s when a student, the thing that struck be was over 50% were recorded as bastards. Indeed my parents called William the Conqueror (1066 UK), William the Bastard as they were taught at school, which he was called in history books until the 1940 or 50’s, as he was born out of wedlock.

    I think 50% + out of wedlock is not unlikely in the future, the classic married wealthy couple with servants that are unmarried, as they can’t afford to be in Fairy Tale and classic stories has not changed that much. Now they don’t work in domestic service directly in the house, they work outside in fast food, dry cleaning, gardening, driving and so on, but effectively doing the same work as a servants did. The rich now own the rental houses and the poor rent the houses, provide the services and live like their great grandparent in service did.

  3. Here is another example of what you describe in the post: “What if women went on a sex strike before the midterms?” by Wednesday Martin at CNN. It is an argument against the very idea of marriage, although she does not call it that.

    “I snapped to attention the first time I heard the term service sex.’ I heard it in 2017, from a researcher at an annual sex researchers’ conference in Montreal. This expert was describing straight women who were distressed because they didn’t feel desire for their husbands or long-term partners. Wanting to keep their men happy, these women often had sex anyway, with a resigned attitude and little thought to their own pleasure.

    “The mere existence of the term “service sex” suggests it is common enough to need a name. Several therapists I interviewed while researching “UNTRUE,” a book about female sexuality, told me that in their experience it was a common problem for couples, with women more likely to be the ones providing service with less than a smile. Yet many straight women in long term relationships may think service sex is as natural as the air we breathe — horny husbands and disinterested wives are a recurring, nearly inescapable trope in pop culture and since Darwin, science is rife with studies about ardent males and reluctant females.

    “It’s easy to argue ‘service sex’ is just a fancy term for being a good wife or girlfriend. The problem with this belief is that it equates female goodness with sacrificing one’s sexual pleasure for someone else’s. …

    It’s time for a revolution. At the polls, and in the bedroom. And in our understanding of who women are, sexually and otherwise. Given the tight interweaving of economic and political power with sexual entitlement, female sexual autonomy has never been more urgent, and women’s sexual pleasure has never been more political. Let’s consider what it might mean to go on a sex strike of sorts — to get what we want, rather than give what we think we owe others. …”

    Editor’s note: CNN describes Wednesday Martin as a “cultural critic”, and author of UNTRUE: Why Nearly Everything We Believe About Women, Lust, and Infidelity Is Wrong and How the New Science Can Set Us Free, Stepmonster, and Primates of Park Avenue.

      1. Larry Kummer, Editor


        Women in the paid workforce is a prerequisite to third and fourth wave feminism.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      Thanks for pointing to that great article! Like most feminists, Wednesday Martin does not ask — I doubt it even occurs to her — what women are bringing to marriage that makes it attractive to men. Like most feminists, she sees the only possible response to their demands to be compliance by men. She and her fellow girls have been correct so far. I frame this as the gender wars because I believe that will no longer be so in the future.

      Also – I added a full cite to your comment, plus an excerpt from her article, to get it more attention. I added a pointer to this in the post.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top
%d bloggers like this: