I think arguably the most important element of the current feminist frenzy is that men are largely irrelevant to the struggle.
The true war is women vs women, and men who have had their lives ruined via social media or college campus witch-hunts are merely collateral damage. What really makes the Social Justice Warrior chicks irate is the success and happiness of other, more traditional women.
Its long been hypothesized (most famously by Rush Limbaugh) that modern feminism is chiefly favored by unattractive women who are jealous and angry about their lot in life. I think it is more complex than that, but there is much truth to this angle.
There is in fact a great deal of hostility to feminine beauty in the SJW camp as well as disdain for married women with children. Cheerleaders are a particular object of scorn and the mother of three who challenged other women on facebook to get back in shape reaped a storm of hate from SJW types who challenged their precious body image.
One phenomenon that I have noted over the years is how peer groups tend to enforce conformity and how this often happens in the case of divorce.
It is very difficult for a happily married woman to have a number of divorced women in her circle of friends. They can socially engage one another, but I've found the inner circle tends to be all one or the other.
Sometimes this is because they drift apart - say the divorced woman finds she has less to talk about and would rather go date and hang out with single women at the bar or go on singles cruises. I've also seen one divorced woman start to turn her married friends against their husbands - a curious phenomenon that in once case did in fact result in a string of divorces as the wives all convinced themselves they would be better off without their lousy husbands. They then became a pack of cougars. I still shudder to think of it.
With the advent of the internet, these groupings are now even easier to achieve - one need not trouble to physically meet and talk to someone, it is merely enough to look at facebook groups or twitter hashtags in order to find like-minded compatriots.
I should note there is also a flip side, a resistance to the SJW shock troops, though their numbers are perhaps dwindling. These are the traditional-minded women who are glad to have the support of their husband and take comfort and joy from their children.
It is particularly interesting when the two groups confront one another. Such interactions are often quite subtle. The wedding ring, for example, carries a status I did not fully understand until I became aware of this dynamic.
We all know what it means of course, but there is actually a single woman equivalent: the "I love me" wring. This often looks exactly like a wedding ring, though it is always large and gaudy. (There are women who for various reasons prefer smaller wedding rings - nurses I have learned fall into this camp, as do other women who don't want them to get caught. Some women have two sets of rings - the utility and dress formal versions, as it were.)
"I love me" rings are typically worn on the middle finger of the left hand - that is right next to where a wedding ring would go. If on is not paying attention, it's easy to miss distinction (at least for me).
Women, however, always seem to notice.
The "I love me" ring is a considerable investment, a costly purchase that by its very opulence says "Look at the wealth I have acquired! Look at how much money I have! I can buy myself jewelry whenever I want."
This is why they have to be big, because they are intended to overshadow the rings purchased by families who have children and other expenses. This also explains why anniversary bands are important - they allow married women to trump their single counterparts with an "Oh yeah? I have a big ring and a husband!"
As I said, none of this was clear to me until my wife (the sharpshooting and insightful Sithkitten) pointed it out to me.
The funny thing in all of this is that even a modest wedding ring trumps an "I love me" ring.
The displays can be subtle on this front, but to the trained observer they are unmistakable.
This also explains the prevalence of the "stick family" vehicle decals as well as family-based charm bracelets. Both of these items provide easy ways for married women with children to direct the conversation to their families without being overt about it.
The SJW types have tried to counter both tactics, of course. I've seen vehicles showing stick families getting chased, maimed and killed or ones substituting pets for offspring (the latter made me wonder why she didn't just write "I am a cat lady" on her bumper).
This also cuts to the core of the "yes means yes" campaign. It is no secret that attractive, pleasant and apolitical women have the edge in gaining the interest of eligible bachelors over the angry harridans who inhabit the SJW world. What "yes means yes" actually is seeking to do is deny traditional-minded women the college dating scene. It is an area-denial weapon, like a minefield.
The metaphor actually works on several levels because once particular ground is mined, no one can use it. College administrators may just be figuring this out. Those that embrace the full-on SJW dating codes are seeing their enrollments (particularly among male students) starting to fall. With college education increasingly looked at as an expensive youth vacation rather than a rigorous academic environment, who wants to go to concentration camp for four to five years?
Today being Mother's Day, I wonder how long it can last in the current environment. Will the very phrase become a "trigger," reminding young special snowflakes about how much they hate mom, or perhaps falsely associating women with childbirth? Perhaps the new Junior Anti-Sex League will declare motherhood itself to be anathema and make a point of having mass abortions on the day - it is after all the sacrament of the modern Democrat Party.