Feminism’s Patriarchs: An Ideological Response to the Failures of Men


Feminism’s Patriarchs: An Ideological Response to the Failures of Men

Jun 10, 2024 24 min read
Emma Waters

Senior Research Associate, Richard and Helen DeVos Center

Emma is a Senior Research Associate in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family at The Heritage Foundation.
In 1837, French philosopher and ill-reputed utopian socialist Charles Fourier coined the term “feminist” to describe his belief in the equality of men and women. Photo12 / Universal Images Group / Getty Images

Key Takeaways

What is often called “feminism” cannot be separated from ideologically driven men who saw an opportunity to take advantage of detached and vulnerable women.

A small group of men were behind the inclusion of abortion as a core feminist issue.

We need a “Jael Generation” of women who act with righteous cunning, foresight, and hospitality, who can offer wise counsel to those around them.

The history of feminism began where it is most likely to end: with a man.

In 1837, French philosopher and ill-reputed utopian socialist Charles Fourier coined the term “feminist” to describe his belief in the equality of men and women.[1] This may seem unremarkable, especially today, but taken in the larger context of his political philosophy, the foundational errors of the feminist movement emerge. Fourier believed that the institution of marriage was inherently oppressive to women—vowing to never marry himself—instead, encouraging men and women to explore their array of sexual desires, including those for the same sex. He spent most of his time, however, articulating a proto-communist vision of society where all laborers, men and women, were organized into productive labor units and goods were shared in common.

Fydor Dostevisky, for example, criticized Fourier multiple times throughout his novel Demons:

Dedicating my energies to the study of social organization which is in the future to replace the present condition of things, I’ve come to the conviction that all makers of social systems from ancient times up to the present year, have been dreamers, tellers of fairy-tales, fools who contradicted themselves, who understood nothing of natural science and the strange animal called man. Plato, Rousseau, Fourier, columns of aluminum, are only fit for sparrows and not for human society.[2]

Fourier’s ideas, such as a loose sexual morality, a tendency toward socialism, and the devaluation of the traditional family, continue to influence the political and social themes articulated by the feminist movement today.

Feminism’s Patriarchs

It is easy to identify many of the prominent feminist women throughout history—Mary Wollstonecraft, Betty Friedan, and Judith Butler—yet it is men, beginning with Charles Fourier, who have directed many of feminism’s key developments. Indeed, what is often called “feminism” cannot be separated from ideologically driven men who saw an opportunity to take advantage of or to cultivate detached and vulnerable women ripe for redirection toward their own social and political goals.

Scholars have found it helpful to delineate between First-Wave (1848–1920), Second-Wave (1960–1970), and Third-Wave (1992–present) feminism when studying the evolution in beliefs and issues in the so-called march for women’s equality. Few scholars, however, have focused on the men who shaped each wave of feminine reaction and response to the prevailing cultural, familial, and religious mores. Since man acts upon history and woman adorns his handiwork, the Christian student ought to look for men in the pages of the feminist history, both as a catalyst of reaction, and also as the germination for their destructive ideas. From the men promoting free-love during first-wave feminism, the moguls concerned with depopulation in the second-wave, and the transgender influencers in third-wave feminism, each required the buy-in of women to succeed.

>>> Trans Athlete Injures Multiple Girls, Forcing Team To Forfeit. Wither Thou, Feminism?

This exploration into the depths of feminist lore does not strip woman of agency or blame man for the actions of woman. Quite the opposite. Woman is as free an agent as man and has a salvific role in the redemptive work in creation (cf. 1 Tim. 2:15). Furthermore, man cannot be effective in the political arena without her support. In the same way that woman completes man’s work in creation (Gen. 2:18), she is a force of destruction when turned toward the wrong ends (Prov. 14:1). For precisely these reasons, men have twisted the natural role and work of women under the guise of female empowerment, to gain the support of women for their own immoral or foolish efforts.

Over time, a movement that claimed to strive for equality between men and women unmasked itself as a movement that sought to make women like men, and even deny the reality of meaningful biological differences altogether. While this is obvious in second-wave and third-wave feminism, these beliefs were present from the beginning of first-wave feminism, too.

The Men of First-Wave Feminism (1848–1920)

The personal lives of the first-wave feminists—men and women alike—show us the natural outcome of their ideas.

Scholars often credit Mary Wollstonecraft, author of the Vindication of the Rights of Women, as the first feminist thinker.[3] Other prominent first-wave feminists include Lucretia Coffin Mott, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton of Seneca Falls and “The Declaration of Sentiments.” At the level of abstract theory, these thinkers posited an egalitarian vision of the relationship between the sexes in the public sphere—the right to vote, own property, and be ordained pastors—and in the private sphere, decrying the total authority fathers and husbands had over their wives and their children. In practice, however, they tended to promote a vision of men and women as independent of and from each other, free to pursue their own interests.

In her book, The End of Woman,[4] Carrie Gress explores the untold stories of first-wave feminism.[5] She challenges the long-held assumption that first-wave feminism was net-positive for women, while second-wave feminism veered off course with the inclusion of abortion and hormonal contraception. Most importantly, Gress reveals the men behind the First Wave and their role in shaping its women.

The men of first-wave feminism—including Edward Wollstonecraft, William Godwin, and Percy Shelley—each took advantage of vulnerable women, thus shaping these early feminists’ thoughts about marriage, childbearing, and the desire for a revolutionary change in the class and sex structure of society.

Mary Wollstonecraft’s view of marriage, for example, was greatly influenced by her father, Edward, and his nightly abuse of her mother. Despite Mary’s attempts to mediate between her parents, her mother seemed resigned to the situation and did little to rectify it. Mary left home as soon as she could, and eventually had children with two men whom she never married. Mary’s second partner, William Godwin, shared her disdain for marriage as a bondage for men and women alike.

Mary’s personal life is a tragic tale. Her first lover abandoned her not long after she gave birth to their first child; she attempted suicide multiple times; and not long after meeting William Godwin, she began bearing his children, too. Unfortunately, Mary died ten days after the birth of their second daughter from complications. Godwin later married a neighbor to help raise both their children. Undoubtedly, these experiences greatly influenced Mary Wollstonecraft’s own books about the role of men and women in society, which formed the philosophical foundation of first-wave feminism.

Despite Godwin’s outspoken support for non-monogamous commitments, he was displeased when his own daughter followed in his footsteps. Mary Godwin, Mary Wollstonecraft’s final child, met and fell in love with the infamous poet and playboy Percy Shelley when she was only fourteen years old. Despite Percy’s own marriage and child with another woman, Mary and Percy ran away together two years later, prompting the suicide of his wife.

Percy’s radical views about a free and open expression of love without the limitations of marriage harken back to Charles Fourier’s vision of a feminist society. Percy considered himself, and other like poets, “the unacknowledged legislators of the world.”[6]

Percy cast his vision of a feminist future in his infamous novel, later called The Revolt of Islam, about the ideal woman.[7] Percy names this woman Cythna, and he depicts her as truly independent, sexless, and unattached from marriage, procreation, religion, and cultural expectations. Cyntha was “free” to live as she pleased with no consequences for her sexual or moral forays.

Of course, the reality is far grimmer. As Mary Shelley’s own life testifies, women and children suffer while men like Percy Shelley benefit from this liberated lifestyle. During their brief marriage, Percy had many affairs with other women, gaining an unwelcome reputation everywhere they went. Mary herself gave birth to four children and had one miscarriage with Percy, although only one child survived until adulthood. This hardship has led many scholars to read Frankenstein as a story about the limitations of technology to overcome the harsh realities of sex, childbearing, and the need for unconditional love.

By 1848, it was clear to many women that neither the current legal situation, nor the promise of a liberated lifestyle from revolutionaries such as Percy Shelley, were sufficient to gain women the rights they desired. Such women prematurely concluded that men, either due to their failure to lead or their guidance into marital open borders, could not be trusted to offer a solution. It is with this backdrop that Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote the Declaration of Sentiments for the Seneca Falls Convention, the first feminist gathering and declaration of independence from men.[8] In the same style as her contemporary Shelley, Stanton frames the relationship between men and women as “a long train of abuses and usurpations . . . under absolute despotism” and calls women to “throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”[9]

The abuses that Stanton lists include:

  • The requirement that women obey laws they had no say in passing [the right to vote],
  • That marriage, in the eyes of the law, makes women civilly dead,
  • Divorce laws, including the grounds for divorce, are dictated solely by the interests of men and seek to deter women by awarding full custody of the children to fathers,
  • Barring women from educational and professional pursuits and distinctions, regardless of the quality of their mind, and
  • Men who place themselves in the position of God, dictating to women the sphere they must inhabit [motherhood and childbearing].[10]

Clearly, many of the abuses listed here were a source of great heartache for women. The right to pursue higher education, professional interests, and play an active role in politics is one that many women, myself included, have benefited from greatly.

But in some cases, the liberated laws we have today have swung so far in the opposite direction that they harm men: no-fault divorce has enabled 70% of all divorces[11] to be initiated by women—90% for women with a bachelor’s degree or higher[12]—and changes in family law mean that, with few exceptions, women receive de facto custody of their children. Many of the other concerns noted, however, seem more directed at nature itself. For example, laws permitting abortion or hormonal contraception aim to liberate women from the duties of motherhood and childbearing. Still, these artificial attempts to change nature fail to do so, and only further harm both men, women, and unborn children.

Stanton’s assumption, that women are necessarily oppressed by men, led to a false conclusion that the best alternative was for women to free themselves from men altogether. In their attempt to free themselves from men, these women also alienated themselves from the gifts and duties of womanhood. Such unattached and vulnerable women soon found themselves further manipulated by the men of second-wave feminism, who like Fourier and Shelley, used feminism to gain the support for women for their own revolutionary ends.

The Men of Second-Wave Feminism (1960–1970s)

It is not until the technological advancements of second-wave feminism that Percy Shelley’s Cythna—a sexless creature with no maternal or familial duties—could become a reality. Second-wave feminism, which is synonymous with the sexual revolution, created a culture and policies that encouraged contraception, abortion, hook-up culture, and no-fault divorce. Proponents include Ms. Magazine’s Gloria Steinem, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Betty Friedan of the Feminine Mystique, and Angela Davis of the Black Panthers.

As in first-wave feminism, many of the defining issues of second-wave feminism are the result of top-down efforts by well-funded men, such as John D. Rockefeller III, Hugh Hefner, and the advocacy group originally named the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), which was formed by three men. This time, their goals went beyond attempts to abolish marriage and focused on their efforts to depopulate the United States and normalize sexual promiscuity.

In 1970, Richard Nixon’s administration established the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. Concern about overpopulation spurred on by Paul R. Ehrlich’s erroneous book The Population Bomb, animated conversations about how to reduce the birth rate. Chairman John D. Rockefeller III (1970–1972) was particularly concerned with this problem, and after a two-year review period, he offered a list of startling recommendations to solve the problem.[13] Nixon, to his credit, rejected these recommendations, but they still made their way into public policy.

Rockefeller III’s recommendations included the passage of an Equal Rights Amendment, abortion-on-demand for all, hormonal contraception access for all, the removal of home economics courses or sex-specific education in high school, and a messaging emphasis that encouraged women to delay marriage and motherhood in favor of higher education and a full-time career. Rockefeller III recognized that to make his recommendations salient, he would need to gain the buy-in of women. Feminism provided the best conduit to do this.

As Shirley Chisholm, the first African-American woman elected to Congress and influential feminist, argued in her remarks to the Republican Task Force on Earth Resources and Population,

The U.S. population growth rate has equaled and exceeded two of many underdeveloped countries. We are now adding about 3,000,000 people each year. . . . We urgently need to examine our attitudes and policies toward family planning and abortion or we shall be crowded off the earth.[14]

Similarly, Hugh Hefner, the founder of the pornographic magazine Playboy (1953) and the owner of the Playboy Mansion, benefited from the feminist movement’s liberalization of sexuality. Hefner considered himself a liberator of women and a feminist throughout his life, promoting his work to women under this banner. It is not difficult to imagine how grafting his pornographic and promiscuous lifestyle onto feminism benefited his own career, at the expense of women. In many ways, Hefner is a less talented, but equally corrupt, version of Percy Shelley. His ideas, through the promise of a riveting lifestyle and artistic depictions of pornography, sought to capture the imagination, and participation, of women for his own benefit.

It should come as no surprise, then, that a small group of men were behind the inclusion of abortion as a core feminist issue. In 1969, an all-male formation committee launched the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Law (NARAL). (The pre-formation planning committee included Lawrence Lader of New York, Garrett Hardin of California, and Dr. Lonny Myers of Chicago.) Feminists were originally divided over the issue of abortion, but once NARAL gained the support of Betty Friedan, who helped run the National Organization for Women (NOW), there was no going back.

Of course, children are the ones who pay the ultimate price. In Percy Shelley’s life, many of his own children died from the lack of proper care that they, and their mothers, received, given Percy’s demands for travel and back-to-back births. Similarly, Hefner’s sexual revolution benefited from abortion’s “get out of jail” free card at the cost of many unborn lives.

The sexual revolution and the introduction of reproductive technologies into second-wave feminism further alienated women, and by extension men, from their own bodies. As the unified bond of marriage, sex, and procreation was torn apart by an emphasis on pleasure apart from sexuality, a far more pervasive social trend took root: the emphasis on gender—an internal sense of self—over biological sex. Feminism, which has downplayed the reality of biological sex since its inception, now enters a collision course with itself as biological sex comes into conflict with radical gender ideologies.

The Men of Third-Wave Feminism (1992–Present)

“The confusion surrounding what constitutes third-wave feminism is in some respects its defining feature.”[15] Despite the incoherence of this statement—a house divided against itself cannot stand—feminist scholar Elizbeth Evans highlights feminisms’ collision course with itself that third-wave feminism reveals.

For many feminists, such as J.K. Rowling, feminism is inherently at odds with the transgender movement. A growing number of “TERFs,” or “Transgender Exclusionary Radical Feminists,” aim to protect “true” feminism—equality for women—from gender theorists such as Judith Butler, whose feminism—equality for all genders—tends to harm women and children. Despite the unlikely alliance that has emerged between many TERFs and social conservatives in defending the importance of biological sex, the transgender movement is not a deviation from feminism per se. Indeed, it is the fruit of a consistent philosophical movement from Charles Fourier, Percy Shelley, and Hugh Hefner to Dylan Mulvaney. The devaluation of biological sex for higher ideals has taken on flesh as the transgender movement prioritizes gender—an internal sense of self—over biological sex.

The men of third-wave feminism are easier to spot than ever before. In this upside-down world, they are reasserting their dominance by masquerading as women with legal or social support.

Obvious examples include “Caitlin” Jenner, “Lia” Thomas, Dylan Mulvaney, and
“Rachel” Levine. The cultural deference that many liberal and feminist women pay to these men led my colleague Delano Squires to joke that “the country’s most powerful women finally found a group of men they can submit to.”[16]

As the social hierarchy shifted, many of the men who now identify as women saw a chance for advancement under the confused banner of feminism. Bruce Jenner, for example, was a star decathlete in the 1970s, but had become a mid-level celebrity with a drunk driving death on his record. After his so-called transition to a woman, he became an overnight cultural icon and received Glamour’s 2015 Woman of the Year Award. Similarly, Dylan Mulvaney was a C-list Hollywood actor with some minor sitcoms to his name before he transformed himself into an online sensation and influencer with his “Days of Girlhood” TikTok videos.

Within athletics, William Thomas ranked in the 400’s among male collegiate swimmers. With little hope of reaching the top tier among male athletes, Thomas began to identify as Lia and compete in the women’s category. Overnight, he began setting time records and tied for first place with Riley Gaines in the NCAA’s 200-yard freestyle championship in 2022.

Similarly, Adam Levine’s transition to Rachel enabled him to hold distinctions as both a “transgender” person and as a woman. For example, as the National Women’s History Museum explains, Levine’s confirmation as the 17th Assistant Secretary for Health in 2021 gave him the distinction of the “highest-ranking openly transgender government official in U.S. history.”[17] Later the same year, Levine “was sworn in as a four-star admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps . . . [and is the] highest-ranking member and its first-ever female four-star admiral.”[18] These honors, which distinguish him above other men and women, make a mockery of the achievements of women. Moreover, as with each previous wave, women pay the price for this fraudulent replacement of womanhood.

Each of these men inhabited the loathed “straight, white, and male” category. But they found a place of distinction, and cultural dominance, in the transgender movement. Men of third-wave feminism are much like Percy Shelley or Hugh Hefner. Such men, behind each wave of feminism, manipulated women for their own benefit by teaching women to ignore their natural inclination toward marriage, sex, and procreation.

The Jael Generation

The dangers of evil men and foolish women, who find themselves reduced to sexless animals in their attempt to gain power and domination over the other, leave us with a lasting question: How should the wise woman respond? In many instances, women faced legitimate wrongs, failures, or a loss of meaning that drove them to act. Unfortunately, many of their “solutions,” divided from virtuous guidance and structure, only made the problem worse.

There are three recurring ways women respond to spiritual, economic, and moral separation from godly men:

  • They make the most of a hard situation, but tend to passively accept their circumstances;
  • They replace men and act in their place;
  • They seek to work in and through the natural hierarchy of the family or political structure of the nation to hold men accountable.

So, how should women respond when men prey upon women or abdicate their role as moral and spiritual leaders? Thankfully, the answer is within our grasp. The ultimate battle is not between the sexes, but against the seed of the serpent. We need a “Jael Generation” of women who act with righteous cunning, foresight, and hospitality, who can offer wise counsel to those around them. As many of the wise women of Scripture teach us by their example, this accountability begins with their husbands or fathers and extends outwards into society, even reaching the high priest or king. Such wise women never pick up the sword to fight, nor do they seek to replace the men in authority, and yet they often are credited with the victory.

So, how did these wise women of the Bible act in response to the failures of men or their nation?

Righteous Cunning

In Genesis 3, the serpent deceived Eve, and the whole creation fell under the curse of sin. In the very passage where God judges’ creation, he declares the protoevangelium to the serpent: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15).

In this promise, the first Gospel proclamation, God empowers subsequent women to destroy the head(s) of the serpent(s) that threaten God’s redemptive work in the world. Rather than mimicking men, wise women in the Bible fight for and through their offspring with the very tool that once caused the downfall of humanity: righteous cunning.

In the stories of the Woman of Thebez and Jael, they used millstones and tent pegs (traditionally feminine and household objects) to deliver carefully aimed, deadly blows to the heads of adversaries. Tamar and Rahab employed righteous cunning to fulfill the promises of God when those in authority over them failed to act faithfully. Similarly, the Egyptian midwives deceived Pharaoh and refused to kill newborn Hebrew boys. In each instance, God does not condemn this use of righteous cunning. He blesses each of these women with families of their own, including some in the lineage of Jesus Christ.


Faced with the failures of her husband and tribe, who sided against the nation of Israel, Jael embodies the power of daily faithfulness in one’s duties. In Judges 4–5, we meet Jael after her husband Heber the Kenite allied with Jabin, King of the Canaanites, during their war with Israel. One day, as she looked out from her tent, she saw Jabin stumbling toward her. Recognizing the King and the opportunity before her, she called to him from afar and entreated him to rest in her tent. Although he asked for water, she deftly gave him milk and a soft place to rest.

>>> Feminism in the Dock

As soon as he fell asleep, she drove a tent peg through his head, swiftly defeating Israel’s enemy. What is so notable about this story is that when Jael drove the tent peg through the evil king’s head, she was not deviating from her normal life. Setting up and taking down tents was a feminine duty; she had likely driven tent pegs into hard patches of earth hundreds, if not thousands, of times before. Jael was not only engaged in the political affairs of Israel—able to recognize and engage with the king—but that she used foresight and wit to carry out this task in a distinctly feminine manner.


Esther’s story has an aspect of righteous deception as she conceals her true identity from the king. She uses a courageous form of hospitality by approaching the King uncalled for—an act punishable by death—and inviting him and Hamon to not one, but two feasts. Here she wins the king’s favor and reveals the evil plan of Hamon to destroy the Jewish people.

Similarly, Lady Wisdom in Proverbs 8 describes herself as one who prepares a feast—with homemade bread and wine she brewed—to invite the simple and those in need of wisdom to learn from her ways. Here the faithful preparation of a feast reflects the inner self-discipline of these women who can bide their time to not only hold men accountable but do so in the way that is most likely to be successful.

Wise Counsel

The Old Testament describes the period of the Judges as one where few men were faithful in their work, such that faithful women were raised up in their place. Deborah, a prophetess of Israel, offered wise counsel to the leaders of Israel throughout this time. When Barak in Judges 4 failed to lead his army against Sisera, Deborah called him out for his disobedience to the Lord.

Similarly, many women throughout the Bible play the role of negotiator or counselor, especially when the men in authority act with foolishness or neglect. The Bible describes Abigail, King David’s eventual wife, the Wise Woman of Tekoa, and the Wise Woman of Abel Beth Maacah as intervening on behalf of their family and city to preserve their life and form an alliance with God’s people when their husbands or city leaders failed to act with wisdom.

Each of these women, in their times, places, and contexts, embody the teachings of Lady Wisdom from Proverbs 8 and throughout the Bible. The archetypal figure of Lady Wisdom instructs the simple, faithfully manages her household, prepares feasts, and calls many to imitate her ways. She was present at the beginning of the world, and in 1 Corinthians 1:24, Paul describes Jesus Christ as the “wisdom of God.” Thus, each woman who embodies the teachings of Lady Wisdom finds her ultimate fulfillment in Jesus Christ, the King and Savior of the world.


The complicated history of feminism, beset by ideologically driven men who saw an opportunity to take advantage of or to create unattached and vulnerable women, meets its match in the Jael Generation. Such women may challenge men or institutions when they are wrong, encourage them when they are weak, and provide wise counsel along the way. It is only then that women will find a life-giving alternative to the false promises of feminism and play their part in empowering a generation of men who lead with honor, truth, and care for those entrusted to them.

[1] Old Times, “The Founder of a Feminist Tradition Charles Fourier: Charles Fourier Contribution To Early Socialist Thought” Medium, May 13, 2021, accessed May 16, 2024, https://oldtimes381.medium.com/the-founder-of-a-feminist-tradition-charles-fourier-ff4fb90a993b.

[2] Fyodor Dostoevsky, translated by Constance Garnett, The Possessed, (New York: MacMillan), 376.

[3] Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (London: Johnson, 1792).

[4]  Carrie Gress, The End of Woman: How Smashing the Patriarchy Has Destroyed Us (Washington: Regnery, 2023).

[5] S.A McCarthy, The Washington Stand, August 8, 2023, accessed May 21, 2024, ‘Family Is on The Chopping Block’: A Conversation with Dr. Carrie Gress on Feminism (washingtonstand.com).

[6] Percy Shelly, The Defence of Poetry (Boston: Ginn & Company, 1891).

[7] Percy Shelly, The Revolt of Islam, (London: C & J Ollier, 1818).

[8] Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Report of the Women’s Rights Convention, (Rochester: John Dick, 1848) 4-10. https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss41210.mss41210-005_00343_00370/?sp=25&st=image&r=-0.097,-0.019,1.4,0.937,0

[9] Stanton, Report, 7.

[10] Stanton, Report, 8–9.

[11] “Women More Likely Than Men to Initiate Divorces, But Not Non-Marital Breakups,” American Sociological Association, August 22, 2015, Women More Likely Than Men to Initiate Divorces, But Not Non-Marital Breakups | American Sociological Association (asanet.org)

[12] Renata Ellera Gomes, “Highly Educated Women Are More Likely To Ask for Divorce and Other Myths That Need To Die”  Sexography, January 18, 2024,  https://medium.com/sexography/highly-educated-women-are-more-likely-to-ask-for-divorce-and-other-myths-that-need-to-die-dfce2b53c9cc

[13] “Population and the American Future,” The Center for Research on Population and Security, accessed May 20, 2024, Rockefeller Commission on Population and the American Future – Intro and Chapter 1 (population-security.org)

[14]  Shirley Chisholm, “Statement: On Abortion, Shirley Chisholm, December 3, 1969”, accessed May 20, 2024.   STATEMENT: On Abortion, Shirley Chisholm, December 3, 1969 | Black Agenda Report

[15] Elizabeth Evans, The Politics of Third Wave Feminisms, (London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2015), 25.

[16] Delano Squires, “America’s most powerful women have finally found men they can submit to,” Blaze Media, March 24, 2022, https://www.theblaze.com/fearless/squires-america-s-most-powerful-women-finally-found-men-they-can-submit-to

[17] Mariana Brandman, “Rachel Levine.” National Women’s History Museum. 2022. www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/rachel-levine

[18] Brandman, www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/rachel-levine

This piece originally appeared in Eikon

More on This Issue