When we examine contemporary society, we can see that fundamental developments have been going on in the last hundred years on the social and technological level. We can name these developments in chronological terms. In society, the importance of close family ties is becoming blurred and the nuclear family is getting smaller. More and more marriages are ending in divorce. During World War II, women were forced to be part of the labor process, and after the war the second wave of feminism took off. Since the 1960s, women who get married are no longer fired or expected to quit working, as was customary until then – the expectation was that a married woman had chosen a husband who could support her financially.
After 1960, the contraceptive pill started the sexual revolution, and the birth rate of the indigenous population declined. The young people who were part of the student uprising and the accompanying student movements at the end of the sixties, were completely opposed to the status quo of that time and propagated a specific message: that Western society must press a reset button, in order to create an ideal world that can best be summarized by the lyrics of John Lennon’s Imagine. Since the 1970s, there has also been more freedom of expression for homosexuals.
At the technological level, electricity began to be widely distributed, so that appliances such as the the vacuum cleaner, the washing machine and the refrigerator made their entry into (Dutch) households. This leaves women more time for other things, such as more intensive care for children, social activities, and work outside the home. In the 1980s/1990s we saw the rise of the computer age and the internet, which made it easier to have more social contacts worldwide. However, those online contacts are more likely to be superficial.
What has been the effect of these developments on our society? And what impact did the rise of the progressive people (‘the liberals’) have? These progressives/liberals, who are standard bearers of identity politics and feminism – the product of the student revolt of ’68 – associate the ‘masculine’ business sectors such as banking, the industrial sector, the offshore industry and small to medium-sized companies (plumbers, contractors, painters, road workers et cetera) with capitalism and conservatism.
The Western native workers working in these sectors, are generally identified as guilty heirs of the colonial past: as nationalistic, as sexist, as tyrannical, as racist, fascist – and then I think I have mentioned all the usual ‘flattering’ descriptive terms. The ideological standard bearers of the aforementioned identity politics have in the past few decades ended up in key positions within the government, in education, in the media and within the judiciary system (mainly as lawyers and parole officers).
A by-product of this stratification in ‘Imagine all the People’-supporters and the opponents of this utopian worldview, is that the indigenous Western man has to do penance for being a so-called capitalist, conservative tyrant, an oppressor of women and other ‘victim groups’, and for being an ‘infidel’ when it comes to the dogma of multicultural and multireligious society (basically, different forms of diversity).
This, in my opinion, worrying identitarian ideology, which we are disproportionately fed through the mainstream media – which is disproportionately run by ‘Imagine all the people’-supporters – creates a major unnamed problem, namely that the aforementioned societal development – partly driven by the technological developments of the last decades – has a negative effect on the self-esteem and economic value of the Western indigenous ‘traditionally masculine’ man.
What do I mean by this statement? The economic value of the ‘masculine’ Western, native-born ‘driven man’ is decreasing considerably. After all, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find a good job and have a career in non-masculine business sectors with this ‘genetic makeup’ and ‘upgraded’ original sin. Think of highly feminized business sectors, particularly in the cultural sector, education and in the tertiary sector (especially HR, and especially in multinationals).
The type of man who benefits from this development is the metro-man who understands the art of how to small talk at work like women, and whose career is based on being liked by colleagues and the female-dominated (and therefore based on feminine values) HR-department. Not the performance, nor the decisiveness, nor his track record is of fundamental import. Being a ‘nice’ man: that is the deciding factor for having economic value.