Gress sets out to prove that feminism is erasing womanhood. She does not exactly succeed.
Gress' argument is as messy as her writing style. She has a central point: Hierarchy (all hierarchy) is good, women who oppose hierarchy (any hierarchy) are misguided or evil. Feminism is bad because is opposes hierarchy. Women are mothers, even the ones who aren't. It is better to be a mother than a human being, and women should not try to be human beings. And she hates Meghan Markle (that's not relevant to any of her arguments, it just comes up a lot). She constantly confuses radical feminist ideas with liberal feminist ideas, while failing to acknowledge the radical feminist movement exists. She thinks only Matt Walsh knows how to define a woman as a human female adult, despite the fact that radical feminists were screaming Adult Human Female at the trans cult years before Matt Walsh decided to start honking his clown nose into a microphone and calling it a podcast. She does not seem well versed in history, particularly the history of feminism. And her work centers only on feminists she can dig up dirt on - though not all of her claims are correct. All of this makes her work into a nearly unreadable word salad, comprised entirely of old conservative jargon that she desperately tries to present as fresh and interesting.
So let's go chapter by chapter and try to make sense of this mess.
Part I : The Lost Girls
Gress tries to debunk feminism by illuminating how corrupt the 'founders' of feminism were. In this section, she tries to connect feminism with whatever movements were popular at the time of each chapter (Enlightenment, Romanticism, Spiritualism, Communism). But she fails to adequately connect these movements to feminism as a whole. The most she can do is produce one or two individuals who may or may not have been feminists and were attached to the movement she dislikes. This formula overwhelmingly fails to convince.
Chapter 1 is about Mary Wollstonecraft, whom Gress claims is the first founder of feminism - alas, historians disagree with this, as the founding of the feminist movement occurred at Seneca Falls. Gress wants us to think that Wollstonecraft invented feminism with her Vindication of the Rights of Women, but fails to understand that women were writing on women's rights well before Wollstonecraft, and that merely opposing hierarchy does not make her the originator of feminism, as feminism is not inherently or solely an anti-hierarchy movement. If we want to argue that anyone writing about women's rights before Seneca Falls is the founder of feminism, we would have to examine Olympe de Gouges, Archangela Tarabotti, Moderata Fonte, and Christine de Pizan...but I'm going to go ahead and assume that Gress has never heard of those women. And if we assume that anyone who opposed the notion of hierarchy is a proto-feminist, then we have to propose Martin Luther as a founder of feminism as well, for his work opposing the hierarchal Catholic church. Surely the Catholic Gress has heard of him. Ultimately the threads of this argument don't connect because she doesn't understand the words she's using, their meaning and history, and is grasping at straws to convince us all that feminism somehow is the stepchild of de Sade. If that sounds like a desperate reach, it's because it is.
Chapter 2 turns to Mary Shelley, Wollstonecraft's daughter. Or so the title would have us believe. Most of this chapter is about Percy Shelley and Romanticism. She commits the same mistake as above, trying to connect feminism to romanticism and then to Shelley. the problem is that no one views Percy or even Mary Shelley as founders of feminism. Literary greats, yes. Feminist organizers, no. I don't care for the Romantics either, but none of the information Gress presents us about them (which I already knew) connects them to the feminist movement. Strike two, Gress.
Chapter 3 finally gets to women who were actual feminists: Stanton and Anthony. Here Gress tries to connect feminism to Spiritualism, and here she does a better job than previously. She can prove that Stanton was an influential feminist, and that she was also a Spiritualist, and that her feminism was influenced by her spiritualism. Her argument is almost coherent (hold for applause). But she fails to take into consideration that Spiritualism was extremely widespread at the time, and was practiced by many people, not just feminists. She even acknowledges that it affected 19th century Christianity, but then quickly moves to assert that just because some Christians were also spiritualists doesn't mean that the church was necessarily tainted by it. Yet she can't apply the same logic to feminism. Interesting. Gress is forced to acknowledge that Stanton's spiritualism and theosophy caused her to be outcast among other feminists (she remains a controversial figure in feminism to this day, for a lot of reasons), but still insists that it somehow shaped (and tainted) all feminist thought leading to today. Make sense of that.
Chapter 4 is more of the same mistake, in which Gress searches for something she doesn't like in the culture and claims that it made feminism. This chapter's boogeyman is Communism, with a touch of socialism as well for good measure. Again, the fact that Steinem had communist tendencies does not mean that all feminism is communism. This is especially obvious since the author acknowledges that Steinem's communist beliefs were not something she published openly with her feminist work, but something she hid.
Chapter 5 is the messiest chapter in the whole book. Gress' determination to link all feminism with anything she doesn't like by cherry picking and then making tenuous connections to all feminists today is still present, but here she has so many grievances that the chapter feels very much like her throwing things at the wall in the hopes that one of them will stick with the reader. It's a little desperate. Gress talks occultism and the second wave, focusing on the messy personal lives of the women in the movement, never on the conditions they were fighting against. Her list of evil founders of feminism again includes people who were not feminists, and again she displays her lack of knowledge by acting as if Kate Millet is somehow inspiring women today. The truth is that the second wave of feminism is regarded as problematic by many today, and Kate Millet is not exactly a poster girl to modern feminists, for reasons that Gress barely mentions. The fact that generation after generation of women keep turning to feminism to try to improve their lives is because they have the same old problems and want to try new solutions, not because they discovered 1970s Wicca and decided that shooting Andy Warhol sounds like fun. The fact that feminism has different 'waves' testifies to how it keeps being reinvented, leaving behind women like Kate Millet and others and improving as it goes (You can't even find print copies of Dworkin anymore - hardly a culture shaper then, is she?). I guess Gress, being a Catholic, doesn't understand the idea of gaining new information and using it to change one's worldview for the better -- she's too locked into her own canon to understand the idea of growth in others.
Part II: Mean Girls.
Herein Gress tries to persuade the reader that women believe in feminism because of peer pressure from a clique mean old ladies who control the culture. No, really.
Chapter 6: Gress claims that there is hardly an institution in our culture that hasn't been overtaken by feminism, listing Hollywood, politics, academia, and Disney as some of her examples. But she doesn't prove her examples, so I'm just going to laugh at them. Sure, Carrie, women control politics. That's why a convicted sexual abuser is president, again. Gress wants us to understand that women are peer pressured into thinking feminist thoughts because we just want to fit in with the mean old ladies who run the world. Read the stories of women who escape from patriarchy and you may learn the opposite is true. I also have to note that her frequent lack of research is glaring; she claims that no one is willing to discuss the link between abortion and breast cancer in the last few decades, despite the fact that I found two studies from the American Cancer Society on the topic, dated 2018 and 2020. This took me five minutes. Does she not research any of her claims before she makes them?
Chapter 7 opens with Gress asserting that all the top feminist leaders of today are in their sixties and seventies, again revealing her ignorance of what's actually going on in feminism. She's angry that conservative women aren't more popular with their liberal peers, like a child sulking over not being invited to a birthday party. She discusses abortion and speaks against human trafficking, ignoring the fact that radical feminists form one of the most openly anti-prostitution groups out there.
Chapter 8 discusses how feminism has weaponized victimhood, in an obvious attempt to forestall real women's real stories of their lives and problems. Gress posits that feminism is insidiously trying to convince women that men have it better and that women's lives would improve if they gained the same advantages. She is against women sharing their troubles with one another because of the way it weaponizes our sense of compassion. She also cites envy and resentment as being at the root of women's attempts to end our troubles, which she says we have made up by talking about them together. These views are not new in conservative Christianity, but they weren't convincing in past decades and they aren't convincing now. Her fear that women are trying to become like men is very vague, but no matter what issue we assume she's talking about (abuse, sexual vulnerability, equal pay, legislative bias, medical misogyny) we see that she truly doesn't care about women's well being. According to her, we have it fine. Go home, everyone, hide your pain and have a bunch of kids. There are no problems and never will be, and if there are problems in society you can fix them by being a wife and mother. If you've read this far in this review, I hope I don't have to explain to you how horrifically malicious this belief is.
Part III: Lost Girls
Gress addresses the current abortion rights, LGB, and transgender movements and claims that they are erasing women. As a rad-leaning Christian feminist, I agreed more with portions of this section than previous ones, but I still chafe at Gress' insistence that women wanting to be seen as human is the root of these problems. Does she know the trans movement is being bankrolled by men?
Chapter 9 is about gay rights and Margaret Sanger, two things that should probably have their own chapters, because again, feminism isn't just whatever exists that Gress doesn't like. Gay rights and feminism are not the same movement. They are two different things.
Chapter 10 addresses the transgender movement. It opens by discussing Simone de Beauvoir. I don't like de Beauvoir, but she continues to be adored by mainstream feminism. Gress, however, misunderstands her famous quote about becoming a woman in precisely the same way that trans activists do (the quote is about gender, not sex). Gress argues for biological essentialism, which is again a favorite tool of the trans movement (it's remarkable how many beliefs conservatives and trans activists share, really. Makes you think). She speaks against transitioning, specifically the transitioning of minors, which I happen to agree with her on (though I think she should talk about male transitions, not just female ones). I also appreciate her point about how transgenderism relies heavily on consumerism.
Part IV: The Way Home
I have read the introduction to this section three times and I still have no idea what she's getting at. Life is too good for most people? Technology makes people forget how hard life used to be? Maybe?
Chapter 11 is titled Motherhood. Here Gress argues that all women are mothers. Even those of us who are not biological mothers are made to nurture and guide and instruct -- this is motherhood, and this is the essence of womanhood, to pour into others regardless of whether we birthed them or not. It is a beautiful image, but I am continually amazed by conservatives insistence that this is a role specifically designated to women. Are men not also called to be kind, to teach and instruct, to practice the fruits of the spirit? Are their arms not also shaped for holding? Cultural Christianity, which answers a resounding no, strips men of the responsibility to be righteous. What a shame, to be so fixated on creating a narrow definition of womanhood, that they box men entirely out of the ability to nurture and instruct. It's the same old same old cultural Christianity that I've seen for years now, but it's not biblical and I reject it. My husband is the kindest person I've ever met, a man who loves to pour his energy into encouraging and instructing people, and that does not make him a woman, because righteousness is not a construct that changes by sex or gender. And for what it's worth, feminists do nurture and teach and love each other -- Gress just doesn't like them doing that, so I guess it doesn't count (Ch. 8).
After writing this whole review (which at this point is probably longer than the book itself) I wonder if perhaps Gress is smarter than I think, because she produced so much illogical and poorly researched nonsense that at several points I considered giving up trying to wade through it all. Maybe that's the point. Maybe she wants to throw so much garbage at the reader that they turn their brains off and just accept whatever she tells them. After all, if she connects every evil in the world to feminism, sooner or later she'll have to be right, right? Right? Right? Right?
That's okay. Let her rage. When she, or any conservative woman, needs feminism, it will be there for them. It always has been, in the fact that they can vote, go to college, publish under their own names, have their own bank accounts, and more. Feminism, the Great Evil, has made all these things possible, even for women like Gress. Far from erasing womanhood, feminism made the publication of this book possible.
Somehow, I doubt Gress will be saying thank you to her feminist foremothers anytime soon.