by Brett Stevens on February 21, 2018

Egalitarianism acts like a virus: once you accept it, it uses you to replicate, spreading both to others and to areas of thought unrelated to its entry point. For example, if you think one day that yes, people should be equal before the law, soon you will find yourself thinking, yes, they should be equal in social matters, too.

For this reason, people lose control of themselves once they say “yes” to that first touch of egalitarianism. If they fail to keep being egalitarian in all areas of life, they are rejecting the idea of egalitarianism itself, which because it is not tied to any specific context, infects all contexts.

Unlike transcendentals such as “the good, the beautiful, and the true” which are merely qualitative, egalitarianism makes a choice for you because it is not found in nature, and therefore must be implemented by humans. It appeals to humans, exists only in the bubble of human thoughts and conversation, but rapidly spreads to infect everything.

American women got caught in this trap like every other group. They wanted equality, mainly because their society was founded (erroneously) on equality, and so not to want equality was effectively to demand having less power. Egalitarian societies always become power competitions because equality implicates the primal question of who is not equal and therefore, deserving to be “lifted up” by collective action.

After demanding equality, they found themselves in a paradox: by making themselves objects of power, they also made themselves objects, and therefore were treated like slave labor by the workforce and like whores by the media. This set off a series of feminist kerfuffles, none of which have done anything but make women and men more alienated, thus reducing the chance of ordinary people having normal, healthy families.

The backlash begins with American women realizing that they are losing out on the families that they wanted:

But what began as sharp declines in pregnancy and childbearing among teenagers â€” typically considered a socially desirable result â€” has slowly spread up the age cohorts, first to women in their early 20s, then to those in their late 20s. And now fertility decline has set in for women even in their 30s. Far from reversing as America grew out of economic recession, this lost fertility has worsened. A key factor is that marriage is increasingly being postponed. Total fertility rates controlling for marital status have not changed very much over the last 15 years. But with marriage coming later, the share of women at peak childbearing ages (20 to 40) who are married has steadily fallen. …As a result, the gap between the number of children that women say they want to have (2.7) and the number of children they will probably actually have (1.8) has risen to the highest level in 40 years.

When men and women become adversarial, the tendency to form bonds is deprecated. They do so only after they have lived a certain number of years in pursuit of sex, which is a form of power, over the other gender. This means that they get married late and have fewer children.

Women and men both want large, happy, well-adjusted families. We can only have this when women stop being financial objects, as they became when they entered the workforce and through feminism, and start again being the cornerstones of the family. They do not need to be equal; they need to be special, and have all the privilege associated with that role.

Tags: children, family, replacement, reproduction rates, women

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.