Well, I've got four granddaughters aged late twenties to early thirties - all intelligent, successful (and glamourous.) And three, I'm pleased to say, have long-term male partners and the fourth is most certainly not anti-men. But none of them has shown any interest in having children. And that, typical of their generation it seems, is quite worrying.
The attack on the traditional family was one of the first moves the Bolsheviks did after the 1917 Revolution in Russia. Any totalitarian ideology does not tolerate “competition”. One has to be a devoted convert or not be. Anything that could stand on the way of the Revolution must be rid of. Interestingly, after a short period of time even the Communists realised the value of the family as a microcosm making up the society.
I'm a little sad to see "liberal" used this way. I'm a 68-year-old liberal, still firmly behind free speech, truth over narrative, connection over divisiveness, and with a recognition of the obvious fact that women will suffer if new definitions of gender identity usurp biological facts. That is to say, I'm old-school. Censorship is not liberal; discrimination based on identity baskets is not liberal. I realize this is an aside -- the article has a lot to say and I'm zeroing in on one small thing. (At least I know when I'm being annoying.) And obviously *some* term needs to be chosen to denote the current left. Still, seeing the word dropped throughout did bother me, for what that's worth.
Good article. These liberal, middle class gen zedder women will eventually either 1) hear a penny drop loudly in their lives, and the backlash will be truly awe inspiring, or 2) theorize themselves out of existence.
Working class women, on the other hand have their heads well and truly firmly screwed on. The future belongs to them (hopefully...)
I have seen this dramatic shift in the corporate world especially.. Whenever I would make a suggestion or ask a social related question, progressive young college women would attack me. Especially if it was pro male.. Their was no discussion based on the merits of the question or comment. They would be vicious... Thats where i first heard the term "harm" used regarding voice/written comments.
We would have a townhall meetings with question and answer period. You could post your question and people could do a thumbs up/thumbs down. Depending on if employees thought the question was important.. If my question was political or related to DEI it would be purposely given enough thumbs down that it would be at the bottom.. I know this for a fact.. I suspect it was progressive young women based on my feedback when the question/answer was interactive..
This is actually not suprising. When you have society constantly telling young women they are victims of the patriarchy. They are told that heterosexual white men are the enemy. Degrading men and lifting up women (empowerment). DEI tells them that they are victims and deserve preferential treatment in promotions by virtue of their gender or race. While in college they are indoctrinated in hatred by Womans studies, Black studies and Queer studies.. Professors pander to them.. The result is truly narcissistic young adults.. The radical groups manipulate young womens natural tendency to show empathy to others.. Particularly, if its perceived that they are also victimized. (underdog). Its very concerning.. Particularly because of the fact that HR and management are giving these progressive women preferential treatment over men... These women then carry their radicalism thru-out the corporation.. No descent or deviation from the narrative is allowed.
As a 72-year-old childless woman -- except for 2 wonderful stepsons -- I can advise you all: Drop the bullshit, marry a real man and create a family. Everything else barely matters, feminists be damned.
Here's a counter-narrative for Gen Z gals--my husband of 30 years is my polar opposite in all things, including politics. It is totally possible to be opposites and attracted to each other for a lifetime.
Succinct summation, thank you! My son is age 32 and has absolutely bought into all this from going to a liberal arts college and being indoctrinated by the feminists in his major department: communications. So its not just the girls...
I agree with all but it’s not just the young. The liberalisation of women is occurring within older women who have the same emotional understandings and wish to follow them often at the expense of the rock created by their union with a man.
You make a good point when you say we should be concerned about young women adopting an authoritarian ideology that now has three names: wokeness/wokeism (African American Vernacular English), Critical Social Justice (Sensoy/DiAngelo), identity synthesis (Mounk).
Given the recent devastating appearance of three female presidents of American elite universities in front of Congress, more and more people are waking up to the reality of this ideology. An ideology that categorizes people based on immutable characteristics (identity). You are either oppressed or an oppressor. It then uses a double standard when judging people. People who are deemed oppressed are justified in the most brutal and inhumane treatment of other people, while oppressors are basically outlaws.
But what’s also important is to be precise about the correct term for the political philosophy that stands against this ideology. I don’t think you have used the term “liberalism” correctly. Wokeness is not an “offshoot” of liberalism, it is its leftwing authoritarian antithesis.
I’m not fully capable to explain how the English speaking world (mostly Americans, I think) use the term liberalism incorrectly. What I’ll do instead is paste a few paragraphs from Helen Pluckrose’s and James Lindsay’s book “Cynical Theories”, where they explain what liberalism is in the introduction to differentiate the term from “wokeness”.
“During the modern period and particularly in the last two centuries in most Western countries there has developed a broad consensus in favor of the political philosophy known as “liberalism.” The main tenets of liberalism are political democracy, limitations on the powers of government, the development of universal human rights, legal equality for all adult citizens, freedom of expression, respect for the value of viewpoint diversity and honest debate, respect for evidence and reason, the separation of church and state, and freedom of religion. These liberal values developed as ideals and it has taken centuries of struggle against theocracy, slavery, patriarchy, colonialism, fascism, and many other forms of discrimination to honor them as much as we do, still imperfectly, today. But the struggle for social justice has always been strongest when it has cast itself as the defender of liberal values universally, insisting that they be applied to all individuals, not just to wealthy white males. It must be noted that the general philosophical position that we call “liberalism” is compatible with a wide range of positions on political, economic, and social questions, including both what Americans call “liberal” (and Europeans call “social-democratic”) and moderate forms of what people in all countries call “conservative.” This philosophical liberalism is opposed to authoritarian movements of all types, be they left-wing or right-wing, secular or theocratic. Liberalism is thus best thought of as a shared common ground, providing a framework for conflict resolution and one within which people with a variety of views on political, economic, and social questions can rationally debate the options for public policy.
However, we have reached a point in history where the liberalism and modernity at the heart of Western civilization are at great risk on the level of the ideas that sustain them. The precise nature of this threat is complicated, as it arises from at least two overwhelming pressures, one revolutionary and the other reactionary, that are waging war with each other over which illiberal direction our societies should be dragged. Far-right populist movements claiming to be making a last desperate stand for liberalism and democracy against a rising tide of progressivism and globalism are on the rise around the world. They are increasingly turning toward leadership in dictators and strongmen who can maintain and preserve “Western” sovereignty and values. Meanwhile, far-left progressive social crusaders portray themselves as the sole and righteous champions of social and moral progress without which democracy is meaningless and hollow. These, on our furthest left, not only advance their cause through revolutionary aims that openly reject liberalism as a form of oppression, but they also do so with increasingly authoritarian means seeking to establish a thoroughly dogmatic fundamentalist ideology regarding how society ought to be ordered. Each side in this fray sees the other as an existential threat, and thus each fuels the other’s greatest excesses. This culture war is sufficiently intense that it has come to define political—and increasingly social—life through the beginning of the twenty-first century.
Though the problem to the right is severe and deserves much careful analysis in its own right, we have become experts in the nature of the problem on the left. This is partly because we believe that, while the two sides are driving one another to madness and further radicalization, the problem coming from the left represents a departure from its historical point of reason and strength, which is liberalism. It is that liberalism that is essential to the maintenance of our secular, liberal democracies. As we have written previously, the problem arises from the fact that,
The progressive left has aligned itself not with Modernity but with postmodernism, which rejects objective truth as a fantasy dreamed up by naive and/or arrogantly bigoted Enlightenment thinkers who underestimated the collateral consequences of Modernity’s progress.1
It is this problem that we have dedicated ourselves to learning about and hope to explain in this volume: the problem of postmodernism, not just as it initially arose in the 1960s but also how it has evolved over the last half century. Postmodernism has, depending upon your view, either become or given rise to one of the least tolerant and most authoritarian ideologies that the world has had to deal with since the widespread decline of communism and the collapses of white supremacy and colonialism. Postmodernism was developed in relatively obscure corners of academia as an intellectual and cultural reaction to all of these changes, and since the 1960s it has spread to other parts of the academy, into activism, throughout bureaucracies, and to the heart of primary, secondary, and post-secondary education. It has, from there, begun to seep into broader society to the point where it, and backlashes against it—both reasonable and reactionary—have come to dominate our sociopolitical landscape as we grind ever more painfully into the third decade of the new millennium.”
While “Cynical Theories” is great as an introduction into “woke” academic literature, Yascha Mounk’s new book “The Identity Trap” looks like a more accessible introduction into the topic of “wokeness”, or, as he calls it, the “identity synthesis”. Compared to Pluckrose and Lindsay, he also looks at the role social media plays much closer, which might be of particular interest to Freya’s readers.
KK you are pointing out legitimate problems we are facing in this modern world, especially for women and girls. However, I once wrote addressing you in an interview you had with Tom Bilyeu about marriage. “Your message is right but you delivery of it is all wrong”. I still feel the same with this message you are trying to deliver. The word you “worried” first of all has the same feel as someone saying “A hole in the ozone layer”, then “Global warming”, then, “Climate Change”. It is all fear mongering. Getting people to panic running around like headless chickens. “We are all doomed! What can we do? I know, let’s Just Stop Oil!”. I know for a fact you don’t believe for one second that it is a feasible solution. We can all agree that climate is an on going challenge but just stopping the oil is just going to be a problem not a solution. I believe we can adjust with the changing climate if we change the delivery of the message about climate change.
The Liberals somehow believe if the oil is stopped it will press the rewind button and undo all the “damage” oil has caused. Conservatives what to do the same. They do not want to conserve they want to find the rewind button too and smash that button till their hands bleed. Thinking, “If we can just stop women’s liberation it will undo all the “damage” it has caused. You are more subtle with your approach but it is not far from what Pearl preaches. “Just Stop women from voting. They can’t handle it. They are turning Liberalism into an ideology that is destroyed the family and widening the gender gap”.
“Just Stop women’s education. They can’t handle it. They are turning Universities into an ideology, which is destroying the family unit and widening the gender gap.”
“Just Stop women on social media. They can’t handle it. They are turning the Mainstream media into an ideology that is destroying the family unit and widening gender gap. Don’t believe me but look at all the fancy statics I have”
All under the umbrella of “Just Stop women’s liberation”
I know you are not saying “Just Stop....(fill in the blank)” you are saying “Just limit....(fill in the blank). But I see that as more patronising. “Here have some tidbits because you can’t handle more and itbwill make you depressed.”
I hate it when you say, “You must get married if you want to be happy”. I am married and I am happy but very time you say that “You must” shit. I want to divorce my husband just to say “fuck you”. I know it is childish, stubborn, and I am cutting off my nose to spite my own face. But this is exactly what you are up against, especially with younger women. The moment you say “You must... or, just stop.... or , just limit....” the ears switch off but will only listen enough so we can go and do the total opposite of what you are telling us to go do.
I am with you 100% on this. I am sick to the back of my to my teeth with this woke ideology. The other day I was in Smiths Toys and I found Travel Barbie with a Covid mask accessory! This infuriated me. “what now we are brainwashing children before they even get into school!” Incredulous is an understatement. I love and respect men even when they are Mansplaining and putting finger in my face saying “You must because it’s logical”🙄
I say this quite often but it always needs pointing out. “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. Unless you are the horse of course.” Women can be lead to logic and reason but to can’t make them see it, or know it, or use it. This is something we have to do for ourselves. It cannot be forced.
If you are looking for a solution, well, you got the right message you just need to find a better way to deliver it. It is like the Climate Change issue. I believe we can adjust with this ideology and cope with the challenges a head. Unfortunately Social media and the invading Internet into our everyday lives is an era no-one has lived through. We can only surmise the disasters and damage it will cause but not know it for sure. We are coping and learning as we go along. It is going to be Gen Z or most likely Gen Alpha that actually have proper knowledge, guidance and a handle on the new world that is quickly approaching. Because the only solution we have is to say, ‘Just Stop or Just limit’. I see that as a problem not a solution.
There was a time when some of the best sex you’d have was after a heated, ideological argument with your partner! Now, debate/argument is simply cancelled before any juices can flow!
On the subject of fewer babies being born, the male “pill” isn’t too far away... and I think this will lead to another, somewhat hidden, sexual revolution. I’d love to know how many men, in long-term relationships, actually WANT children. How many are pushed into it, or even worse, conned into fatherhood? How many men would rather 1 or 2 kids rather than his partner’s wish for 3 or 4? When the male pill is finally available, no-one needs to know he doesn’t want kids. He would be completely in control of his fathering destiny!
Hi Freya, I am seeing the same thing. I was talking about this move to the extreme left the other day with someone. I said it reminded me of my youth and the movement of extreme ideas in the 1960's and 70's (when I was young!) I started out very left and flirted with the Canadian New Democratic Party (socialists - my dad called them "the reds") when I was a teenager. I was influenced by the civil rights movement and promotion by the left of new and more extreme ideas. Every so many generations this happens - extreme change. The 20's and the 60's and now the 2020's. The good news is that once these young women start to mature and have to work and earn a living, are exposed to other views in multi-generational workplaces, have children - their ideas about all kinds of issues start to change. I eventually moved more to the centre and consider myself just left of centre. However, in these semi-retirement years I am moving more to the right just because the left is too extreme. Our Liberal party has moved more to the left due to having a minority government and making a deal with the NDP to form a government. However, when you've lived long enough, you can see that things are never dire - there is always hope because there is always change. The pendulum will swing back and hopefully land in a place where we have more balance. I liked your writing and will check out your site. Thanks for this post.
Well, I've got four granddaughters aged late twenties to early thirties - all intelligent, successful (and glamourous.) And three, I'm pleased to say, have long-term male partners and the fourth is most certainly not anti-men. But none of them has shown any interest in having children. And that, typical of their generation it seems, is quite worrying.
The attack on the traditional family was one of the first moves the Bolsheviks did after the 1917 Revolution in Russia. Any totalitarian ideology does not tolerate “competition”. One has to be a devoted convert or not be. Anything that could stand on the way of the Revolution must be rid of. Interestingly, after a short period of time even the Communists realised the value of the family as a microcosm making up the society.
I'm a little sad to see "liberal" used this way. I'm a 68-year-old liberal, still firmly behind free speech, truth over narrative, connection over divisiveness, and with a recognition of the obvious fact that women will suffer if new definitions of gender identity usurp biological facts. That is to say, I'm old-school. Censorship is not liberal; discrimination based on identity baskets is not liberal. I realize this is an aside -- the article has a lot to say and I'm zeroing in on one small thing. (At least I know when I'm being annoying.) And obviously *some* term needs to be chosen to denote the current left. Still, seeing the word dropped throughout did bother me, for what that's worth.
Good article. These liberal, middle class gen zedder women will eventually either 1) hear a penny drop loudly in their lives, and the backlash will be truly awe inspiring, or 2) theorize themselves out of existence.
Working class women, on the other hand have their heads well and truly firmly screwed on. The future belongs to them (hopefully...)
I have seen this dramatic shift in the corporate world especially.. Whenever I would make a suggestion or ask a social related question, progressive young college women would attack me. Especially if it was pro male.. Their was no discussion based on the merits of the question or comment. They would be vicious... Thats where i first heard the term "harm" used regarding voice/written comments.
We would have a townhall meetings with question and answer period. You could post your question and people could do a thumbs up/thumbs down. Depending on if employees thought the question was important.. If my question was political or related to DEI it would be purposely given enough thumbs down that it would be at the bottom.. I know this for a fact.. I suspect it was progressive young women based on my feedback when the question/answer was interactive..
This is actually not suprising. When you have society constantly telling young women they are victims of the patriarchy. They are told that heterosexual white men are the enemy. Degrading men and lifting up women (empowerment). DEI tells them that they are victims and deserve preferential treatment in promotions by virtue of their gender or race. While in college they are indoctrinated in hatred by Womans studies, Black studies and Queer studies.. Professors pander to them.. The result is truly narcissistic young adults.. The radical groups manipulate young womens natural tendency to show empathy to others.. Particularly, if its perceived that they are also victimized. (underdog). Its very concerning.. Particularly because of the fact that HR and management are giving these progressive women preferential treatment over men... These women then carry their radicalism thru-out the corporation.. No descent or deviation from the narrative is allowed.
Last paragraph could relate to the BBC
As a 72-year-old childless woman -- except for 2 wonderful stepsons -- I can advise you all: Drop the bullshit, marry a real man and create a family. Everything else barely matters, feminists be damned.
Here's a counter-narrative for Gen Z gals--my husband of 30 years is my polar opposite in all things, including politics. It is totally possible to be opposites and attracted to each other for a lifetime.
Succinct summation, thank you! My son is age 32 and has absolutely bought into all this from going to a liberal arts college and being indoctrinated by the feminists in his major department: communications. So its not just the girls...
I agree with all but it’s not just the young. The liberalisation of women is occurring within older women who have the same emotional understandings and wish to follow them often at the expense of the rock created by their union with a man.
True. This is why I constantly say I hate my stupid demographic.
You make a good point when you say we should be concerned about young women adopting an authoritarian ideology that now has three names: wokeness/wokeism (African American Vernacular English), Critical Social Justice (Sensoy/DiAngelo), identity synthesis (Mounk).
Given the recent devastating appearance of three female presidents of American elite universities in front of Congress, more and more people are waking up to the reality of this ideology. An ideology that categorizes people based on immutable characteristics (identity). You are either oppressed or an oppressor. It then uses a double standard when judging people. People who are deemed oppressed are justified in the most brutal and inhumane treatment of other people, while oppressors are basically outlaws.
But what’s also important is to be precise about the correct term for the political philosophy that stands against this ideology. I don’t think you have used the term “liberalism” correctly. Wokeness is not an “offshoot” of liberalism, it is its leftwing authoritarian antithesis.
I’m not fully capable to explain how the English speaking world (mostly Americans, I think) use the term liberalism incorrectly. What I’ll do instead is paste a few paragraphs from Helen Pluckrose’s and James Lindsay’s book “Cynical Theories”, where they explain what liberalism is in the introduction to differentiate the term from “wokeness”.
“During the modern period and particularly in the last two centuries in most Western countries there has developed a broad consensus in favor of the political philosophy known as “liberalism.” The main tenets of liberalism are political democracy, limitations on the powers of government, the development of universal human rights, legal equality for all adult citizens, freedom of expression, respect for the value of viewpoint diversity and honest debate, respect for evidence and reason, the separation of church and state, and freedom of religion. These liberal values developed as ideals and it has taken centuries of struggle against theocracy, slavery, patriarchy, colonialism, fascism, and many other forms of discrimination to honor them as much as we do, still imperfectly, today. But the struggle for social justice has always been strongest when it has cast itself as the defender of liberal values universally, insisting that they be applied to all individuals, not just to wealthy white males. It must be noted that the general philosophical position that we call “liberalism” is compatible with a wide range of positions on political, economic, and social questions, including both what Americans call “liberal” (and Europeans call “social-democratic”) and moderate forms of what people in all countries call “conservative.” This philosophical liberalism is opposed to authoritarian movements of all types, be they left-wing or right-wing, secular or theocratic. Liberalism is thus best thought of as a shared common ground, providing a framework for conflict resolution and one within which people with a variety of views on political, economic, and social questions can rationally debate the options for public policy.
However, we have reached a point in history where the liberalism and modernity at the heart of Western civilization are at great risk on the level of the ideas that sustain them. The precise nature of this threat is complicated, as it arises from at least two overwhelming pressures, one revolutionary and the other reactionary, that are waging war with each other over which illiberal direction our societies should be dragged. Far-right populist movements claiming to be making a last desperate stand for liberalism and democracy against a rising tide of progressivism and globalism are on the rise around the world. They are increasingly turning toward leadership in dictators and strongmen who can maintain and preserve “Western” sovereignty and values. Meanwhile, far-left progressive social crusaders portray themselves as the sole and righteous champions of social and moral progress without which democracy is meaningless and hollow. These, on our furthest left, not only advance their cause through revolutionary aims that openly reject liberalism as a form of oppression, but they also do so with increasingly authoritarian means seeking to establish a thoroughly dogmatic fundamentalist ideology regarding how society ought to be ordered. Each side in this fray sees the other as an existential threat, and thus each fuels the other’s greatest excesses. This culture war is sufficiently intense that it has come to define political—and increasingly social—life through the beginning of the twenty-first century.
Though the problem to the right is severe and deserves much careful analysis in its own right, we have become experts in the nature of the problem on the left. This is partly because we believe that, while the two sides are driving one another to madness and further radicalization, the problem coming from the left represents a departure from its historical point of reason and strength, which is liberalism. It is that liberalism that is essential to the maintenance of our secular, liberal democracies. As we have written previously, the problem arises from the fact that,
The progressive left has aligned itself not with Modernity but with postmodernism, which rejects objective truth as a fantasy dreamed up by naive and/or arrogantly bigoted Enlightenment thinkers who underestimated the collateral consequences of Modernity’s progress.1
It is this problem that we have dedicated ourselves to learning about and hope to explain in this volume: the problem of postmodernism, not just as it initially arose in the 1960s but also how it has evolved over the last half century. Postmodernism has, depending upon your view, either become or given rise to one of the least tolerant and most authoritarian ideologies that the world has had to deal with since the widespread decline of communism and the collapses of white supremacy and colonialism. Postmodernism was developed in relatively obscure corners of academia as an intellectual and cultural reaction to all of these changes, and since the 1960s it has spread to other parts of the academy, into activism, throughout bureaucracies, and to the heart of primary, secondary, and post-secondary education. It has, from there, begun to seep into broader society to the point where it, and backlashes against it—both reasonable and reactionary—have come to dominate our sociopolitical landscape as we grind ever more painfully into the third decade of the new millennium.”
Here is another post about liberalism that links to several essays, the first one being by Helen Pluckrose: https://symposium.substack.com/p/what-is-liberalism
While “Cynical Theories” is great as an introduction into “woke” academic literature, Yascha Mounk’s new book “The Identity Trap” looks like a more accessible introduction into the topic of “wokeness”, or, as he calls it, the “identity synthesis”. Compared to Pluckrose and Lindsay, he also looks at the role social media plays much closer, which might be of particular interest to Freya’s readers.
KK you are pointing out legitimate problems we are facing in this modern world, especially for women and girls. However, I once wrote addressing you in an interview you had with Tom Bilyeu about marriage. “Your message is right but you delivery of it is all wrong”. I still feel the same with this message you are trying to deliver. The word you “worried” first of all has the same feel as someone saying “A hole in the ozone layer”, then “Global warming”, then, “Climate Change”. It is all fear mongering. Getting people to panic running around like headless chickens. “We are all doomed! What can we do? I know, let’s Just Stop Oil!”. I know for a fact you don’t believe for one second that it is a feasible solution. We can all agree that climate is an on going challenge but just stopping the oil is just going to be a problem not a solution. I believe we can adjust with the changing climate if we change the delivery of the message about climate change.
The Liberals somehow believe if the oil is stopped it will press the rewind button and undo all the “damage” oil has caused. Conservatives what to do the same. They do not want to conserve they want to find the rewind button too and smash that button till their hands bleed. Thinking, “If we can just stop women’s liberation it will undo all the “damage” it has caused. You are more subtle with your approach but it is not far from what Pearl preaches. “Just Stop women from voting. They can’t handle it. They are turning Liberalism into an ideology that is destroyed the family and widening the gender gap”.
“Just Stop women’s education. They can’t handle it. They are turning Universities into an ideology, which is destroying the family unit and widening the gender gap.”
“Just Stop women on social media. They can’t handle it. They are turning the Mainstream media into an ideology that is destroying the family unit and widening gender gap. Don’t believe me but look at all the fancy statics I have”
All under the umbrella of “Just Stop women’s liberation”
I know you are not saying “Just Stop....(fill in the blank)” you are saying “Just limit....(fill in the blank). But I see that as more patronising. “Here have some tidbits because you can’t handle more and itbwill make you depressed.”
I hate it when you say, “You must get married if you want to be happy”. I am married and I am happy but very time you say that “You must” shit. I want to divorce my husband just to say “fuck you”. I know it is childish, stubborn, and I am cutting off my nose to spite my own face. But this is exactly what you are up against, especially with younger women. The moment you say “You must... or, just stop.... or , just limit....” the ears switch off but will only listen enough so we can go and do the total opposite of what you are telling us to go do.
I am with you 100% on this. I am sick to the back of my to my teeth with this woke ideology. The other day I was in Smiths Toys and I found Travel Barbie with a Covid mask accessory! This infuriated me. “what now we are brainwashing children before they even get into school!” Incredulous is an understatement. I love and respect men even when they are Mansplaining and putting finger in my face saying “You must because it’s logical”🙄
I say this quite often but it always needs pointing out. “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. Unless you are the horse of course.” Women can be lead to logic and reason but to can’t make them see it, or know it, or use it. This is something we have to do for ourselves. It cannot be forced.
If you are looking for a solution, well, you got the right message you just need to find a better way to deliver it. It is like the Climate Change issue. I believe we can adjust with this ideology and cope with the challenges a head. Unfortunately Social media and the invading Internet into our everyday lives is an era no-one has lived through. We can only surmise the disasters and damage it will cause but not know it for sure. We are coping and learning as we go along. It is going to be Gen Z or most likely Gen Alpha that actually have proper knowledge, guidance and a handle on the new world that is quickly approaching. Because the only solution we have is to say, ‘Just Stop or Just limit’. I see that as a problem not a solution.
Great essay! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
There was a time when some of the best sex you’d have was after a heated, ideological argument with your partner! Now, debate/argument is simply cancelled before any juices can flow!
On the subject of fewer babies being born, the male “pill” isn’t too far away... and I think this will lead to another, somewhat hidden, sexual revolution. I’d love to know how many men, in long-term relationships, actually WANT children. How many are pushed into it, or even worse, conned into fatherhood? How many men would rather 1 or 2 kids rather than his partner’s wish for 3 or 4? When the male pill is finally available, no-one needs to know he doesn’t want kids. He would be completely in control of his fathering destiny!
Interesting times ahead! 🙏🏼❤️
Hi Freya, I am seeing the same thing. I was talking about this move to the extreme left the other day with someone. I said it reminded me of my youth and the movement of extreme ideas in the 1960's and 70's (when I was young!) I started out very left and flirted with the Canadian New Democratic Party (socialists - my dad called them "the reds") when I was a teenager. I was influenced by the civil rights movement and promotion by the left of new and more extreme ideas. Every so many generations this happens - extreme change. The 20's and the 60's and now the 2020's. The good news is that once these young women start to mature and have to work and earn a living, are exposed to other views in multi-generational workplaces, have children - their ideas about all kinds of issues start to change. I eventually moved more to the centre and consider myself just left of centre. However, in these semi-retirement years I am moving more to the right just because the left is too extreme. Our Liberal party has moved more to the left due to having a minority government and making a deal with the NDP to form a government. However, when you've lived long enough, you can see that things are never dire - there is always hope because there is always change. The pendulum will swing back and hopefully land in a place where we have more balance. I liked your writing and will check out your site. Thanks for this post.
Nailed it