Thank you for sharing this @Anuradha Pandey! Iām always very excited to see when something I wrote is viewed as valuable enough by another writer to share it with their audience! šš»
The ideology of feminism despised and still despises the traditional family and giving birth to and raising children Thatās why insurance companies are far more willing to pay for what is euphemistically called a termination as opposed to medical benefits for a normal family
Well said. When an ideology devalues motherhood and the family unit, it is no surprise that the systems it influences begin to reflect that disdain. Prioritizing destruction over creationāabortion over childbirthāreveals where the true bias lies.
Enjoyed thisāsome real gems of insight. Thank you.
Re: āThis dynamic, which often masquerades as āprotecting women,ā is anything but protective. It breeds paranoia. It rewards cowardice. And it teaches women that the path to influence is not through achievement or character but through control of narrativeāregardless of truth.ā This describes the dynamic of narcissistic mirroring operating at the collective level.
You are making an excellent point about feminismās resistance to gun ownership, when guns level the playing field between a taller stronger male assailant and his shorter weaker female victim.
Feminism, to a large extent, is a coalition of various political groups joining together to get power and stay in power, much more than it is a philosophy of advocacy for women.
October 7 is a startling example of this. But the antisemitism in the Womenās March, the exclusion of pro-life women from any feminist grouping, etc, biological men in womenās sports, the defense of public lewdness, as if that makes life better for women, the denial of increased risk in advanced age pregnancy and childbirth, the push to deregulate hygiene requirements on abortion clinics, etc etc, are all proof of how the physical welfare of women is not the primary goal of feminism.
Absolutelyāyour point cuts right to the heart of the issue. When a movement consistently prioritizes ideology over the actual safety, dignity, and well-being of women, it stops being about empowerment and starts becoming a political machine. The examples you listed are undeniable markers of that shift.
Great points and this is very similar to what my wife and I found as well. Modern feminism is desperate to delete the feminine. To be a successful woman, you must be indistinguishable from a successful man. Yet, at the same time, that doesn't work, so you must attack the masculine as well to level the playing field. And that's when society gets ripped apart.
Absolutely love reading this! I consider myself a feminist. It seemed to me that you may have conjured up narratives to fit your argument. So, I hope this provides a bit of opposing perspective. Forgive me as I'm not much of a writer.
Abortion, it is a medical practice that saves lives. It is not about morality or the philosophy of life. Since anti-abortion laws been enacted, pregnancy-related deaths have only increased. It is not about an uncomfortable feeling you get when you say "killing babies," it's about women's right to stay alive. Or do you think they should die?
--"the rate of maternal mortality cases in Texas rose by 56%, compared with just 11% nationwide during the same time period, " - NBC News
Gun Control, it is a policy that saves lives. Guns being as easily accessible as they are put more lives in danger than keep them safe. Guns only save lives when they are not aimed at people, and ideally not fired. Gun-related crimes rates way overshadow defensive gun use.
--"researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least" - Scientific American
Rumors, yeah they suck, however it is not exclusively a feminist thing. What I can offer as an opposing perspective is that rather than this being the result of "sisterhood surveillance," perhaps what you're seeing is actually just internet cancel culture.
My wording is a bit fighty, I admit. It was just upsetting to realize that the opposing arguments against several policies I'm more or less passionate about would so carelessly be boiled down to "because feminism". Instead of "hey, people are unnecessarily dying? can we protect people's lives?"
The piece you wrote is genuinely incredible. The writing flows so beautifully. So don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of your work. I would be honored to get a reply!
Thank you for the thoughtful reply flooded.fields ā and for the respectful tone. That matters.
You raised several points worth addressing, and I will respond to each with the seriousness and factual integrity that each subject matters deserve. In fact, I am going to cannibalize some op-ed's I've written for future release that addressed the very articles you linked.
My apologies in advance if some points become repetitive. I do not severely edit my writing in the comment sections on my op-ed's. That would be a bit too tedious for even me.
āø»
Abortion is a Medical Practice That Saves Lives?
This is one of the most repeated ā and most misleading ā claims in the abortion debate.
Abortion is sometimes performed in medical emergencies. But the overwhelming majority of abortions ā including in the United States ā are elective. They are not performed to save a motherās life. They are performed to end a pregnancy because of timing, finances, lifestyle preferences, relationship issues, or social pressures.
The Guttmacher Institute ā a pro-abortion research organization ā admits this openly. According to their data:
āMost women seeking later abortions are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. They are similar to those who seek earlier abortions but faced barriers to access.ā
Furthermore ā when abortion laws have been restricted, maternal mortality has not increased in the dramatic way activists claim. The U.S. already has a uniquely complex healthcare system with enormous disparities that predate abortion law changes. Factors like healthcare access, poverty, hospital closures in rural areas, obesity rates, and chronic illness drive maternal mortality far more than abortion policy.
In fact ā Ireland banned nearly all abortions for decades while maintaining one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world.
Abortion is not healthcare because pregnancy is not a disease. In rare cases where a motherās life is in imminent danger ā medical intervention is permitted even in states with abortion bans. This includes treatment for ectopic pregnancies, sepsis, and miscarriages. No credible pro-life law punishes necessary life-saving care.
This is not about wanting women to die.
It is about refusing to normalize the deliberate killing of unborn human beings under the false banner of āhealthcare.ā
NOW WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE FIRST ARTICLE YOU LINKED:
The Truth About Maternal Mortality in Texas
There is no more effective weapon in modern propaganda than the selective use of tragedy. A grieving mother. A doomed pregnancy. A state law. String them together ā and the narrative writes itself.
But a narrative is not evidence. And correlation is not causation.
The NBC article claiming that Texasā abortion restrictions caused a 56% increase in maternal mortality from 2019 to 2022 is not only misleading ā it is intellectually dishonest.
Here is why.
1. Maternal Mortality Rose Everywhere ā Long Before SB 8
The article buries its own fatal flaw: maternal mortality rose nationwide during this period ā before, during, and after the passage of Texasā abortion laws.
Why?
The Covid-19 pandemic ā the deadliest health crisis in a century ā devastated healthcare systems, overwhelmed hospitals, delayed prenatal care, and introduced extraordinary stress on pregnant women and healthcare workers alike.
The CDC itself reports that maternal deaths in the U.S. rose by 40% from 2020 to 2021 alone ā long before SB 8 had taken full effect.
To pretend that Texasā increase in maternal deaths is primarily or singularly attributable to abortion restrictions ā during a global pandemic ā is statistically reckless.
2. Texas Has Long Struggled With Healthcare Disparities ā Abortion Access Was Never the Primary Issue
Texasā maternal health challenges predate SB 8 by decades.
Why?
Texas is the second-largest state in the country, with vast rural regions, widespread hospital closures, limited Medicaid expansion, high rates of poverty, obesity, and chronic illness ā all of which are key drivers of poor maternal outcomes.
In fact, even the Gender Equity Policy Institute ā the activist group behind this report ā admits that lack of access to prenatal care is a major factor. But they blame this entirely on abortion restrictions ā a laughably simplistic conclusion.
The truth?
Texas ranks near the bottom nationally in per capita OB-GYN availability, particularly in rural areas ā not because of abortion laws ā but because of broader systemic healthcare access issues.
Abortion law is not the cause of these disparities. It is merely the scapegoat.
3. Life-Saving Medical Care Remains Legal in Texas
The articleās emotional appeal centers on the tragedy of Kaitlyn Kash ā a woman whose child was diagnosed with a fatal genetic condition and who sought an abortion out of state.
This story is heartbreaking. But it is also being misrepresented.
Texas law ā even under SB 8 ā allows for abortions when a motherās life is in danger or when carrying a pregnancy to term would cause severe physical harm.
Doctors in Texas retain broad discretion to intervene medically in life-threatening situations.
What has changed is not medical ethics ā but fear-mongering by media outlets and activist organizations who deliberately spread misinformation, causing confusion among patients and physicians.
If women are traveling out of state for medically necessary procedures ā that is not a failure of the law.
That is a failure of medical clarity, driven by fear of litigation in an environment polluted by media lies.
4. Abortion On Demand Was Never Healthcare ā And It Was Never The Solution to Maternal Mortality
The foundational lie beneath this article is that abortion is āhealthcare.ā This is a grotesque oversimplification.
The overwhelming majority of abortions in the U.S. ā over 90% ā are elective. They are performed not because of life-threatening conditions, but because of social, financial, or personal reasons.
Legalized abortion did not create a maternal health utopia.
New York and California ā two of the most abortion-permissive states in America ā also face significant racial disparities in maternal health outcomes.
Because abortion does not fix poverty. Abortion does not fix rural hospital closures. Abortion does not create OB-GYNs out of thin air.
And abortion certainly does not address the chronic healthcare challenges that affect maternal health outcomes nationwide.
To be clear, I do not fault NBC News for sharing human stories. Tragedy deserves compassion. But policy deserves clarity. Texas has profound healthcare challenges ā many of which require urgent attention. However, the claim that abortion restrictions caused the rise in maternal mortality is not supported by serious data analysis.
It is supported only by a media desperate to preserve the narrative that killing unborn children is a moral good ā and that any restriction on abortion is tantamount to a death sentence for women.
This is false. This is propaganda. And this is why the fight for life is not merely a legal battle ā it is a battle for truth. Because the truth, even when it is hard ā even when it is inconvenient ā saves lives.
Your claim about guns mirrors your claim about abortion ā broad assertion, selective data, and missing context.
The study you cited ā from Boston Childrenās Hospital ā does not account for critical variables: population density, gang violence, socio-economic conditions, urban vs. rural dynamics, or lawful vs. unlawful gun ownership.
Moreover ā the CDCās own research (before being politically pressured to stop) estimated that defensive gun use happens between 500,000 and 3 million times per year in the United States.
Professor Gary Kleck ā a criminologist and self-identified liberal ā confirmed this in multiple peer-reviewed studies.
John Lottās research in More Guns, Less Crime demonstrates that lawful gun ownership correlates with reduced violent crime in areas where citizens are allowed to defend themselves.
Why? Because criminals ā like any predator ā seek soft targets.
Guns do not magically make a society dangerous. Evil people do.
Take Switzerland: one of the highest per-capita gun ownership rates in the world ā and yet one of the lowest homicide rates.
Or rural America ā where gun ownership is most prevalent ā and violent crime is least common.
Gun control does not target criminals. It disarms the innocent.
And every historical atrocity ā from the Soviet Union to Maoist China ā began by ensuring that the average citizen was defenseless.
Additionally, you claim that guns are "easily accessible", but reality is quite the opposite because every purchase from a licensed firearms dealer ā whether in a gun store, at a gun show, or online ā requires the buyer to fill out ATF Form 4473, a federal document demanding detailed personal information: name, address, date of birth, driverās license number, citizenship status, and answers to a series of disqualifying questions (felony convictions, restraining orders, mental health adjudications, drug use, and more). Lying on this form is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
Upon completion, this information is submitted to the FBIās National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which cross-references the buyerās identity with criminal records, mental health adjudications, and other prohibiting factors. Only after this process clears can the sale proceed.
Even after passing the NICS background check, many states impose mandatory waiting periods before a firearm can be taken home ā further debunking the myth of instant, easy gun access.
A common misunderstanding ā especially among those unfamiliar with firearm laws ā is that once the NICS system returns a āProceedā status, a buyer simply walks out the door with a gun moments later. In many states, that is false.
Several states require waiting periods ranging from 3 to 14 days after purchase ā regardless of whether the buyer passed the federal background check immediately. California, for example, mandates a 10-day waiting period for every firearm purchase, even if the buyer holds a concealed carry permit or has passed multiple prior background checks.
Other states like Illinois, Washington, Florida, and Hawaii impose similar waiting periods ā sometimes varying based on the type of firearm (handgun vs. long gun). These laws are designed to create a so-called ācooling offā period ā the idea being that even after passing all legal hurdles, a citizen must wait before taking possession of their legally purchased property.
It is also worth noting that federal law allows the NICS system three full business days to return a final determination on a background check. If the system is delayed ā and many checks are flagged for manual review due to common names or other bureaucratic backlog ā the sale is stalled until the check is completed or the three-day window passes.
So the caricature of someone walking into a gun show or gun store, tossing a wad of cash on the counter, and leaving five minutes later with an AR-15 is not just misleading ā it is a lie.
Legal gun ownership in America is heavily regulated, document-heavy, background-checked, and in many places, delayed by mandatory waiting periods ā a system far stricter than the talking points would have you believe.
Now with respect to the equally deceptive āgun show loopholeā is. Licensed dealers operating at gun shows are bound by the exact same federal laws as in their stores ā including the Form 4473 and NICS check. The only āloopholeā is that private sales ā meaning transactions between residents of the same state who are not engaged in the business of selling firearms ā are not federally regulated. But this is not a gun show phenomenon. It is a private property rights reality that applies equally if two neighbors meet in a garage, a field, or a parking lot.
Moreover, many states have additional laws requiring background checks on all transfers ā even private ones ā rendering the āloopholeā argument completely moot in much of the country. In short: guns are not easy to acquire for law-abiding citizens. They are only easy to acquire for criminals ā because criminals, by definition, do not follow the law.
NOW WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE SECOND ARTICLE YOU LINKED:
There is a difference between journalism and activism. Journalism investigates evidence. Activism arranges evidence to protect an ideology.
Melinda Wenner Moyerās article ā āMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Showsā ā is a perfect study in the latter. It does not read like investigative journalism. It reads like confirmation bias wearing a lab coat. And it collapses under even modest scrutiny.
1. The Foundational Lie: Correlation is Not Causation
The articleās centerpiece claim is that states with higher gun ownership have higher rates of gun violence.
This is true. But it is meaningless.
Urban crime centers ā dominated by gang violence, drug trafficking, and systemic poverty ā skew the data beyond recognition. Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Philadelphia ā these cities account for a grotesque share of Americaās gun violence statistics.
Yet they exist within states with both strict gun control laws and high gun ownership in rural areas.
The question is not whether guns exist near violence. The question is who has the guns.
Legal gun owners ā overwhelmingly rural, older, and law-abiding ā are not the ones driving homicide statistics.
Criminals are.
According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), 93% of gun crimes are committed by individuals who obtained their firearms illegally ā through theft, black-market sales, or straw purchases.
The entire thesis of this article ā that gun density causes violence ā disintegrates under the simplest reality: criminals do not obey gun laws.
2. Defensive Gun Use: The Inconvenient Data
The author ridicules Gary Kleckās famous study estimating 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGUs) per year.
But here is what the article never tells you:
The CDC conducted its own surveys from 1996 to 1998 confirming defensive gun use occurred up to 2.5 million times per year ā consistent with Kleckās findings.
The CDC never published these results.
Why?
Because it undermined the gun control narrative. In 2018, a FOIA request forced these suppressed results into public view.
Even David Hemenway ā a leading anti-gun researcher ā begrudgingly admits that defensive gun use may be far more common than crime reporting suggests, precisely because most DGUs do not require firing the weapon.
Brandishing is enough. And criminals flee. That is the point. The absence of a gunfight is not proof guns are useless. It is proof they work.
3. Suicide, Accidental Death, and the Misuse of Data
The article repeatedly conflates gun ownership with gun violence ā without addressing suicide rates or cultural factors. Yes ā firearms are the most effective means of suicide. But gun bans do not stop suicides.
Japan has virtually no civilian gun ownership ā and one of the highest suicide rates in the developed world. Suicide is a crisis of mental health ā not mechanical availability.
As for accidental gun deaths? They have plummeted in America for decades.
According to the National Safety Council, in 2020, the accidental firearm death rate in the United States was 0.15 per 100,000 people ā lower than drowning, poisoning, falls, and even medical errors.
You are more likely to die from a doctorās mistake than a gun accident. That is not an argument for banning doctors. Nor is it an argument for banning guns.
4. The Kennesaw, Georgia Example: The Article Debunks Itself
This article spends hundreds of words attacking Kennesawās mandatory gun ownership law. Yet what does it quietly admit?
Violent crime plummeted after the law.
Burglars openly admitted they avoided homes in Kennesaw.
The police department corroborated the deterrent effect.
This is not a fluke. It is the behavioral principle that undergirds deterrence theory in criminal justice: Predators seek weak prey.
A legally armed population advertises risk to criminals. That risk preserves life.
5. The Larger Point: Guns Are the Equalizer of the Weak
The most grotesque omission in this article is philosophical. It talks endlessly about data ā while ignoring the moral core of gun rights. Firearms allow a 110-pound woman to defend herself against a 220-pound rapist. Firearms allow a single mother to protect her children in an isolated rural home. Firearms allow the elderly, the infirm, and the marginalized to resist violence from the strong.
It is easy to pontificate about gun violence from the safety of urban journalism circles. It is another thing entirely to face the real-world scenario where the police are 10 minutes away ā and violence is 10 seconds away.
This article is not journalism. It is narrative warfare. It is the attempt to disarm the vulnerable by gaslighting them into believing that self-defense is dangerous ā and helplessness is virtuous.
I will not participate in that lie. Guns - in and of themselves - do not create violence. And in the hands of the lawful, the trained, and the responsible, guns are the last argument against evil.
Not the first. Not the loudest. But the final one. Because when violence comes ā it does not care about data. It only cares whether you can fight back. And I advocate for women to do so because I certainly intend to.
āø»
Feminism, Rumors, and Cancel Culture?
I do not blame you for suggesting that cancel culture is broader than feminism. It is.
But feminism ā particularly modern intersectional feminism ā feeds the machinery of cancel culture by weaponizing victimhood, redefining words, and establishing ideological orthodoxy that punishes dissent.
It is not feminism that invented rumors. It is feminism that rebranded malicious gossip as āaccountabilityā while redefining truth as subjective experience.
This is why cancel culture often operates in the language of feminism ā words like āsafe space,ā āharm,ā āempowerment,ā or āsurvivorā ā regardless of evidence.
āø»
Final Thought
You said this was about saving lives. I agree. But saving lives requires telling the truth. The truth is: abortion ends a human life. The truth is: guns in the right hands save lives. The truth is: feminism, like any ideology, is capable of becoming toxic when it abandons objective truth in favor of narrative control.
In short: Lies kill people. Truth however ā even when it cuts against what some mistake for self-interest ā saves them.
Thank you for the well-researched response! I don't know how to articulate how much I treasure this response. I'm honored to get a sneak peek of your future work here.
I found a few things to petty things to pick at, but it would be just an excuse. The respect and clarity is refreshing. I will say though, respectfully, I still don't think the downfall of feminism is necessary.
These pieces bring out a lot of clarity. Thank you for shining light on the flaws in my argument. I will read this over again.
Absolutely, flooded.fields. Thank you for keeping an open mind and showing a rare but vital willingness to engage with the substance of emotionally charged topics. You are my kind of peopleāand I am proud to count you among my subscribers.
Interesting article but it leaves me yet again, as it often is here on Substack, wondering how this is actually going to change anything. An important question remains unanswered, and that is: what incentive(s) do feminists have to change course? Exactly what will make them go, you know what Mr. Quill you're right and I was wrong?
The feminists are extremely comfortable with the position they're in and they're constantly trying gain more ground at everyone else's expense. I have only seen an increase in more women becoming feminists and feminism itself becoming more radical. What is going to stop this, and what is going to make the people who need to read this article the most, actually read this? If we don't answer that question then nothing will ever change IMHO.
This is an exceptionally insightful comment ā and a necessary one. You have struck at the heart of the matter: truth alone does not move the world. Incentives do. Power does. Self-interest does.
Of course, there is always the noble work of bearing witness ā of speaking truth because it must be spoken, regardless of its reception. That is its own good. That is its own duty. But you are right to point out that duty alone rarely changes hearts en masse, especially hearts insulated by comfort, ideology, or unchecked power.
The mountain you are asking us to climb is steep. It is not merely the articulation of truth ā it is the construction of incentives that make truth profitable, attractive, or at least survivable for those ensnared in lies. That is harder work. Slower work. Sometimes generational work.
But you are correct: without asking what will break the spell ā what will introduce cost to falsehood and reward to truth ā we are often preaching only to the choir while the cathedral burns.
This is the long war of culture ā not just to declare what is true, but to reorder the world so that truth becomes livable again. It is the harder mountain to climb. But no other mountain leads home.
Historically, movements built on grievance and power acquisition ā like feminism in its modern form ā only retreat under two conditions:
1. When reality imposes inescapable consequences.
2. When alternative communities offer meaning, beauty, and belonging that grievance cannot match.
1. Let Consequences Ripen
Bad ideas are rarely dislodged by argument alone. They collapse under their own weight when they produce unbearable results. Feminismās promises ā freedom without responsibility, sex without consequence, power without sacrifice ā are already producing social decay: record loneliness, plummeting birthrates, relational collapse, and pervasive misery.
We must let those consequences ripen. Do not rescue bad ideas from the fruit of their own seeds. When institutions crumble because they prioritized ideology over reality, let them fall. When individuals reap the bitter harvest of feminist lies, meet them not with scorn but with sober truth: āThis is the world feminism built. You can leave it.ā
2. Build Parallel Communities
Destruction alone is not enough. Human beings need somewhere to go. We must build lives, families, and communities ordered around virtue, love, responsibility, and truth ā and we must make them visible.
Showcase joy-filled marriages. Showcase masculine strength tempered by service. Showcase feminine grace empowered by love, not resentment. Showcase children as blessings, not burdens. Showcase friendship, art, faith, and beauty flourishing where feminism promised only power and autonomy.
Live so compellingly that those enslaved to feminist ideology begin to envy what they see. That is how parallel cultures outlast failing regimes.
3. Re-Introduce Social Cost
Finally, ideas lose their grip when public esteem turns against them. There is a difference between kindness and enablement. Speak truth publicly. Mock absurdity when it deserves it. Refuse to treat self-destructive behavior as noble. The left understands the power of shame ā it is time we remembered it, too.
Shame is not cruelty. It is social guardrail. It tells the next generation: Do not follow this path; it ends in ruin.
āø»
In short:
Expose the lies.
Let the consequences come.
Live better lives.
Make truth beautiful.
And never stop speaking.
Feminism will not fall because we win an argument. It will fall because the future belongs to those who show up, build families, love well, suffer nobly, and live in alignment with reality.
If I may return the favor; This is an exceptionally insightful comment -- and a necessary one. I do mean it, as it answers my question and I would actually recommend that you expand on your original article with what you wrote above, as I feel this is just what belongs in these types of discussions. Not just calling a spade a spade, and a description of the promised land, but actually some type of actionable shopping list of things how we can get there. I feel your response addresses exactly the concerns I vented in my original comment, and you have explained in detail why- and how this works.
The question is now of course, who needs to do what? 1. Let Consequences Ripen is something anyone can do, as well as 3. Re-Introduce Social Cost, but how do we make this mainstream? How do we on board as many people as possible with this program and get them to continue doing all of this, even when things get tough?
I don't know, and I wouldn't blame you if you didn't know either. If it was all easy then we would have done it a long time ago.
You have me thinking more deeply now ā I appreciate that. Thank you for challenging the mind and pressing for greater depth.
I will carry these lessons forward in future op-eds, and I will keep them close when responding to others who may not articulate their critiques as clearly as you have ā but whose silence or dissatisfaction will speak just as loudly.
Thank you for sharing this @Anuradha Pandey! Iām always very excited to see when something I wrote is viewed as valuable enough by another writer to share it with their audience! šš»
I felt like you were reading my mind with the demand for clarity and accountability and questioning the empowerment narrative
The ideology of feminism despised and still despises the traditional family and giving birth to and raising children Thatās why insurance companies are far more willing to pay for what is euphemistically called a termination as opposed to medical benefits for a normal family
Well said. When an ideology devalues motherhood and the family unit, it is no surprise that the systems it influences begin to reflect that disdain. Prioritizing destruction over creationāabortion over childbirthāreveals where the true bias lies.
Enjoyed thisāsome real gems of insight. Thank you.
Re: āThis dynamic, which often masquerades as āprotecting women,ā is anything but protective. It breeds paranoia. It rewards cowardice. And it teaches women that the path to influence is not through achievement or character but through control of narrativeāregardless of truth.ā This describes the dynamic of narcissistic mirroring operating at the collective level.
Thank you so much Stephen! I greatly appreciate your support and feedback.
This is amazing. Not at all overwritten. Brilliant. Very insightful and bang on. Thanks for sharing. You have a new subscriber. š
I genuinely appreciate your support and engagement. Thank you for seeing value in what Iāve written!
You are making an excellent point about feminismās resistance to gun ownership, when guns level the playing field between a taller stronger male assailant and his shorter weaker female victim.
Feminism, to a large extent, is a coalition of various political groups joining together to get power and stay in power, much more than it is a philosophy of advocacy for women.
October 7 is a startling example of this. But the antisemitism in the Womenās March, the exclusion of pro-life women from any feminist grouping, etc, biological men in womenās sports, the defense of public lewdness, as if that makes life better for women, the denial of increased risk in advanced age pregnancy and childbirth, the push to deregulate hygiene requirements on abortion clinics, etc etc, are all proof of how the physical welfare of women is not the primary goal of feminism.
Absolutelyāyour point cuts right to the heart of the issue. When a movement consistently prioritizes ideology over the actual safety, dignity, and well-being of women, it stops being about empowerment and starts becoming a political machine. The examples you listed are undeniable markers of that shift.
Great points and this is very similar to what my wife and I found as well. Modern feminism is desperate to delete the feminine. To be a successful woman, you must be indistinguishable from a successful man. Yet, at the same time, that doesn't work, so you must attack the masculine as well to level the playing field. And that's when society gets ripped apart.
My wife and I wrote this essay on the topic: https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/rediscovering-the-goddess
Thank you for your comments - Iāll definitely check out your essay!
Thank you for sharing this Leslie! Iām very happy to know that you found something I wrote to have value worth sharing with your audience!
Absolutely love reading this! I consider myself a feminist. It seemed to me that you may have conjured up narratives to fit your argument. So, I hope this provides a bit of opposing perspective. Forgive me as I'm not much of a writer.
Abortion, it is a medical practice that saves lives. It is not about morality or the philosophy of life. Since anti-abortion laws been enacted, pregnancy-related deaths have only increased. It is not about an uncomfortable feeling you get when you say "killing babies," it's about women's right to stay alive. Or do you think they should die?
--"the rate of maternal mortality cases in Texas rose by 56%, compared with just 11% nationwide during the same time period, " - NBC News
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/texas-abortion-ban-deaths-pregnant-women-sb8-analysis-rcna171631#:~:text=the%20rate%20of%20maternal%20mortality%20cases%20in%20Texas%20rose%20by%2056%25%2C%20compared%20with%20just%2011%25%20nationwide%20during%20the%20same%20time%20period%2C
Gun Control, it is a policy that saves lives. Guns being as easily accessible as they are put more lives in danger than keep them safe. Guns only save lives when they are not aimed at people, and ideally not fired. Gun-related crimes rates way overshadow defensive gun use.
--"researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least" - Scientific American
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/#:~:text=researchers%20at%20Boston%20Children%27s%20Hospital%20and%20Harvard%20University%20reported%20that%20firearm%20assaults%20were%206.8%20times%20more%20common%20in%20the%20states%20with%20the%20most%20guns%20versus%20those%20with%20the%20least
Rumors, yeah they suck, however it is not exclusively a feminist thing. What I can offer as an opposing perspective is that rather than this being the result of "sisterhood surveillance," perhaps what you're seeing is actually just internet cancel culture.
My wording is a bit fighty, I admit. It was just upsetting to realize that the opposing arguments against several policies I'm more or less passionate about would so carelessly be boiled down to "because feminism". Instead of "hey, people are unnecessarily dying? can we protect people's lives?"
The piece you wrote is genuinely incredible. The writing flows so beautifully. So don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of your work. I would be honored to get a reply!
PART ONE:
Thank you for the thoughtful reply flooded.fields ā and for the respectful tone. That matters.
You raised several points worth addressing, and I will respond to each with the seriousness and factual integrity that each subject matters deserve. In fact, I am going to cannibalize some op-ed's I've written for future release that addressed the very articles you linked.
My apologies in advance if some points become repetitive. I do not severely edit my writing in the comment sections on my op-ed's. That would be a bit too tedious for even me.
āø»
Abortion is a Medical Practice That Saves Lives?
This is one of the most repeated ā and most misleading ā claims in the abortion debate.
Abortion is sometimes performed in medical emergencies. But the overwhelming majority of abortions ā including in the United States ā are elective. They are not performed to save a motherās life. They are performed to end a pregnancy because of timing, finances, lifestyle preferences, relationship issues, or social pressures.
The Guttmacher Institute ā a pro-abortion research organization ā admits this openly. According to their data:
āMost women seeking later abortions are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. They are similar to those who seek earlier abortions but faced barriers to access.ā
Furthermore ā when abortion laws have been restricted, maternal mortality has not increased in the dramatic way activists claim. The U.S. already has a uniquely complex healthcare system with enormous disparities that predate abortion law changes. Factors like healthcare access, poverty, hospital closures in rural areas, obesity rates, and chronic illness drive maternal mortality far more than abortion policy.
In fact ā Ireland banned nearly all abortions for decades while maintaining one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world.
Abortion is not healthcare because pregnancy is not a disease. In rare cases where a motherās life is in imminent danger ā medical intervention is permitted even in states with abortion bans. This includes treatment for ectopic pregnancies, sepsis, and miscarriages. No credible pro-life law punishes necessary life-saving care.
This is not about wanting women to die.
It is about refusing to normalize the deliberate killing of unborn human beings under the false banner of āhealthcare.ā
NOW WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE FIRST ARTICLE YOU LINKED:
The Truth About Maternal Mortality in Texas
There is no more effective weapon in modern propaganda than the selective use of tragedy. A grieving mother. A doomed pregnancy. A state law. String them together ā and the narrative writes itself.
But a narrative is not evidence. And correlation is not causation.
The NBC article claiming that Texasā abortion restrictions caused a 56% increase in maternal mortality from 2019 to 2022 is not only misleading ā it is intellectually dishonest.
Here is why.
1. Maternal Mortality Rose Everywhere ā Long Before SB 8
The article buries its own fatal flaw: maternal mortality rose nationwide during this period ā before, during, and after the passage of Texasā abortion laws.
Why?
The Covid-19 pandemic ā the deadliest health crisis in a century ā devastated healthcare systems, overwhelmed hospitals, delayed prenatal care, and introduced extraordinary stress on pregnant women and healthcare workers alike.
The CDC itself reports that maternal deaths in the U.S. rose by 40% from 2020 to 2021 alone ā long before SB 8 had taken full effect.
To pretend that Texasā increase in maternal deaths is primarily or singularly attributable to abortion restrictions ā during a global pandemic ā is statistically reckless.
2. Texas Has Long Struggled With Healthcare Disparities ā Abortion Access Was Never the Primary Issue
Texasā maternal health challenges predate SB 8 by decades.
Why?
Texas is the second-largest state in the country, with vast rural regions, widespread hospital closures, limited Medicaid expansion, high rates of poverty, obesity, and chronic illness ā all of which are key drivers of poor maternal outcomes.
In fact, even the Gender Equity Policy Institute ā the activist group behind this report ā admits that lack of access to prenatal care is a major factor. But they blame this entirely on abortion restrictions ā a laughably simplistic conclusion.
The truth?
Texas ranks near the bottom nationally in per capita OB-GYN availability, particularly in rural areas ā not because of abortion laws ā but because of broader systemic healthcare access issues.
Abortion law is not the cause of these disparities. It is merely the scapegoat.
3. Life-Saving Medical Care Remains Legal in Texas
The articleās emotional appeal centers on the tragedy of Kaitlyn Kash ā a woman whose child was diagnosed with a fatal genetic condition and who sought an abortion out of state.
This story is heartbreaking. But it is also being misrepresented.
Texas law ā even under SB 8 ā allows for abortions when a motherās life is in danger or when carrying a pregnancy to term would cause severe physical harm.
Doctors in Texas retain broad discretion to intervene medically in life-threatening situations.
What has changed is not medical ethics ā but fear-mongering by media outlets and activist organizations who deliberately spread misinformation, causing confusion among patients and physicians.
If women are traveling out of state for medically necessary procedures ā that is not a failure of the law.
That is a failure of medical clarity, driven by fear of litigation in an environment polluted by media lies.
4. Abortion On Demand Was Never Healthcare ā And It Was Never The Solution to Maternal Mortality
The foundational lie beneath this article is that abortion is āhealthcare.ā This is a grotesque oversimplification.
The overwhelming majority of abortions in the U.S. ā over 90% ā are elective. They are performed not because of life-threatening conditions, but because of social, financial, or personal reasons.
Legalized abortion did not create a maternal health utopia.
New York and California ā two of the most abortion-permissive states in America ā also face significant racial disparities in maternal health outcomes.
Because abortion does not fix poverty. Abortion does not fix rural hospital closures. Abortion does not create OB-GYNs out of thin air.
And abortion certainly does not address the chronic healthcare challenges that affect maternal health outcomes nationwide.
To be clear, I do not fault NBC News for sharing human stories. Tragedy deserves compassion. But policy deserves clarity. Texas has profound healthcare challenges ā many of which require urgent attention. However, the claim that abortion restrictions caused the rise in maternal mortality is not supported by serious data analysis.
It is supported only by a media desperate to preserve the narrative that killing unborn children is a moral good ā and that any restriction on abortion is tantamount to a death sentence for women.
This is false. This is propaganda. And this is why the fight for life is not merely a legal battle ā it is a battle for truth. Because the truth, even when it is hard ā even when it is inconvenient ā saves lives.
āø»
PART TWO:
Gun Control Saves Lives?
Your claim about guns mirrors your claim about abortion ā broad assertion, selective data, and missing context.
The study you cited ā from Boston Childrenās Hospital ā does not account for critical variables: population density, gang violence, socio-economic conditions, urban vs. rural dynamics, or lawful vs. unlawful gun ownership.
Moreover ā the CDCās own research (before being politically pressured to stop) estimated that defensive gun use happens between 500,000 and 3 million times per year in the United States.
Professor Gary Kleck ā a criminologist and self-identified liberal ā confirmed this in multiple peer-reviewed studies.
John Lottās research in More Guns, Less Crime demonstrates that lawful gun ownership correlates with reduced violent crime in areas where citizens are allowed to defend themselves.
Why? Because criminals ā like any predator ā seek soft targets.
Guns do not magically make a society dangerous. Evil people do.
Take Switzerland: one of the highest per-capita gun ownership rates in the world ā and yet one of the lowest homicide rates.
Or rural America ā where gun ownership is most prevalent ā and violent crime is least common.
Gun control does not target criminals. It disarms the innocent.
And every historical atrocity ā from the Soviet Union to Maoist China ā began by ensuring that the average citizen was defenseless.
Additionally, you claim that guns are "easily accessible", but reality is quite the opposite because every purchase from a licensed firearms dealer ā whether in a gun store, at a gun show, or online ā requires the buyer to fill out ATF Form 4473, a federal document demanding detailed personal information: name, address, date of birth, driverās license number, citizenship status, and answers to a series of disqualifying questions (felony convictions, restraining orders, mental health adjudications, drug use, and more). Lying on this form is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
Upon completion, this information is submitted to the FBIās National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which cross-references the buyerās identity with criminal records, mental health adjudications, and other prohibiting factors. Only after this process clears can the sale proceed.
Even after passing the NICS background check, many states impose mandatory waiting periods before a firearm can be taken home ā further debunking the myth of instant, easy gun access.
A common misunderstanding ā especially among those unfamiliar with firearm laws ā is that once the NICS system returns a āProceedā status, a buyer simply walks out the door with a gun moments later. In many states, that is false.
Several states require waiting periods ranging from 3 to 14 days after purchase ā regardless of whether the buyer passed the federal background check immediately. California, for example, mandates a 10-day waiting period for every firearm purchase, even if the buyer holds a concealed carry permit or has passed multiple prior background checks.
Other states like Illinois, Washington, Florida, and Hawaii impose similar waiting periods ā sometimes varying based on the type of firearm (handgun vs. long gun). These laws are designed to create a so-called ācooling offā period ā the idea being that even after passing all legal hurdles, a citizen must wait before taking possession of their legally purchased property.
It is also worth noting that federal law allows the NICS system three full business days to return a final determination on a background check. If the system is delayed ā and many checks are flagged for manual review due to common names or other bureaucratic backlog ā the sale is stalled until the check is completed or the three-day window passes.
So the caricature of someone walking into a gun show or gun store, tossing a wad of cash on the counter, and leaving five minutes later with an AR-15 is not just misleading ā it is a lie.
Legal gun ownership in America is heavily regulated, document-heavy, background-checked, and in many places, delayed by mandatory waiting periods ā a system far stricter than the talking points would have you believe.
Now with respect to the equally deceptive āgun show loopholeā is. Licensed dealers operating at gun shows are bound by the exact same federal laws as in their stores ā including the Form 4473 and NICS check. The only āloopholeā is that private sales ā meaning transactions between residents of the same state who are not engaged in the business of selling firearms ā are not federally regulated. But this is not a gun show phenomenon. It is a private property rights reality that applies equally if two neighbors meet in a garage, a field, or a parking lot.
Moreover, many states have additional laws requiring background checks on all transfers ā even private ones ā rendering the āloopholeā argument completely moot in much of the country. In short: guns are not easy to acquire for law-abiding citizens. They are only easy to acquire for criminals ā because criminals, by definition, do not follow the law.
NOW WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE SECOND ARTICLE YOU LINKED:
There is a difference between journalism and activism. Journalism investigates evidence. Activism arranges evidence to protect an ideology.
Melinda Wenner Moyerās article ā āMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Showsā ā is a perfect study in the latter. It does not read like investigative journalism. It reads like confirmation bias wearing a lab coat. And it collapses under even modest scrutiny.
1. The Foundational Lie: Correlation is Not Causation
The articleās centerpiece claim is that states with higher gun ownership have higher rates of gun violence.
This is true. But it is meaningless.
Urban crime centers ā dominated by gang violence, drug trafficking, and systemic poverty ā skew the data beyond recognition. Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Philadelphia ā these cities account for a grotesque share of Americaās gun violence statistics.
Yet they exist within states with both strict gun control laws and high gun ownership in rural areas.
The question is not whether guns exist near violence. The question is who has the guns.
Legal gun owners ā overwhelmingly rural, older, and law-abiding ā are not the ones driving homicide statistics.
Criminals are.
According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), 93% of gun crimes are committed by individuals who obtained their firearms illegally ā through theft, black-market sales, or straw purchases.
The entire thesis of this article ā that gun density causes violence ā disintegrates under the simplest reality: criminals do not obey gun laws.
2. Defensive Gun Use: The Inconvenient Data
The author ridicules Gary Kleckās famous study estimating 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGUs) per year.
But here is what the article never tells you:
The CDC conducted its own surveys from 1996 to 1998 confirming defensive gun use occurred up to 2.5 million times per year ā consistent with Kleckās findings.
The CDC never published these results.
Why?
Because it undermined the gun control narrative. In 2018, a FOIA request forced these suppressed results into public view.
Even David Hemenway ā a leading anti-gun researcher ā begrudgingly admits that defensive gun use may be far more common than crime reporting suggests, precisely because most DGUs do not require firing the weapon.
Brandishing is enough. And criminals flee. That is the point. The absence of a gunfight is not proof guns are useless. It is proof they work.
PART THREE:
3. Suicide, Accidental Death, and the Misuse of Data
The article repeatedly conflates gun ownership with gun violence ā without addressing suicide rates or cultural factors. Yes ā firearms are the most effective means of suicide. But gun bans do not stop suicides.
Japan has virtually no civilian gun ownership ā and one of the highest suicide rates in the developed world. Suicide is a crisis of mental health ā not mechanical availability.
As for accidental gun deaths? They have plummeted in America for decades.
According to the National Safety Council, in 2020, the accidental firearm death rate in the United States was 0.15 per 100,000 people ā lower than drowning, poisoning, falls, and even medical errors.
You are more likely to die from a doctorās mistake than a gun accident. That is not an argument for banning doctors. Nor is it an argument for banning guns.
4. The Kennesaw, Georgia Example: The Article Debunks Itself
This article spends hundreds of words attacking Kennesawās mandatory gun ownership law. Yet what does it quietly admit?
Violent crime plummeted after the law.
Burglars openly admitted they avoided homes in Kennesaw.
The police department corroborated the deterrent effect.
This is not a fluke. It is the behavioral principle that undergirds deterrence theory in criminal justice: Predators seek weak prey.
A legally armed population advertises risk to criminals. That risk preserves life.
5. The Larger Point: Guns Are the Equalizer of the Weak
The most grotesque omission in this article is philosophical. It talks endlessly about data ā while ignoring the moral core of gun rights. Firearms allow a 110-pound woman to defend herself against a 220-pound rapist. Firearms allow a single mother to protect her children in an isolated rural home. Firearms allow the elderly, the infirm, and the marginalized to resist violence from the strong.
It is easy to pontificate about gun violence from the safety of urban journalism circles. It is another thing entirely to face the real-world scenario where the police are 10 minutes away ā and violence is 10 seconds away.
This article is not journalism. It is narrative warfare. It is the attempt to disarm the vulnerable by gaslighting them into believing that self-defense is dangerous ā and helplessness is virtuous.
I will not participate in that lie. Guns - in and of themselves - do not create violence. And in the hands of the lawful, the trained, and the responsible, guns are the last argument against evil.
Not the first. Not the loudest. But the final one. Because when violence comes ā it does not care about data. It only cares whether you can fight back. And I advocate for women to do so because I certainly intend to.
āø»
Feminism, Rumors, and Cancel Culture?
I do not blame you for suggesting that cancel culture is broader than feminism. It is.
But feminism ā particularly modern intersectional feminism ā feeds the machinery of cancel culture by weaponizing victimhood, redefining words, and establishing ideological orthodoxy that punishes dissent.
It is not feminism that invented rumors. It is feminism that rebranded malicious gossip as āaccountabilityā while redefining truth as subjective experience.
This is why cancel culture often operates in the language of feminism ā words like āsafe space,ā āharm,ā āempowerment,ā or āsurvivorā ā regardless of evidence.
āø»
Final Thought
You said this was about saving lives. I agree. But saving lives requires telling the truth. The truth is: abortion ends a human life. The truth is: guns in the right hands save lives. The truth is: feminism, like any ideology, is capable of becoming toxic when it abandons objective truth in favor of narrative control.
In short: Lies kill people. Truth however ā even when it cuts against what some mistake for self-interest ā saves them.
Thank you for the well-researched response! I don't know how to articulate how much I treasure this response. I'm honored to get a sneak peek of your future work here.
I found a few things to petty things to pick at, but it would be just an excuse. The respect and clarity is refreshing. I will say though, respectfully, I still don't think the downfall of feminism is necessary.
These pieces bring out a lot of clarity. Thank you for shining light on the flaws in my argument. I will read this over again.
Absolutely, flooded.fields. Thank you for keeping an open mind and showing a rare but vital willingness to engage with the substance of emotionally charged topics. You are my kind of peopleāand I am proud to count you among my subscribers.
Interesting article but it leaves me yet again, as it often is here on Substack, wondering how this is actually going to change anything. An important question remains unanswered, and that is: what incentive(s) do feminists have to change course? Exactly what will make them go, you know what Mr. Quill you're right and I was wrong?
The feminists are extremely comfortable with the position they're in and they're constantly trying gain more ground at everyone else's expense. I have only seen an increase in more women becoming feminists and feminism itself becoming more radical. What is going to stop this, and what is going to make the people who need to read this article the most, actually read this? If we don't answer that question then nothing will ever change IMHO.
This is an exceptionally insightful comment ā and a necessary one. You have struck at the heart of the matter: truth alone does not move the world. Incentives do. Power does. Self-interest does.
Of course, there is always the noble work of bearing witness ā of speaking truth because it must be spoken, regardless of its reception. That is its own good. That is its own duty. But you are right to point out that duty alone rarely changes hearts en masse, especially hearts insulated by comfort, ideology, or unchecked power.
The mountain you are asking us to climb is steep. It is not merely the articulation of truth ā it is the construction of incentives that make truth profitable, attractive, or at least survivable for those ensnared in lies. That is harder work. Slower work. Sometimes generational work.
But you are correct: without asking what will break the spell ā what will introduce cost to falsehood and reward to truth ā we are often preaching only to the choir while the cathedral burns.
This is the long war of culture ā not just to declare what is true, but to reorder the world so that truth becomes livable again. It is the harder mountain to climb. But no other mountain leads home.
Historically, movements built on grievance and power acquisition ā like feminism in its modern form ā only retreat under two conditions:
1. When reality imposes inescapable consequences.
2. When alternative communities offer meaning, beauty, and belonging that grievance cannot match.
1. Let Consequences Ripen
Bad ideas are rarely dislodged by argument alone. They collapse under their own weight when they produce unbearable results. Feminismās promises ā freedom without responsibility, sex without consequence, power without sacrifice ā are already producing social decay: record loneliness, plummeting birthrates, relational collapse, and pervasive misery.
We must let those consequences ripen. Do not rescue bad ideas from the fruit of their own seeds. When institutions crumble because they prioritized ideology over reality, let them fall. When individuals reap the bitter harvest of feminist lies, meet them not with scorn but with sober truth: āThis is the world feminism built. You can leave it.ā
2. Build Parallel Communities
Destruction alone is not enough. Human beings need somewhere to go. We must build lives, families, and communities ordered around virtue, love, responsibility, and truth ā and we must make them visible.
Showcase joy-filled marriages. Showcase masculine strength tempered by service. Showcase feminine grace empowered by love, not resentment. Showcase children as blessings, not burdens. Showcase friendship, art, faith, and beauty flourishing where feminism promised only power and autonomy.
Live so compellingly that those enslaved to feminist ideology begin to envy what they see. That is how parallel cultures outlast failing regimes.
3. Re-Introduce Social Cost
Finally, ideas lose their grip when public esteem turns against them. There is a difference between kindness and enablement. Speak truth publicly. Mock absurdity when it deserves it. Refuse to treat self-destructive behavior as noble. The left understands the power of shame ā it is time we remembered it, too.
Shame is not cruelty. It is social guardrail. It tells the next generation: Do not follow this path; it ends in ruin.
āø»
In short:
Expose the lies.
Let the consequences come.
Live better lives.
Make truth beautiful.
And never stop speaking.
Feminism will not fall because we win an argument. It will fall because the future belongs to those who show up, build families, love well, suffer nobly, and live in alignment with reality.
If I may return the favor; This is an exceptionally insightful comment -- and a necessary one. I do mean it, as it answers my question and I would actually recommend that you expand on your original article with what you wrote above, as I feel this is just what belongs in these types of discussions. Not just calling a spade a spade, and a description of the promised land, but actually some type of actionable shopping list of things how we can get there. I feel your response addresses exactly the concerns I vented in my original comment, and you have explained in detail why- and how this works.
The question is now of course, who needs to do what? 1. Let Consequences Ripen is something anyone can do, as well as 3. Re-Introduce Social Cost, but how do we make this mainstream? How do we on board as many people as possible with this program and get them to continue doing all of this, even when things get tough?
I don't know, and I wouldn't blame you if you didn't know either. If it was all easy then we would have done it a long time ago.
You have me thinking more deeply now ā I appreciate that. Thank you for challenging the mind and pressing for greater depth.
I will carry these lessons forward in future op-eds, and I will keep them close when responding to others who may not articulate their critiques as clearly as you have ā but whose silence or dissatisfaction will speak just as loudly.
Thank you James, šš»