Summary: The fourth wave of feminism is a quest for superiority (abandoning equality), and they are getting it. Barrack Obama is the latest to tell us so. The future of America might not be female. It might be the struggle for power between men and women. That won’t end well for either – or for America.
“I’m sorry for being a man.”
— David Cunliffe, leader of New Zealand’s Labour Party, speaking at a Women’s Refuge symposium on 14 July 2014.
History is marked by milestones. Like signs on the road, they have no intrinsic significance except to signal change. Such as this statement by Barack Obama – two-term President, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, best president of this era (per 44% of Americans), rated the twelfth best US President in C-Span’s 2017 survey of historians. He tells us that sexism is respectable again!
“Now women, I just want you to know; you are not perfect, but what I can say pretty indisputably is that you’re better than us [men]. I’m absolutely confident that for two years if every nation on earth was run by women, you would see a significant improvement across the board on just about everything …living standards and outcomes.” (Reported by the BBC.}
This is what victory by feminists looks like. It has become commonplace to hear men’s speeches in which they proudly say that they are inferior to their wives. But now women, as a group, are better. Many are not shy about saying so. In 2010 Hanna Rosin wrote “The End of Men” in The Atlantic, expanded into a book: The End of Men: And the Rise of Women. Other similar articles and books are listed at the end of this post. This is not just ideology, but reality in some ways. For a decade I have written about the coming gender role reversal bringing women on top of men (links here). Now it is obvious to all who care to see.
It’s not just that women are doing better (that’s a good thing), but that the absolute condition of men is deteriorating. Not by accident. Our society works diligently to crush boys, as described in The Boy Crisis: Why Our Boys Are Struggling and What We Can Do About It by Warren Farrell and John Gray (2018). They describe how this is done and the sad consequences. I (and others) have also been documenting this (e.g., here and here). The British news media (less PC, more competitive than those in the US) publish stories such as “Boys left to fail at school because attempts to help them earn wrath of feminists, says ex-Ucas chief” by Camila Turner in The Telegraph (2018). See posts about the war on boys.
It’s the fourth wave!
This did not “just happen.” This results from the evolution of third-wave feminism – the quest for full equality in every aspect of society – to fourth-wave feminism: the quest for superiority. It is a naked reach for power, proving successful on all fronts. To mention a few …
- In the Kavanaugh hearings, we were told that unsupported testimony by a woman was more authoritative than a man’s (despite the many false accusations by women). Women claimed to be human lie detectors, able to determine if testimony was “credible” (vast research shows that even trained law enforcement officers cannot do this).
- The kangaroo courts on universities in which men have few rights, not even for basic due process. See a feminist’s observations of these tribunals.
- Employment fields dominated by women are AOK, but any dominated by men are obviously crimes-in-progress.
- Women are pulling ahead of men in almost every metric, aided by a vast array of special programs and government incentives.
It takes time for this trend to fully reshape society (e.g., for women to largely replace men at the top of institutions), but that seems inevitable – if for no other reason, due to their greater numbers with undergraduate and graduate degrees. As the evidence became definitive in the past few years, I have begun documenting this. See some of the evidence in “Women are winning the gender wars” and “Women are driving America into the future.”
A test for sexism used by third-wave feminists works well to detect fourth-wave feminism. Reverse the genders. If it sounds sexist against men, it is 4th Wave. Say “men are better than women.” Reversing the genders does not make that statement less bigoted. Ditto for “the future is female” (see the history of this slogan).
Consequences of exchanging bigotry for equality
“Sooner or later, everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences.”
— Attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson.
A driver of US political evolution for a century has been the quest for broader equality. Technology and social change have given women opportunities unknown in human history. Leftists have used this as an opportunity to transform this trend into a social revolution, a radical redefinition of gender roles – one with no precedents in history. Affecting core dynamics of society, it will probably be the most daring social engineering experiment, ever. It might have run smoothly under the banner of equality. Instead, the Left is burning that banner, trashing generations of progress and liberals’ dreams by making sexism respectable again.
As a result, we might see increasing conflict between men and women – both as individuals and as groups. Fourth-wave feminists cannot make pro-women bigotry legitimate without men pushing back. It would be illogical, even folly, for men not to respond in kind. Game theory shows that “tit for tat” is often the most effect strategy.
The resulting struggle, perhaps leading to chaos, is a unique event and so impossible predict in any useful way. It will be a highlight in future history books. But I doubt if this will end well for men or women or America. Radical experiments seldom end well. Restoring equality as our goal might take generations to achieve. It might prove impossible.
For More Information
Sexism has gone mainstream. Here is a sampler; it could easily be 10x longer.
- “Why Women Are the Superior Gender” by Clifford N Lazarus in Psychology Today (2011) – “In a Battle of the Sexes, Bet on the Women!”
- “Superiority of Female Workers Confirmed: Study Finds Women Really Do Work Longer And Harder Than Men” by Elise Ackerman in Forbes (2013) – Findings of this study by the Ponemon Institute. Work the data until it confesses.
- “Why Women Are The Stronger Sex According To Science” in the Huffington Post (2014) – Much of this is snark and gibberish, the rest is carefully cherry-picked.
- “A Better World, Run by Women” in the Wall Street Journal (2015) – “Male biology has brought the world war, corruption and scandal. Women are poised to lead us to a better place.” Very PC.
Ideas! For holiday shopping ideas see my recommended books and films at Amazon. Also, see a story about our future: “Ultra Violence: Tales from Venus.”
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about Women, society, and the gender wars, about fourth-wave feminism, and especially these…
- Is a return to traditional values possible?
- The patriarchy built this city and will return after it dies — an article by Phillip Longman in Foreign Policy.
- Women unleash their rage! Beta males revolt!
- Bad results of #MeToo appear, surprising only feminists. – Men adopt defensive tactics with women at work.
- Why are men going Galt? They say “no” to the rat race & marriage!
- A bull elk teaches men about toxic masculinity.
Books about the rise of women
The Natural Superiority of Women by Ashley Montagu (1952).
Why Women Should Rule the World by Dee Dee Myers (2008).
The End of Men and the Rise of Women by Hanna Rosin (2012).
Women After All: Sex, Evolution, and the End of Male Supremacy (2015).
Good and Mad: The Revolutionary Power of Women’s Anger by Rebecca Traister (2018).
Rage Becomes Her: The Power of Women’s Anger by Soraya Chemaly (2019).
Why Don′t Women Rule the World?: Understanding Women′s Civic and Political Choices by J. Cherie Strachan et al. (2019).
33 thoughts on “Feminists now seek supremacy. They’re winning.”
I don’t think such ideas resonate with Islam. Although Saudi Arabia is extreme even for islam. Success will be when Islam accepts the message that women are better than men. I’d hazard a bet that it’s along way off.
But even in the West resistance will occur.
“Success will be when Islam accepts the message that women are better than men.”
If fourth-wave feminism is a success in the US, I do not care what happens in Saudi Arabia.
You WILL care.
If we become a matriarchy, some other patriarchy is going to come over here and fuck us into submission. Who do you think that might be?
“some other patriarchy is going to come over here and fuck us into submission.”
While I admire your imagination, that seems unlikely. We have nukes. Nobody is invading us.
Also, women can do almost every job in the military as well – or almost so. They can fly bombers and drop bombs. Launch missiles. Fly fighters. Run ships and submarines. Drive tanks and fire its weapons.
Change tank treads, hump 100 pounds 20 miles per day, pull 200 pound shipmate up stairwell. Some things women do well including many combat specialties, others not.
Please re-read what I said.
My opinion. Making the female dominance urge—a natural part of the female psychology–possible have been the birth control pill, legalization of abortion have all led to a huge increase in working women along with control in households.
These developments are opposed to natural law. Ultimately, the female insurgency will fail as women lack the ability to win wars due to poor judgement, lack of physical strength and excessive subjectivity and emotionalism. However, the near and mid-term future will be most divisive and bad for Western civilization as many men do not assert themselves and simply go along for what they see as a good deal by forsaking their responsibility to take charge.
Disagree with the war part, most great female leaders had their white knights and thousands of male cannon fodder. The rest I agree with. Equality, equity, whatever doesn’t exist. Like the Islamist Turkish president erdogan said of democracy, it’s a train and you get off when you can. For all “minority” groups, you claim to only want tolerance and equality until you have enough money and power to dominate. Never give up any”privilege” you have because you will be crushed in kind and so will your sons.
What does this mean? “For all “minority” groups, you claim to only want tolerance and equality until you have enough money and power to dominate. Never give up any”privilege” you have because you will be crushed in kind and so will your sons.”
In a sense, it’s a strategy of conflict. I agree somewhat with the post-modernists that life has a zero-sum game element to it. If you have more, I have less. If you are in a position of weakness, you hide your tactics, you appeal to better natures and emotional arguments, you move the goalposts slowly. If equality under law is a suitable goal at one time so be it. However, your ultimate goal is to dominate your perceived opponent. Feminists want to dominate the laws of society and appeal to men to become “allies” and check your privilege in order for men to give up power, position and wealth, but why? Feminists want what they see powerful men have and reject all appeal to equality in family law and education because they achieved their goal of dominance.
“Ultimately, the female insurgency will fail as women lack the ability to win wars due to poor judgement, lack of physical strength and excessive subjectivity and emotionalism.”
I don’t understand. What wars?
Also, you are conflating leading wars with fighting them. History has many women who led successful wars – such as Queen Elizabeth in the past, and in the modern era Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, and Margaret Thatcher. As for fighting modern wars, only a small fraction of jobs require physical strength beyond that of the average woman.
The war on men to begin with. In general, any war. Where are the women chess champions, entrepreneurs, great engineers, etc. In general, one on one no woman can beat a man.
First off, I have read and loved this site for years.
But in regards to women being able to do most of the jobs men do, I largely disagree. Although you and I are on the same page for much of this in regards to technology’s ability to equip the female warfighter to do many of the same jobs. They are not the best at it.
In the Navy, you must be able to “shore up” a space if the ship suffers damage. Incoming wars, despite being over the horizon battles, will face cataclysmic damage to their hulls. Women cannot all “man the radios” and direct traffic. Some will have to do the heavy lifting. The Marines’ co-gender unit studies disprove much of what you are saying. When compared to all male units, most of the heavy lifting assignments, and general work in boots, is detrimental to the female body.
When I joined, the “two-man” carry drill with a rigid-metal framed personnel carrier was changed to a “four man drill.” Because a man my size, 240lbs, would be too difficult for two average women to get us through the ship’s narrow ladder wells. However, because the PC police would get a commander fired, they changed the rules.
That is what they do. Just because technology is making it easier, in NO WAY means that women are as capable a warrior as males. Even the future war-fighter suits being developed will be limited, initially, by the strength of a female. A male warfighter’s strength being augmented to three times, will be greater to a similar sized female’s being amplified by three times.
Until actual, in-body augmented implants, are available; women will not be better warfighters. As for fighter pilots, it was thought at one point that female bodies ability to give birth made their bodies better suited to tighter g-force turns in a dog fight. The problem is, their mental faculties fear of loss of safety got in the way.
It is not just a physical burden, but much more a mental one. Men will be the predominant warfighter in seek and destroy missions for a long time. Women will be kept, as usual throughout history, by the supply lines.
Much of this hubris about the female warfighter is myth. I don’t see it ending well. Not to mention women getting pregnant before their unit deploys.
Coupled with current batch of young men be statistically less likely than our generations to even be mentally and physically fit to enlist; the current situation is now being considered a national security threat by the US Army which requires significantly more numbers than the more technical branches of the US Navy and Air Force.
I agree that women absolutely can make great warfighters. But only if they are able to acknowledge their limitations like smaller, or slower, or less capable fighting men are want to acknowledge! As a large man over 6’5″ tall, and at 260 now; I can easily pass the female’s PT test, and I’m old and out of shape! They are NOT going to best me in a weight lifting challenge! And in many cases in combat, that guarantees my untimely demise.
Why should two of us die just so someone can feel like Army super-soldier Barbie?
I agree on all points. But making rules for job assignments by gender will not work anymore. If strength is a criterion, test for it as a requirement for job assignments as necessary.
Neither screening out women due to their gender or mandating them irrespective of their strength (or lack thereof) will work. The world changes, and we have to rationally adapt to it.
Also, thank you for the kind words!
All the early feminists who started this mind virus into motion and got us to aggressive fourth wave feminism had a single thing in common. Remember when I first arrived here I talked about those uncomfortable truths one isn’t willing to admit if they wish to keep polite company?
Given the incredibly small minority of the population that possess this single trait the statistical probability of it being a coincidence is nearly zero. Are you ready to touch the Third Rail yet Larry (or anyone)? Do you know what all these sowers of destruction to the family unit, and by extension, Western society have in common? If you can guess I’ll give you a cookie… let’s see if you can shake off that National Review cognitive dissonance.
There in only one thing (((they))) have in common.
Barely coded anti-Semitism. Great.
Wow. Thanks for catching that! I looked at it and saw just another weird comment (didn’t get the ref). I’ll moderate him, blocking comments with more of that.
Yes yes Christopher. Nothing to see here! Have to keep those invites to dinner parties intact! We are wide awake while you National Review boomers sleep walk through life pointing out all the problems yet being unable to break your mental conditioning to point out the ONE thing that seems to be a commonality among all these deprivations. Said another way: Ok Boomer…
I’m solidly in the Gen X cohort.
Yes, they’re lesbians.
Homosexuality is, despite the propaganda, rare. Difficult to estimate, but roughly 5% of the population. If much more, it might have been bred out of the gene pool.
I’m pretty sure this can be blamed on feminism. Remember this is on top of the large number of abortions in the US.
I don’t know if most feminists would see more single mothers as something to “blame.” Why should women need a man if they want to have a child, other than as a sperm donor? Society should provide sufficient support to make it easy for her.
As for the well-documented ill effects … let’s just ignore them. It’s an experiment in social engineering. What could go wrong?
“Employment fields dominated by women are AOK, but any dominated by men are obviously crimes-in-progress.”
Absolutely! Which is why women are working tirelessly to overturn the male domination of industries such as ditch digging, pavement laying, roofing, sanitation, high-iron construction, combat engineering, test-piloting, and commercial fishing!
Oh they’re not? Just an oversight, I’m sure.
Great catch! I should have said “attractive field” dominated by men. I’ll change the text later today.
I have said this before, but it is an interest problem for feminists to deal with.
Guys are attracted to looks more than brains, in the majority of cases, so us guys have no issue dating and marrying below our education level, career or wealth (earned or inherited).
If given a choice women want to marry a guy equal or above to their education level, career or wealth.
As women gain power. employment and so, the pool of guys above or even equal to them declines, therefore the eligible pool of guys declines, but for the guys the eligible pool stays the same they will marry up, but usually marry across or down in social capital.
My youngest brother was a Dental Technician and then studied and is a Dentist now, he was the first to point this out to me.
Dentist couples in first marriage are often two Dentists, or a geeky male Dentist who marries his Dental Nurse (often pretty).
Dentists on second marriage are often Male Dentist and female Dental Nurse, very few divorced female Dentists want to marry a Dental Technician (due to marrying below their status). Male divorced dentists do remarry other divorced female Dentists, but not often and don’t often then have children, the rich DINKS. Those Male Dentists that want children in their late 30’s to early 40″s, can more easily do so with a Dental Nurse say 25 – 30, rather than a female Dentist say 38 – 42.
Many of these powerful women if they divorce the University found partner are unlikely to re-marry if they don’t want to marry down. Just look at the number of single ladies in powerful jobs, rather fewer single guys in the jobs at the same level, they marry their secretaries, not so many female executives married to younger male data processors.
I want to friends wedding he was a College Lecturer, like me, he married up a Barrister he was 34 and she was 38 and desperate for children. At the reception, her friends were there, about half couples the rest single powerful ladies like my friends wife, all 36-40 all very desperate to find someone and have kids. I was single I dated two and each knew the other had given me their number, no sisterhood when the eggs are about the to stop.
It’s easy for women to dominate when all the cards are in their favor. The only thing I don’t like of this social experiment is that if they win, all the success will be credited on the female power, ignoring that their sitting in the shoulders of (male) giants. But if it fails, it will be somehow men’s fault. In the grand scheme of things I guess it really doesn’t matter who is in the bottom of the barrel, the ones on top are the only ones who benefit from all this mess anyways. I just feel sad for all men being being left behind, and the disrespect of the sacrifice some men have made.
Well, I guess it really does matter who is in the bottom of the barrel, because I just realized it might not even be men, but the kids who probably will grow up without parents. IF they even get to exist, that is.
One mans view:
SCMP: “They flatter and flirt with single women for money – in China, virtual boyfriends offer intimacy on demand to a career-focused generation.”
The issue is global and the answer will be the same.
I teach International Students and many Asian guys see they have to almost “buy” a wife, with success, house, savings etc. They do often say that a robot would be cheaper.
Just a guy,
Wow. Thanks for posting that! Eye-opening.