Amid the many pressing issues that form the basis of modern political discourse, the breakdown of the social roles of men and women, and their relationship to each other, does not receive as much attention as it deserves given that the social dysfunction resulting from it is fueling so many modern problems.
Feminism in reality is a form of Marxism that adapts the notion of class struggle to the male-female dichotomy. For Marx, it was the proletariat, the workers, who must rise up against the oppressive bourgeoisie to upend the “evil” system of capitalism. In feminism, women must rise against men — their longtime oppressors — and abolish the wicked system of patriarchy.
Other forms of “cultural Marxism” employ the same formula, respectively replacing proletariat, bourgeoisie, and capitalism with nonwhites, whites, and white society — or with LGBT individuals, heterosexuals, and Christian morality. At the end of the day, the goal is to encourage all of these so-called “victim” groups to aid in the destruction of the prevailing Western social order — one that was traditionally Christian and rooted in families in which men were the head of the household.
Unfortunately, after decades of propaganda and social engineering, feminism has been very successful. The effects include the widespread legitimization of abortion, the rise of divorce rates and single parent households, and more.
The explosion of mental illness in this modern era and the higher rate of male suicide versus female suicide are two phenomena that have regularly been noted by mainstream outlets, yet little attention is ever given to the role that feminism has played in exacerbating these issues.
The sexual revolution and “women’s liberation” have created an environment of promiscuity, distrust, heartbreak, loneliness, and sexual frustration that affects both men and women. In the past, Christian society heavily emphasized the virtue of men and women refraining from sexual relations before marriage — something that is now widely scoffed at and seen as puritanical and prudish.
Instead, modern society has become an open sexual marketplace in which sexual relations are cheap, easy, transactional, and meaningless — a condition aggravated by the internet and hookup apps such as Tinder. Such apps replace courtship, with its joys and effort, into a mere swipe. Instead of truly getting to know people and placing an emphasis on shared values, it all comes down to who has the best selfies on the app.
The easy availability of attention and sex one can get in this modern technology-fueled era free from the Biblical social codes of past generations makes it difficult for young people to establish lifelong, loving relationships of trust with a husband or wife. Studies have found that there is a correlation between the number of sexual partners one had before marriage and the probability of divorce; individuals who have not engaged in sexual relations prior to marriage are less likely to divorce than those who have.
There are several possible explanations for this. For one, there is a “dulling” effect that takes place when one has many sexual partners; sex is no longer something special that unites and brings closeness and bonding to one’s spouse, but something fleeting that could happen with anyone. Meanwhile, those who refrained from sex prior to marriage develop a special physiological attachment to their husband or wife because they have only experienced sexual intimacy with that one person.
The bond thus formed encourages a husband and wife to view their marriage as something truly permanent, not something they would likely break up to move on to the next partner.
This issue is further compounded by feminist talking points such as “toxic masculinity,” which create an artificial divide between men and women, as well as by propaganda that convinces women that careers and “independence” are of higher value than marriage and children.
Ultimately, many young men find themselves struggling to be successful in marriage as they are both unable to find women interested in married life and lacking in the skills that would allow them to build a family. They find themselves settling for competing in the sexual marketplace on Tinder, where they meet only with frustration and loneliness when they realize that in the competition for casual sex, it is a matter of many men vying for the attention of a handful of women, and, conversely, many women vying for the attention of a few “high-status” men.
The danger for society is that these young men, bereft of the purpose, fulfillment, and affection that come with marriage and family, are vulnerable to all types of radicalization. Muslim countries that allow polygamy have long experienced this phenomenon; a few wealthy elites have many wives and concubines, leaving a large underclass of unmarried men who are drawn to the adventure, purpose, and brotherhood offered by radical terrorist groups.
Of course, the establishment, which has promoted the breakdown of the nuclear family, is well aware of the societal implications and clearly desires the condition into which it has brought so many of today’s young men. How else will it recruit the Antifa who will be used to break up conservative speech? How else will it fill the military and police forces with leftist fanatics once it has purged these organizations of Constitution-respecting patriots?
