The Civilisation Destroying Impact of Feminism By Mrs. Vera West

Josiah Lippincott, "Feminism is Barbarism," at American Greatness.com, does not hold back in his critique of feminism; feminism is barbarism to be sure, as seen in the championing of the death cult of abortion up until birth, but moreover, it is an ideology of decline and inevitable social collapse. Lippincott makes the point that the key issue with feminism is the undermining of masculine virtue, the driving force for civilisation. And he is not alone in this; even a feminist, Camille Paglia, but an opened minded one, said that: "If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts." As well, "What you're seeing is how a civilization commits suicide." The present crash of births across all advanced industrial nations, all of whom have fully embraced feminism, is perhaps the most decisive proof of the claims of Paglia, and now Lippincott.

We do not know at this point in history how this nonsense will end, but end, it will.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303997604579240022857012920

https://amgreatness.com/2024/04/04/feminism-is-barbarism/

"Feminism is an ideology of decline.

The so-called "liberation" of women from masculine authority means the destruction of civilized life. Feminism is the ideological and spiritual commitment to returning mankind to the primitive conditions of slavery, fear, and superstition that characterize the most common lot of human beings.

In the West alone, the spirit of science, conquest, and philosophy propelled a portion of mankind out of the primordial ooze of mere life and bare survival. This spirit was intrinsically and decisively masculine.

Both the contemporary right and left are uncomfortable with this reality. Conservatives seeking to make peace with feminism are in error. Catholic pro-life writers such as Erika Bachiochi and Dr. Nathan Schleuter offer "sex-realist feminism" as an alternative to what they perceive as the excesses of the post-60s feminist sexual revolution and the older patriarchal tradition. This compromise, which amounts in essence to a return to an earlier form of feminism, is untenable. Both Bachiochi and Schleuter deserve a longer treatment of their specific arguments, but I will offer here a single overall critique: the sex-realist feminists are not realistic enough about either sex or feminism.

A compromise between the forces that built civilization and those that want to tear it down is impossible.

Today, 1.5 million American women have become OnlyFans camw****es. 40% of American children are born out of wedlock. 33% of Americans under the age of 25 identify as LGBTQ+. 50% of American marriages end in divorce.

The fabric of American family and social life is imploding. Feminism, and the spirit of resentment that animates it, is to blame.

In contemporary America, a married father has no legal right to dictate where his family lives or how his children are educated. His wife has a unilateral right to end their marriage at any time. She has a unilateral right to abort their children. If she does choose to end the marriage, she is very likely to receive primary custody of the children, especially young children. She is also very likely to receive child support and alimony. The widespread use of restraining orders removes the father's right to live with or even see his children. These orders generally do not require a finding of guilt or even a trial. In the state of Michigan, for instance, a judge can issue a "Personal Protective Order" ex parte, without a full court hearing and without the father present.

It should be no surprise that women initiate the vast majority of divorces—upwards of 70%. That number jumps to 90% among college-educated women.

Given all this, it is no surprise that men are increasingly checked out of modern marriage and family. Men gain few if any concrete legal, political, or economic benefits by becoming husbands and fathers. Not only do they receive few benefits, they also incur significant risks. Conservatives complain about men failing to "man up," but they ignore the concrete policies that make so-called "manning up" deeply unappealing.

Men are not getting married because modern marriage, as a legal institution, is anti-father, anti-family, and anti-civilization. Men need incentives in order to become husbands and fathers. The most important incentive of all is stability. A man needs to know that his wife will be sexually loyal to him and to him alone. Otherwise, he risks losing access to his children and to the love and comfort that come with a stable home life.

In Edith Wharton's 1913 novel The Custom of the Country, the main character, Undine Spragg, unjustly and selfishly divorces her husband and eventually takes custody of their son—a boy she otherwise does not care for. Her husband, Ralph, kills himself in response.

In our contemporary world, we would call this a "death of despair," and it is becoming more common among both men and women alike. In my experience as a Marine Corps officer and an observer of human affairs, the greatest predictor of suicidal ideation and depression among young men was family instability flowing from a wife or girlfriend's threatened or actualized betrayal and abandonment.

Even the hardest and toughest men nurture a special love and affection for their children and family. Though many shy away from expressing such feelings publicly, private happiness is among the highest and most important goods for the vast majority of men.

No-fault divorce, abortion on demand, and loosening sexual morality make this world of home and hearth increasingly out of reach for millions of men and women alike. For a culture to promote marriage and family, it needs to shame sl**ty women, protect male wages, and defend the legal right of fathers to serve as the legal and de facto heads of their households.

Without these legal and economic defenses, marriage will implode. Indeed, it already has. The incentives men once had to work for the good of civilization—to throw themselves into the work necessary to give their families a better life—are gone. The result is the mass chaos we see around us.

In modern America, the woman is the unquestioned legal head of the household in all cases. Even if a couple chooses, at a personal level, to embrace a different model, these mutual understandings are just that—personal agreements without the sanction of political power. The only people who can enjoy that kind of agreement are those who have the willpower and discipline to maintain such fealty over decades in the absence of any other support.

This means that, increasingly, marriage is the province only of the intelligent and wealthy. Among the middle and lower classes, family disintegration is the norm, with ruinous social consequences.

All of this is a consequence of political choices. Our regime is set up to oppose and undermine the monogamous family. It is designed to curtail fathers and to spiritually enervate men as a whole.

The most powerful teacher in every regime is the law, because the law can not only make use of propaganda and argument to defend itself but also use force. In Hillsdale, Michigan, where I live, the police accompany Child Protective Services when they seize children from their parents and guardians. Those officers have guns and a legal right to use them if need be.

At its core, all politics rests on force.

All morality is violence. Feminism is violence. Patriarchy is violence. Democracy is violence. Fascism is violence.

Anarchists and utopians can dream about a world free of the need for coercion, but that is all it is: a dream. Speeches are not enough to transform the human soul. Education cannot remake human beings. This is both a source of great hope and despair. On the one hand, it means that propagandists cannot ever fully wipe out the possibility of the truth's emergence. On the other, it means that education alone cannot turn the wicked into saints. Words cannot, at their core, change reality.

Our choice is not between a world of violence and a world of peace, but between a world in which violence is constrained and one in which it is not. We live in a world that is fundamentally tragic. Human beings are limited. Every single one of us will die. All of us have longings that will go unfulfilled.

Some human beings are born intelligent, athletic, and beautiful. Others are born stupid, weak, and ugly. We cannot change that fact. We cannot, in the end, conquer nature.

Patriarchy makes civilization possible. The rule and empowerment of men elevate women and children. It creates the conditions for the private family and the joy it brings. But it comes with sacrifices, too. To have a stable marriage, men must pledge to give up their labor for their wives and children. Women must give up their sexual autonomy.

This means that some human beings will be unfulfilled and unhappy. A legal order that promotes monogamous marriage, for instance, will disappoint those who prefer polygamy. Politically, however, the needs of the community and of the city triumph over those of the fringe minority.

There is a fundamental tension between the individual and the collective. The philosopher seeks to know things according to his unaided human reason. Therefore, he questions all received traditions. The city, by contrast, insists on the necessity of unquestioning belief in order to secure its own existence and the loyalty of its citizens. There is a tension between belief and questioning. It is not clear this tension can ever be rectified fully.

In our contemporary world, these concerns, however, are far away. We are enmeshed in a political and social order that seeks to annihilate the conditions that made civilization possible. Feminist ideology sees in masculine virtue and hierarchy a rejection of equality. These ideologues would rather burn down civilization than accept subordination before excellence. In light of this circumstance, the difficulties that afflict the healthiest societies are to us, as the kids say, "first world problems."

This potent resentment has seized the entire world in its grip. Whether we can escape it at all is an open question. For civilized man, however, there is no question as to the demands of conscience: he must resist, with every fiber of his being, the forces of degradation that seek to wipe out his way of life.

Civilized man has no choice; he must reject feminism, root and branch.

He must oppose all forms of barbarism. Our civilization and its technological achievements have caused us to forget the conditions that made those very achievements possible. To preserve our way of life, we must recover those founding virtues. Before we can do so, we must remember what those virtues even are. That is our task now—to remember and then to act.