Blue Pill Professor asked:
In short, I think the efforts to destabilize marriage and family are so broad reaching that saying “remove the effort has little meaning.” Remove what? Movies, TV show, magazines, books, social media, our schools, our jobs, DAMMIT! It is everywhere. It is almost like a false reality or something. Like we should all take some pill or something and wake up to the real world.
Only bleeping out the whole damn Matrix will “remove the effort to destabilize the family.” Can you be more specific? What CAN we do? What SHOULD we do? How do we force social change?
The point he was responding to in my interesting times post was my assertion that it takes constant effort to maintain our current level of familial destruction. While we absolutely should nurture families, in our current situation we wouldn’t need to nurture families to make them stronger. If we stop stomping on families, or (more realistically) stomp on them less frequently and/or with less force, the family will start to recover.
Previously I’ve compared modern feminism to a massive pumping operation. There is a tendency to assume that all feminists have done is removed a sort of patriarchal levee and allowed the water to flow to its natural level. This is the feminist narrative, but this conception is deeply flawed. While it is true that feminists have removed patriarchal guides built into previous custom and law, this was actually a very small part of the changes they have wrought. For example, in the US the Equal Pay Act of 1963 outlawed the practice of paying women less than men for the same work. Feminists celebrate this as a momentous achievement, crediting the law with lessening the earnings gap between women and men. But the reality is that even by the feminist’s own metric women’s relative earnings didn’t improve for 17 years after the act went into effect:
Feminists dynamited the patriarchal levee, only to find out that the water was already where it wanted to be. A gender neutral law had no effect. It took decades of massive affirmative action programs at all levels of our society to create the changes feminists have achieved beginning in 1981. These “improvements” aren’t permanent, because they aren’t natural. The moment we lessen the massive effort we are putting into affirmative action programs we will start to see a decay of feminist progress.
There is something similar going on with the destruction of the family. It is true that the first stages of familial destruction merely required destroying the cultural and legal structures that encouraged stable families. Once the churches and the government both agreed that divorce and out of wedlock births weren’t a big deal, the family naturally started falling apart. But in the West in general, and the US in specific* the churches and the courts have gone far beyond removing social and legal protections for the family. While the initial gutting of marriage tremendously weakened the position of husbands and fathers, it wasn’t enough. It took great effort to go to the next level. It wasn’t enough for churches to look the other way regarding divorce and out of wedlock births, and for the government to declare single mother families just as good as nuclear families. Marriage wasn’t merely gutted, it was replaced by a new family structure based on child support, a system which requires much more active government support to maintain than marriage does. Fathers had to be actively denigrated. Pastors had to start preaching that fathers are objects of derision, and the government needed to enact and continuously enforce laws hostile to fathers and families.
While it would take effort to actually preach against the destruction of families, no effort is required to stop preaching against intact families. The same is true for the government. It would take a legislative initiative to rewrite the laws of the family courts, but much could be gained simply by a reduction in the zeal by which the system is used to stamp out fatherhood. A less intensely anti father (or merely less industrious) family court judge could make a real difference by only imprisoning 50% as many fathers for failure to meet income quotas as he or his predecessor did in the past. Likewise, if 50% of pastors decided to skip the annual anti-father sermon on Father’s Day, this would make a real difference. Similarly, the Kendrick brothers could go from making an anti father movie every 2.5 years to one every 5 years. All that would be required would be for the anti family forces to do less of what they are doing today, and families would be strengthened.
We are at a stage of feminism and the destruction of the family where the pumps need to be kept running at full speed in order to maintain the status quo. For the family it is possible that after enough time has passed under our anti father regime that men’s unilateral commitment to marriage and fatherhood will eventually become less than it is today. Once that happens, preachers, family court judges, and sitcom writers won’t have to work as hard to ensure that families are broken up and fathers are despised. But that isn’t where we are today. Moreover, as feminism and the destruction of the family break down the machinery of our society, it will only become harder to maintain our current levels of anti father diligence.
*The US is far more progressive/effective than Europe is when it comes to destroying families, even though we have more weddings.