Recently, we came across a very interesting commentary that caught our attention. Posted by Blendr News, two Canadian influencers who champion rational thinking, the video discusses the feminization of the West and its consequences. The transcript appears below:
George Orwell once wrote women are always and inevitably on the side of the state.
He wasn’t being misogynistic, he was making a psychological observation. In his view, women, particularly in their role as caregivers and moral enforcers, tend to prioritize safety and compassion over risk and freedom, and that instinct, while natural, is easily weaponized by totalitarian systems.
When conformity is marketed as compassion, control is rebranded as care, the state taps into the feminine psyche to enforce ideological obedience.
Now consider this: men will do almost anything to attract a mate, so when the state captures women through propaganda, redefining tyranny as empathy and compliance as virtue, men follow, especially those who can’t compete in the traditional dating market, they feminize themselves and trade strength for submission. This is what evolutionary biologists call the sneaky f – strategy.
Low status males mimicking feminine traits or moral positions in hopes of reproductive access. And while all of this unfolds, families disintegrate. Single motherhood, a top predictor of poverty and social dysfunction, becomes the norm.
Children from single parent homes are far less likely to climb the economic ladder, and who steps in as provider and protector? Not the father, the state. But here’s the kicker, the state is funded disproportionately by men, so rather than supporting the women they married and raised children with directly, men subsidize the state, which in turn provides for women through social programs. Why? Because women have been propagandized to see every relationship as a power dynamic, except one with the state, which is ironically the centralization of raw power.
They’ve been told that to rely on a man is weakness, but to rely on a bureaucracy is empowerment. This is not progress. This is dependency with a new face. And both men and women are suffering. The childless middle-aged woman and the incel are two sides of the same broken culture.
A woman without her own child often directs her maternal instinct towards abstract causes, infantilizing minorities under the guise of social justice. What we are witnessing from psychologically unwell men and women is Nietzsche’s concept of resentiment. Envy dressed up as morality. The strong became evil. The weak became good.
Strength became tyranny. We now live in a pathologically soft society that sides even with those who harm it, where punishing crime feels unfair and victimhood is the highest virtue. Nietzsche called them the tarantulas, those who preach justice but act from bitterness. They don’t want to uplift the weak, they want to drag down the strong. Orwell saw them too.
Most middle-aged socialists, while theoretically pining for a classless society, cling like glue to their miserable fragments of social prestige. These bitter, well educated, and affluent types don’t actually care about the downtrodden. They weaponize them. The real target is success, competence, independence, because those qualities expose their own inadequacies. But the answer to pathological femininity isn’t pathological masculinity.
It’s not swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. The answer is balance. Masculinity and femininity are not enemies. They’re symbiotic. We’ve simply overcorrected.
We escaped a world where masculinity once tyrannized femininity only to arrive in a world where femininity is tyrannizing masculinity. We are not oppressed by patriarchy, we are being suffocated by pathological softness, envy, and resentment. And unless we recognize this imbalance, the future will not be free. It will be emotionally manipulated, morally confused, and biologically unsustainable.
Almost every problem in society starts with worldview assumptions that distort reality. One of the most damaging today is the rejection of the idea that men and women are equal in worth (imago Dei) but different by design. When those differences are ignored, they don’t disappear—they get distorted. Femininity is often weaponized by systems that disguise control as care, while masculinity is either erased or exaggerated in reaction.
Contributor Ashley McGuire, author of Sex Scandal: The Drive to Abolish Male and Female, emphasizes this point in her own interview at the individual level. When the balance of femininity and masculinity are lost, not only do we witness a breakdown of societal structures, but the breakdown of the human person.
This worldview shift, rooted in a denial of complementary design, doesn’t liberate us. It flattens us. It punishes virtue, rewards weakness, and robs both sexes of the chance to grow. As McGuire notes, the loss isn’t just ideological—it’s deeply personal. It’s the loss of the chance for men to become better men, and for women to inspire that growth through their unique strength.
This breakdown is upstream from the societal consequences, as described in the commentary above: family structures break down, victimhood is elevated over responsibility, and strength is seen as a threat rather than a virtue. When a culture loses sight of healthy masculine and feminine roles working together, it creates confusion, resentment, and social decay. The answer isn’t swinging between extremes—it’s restoring a balanced view of human nature that acknowledges difference without turning it into division.
We’re encouraged to see this kind of critical thought from our Canadian neighbors who, in many ways, are struggling even more so with these fault lines. Let it be food for thought for those of us who have been isolated by today’s feminism or concept of toxic masculinity: these extremes are not our only options, and there is a far better way.
