User Lyman Stone writes on X: “Sometimes you just have to remind people that the US has more children being raised by just one parent than any other country on the planet, and there isn't even really a close 2nd place.” He refers to the fact that 24% of US children grow up in single-parent families (the black rate is about 64%, with a combined rate of about 34%). After the US, Britain follows close behind with about 18% of families single-parent. So, what’s up here?
It’s because feminism is an Anglo thing. You know the deal: Mary Wollstonecraft, William Godwin, Tom Paine, and that whole crew—they invented it. They were for the French Revolution, they talked about “the vindication of the rights of man” and then “the vindication of the rights of woman”. Godwin put forward the first modern anarchist-socialist vision, a kind of passive and totally consensual vision based on persuasion; and that, far more than Hinduism, was the approach men like Gandhi, culturally very British, took up.
Contra Godwin, you have Malthus—whose works were written to refute Godwin, and whose works then inspired Darwin. Down to this day, people reject Malthus (and, implicitly, Darwin) and prefer that “very consensual” vision put forward by Godwin.
Everything feminists say today is contained in Wollstonecraft—even the hoary old idea that women haven’t performed as well compared to men because they didn’t have a chance throughout history (despite the fact that men have achieved more than women in more trying circumstances than many women face). So the reason the Anglo single-parent rate is so high is that Anglos are really susceptible to feminism—they really take it seriously.
Even “conservative” works, like Pride and Prejudice, which were conceived in roughly the same time period as Wollstonecraft, feature women who are literate and can play music and, in fact, like Jane Austen, write novels (not have children, write novels). It was already considered, around 1800, that a civilised person had educated daughters who could read, play a bit of music (useful skill in a time when you made your own entertainment), and perhaps be numerate as well.
So the whole idea of the “strong, independent” woman was already established—and a proper gentleman, a civilised man, not some ape, would help that to be so (just like he’d help his daughter get a PhD today—he’s not some troglodyte).
Feminism is often blamed on the Jews, because lots of 20th-century feminists were Jewish women. But that’s just because they moved to America, picked up the Anglo idea, and then used their high intelligence and scholarly abilities to turn it into a real fanatical cult like Marxism.
Jewish women are heavily “repressed”, if you like, in Judaism and so as soon as they encountered this Anglo idea “feminism” they seized on it as a way to counter-signal (flirt with) all those bearded big daddy rabbis. So they really went wild with it—and it’s this combination of Anglo feminism as refined through angry Jewish women that makes America the prime feminist country today.
That’s how you end up with, as I found at university, evangelical women who are prurient Christians who like to kiss their boyfriends on the bed (one leg on the floor) and then “examine their consciences” for “the naughty thoughts” but who also are big fans of Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique—it’s totally contradictory and illogical; if you’re in the bedroom kissing it’s too late, just fuck already. Evangelical + feminist = Anglo.
It’s a European weakness—women. Europeans are different to other races because we tend to treat our women better and as more our equals (not totally our equals, but not just as chattel). You know the deal—Boudicca and Elizabeth I. The problem is that, in conditions of decadence, this tendency to treat women better, as more than an animal that has to walk three steps behind her husband, can turn into the feminisation of European societies.
So Christianity made headway among decadent Roman matrons, just like feminism and woke ideas make headway among educated women today. Men then defer to “white knight” these women, and are more likely to in conditions of decadence.
You see it in the Gospels—it’s only St. Luke who mentions Mary extensively (12 times), and that’s because he’s the only Gentile apostle; so, as with Athena and Aphrodite, he has a sense that the feminine is important (it’s how you end up with the Mary cult in Catholicism—that’s not a Jewish thing, really).
You also see it in ideas about the wise-woman, “the witch”, and her connection to Athena and her owls (later demonised by the Church, but instantiated in figures like Margaret Thatcher and Marjorie Cameron). There’s a European idea the feminine is a path to wisdom.
It’s because Europeans are from Venus, on the astral plane—planet of lurv. So it’s the white planet that rotates counter-clockwise (the only planet to do so), the planet where the sun rises in the West—the planet against time, against entropy, the planet that wants to return to the Golden Age.
It’s also the planet of the absolute man and woman; and there’s an idea that the European initiation, as seen in Dante with his idealised but ever-distant Beatrice, requires the apotheosis of your beloved. That is the initiation of the fedeli d’amore—it has elements of chaste love in it, that you should sleep with a sword between you and your beloved; and that can easily turn into idealisation and what contemporary commentators call “white-knighting”.
Well, it’s a metaphysical idea, whereas ideas like “white-knighting” are about a material action—acquisition of sex; and the assumption is that “love” isn’t real, because we’re only biological entities and not spiritual beings. Of course, Venus, in astrology, is the planet where the spiritual and material meet—it’s a hermaphroditic planet, a planet of awakening. It’s also the Morning Star, it’s Lucifer—or Lucibel-Apollo (Luke = light = Lucifer).