Any sensible person with even a modicum of intelligence would turn their nose up at feminist ideology yet, bizarrely, feminism is able to attract enough fresh blood to man the front lines and maintain a presence. How does feminism warp the minds of our young sisters and daughters? The feminist camp employs several recruitment techniques, all of which are just as insidious and invidious as each other, but the attracting of young recruits is predicated on two specific prerequisites.


Feminism can’t recruit any old person into their ranks. Instead, feminism requires a recruit to possess a certain dissociation from objective reality, to put it lightly. Take patriarchy theory, which describes “a system of social structures and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women”. Such thinking, as with their rationale behind the pay gap, requires an external locus of control (and thus, an unhealthy amount of cognitive dissonance). Contrary to Kellyanne Conway’s view on the matter, feminism views and treats women as victims of their circumstances rather than products of their choices.

Not only does feminism require its followers to subscribe to an external locus of control, said locus needs to be correct. The new recruits need to view the world in the Marxist proletariat-bourgeois dichotomy. Whether they are aware of Marxist ideology or not is irrelevant, the recruit needs to be, at the very least, left-leaning. As Julie Bindel once said, then tweeted, “To be feminist you have to be on the political left or you are anti-equality and anti-working class”. If one does not meet these requirements, she is not accepted, ostracised. For example, Anna Rhodes was bullied by her socialist peers for being a Tory Feminist.

Essentially, feminism is Gender Marxism and, as Erin Pizzey commented, “It was never meant to be a movement for most women. It was an attempt by militant women in the Marxist movement to wrest power from men and to create a movement of their own. They simply moved the political goalposts and instead of capitalism being the enemy it was now patriarchy i.e. all men”. This simple bait-and-switch takes those who already view the world through the lens of haves and have-nots and replaces it with men and women, respectively. As Catherine MacKinnon put it, “Radical feminism-after this, feminism unmodified-is methodologically post-marxist”. So, all that needs to be done, as was done with the whole movement, is to target women who are left-leaning and push them over the edge. Converting those who are already on the left is but a hop, skip and a jump, which leads me to my next point.


Where can feminists find people already saturated with lefty ideology? Yep, universities.

Universities are hotbeds of lefty lunacy and liberal ideology, and TCW readers will require no convincing. But, just to solidify my point, I shall note a recent report by the Adam Smith Institute found less than 12 per cent of academics in universities support right-wing or conservative parties. With little opposition, universities are a goldmine for feminists searching for new recruits. Just like spreading manure fertilises a garden, promoting the growth of plants (and weeds alike), so too has the promulgation of lefty ideology at universities inspired growth in feminist (and other Marxist) thought. In fact, a survey for the Fawcett Society found those aged 18 – 24 were most likely to identify as feminist (15.9 per cent).

But, attempting to recruit new followers by appealing to university students who have been permeated with leftist teachings simply is not enough. No, they cannot just wait around hoping potential recruits fall their way instead, they must be out there pulling them in. As such, universities are now infested with feminist groups, societies, radios, etc.(with no groups representing the other side), all which act as recruitment vendors for the great engine of feminism.

The National Union of Students is unapologetically feminist, declaring feminism to be “back at the top of the agenda”. Margaret Millet details losing her sister Kate to Marxist-Feminism in the sixties thanks to university (and even losing herself, for a short while), saying “I went to the university and four years later walked out a communist and an atheist, just as my sister Katie had six years before me”. Our young head off to university not just for education, but for indoctrination also.

Simply put: the feminist movement takes young, impressionable, left-leaning women who are fresh into university, out discovering themselves, and it contorts their worldview, bastardising their original beliefs so as to fit the feminist narrative. Disgracefully indoctrinating our young for the cause, feminism has taken hold of the next generation. I can personally testify to this, having played party to witnessing such a pernicious tale of woe, I daresay many readers have too.

(Image: Guido van Nispen)


  1. This is a timely reminder of the move following the “failure” of the working class to rise up in 68. Of course this failure further compounded by the collapse of Communism in Europe symbolised by the end of the “Wall”. Feminism in its academic incarnations is the last version of Marxist ideology that isn’t as yet compromised and considered out dated. It also has a legion of “fellow travellers” who’d be shocked at the idea that actually the raison d’etre of the ideology is revolution, not just nicer jobs for posh women.
    Now out of print Melanie Philips book “Sex Change Society” does an excellent job of charting the rise of feminism to be the core Marxist ideology and predicts much of what we see now. I also think she was perceptive abut its appeal to young women and men. For of course being so young the realities of life appear far distant (children, houses, drudging jobs etc.) and so the theory is one for the adolescent imagining a world that isn’t real. Her view was that the ideology was thus best sustained in those who remain in “perpetual adolescence” or at least until they start to consider an adult life and then start writing “where have all the good men gone” or “leaving it too late for children” .
    I remember a number of the ministers from Margaret Thatchers time observed that the welfare fuelled single parent boom and other feminist policies were enacted as they were outflanked by their officials and the “expert” Vol. Sector and pressure groups that worked closely with civil service officials.

    • “Feminism in its academic incarnations is the last version of Marxist ideology that isn’t as yet compromised and considered out dated.”

      I agree with everything about except this comment..because there is a definite international resurgence in Marx, on the basis of ‘capitalism is failing’, ‘the worlds resources are limited and capitalism is causing their exhaustion’, ‘it’s capitalism which is creating the disparity in wealth and allowing the corruption of government’, ‘the West has caused climate change’ etc, etc.
      All faulty thinking, but remember Uni today is one where independent and across faculty discussion isn’t encouraged.

  2. An excellent and important article Mr Holbrook.

    I would add only one thing, which is the sinister play by feminists for unhappy young women. It is difficult to recruit well adjusted, happy and succesful girls into the Sisterhood, but very easy to persuade unhappy young girls (many from abusive family backgrounds) that their perceived failures are due to their oppression by XYZ, which in feminism’s case is of course, the “Patriarchy.”

    This self same approach is carried out across the PC board with regard to race, religion, sexuality, class etc.

    PS: I particularly liked your re-branding of feminism as “Gender Marxism.”

  3. In my local paper today:

    “Political correctness strikes in Westminster where Roger Gale MP was castigated for
    calling his office staff “girls.” As we should all know by now, calling women “girls” both infantilises and degrades them, making them appear the playthings and possessions of the outdated Patriarchy which controls our society and all that stuff.

    I always feel sorry for women who object to this word, for presumably they never have a night out with “the girls”.”

  4. A lot of organisations target impressionable young minds away from home for the first time; I saw it all the time in my day. Worst offender by a million miles was the charismatic church which screwed people up no end; two people in my year at university actually tried committing suicide over the rubbish their heads had been filled with.

  5. The same can be said for globalism, LGBT and anti-racism (anti nation and anti indigenous people to make a country weak and divided). Kids are being brainwashed by public and private schooling, from nursery right through to university. The Tories support this because they are fundamentally the same party as Labour, Lib Dems, Green and SNP. Even UKIP don’t appear to oppose it.

  6. People generally tend to avoid owning the consequences of their own bad choices. People naturally tend to push the locus of control to the outside – to blame someone else. Men were traditionally conditioned to somewhat control for this, but women were not.

    It is not always possible: if surrounding reality is harsh and ignorant, there’s no sense in wasting time crying about being a victim of your environment. But modern society enables that shift: it caters to victims, no matter how distant from reality their victimhood is. Blame any scapegoat – patriarchy, racism, colonialism, whatever – there’d be always a sympathetic ear to listen, and tax payers’ money to make you feel better.

    Uni’s activity groups are a self-victimisation mill. It teaches one how to appeal to their victimhood in order exploit this weak spot of modern altruistic and gullible society – or at least how to shift any responsibility for your life choices to make you feel better.

    Listening to their proclamations is irritating. But in the end it’s them who’ll be hurt the most. You can ignore the reality only up to a point before it bites.

  7. Glad I never went to University not because i’m anti education but because i’m anti indoctrination. However as a product of poor quality 2nd level education I despair at the inability and abject failure of so many modern educated fathers and men accepting second class status and especially being prevented from protecting and caring for their children. Only a few are prepared to speak out about this and refreshing to read Mr Holbrook’s clear and accurate analysis.

  8. I was reminded of another reason for recruiting the young when listening to the Martin McGuiness discussions yesterday…one commentator pointed out how young people didn’t carry the memories and bitterness of the older people who had witnessed the troubles and so this was a positive thing. With feminism it is the other way around. Younger people don’t carry the experience of life necessary to challenge feminism. Older women are more likely to have learnt that feminism does not sit comfortably with real life experience. That is why the Paglias, Gyngells and Hoff-Sommers are the first to challenge it. Younger women who haven’t had children, sons, married brothers etc don’t have the experience necessary to challenge feminism and so make more fertile recruiting ground. The older women who carry on promoting it only doing so because their work or financial support depends on it.

    • I think this is universally true for any Left/Right topic.

      People are socialists until they roll into higher income tax rate.
      They’re tolerant until they get mugged.
      And often young women are feminists until they meet a good husband.

      Too much idealism, too short on experience.

      • Yes,
        ‘and often young women are feminists until they meet a good husband’

        Or until they have a baby boy.

    • Very true.
      ‘The older women who carry on promoting it only doing so because their work or financial support depends on it’.
      Its all about the money and the lifestyle. No more complex than that.

  9. beautifully put Jordan let us hear more from you. universities have always been hot beds of social discontent but only with the advent of militant gender marxist feminism has all creative thinking been shut down. I watched for the last nearly fifty years as young men found themselves under attack and male staff members slowly eased out of positions of authority until now when most Western universities are in the grip of female doninated misandry and free speach is no longer possible.

  10. Among the small army of feminists at Universities there is a considerable cadre of young men. When I see these guys on Youtube or TV I sort of get terribly embarrassed for them! Really I do, Im not joking.
    Come on guys, cut it out! Its all a bit pathetic. Your ancestors used to hunt mammoths.

  11. ‘Simply put: the feminist movement takes young, impressionable, left-leaning women who are fresh into university, out discovering themselves, and it contorts their worldview, bastardising their original beliefs so as to fit the feminist narrative’.
    Jordan, you are real intellectual heavyweight or should I say nonentity- this s the most patronising nonsense I have ever heard. This is one side of a view of women as requiring saving from corruption by men (like you presumably); the other side is woman as fallen. What is very odd is that the rhetoric sounds like the sort of ‘marxist’ discourse that so animates you. Perhaps you should read Genesis and then Paradise Lost for some ideas about women. Did you go to all boy’s school?

  12. “Feminism” isn’t it the dream of most women to be erm…… ‘feminine’?

    I do think that, there is merit in this article.

    However, I throw in a few more ideas, although Mr. Weston stole some of my thunder, and btw well said Paul. Is it not so very true that, most kids heading off to university their youthful heads full of indoctrinated pap ex skool are empty vessels waiting to be filled up at Uni – and this applies to both lads and young women?

    Erin Pizzey said [from above quote] […] “They simply moved the political goalposts and instead of capitalism being the enemy it was now patriarchy i.e. all men”.

    Aye more than you could know, this indeed provides a perfect veil or shield if you like for so many modern Feminists, who are born filthy rich but identify with Socialism because they deem it a more ‘noble doctrine’. Crikey for people who are famed for their total lack of sense of humour, they have such hilariously crackpot ideas.

    Doctrine, where once the gentle sway of Anglicanism was their staff, alack during the swinging era, Christianity was, has been very effectively effaced by the Critical theorists and so that in the present, well … north London anyway: being a champagne Socialists is so cool – baby! Emma Thompson, thornberry, any one of a thousand quangoqueens, Sam Cam, pollyanna Toynbee are exemplars, Cherie Booth the down at heel made good and total hypocrites the very lot of them.
    What is even funnier, is that the likes of; Red Ed and diddy David, Fettus Tony, hattie harperson, Abbopotamus, posh boy Corbyn, indeed, pretending to be the champions of those doughty sons of toil – nigh most of ’em orxbridge educated and all never done a stroke in their precious manicured hands – lives.

    Feminists need to reach out to their inner core, where the heart is, and drop the ocean going hypocrisy, more especially do, the poor little rich kids.

  13. Another problem is the need for everything to be “innovative” (I’ve lost count of the emails asking me to dredge up details of innovative good practice or some such nonsense in the university where I work). In terms of subjects studied, this means all the emphasis goes on to new modish ones. History gives us not narrative but feminist perspectives; geography the study of the distribution of disadvantage (my own institution recently invited an Oxford geographer to give his views on, er, austerity); law, equality and human rights, etc etc. It gets very tiresome.

Comments are closed.