Millennial Men Are Turning Against Gender Equality

I’m not in the least bit surprised.

I’ve been fortunate enough to have escaped the worst consequences of the Sexual Revolution (I grew up in a stable two-parent family, I’ve been married for three years), but the devastation it has wrought on the American family is increasingly apparent to young men:

“Millennials, generally defined as people born between 1982 and 2000, were supposed to be the generation that forged what has been called “a new national consensus” in favor of gender equality. Indeed, in February the prominent Columbia professor Jeffrey Sachs labeled the 2016 election, where an extremely qualified female candidate lost to a man with a history of disrespecting women, “a blip” on the road to the egalitarian society that will be achieved once millennial voters outnumber their conservative elders.

But the millennial category lumps together everybody from age 17 to 34, a group varied by race, ethnicity, religion, income, education and life experience. Don’t think for a second they are united. As a set of reports released Friday by the Council on Contemporary Families reveals, fewer of the youngest millennials, those aged 18 to 25, support egalitarian family arrangements than did the same age group 20 years earlier.

Using a survey that has monitored the attitudes of high school seniors for nearly 40 years, the sociologists Joanna Pepin and David Cotter find that the proportion of young people holding egalitarian views about gender relationships rose steadily from 1977 to the mid-1990s but has fallen since. In 1994, only 42 percent of high school seniors agreed that the best family was one where the man was the main income earner and the woman took care of the home. But in 2014, 58 percent of seniors said they preferred that arrangement. In 1994, fewer than 30 percent of high school seniors thought “the husband should make all the important decisions in the family.” By 2014, nearly 40 percent subscribed to that premise. …”

When I think about the Sexual Revolution, I think about the extreme stress it has caused within two-earner families, DINKs, the spread of divorce, abortion and all the people I know who have been through multiple marriages and who have children by multiple partners. I think of the sad faces of grandparents who I see pushing around multiracial grandchildren in Wal-Mart and Target.

As bad as the Sexual Revolution has been for Whites, its consequences have been even worse for blacks. The collapse of the black family is a major cause of the Lord of the Flies existence of black youth we see in our cities. There’s no telling how much that alone has cost our society. It is fashionable to blame this on the legacy of slavery and segregation, but it wasn’t tolerated in those days.

The 1950s housewife wasn’t a timeless ideal. I do think it was a much better social arrangement than the system we have now. Every day I see something that reminds me that the family has declined. There are young White women in this country who are worse off than their 19th century ancestors.

Note: Incredibly, the Lügenpresse has spent much of the last week attacking Mike Pence and his family. Do these people have any idea of how out of touch they sound?

Hunter Wallace
the authorHunter Wallace
Hunter Wallace is the founder and editor of


  • Egalitarian family units will never work because the two genders are different. The ones that will not only work but thrive will be the ones that recognize and play on both gender’s strengths. I am really lucky in that I grew up with both of my parents, each having only been married once, too each other.

  • These liberals are still living in the past. It’s 2017. Time to move on from feminism and no-fault divorce. Get with the times, women.

  • We lived the DINK lifestyle and were both in our 40s before having our first and only child. Now I wish we had started 10 years or more earlier, but parenthood was incompatible with our New York City lifestyles. Many of our friends didn’t have children and are now regretting it: others are trying to bury those nagging feelings in more parties, more Burning Man events and more conspicuous consumption. (And admittedly many are satisfied with their decision and so it is was probably the best for all concerned, including any potential offspring they might have had and ignored).

    If you are trying to make a name for yourself in corporate America — hell, if you are trying to keep your *job* in corporate America — you will likely be in your late 30s at VERY best before you have the time and resources required to dedicate yourself to raising a child. (The “mommy track” is a very real thing: the “daddy track” doesn’t get talked about as much, but it is equally real). This means our best and our brightest are having one or two children at most, with predictable demographic consequences. If we want to improve White birthrates we need to fight for better daycare options, better maternal care and less of a corporate culture that prioritizes earning money over having children. This is a far more real and present threat to White America’s survival than miscegenation, yet it gets far less attention on the Alternative Right.

  • There is no such thing as a black family if we are going to define “family” according to how whites commonly understand the term. Black “family’s” are the result of immense pressure placed upon them by whites. Civil Rights removed this pressure, so blacks, with the exceptions of some high IQ outliers and half-n-halfs, reverted to their natural state of disfunction which is commonplace throughout Africa.

    • Africa is largely a giant f*ck party where the alphas run gangs and the betas live off the scraps.

    • Agreed. The nuclear family unit is a white concept. The DR3’s try to say the statistics on blacks are due to policies and the government, but as you correctly stated, it’s Blacks reverting to their natural state.

  • “I’m not in the least bit surprised.”

    Nobody is, Mr. Wallace. To say that the growing rejection of Gender egalitarianism by Millennial men is kind of obvious, is an understatement. Feminists have been complaining about this phenomenon non-stop since 2010. Whatever gripes the Alt-right has with Roosh and Return of Kings, they have red-pilled a lot of white men on sex realism.

      • I said they have red-pilled a lot of white men on sex-realism, as in they provided white men with some value-free scientific facts, as opposed to JUST being degenerates. Degenerates with facts > degenerates without facts.

        If there is any group that represents gender swapped feminists, its the MRAs, who have a fatal case of gender egalitarianism. MGTOW are the gender-swapped equivalent of female seperatists. As loathsome as they may be, they acknowledge sex realism. In fact MGTOW (and some PUAs) might claim to be fully “blackpilled” on sex realism.

        In what way do PUAs represent gender-swapped feminists? At worst they seem to be misguided.

    • Sexual realism is an excellent ‘gateway’ to racial realism. It’s a hard slog to get a normie to hear you out on race (for a variety of reasons), but normies who have realized how grossly misled they have been on sex are much more apt to (eventually) be red-pilled on race.

  • We literally live in the worst times. Our women are absolute traitors, they have ridiculously high expectations and standards of men to the point where they’ll either date a male mode / athlete, or stay single until they find someone like that. And staying single appears to be a better option to them instead of settling down (even if temporarily) with an average guy, even though they (the girls) are average themselves as well.

    I even recently saw a statistic showing that sex in the West for college/university students has dropped to an almost record now. So no one’s dating and no one’s hooking up. Whoever is currently a student at university in the West knows that it has turned into an absolutely boring experience…

    • They are Semi-Absolute Traitors……..

      But, not all……

      Don’t doubt the Red Pill…….

      I’ve seen some amazing differences in my own Urban Community……

      I’ve never seen so many White Heterosexual Couples walking in the Urban Parks….

      Past 12pm…..

      Something is happening……

      I can sense it……..

      It’s a Magic we should take Advantage of while it lasts…..

      Some White Women are realizing it’s Kind of Cool, Strong, Rebellious to be with a White Man….

    • Normie women are the worst but normie men are okay? Nope, not by a long shot. Both are lame.

      Its hilarious that the action to women being spoiled and taught to be weak is that they should not work and stay at home when it should be 3 years of bootcamp
      ala Full metal Jacket for starter, that will teach them to have a spin A woman that divorce her husband should have absolutely zero acess to his money.

      True, there is far less of a sexual revolution now than in the 1980s! The feminists sure are helping kill it off by making women into asocial butt-hats and the “Manosphere” have a similar ambitions for millenial men.

      • “…and the “Manosphere” have a similar ambitions for millenial men.”

        do you want to give an example? or do you want to keep spouting gay faggotry lololol


        “Its hilarious that the action to women being spoiled and taught to be weak is that they should not work and stay at home when it should be 3 years of bootcamp ”

        what makes you think this will work? What, because it works for men it must work for women? are you fucking gay lol? If you want masculine, thick legged women with manly jaw lines then sure, go ahead

    • ” And staying single appears to be a better option to them instead of
      settling down (even if temporarily) with an average guy, even though
      they (the girls) are average themselves as well.”

      Women loves winners, women love losers; It’s the average Joe they can’t stand.

  • American Society is Sick……..



    Maybe I’m just tired…….


    I guess that’s what Sleep is for…….

    Push all these Thoughts/Feelings into my Unconscious…….

    … I can start all over tomorrow……..Refreshed…….

    I’m sure I’ll find my way back to this Misery though……


    Somehow, I’m sure of it…..

  • “egalitarian family arrangements”

    LOL – you would think the 50 Shades phenomenon and the massive popularity of the 1950s Household “kink” among the younger set – women and men – would have clued in these tired old prudish leftist baby boomers.

    It’s been interesting watching the backlash over the firing of Larry Garfield from the community. If you were an old, prudish lefty baby boomer feminist, it should have been an open and shut case, right? White cis-hetero male computer programmer is outed as having extreme sexist views about women being naturally subservient to men and being a active member of the “Gorean subculture” (read: BDSM for nerds) that promotes “24/7 Dominant/submissive” relationships, in which the man is the Head of the Household and the woman’s main job is pleasing him.

    Open and shut right? Kudos all around from the progressive tech sector over getting rid of this misogynist dinosaur, right?

    Oh, no. Quite the opposite. Women throughout the tech community are coming to his defense and demanding people keep their tired old “egalitarian” morals out of our bedrooms! Can’t a gal enjoy a little bondage and slavery in the privacy of her own home?

    Women in Eastern Europe have always been treated poorly and worked like beasts of burden, so it’s no surprise that female status has dropped precipitously with the advent of Yiddish rule. The gentle Anglo-Saxon customs were mocked, the housewife insulted, but now we can see that our ways were truly superior and that the foreigners’ were inferior and embarrassingly primitive.

    Married women forced to work like dogs due to the utter misrule of the hostile elite: thanks jews!

    • You are only partially correct. Women didn’t work heavy labour, unless you’re referring to the immediate years after the Second World War. Keep in mind that America didn’t give as many casualties as many other countries did. And America didn’t have any combat on it’s soil, unless you count Pearl Harbor. But essentially women in America didn’t have to work – there simply was no need for it. America had all the men it needed for heavy labour, etc.

  • Some women are capable of being breadwinners for a family, but the percentage of such women in the general population is small, and women who take the time to get a good career have fewer children. Smart, capable women need to realize that if they devote their lives to a career then the genetic basis of their “smarts” will not be passed on. White girls are taught to revere women who have accomplished things besides being good housewives and mothers. It seems to me that they are being taught to view the accomplishments of white males as either irrelevant or ill-gotten gains. If we give them a different perspective, then they may see through the anti-male propagation before it is too late for them.

    • the partnership of marriage is one of the more sophisticated entities out there .. for it to be successful requires selflessness and devotion to other than self… lots of women are simply not equipped to devote the time and energy to making a family [instead of making money] and society has such a dim view of stay home mums can you really blame women for avoiding what they see as an unsuccessful path… I know so many divorced women with children who look down at me for my lack of ‘financial power’ .. little do they know that I look down on them for THEIR lack of family values.

      • What do you mean by “lots of women are simply not equipped to devote the time and energy to making a family instead of making money”?

        The percentage of women who are innately unsuited for being mothers must be fairly small.

          • “useless”? What if she found a cure for cancer or diabetes, or invented cold fusion or some other technological breakthrough? What if she came up with a unified field theory? What if she was a brilliant military strategist or diplomat, helped bring about peace in the middle east? Or even, what if she was just an ordinary person working earnestly at a humble job, contributing to society in her own small way? Do you seriously believe that a person’s usefulness is limited to reproduction?

          • yeah lol none of this shit ever happens lol. It’s all hypothetical bullshit. This is literally the kind of bullshit feminists push as the “possibility” if we just liberated women.

            “if we just liberated women and gave them more engineering degrees and were more inclusive then all the great scientific ideas will be discovered and a utopia will be formed lololol!!!!111!” – cries the fat feminist with a gender studies degree lol

            Feminist cunts have been saying this for the past 60 or so years and lo and behold, none of it has ever happened. Women are still primarily getting useless degrees doing mundane HR bullshit in the work place, all while taking jobs from men who ACTUALLY NEED and are EXPECTED BY WOMEN to provide for their families.

            I could just as easily argue: well why do men have to protect women from rape and violence? – by doing so, aren’t men infantilizing women, preventing them from being truly independent individuals?

            Another possible argument: well why do men have to provide for families? – There would be so much more progress in the sciences and technology if men didn’t have to focus on working mundane jobs in order to get married and take care of their loved ones!

            Notice how what you said actually doesn’t actually correlate with reality and is totally focused on the “apex” or the “exception” within the female population. You can’t focus on the “exceptional” women and then make generalizations and expectations upon other women with her characteristics. It doesn’t work that way due to the very fact that she’s exceptional lol.

          • You must have missed the part where I said, “Or even, what if she was just an ordinary person working earnestly at a humble job, contributing to society in her own small way?” That’s not “exceptional,” that is something that millions of women do every day.

          • “What if” is not a rational argument, it’s contingency. Typical woman argument. The woman’s fantasy world of make-believe is called “What-If”.

          • It is called a “hypothetical question” and you did not answer it. You also did not answer my last question, which was the bottom line here, so I will pose it again: “Do you seriously believe that a person’s usefulness is limited to reproduction?”

          • Not limited to reproduction only. Women are slso useful at making me a cup of coffee in the morning. Lol.

            All jokes aside, Women are useful in raising small children. The nurture of a mother is something a father can never share. As we are wired differently by nature, a mother is absolutely necessary for the psychological well-being of a human in young childhood. Fathers are more essential in adolescence. So women are the bedrock in any man or women’s life. Your glory and honor consists mostly in motherhood. Be proud of it. Make that your “career” and your “skill”. This is what women seem to be best at doing. There is a reason few women are engineers and many women are elementary school teachers. It’s in your genes.

            The most honored women are dedicated and faithful wives AND mothers.

          • The best place for the woman not suited for breeding is the brothel… What if she destressed that male scientist sufficient his mind thought of the cure for cancer?

          • I don’t think anybody would argue that a mother is NOT essential to the well-being of small children. Rather, I was responding to Ohio’s comment which seemed to imply having babies and raising them is the ONLY thing that women are good for. Since I don’t know him, it’s possible that he was just joking, but the sentiment has been echoed by others in this thread, too. In any case, not all women are good at motherhood. Some are better at other vocations. Based on the comments here I would think that you guys have never met a female doctor, nurse, counselor, judge, lawyer, architect, accountant, engineer, designer, computer programmer, pilot, military officer, college professor, personal trainer, CEO, store owner, or any number of other professions in which women may excel. Do you really believe that women are NOT good at such professions, or are you emphasizing motherhood to the exclusion of other vocations because of the urgent importance of reproduction (i.e. making more white babies) in the alt-right philosophy? I apologize if that is a dumb or obvious question but I have only recently become acquainted with the alt-right and I am trying to understand where you’re coming from.

          • Gender equality is a lie. Men are better than women at every single one of those jobs you listed except nursing and they’ll always be better. Let th

            A woman who chooses not to have children and a family is one of the biggest suckers on the planet.

          • You said that “men are better than women” at all of those jobs, “except for nursing,” and btw I didn’t mention secretarial/ office management, another field where women dominate. You assert this is “a description of reality,” but do you have any factual evidence to support that claim? My doctor and lawyer are both women and they are outstanding in their respective fields and far superior to the male doctors and lawyers I’ve consulted previously. That’s just anecdotal, but if you can cite any scientific studies proving male superiority on the job, please do.

            If by saying, “women… will likely do a worse job than a man,” you mean that they will have less time and energy to devote to the job because their attention is divided between home-making, raising kids AND working an outside job, you may have a good point! Keeping house and raising children is a full-time job all by itself, whereas nowadays women are expected to do it ALL. In this particular sense, I would agree that “equality” has failed us.

            But, if a woman chooses a career instead of motherhood and says she is happy doing it, why do you feel the need to complain, call her names, and/or accuse her of lying? Again, unless your #1 concern is making sure that EVERYBODY breeds due to the urgency of making more babies, how is somebody else’s lifestyle choice hurting you and what makes it your business?

            Finally, if a woman lacks the maternal instinct, does not want children, and would rather spend her life pursuing some other vocation, do you really think she would be a good mom? And please don’t tell me ALL women are automatically good moms because I personally know several who never should have had kids, and if you are honest you probably know at least one.

          • What if’s, anecdotes, putting words in my mouth and auto-victimization is the standard female style of debate. I have no patience for it.

            You should try a reason based, masculine style of debate. Some women can do it. Be their equal.

          • “Reason based” usually means “factual,” which is why I asked you to provide a link to scientific study/s supporting your opinion that men are better at the occupations in question. You responded that you “have no patience,” which apparently is the “masculine style of debate.”

            However, I wouldn’t call our exchange a “debate.” Thus far, I’ve merely asked you some questions in attempt to better understand your position and what, if any, is its factual basis. If it is simply your opinion, I have no argument, since everybody is entitled to their opinion. But because you insist it is “reality,” I asked for factual evidence.

            I did not put words in your mouth. I’m pretty sure I quoted you accurately.

            Re: “auto-victimization,” I have no idea what you are talking about. I looked up the phrase and couldn’t find anything relevant to the context of what I wrote. It seems possible that it might be an alt-right “buzzword” with which I am unfamiliar.

            As mentioned in a previous comment, I’ve only just recently become aware of the alt-right philosophy, hence all the dumb questions trying to figure out where you guys are coming from. But since you lack the patience to answer those questions, I won’t waste any more time on this conversation. thx anyway.

          • I have no problem with women choosing career instead of motherhood – if they actually have a career – not a tedious job working away their youth for somebody else’s profit.

            If you don’t have a career or a family and kids by 30, most likely you’re a feminist dupe headed for a sad, empty, lonely old age. And to tell you the truth, even successful single childless women are headed towards the same end. Older, childless, successful, rich women are among the most unhappy women you’ll ever find.

            As for who’s better at their job, it’s hard for somebody who lives in the go-grrrl matrix of fake female empowerment and lies to perceive reality. The feminist political correctness is so bad now you’ll lose your damn job if you come up with some statistic that makes women look bad. Or any other member of the progressive victim hierarchy.

            You probably know the so called wage gap. It’s an earnings gap of 77 cents on the dollar. Care to guess how large is the tax gap between men and women? It’s 200 cents on the dollar. Men pay three times more taxes than women – because they are the ones who actually do the work, keep society going and the lights on.

            Women never pay back the taxes men spend on them and they never did. I don’t ever expect that to change – but 50 years ago at least they had kids. Now they don’t even do that anymore. They have no incentive to, they can get men’s money without a family and they have been brainwashed into the freedom to be as selfish as they can.

          • Thank you for taking the time to clarify your position, I really appreciate it.

            Re: the “reality” that men are better at nearly all occupations – in the absence of factual data, which cannot be obtained due to a feminist conspiracy preventing any such study from being done, it remains an “opinion.” And I respect your right to your opinion. I think it would be an interesting study, though. I wonder what factors we would consider and how “being better at” or “success” would be measured. If “efficiency” is one of the criteria then I will admit working moms would lose points for absenteeism and/or sheer exhaustion.

            Your objection to women choosing career over kids is emotional in nature; you say they are unhappy. Even if that is true, it’s unclear why their unhappiness would be your concern. They made their choice and are living with the consequences. [I agree w/ you about the undesirability of a “tedious job… working for somebody else’s profit,” though!] Speaking of consequences, this brings us to the tax issue.

            I think we are actually in agreement here, for the most part! I googled it and found a single article from New Zealand which shows the figures you quoted. The article included a couple of statements like, “the government pays women to live” and “taxes are the transfer of wealth from men to women,” which I didn’t quite understand since I am unfamiliar with the system in New Zealand. Here in the U.S. the government does NOT pay childless adults of either gender “to live” (“welfare” as such) but, the government DOES pay people to breed! And certainly single moms are the biggest beneficiaries of tax-funded programs like AFDC, WIC, Medicaid and subsidized daycare.

            Having said that, our tax system also benefits married couples with children. There is the Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Credit, and daycare subsidy, among others – all paid for by the taxes of childless workers including career women. And the property taxes of childless people also pay for public schools and playgrounds. So I think, at least here in the U.S., it’s not so much a transfer of wealth “from men to women,” as from “childless working people to people with children, especially single moms.”

            Here again I think you and I have some common ground. I agree that the current system (including Child Support) is messed up and encourages irresponsible breeding. You are arguing for a return to the traditional family structure where families stay together and the man financially supports his OWN wife and kids – instead of supporting everybody else’s kids! As a taxpayer I do find this attractive.

            Bottom line, I am all in favor of men and women having the freedom to live as they choose – provided that they are responsible for their own choices and I don’t have to pay for it!

            Thanks again for this conversation and helping me get a better idea of where you are coming from.

          • I could care less about women’s happiness being affected by their poor life choices.

            The average man used to earn enough to provide for his wife. Then women could work if they chose and the family got double the income. Now we’re in the situation where women HAVE to work, a single income is not enough for a family, so only the irresponsible and the ever dwindling middle class can afford kids.

            The gender balance of western society so fucked boys are now dropping our of school and higher education in large numbers. There are practically no young men in universities except for STEM.

            You know what’s the next step in female empowerment? Women will have to work and pay for their own kids because men won’t!

            Ain’t that great? 🙂

          • If you don’t care about other peoples’ unhappiness over their own choices, then it’s a moot point and irrelevant to the argument.

            Re: the financial aspects, yep, exactly! My conservative Republican parents told me as a child in the 1960s that I would have the CHOICE of whatever career I wanted – ballerina, veterinarian, astronaut, scientist, among others that I entertained – OR, I could be a full-time mom and home-maker and my husband would support the family. That was pretty “feminist” of them, especially back then! But as you’ve pointed out, it backfired. Instead we are now in an economy where both parents have to work to support a family, and women who WANT to stay home with the kids can’t afford to. So much for having a “choice”!

            The latest statistic shows that young men comprise about 43% of university students. Men have historically preferred STEM over liberal arts, and STEM careers do tend to pay a whole lot better. Pres. Trump recently signed legislation encouraging women to pursue STEM so it will be “interesting” to see what impact, if any, that may have on the situation. Meanwhile a lot of college graduates are finding it difficult to get ANY kind of decent job, which may be part of the reason that young men are choosing trade school or starting a business instead of going to university.

            thx again for an interesting discussion.

          • Women in STEM, lol. The freer women are to choose, the less they choose to work in STEM. There are more women programmers in Islamic Turkey or conservative Mexico than in the so called “progressive” countries.

            Women have no evolutionary pressure to do hard jobs, they have intrinsic sexual market value without climbing the dominance hierarchy. In fact, climbing the dominance hierarchy diminishes their mate pool because women are hypergamous. And you can’t climb the hierarchy without working like a mule and not having kids – so your life will be spent on paying for other people’s kids through taxes. Smart! Or better said, educated! They’re not the same thing.

            The religion of equality is the downfall of the West, like it was the downfall of the East through communism. After the fall of communism discredited class warfare, leftist equality bots just replaced class warfare with race warfare (anti-“racism”, white privilege, affirmative action etc) and gender warfare (feminism).

            In the next 10-20 years the biggest blue collar job for men (driver) will be wiped out. Good luck starting a family then. Especially for the 3’rd worlders who are now replacing the European population.

          • btw, I thought it was kind of amusing that you refer to STEM jobs including programming as “hard jobs.” As stated previously, I think the perceived difficulty or desirability of a job depends on the unique talents of the individual. I have always found computer programming to be fun and interesting, like a game or puzzle. Giving birth to and riding herd on a bunch of children 24/7 and cleaning up after them, now THAT is what I’d call a “hard job,” LOL! Seriously, being a good mom has got to be one of the hardest jobs on earth.

          • If being a programmer it was easy, anybody could do it. Like mothering. 🙂

            Don’t get me wrong, being a mother is having responsibility but it’s not a hard job.

          • But that’s just it. NOT “anybody” can be a good mom. Like I said before, look around, there are plenty of examples. And not everybody finds programming easy. Individuals have unique talents regardless of their gender. I’m saying from my own perspective, programming is fun, whereas raising children appears quite difficult. I have tremendous respect for moms who manage to do that job well, especially those who also have to work outside of the home to make ends meet.

            We are in agreement as far as not wanting to pay for other peoples’ reproductive choices or mistakes!

            If we are going to assign a “market value” to human beings, I would prefer to think that a person’s value is based on their particular talents and what they can contribute to society, not simply on what is between their legs. But this, again, seems to be a matter of opinion, and one which is not shared by the alt-right, judging by the articles and comments I’ve read so far.

            Thx again for your feedback.

          • People who reject the idea of a sexual market are usually low value. They’re commonly known as feminists. 🙂

            Don’t worry, if you have low sexual market value doesn’t mean you can’t have value in some other way.


          • Here’s an interesting little article: theatlantic. com/health/archive/2016/12/female-doctors-superiority/511034/
            and perhaps another:

            I get pretty tired of the unfounded “MEN ARE BETTER AT EVERYTHING ALWAYS BECAUSE MEN SAY SO” argument.

          • Jamie, the best place for the woman not suited for breeding is the brothel…
            What if she destressed that male scientist sufficient his mind thought
            of the cure for cancer?

        • Why do you assume that percentage “must be fairly small”? Just as not all men are cut out to be good fathers, not all women are called to the vocation of motherhood. Biology is not destiny. Merely having the biological capacity to reproduce, i.e. a functional uterus or testicles, does not automatically mean a person will be a good parent. Some men and women make excellent parents, and others are better at doing something else, playing a different role in society. But, don’t take my word for it. Just go out and observe people at, say, Wal-Mart or other public places, the moms with their screaming out-of-control offspring and answer this question: Should EVERYBODY really breed, or not? I think if we are to be brutally honest, we probably all know somebody who shouldn’t have, although it is terribly politically incorrect to say so.

          • There are some men and women who are innately (i.e. genetically) unsuited for parenthood. Both nature and nurture play a role, however. Some men and women who are unsuited for parenthood got that way as a result of their upbringing and environment.

    • They shouldn´t be breadwinners either but they shouldn´t be staying in the home as a principle, only if they have young children. Not only are they a burden to the man but children are raised by someone that never had to work gets you baby boomers.

      Reality is, finding a job is hard today and it will only get harder and harder as western societies breaks down. Good luck with that single income per family thing.
      It is foolish to wish for “good times” that would result in soft people that would give (((them))) another shot after this one. No good times, only total war.

      • I don’t agree about women needing to go to work after their children are above a certain age, unless that age is around 16. Children still need guidance and help when they are in high school. Once they are able to drive, then they can start to be more independent.

        Your point about baby boomers seems to be an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.

      • “Not only are they a burden to the man but children are raised by someone that never had to work gets you baby boomers”

        show me the empirical evidence for this or gtfo faggot.

  • I wonder if the browning of the younger cohort of Millennials plays a role in the return of patriarchal beliefs. Hispanics don’t look like good candidates for the progressive utopian nonsense about the equality of the “genders,” especially because the Spanish language organizes nouns into distinct male and female categories.

  • Our spiritual traditions teach that we live for purposes beyond ourselves and our selfish hedonism, and especially women. You don’t have to believe in a god to see that these traditions recognize a tragic truth of the human condition that doesn’t go away just because the ideology of sexual liberation and feminism denies its existence and force in our lives.

    • Indeed,Dr. William Luther Pierce spoke often of this necessary self-sacrifice to the family,clan,nation etc. & he was not per se religious but viewed our natural state as social beings to be an immutable scientific fact.Opposing this natural instinct by promoting the cult of individualism societies are being fragmented into looser definitions of themselves as a viable whole.

      • The so-called “modern” way of thinking promotes “temporal atomization,” for want of a better term, where people just focus on the reality evident to their senses in the here and now while ignoring the past and not thinking seriously about the future. This indifference to our context in history just makes it all the easier for our elites to erase our past (rewriting the history of the space program, destroying Confederate monuments, emphasizing the fringe latecomers in this country as the real reason for the country’s existence and so forth), while at the same time wiping out our futures by replacing our people with the world’s diversity trash.

        • As Orwell pointed out in “1984” to control the past is to control the future & whoever controls the present with enough authority can manufacture a past that fits the paradigm desired in the future.While many see that book as a warning about political Marxism leading to Totalitarianism it could equally apply to it’s cultural/social counterpart known as Critical Theory.
          In the tiny minds of those that view the Apollo missions as symbols of “white oppression” it is easy to plant seeds of doubt unfortunately.Paul Kersey has done some excellent work on this subject of diversity replacing white achievement in the Space Program.Our heroes of the past can no longer be held up as something to aspire to if they can be associated with colonial subjugation or exploitation of other races….how we managed to “interrupt greatness” while forging ahead in science,technology & exploration is yet to be proved but I’m sure they have something up their sleeve that the social justice minions will run with in the next generation.

  • Progressivism doesn’t work because it conflicts with man’s nature. And man’s nature doesn’t change; you can’t reshape it like clay to conform to the arbitrary configurations demanded by the political correctness of The Current Year.

    For example, feminism didn’t work a thousand years ago; it doesn’t work now; and it won’t work a thousand years hence, unless you invoke some transhumanist fantasy from science fiction which changes man’s nature to make feminism practical.

    A man with a mature mind, like the Alt Right’s, recognizes these constraints and tries to build the best life he can subject to their discipline.

Leave a Reply