As the feminists tell us. The reversion is noble, instead of our current emphasis on the herd and collective action, this axiom stresses individual action and initiative. A good feminist, according to dicta, does not simply argue the politics of "women's issues" but makes a point to live recalcitrant to levelling social mores. The strategy is effective (the decline of the feminist movement is hardly the fault of this) and ought to be examined. Social power operates using what I call "spheres of influence". Culture, for example, is a large sphere. A couple or a family is a smaller sphere, the individual is the smallest and most concentrated sphere of all. Her control of herself and acceptence or rejection of social mores is paramount. The smaller the sphere, the more visible is the control excercized therein. The smaller the area, the greater the pressure. The family was the essential unit once. Acceptance of and deviation from social expectations was reinforced by the family. As the control the family has over the individual declines, the unit increasingly becomes the individual. This fragmentation does, paradoxically, increase the hold society has on the individual. With no set of ancestral traditions, the individual becomes increasingly defined by popular culture, which is inherently trend-based. Few standards are left by which a person can define themselves, thus they cling stridently to those which are left - money, possessions and fame. Ideology, a collective force, quickly becomes a form of self-definition. By making the personal political in our current cultural climate, one ends up with a culture of vacant shells fighting for vacant ideals. In the end, only the noble and truely self-rooted can thrive in such a regimen. Being a movement that aims for the many, the strategy could not concievably work for the feminists but has promise for those who seek to net the few.