A new social phenomenon, not discussed in Romania, but debated in all serious international publications, is political polarization among youth. Several studies and polls published in recent months prove that, for the first time in history, there is a clear and significant difference between the political preferences of young women and young men: women have become increasingly liberal, while men are becoming increasingly conservative.

I’ve included graphs below that summarize the results of the studies and show that, after a long history of relatively similar political opinions between genders, there is now a difference of approximately 30 percentage points on the political spectrum between men and women. In the past, women were even more conservative than men, because they had a closer connection with the church and their primary roles were to be mothers and were more concerned with a proper education for their children

Thus, the change registered today is even more drastic than it appears. The studies I cite did not include young people from Romania, only young people from the USA, Great Britain, Germany and South Korea, but considering the media products that young Romanians consult and consume today, it is logical to believe that results in our country would be similar.

source: ft.com

source: economist.com

Another study, focused on Western Europe, shows that regardless of the political orientation of their parents or of the rest of the family, most young women have become progressive, while young men are still influenced by their parents in their political choices , so women are strongly marked by recent political trends, while men have remained on average unchanged.

This clear polarization has been identified by sociologists as a societal reaction to the feminist movement. Men’s masculine identity rests heavily on their role as head of the household, their agreed-upon use value being to work and provide for the family. Thanks to the imposition of the feminist current, most women won the right to work, so to be able to support themselves. In addition to the obvious benefits for life normality and for the economy, this phenomenon led to a redefinition of the role of women in society, but not to a redefinition of the role of men. Men consequently no longer feel necessary to women, and women now have much higher standards, no longer having to rely on, for example, romantic relationships to survive. So, after centuries of conservatism and organized patriarchal living, women were suddenly strengthened by the liberal, feminist ideology, becoming its ardent promoters themselves.

On the other hand, men gradually began to feel emasculated, with the number of anxious, depressed, introverted, and behaviorally challenged youths skyrocketing. No longer having a clearly and simply defined role in contemporary society, young men now instinctively try to regain their lost masculinity, consequently turning to extremist conservative ideologies.

This is how we can explain phenomena such as Taylor Swift (Daria Gușă – Taylor Swift,
recruited by Soros to be used by the Deep State in the 2024 elections ) or Andrew Tate ( Daria Gușă – The Tate brothers Scandal/Telenovela: two certainties and two questions ), celebrities who are hugely successful among today’s youth, but who have totally opposite ideas and discourse. Swift, who is predominantly successful among young women, is extremely liberal, promoting LGBT, secular and woke values, while Tate, supported and watched mainly by young men, is on the extreme right, promoting violence with a large audience and misogyny among today’s youth. The Tate phenomenon can also be explained as a reaction to the woke, progressive current, represented by Taylor Swift globally or by Erika Isac, here in Romania: placed in front of a Western world that no longer represents them, that only promotes new-wave trends, young men who don’t want to be associated with progressiveness don’t really have any sort of popular celebrity to guide their thinking, other than characters like Tate, who bring conservative ideas down to a crude, violent, Neanderthal level.

What are the consequences of this phenomenon? First, the sexes come into irreconcilable conflict, thus compromising the basic unit of society, the family. If women can no longer get along with men on some fundamental issues, such as religion or child-rearing, traditional romantic relationships, as well as marriages between men and women, will rapidly decrease in number. We can already see in the West how much the number of marriages has decreased, while the age at which young people get married has increased, as well as the divorce rate . In the US, for example, youth marriage rate has fallen by more than 50% in the last 50 years (!), and taking into account the fact that the polarization between the sexes is a relatively recent phenomenon, sociologists expect a much greater decline in the next decade. So we can predict that the traditional family will become a rarity if the differences in opinions and attitudes continue to grow.
Secondly, another consequence is the increase in the number of homosexual relationships. But if we’re talking about the perpetuation of our society, where will these gay couples raise their children? If the traditional family will become increasingly rare and the birth rate will fall even more than in recent years, we can expect a great social crisis, with a divided and polarized youth population, the future wage earners pressed by the burden of the aging population, which will have to be supported by astronomical taxes, from where the seniors’ pensions can be paid. But where would the money come from?

When the education systems of the West are assaulted by an avalanche of courses oriented only in favor of tangible/simplistic knowledge, how will young people be prepared for jobs that can enable them to take care of the aging population, their parents and grandparents? When everything is ready to be taken over by artificial intelligence or cheaper labor from other parts of the world, how will the West even maintain itself as a functioning system, especially if it will no longer have hegemonic power and ambitions? Perhaps this is why in vitro pregnancy is being promoted so much now, because the exploitation of poor women in undeveloped countries to be surrogate mothers will become the option by which young or old couples can start families
to pass on the couples’ ideologies and fortunes. Something horrible and scary, but unfortunately possible!

Third, there will be no more social cohesion. Social events and discussions will be monochromatic and divided between the sexes, so a new type of segregation will appear, now that the West has declared itself against the racial one (which it has encouraged for centuries), which, fortunately, is no longer in trend. Solidarity between people will decrease, with everyone feeling alienated in the absence of family and partners/friends of the opposite sex, it is likely that even hiring will have to be done against the diversity criteria which are in vogue now in order to avoid conflict in the workplace. This sense of social frustration will also lead to increased violence against women, with the ‘macho men’ controlled by people like Andrew Tate, thus ending up in a perennial confrontation with Taylor Swift’s feminists. In fact, we can already see the results of this divide, as violence against women has increased drastically since 2021, increase which has been attributed to the absurdity of the pandemic, but the very year 2021 was the one I identified in past articles as the year Swift and Tate have become real vectors of opinion among young people, their popularity surging across the world.

It should be noted that this gender disparity is only present in Western countries. Third world countries have the paradoxical advantage of being more “backward” but also less democratic, and thus still have relatively balanced young people, who respect family, tradition and the opposite sex, thus the birth rate and marriage rate are still high, since youth in less developed nations need their personal network to survive in a harsher, often concentrationary system. So, from a civilizational point of view, the so-called emerging countries are evolving, and the so-called developed countries are devolving, this fact already being observed at the societal level. This is sadly no longer an assumption or prediction, it is a fact. Generation Z in the West (born
between 1996 and 2010), already nicknamed the “Zombie generation” needs artificial intelligence to finish any homework or task received at work, is always thinking or watching celebrities like the ones mentioned above, and cannot face the political world, hiding in extremist and divisive ideologies. If psycho sociologists would want to collaborate with geopoliticians and predict the future of the world, they would build their estimates precisely from analyzing this generation of single young Westerners, brainwashed by mainstream media promoting exaggeratedly woke attitudes, or by characters like Andrew Tate, who support the return to barbarism and male superiority.

The great French sociologist Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) said: “Each new generation is reared by its predecessor; the latter must therefore improve in order to improve its successor.”; He was right, but he did not expect future societies to be constantly manipulated by social media bubbles, decerebrate celebrities and a mass media lacking in principles and compass.

Finally, from the level of (lack of) experience imposed by my 20s, I can say that I envy those who have been able to live most of their lives in a world of normality and peace, for we are in for interesting times evolving in an undesirable trans humanist direction which we should have been able to avoid.

Author: Daria Gușă