Will cultural feminization in modern societies inevitably lead to their collapse?

When the Cold War ended with the collapse of the USSR thirty years ago, it really did seem that, as Francis Fukuyama famously argued, democracy was the relatively stable end-stage of human government and therefore in a sense the culmination of history. Now as the victor of the Cold War, the USA, proceeds through its own collapse, it seems a good time to ask again whether democracy is an end stage, or just a passing phase.

The suggestion I make here (and see relevant thoughts here, here, and here, for example) is that democracy in the modern world inevitably destroys itself through the toxic accumulation of one of its own by-products.

This by-product is not something we normally think of as toxic. We normally think of it as an example of the social progress that naturally occurs under democracy. I am referring to the emancipation and empowerment of women—not only through their >100-year enfranchisement as voters but, even more importantly, via their mass entry into the workforce following World War II, and their later ascendancy in culturally influential professions such as journalism, politics, academia, and law.

Women have been shaped by evolution to think and behave quite differently than men do, on average, and so their unprecedented cultural influence, even dominance, represents a major shift away from the traditional, male-dominated cultures of Western societies.

Women’s thinking and behavior largely reflects their greater emotional sensitivity as well as other maternity-adapted traits. This trait-set makes women more likely (again, on average) to favor policies that involve an immediate expression of “compassion,” and makes them correspondingly less likely to coldly appraise policies’ knock-on effects and long-term outcomes. Having such a cognitive/emotional bias means that women are relatively easy to manipulate by politicians and activists into accepting “feelgood” policies that have bad long-term outcomes, including overgenerous welfarism, affirmative action, freeing criminals from prisons, “defunding the police,” and open-borders immigration.

Women’s greater emotional sensitivity, moreover, has long been recognized as making them more susceptible to social contagions. Girls and women have almost always been the index cases and chief transmitters of hysterias, from routine schoolroom outbreaks to the vast witch craze at Salem. (This jarring reality Hollywood has spent billions of dollars to conceal with bogus depictions of chauvinist witch-hunters tormenting innocent young women.) Girls and women also are well known for their superior ability to form all-female networks of opinion and gossip—word-of-mouth sodalities on which entire industries (e.g., herbal supplements) depend.

Women’s cultural influence therefore comes in two basic forms: slow and fast. The slow form is the usual form in less turbulent times, and largely reflects women’s innate biases. The fast form is the one that results from social contagions among women—contagions of ideas and behaviors that are broadly consistent with feminine biases, and will almost always involve “victim” themes, but otherwise can go rapidly in all directions.

I think it’s fair to say that women in the West have been under considerable stress in recent decades. Many of them have, for example, been caught between the careerist dictates of feminism and women’s natural urge for motherhood. Many, probably most, have been through the wringer of sexual liberation culture—especially in its modern, social-media-driven form—which lures young women with a mirage of urban fun and then strands many of them on the far side of fertility. Social media appears to be a general source of stress for girls, and an efficient medium for transmitting their thought contagions. And of course there have been the acute stresses of the COVID-19 pandemic with its lockdowns and isolation, plus, in the USA, the orchestrated outrages of the 2020 election campaign.

Small wonder, then, that for at least the past year, the West in general and especially the USA have been consumed not just by an airborne microbiological contagion but by many social media-transmitted thought contagions—including the “Summer of Floyd” with its many female-dominated marches, sit-ins, and protests; and let’s not forget the still-spreading pandemic of gender-dysphoria among teenage girls. In my view, the entire Great Awokening phenomenon in the US, involving widespread, often ritualized denunciations of white people; intensified, hall-monitor enforcement of political correctness, frequent cancellations of the un-woke or insufficiently-woke; hugely destructive Antifa/BLM riots; big corporations falling into line like iron filings under a magnet; etc., has really been one, big, slow-spreading contagion from which many smaller ones have bubbled. A hundred or even fifty years ago, such a contagion couldn’t have reached big corporations, universities, and other major institutions—but now it can, because the most susceptible hosts for such contagions, women, fill those institutions.

The fact that some of these outbreaks of outrage and white self-hatred have been deliberately ignited by leftist political activists and their media minions suggests that there are some on the left who understand these social phenomena, and have learned to ruthlessly stoke them and steer them to aid their pursuit of power.

In any case, women even in calmer times are essential, if malleable, players in the political arenas of Western societies. In the US, the Democratic Party currently hopes to establish what is effectively one-party rule, and their strong prospect of doing that owes much to their ability to capture women’s sympathies again and again. Essentially every major policy thrust in aid of that ambitious goal, including the now-daily denouncements of “racism” and “white supremacy;” the opening of the southern border to bring in Central American peasants who reliably vote Democrat; and the corruption of the electoral system to enable rampant ballot harvesting and other forms of cheating, is now justified by the Democrat Party with sob stories aimed at the weaker sex: Oh! those poor downtrodden nonwhites, always being abused randomly on the street by white supremacists who take their cue from the diabolical Trump! And oh! those poor Guatemalan refugees; they and their children must be so hungry and tired after their grueling journeys! And oh! those poor sharecroppers in their shanties, kept by Jim Crow racists from exercising their lawful right to vote!

The Democrats produce this constant flood of sympathy-baiting propaganda not only to get specific policies over the line, but also generally to keep women on their side. One might think it would be a tricky task for the Democrats to keep the loyalty of white women while vilifying—and promoting policies that discriminate against—their men. But the party has managed it pretty well, especially among women who are younger, more sensitive, and one might say more stressed and damaged by modern culture. In the 2020 presidential election, despite the Democrats’ open incitement of antiwhite rioting and looting, nearly half of white women voted for Biden. Moreover, exit polls suggested that the Democrat instigators of the riots had understood white women better than the GOP did—maybe better than their men did. One poll found that more than half of white suburban women had a favorable view of Black Lives Matter, and nearly half believed “the justice system is unfair to Black people.”

Incidentally, social contagions in the US have not been confined to women on the left. The Q-Anon folklore and various COVID-conspiracy and anti-vaccine movements are largely phenomena of women on the right. I would guess that these movements are less consequential politically, though, since the conservative women caught up in them would normally vote Republican anyway.

It is also true that when the GOP tries to counter a Democrat policy these days, it often—copying the Democrats—reaches for an argument or emotional story that can appeal to women’s sympathies. After it became clear that the Biden Administration was opening the border to add millions of new Democrat voters to the electorate, the GOP responded not by describing this influx as a country-harming event, which it was first and foremost, but instead by pointing to the harsh conditions suffered by (would-be) immigrant women and children, and terming it a “humanitarian” crisis.

Is it lethal?

Democrats probably would say that all this merely demonstrates the benign power of women and their mental superiority to men. But again, I think it only demonstrates the vulnerability of women to manipulation—and in turn the vulnerability of the democratic societies that enfranchise and empower women, which is all of them.

And although Democrats would claim that the policies they’ve been pushing, along with the punches and firebombs their minions have been throwing, are all necessary elements in American progress, in perfecting “democracy,” it should be obvious that their combination of antiwhite cultural Marxism, repression of dissent, corruption of the elections process, and mass importation of foreigners to support them, is going to lead to a situation much like Venezuela’s—in which democracy and its societal prerequisites are stone dead, perhaps never to be resurrected.

The United States, I’ll admit, is an outlier among Western countries in one sense. Among its most socially corrosive problems—and the one most exacerbated by the Democrat’s manipulation of women—is the special American problem of black-vs.-white racial conflict. That particular poison seed was planted in the colonial period with the mass importation of slaves, and was left to germinate after the Civil War with the decision by the US government—urged on by many abolitionist women, naturally—to make all those millions of African Americans into US citizens, instead of (as Lincoln preferred) giving them their own homeland where they could govern themselves and live according to their own ways.

European democracies don’t have this legacy of slavery, and so, in principle, they are not as threatened by racial factionalism as a downstream consequence of their feminization.

In principle. But in practice? Well, in practice, European democracies, including some like Germany that actually have been led by overtly sentimental women, have shown themselves even more eager than the US to destroy their societies by embracing wokeism and importing foreign peoples—especially Africans, Middle Easterners and others whose ethnicities and cultures are highly non-European.

European leaders try harder every day to deny the seriousness of the damage they’ve done, but it should be obvious that once people from Somalia and Syria start to dominate your country’s crime statistics, and “Mohammed” and its derivatives become your country’s most common baby names, your country’s long-term survival, as a Western country, is very doubtful.

By the way, although Michel Houellebecq’s Submission is widely seen as a darkly cautionary tale, I think its depiction of a benign, democratic Muslim leader taking over France is fanciful—is something Houellebecq stuck in there essentially to pre-empt charges of racism. In other words, I think the coming, Islamicized, post-Western Europe will not be a collection of stable democracies, in the sense intended by Fukuyama, even if it is tolerable for the non-Western peoples resident there.

There are, in theory, courses of action that would reverse cultural feminization and allow Western societies to thrive again. But these would generally require legacy-population males, perhaps with some immigrant male allies, to rescue the situation through direct, non-democratic means—females in modern societies being incapable, on average, of acting in such a hard-nosed way.

It’s all inherently speculative, but it seems likelier to me at this point that Western males, having been so thoroughly demoralized and feminized in recent decades, will fail in this rescue mission, or simply will never attempt it. In that case, I would expect Western societies eventually to succumb to the rising non-Western tide, drifting or collapsing away from democracy, into technologically advanced forms of authoritarianism—dystopias whose outlines are already becoming visible.