The attack on the family from both sides of the feminist dialectic

A few months ago, Stephen Coughlin did a very interesting half hour on the Marxist attack on the family we all know as Feminism. He makes the case that feminism was always and has always been a weapon against the traditional Western family.

In previous interviews I have done with specialists in Feminism, a woman who’s name escapes me at the moment, once explained that the original suffragette manifesto was just the Communist manifesto by Marx, where proletariat was scratched out and women was written in its place as the oppressed group.

I am not totally sure how literally she meant it, but the point was well made.

Below is Stephen’s talk for those who have not seen it. If it seems dense at the start, stick with it. The point is worth waiting for and is clear as day.

Let’s have a look at what appears to be a reaction to feminism, but in fact is at least an equally effective attack on the family in a way that could be used to define controlled opposition. In fact even totally unwitting controlled opposition:

There are MANY many men who do this exact thing in different flavours. Each explaining the dangers of romantic relationships with women. And they do so to the great satisfaction of men who have been brutalized by a now Marxist legal system. One so lopsided that women would probably have a great deal of difficulty not taking advantage of their enormous power within it.

These videos, (and I don’t mean to pick on this one man below. There are many but it is these two examples that inspired me to set it to paper) why men should never commit to women in a relationship. More on that after the examples.

One might even wonder why something that appears to be so anti-women would be allowed on YouTube. And the hundreds or thousands of other videos that are well monetized which also carry the same messaging.

It all makes sense if you look at the net result. The end of love. Commitment. Perhaps most importantly, having character and the kind and amount of character it takes to sustain a loving relationship with someone through the trials and tribulations of raising children and other occasional hardships.

This along with Feminism’s tripling of what is expected of men and explaining to woman that any constraint whatsoever on anything they wish to do is oppression, In other words, to curtail one’s immensely powerful sexuality in all facets is being oppressed, while with men, any expression of masculinity or heterosexual normalcy is oppression. So the creation of videos such as the one above is a clear and logical consequence of the legal and cultural reality of the deconstruction of heterosexual relationships by a century of a Marxist line of operation.

Whether or not the creators of these videos are aware of what they are doing is irrelevant. None of them are doing anything to try and fix the situation. All of them are trying to make it worse. Destroy any residual trust. Increase the inertia of a system that has turned men and women against each other. Their insight is usually limited to the practical results of feminism and what may be the motive for women to take advantage of the system as it is. The word, “Hypergamy” can be heard often. But usually in a context that is negatively interpreted.

Same guy:

In the clip above, he warns men against women who want a traditional life because of a problem that is very likely true in many cases, without offering a solution to the problem. This is an attack on the family whether he knows that or not. And does the exact kind of damage feminism does, but from the other side of the dialectic. The counter-thesis.

And we do know solutions exist. Until recently, marriages mostly lasted till one person died. The surviving partner was usually torn in half by grief. A good indicator that they were well and properly bonded to their partner. Divorce was rare. Now jokes like, “Next time I feel like getting married I am just going to walk up to a strange woman and buy her a house”. Or: “When I go on a date with a man I ask myself, is this a guy I would want my future kids to spend weekends with?”.

The fact that the jokes work are pretty good indicators of where the culture is.

I want this to be short. So no lengthy explanations of how to solve these problems. But the answer lies in the culture, and willingness on all parties develop character. And this means specifically that one uses one’s freedom to choose a path, and then limit oneself in one’s subsequent choices after that initial decision to walk the path in order to achive success and overall happiness.

From a game theory point of view, one tends to value things proportional to the sacrifices you make for them. In no small part this explains our attachment to our children, along with the emotional attachments of course.

Having character means making sacrifices to make a relationship work, for the greater satisfaction and long term happiness that comes with success in that endeavour. So making the sacrifices for a relationship can make one value it more, with the right attitude. Of course, can also make you resentful with a bad one.

Taking issues with these proposed solutions is fine. I don’t pretend to expertise in this area. But the central point is the thesis-counter thesis, solution of feminism and male anti-relationship culture, who’s presence on YouTube makes a lot more sense if one sees it as the other side of the attack on the family, as opposed to criticism of women as an oppressed ‘minority’.

Source: https://vladtepesblog.com/2024/11/28/the-attack-on-the-family-from-both-sides-of-the-feminist-dialectic/