The revolution in gender roles reshapes society in ways too disturbing to see

Summary:  Today we start a new series about one of the most profound revolutions ever to hit western society — the change in gender roles. The conclusions of the series are, like so many on the FM website, wildly non-consensus — and disturbing to most readers. This is the warm-up pitch.

Gender Roles

I updated my list of accurate predictions and the (thankfully much smaller) list of failed predictions, and drew two conclusions. The list of “hits” is impressively long (posting the score makes me careful!) but I’ve not made many new predictions in the last year. I’m confused about the economic and geopolitical issues that bedevil our world. So I’ll change the focus to something I believe much easier to forecast: the revolution in gender roles now under way.

Side note: what’s the secret of my forecasting success?  I describe the obvious things that we all see, but that we do not want to acknowledge. This accounts for the dark tone of so many posts on the FM website (despite the occasional posts with good news). For example, the posts about cybercrime and cyberwar by various experts describe trends of extreme importance in a manner understandable by a general audience — yet gets fewer-than normal views. Too disturbing; we prefer not to see. I suspect that this series will provide another example, as its observations and conclusions will upset almost everybody — Left and Right (as usual for the FM website).

For the opener in this series we start with an excerpt from Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind. Published in 1987, he clearly foresaw the changes coming to American society. It’s at the top of my list of recommended books.  He’s the equivalent for social issues of Martin van Creveld about war. Here Bloom looks at the revolution — one of the most profound ever — coming to the family and gender roles. It was mind-bendingly prophetic when written 30 years ago; it’s implications remain stunning today.

Chapter Three: “Relationships”

Now we have arrived at one of the ultimate acts in our drama, the informing and reforming of our most intimate private lives by our principles. Sex and its consequences – love, marriage and family – have finally become the theme of the national project, and here the problem of nature, always present but always repressed in the reconstruction of man demanded by freedom and equality, becomes insistent.

The change in sexual relations, which now provide an unending challenge to human ingenuity, came over us in two successive waves in the last two decades. The first was the sexual revolution; the second, feminism. The sexual revolution marched under the banner of freedom; feminism under that of equality. Although they went arm in arm for a while, their differences eventually put them at odds with each other, as Tocqueville said freedom and equality would always be. …

Relations between the sexes have always been difficult, and that is why so much of our literature is about men and women quarreling. There is certainly legitimate ground to doubt their suitability for each other given the spectrum — from the harem to Plato’s Republic – of imaginable and actually existing relations between them, whether nature acted the stepmother or God botched the creation by an afterthought, as some Romantics believed.

That man is not made to be alone is all very well, but who is made to live with him? This is why men and women hesitated before marriage, and courtship was thought necessary to find out whether the couple was compatible, and perhaps to give them basic training in compatibility. No one wanted to be stuck forever with an impossible partner. But, for all that, they knew pretty much what they wanted from one another. The question was whether they could get it (whereas our question today is much more what is wanted). A man was to make a living and protect his wife and children, and a woman was to provide for the domestic economy, particularly in caring for husband and children. Frequently this did not work out very well for one or both of the partners, because they either were not good at their functions or were not eager to perform them.

In order to assure the proper ordering of things, the transvestite women in Shakespeare, like Portia {The Merchant of Venice} and Rosalind {As you Like It}, are forced to masquerade as men because the real men are inadequate and need to be corrected.

This happens only in comedies; when there are no such intrepid women, the situation turns into tragedy. But the assumption of male garb observes the proprieties or conventions. Men should be doing what the impersonating women are doing; and when the women have set things right, they become women again and submit to the men, albeit with a tactful, ironical consciousness that they are at least partially playacting in order to preserve a viable order. The arrangement implicit in marriage, even if it is only conventional, tells those who enter into it what to expect and what the satisfactions are supposed to be. Very simply, the family is a sort of miniature body politic in which the husband’s will is the will of the whole. The woman can influence her husband’s will, and it is supposed to be informed by love of wife and children.

Now all of this has simply disintegrated. It does not exist, nor is it considered good that it should. But nothing certain has taken its place. Neither men nor women have any idea what they are getting into anymore, or, rather, they have reason to fear the worst. There are two equal wills, and no mediating principle to link them and no tribunal of last resort. What is more, neither of the wills is certain of itself. This is where the “ordering of priorities” comes in, particularly with women, who have not yet decided which comes first, career or children.

People are no longer raised to think they ought to regard marriage as the primary goal and responsibility, and their uncertainty is mightily reinforced by the divorce statistics, which imply that putting all of one’s psychological eggs in the marriage basket is a poor risk. The goals and wills of men and women have become like parallel lines, and it requires a Lobachevskyan imagination to hope they may meet.

The notion of a domestic life appropriate to women had become incredible. Why should not women take their careers as seriously as men take theirs, and have them be taken as seriously by men? Terrific resentment at the injustice done to women under the prevailing understanding of justice found its expression in demands seen as perfectly legitimate by both men and women, that men weaken the attachment to their careers, that they share equally in the household and the care of the children.

Women’s abandonment of the female persona was reinforced by the persona’s abandoning them. Economic changes made it desirable and necessary that women work; lowering of infant mortality rates meant that women had to have fewer pregnancies; greater longevity and better health meant that women devoted a much smaller portion of their lives to having and rearing children; and the altered relationships within the family meant that they were less likely to find continuing occupation with their children and their children’s children. At 45 they were finding themselves with nothing to do, and 40 more years to do it in. Their formative career years had been lost, and they were, hence, unable to compete with men.

A woman who now wanted to be a woman in the old sense would find it very difficult to do so, even if she were to brave the hostile public opinion. In all of these ways the feminist case is very strong indeed. But, though the terms of marriage had been radically altered, no new ones were defined.

… And here is where the whole business turns nasty. The souls of men —their ambitious, warlike, protective, possessive character — must be dismantled in order to liberate women from their domination. Machismo — the polemical description of maleness or spiritedness, which was the central natural passion in men’s souls in the psychology of the ancients, the passion of attachment and loyalty — was the villain, the source of the difference between the sexes. The feminists were only completing a job begun by Hobbes in his project of taming the harsh elements in the soul. With machismo discredited, the positive task is to make men caring, sensitive, even nurturing, to fit the restructured family.

Thus once again men must be re-educated according to an abstract project. They must accept the “feminine elements” in their nature. A host of Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep types invade the schools, popular psychology, TV and the movies, making the project respectable. Men tend to undergo this re-education somewhat sullenly but studiously, in order to avoid the opprobrium of the sexist label and to keep peace with their wives and girlfriends. And it is indeed possible to soften men. But to make them “care” is another thing, and the project must inevitably fail.

It must fail because in an age of individualism, persons of either sex cannot be forced to be public-spirited, particularly by those who are becoming less so. Further, caring is either a passion or a virtue, not a description like “sensitive.” A virtue governs a passion, as moderation governs lust, or courage governs fear. But what passion does caring govern? One might say possessiveness, but possessiveness is not to be governed these days — it is to be rooted out.

What is wanted is an antidote to natural selfishness, but wishes do not give birth to horses, however much abstract moralism may demand them. The old moral order, however imperfect it may have been, at least moved toward the virtues by way of the passions. If men were self-concerned, that order tried to expand the scope of self-concern to include others, rather than commanding men to cease being concerned with themselves. To attempt the latter is both tyrannical and ineffective. A true political or social order requires the soul to be like a Gothic cathedral, with selfish stresses and strains helping to hold it up. Abstract moralism condemns certain keystones, removes them, and then blames both the nature of the stones and the structure when it collapses. The failure of agriculture in socialist collective farming is the best political example of this. An imaginary motive takes the place of a real one, and when the imaginary motive fails to produce the real effect, those who have not been motivated by it are blamed and persecuted.

In family questions, inasmuch as men were understood to be so strongly motivated by property, an older wisdom tried to attach concern for the family to that motive: the man was allowed and encouraged to regard his family as his property, so he would care for the former as he would instinctively care for the latter. This was effective, although it obviously had disadvantages from the point of view of justice.

When wives and children come to the husband and father and say, “We are not your property; we are ends in ourselves and demand to be treated as such,” the anonymous observer cannot help being impressed. But the difficulty comes when wives and children further demand that the man continue to care for them as before, just when they are giving an example of caring for themselves. They object to the father’s flawed motive and ask that it be miraculously replaced by a pure one, of which they wish to make use for their own ends. The father will almost inevitably constrict his quest for property, cease being a father and become a mere man again, rather than turning into a providential God, as others ask him to be.

What is so intolerable about the Republic, as Plato shows, is the demand that men give up their land, their money, their wives, their children, for the sake of the public good, their concern for which had previously been buttressed by these lower attachments. The hope is to have a happy city made up entirely of unhappy men. Similar demands are made today in an age of slack morality and self-indulgence. Plato taught that, however laudable justice may be, one cannot expect prodigies of virtue from ordinary people. Better a real city tainted by selfish motives than one that cannot exist, except in speech, and that promotes real tyranny.

I am not arguing here that the old family arrangements were good or that we should or could go back to them. I am only insisting that we not cloud our vision to such an extent that we believe that there are viable substitutes for them just because we want or need them. The peculiar attachment of mothers for their children existed, and in some degree still exists, whether it was the product of nature or nurture. That fathers should have exactly the same kind of attachment is much less evident. We can insist on it, but if nature does not cooperate, all our efforts will have been in vain.

Biology forces women to take maternity leaves. Law can enjoin men to take paternity leaves, but it cannot make them have the desired sentiments. Only the rankest ideologue could fail to see the difference. Law may prescribe that the male nipples be made equal to the female ones, but they still will not give milk. Female attachment to children is to be at least partly replaced with promissory notes on male attachment. Will they be redeemed? Or won’t everyone set up his own little separate psychological banking system?

Similarly, women, due to the unreliability of men, have had to provide the means for their own independence. This has simply given men the excuse for being even less concerned with women’s well-being. A dependent, weak woman is indeed vulnerable and puts herself at men’s mercy. But that appeal did influence a lot of men a lot of the time. The cure now prescribed for male irresponsibility is to make them more irresponsible. And a woman who can be independent of men has much less motive to entice a man into taking care of her and her children.

All our reforms have helped strip the teeth of our gears, which can therefore no longer mesh. They spin idly, side by side, unable to set the social machine in motion. It is at this exercise in futility that young people must look when thinking about their future.

Women are pleased by their successes, their new opportunities, their agenda, their moral superiority. But underneath everything lies the more or less conscious awareness that they are still dual beings by nature, capable of doing most things men do and also wanting to have children. They may hope otherwise, but they fully expect to pursue careers, to have to pursue careers, while caring for children alone. And what they expect and plan for is likely to happen.

The men have none of the current ideological advantages of the women, but they can opt out without too much cost. In their relations with women they have little to say; convinced of the injustice of the old order, for which they were responsible, and practically incapable of changing the direction of the juggernaut, they wait to hear what is wanted, try to adjust but are ready to take off in an instant. They want relationships, but the situation is so unclear. They anticipate a huge investment of emotional energy that is just as likely as not to end in bankruptcy, to a sacrifice of their career goals without any clarity about what reward they will reap, other than a vague togetherness. Meanwhile, one of the strongest, oldest motives for marriage is no longer operative. Men can now easily enjoy the sex that previously could only be had in marriage.

Under such arrangements the family is not a unity, and marriage is an unattractive struggle that is easy to get out of …

————————–  From The Closing of the American Mind  ————————-

Allan Bloom

About Allan Bloom

Bloom (1930 – 1992) was an American philosopher, classicist, and academician. He taught at Cornell University, the University of Toronto, Yale University, École Normale Supérieure of Paris, and the University of Chicago. Bloom championed the idea of education based on the “Great Books” of western civilization and became famous for his criticism of contemporary American higher education. Bloom denied that he was a conservative, saying that he sought to defend the ‘theoretical life’. {Paraphrased from Wikipedia.}  His major books:

For More Information.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about women and gender issues. Of special interest are these about marriage and gender role:

  1. What’s the future of the family in America? How will that change our government?
  2. Do we want to bring back traditional marriage? What is traditional marriage?
  3. The feminist revolutionaries have won. Insurgents have arisen to challenge the new order. As always, they’re outlaws.
  4. “Mockingjay” shows us a Revolution in Gender Roles. What’s the next revolution?
  5. The war of the sexes heats up: society changes as men learn the Dark Triad.

Examination of the hit TV show “Castle” as a mirror to our changing society:

  1. “Castle” shows us marriage in America, a fault line between our past & future
  2. “Castle” shows us a dark vision of Romance in America
  3. “Castle” helps us adjust to a new America, with women on top
  4. Beckett shows our future. She chooses wisely & marries Castle, but dreams at night of her alpha ex-boyfriend.

22 thoughts on “The revolution in gender roles reshapes society in ways too disturbing to see”

    1. Dashui,

      I’m not fond of the term “homo” — it seems pejorative to them, and hence to avoided in these comments, where I want everybody to feel welcomed (in a personal sense) — but that’s a minor detail.

      More importantly your theory is clearly not accurate. Look at the websites of the men’s movements — or the far larger in every way websites about “game”. Typical opinions of feminism range from distain to laughter.

      There you see imo the front lines — the street fighting — of the gender wars.

  1. Bloom makes radical assertions without citing evidence–unless one counts 17th Century drama as evidence. I see, all about me, evidence that he is mistaken. I see it in my family, my children’s families, in my colleagues and their families, and in my city. The “closed mind” appears to be Professor Bloom’s mind: it seems to be stuck in 1950. Much has changed. It appears he has not noticed.

    1. eopton,

      (1) I don’t believe you understand what you’re reading. This is an excerpt of a few pages from a 400 page book; other parts explain the basis for his observations.

      (2) Saying he’s wrong without giving even one specific tells us nothing. What’s the point? You might just as well scream “heretic” and be done with it. Can you explain?

    2. >Professor Bloom’s mind: it seems to be stuck in 1950. Much has changed. It appears he has not noticed.

      But you could just sum up Bloom’s piece exactly with “it’s not the 1950s anymore.”

      1. freeze,

        Yes, that is exactly Bloom’s point. The people commenting here don’t see that obvious fact. This is exactly like the comments to my previous predictions. People can see the obvious, but prefer to close their eyes.

        For many years it puzzled me that so many comments ignored the obvious words on the page. Of the 36 thousand comments here a large fraction of my replies are “that’s not remotely what the post said”. I wondered why people didn’t respond with quotes, as I so often requested (as is so common elsewhere), or ignored my replies with quotes showing that their assertions about the post were false. Hundreds of dialogues showed me, eventually, that this was willful blindness.

        I suspect that will be the case here, as this series will prove far more disturbing than my predictions. Readers will take refuge in their fixed beliefs. They’ll read the words on the page — as the above comments do — and see only what their fixed vision says, taking refuge in the comfort of their imagination rather than see the wild of an unknown future.

  2. The condition of the average women remained the same throughout history until improvements in public health and medicine came along in the 19th and 20th century. Urbanization and mechanization ended the need for large families to provided farm labor. Reliable birth control and education gave women even more freedom.

    The fact is that it was technology that changed the brute facts of life for women, and no amount of reading Plato, Shakespeare, Hobbes, or Lobachevsky was ever going to produce those changes. Technological changes produced economic and social changes that required changes in our ideas of gender roles. Nix the industrial economy and the entire world reverts to 17th century gender roles.

    1. Gloucon,

      “The fact is that it was technology that changed the brute facts of life for women”
      If you read the post, you’ll see that Bloom says exactly that.

      “Shakespeare, Hobbes, or Lobachevsky was ever going to produce those changes. Technological changes produced economic and social changes that required changes in our ideas of gender roles”

      Yes, but Bloom says nothing remotely like that. While tech has changed, people have not. Bloom cites the work of those people to understand the effects of these changes, so that we can better understand them.

    2. technology is not the driving force behind social change. Rather, technology merely offers the possibilities that are available; it is up to society to determine which of those possibilities are necessary for its own development. The demands of technology as a causative factor in the relationship between capitalism and society. the histories of technology and corporate capitalism are intertwined. the path of technology is not at all guided by itself, but is in actuality steered by a multitude of human choices decided by people in the top echelons of American industry and education.

      the technologies we adopt are not inevitable, but are instead the consequence of specific choices made by specific people in power (or seeking to be in power). Read the Books by David F. Noble For a more detailed and articulate explanation. Tons of good source notes as well.

      1. America by Design: Science, Technology, and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism (Galaxy Books)
      2. Forces of Production: A Social History of Industrial Automation
      3. Progress Without People

  3. Then I guess Bloom and I agree that women’s role as baby factories and men’s machismo are no longer needed in our modern economy. So what? What’s his point other than to state the obvious fact that these things have changed. He produced no evidence of any ensuing harmful effects.
    “But nothing certain has taken its place.” “particularly with women, who have not yet decided which comes first, career or children.”
    So what? The woman, and yes, her husband, will decide.

    1. Gloucon,

      I guess that’s an improvement over the accuracy your first comment. There is a vast literature on the effects of these social changes, by a wide range of humanists, social scientists, and public policy experts — plus interested laypeople — read by tens of millions of Americans. Unlike all of them, you are sublimely uninterested in these questions.

      Everybody has there own interests, and this is not yours. The field of questions about humanity is vast, and each to his or her own concerns.

      “The woman, and yes, her husband, will decide.”

      It is a basic observation — a quite obvious one — in the social sciences (e.g., political, economics, and public policy) that the sum of logical individual decisions sometimes can have large and unpleasant effects (e.g., the paradox of thrift).

  4. Also, if Bloom’s analysis on the family and gender roles was so profound, could you provide more than a rambling excerpt? How about a summary of those ideas, or some articles corroborating his supposed insights in these areas?

    1. Gloucon,

      The essay was 2,700 words. Longer would be violations of copyright.

      Also, if you don’t get it from this — and your comments show an almost total misunderstanding of what he said — then I doubt anything longer will help. My guess is that your mind is closed. You know what he believes, and the actual text has no ability to influence you.

  5. All Westernized nations are moving toward a Swedish style government and economy (Socialism). Marriage and birth rates are tanking in Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, most of the EU, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, S. Korea, parts of the Middle East, etc. With so many marriages ending in destroyed lives and with so little incentive left with regard to the institution, marriage is a already non starter for the majority of men.

    The marriage rate has been falling for decades and is at its lowest point in 100 years. Recent data shows that the general divorce rate has remained high for decades (50%+) and that it increased for older generations (trebled for baby boomers). Divorce rates have remained extraordinary high over the past few years. In 2012, there were 2.4 million divorces (not counting California and five other states). California stopped reporting it’s divorce rate over a decade ago after having four straight reporting periods of a 75% divorce rate.

    My predictions for the US and most Westernized nations:

    (1) 70% of births will be to single mothers. Black women are already there. Other races are catching up.
    (2) 70% of the adult population will remain unmarried. We’re at 50% now. 70% of men aged 18 – 34 are already unmarried.
    (3) Taxes will skyrocket to levels never thought possible.
    (4) Cultural misandry, now at epic levels, will increase substantially.
    (5) Misandric feminists will censor all forms of media with a goal of banning anti-feminist speech.
    (6) The Effort to remove men’s rights to presumption of innocence and due process by misandric feminists will increase. In many ways, this has already been accomplished with VAWA and ‘Yes Means Yes’.
    (7) Anti-male, sexist programs that exploit male chivalry and invite men into subservience to women will proliferate (see HeForShe).

    The point of “Destroy the Patriarchy” is to remove power and property from men and redistribute it to women. This has been stated over and over as the primary feminist goal. To “Destroy the Patriarchy” is to destroy men’s power and transfer it along with men’s wealth to women. This goal has been largely accomplished for black women. Other races are catching up.

    1. The Truth,

      Thanks for your forecasts! Very specific descriptions help others refine their thinking, even if they disagree. Some thoughts on them.

      #1 and #2 : I agree. That’s one of the conclusions from the coming series of posts — the continued erosion of the nuclear family.

      #3 — Taxes are set by the !5. They’re uninterested in the mating habits of the outer party and proles.

      #4 — I expect women’s role in setting cultural norms will increase substantially. That doesn’t mean mirandy, however.

      #5 — It certainly doesn’t mean tyranny, such as the high degree of censorship you expect.

      #6 — I agree there’s a big move in that direction. It will be interesting to watch. I hear fragments from Sweden that they’ve gone a long way in that direction.

      #7 — Male chivalry is dying in the younger generations, and will soon be as anachronistic as courtship by singing to girls on balconies.

      As for the patriarchy, my guess is that American men are moving into secondary roles by opting out of education and careerism. The professional ranks filled by the younger generations will be American women, immigrants (1st & 2nd gen), and in last place — American men. Add to that the natural advantage of women in bureaucratic hierarchies — long masked by sexism — and the idea of patriarchy will be less familiar to future generations then Vulcan mating habits.

      The implications of these changes are almost too big to imagine, let alone accurately forecast. More about this in future posts.

  6. A great post, thank you.
    You got an old man thinking. Being married to the same woman for the past 36 years you made me realize that I need to wake up! I may be sitting on the edge of a volcano. Seriously though… Some of your commentators could do well to read The Bell Curve and particularly consult the tables to see the effects of the growing tide sweeping the shore. I know the book is not popular but the reading is interesting.
    I predict this post will be wildly popular as it touches people where it hurts.
    Well done, I look forward to the follow ups.

  7. roberto buffagni

    Thank you for this post about such a fundamental issue. I think that when we muse about the consequences of the balance of power shift between men and women in Western and westernized nations, we shoudn’t forget legal (and even publicly subsidized) abortion at women’s whim. The legal power to decide life and death is the first attribute of sovereignty. If you think that in Roman ius, the pater familias had 1) legal right of punishing by death any member of his family 2) as soon as a child was born from his wife’s womb, he could (and had to) choose whether to legitimate it or not (i.e., whether to let it live or not), by a ritual and legal act (taking it in his arms and lifting it towards the sky) you can measure how far we have come from classical patriarchy.
    In my opinion, the most important social consequences will be (and partially yet are) the following:
    a) dramatic demographic decline
    b) dramatic increase in numbers of bands and gangs of young males lead by criminals/tyrants, whose loyalties are attached 1) themselves 2) and/or warring religions or ideologies 3) never to the State, which will be (and yet is) seen as an enforcer of castrating feminization.

    Reason for b): maternity is cultural AND instinctual, paternity is NOT: it’s wholly cultural, and has to be taught in a face to face transmission, by father to son. If a young male does not learn to be a father from a father whom he respects, he may become weak, uncertain, shy, “half male and half female”; or he may become a predator, a savage, a member of a wild bunch, whose leader embodies just the archaic (tremendous) characters of maleness and paternity: domineering, destruction, greed, etc.; and not protection, providing, restrain, forecasting, etc.

  8. All we know from history is that such overconfident — even bombastic — forecasts are beyond the ability of anyone to make reliably.

    1. Thomas,

      (1) Is this your full comment, or did it get sent incomplete?

      (2) When quoting someone it is polite to say so. In this case, this phrase was mine.

      (3) If this was intended as a critique, I don’t believe it is appropriate. Roberto *clearly* labeled this as “in my opinion” — not overconfidently as certainty or god-given prophecy (as so many people do). Everybody is entitled to their opinion about the future. Indeed how can any aware person not have such opinions?

      Also note that Roberto didn’t give a time frame (giving specific predictions AND dates is really bold), and rooted his forecast in clearly stated existing trends.

      IMO this is model for giving casual speculation in comments. In posts I try to be clearer — clearly labeling speculation, using lots of modifiers like “perhaps”, and stating assumptions. But in comments I think Roberto’s format is unusally good.

      That’s a comment on his form, not his specifics.

  9. Terrific subject to attend to, IMO.

    The socio metric ramifications are immense and effect daily life in the US in many ways right now and only will increase and accelerate I surmise. So many facets offered and discussed in just this Post , by Bloom and the comments are such that it requires a lot of thoughtful writing just to comment on a small portion of the issues raised.

    Are we surprised at what we now see? Perhaps and yet many willfully wish to ignore the goings on in the society at large and rationalize their own situations, as looking too closely has possibly great Impact to those lives.

    Once you inculcate a social meme, as many women have done and many of their current or former partners have done also, the chance of mutual examination and corrective course adjustment is really quite a difficult undertaking.

    There are natural hierarchies in the animal world, why would it be different in the big brained human animal? Power structures exist at all levels of human life so why is it so hard to imagine the same interpersonally?

    The quest for self actualization and personal power has its trade offs interpersonally. Some women have glimpses of such at times but the Road was chosen a long time ago. There is great confusion afoot.

    Look fwd to the next Installment here!


  10. I am afraid the outcomes will be far worse. I see the problem of relationships as socially created through differential treatment, one that will create an increase in failures for Males in the information age long– before there will be a consideration for marriage. I feel although marriage will occur in to a degree in some working class families, the vast majority of women will remain single or quickly divorce.

    I feel we are dealing with very contrasting treatments of equal minds beginning in infancy. The nineteenth century belief Males should be strong, is creating many improper treatments from infancy of more aggression increasing over time; far less kind, caring, verbal interaction, and much less mental, emotional, social support for fear of coddling by parents, teachers, and others. I see this as increasing as the world becomes more unstable. I see the belief girls should be protected as creating an increasing number of women in college and even slowly taking over the stem fields; unlike men, girls are receiving love and honor, the essentials of self-worth for being girls.

    I see this tide becoming ever more hurtful and harsh for Males, due to the false belief in genetics and the almost cannibalistic belief that allows more aggressive, more derisive treatment of Male who appear weak in society. I see this as creating an ever increasing tide of educated women and a very large, growing tide of very angry men with low self-esteem and worse, long-term very low feelings of self-worth for many more men.

    I feel marriage will become increasingly much too risky as men become more angry in a collective way thus fostering much more hostility and much fatalistic outcomes as men begin to both seek an end to their psychological suffering and even fatalistically attempt to take back from society some lost feelings of self-worth from individuals, groups, and society.

    1. lynn oliver. You are projecting your ideological fantasy and confirmation bias/ groupthink on what you feel the problems are. Have any evidence in psychology, anthropology, history, neuroscience etc etc., for any of this grand theory of yours?

      Power doesn’t care. all what you said is meaningless without context and background and you chose not to provide those most likely because they wouldn’t fit the narrative you’ve chosen to believe or possibly because the research hasn’t been done (it should be done, no doubt).

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top
%d bloggers like this: