How a Generation of Young Women Moved Left after 2010—And Why
Biology, declining marriage/religion, social media, and the moralization of distress
Why young women moved left after 2010 isn’t about deprivation, but biology, declining marriage/religion, social media, and the moralization of distress.
If you’re following me but don’t yet receive these essays by email, you’re missing most of them. Substack doesn’t email articles to followers—only to subscribers. You can get every new essay free in your inbox by subscribing 👉:
Since roughly 2010, young white unmarried women in Western societies have experienced a rapid and unusually uniform shift toward Post-Modern Left-of-Center ideologies. This essay argues that the shift is best explained not by persuasion or elite manipulation, but by a specific and ordered set of causes:
Biology of young females—particularly higher average levels of Neuroticism.
Collapse of marriage, having children, and religious worship of women in their twenties,
Extremely high rates of social media usage,
Algorithmic amplification of highly emotional and negative content, and
The widespread support for Post-Modern Left-of Center ideologies among the professional class that is uniquely suited to interpret and moralize psychological distress as being caused by negative actors in society.
The Central Moral Dilemma of the Left, which tends to create purity spirals within young supporters due to its ability to implement its prime moral objective: Equality.
Taken together, these forces produced a form of radicalization that is demographic, emotional, and structural rather than conventionally political.
If you enjoy this article, you should read my From Poverty to Progress book series.
What the Data Actually Show
Any serious analysis of the radicalization of young white unmarried women must begin with the empirical record. The shift described in the opening section is not anecdotal, impressionistic, or confined to activist subcultures. It is:
visible across multiple large-scale datasets (for example here and here)
appears in several Western countries simultaneously, (and here)
emerges on a compressed historical timeline beginning in the early 2010s.
What makes this shift distinctive is not merely its direction, but its demographic concentration, speed, and ideological intensity.
Ideological radicalization
Across the United States, Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and parts of Northern Europe, survey data show a sharp ideological divergence between young women and every other major demographic group. Measures from Pew, Gallup, the American National Election Studies, the General Social Survey, and comparable European surveys all point to the same pattern:
Women under roughly thirty, particularly those who are unmarried and childless, have moved rapidly toward Post-Modern Left-of-Center ideological positions and parties that support them
While young men have either remained stable or moved modestly in the opposite direction (which ironically dozens of media sources report as “radicalization of young men.”
Other demographic groups show far less ideological change during that time.
The result is likely the largest gender-based ideological gap ever recorded in modern democratic societies.
This gap is not simply a matter of party preference or voting behavior. On questions related to equality, oppression, identity, harm, speech, gender, race, and moral responsibility, young unmarried women express views that are not merely left-leaning but increasingly absolutist.
Support for speech restrictions in the name of safety (and here)
Endorsement of group-based moral hierarchies,
Belief in pervasive systemic injustice, and
Moralized interpretations of disagreement all rise sharply within this cohort after 2010.
Older women, married women, women with children, and women with regular religious participation consistently show lower levels of ideological intensity, even when they identify as left-of-center.
The timing of the shift is critical. Prior to roughly 2010, ideological differences between young women and other groups existed but were modest and unstable. In some periods, young women were slightly more liberal; in others, the gap nearly disappeared.
What emerges after 2010 is qualitatively different: a steep, monotonic increase in left-of-center identification and ideological intensity among young women that does not revert with time (at least so far). This is not a cohort that “grows out of” its views as it ages; instead, each successive cohort of young women enters adulthood more ideologically aligned than the one before it.
Psychological distress
Parallel to this ideological shift are equally striking changes in psychological self-reports. Since the early 2010s, young women report dramatic increases in:
anxiety,
loneliness,
feelings of fragility, and
perceived threat from the social environment.
These trends are substantially larger for women than for men and are most pronounced among unmarried women without children. Measures of negative affect, rumination, and emotional volatility rise sharply during the same period in which ideological radicalization accelerates.
Crucially, longitudinal evidence suggests that psychological distress precedes ideological intensity more often than the reverse.
Individuals reporting higher levels of anxiety, depression, and perceived social threat are significantly more likely to adopt highly moralized and absolutist political views over time.
By contrast, adopting those views does not reliably predict subsequent psychological improvement.
This asymmetry matters, because it indicates that ideology is functioning less as a cause of distress and more as a response to it.
Diagnosed Mental Disorders
Beyond self-reported distress, there is clear evidence of a sharp increase in diagnosed mental health disorders among young women, particularly since the early 2010s. This rise is visible across multiple diagnostic categories and is substantially larger for young women than for young men.
In the United States, data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) show that major depressive episodes among women aged 18–25 nearly doubled between 2009 and 2022, rising far faster than among men of the same age. By the early 2020s, young women were roughly twice as likely as young men to report a recent major depressive episode.
Diagnoses of anxiety disorders show a similar pattern. Claims data, clinical surveys, and epidemiological studies consistently find higher prevalence and faster growth of anxiety diagnoses among young women than among men, with the steepest increases occurring after 2010.
Prescription data reinforce these trends. Rates of antidepressant and anti-anxiety medication use among young women have increased markedly over the past decade, outpacing increases among young men. These changes reflect not only greater help-seeking behavior, but a real expansion in clinically recognized disorder prevalence.
Crucially, these increases are not evenly distributed across the population. They are most pronounced among unmarried, childless women in early adulthood, the same demographic that shows the strongest ideological shifts. Married women, women with children, and older women consistently exhibit lower rates of diagnosed mood and anxiety disorders, even when controlling for income and education.
These diagnostic trends matter because they track closely with the ideological patterns discussed earlier. Rising rates of depression and anxiety do not merely coexist with radicalization; they shape receptivity to moral frameworks that emphasize harm, vulnerability, and external sources of suffering. An ideology that treats distress as evidence of moral awareness and attributes psychological pain to systemic injustice is especially appealing in a population experiencing historically high levels of clinically recognized disorder.
Importantly, the rise in diagnoses does not imply that earlier generations were mentally healthier in some absolute sense, nor does it imply bad faith or malingering. It does, however, establish that young women today are experiencing—and being treated for—substantially higher levels of psychological dysfunction than prior cohorts. Any serious explanation of their political radicalization must therefore account for this clinical reality, not merely subjective feelings or cultural narratives.
Social media usage
Mental health trends also align closely with changes in media consumption. Young women are, by a wide margin, the heaviest users of social media platforms measured in:
daily hours
frequency of engagement
emotional investment.
This is not limited to explicitly political content. Surveys consistently show that young women disproportionately consume material related to:
mental health,
identity,
relationships,
trauma, and
self-concept.
These domains overlap directly with the emotional and moral language of Post-Modern Left-of-Center ideologies, even when politics is not explicitly mentioned.
It is not just in the USA
International comparisons strengthen the argument that this is not a uniquely American phenomenon. Countries with high social media penetration, declining religious participation, delayed marriage, and professional-class dominance of cultural institutions show similar patterns.
Where these conditions are weaker or emerge later, the ideological shift among young women is delayed or attenuated. No comparable movement appears in societies with:
strong family formation norms,
high rates of early marriage, or
sustained religious participation among young adults.
A movement without institutions
One of the most striking empirical features of this shift is the absence of traditional organizational infrastructure. Unlike earlier political movements, there is no single party, church, labor union, or mass organization coordinating belief formation. Instead, ideological convergence occurs through diffuse networks, informal norms, and social signaling, primarily mediated by digital platforms. This helps explain both the speed and uniformity of the change. Ideas propagate not through persuasion or debate, but through:
emotional resonance,
social reinforcement, and
moral conformity.
The key empirical conclusion is difficult to avoid.
No prior Western ideological movement has mobilized such a large share of young women, across so many countries, in such a short period of time, without centralized leadership or formal recruitment. The data show a demographic that is simultaneously:
more distressed,
more emotionally engaged,
more digitally immersed, and
more ideologically aligned than any comparable group in recent history.
Any explanation that ignores this empirical foundation risks mistaking a structural transformation for a conventional political trend.
Young women have never had it so good materially
Any explanation of the radicalization of young white unmarried women must confront an uncomfortable but unavoidable fact: by nearly every material, legal, and social metric that can be measured across generations, young women in Western societies are better off today than at any point in history.
This radicalization cannot plausibly be explained by worsening material conditions relative to prior generations of young women. The empirical record points in the opposite direction.
Education
Young women today attain higher levels of formal education than men and vastly higher levels than women of previous generations. In the United States and across most of Western Europe, women now earn a clear majority of bachelor’s degrees and a growing share of graduate and professional degrees. Access to higher education for women is broader, less socially restricted, and more institutionally supported than at any time in the past. Earlier generations of women faced explicit legal barriers, informal discrimination, and strong cultural discouragement from pursuing advanced education. None of those constraints meaningfully apply today.
Employment Opportunities
Labor market outcomes show a similar pattern. Young women today enter occupations that were either closed to women or socially discouraged within living memory. Legal prohibitions on employment by sex are gone, occupational licensing barriers have largely fallen, and formal discrimination is actively policed. Women enjoy greater job mobility, greater geographic mobility, and greater ability to exit unsatisfactory employment than previous generations. While wage gaps persist in some sectors, they are dramatically smaller than in the past and coexist with unprecedented autonomy over career choice.
Reduced household duties
Material living standards further undermine any claim of generational deprivation. Young women today benefit from higher real incomes, greater access to consumer goods, safer housing, better transportation, and vastly improved medical care compared to women in the 1960s, 1970s, or earlier.
Basic household technologies that dramatically reduced physical labor—washing machines, dishwashers, refrigeration, climate control—are universal rather than luxuries. Health outcomes related to childbirth, maternal mortality, and reproductive health have improved dramatically over time. Even accounting for recent economic pressures such as housing costs, the overall material bundle available to young women today far exceeds that of their mothers and grandmothers.
Legal rights
Legal rights represent perhaps the starkest contrast. Women today enjoy full legal equality under the law in Western democracies. They possess independent property rights, contractual rights, voting rights, divorce rights, and reproductive autonomy that were either absent or highly constrained in earlier generations.
Domestic violence, marital rape, workplace harassment, and employment discrimination—once normalized or legally ignored—are now explicitly criminalized or prohibited. Social institutions that once enforced dependency on fathers or husbands have largely disappeared.
More leisure time
Time use data also contradict narratives of worsening material conditions. Young women today spend fewer hours on physically demanding household labor than any previous generation. They have more discretionary time, greater control over fertility, and more opportunities for leisure, travel, and self-directed consumption. While modern life brings new stresses, it does not impose the same physical burdens that structured women’s daily existence for centuries.
Crucially, none of these gains are marginal.
They represent structural improvements in material well-being that dwarf anything experienced by women prior to the late twentieth century. Earlier generations of women endured:
legal subordination,
economic dependency,
restricted mobility,
limited educational access, and
pervasive social control.
Even women who lived comfortable lives by the standards of their time operated within far narrower material and institutional constraints than young women face today.
This comparison matters because it falsifies a common intuitive explanation for contemporary radicalization: that young women have become more extreme because their material circumstances have deteriorated relative to the past.
The data do not support that claim.
Young women are not poorer, less educated, less free, or more materially constrained than previous generations of young women. In nearly every measurable dimension, they are more advantaged.
The implication is not that material problems no longer exist, or that individual suffering is illusory. It is that material deprivation, in the historical sense, cannot plausibly explain the intensity, speed, or demographic concentration of the ideological shift observed since 2010.
If worsening material conditions were the primary driver, one would expect similar radicalization among older women, married women, or women with children—groups that often face greater financial and time pressures. Instead, the most radicalized cohort is the one with the greatest material autonomy and the fewest binding obligations.
Whatever is driving the radicalization of young white unmarried women, it is not a return to historical patterns of female material oppression. The causes must be sought elsewhere:
in psychology rather than deprivation,
in perception rather than absolute conditions, and
in social and ideological structures that shape meaning rather than material survival.
Why Young Unmarried Women Are Especially Vulnerable
The fact that young women are materially better off than any previous generation sharpens rather than weakens the central puzzle. If worsening material conditions do not explain the radicalization of young white unmarried women, then the explanation must lie in characteristics that differentiate this group psychologically, socially, and developmentally from others living under the same economic and legal regime. Those differences are real, measurable, and highly relevant to ideological susceptibility.
Biology and Psychology: Neuroticism
A central factor is the biology of young females, particularly higher average levels of Neuroticism. Across cultures and measurement instruments, women score higher than men on Neuroticism, a personality trait associated with:
sensitivity to threat,
negative affect,
anxiety,
rumination, and
emotional volatility.
These differences are largest in young adulthood, precisely the life stage at which ideological identities are most fluid.
High Neuroticism does not imply weakness or pathology; it reflects a heightened attunement to potential harm and social risk. In evolutionary terms, such sensitivity conferred advantages in caregiving and social cohesion. In a modern ideological environment saturated with narratives of danger, injustice, and vulnerability, however, it also increases receptivity to moral frameworks centered on harm prevention and threat mitigation.
Biology and Psychology: Agreeableness
Social incentives further amplify vulnerability. Women tend to have higher levels what psychologist call Agreeable. That is women are more likely than other demographic groups to be:
more socially attuned,
more sensitive to peer approval, and
more likely to conform to perceived moral consensus within their networks.
Unlike Neuroticism, which declines with age, Agreebleness increases. In tightly connected social environments—especially digital ones—ideological alignment becomes a prerequisite for social belonging.
Post-Modern Left-of-Center ideologies offer a ready-made moral identity that signals compassion, awareness, and virtue. Adoption of that identity is rewarded socially, while deviation carries reputational risk. For individuals already sensitive to social threat, the cost of dissent can feel existential rather than merely intellectual.
Lower rates of marriage for women under 30
Unmarried status magnifies these tendencies.
Marriage historically provided women with:
emotional anchoring,
role clarity,
interdependence, and
a stable social identity embedded in family and community networks.
It also imposed practical constraints on time use, media consumption, and peer-group conformity. As marriage has been delayed or abandoned among women in their twenties, those stabilizing structures have weakened or disappeared. Young unmarried women today navigate adulthood with fewer externally imposed roles and fewer enduring commitments, leaving identity formation more exposed to peer influence and ideological substitution.
And at the very same time, young women moved to the Left, they also had a sudden decrease in the percentage of 12th grad females expecting to get married.
Decline in Motherhood
A closely related and historically unprecedented shift is the collapse in the percentage of women under thirty who have children.
Across Western societies, the share of women in their twenties who are mothers has fallen sharply over the past several decades, with the steepest declines occurring since the early 2000s.
For most of modern history, the majority of women entered motherhood by their mid-twenties;
today, a large majority of women under thirty are childless.
This change removes one of the strongest stabilizing forces in young women’s lives.
Child-rearing imposes structure, long time horizons, daily responsibility, and unavoidable contact with practical reality. It orients attention away from abstract moral conflict and toward concrete problem-solving, tradeoffs, and dependence on functional institutions.
The absence of children does not merely free time; it alters incentives, emotional priorities, and identity formation. When motherhood is delayed or abandoned at scale, young women spend a historically novel portion of early adulthood unmoored from roles that once anchored meaning, constrained ideological experimentation, and redirected anxiety into caretaking. That vacuum increases susceptibility to moral systems that promise purpose, urgency, and righteousness without requiring the long-term commitments and self-restraint historically associated with family formation.
Decline in religious observance
The collapse of early family formation also interacts with religious decline.
Regular religious worship historically supplied:
a comprehensive moral framework,
provided meaning, forgiveness, and limits
an interpretive lens for suffering, and
a community that normalized hardship without politicizing it.
channeling anxiety inward toward self-discipline or outward toward communal support rather than toward abstract social enemies.
As religious participation among young women has declined sharply since the 1990s, that moral operating system has not been replaced with an equally stabilizing alternative. What remains is a vacuum in which moral urgency persists but is no longer constrained by transcendent norms or institutional continuity.
Loneliness
Loneliness intensifies the effect. Young unmarried women report some of the highest levels of loneliness and emotional distress in contemporary societies, despite unprecedented connectivity. Isolation increases the psychological appeal of moral communities that offer belonging, purpose, and clarity. Ideology fills roles once occupied by family, religion, and local community, providing an identity that explains distress, assigns blame, and promises moral righteousness. The appeal is not abstract or theoretical; it is experienced as relief.
Post-Modern Left-of-Center framing
So basically everything that enabled previous generations of young women meaning in their lives and channel their biological Neuroticism and Agreeableness towards have decline substantially over the last 60 years, particularly in the last 20 years.
Just as important, one world view has arisen that seeks to replace religion, marriage and motherhood as a source of meaning: Post-Modern Left-of-Center ideologies.
The result is that young women, particularly in the social media era, have flocked to these related ideologies as means to reduce their internal suffering.
Modern progressive ideology is articulated in terms that resonate strongly with traditionally feminine moral intuitions: care, safety, inclusion, protection, and emotional validation. These values are not inventions of ideology; they reflect real differences in moral emphasis that have been documented across sexes. When an ideology elevates these values to absolute status and frames disagreement as harm, it becomes especially compelling to those already oriented toward preventing suffering and maintaining social harmony.
Taken together, these factors help explain why young white unmarried women are not merely participating in Post-Modern Left-of-Center movements but often occupying their emotional core.
The issue is not ignorance, manipulation, or moral failure. It is the interaction of biological predispositions, institutional collapse, social incentives, and ideological availability. In a world where material constraints have loosened but meaning has thinned, vulnerability is no longer defined by poverty or exclusion. It is defined by exposure:
exposure to threat narratives,
social pressure, and
moral systems that convert personal distress into political certainty.
This vulnerability does not predetermine radicalization, but it makes it far more likely when the surrounding environment consistently rewards emotional alignment over skepticism and moral intensity over restraint.
Understanding this dynamic is essential to explain why this demographic, at this moment, has moved so rapidly and so uniformly toward a particular ideological pole.
When Radicalization Actually Happens
A common assumption is that young women become radicalized primarily through universities. This belief is widespread and convenient, but largely incorrect. Universities tend to amplify and formalize ideological commitments rather than originate them.
In most cases, the decisive shift occurs earlier, before higher education begins.
Critics focus on universities because campuses are visible sites of ideological conflict. They generate viral incidents, institutional statements, and activist rhetoric that appear to signal causation.
In reality, universities function as sorting and reinforcement mechanisms. They concentrate like-minded peers, provide moral language and theoretical justification, and reward ideological conformity through social status and institutional approval. They rarely create the underlying dispositions from scratch.
Research on political socialization shows that ideological differences by sex and temperament are detectable well before college age. Attitudes toward equality, harm, authority, and moral responsibility begin diverging in adolescence.
By late high school, many young women already exhibit strong preferences for moral frameworks centered on protection, inclusion, and perceived injustice. These orientations emerge prior to exposure to college curricula.
Behavioral genetics reinforces this point. Core personality traits such as Neuroticism and Agreeableness show substantial stability from adolescence into adulthood. These traits shape emotional responses to threat and moral prioritization. Institutions can influence how traits are expressed, but they do not create them.
A young woman does not become emotionally sensitive because she attends college; she interprets ideological narratives through preexisting dispositions.
Social Media as a Pre-Political Training Ground
Social media functions less as a political battleground than as a pre-political training environment, particularly for young women. Long before explicit ideological commitments are formed, these platforms shape emotional habits, moral intuitions, and interpretive defaults. By the time political language appears, the underlying worldview has already been rehearsed.
The content is not explicitly political
The content most heavily consumed by adolescent girls and young women is rarely labeled “political.” It centers on:
mental health,
identity,
relationships,
trauma,
self-worth, and
social harm.
Yet this content consistently frames the world as emotionally dangerous, socially fragile, and morally urgent. Distress is treated as pervasive, external causes are emphasized, and moral validation is prioritized over problem-solving or self-regulation. These patterns align closely with Post-Modern Left-of-Center ideological assumptions, even when politics is absent.
This matters because emotional conditioning precedes belief formation. Repeated exposure to narratives of harm, vulnerability, and injustice trains users to interpret experience through those lenses.
Over time, sensitivity to threat is heightened, ambiguity becomes intolerable, and moral certainty becomes psychologically comforting. For individuals already higher in Neuroticism, this environment reinforces negative affect and rumination rather than mitigating it.
Social media also replaces traditional processes of moral development. In earlier eras, moral norms were transmitted through:
family,
religion, and
local community, where disagreement was moderated by ongoing relationships and shared obligations.
Digital platforms remove those constraints. Moral signaling in social media is:
public,
performative, and
constantly evaluated.
Approval is immediate; dissent is punished socially. Under these conditions, moral intensity is rewarded, while restraint and nuance carry costs.
Importantly, ideology arrives late in this process. Young women do not begin by adopting a political framework and then seeking supporting content. They first internalize emotional narratives about harm and identity.
When Post-Modern Left-of-Center ideology appears, it feels familiar rather than foreign. These related ideologies:
provide language for intuitions already formed,
explain distress without demanding self-critique, and
identifies moral enemies without requiring personal confrontation.
In this sense, social media does not persuade so much as prepare. It conditions users to prefer certain explanations, to moralize experience in particular ways, and to seek validation through alignment rather than understanding. Ideology then enters as a coherent system that organizes these predispositions into a stable identity.
Understanding social media as a pre-political training ground helps explain both the speed and uniformity of the ideological shift among young women. It also clarifies why later exposure to counterarguments is ineffective. By the time beliefs are articulated, they are embedded in emotional habits and social incentives that predate formal politics.
What is being defended is not a set of policy views, but a moral identity shaped well before conscious ideological choice.
By the time young women arrive on campus, many have already internalized a worldview oriented around vulnerability, power imbalance, and systemic harm. Universities then supply vocabulary, theory, and legitimacy that allow these intuitions to crystallize and be publicly defended. What appears to be sudden radicalization is often the visible consolidation of beliefs formed earlier and more quietly.
Algorithms and Emotional Amplification
Social media platforms do not merely host content; it establishes algorithms that actively shape which emotional patterns are reinforced.
Engagement-based algorithms systematically favor material that elicits strong reactions:
fear,
anger,
outrage,
anxiety, and
moral condemnation—because these emotions increase time spent, sharing, and return visits.
For young women, who already exhibit higher emotional sensitivity on average, this creates a feedback loop that intensifies distress rather than alleviating it. But it simultaneously creates the illusion that watching more social media will eventually lead to self-healing.
If social media functioned as a passive medium, its effects would likely be modest. Users would encounter a broad mix of content, much of it emotionally neutral, and individual differences would matter less.
Engagement optimization changes this dynamic. Users who respond emotionally to threat- or harm-focused content are shown more of it.
Over time, feeds become increasingly skewed toward narratives of danger, injustice, and vulnerability. This is not the result of ideological intent, but of platform incentives aligned with emotional reactivity.
Algorithms are particularly effective at selecting for psychological vulnerability. Content that frames the world as unsafe, oppressive, or morally urgent performs well among users high in Neuroticism and Agreeableness.
Such users linger longer, comment more, and share content that signals concern or moral alignment. The algorithm interprets this behavior as preference and supplies more of the same, gradually constructing a moral reality in which harm is omnipresent and agency is externalized.
This amplification has important cognitive effects. Constant exposure to emotionally charged material:
narrows attention,
increases rumination, and
reduces tolerance for ambiguity.
complex social phenomena are flattened into moral binaries, and
disagreement is reinterpreted as threat.
Over time, users come to experience their feeds not as curated content streams, but as reflections of reality itself. The world appears more dangerous, more unjust, and more urgent than it is.
Post-Modern Left-of-Center ideologies fit seamlessly into this environment. They offer a coherent moral framework that explains:
why harm is everywhere,
why distress is justified, and
why moral vigilance is required.
Algorithms do not create this ideology, but they make it emotionally salient and cognitively plausible by saturating users in the kinds of experiences the ideology is designed to interpret.
The result is not persuasion in the traditional sense, but escalation. Emotional amplification raises the stakes of moral perception, pushing users toward increasingly absolutist positions.
Once a harm-centered worldview is established, moderation feels irresponsible and restraint feels complicit. Algorithms reward this progression by continuing to elevate the most emotionally resonant content, reinforcing both belief and affect.
This dynamic helps explain why ideological radicalization among young women is often intense but poorly articulated in policy terms. What is being reinforced is not a program, but a moral posture shaped by repeated emotional activation. Any account of contemporary radicalization that ignores algorithmic amplification mistakes individual psychology for individual choice, and overlooks the technological systems that systematically intensify vulnerability into certainty.
How Post-Modern Left-of-Center Ideologies Reframe Distress
Post-Modern Left-of-Center ideologies do not primarily present themselves as political doctrines. They present themselves as interpretive systems—ways of explaining:
why people feel bad and
who is responsible for that suffering.
This is a crucial part of their appeal to young white unmarried women. The ideology does not begin with policy prescriptions or institutional design; it begins with moral diagnosis.
At the center of this diagnosis is the externalization of internal distress. Anxiety, sadness, alienation, and insecurity are reframed as rational responses to structural injustice rather than as conditions to be managed internally or relationally.
Psychological pain is no longer something to be understood through temperament, circumstance, or personal development. It is treated as evidence of moral insight. Feeling bad becomes proof that one sees the world clearly.
This reframing is powerfully seductive. It offers:
immediate meaning,
moral clarity, and
validation without requiring self-examination or long-term change.
Distress is not merely acknowledged; it is elevated morally. Those who feel most harmed are granted higher moral authority, while those who feel less distressed are treated with suspicion. In this moral framework:
emotional intensity signals virtue, and
calmness can be reinterpreted as indifference or complicity.
The ideology also supplies identifiable negative actors. Rather than confronting the diffuse and often impersonal sources of anxiety—loneliness, uncertainty, biological predisposition, or institutional decay—distress is attributed to oppressive groups, unjust systems, or harmful norms. This attribution provides focus and direction. It transforms discomfort into righteous anger, which is psychologically easier to sustain and socially more rewarding.
Importantly, this process aligns perfectly with the emotional conditioning produced by social media and algorithmic amplification. Users already trained to perceive harm and threat encounter an ideology that confirms those perceptions and organizes them into a coherent narrative. The fit feels natural rather than imposed. Ideology appears not as something learned, but as something recognized.
Post-Modern Left-of-Center ideologies also function as social identities. Adopting the framework signals:
moral seriousness,
compassion, and
awareness to peers
belonging in environments where traditional identities tied to family, religion, or place have weakened.
For young women navigating early adulthood without stable anchors, this identity can become central, even totalizing.
Crucially, the ideology does not promise resolution of distress. It promises perpetual vigilance and activism.
Because Equality is framed as the prime moral objective and is understood in absolute terms, any deviation becomes evidence of injustice. This creates what can be described as a purity spiral. Moral standards continually escalate, and previous positions are reclassified as insufficiently enlightened. The pursuit of equality generates ever-finer distinctions of harm and ever-expanding categories of moral violation.
This dynamic intensifies rather than relieves psychological strain. Anger, anxiety, and distrust are reinforced, not diminished. Yet disengagement becomes increasingly difficult, because leaving the framework feels like abandoning moral responsibility and social belonging simultaneously.
What began as an explanation for distress becomes a mechanism for sustaining it.
Understanding this reframing is essential. The attraction of Post-Modern Left-of-Center ideologies among young women is not primarily ideological in the traditional sense. It is therapeutic in appearance but corrosive in effect. It offers meaning without mastery, validation without restraint, and moral certainty without resolution. In doing so, it converts personal vulnerability into political conviction—and then locks that conviction in place by tying it to identity, community, and virtue.
Why This Does Not Lead to Psychological Improvement
If the appeal of Post-Modern Left-of-Center ideologies among young white unmarried women were primarily therapeutic, one would expect ideological adoption to reduce psychological distress over time.
The evidence and logic point in the opposite direction. While the ideology offers immediate emotional validation and moral clarity, it systematically reinforces the very patterns of thought and affect that sustain anxiety, rumination, and fragility.
The core problem is the ideology identifies the wrong cause of suffering.
Psychological distress tends to come first. Elevated anxiety, negative affect, and perceived social threat reliably predict stronger attraction to harm-centered and moralized worldviews.
Ideology then enters as an explanatory framework, not a cure. It names the pain, assigns responsibility, and legitimizes emotional intensity. But it does not reduce the underlying distress because it does not target the mechanisms that generate it.
Instead, the ideology amplifies those mechanisms. It encourages constant attention to threat, injustice, and harm, both personal and abstract. This focus increases vigilance and rumination, two central drivers of anxiety and depression. Emotional reactions that might otherwise be regulated or contextualized are repeatedly rehearsed, shared, and morally elevated. The result is not catharsis, but reinforcement.
Reverse therapy
This dynamic runs counter to what is known to improve psychological well-being. Effective therapeutic approaches, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, emphasize:
emotional regulation,
reality testing,
proportionality, and
the distinction between perception and interpretation.
They work by reducing catastrophic thinking, external locus of control, and moral absolutism.
Post-Modern Left-of-Center ideologies move in the opposite direction. They:
validate catastrophic interpretations,
externalize agency, and
collapse disagreement into harm.
What therapy seeks to weaken, the ideology strengthens.
The problem is the goal: Equality
The pursuit of Equality as the prime moral objective further intensifies the problem. Because equality is framed in absolute terms, it is never fully or even partially achievable. Any remaining difference in outcomes can be interpreted as evidence of injustice, which demands renewed moral urgency. This creates a permanent state of dissatisfaction and vigilance. Psychological relief is deferred indefinitely, because resolution would imply moral complacency.
Purity spiral without results
Purity spirals compound the effect. As moral standards escalate, individuals must continually update their beliefs, language, and social alignments to remain in good standing.
This produces chronic anxiety and social insecurity, particularly for those already sensitive to peer judgment. Emotional exhaustion is reframed as moral seriousness, making withdrawal feel like failure rather than self-preservation.
Over time, this produces a closed loop.
Distress motivates ideological commitment;
ideological commitment heightens distress;
heightened distress deepens commitment.
Exit becomes increasingly costly, not only because beliefs are entrenched, but because social identity, moral self-concept, and peer belonging are bound to the ideology.
What began as an explanation for suffering becomes a system that depends on continued suffering for its continuation.
This helps explain a central paradox of the last decade: rising ideological intensity alongside worsening mental health among the very groups most committed to progressive moral frameworks. The ideology does not fail despite this outcome; it absorbs it. Continued distress is interpreted as confirmation that the world remains unjust and that vigilance must increase.
The radicalization of young white unmarried women is not driven by worsening material conditions, nor sustained by psychological benefit. It persists because it offers meaning, identity, and moral certainty in a world where traditional anchors have weakened—and because the structures that promote it transform suffering into a renewable resource rather than a problem to be solved.
Similarities to radical ideologies of the 20th Century
“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 and nosers−out of unorthodoxy.”
— George Orwell, from the book 1984
The effects of Post-Modern Left-of-Center ideologies is remarkably similar to other radical ideologies of the 20th Century: Communism, Fascism, and National Socialism. As I argued in a previous article, these ideologies:
Organize mental disorders (by bringing those with mental disorders together for a common cause)
Rationalize mental disorders (i.e. transform unorganized mental impulses into something that can convince other people who have milder disorders)
Create targets for those with mental disorders (by blaming a specific demographic group for problems in society).
Legitimize anti-social and self-destructive behaviors as being for a higher cause.
Sabotage the ability of parents, peer pressure, and law enforcement to punish self-destructive and anti-social behaviors stemming from mental disorders
The difference seems to be that while these previous ideologies responded to material societal collapse due to defeat in war and economic depression to mobilize its supporters, Post-Modern Left-of-Center ideologies rely on:
Material prosperity and very comfortable living standards
No crisis that is remotely close to defeat in war or economic depression
Ideologies that align with the upper class instead of being opposed to it
Social media as a propagating mechanism (although clearly not the only one)
Appealing far more to young women than young men
Within a democratic society with many competing institutions that typically are not ideological (although that is increasingly changing).
Similarities to cults
Young, unmarried women are also the most likely demographic group to join religious cults, although the leaders are typically men (also here and here). Cults also prey on young people who have no sense of purpose or meaning in life. Cults seek to fill that emptiness with:
Claims of moral certainty
A unique insight to the material world that non-members do not have
Healing from mental suffering
A tight, cohesive community where everyone is in alignment
Criticism of the rest of society
Encourage separating from family and friends who are not members.
The differences are that cults:
Typically make moral claims that more closer to religions
Are not active politically
Center on one charismatic (typically male) leader, who (surprise!) has sex with multiple female followers.
Are focused on one small community that is cut off from the rest of society.
Have expanded far beyond the size of any cult.
Conclusion
The radicalization of young white unmarried women since roughly 2010 is best understood as the product of a specific convergence of causes rather than as a response to material deprivation or deliberate political persuasion.
Biological predispositions—particularly higher average levels of Neuroticism and Agreeableness—increase sensitivity to threat, harm, and social evaluation.
The collapse of stabilizing institutions in early adulthood, especially marriage, motherhood, and religious worship, has removed sources of meaning, constraint, and emotional regulation that historically anchored young women during this life stage.
Extremely high levels of social media usage have replaced those institutions with digital environments that reward emotional exposure, validation, and conformity.
Engagement-based algorithms systematically amplify highly emotional and negative content, intensifying distress and narrowing moral perception.
Post-Modern Left-of-Center ideologies—already dominant within the professional class—provide an interpretive framework uniquely suited to moralize psychological distress, externalize blame, and convert vulnerability into moral certainty,
Reinforced by the Central Moral Dilemma of the Left and its tendency toward purity spirals in pursuit of an impossible goal: equality.
Taken together, these forces explain why this radicalization is demographic, emotional, and structural rather than conventionally political. It is not driven by worsening material conditions, nor sustained by psychological improvement, but by a system that replaces lost sources of meaning with ideology that validates distress, rewards moral intensity, and perpetuates its own necessity.
If you’ve been enjoying these essays but only follow me here, you’re not getting them by email. Followers see Notes; subscribers receive every new piece on the history and future of progress.
Subscribe free here 👉:
See also my other articles on Ideology:
Understanding ideology:
A few podcasts and videos on the topic:
Understanding Totalitarian ideologies:
If you enjoyed this article, you should read my From Poverty to Progress book series.
Excellent analysis.
And I strongly suspect that the movement of women to the left will drive men away from it. Men tend to have a natural tendency to avoid women-centric organizations, movements, fashions and sports. Once the left is strongly coded as feminine, most men will want nothing to do with it.