People are born as tabula rasa—a blank slate. The knowledge we acquire shapes our thoughts, which in turn structure our actions, and collectively, our actions forge the society we live in. This dynamic is both powerful and perilous.
It is powerful because it underscores our capacity to redesign ourselves and, by extension, society, aiming for the betterment of our lives. Yet, it is equally dangerous because the same processes that enable progress can also lead to our destruction and the erosion of our livelihoods. Just as a cell cannot survive in isolation, a person is incapable of solitary existence and achievement. Society emerges as the minimal independent unit that is self-sufficient, embodying the essence of collective interdependence. For reproduction, we require partners; for food procurement and shelter, we need collective effort; and for psychological well-being, we depend on the family unit.
We, as individuals, construct families, and these families, in turn, build society—a complex web of relationships operating in symbiosis. This society is akin to a complex, non-linear function, driven by agent-based modeling and inherently cybernetic in its essence. Being cybernetic implies a recursive, self-regulatory function, enabling society to correct its course when it strays and to amend its mistakes.
In essence, our learned experiences not only shape our individual actions but also sculpt the very fabric of society. This intricate interplay highlights the immense responsibility we bear in shaping a society that is both resilient and adaptable, capable of self-correction and continuous improvement.
Media Influence on Gender Perceptions
That is precisely why we must be vigilant about what is taught and what is subtly served in media. A recent article in The Economist titled “Why young men and women are drifting apart” serves as a fine example of what could be considered malign propaganda that subtly tries to erode relationships between the sexes. The article begins:
“In a trendy food market in Warsaw, Poland’s capital, two female engineers are discussing how hard it is to meet a nice, enlightened man. Paulina Nasilowska got a big pay rise a few years ago. Her boyfriend asked: ‘Did you have an affair with your boss?’ He is now an ex-boyfriend.”
To anyone with a bit of common sense, it is evident that the boyfriend was likely attempting to make a joke, and—if the story is true at all—his comment was not the sole reason for their breakup. The magazine seems to be desperately trying to impose views on its readers about what should be a viable reason for breaking up and how men and women should behave in a relationship. This is further exemplified in the continuation of the article:
“Ms. Nasilowska’s friend, Joanna Walczak, recalls a man she met on Tinder who revealed that he was a ‘red-pill’ guy (a reference to ‘The Matrix,’ a film, meaning someone who sees reality clearly. In the ‘manosphere,’ a global online community of angry men, it means realizing that men are oppressed). He thought household chores and child care were women’s work, and that women could not be leaders. They didn’t have a second date.”
By using terms common in feminist discourse such as “manosphere,” the author tries to dictate what should and shouldn’t be the division of labor between the sexes.
Misuse of Statistical Data and Misrepresentation of Motives
The further spread of what might be seen as evil propaganda is evident in the biased statistical charts they offer:
The article claims that, “in much of the developed world, the attitudes of young men and women are polarizing.” According to their analysis using data from the European Social Survey, America’s General Social Survey, and the Korean Social Survey, there was a significant shift over two decades. They report that the gap between men and women aged 18-29 on a scale from very liberal to very conservative was 0.75 in 2020, which was a noticeable increase from the past. However, anyone with a basic understanding of statistics can see that the presentation of the data on the ordinate exaggerates this divergence. By adjusting the distribution scale from one to ten appropriately, this divergence would appear much smaller, potentially unrecognizable on a graph.
Furthermore, the article states, “in 2020, young men were only slightly more likely to describe themselves as liberal than conservative, with a gap of just two percentage points. Young women, however, were much more likely to lean to the left than the right, with a gap of a massive 27 percentage points.” This statement is mathematically inconsistent as it mixes percentage points and percentages, which are not interchangeable. The actual gap from initial measurement in 2002, when calculated correctly, is 7.5 percentage points1.
Additionally, the article perpetuates stereotypes by asserting, “Men and women have always seen the world differently,” without substantiating this claim with credible research. It also claims to know the voting preferences of young men and women in various countries, stating, for example, that “In France in 2022, young men were much keener than young women on Eric Zemmour, a presidential candidate who wrote a book rebutting Simone de Beauvoir, France’s best-known feminist.” These assertions raise questions about their accuracy, as electoral votes are confidential, and the motives for voting are complex and varied. Suggesting that gendered views on feminism are the primary reason for these voting patterns oversimplifies and misrepresents the broader political landscape.
With articles like these, The Economist and similar publications2 may not be striving to present an unbiased truth but rather, through the manipulation of evidence and sensationalist reporting, are contributing to driving a wedge between men and women. By framing such perspectives as ‘trendy,’ they subtly dictate how young people should perceive and enact gender roles.
The Role of Tradition in Societal Health
The traditional division of roles between men and women, often criticized, is not a form of oppression but rather a result of natural evolution. Historically, the arrangement where women stayed home to care for children was aimed at protecting the family unit, not subjugating women. This mutual understanding between men and women about roles was believed to serve the best interests of children, who were raised directly by their parents rather than by impersonal state institutions. Into the seventies, it was customary for a woman who married to quit her job, and her husband would provide for the family. It was considered disgraceful if a wife had to work, and husbands would often take a second job rather than ask their wives to contribute financially.
Changes in these traditional models were initially made possible by technological advancements such as the third agricultural revolution in the 1960s, which included the industrialization of farming and the introduction of kitchen appliances. These changes were further influenced by corporate interests that saw women’s entry into the industrial workforce as a means to increase the labor supply, thereby suppressing wages. Such shifts have been driven by economic motives, rather than a genuine liberation movement. Feminism was co-opted to serve industrial needs, leading to higher rates of singlehood and divorce as individuals spent more when the traditional family structure was undermined.
This type of propaganda pushes a new morality that has left people isolated and desperate, contributing to societal fragmentation. In traditional societies, people were generally happier; marriages lasted longer, and family crises were resolved rather than surrendered to. Families were united by shared stories and dreams, rather than isolated around individual TV and smartphone screens.
Shaping Our Society: Choices and Consequences
As I mentioned at the beginning of the article, human society is as programmable as the individuals within it, and we have the power to shape our future into either a utopia or a dystopia. The choices we make today will dictate the societal structures of tomorrow.
The consequences of moving away from traditional roles have been profound. There is a trend of declining birth rates, leading societies to rely on an influx of foreign workers from diverse cultures to sustain population levels and economic growth. Economically, wages have stagnated to the extent that it now often requires two incomes for a family to survive, altering the family dynamic and reducing individual agency within society. People have transitioned from being active subjects within their communities to passive objects within an economic system, contributing to a society that values individualism over familial bonds and leading to a society composed more of individual units than familial ones.
Moreover, the traditional wealth gap has seen changes, but not necessarily as might be expected from a more egalitarian society. While some disparities have diminished, new forms of economic inequality have emerged, challenging the notion that progress in one area correlates with progress in others.
Societal Consequences of Shifted Roles
Before labeling these views as sexist, consider the arguments presented in sources like the aforementioned article in The Economist. The debate over whether men and women should perform identical roles holds as much philosophical weight as arguments for maintaining distinct roles based on biological differences. The assumption that men and women are fundamentally the same contradicts not only religious and traditional wisdoms but the very biology itself and has clearly shown problematic outcomes.
It might even be considered ironic to invoke the biblical story of Adam and Eve, where Eve’s decision led to significant consequences, to illustrate that mistakes can be influenced by external temptation. In this context, modern societal issues such as egotism and vanity, exemplified by phenomena like Instagram and get-rich-quick schemes, are seen as just other manifestations of a society straying from its traditional roots.
Rooting for Tradition: The Case for Stability and Continuity in Modern Society
As the pace of societal change accelerates, driven by technological advances and shifting cultural norms, the value of traditionalism, while sometimes seen as outdated, provides essential stability and continuity that modern society desperately needs. These frameworks help mitigate the challenges posed by increased individualism and transient social trends.
Definition and Value of Traditionalism
Traditionalism involves upholding and perpetuating established customs and beliefs that have been passed down through generations. This adherence to the past is not merely about resistance to change but about valuing the time-tested structures that have supported human societies. Traditional roles and values, such as those found within family, community engagement, and social responsibilities, promote a sense of belonging and stability.
Modernity has brought about significant shifts in how individuals view freedom, success, and personal fulfillment. While these changes have many benefits, they also pose challenges. The rise of individualism has correlated with a decrease in communal activities and an increase in feelings of isolation and disconnection. Furthermore, societal shifts have led to practical challenges, such as increased divorce rates and lower fertility rates, which have significant demographic and economic implications.
Benefits of Traditional Roles
One of the most significant benefits of traditional roles is their provision of stability and predictability. Knowing one’s role within a larger community or structure can reduce anxiety and provide a clear path for personal development and contribution. Additionally, these roles foster a sense of shared duties. For example, the traditional family model promotes interdependence among its members, which can help buffer against the psychological stresses of modern life.
Critics often argue that traditionalism is rigid and can be oppressive. However, it is crucial to distinguish between oppressive practices and the beneficial aspects of tradition. Traditional structures can evolve and have indeed done so. Modern societies can retain the core benefits of traditional values while allowing for greater flexibility and inclusion. For example, integrating traditional respect for elders with modern democratic ideals can enhance community decision-making processes.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the allure of modernity and the pursuit of individual freedoms are undeniable, the role of traditionalism should not be overlooked. Traditional values and structures offer necessary stability and a sense of continuity, which are invaluable in a rapidly changing world. By fostering dialogue that respects both traditional wisdom and modern insights, society can achieve a balanced approach that promotes long-term well-being and social cohesion.
But perhaps the most crucial task is that we influence our economy and politics in such a way that allows families to thrive on a single wage, affording women the choice to be housewives if they so choose, and addressing economic inequalities to ensure that wealth is not disproportionately held by the 1%.
- Two interpretations exist for the reported shifts in political orientations among young individuals. Interpretation 1 suggests that the reported gaps—two percentage points for young men and 27 for young women—indicate the proportion of individuals identifying as liberal versus conservative within each gender group. This implies a distribution where approximately 51% of young men identify as liberal and 49% as conservative, while about 63.5% of young women identify as liberal compared to 36.5% who identify as conservative, showing a strong liberal preference among women. Interpretation 2 addresses potential calculation errors: the shift from 4.75 to 4.95 (men) and 4.75 to 4.2 (women) on a scale of 1 (liberal) to 10 (conservative) indicates movement towards conservatism and liberalism, respectively. The change for men translates to a 2% change, erroneously reported as two percentage points, and the change for women, calculated as a 27.37% deviation from the neutral midpoint of 5.5, was incorrectly reported as 27 percentage points. This footnote aims to clarify that “percentage points” should denote an absolute difference in percentages, not relative deviation or changes calculated against the scale. ↩︎
- A new global gender divide is emerging (ft.com)
Making sense of the gulf between young men and women (economist.com)
The Myth of the Gen Z Gender Divide – The Atlantic ↩︎