Gloria Steinem, a popularizer of feminist dogmas, died last week at the age of 92. She promoted many of the false doctrines of women’s liberation beginning in the 1960s through her persona, writings, publications, and speeches. As she passes from the scene, few of the original so-called second-wave feminists remain. Yet the overwhelming victories the movement has achieved in the decades since have largely obscured the radicalism at its center.

As I researched my second book, The Recovery of Family Life: Exposing the Limits of Modern Ideologies, I read Steinem’s influential 1970 Time essay, “What It Would Be Like If Women Win,” to understand what the fully realized feminist project would look like. What emerged from my survey of her work was the idea of an unfinished and unfinishable Rolling Feminist Revolution.

In “If Women Win,” Steinem compared the status of women to slavery and childhood, just as feminists had done from 1848 onward. “Being a wife” in 1970, “according to most social and legal definitions,” was “still a 19th century thing,” as if the pillars of coverture remained. Steinem complained that a woman still could not “sign credit agreements, use her maiden name, incorporate a business or establish a legal residence of her own” in some states. If a woman had to take her husband’s name in Hawaii, women everywhere were in chains.

In the world Steinem created, neither men nor women could choose anything fulfilling until the emergence of feminism. For most of human history, she claimed, sex was “arranged on the barter system.” Most women found it “second nature” to be “Uncle-Tom.” According to Steinem, no one experienced “love or sex” in the “unequal partnerships” of the past. No woman exercised before Title IX. Every woman was pigeonholed into the miserable social script of wife and mother, a servant to her husband and a slave to the species.

Until the Revolution.

For Steinem, “the revolution would not take away the option of being a housewife.” A woman could still be “her husband’s housekeeper and/or hostess,” but only if she “chose” it. An entire social apparatus would have to be built to ensure that women were genuinely choosing to be homemakers. Any socialization to traditional sex roles would have to end, lest a girl be gently guided into motherhood. Any restraint channeling sexual practice into marriage must end, lest choice be anything but an arbitrary exercise of the will. Complete independence between the sexes would have to be promoted. A whole new stereotype must arise to extinguish the old stereotypes.

To complete this Revolution, Steinem collaborated with several others to found Ms. Magazine, the flagship popularizer of feminist ideology.

The first issue, released by New York magazine in 1972, maps out the next stages of the Rolling Feminist Revolution. The issue featured articles about desexing the English language, promoting gender-neutral parenting, normalizing lesbianism, and celebrating careerism. Subsequent issues defended women getting angry instead of being agreeable. Achieving such goals would require a revolution in how society operated.

This would happen not only through the coercive power of the state but also through a fundamental shift in cultural norms. Endless nagging about using terms like “fire-person” or “police-woman” began. Androgynous clothing would have to be adopted from infancy, as would demands that little girls love the same toys as little boys. Girls would play boys’ sports—and with boys.

The Rolling Feminist Revolution required the difficult task of erasing sex differences. The second issue of Ms. included “Body Hair: The Last Frontier,” which argued that girls would not be free until they were as hairy as guys. “Populist Mechanics” contended that women would not be free until as many women became mechanics as men. Steinem imagined that far fewer women would take their husbands’ last name than do even today.

Steinem’s anticipated world has come about in many ways (a testament to the power of culture), but not with the results she expected (a testament to the power of nature).

She promised breaking down traditional sex roles would lead “half the teachers” to be men—but there were more male teachers in 1970 than there are today.

She promised that doubling the workforce would lead to “higher wages”—but wages have predictably been depressed by expanding the supply of labor since 1970.

She promised that “marriage will probably go right on” once society stopped “encouraging men to be exploiters and women to be parasites”—but marriage rates have declined substantially since sex roles were destroyed, especially among the working class.

She thought women had two choices: “Either she’s a feminist or a masochist”—but it turns out the feminists are the miserable masochists, and married neo-traditional moms are among the happiest women.

She thought that characterizing men as exploiters and women as parasites would lead to a society based on mutual trust and affection—but instead it created suspicion between the sexes. Women distrust men more today than they did in 1970.

She thought that destroying the old idea of marriage would make marriage stronger—but instead marriage, for the most part, is weaker, love is less apparent, and sex is less connected to meaningful, enduring relationships.

Steinem helped midwife a world of purposeless men, miserable women, mutual suspicion, loneliness, depression, anger, insanity, collapsing family life, civilizational barrenness, and hyper-politicization. The healthiest parts of our culture are the parts least affected by Steinem’s false, pernicious advocacy. The world after Steinem would be better if men and women once again built common lives without feminism’s poisonous influence.