The conclusion of radical feminism: “So many ruined lives”

Cultural revolution in the West

Radical feminist Kate Millett's sister Mallory tells in this article about her experience from the beginning of the modern women's movement and how it led to the destruction of the Western family. Edited by Julia Caesar.

Published 5 May 2023
- By Editorial Staff
Women's struggle in the United States, "Women's Liberation".

Anyone who knows the history of feminism knows that it started with Betty Friedan, Kate Millett and Germaine Greer. It was their efforts that were the starting signal for the “Womens ‘Lib” (Women’s Liberation Movement), which beginning in the 1960s and 70s would spread throughout the non-Muslim world.

Betty Friedan (1921-2006) was first with her book “The feminine mystique” (1963). Then came Kate Millett (1934-2017) with “Sexual politics” (1970), at the same time as Australian Germaine Greer (born 1939) with “The female eunuch” (1970).

Half a century later, we live in the hangover of feminism, and no painkillers can soothe the insights into what this fundamentally Marxist movement has brought and still brings, not only for women but also for men, children and all of humanity.

When women go wrong, men go right after them.” – Mae West

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” – Winston Churchill

Feminist icon Kate Millett died in 2017, aged 82, of cardiac arrest. Two years before her death, her sister Mallory Millett wrote an article in which she relentlessly reveals her own experiences and opinions about the outcome of her sister’s and other women activists’ radical feminism:

So many ruined lives.”

It is noticeable that Mallory Millett has fought hard and long with the loyalty conflict that lies in openly and publicly distancing herself from her own sister and her ideology. She writes:

“If you see something traitorous in this, a betrayal of my sister, I have come to identify with such people as Svetlana Stalin or Juanita Castro; coming out to speak plainly about a particularly harmful member of my family”.

You can read the rest of Mallory Millett’s article below (edited by Julia Caesar) and the original here.

I graduated from university as a communist and atheist, just as my sister Katie had done six years before me. After several years abroad, I was newly divorced and was creating a new life for my daughter and me when Katie said:

Come to New York! We’re making a revolution! We’re building a national women’s organization, and you can be a part of it.”

I had not met her in several years. Thus began my period as an unconscious witness to history. I was living with Kate and her Japanese husband, Fumio, when she finished her first book, a doctoral dissertation at Columbia University, “Sexual Politics.” It was 1969.

Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising group,” a typical communist exercise, something practised in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairman opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice: 

Why are we here today? she asked.
To make a revolution! they answered.

What kind of revolution? she replied.
The Cultural Revolution! they chanted.

And how do we make cultural revolution? she demanded.
By destroying the American family! they answered.

How do we destroy the family? she came back.
By destroying the American patriarch! they cried exuberantly. 

And how do we destroy the American patriarch? she replied.
By taking away his power!

How do we do that?
By destroying monogamy! they shouted.

How can we destroy monogamy?

Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?

By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality! they resounded.

They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women. It was clear they desired nothing less than the utter deconstruction of Western society. The upshot was that the only way to do this was “to invade every American institution.  Every one must be permeated with ‘The Revolution’”: The media, the educational system, universities, high schools, K-12, school boards, etc.; then, the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branches and even the library system.

It fell on my ears as a ludicrous scheme, as if they were a band of highly imaginative children planning a Brinks robbery; a lark trumped up on a snowy night amongst a group of spoiled brats over booze and hashish.

To me, this sounded silly.  I was enduring culture shock after having been cut-off from my homeland, living in Third-World countries for years with not one trip back to the United States. I was one of those people who, upon returning to American soil, fell out of the plane blubbering with ecstasy at being home in the USA. I knelt on the ground covering it with kisses.  I had learned just exactly how delicious was the land of my birth and didn’t care what anyone thought because they just hadn’t seen what I had or been where I had been.  I had seen factory workers and sex-slaves chained to walls.

How could twelve American women who were the most respectable types imaginable — clean and privileged graduates of esteemed institutions: Columbia, Radcliffe, Smith, Wellesley, Vassar; the uncle of one was Secretary of War under Franklin Roosevelt — plot such a thing?  Most had advanced degrees and appeared cogent, bright, reasonable and good. How did these people rationally believe they could succeed with such vicious grandiosity? And why?

I dismissed it as academic-lounge air-castle-building.  I continued with my new life in New York while my sister became famous publishing her books, featured on the cover of “Time Magazine.” “Time” called her “the Karl Marx of the Women’s Movement.”  This was because her book laid out a course in Marxism 101 for women.

Her thesis: The family is a den of slavery with the man as the Bourgeoisie and the woman and children as the Proletariat.  The only hope for women’s “liberation” (communism’s favourite word for leading minions into inextricable slavery; “liberation,” and much like “collective” – please run from it, run for your life) was this new “Women’s Movement.”  Her books captivated the academic classes and soon “Women’s Studies” courses were installed in colleges in a steady wave across the nation with Kate Millett books as required reading.

Imagine this: a girl of seventeen or eighteen at the kitchen table with Mom studying the syllabus for her first year of college and there’s a class called “Women’s Studies.” “Hmmm, this could be interesting,” says Mom. “Maybe you could get something out of this.”

Seems innocuous to her.  How could she suspect this is a class in which her innocent daughter will be taught that her father is a villain?  Her mother is a fool who allowed a man to enslave her into barbaric practices like monogamy and family life and motherhood, which is a waste of her talents.  She mustn’t follow in her mother’s footsteps. That would be submitting to life as a mindless drone for some domineering man, the oppressor, who has mesmerised her with tricks like romantic love.  Never be lured into this chicanery, she will be taught.  Although men are no damned good, she should use them for her own orgasmic gratification; sleep with as many men as possible in order to keep herself unattached and free. There’s hardly a seventeen-year-old girl without a grudge from high school against a Jimmy or Jason who broke her heart.  Boys are learning, too, and they can be careless during high school, that torment of courting dances for both sexes.

By the time Women’s Studies professors finish with your daughter, she will be a shell of the innocent girl you knew, who’s soon convinced that although she should be flopping down with every boy she fancies, she should not, by any means, get pregnant.  And so, as a practitioner of promiscuity, she becomes a wizard of prevention techniques, especially abortion.

The goal of Women’s Liberation is to wear each female down to losing all empathy for boys, men or babies. The tenderest aspects of her soul are roughened into a rock pile of cynicism, where she will think nothing of murdering her baby in the warm protective nest of her little-girl womb.  She will be taught that she, in order to free herself, must become an outlaw. This is only reasonable because all Western law, since Magna Carta and even before, is a concoction of the evil white man whose true purpose is to press her into slavery.

Break the law! Rebel! Be defiant!
All women are prostitutes,” she will be told. You’re either really smart and use sex by being promiscuous for your own pleasures and development as a full free human being “just like men” or you can be a professional prostitute, a viable business for women, which is “empowering” or you can be duped like your mother and prostitute yourself to one man exclusively whereby you fall under the heavy thumb of “the oppressor.”  All wives are just “one-man whores.”

There’s no end to the absurdities your young girl will be convinced to swallow.  “I plan to leap from guy to guy as much as I please and no one can stop me because I’m liberated!”  In other words, these people will turn your daughter into a slut with my sister’s books as instruction manuals.

She’ll be telling you, “I’m probably never getting married and if I do it will be after I’ve established my career,” which nowadays often means never. “I’ll keep my own name and I don’t really want kids.  They’re such a bother and only get in the way.”
They’ll tell her, “Don’t let any guy degrade you by allowing him to open doors for you. To be called ‘a lady’ is an insult. Chivalry is a means of ownership.”

I’ve known women who fell for this creed in their youth who now, in their fifties and sixties, cry themselves to sleep decades of countless nights grieving for the children they’ll never have and the ones they coldly murdered because they were protecting the empty loveless futures they now live with no way of going back.  “Where are my children?  Where are my grandchildren?” they cry to me.

Your sister’s books destroyed my sister’s life!”  I’ve heard numerous times. 

During the time these women invaded our institutions, the character of the American woman was drastically changed by role models such as Rosalind Russell, Bette Davis, Deborah Kerr, Eva Arden, Donna Reed, Barbara Stanwyck, Claudette Colbert, Irene Dunn, Greer Garson. They were outstanding women who did not need any power lessons and whose own personalities, as well as the characters they interpreted, were strong and clear in their contours. Their voices were so different that you could tell them right away.

Bette Davis (1908-1989).

We all knew Rita Hayworth’s voice.  

We all knew Katherine Hepburn’s voice.

I dare you to identify the voices of the cookie-cutter post-women’s-liberation types from Hollywood today. How did these “liberated” women fall into such an indistinguishable pile of mush? They all look exactly the same with few individuating characteristics and their voices sound identical, these Julies and Jessicas!  My friend, Father George Rutler, calls them “the chirping fledglings of the new Dark Ages.”  The character of the American woman has been distorted by this pernicious movement. From where did this foul mouthed, tattooed, outlaw creature, who murders her baby without blinking an eye and goes partying without conscience or remorse come?  And, in such a short little phase in history?

Rita Hayworth (1918-1987).

I insist that woman always has been the arbiter of society and when those women at Lila Karp’s table in Greenwich Village set their minds to destroying the American Family by talking young women into being outlaws, perpetrators of infanticide, and haters of Western law, men and marriage, they accomplished just what they intended.  Their desire — and I witnessed it at subsequent meetings till I got pretty sick of their unbridled hate — was to tear American society apart along with the family and the “Patriarchal Slave-Master,” the American husband.

Mao Zedong (1893-1976)

We’re all so busy congratulating each other because Ronald Reagan “won the Cold War without firing a shot” entirely missing the bare truth which is that Mao, with his Little Red Book and the Soviets, won the Cold War without firing a shot by taking over our women, our young and the minds of everyone tutored by Noam Chomsky and the textbooks of Howard Zinn.

If you see something traitorous in this, a betrayal of my sister, I have come to identify with such people as Svetlana Stalin (Allilujeva) or Juanita Castro; coming out to speak plainly about a particularly harmful member of my family.  Loyalty can be highly destructive. I was one of the silent but at last I’m “spilling the beans.” The girls have been up to something for years and it’s really not good. It’s evil. We should be sick to our souls over it.  I know I am. And so, mass destruction, the inevitable outcome of all socialist/communist experiments, leaves behind its signature trail of wreckage.

So much grace, femininity and beauty lost.

So many ruined lives.


Mallory Millett


This article has previously been translated into Swedish and published on Julia Caesar’s blog

Mallory Millett has been living in New York City with her husband for 25 years. She is the chief economist at several American companies and a member of The David Horowitz Freedom Center.

TNT is truly independent!

We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.

Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…