George Orwell understood how authoritarian systems exploit zeal (enthusiastic devotion to a cause or ideal), and his insights remain relevant to modern movements such as feminism, especially in their Marxist and socialist forms. Authoritarian regimes do not endure solely by force, nor by the presence of soldiers or police. They endure by capturing the loyalty and zeal of ordinary people, who willingly enforce conformity in their own communities. He wrote:

“It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies…” — George Orwell

In his book, 1984, Orwell singled out women (especially young women) as the most eager adherents of the Party. Not necessarily the most informed, they were the most zealous repeaters of slogans, the most determined informants, and the most ruthless in demanding loyalty from others. It was an incredibly insightful observation, because it’s based on reality. Of course, Orwell’s warning wasn’t about women’s nature, but about how regimes exploit demographics most willing to serve as enforcers of ideology.

That warning feels uncomfortably relevant today. Feminism, particularly in its Marxist and socialist forms, has been one of the most effective vehicles for channeling zeal into ideological conformity, making women particularly vulnerable to manipulation. Promising justice and equality, it instead produced a culture where many women see themselves as defenders of virtue while in reality serving as enforcers of orthodoxy.

The bad news is that history makes clear that authoritarianism thrives not just through brute power, but through willing zealots. And Orwell seemed to recognize that feminism’s appeal to fairness and belonging makes it uniquely vulnerable to being weaponized. What young women need to understand is that following such ideologies often makes them little more than pawns in that game.

Zeal as the Enforcer of Tyranny

From a leadership standpoint, it is essential to understand that authoritarian regimes cannot sustain themselves solely on violence. They need ordinary people to carry out the daily work of surveillance, denunciation, and conformity. Of course, these enforcers are not always coerced into service. Many join willingly, ignorantly convinced that their loyalty demonstrates virtue. Who does that sound like?

Of course, this isn’t new. In Nazi Germany, women were heavily involved in party auxiliaries, child indoctrination programs, and neighborhood surveillance. They often saw themselves as protectors of the nation’s future, which justified their role in enforcing ideological purity. In the Soviet Union, neighbors and even family members denounced one another to the authorities, believing that betrayal was a patriotic duty.

We even saw a similar thing in Mao’s China. Young women made up a significant portion of the Red Guards, who carried out violent attacks on teachers, neighbors, and even relatives accused of “impure” thinking. In fact, the story of Song Binbin demonstrates this perfectly. Of course, many of these young women believed they were participating in a moral crusade to purify society. The zeal was genuine, even though it produced devastating consequences. Interestingly, it was as if those young women were entirely oblivious to the harm they were causing.

The Modern Parallel

Today, Orwell’s warning echoes in the demographic most commonly associated with progressive activism: liberal (often white) women. Surveys and cultural trends consistently show that this group is the most active in pushing forward progressive orthodoxy and punishing dissent. They dominate activist movements, social media campaigns, and educational spaces. Think of the ramifications.

Unfortunately, they are also the ones largely tasked with teaching our children. In schools, where they outnumber male teachers by three to one, they are the ones introducing ideological conformity under the banner of inclusion or safety. In corporations, they are often the enforcers of diversity and sensitivity programs that require absolute agreement. Online, they are some of the most vocal in shaming, silencing, or destroying the reputations of those who disagree with progressive narratives.

In fact, women were also the biggest drivers of normative conformity enforcement across society during the pandemic. And just like the women Orwell described, they rarely see themselves as oppressors. They believe they are defending justice, fairness, or compassion. Indeed, their zeal makes them powerful tools for movements that undermine liberty and enforce conformity by social pressure rather than open debate.

Why Women, and Why This Group

The reasons are not biological but psychological and cultural. Women, more than men, are likely to tie their sense of identity to these movements. Political movements that offer a sense of belonging and moral approval provide a powerful incentive to adopt slogans without question. This might also explain why men are often not the target of such initiatives.

The framing of progressive ideology also taps into emotional instincts. Narratives of protection, care, and safety resonate strongly with women, particularly those who have been conditioned to value these traits. Whether true or not, when they are told that certain policies or positions protect the vulnerable or save the planet, many women adopt them instinctively and without critical thinking. This makes them easy targets for exploitation, but also fervent soldiers of indoctrination efforts.

Finally, the packaging of progressive ideology as a moral crusade often masks or eliminates doubt. Opponents are not presented as people with different views. They are portrayed as dangerous, hateful, or even evil. This certainty allows the enforcer to see themselves as virtuous while treating dissenters as threats to be eliminated. Once believed, opposing ideas are simply rejected rather than considered. Just like Song Binbin, it is only later in life that one begins to embrace critical thinking and see the truth.

Why Feminism, Socialism, and Marxism Appeal, and How They Undermine Society

These “isms” often appeal because they promise fairness, equality, and justice, which feels nice. They frame themselves as the defense of the powerless against the powerful. Feminism (specifically, Marxist and Socialist Feminism) adds another dimension, presenting itself as resistance to patriarchy and structural oppression. Of course, this positions women against men.

What is often overlooked is that Marxist and socialist regimes seized on feminism as a vehicle for destabilization, presenting it as liberation while using it to fracture family and social cohesion. Of course, it makes sense when you think about it. If women no longer trust or even despise men, society begins to fracture. That is a powerful tool for an enemy because they are not the ones putting in the work.

These frameworks were indeed promoted as noble causes for equality, yet their deeper roots lay in strategies designed to weaken cultural cohesion and undermine Western systems. And that’s exactly what they’ve done. It’s shockingly easy to do, too. I’m reminded of Ed Bernays and how he manipulated the same types of women into becoming smokers in the name of women’s liberation. Of course, many who embrace these ideologies today do so without realizing that they are carrying forward ideas first cultivated for the purpose of political subversion rather than genuine liberation.

Of course, the attraction is not intellectual. It is emotional. This is precisely why women are often the target of this form of ideological subversion. The lonely and angry are particularly susceptible. Furthermore, these ideologies make their followers feel virtuous simply by joining the cause and reciting its slogans. Accordingly, the moral burden and responsibility of independent thought are replaced by the feeling of comfort that comes with belonging to a movement that claims to represent justice. Accordingly, those movements typically do the thinking for their followers.

History demonstrates the cost of these appeals. For example, Socialism and Marxism have led to democide, economic collapse, and mass suffering. Feminism, particularly in its radicalized forms, has contributed to the erosion of family structures and the destabilization of cultural foundations. The promises were enticing, but the outcomes were destructive. Truth often comes late for these women, long after the damage has already been done.

Lessons from History

Unfortunately, both men and women are usually unaware that feminism has socialist roots, with the very term “féminisme” being first coined in 1837 by Charles Fourier, a utopian socialist. His language may have sounded noble, but the utility of feminism has repeatedly been redirected by regimes for ideological control. Nazi (National Socialist) Germany mobilized zeal in the name of national pride. The Soviet Union did so in the name of equality. Mao’s China did so in the name of revolutionary purity. Each system relied on those who sincerely believed they were serving righteousness, even as they enforced the very mechanisms of oppression they thought they were resisting.

The same pattern is visible today, where modern feminism often aligns with progressive orthodoxy, convincing adherents that they are dismantling oppression while in reality reinforcing systems of conformity and control. Orwell captured the truth with unreal clarity: tyranny is not sustained primarily by soldiers. It is sustained by the ordinary zealot who believes they are virtuous. That zeal is the glue that holds authoritarian systems together, long after fear would have failed on its own.

With that said, I would also argue that history teaches us that only cultures grounded in principle resist authoritarian zeal. The American Founders understood this reality. They created a system of checks and balances, limited government, and individual rights precisely because they knew emotional appeals could not be trusted to preserve liberty.

The same truth applies today. If liberty is to survive, society must replace zeal with principle. Critical thinking must replace conformity. Education must prioritize how to think, rather than what to think. The warning here is that indoctrination is a real phenomenon. Without this shift, slogans will always overpower reason. After all, that’s how people can still believe the U.S. is the ‘Land of the Free‘ despite an abundance of evidence to the contrary.

Communities must also rebuild around virtues that cannot be manipulated by propaganda. Liberty, honesty, and responsibility must be treated as higher values than belonging or signaling compassion. I don’t know how else to say it, but it’s only when principles and accuracy outweigh emotional appeals that citizens can resist the temptation to become willing enforcers of authoritarian ideology.

And finally, individuals must take responsibility for their own virtue. Joining a cause or repeating a slogan does not make someone moral. Courage, integrity, and independent thought are the real markers of virtue. Liberty survives only when individuals refuse to outsource morality to mass movements.

Final Thoughts

Let’s start with the idea that what begins as a promise of liberation often ends as a tool of control. I also do not believe that Orwell’s words were simply a narrative device in a novel. Like many of his words, they served as a warning about the nature of tyranny and the mechanisms it employs to survive. He was right about many things, such as the dangers of surveillance, the distortion of history, propaganda that distorts the truth, and power’s drive to control not just actions but thought itself. Here again, he has identified the zeal of women as a critical enforcer of Party orthodoxy. History confirmed that pattern in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Maoist China.

Sure, I could be wrong here, but I think the part that most people miss is that today, the same zeal is typically visible in white liberal women who dominate progressive activism. They are convinced they are virtuous, but their actions often reveal them as modern enforcers of ideological conformity. This is to say that they are not the protectors of liberty they imagine themselves to be. They are, knowingly or not, the protectors of tyranny. Accordingly, they are often wrong. The scary part for me is that they are often tasked with teaching our children. This makes them some of the most dangerous people in our society.

If I am wrong, then perhaps we should ponder a larger question: have the outcomes of these movements truly benefited women? After all, divorce rates have climbed, birth rates have collapsed, and rates of depression and dissatisfaction among women have risen. Accordingly, substance abuse has risen. The promise was liberation, but the results often resemble isolation and decline. Not to mention the extra burdens of responsibility and personal safety. Is that really what women want? Is that what they’ve been fighting for? I ask because men don’t even want that. We just take them on because we are expected to.

Worse still, many feminist women who consider themselves patriotic or capitalist now often inadvertently champion ideas rooted in Marxist and socialist frameworks that were never designed to strengthen the family or preserve liberty. How does that happen? Indoctrination at the school level? Well, if outcomes matter more than slogans, then it is worth asking whether these movements have delivered progress and freedom or simply another form of bondage under a different name. After all, if a woman ends up alone, childless, in an apartment, chained to a desk and paying taxes like everyone else, then what was it all for?

Either way, the road ahead is clear. Liberty will not be defended by emotional appeals, nor will it be preserved by those who swallow slogans. It can and will only be preserved by principle, by the courage to think critically, by those willing to face the threat, and by the refusal to play the role of the Party’s willing enforcer.

True security is hard to achieve when you’re forced to provide it alone. Moreover, if you’ve been conditioned to despise your natural counterpart, that’s not liberation. Perhaps it’s simply a warning that something is very wrong. Perhaps you misplaced your trust in a lie. Do you feel empowered?

Keep Learning. Check out my article titled, The Consequences of a War Against Men