The Consequences of Feminism

This is another hard-hitting, subversive article by Brother Derek. Visit his blog to say thanks, or show him some love in the comments section.


My book critique mentioned the evolutionary consequences of feminism from the historical perspective. Now, in light of this article series on Fabius Maximus (with commentary by Dalrock), it’s worth asking what the future holds.

Women have successfully decoupled sex and career from procreation and family. Some men have reacted by using Game to acquire casual sex without commitment. MGTOW are signing out completely. The common thread? Decreased fertility, both male and female. Yet, the sexual revolution that took hold in the 1960’s that seems so entrenched is going to unseat itself. These parties are headed toward evolutionary extinction because they fail to reproduce. Slowly but surely the natural consequence of feminism is the extinction of its proponents and those that participate in it (either willingly or unwillingly). It is an evolutionary inevitability. The result is (1) economic chaos and (2) genetic replacement.

We see the trouble brewing as the population pyramids invert in the world’s most prosperous nations. A population pyramid that isn’t a pyramid means that there are too few young supporting too many old. The tax base is shrinking (relatively) because there are not enough babies. It’s an impending economic nightmare. But the economic chaos caused by feminism gets worse. Dalrock writes:

“I think we will see a creeping panic from our ruling class as they realize that by replacing the marriage based family model with one founded on child support they have removed the incentive for men to produce the kinds of excess wealth that our progressive tax structure requires. Even worse, fatherless children are (on average) far more expensive to society than fathered children are, and this is true for life. So the income stream is at risk, and the expenses are going up.”

It’s a toxic mix of a shrinking tax base, ballooning demand for social services (and government debt), expensive fatherless children, and lower per-capita wealth generation. Expect ever-lowering standards of living as this process accelerates. Eventually feminism will die. The only question is how much economic damage will it do before it dies?

Among all the doom and gloom, most people are surprised to hear that by most quality-of-life metrics, humanity is in a golden age. Never before has their been so much health, wealth, and prosperity. Indeed, were in not for feminism we would likely be able to maintain it. Instead, we stand at an inflection point wondering “What is to come?”


Feminism is taking us down a dangerous path towards economic ruin. At Fabius Maximus, Larry Kummer rejects calls for traditional marriage and family as a response to feminism, claiming it is too late. Yet, if we want any say in our future, we must do this. It will be far more painful to do nothing. Inaction will lead to genetic replacement.

Babies will be born to somebody. If one subset of the population refuses to breed, and there is no indication that this is going to change, then they will be removed from the gene pool. Those that still breed and/or immigrate will be the new masters. You don’t need a crystal ball to see where this is going. Look to the effects of immigration as it collides with feminism in Europe. Unfortunately, a timely reversal of society’s downward trajectory through replacement is unlikely, even if it manages to bring the end of feminism.

The only other option is to clamor for a return to traditional marriage and family. Overthrowing feminism and restoring our path of prosperity requires changes. We can either be a participant in the process or, through genetic replacement, have those decisions made without us.

First, abortion must end. Over 500,000 babies die a year. Ending abortion would drive a stake into the heart of feminism and simultaneously end the population pyramid inversion. This is the greatest issue of our lifetime. Without abortion, women would be much more likely to have children. Society needs both “Man up and get married” and “Woman up and get pregnant.”

Second, men must refuse to have sex unless it can lead to procreation and birth. It can only do this by embracing monogamous marriage or celibacy as the only valid options for sexuality. Feminists cannot be enabled. They must, instead, be sexually ignored and bred out of existence.

Third, embrace Christianity. This is the only way we can restore fatherhood and prevent cohabitation, single-motherhood, and no-fault divorce. The promotion of traditional marriage, absent Christian sexual morality, is not enough. Not everyone who hates feminism is a Christian. This is a mistake. Christianity is the greatest enemy of feminism: consider good and evil by the fruit it bears (and who its enemies are).

In short, we need more fathers, more marriages, more babies, and more Christians.

Author: Boxer

Sinister All-Male Dancer. Secret King of all Gamma Males. Member of Frankfurt School. Your Fave Contrarian!

5 thoughts on “The Consequences of Feminism”

  1. I like his three suggestions…although I think the order must be this way

    1) Embrace Christianity and live it out
    2) Men refuse to have sex unless it is in marriage with the possibility of procreation (i.e. no artifical contraception in the act)
    3) End abortion and contraception

    In order for abortion, contraception, single motherhood welfare to flourish…people just need to keep going down the road of sexual immorality. Eventually it’ll bring the wicked empire down like it has in the past.

    Going the opposite direction certainly drives the biggest of stakes into the heart of feminism.

  2. “Larry Kummer rejects calls for traditional marriage and family as a response to feminism, claiming it is too late.”

    I’m fairly sure he’s a Tradcon trying to shore up second-wave feminism. He agrees with Dalrock about “society’s” problems but can’t bring himself to call out women specifically.

    “Second, men must refuse to have sex unless it can lead to procreation and birth.”

    I reject this because it’s the child support model talking. A mindset of “you aren’t allowed to have sex unless you promise to have kids you may not be able to afford and may not be able to protect from the Powers that Be”? We have that now and no surprise, men aren’t going for it. Low fertility is actually caused by a lack of respect and esteem for men. If Church & State retool marriage to be centered around helping the man enjoy lots of fun sex from a young age and not be worried about the duties of raising kids then he’ll be much more willing to have kids.

    Don’t make fertility mandatory. Make fertility rewarding.

  3. “A mindset of “you aren’t allowed to have sex unless you promise to have kids you may not be able to afford and may not be able to protect from the Powers that Be”? We have that now…”

    Does sex with procreation require enabling feminism by promoting the child-support model? No. Give yourself decent odds of a quality marriage (say, 90% or better) or embrace celibacy (i.e. fertility isn’t mandatory).

    You are right to focus on mindset and promises. When I said “men must refuse to have sex unless it can lead to procreation and birth.”, I meant that they must not treat sex as it replaces procreation. Not all sex inside marriage has to be for the purpose of procreation. Fun is good too. Indeed, if I had been making my own babies the State would not have been allowed me to adopt my children. Married couples need a mindset and promise of prioritizing having the maximum number of children that is appropriate for their situation.

  4. Whiplash – I quickly forgot that Boxer said this was an article by Derek and I was reading thinking Boxer wrote it. I got all excited thinking Boxer became a believer. It is Saturday night, so as a Gilda Radner character used to say on Saturday Night Live, “Nevermind.”

Comments are closed.