“Guys, I am a single Indian[32f] woman. And I feel like I missed out on my opportunity of ever getting married and having a family.” This plea, posted to AskMen on Reddit, is followed by a description of 15 years of sexual promiscuity by an Indian-American woman who has “only been with 18 guys.” This woman, and many others, are waking up from a party lifestyle with a hangover that might last a lifetime. Women have been sold out by sex-positive feminism, which encourages the lifestyle and denies the consequences. And it doesn’t stop there. Join me as we survey the destructive effects of feminism on our culture.
Let’s begin with the new dating game and why women lose the dating game, which explain the failings of sex-positive feminism, the effects of hookup culture on long term relationships, and how women actually suffer the most in the long run. Consider this woman, who is cheating on a good boyfriend with a man who is “totally vacant emotionally, and just wants sex.” Consider also this marriage wrecked by the past, when a husband finds a group sex tape starring his prude wife. This husband learned the hard way about polyamory. What we see here is not women’s liberation so much as sexual deregulation.
There’s another place where we can see this happening, and in the advanced stages: Black America. Based on data about STD rates, it’s clear that a small proportion of men are copulating with most of the women. Eighty percent of black children are now born out of wedlock. The vast majority of black children are growing up without father figures. These statistics are now marching upward into middle America. This foreshadows significant social problems in White America, with “the lower class suffering from erosions of family and community life that strike at the heart of the pursuit of happiness.” Here’s an article on how single motherhood hurts kids.
Then comes the government to the rescue, actually making the problem worse. Here are articles on how anti-poverty programs marginalize fathers, that most “deadbeat” dads are actually dead broke, and the unintended consequences of the welfare state. Don’t let the partisan perspective of that last article confuse you; Republicans and Democrats alike support these social programs, which are billed as “helping children and mothers.” What we have are a bunch of social programs that attempt to fix, via income redistribution, problems that have no good solution due to the social malaise. Any solution must address the cause, which is the tearing of the social fabric, and not the effects, which are poverty and single motherhood.
Moving on to the wedded abyss, where we see that the government is grossly violating its role in marriage contracts, which should be to uphold these agreements for the benefit of responsible, committed, and faithful spouses. There are three main issues: unilateral no-fault divorce, custody biased toward mothers, and excessive child support, which together form an incentive for divorce. There are federal disincentives for shared custody as well as incentives for states to aggressively enforce child support orders. Retirement plans, protected from almost all creditors on public policy grounds, are fair game for child support enforcement. In addition to excessive child support, ex-wives can seek spousal support, including lifetime alimony, on a no-fault basis. This is after she receives half of the marital assets. If there are attorneys involved the ex-husband will probably have to cover her legal fees as well. No-fault divorce is a strange situation where a man effectively litigates against himself. In total a man is likely to lose more than his net worth at the time of the divorce. This can all be described as a war on husbands with the intent of making divorce fail-safe for women.
Think about this: A father can have his children seized by the courts and his income redistributed to his ex-wife, having committed no legal wrong to merit this. That’s what no-fault divorce means. Your wife can convert you into an indentured servant on a whim.
Since men are rational, they will begin refusing legal marriage. There’s another place where we can see this happening, and in the advanced stages: New Zealand, where the Kiwis have enacted relationship property laws. These laws attach marriage-like property rights to co-habitation, similar to common law marriages, except based on a “de facto relationship” for 36 months. Likewise, this woman feels entitled “to some of his dough, since we’ve been together three years.” We can expect these laws to arrive on the home front just as soon as the divorce machine becomes ineffective due to non-marriage. Men avoiding de facto relationships can expect the return of bachelor taxes, but probably disguised in some form, as the social ills compound and aging middle-class women experience economic hardship.
Here’s a lengthy treatise on the effects of misandry, which predicts that feminist policies are simply unsustainable due to the social harms. To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail; to a feminist, everything looks like a gender war, fought with a propaganda machine that emphasizes emotion over facts. “All men are rapists and that’s all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, their codes.” Good point. We should all work to “prevent the submergence of womanhood into motherhood.” If you’re sitting here thinking that the matriarchs of feminism are some seriously delusional babes, you’re not alone.
This situation is bad, but this is also an opportunity to reverse course before the consequences become catastrophic. As C.S. Lewis said, “We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.”