Late Stage Feminism

Late stage feminism is the end state of a movement that set out to free women from male authority. The end state is a mother who kills her children and is given money for it.

In 2026 a Massachusetts mother who murdered her three children was given more than $1 million by supporters online. A woman who carried six children out of a fire, with burns over 93% of her body, received $42,000. Killings excused by an ideology are old. What is new is that the support was wide, open, and proud. Supporters filmed themselves holding their own children while saying they felt sympathy for her. The reaction is the more disturbing part.

There are two explanations for that support. The first is the abortion argument, which moved from “not yet a person” to “my body”, and then took a further step that carries “my body” past birth. Underneath that first explanation is an older claim: feminism rejects the order between men and women that every lasting society settled into, so what it actually opposes is biology, and a movement that opposes biology ends in inversion. The second explanation is simpler. A woman gets defended by other women whatever she did, and abortion only made the defense sayable.

Core takeaways

• The abortion argument was made in three steps: the unborn are not yet a person, then the hard cases, then bodily autonomy. The third step does not stop at birth.
• A born child causes stress, impairs a life, does harm, and depends on the parent, so the autonomy argument allows exactly what it was meant to rule out.
• Feminism rejects the order every lasting society settled into. On feminism’s own account of history, that order rests on biology, and the movement does not win against biology.
• Where equal opportunity goes furthest, the sexes differ most, because free people choose what they are predisposed to.
• The instincts do not vanish. They are redirected, from a husband to a boss and a bureaucracy, and from children to pets, causes, and migrant groups.
• The second explanation is that women defend women whatever the act, and abortion only made that defense sayable.

The two payments

• More than $1 million to a mother who murdered her three children.
• $42,000 to a woman burned over 93% of her body carrying six children out of a fire.
• More than half a million dollars to a man who murdered a white teenager.

The two payments were made in the same country in the same year. More than $1 million went to a mother who murdered her three children. $42,000 went to a woman who carried six children out of a burning house and was burned over 93% of her body. Not long before, more than half a million dollars went to a man who murdered a white teenager. The fundraising platform that took the mother’s money has a rule against raising money for someone charged with a crime. The teenager’s killer was kept off it under that rule. The rule was waived for the mother, so she could raise on the larger site.

The crime itself is not new. What is new is wide public support for it, and the culture that allows and enables that support. The same culture cheered a political assassination. Supporters filmed themselves holding their own children to say they felt sympathy. One comment under the account of it described the change this way: it went from they are just fetuses to they are just kids.

The three arguments for abortion

• Rape, incest, and a fetus that cannot survive: about 3 to 4% of abortions together.
• Financial reasons: about 6 to 7%.
• Elective, chosen for convenience: about 92%.

The nearest explanation for the support is the abortion debate, and it is a fair one. If killing a child in the womb is acceptable, killing one outside it is a small step. Abortion has been defended three ways, one after another.

The first argument said the unborn are not yet a person, only developing cells, so ending them cannot be murder. That argument fails on late-term abortion, which the same side supports. A child at that stage is functionally identical to one outside the womb. So the first argument never supported abortion on demand until birth.

The second argument was made once the first was seen to be broken. It leaned on the hard cases, sexual assault above all. Those cases are real and rare. Even granted in full, they do not support abortion until birth. They bought time.

The third and current argument is bodily autonomy. It concedes that abortion kills a child. It says pregnancy causes stress, impairment, and harm, so ending it is self-defense against an unwanted parasite that depends on you.

The hard cases are a small share of the whole. Rape, incest, and a fetus that cannot survive together account for about 3 to 4% of abortions. Financial reasons account for about 6 to 7%. Elective abortions, chosen for convenience, account for about 92%. The man giving those shares calls himself pro-abortion while giving them. He adds one figure with nothing behind it, that 30% of Gen Z was aborted. He also offers a renaming: call abortion deporting children, and its supporters can no longer support it.

The first account adds a separate charge against the same people. They would import the whole Third World at the cost of civilizational collapse, and would defend violent criminals against deportation. They refuse nine months for a child they acted to conceive, while expecting everyone else to give lifelong labor and security to their pet social projects.

What the autonomy argument allows after birth

• In the womb: stress, impairment, harm, dependence.
• After birth: stress, impairment, harm, dependence.
• Nothing on the list changes at birth.

The autonomy argument does not stop where the people who make it want it to stop. It allows a child to be killed for the stress, impairment, and harm it causes, and for depending on you.

Birth changes nothing on that list. A born child is stressful. A born child impairs a life, a career most of all. A born child causes harm, psychological and otherwise. A born child still depends on the parent for its existence. So bodily autonomy becomes autonomy, full stop. The mother who killed her three children is what the argument looks like when someone follows it. That is the rationalization behind the support. It is the conclusion of something, not the cause.

The order every society settled into

• Every long-standing society in every era and culture became patriarchal.
• The exceptions were an extreme minority and did not last.
• On feminism’s own history, men held the arrangement for thousands of years until a century ago.

The move from the self-sacrificing mother to open support of infanticide, first in the womb and now outside it, looks sudden. On the first account it is the natural progression of the movement. Feminism is by definition a rejection of the social order between men and women, the patriarchy, in place since the dawn of civilization, and no feminist claims to be fine with patriarchy. The exceptions were an extreme minority and did not last, which is why a mass movement was needed in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Every long-standing society in every era and every culture became patriarchal because it is the most stable arrangement. An arrangement that is most stable regardless of circumstance can only rest on biological incentives. If patriarchy had been a one-off, it could be called a social construct. Feminism’s own history says men ruled women with an iron grip everywhere until a century ago. On that history there was a biological cause for the arrangement starting, a biological reason it continued, and thousands of years of adaptation to it. So on its own account of the past, feminism’s rejection of male authority is a rejection of human biology. The anger is aimed at men. What it opposes is nature.

The plainer version of the same claim goes through violence. All law derives from violence, and men hold the monopoly on violence, so men make the laws. A society that is truly matriarchal gets taken over by the men of its own tribe or of the next one. Where a matriarchy exists, it exists under a patriarch who protects it. On that account every society will always be patriarchal, men are the more stable half, and women have been selected over those thousands of years to live under the arrangement.

Inversion

• Demure and modest becomes loud and obnoxious.
• Submitting to authority becomes unruly.
• The child’s fiercest protector becomes the child’s greatest threat.

A movement that opposes biology goes for total inversion. If women are predisposed to be demure and modest, the feminist must be loud and obnoxious. If women are predisposed to submit to authority, the feminist must be unruly. If women are predisposed to be the fiercest protectors of their children, as every society in history shows, the ultimate feminist inverts that and becomes the child’s greatest threat. An early thinker of the movement said as much from the other side. Women could not be brought to embrace feminism by being offered a choice. They would have to be forced.

The instincts that do not go away

The inversion is never complete, because the instincts do not go away. The societies that have gone furthest toward equal opportunity show the largest differences between the sexes. People given real freedom choose what they are predisposed to. Thousands of years of adaptation do not erase. The instinct toward authority and the instinct toward maternity are as strong as they ever were, so each one is given a substitute object.

A boss or a bureaucracy stands in for a husband or a patriarchy. Pets and social causes stand in for children, and so do migrant and minority groups, treated the way a mother treats her own. That is far from the early dream of turning women into men, and it is where the ideology arrives. One old line states the arrangement it replaced: the homemaker is the ultimate career, and every other career exists to support it. The rule now is an office job and paying someone else to raise the children.

The second explanation

• Women defend women for anything.
• The goal is power without accountability, and inversion is done where it serves power.
• Abortion made the defense sayable. It did not build the loyalty.

Alongside the ideological explanation there is a plainer one, from the man who calls himself pro-abortion. The abortion argument is one component, and abortion did make killing one’s children more acceptable to say out loud. The main reason is simpler. Women defend other women for anything. Believe all women. It is own-group loyalty, and nothing more. On this explanation the supporters did not follow an argument to its end. They defended one of their own, and the argument was already there to make the defense sayable.

The same explanation declines the word inversion. The goal is not to invert anything. The goal is control and power without accountability, and inversion is done where it serves power and skipped where it does not. It agrees with the first explanation on the last point, in its own words: a movement at war with biology, with science, and with the natural order of things always loses.

The position held here

The pair of payments is not a freak event. It is the argument followed to its end by people who were going to defend her anyway. The first explanation covers how the defense became sayable. The second explanation covers why these particular people gave the money. Both explanations reach the same conclusion, that a movement opposed to biology cannot win, and both point at the culture rather than the courts as the place where it gets settled.

The position held here is pro-life in the lean, except after rape or other such damage. The fix belongs in the culture that produces the support, in the motivation and the customs around it, rather than in laws and courts.

Related pages

• Women’s Suffrage - The Substitute Husband holds the state as the stand-in for a husband, which is the same redirection this page ends on, run through the vote.
• Schooling - The Format Filter holds what a school day built for girls taught each sex about the other.
• The Gen Z Gender War - The Split holds the four waves of feminism and the men’s side of the split.
• Gender Ideology - The Override Claim holds the other claim that belief can override biology, and where it fails.
• The Woke Mind Virus holds the same question, which way the arrow between belief and mental state runs, measured on young men.

Open questions

• Which came first for the supporters, the argument or the loyalty? A test is a case where a mother killed her children and no argument was available, and whether the money came anyway.
• The 92% elective share and the 30% of Gen Z figure carry nothing behind them on this page. Which dataset gives each, and does the share hold outside the United States?

Sources

• Basic Logic, How Feminism Justified Killing Children (YouTube, published 2026-09-03, 8 min 20 s). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SOWFC2SvFY. Read from YouTube’s auto-generated captions. Supplied the two payments, the third case, the three abortion arguments, the autonomy step, the patriarchy claim, the inversion, and the substitutes. Names in it: Lindsay Clancy, the mother; Emma Schols, the woman burned saving six children; Carmelo Anthony, the man paid after killing a teenager; Simone de Beauvoir, the early thinker who said women would have to be forced.
• Asmongold TV, This is genuinely f***ed.. (YouTube, published 2026-09-05, 16 min 45 s), a reaction to the video above with the host’s own takes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtli77ZzhT0. Read from YouTube’s auto-generated captions. Supplied the fundraising rule (GoFundMe), the abortion shares (3 to 4%, 6 to 7%, about 92%), the 30% of Gen Z line, the violence account of patriarchy, the own-group reading, the power reading, the migrant-groups-as-children line, the comment quoted, and the homemaker line, which he read as C.S. Lewis’s. The political assassination he compares the reaction to is Charlie Kirk’s.
• The owner’s position on abortion, stated 2026-09-05: pro-life in the lean, except after rape or other such damage, and a fix at the cultural source, the motivation and the culture around it, rather than in laws and courts.