Social Networks, Social Influencers, Anti-Social Breakdown

There is a crisis of collapsing birthrates in all developed countries. Part is economic
affordability, but the most part is the social breakdown between boys-girls, men-women. A generation being discipled by media influences in the electronic matrix of unreality.

I have been studying the global phenomena of the dissapearing babies, children and I am not referring here to child abductions. I mean the complete lack of traditional family formation. I have also been following the desperate attempts now by governments to provide financial incentives; child support payments, day care, cash supplements, tax incentives. Money is not providing any meaningful increase in marriages and children.

All national deep state entities have done the maths; Another generation of this trend and whole of developed economies go into a demographic doomloop they will not get out of. No children mean, no taxpayers, no workers, no consumers, no help in caring for the rapidly aging older population.

The real cause of the problem? The correlation of the depopulation with the rise of social networks and media fixation in shaping attitudes and lifestyles in a who generation now growing up.

Here some fact and figures from my initial research. I will divide into the Male and Female Gap of the sexes. The media narrative and influencers have divided the sexes into a dysfunctional fud of male patriarchy image and woke feminism. And a wide unhealthy gulf between teh sexes have developed.

Let me make before I report the media created man-woman dysfunction. My Christian scriptural viewpoint is this: There are Satanic forces at work in the world tro destroy the image of God in human beings, man and woman who are created to be God's Image Bearers in the world....with the Family being the greatest image of "as it is in heaven so on earth". This is spiritual problem for the church to solve through preaching the gospel and making disciples.

The Media Created Male Problem

Recent surveys paint what might seem like an apocalyptic picture: In the US, around 45% of men ages 18-25 do not approach women anymore to engage in dating or relationships. Over 42% of all men have no interest in seeking out women for relationships or casual dates. Around 30% of men over 40 years old have never been married and are not necessarily seeking marriage.

In light of ongoing concerns about population decline around the world, the first thing most people might say is that men need to "step up" and fulfill their role in order to save the human species from a "Children Of Men" movie scenario. However, this suggests that it's men's fault and that checking out of the current system is a bad thing. It's a narrow minded view.

To be clear, the narrative of the "male loneliness epidemic" is a propaganda fantasy designed to shame men into returning to the liberal fold. The truth is, men are not lonely, they are deliberately refusing to participate in order to make a point. What we are witnessing is perhaps the most substantial mass boycott of liberal ideology in history as men go more conservative. It's a boycott the establishment media does not want to acknowledge.

Not surprisingly, the media rarely engages with straight men who study these changes from the male perspective. If they did, they might get a better insight into what men today want from life, from their careers or from relationships. They talk often in dismay about the rush of young men into conservative ideals, but they never ask those men what it is about conservatism that attracts them.

Why? Because they don't want to hear the answer. They don't care what men have to say. So instead, they gather up a gaggle of female psychologists, jilted women and woke beta male activists and ask them "What is going on with men these days?"

The idea of self improvement and striving for success has become the rallying cry for many men lost in the sea of the post "Me Too" world. It makes perfect sense. After a decade of feminist militancy and narratives painting men as walking time bombs on the verge of exploding into a deadly rage, men are no longer asking for validation from society or from women.

Instead, they have set their own goals and measure their achievements according to their own peace of mind. The power of the woke movement and feminists is in their ability to insert themselves into the role of judge and jury. They do this by claiming constant victimhood, which they say earns them access to the halls of power and influence. When the media talks about masculinity from an anthropological standpoint, they talk to the self-appointed woke experts (mostly women).

When they do ask men, it's usually from a liberal standpoint. When they ask conservative men, they ignore the answers and attack the honest responses. Last week a New York Times podcast set out to explore what they call the American Masculinity Crisis; not to understand why men and masculinity have been so demonized, but to complain about men returning to masculinity despite the political left's best efforts to destroy it.

"I think that we are in an abysmal state. I think the reality is that we’ve always had patriarchy at the intersection of capitalism and white supremacy, and how those things feast on one another and lift one another. But I think right now, more times than not, the role models that these young boys and young men have are not only divisive and toxic but insidious and heinous, disgusting. Truly, I mean, the president of the United States is an alleged rapist. What does that mean? You know, the popular thing that boys are watching is largely M.M.A., right? So I think we’re in a horrible place..."

The idea of "toxic masculinity" is a woke feminist fallacy; a creation meant to shame men for their natural behaviors, their normal biological roles and the inherent ways they deal with the world. The important thing to remember is that feminism has not been about equality for decades.  Women have had social equality and legal superiority over men in the west for some time now.

Rather, woke feminism is about keeping men in line and under control to prevent any rebellion against the liberal epoch. After all, women have no inherent power. They gain power by convincing men to give their power away through government. By convincing men to behave in the name of modern civility. From the New York Times:

"I think, when we talk about masculinity, we have to talk about the patriarchy. And I think we see this as this system which harms everyone, including men..."

"I think if we can see ourselves as part of a system of patriarchy that harms all of us, and we are allies in this fight rather than men versus women, men oppressing women, then I think we can have a more productive conversation..."

In other words, masculinity and patriarchy is the left-wing version of "original sin"; a great crime against humanity that can only be defeated when men and women come together...and submit to feminism. Which means, men have to hand over all their power as the source of this great evil. Men have to accept proper "management" to avoid falling into their darker ways. If only these men would prostrate themselves before the benevolent woke gods and beg for forgiveness, then the world would be a much better place.

The result?

Young men have opted out of traditional relationships with women. The statistics are every where in all industrial nations with strong media influencers.

The Woke Feminist Movement

The media influencers have done an amazing job on recreating women out of the feminine image of God as portrayed in scipture as to what a virtuous woman is (try Proverbs 31 for starters). to very left liberal ideologue who by majority don't really like men. And men have responded by copping out of marriage and commitment.

The warning signs have been there for decades.

Back in 1983, American author Barbara Ehrenreich wrote a powerful book — The Hearts of Men: American Dreams and the Flight from Commitment — arguing that a male revolt was underway. Since the 1950s, she suggested, men had begun rebelling against the breadwinner ethic, inspired by Playboy culture, the counterculture and a desire for personal freedom. They were rejecting the cultural ideology that had shamed them into tying the knot and becoming a good provider, lest they be seen as immature, irresponsible and less than a real man.

Ehrenreich understood that marriage was the mechanism by which society harnessed male productivity. Remove the shame and the yoke comes off.

Forty years on, the yoke has disappeared. In April 2026, the American male labour force participation rate hit its lowest level since records began in the 1940s, according to the US Bureau of Labour Statistics. One in three American men — roughly 33% — were not working or actively looking for work. The overall male participation rate for men aged 16 and over stood at just 67%, down from 73.5% two decades ago and from 87% in the postwar years when Ehrenreich’s story begins.

The trend is not confined to America. Similar declines — though less dramatic than in the United States — have occurred in the UK, Australia and Canada.

The marriage collapse runs in lockstep with the workforce data. According to US Census Bureau data, married-couple households made up 71% of all US households in 1970; today it’s just 47%. As University of Virginia sociologist Brad Wilcox documents in his 2024 book Get Married, the marriage rate has fallen 65% in the last half century.

Ehrenreich had made the argument that marriage and productivity were inseparable — that the same mechanism which got men to the altar got them to work. The data suggest she was right.

What Ehrenreich did not fully reckon with — and could not have foreseen in 1983 — was that the inducements for tying the knot would collapse. The shame mechanism has disappeared, yes. But the incentive has simultaneously imploded. The product on offer has changed beyond recognition. If you want to understand why men are voting with their feet, you need to look not just at what marriage now costs them — and the costs are severe — but at what it delivers. Increasingly, what it delivers is a pretty dud deal.

The modern woman: a prospectus:

They are the most miserable, anxious and insecure cohort in living memory — hardly great marriage material.
Most married women go off sex — and the husband who objects is seen as the problem.
Many women don’t actually like men very much. The more educated she is, the higher the contempt.
They’ve gone full throttle Left — and three quarters of college-educated women won’t even date a man who votes differently.
They’ve rigged the education system and colonised corporate and institutional life, turning universities and workplaces into man-repellent factories.
Despite outnumbering men in education and careers, they still demand a tall, equally high-status unicorn.
The modern female threat-detection system is hyperactive. Almost any male behaviour — silence, opinions, jokes, breathing — gets flagged as a red flag.
They’re extremely well-versed in the lucrative economics of divorce, including a well-timed false allegation to eliminate tedious shared parenting.

What rational man reads this list and thinks: yes, that’s exactly what’s been missing from my life?

To examine more carefully what is going on here, let’s start by looking at the latest addition to this sorry reckoning. I’m referring to the finding published in the New Statesman last month that many young women don’t like men.

A Merlin Strategy poll of young Britons aged 18 to 30 found three times more young women than young men held a negative view of the opposite sex. Only about 50% of women had a positive view of men compared to 72% of men feeling positive about women. For women under 25, it was even starker: only around one-third (35%) reported a positive view of men. This applies particularly to professional and managerial young women of whom just 36% hold a positive view of men, compared with 61% of working-class women.

The contempt for men is hardly surprising – that’s what they have been taught. Mary Harrington, a British journalist and cultural critic who writes on Substack, frequently criticises what she calls the “femosphere” — the online feminist spaces where women bond through shared grievances about men.

“The online feminist scene often feels like one long group therapy session for women to compare notes on how awful men are,” she writes, suggesting this makes men the universal scapegoat, where ordinary male behaviour is routinely framed as toxic or oppressive, while women’s collective resentment is rewarded and amplified. “Casual, low-level male-bashing has become the background hum of progressive online culture.”

Not only does this toxic climate encourage women to be wary of men, but growing up in a hate-fuelled online sewer takes a toll on their mental health.

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has long been warning that the toxic world of social media would lead to a rise in mental health problems, particularly in girls and young women.

“Since the early 2010s, young people across the developed world are becoming more anxious, depressed and lonely. The increases were even greater in young women,” he said.

Recent large-scale surveys (Ipsos 202-–2026 across 31 countries, Gallup 2025) are showing Gen Z women currently report the highest recorded levels of anxiety, persistent sadness, hopelessness and depression of any female generation at the same age.

Not much fun for their partners. Last year Psychology Today had a stark warning for men about these women as marriage prospects.

The saying ‘happy wife, happy life’ may have some validity, but the lesser-known saying ‘anxious wife, miserable life’ has research-approved validation. … The more neurotic the spouse is, the less happy the relationship — but women’s neuroticism seems to carry more weight in the overall marital happiness equation.

So here we have the portrait of the modern woman as marriage prospect: miserable, anxious, politically radicalised, contemptuous of men, often sexually rejecting and trained to see menace in ordinary male behaviour. And yet the puzzled chorus from commentators, economists and policymakers continues: why won’t men commit? Why won’t they work?

The approved explanations are dutifully trotted out. The economic story: men have been displaced by automation and globalisation. The health story: opioids, disability, mental illness. The educational story: men are falling behind women in universities and therefore in the job market. The cultural story, favoured by progressive commentators: toxic masculinity is preventing men from adapting to a modern service economy. All of these contain a grain of truth. But they do not account for what is really going on. The obvious explanation — the one staring out of every data table — is intentionally ignored.

Marriage was the primary incentive for sustained male economic effort. It has always been — Ehrenreich knew it in 1983, and the economists have now confirmed it. There’s an economic research paper, ‘The Declining Labour Market Prospects of Less-Educated Men, which establishes that the prospect of forming and providing for a family constitutes a critical male labour supply incentive, and that the decline of stable marriage directly removes it. Researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas calculated that declining marriage rates are responsible for roughly half the drop in the hours men work.

Remove the marriage and you remove the responsibility. The data have been telling us this for decades.

But here is what nobody in the mainstream conversation will say: it is not only that marriage has become too costly and too legally treacherous for men — though it has. It’s that many young women themselves have become, to put it plainly, not worth having. Half of young British women don’t trust men. More than half of educated young women view men negatively. They arrive at relationships pre-loaded with grievance, primed by algorithms that have fed them a diet of male failure and female outrage since adolescence. They are, by their own account, anxious, miserable and politically furious.

What rational man, surveying this landscape, concludes that what his life is missing is a legally booby-trapped commitment to a woman primed to be impossible to keep happy? The feminist revolution would produce not a generation of fulfilled, generous, companionable women, but one that is, by every available measure, angrier and unhappier than any before it.

The Challenge for the Church

Jesus said the Spirit of the Lord is upon me.....to heal the boken hearted. We have a task ahead of us to heal the breach between the sexes, to heal the anger and disappointment. To inspire the vision of fruitful marriage and a successful family life of husband, wife and children.

The world is dying from toxic medai influencers...the world will be saved by a Spirit filled church of God's people discipling a world back into God's plan for the family.

Back top