Thandiwe is a single mother with five kids from five different baby daddies. She’s 35 years old and currently pregnant with her sixth child from her 12th boyfriend. Deep down, she’s hoping that this one will stick around, but she’s not all that invested in him anyway. They always run away. Starring out the cracked windowpane, she watches people walk past her house on their way to work. She remembers when her father would leave home to go work in the mines. She’d sit at that same window, only back then it wasn’t cracked, and watch him, and her mother walk out to the front gate together. She is one of seven children. Her mother, unlike her, only had one husband. All her adult siblings and their children now share the house their father built all those many years ago, and none of them are married. Her younger sister has three children, and her older sister has also got five. Her mother dutifully looks after all the children while she, her two sisters, and five brothers go out to work odd jobs. She often works as a maid, while her brothers try to find work on local construction sites where they always need extra labourers. Only one generation back, things were different. Men got married in the Bantu communities, women were wives, and children knew who their fathers were. What changed?
In the furthest corner of the world, a great industrial nation decided to join the war. Beth, an American woman of Irish descent, arose early that morning to prepare breakfast for her growing family of ten. Barefoot and pregnant, she lit a fire to boil a big pot of water. Her husband would need a good meal before heading out to France, or rather French Morocco, to help defend Western Europe against the Germans. The year was 1942. Unknown to Beth, the world was about to change forever, not just for her but for her grandchildren a generation later, and the grandchildren of every parent globally. It would turn out in the end that Thandiwe in 2026 and Beth in 1942 would become the casualties of the same war. What men couldn’t achieve in the theatre of kinetic war, they achieved in the theatre of ideological warfare. The ideology they created was to fight against the very notion of the nation-state itself, of family, of tribe, of sovereignty and of independence. That ideology, as if spawned straight from Satan himself, is called FEMINISM.
The Narrative
You cannot liberate a people who are not enslaved. You cannot fight against a tyranny you have not sufficiently defined. In the early 1900’s women couldn’t vote, they couldn’t maintain a separate bank account, they couldn’t qualify for debt without permission from their husbands, and they were generally viewed as an extension of their families. When the men were shipped off to war in 1942, a lot of the job functions formally fulfilled by men were vacated. It became necessary for women to fill those job functions. In order to convince women that working in a factory is a good idea, they created vast media campaigns to show that by working, women were engaging in an act of liberating themselves from having to “depend” on a man. Hence, the popular narrative, that we all know too well today, was born. Financial dependence on a man would be equated with enslavement. A truly free woman is financially independent. Naturally, when women were no longer primarily housebound, it called into question all the other rights that they still didn’t have. What about the right to vote? Early feminism, also often called first wave feminism, was a campaign to liberate women from merely being seen as housewives or caregivers, and to include them in the world of commerce and politics. A truly liberated woman would have her own money, not be told by any man what to do (besides her boss), and would be fully capable of engaging in the politics of the day.
Typical of a male-driven discourse, it entirely ignored the actual duties women did at home! The narrative wasn’t spun against male tyranny in its entirety; it was merely a means to have women rebel against their male relatives and husbands. Once the women left their homes, they were exploited nevertheless in factories, in whorehouses, and on the streets. It, in effect, gradually eroded the system that protected women all along. That system is called patriarchy.
The Escalation
Throughout the mid-1900s, people still got married, still had traditional families, men were still the breadwinners, and women were still, by and large, the homemakers. The traditional system was not dismantled in one go. It died a death by a thousand cuts.
Firstly, feminists started changing the economic landscape by accepting jobs for lower wages than their male counterparts would. What did that do? Not only did it drive down the price of labour because excess labour devalues the price of labour, but it also put more men increasingly out of jobs. Men who were traditionally responsible for providing for an entire family would not accept a wage that cannot facilitate the fulfillment of that responsibility. Women, on the other hand, whose income at best would be considered an auxiliary income, and at worst pocket money for shoes and bags, would accept almost any wage. In other words, the way women negotiated wages reduced the negotiating capacity of men who no longer possessed the monopoly on labour. The result was that any man who wanted a job would have to accept much less for his labour, making it necessary for his wife to work. The economic shift led to a shift in power dynamics within the home. The woman was no longer a dependent of the man, but a contributor to the household income. That meant, in real terms, that she no longer needed to obey him. One woman said it best, “If he can’t afford me, then he can’t call the shots…”
Secondly, women started changing the rules around reproduction. A woman would eventually become the sole proprietor of the life she carries within her, independent of the man who helped facilitate the pregnancy. However, the man, who would go on to have no say in the matter of childrearing, would still have to pay for the child’s existence until it was eighteen years old. Most of these considerations around childbirth, pregnancy, and abortion became meaningful on account of two things: the absence of marriage, and the advancement of birth control. Both of these things furthered the cause of feminism. Charles Darwin, the father of the modern theory of evolution, once commented on the advancement of birth control in his letter to G. A. Gaskell, 15 November 1878:
“If it were universally known that the birth of children could be prevented, and this were not thought immoral by married persons, would there not be great danger of extreme profligacy amongst unmarried women, and might we not become like the ‘arreoi’ societies in the Pacific?” (https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-11745.xml)
Here he was referring to the promiscuous nature of the “arreoi societies” and their low birthrates. In 2026 it’s not hard to see that Charles Darwin was right. Western European societies have, in fact, an extremely low birthrate and a proliferation of promiscuity. Also, the need for abortion features more prominently in such societies because people do not deliberately have sex with reproduction in mind. Rather, women fall pregnant by “accident” and then need to retroactively consider whether or not they’d want to raise a child. One would think that humans would have evolved the capacity of forethought and self-restraint in human relations like they have evolved that capacity in science and engineering. Conversely, people who used to first get married and then have sex, as religion intended, would be less likely to consider an abortion because they naturally expect pregnancy to be a potential outcome of sex and they prepare for it. In reality, the new legal discussions around reproduction rights, abortion and maintenance fall squarely within the feminist era. None of these issues would arise where people got married in the first instance because marriage provided the framework for the legalities around reproduction. However, according to some feminist theories, marriage itself is patriarchal tyranny because it denotes that the man owns the woman’s sexuality and demands exclusivity. Rather, a woman must be free to sleep around if she deems it fit, and not be bound to only one man.
Lastly, the feminist trends resulted in a major shift in mating rituals and expectations. Under traditional patriarchy, men were the gatekeepers for their women. If a man wanted to mate with a woman, he would have to prove his capability to the men of that woman (her father, uncles, and brothers) before he would be allowed access. It was traditionally understood that having sex with a woman places her in a vulnerable position as a result of pregnancy, and therefore the man in question would need to be capable of providing for her at least for the duration that she is incapacitated. Providing food, clothes, and shelter often involved manual labour in the past. Women, on average, could not undertake such strenuous labour while pregnant. In other words, men had to prove themselves worthy before they could mate because society and women understood that the liability of mating is predominantly going to be experienced by the woman, and not by the man unless he is held accountable artificially (through social contracts). The primary social contract for a mating arrangement was called marriage. Feminists have all but dismantled marriage by separating the practical engagement of marriage and its legal counterpart. In other words, marriage no longer means sex, and sex no longer means marriage.
Furthermore, when sex no longer carries natural consequences and is had solely for enjoyment in casual relationships, there is nothing that prevents such persons from having same sex sexual relations, since all sexual relationships almost practically resemble sex with any gender, animal, or thing. A perhaps unintended consequence of casual sex is same-sex sexual relations. The value proposition involved in a full relationship between a man and a woman is no longer as meaningful as it once was. It is no longer a relationship whose consequences build nations. It’s only a situationship between people who feel sexual urges.
Conclusion
Thandiwe is the product of the experiences Beth went through in 1942. Yes, their offspring would never have met physically, but the ideas spawned by Beth’s society would affect Thandiwe’s behavior. The South African government campaigns for feminism endlessly as a European colony, and speaks in its white tongue endlessly about women’s rights and liberation, while ignoring the patriarchal traditions of its origins. Beth’s grandchild, Mike, is now called Michell, having chopped off his pennis, and chosen the gender pronoun “they.” Thandiwe is not yet at that stage; she doesn’t know about they and them, transgendersism or even the theories of feminists. All she knows is that her father was married to her mother. Her mother was never with another man, and they grew up in the kind of stability her children will never experience. Her brothers will go on to have loose children, and half of the family would turn to crime as they perpetuate a cycle of poverty that started with them. She will never know why or how things got like this, even while she and her siblings, and eventually her children too, will go on to be the underpaid, impoverished workers of people who do have families, who do have wives, and whose children know who their fathers are. The truth is that feminism is evil; it destroys societies, and yes, it enslaves them.
40 minute session
In this session we will get know each other and discover how best to help you become the best version of yourself. Once you’ve booked, you will receive a confirmation email where you’ll be able to select an appropriate time and date. You can view my calendar HERE.
Discover more from Coach De Bruyns
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.