A flower cannot grow in tainted soil. A flower cannot be pollinated if it has wilted. A man, the pollinator, can only exist if there are flowers to pollinate.
Women, the flower, the one being pollinated, cannot exist in bad soil. If we were to extrapolate this metaphor to communities, it would look like this: Community is soil; women are flowers; men are pollinators (bees). All three components are necessary for the vitality of the environment. If one fails, all is weakened or dies. Soil becomes weaker without nutrients. Flowers wilt without pollen. Bees die without the flower, for they cannot generate honey without her.
The soil has been ruined by chemical injections and generational spillovers. The chemical injection is not a mere metaphor—she has ingested, through air, food, and contraception, harmful toxins that disrupt her normal biochemical function. These foods contain synthetic dyes such as Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, and others. They contain numerous chemicals that harm the body. As for oral contraception, they are designed to alter the woman's body to prevent pregnancy. These chemicals are not soluble and so enter the water supply, affecting others against their will.
The physical ramifications of these foods are bad enough in isolation. They are made worse when compounded with mental contagions spread through social media or any digital media. Mental contagions can be classified as any ideology that convinces a person to act against their survival or moral interests. For our purpose, moral interests are categorized as an objective, time-tested, and theologically sound doctrine, whether Christianity, Hinduism, or others.
It would be difficult to argue that social media is not a mental contagion under this categorization. Nothing is more dangerous to survival than extinction—the ultimate elimination of a species. We are seeing the real-time disintegration of first-world cultures as birth rates plummet below replacement level. One of the primary motives behind this population collapse is the self-reported desire to focus on wealth, career and "personal growth."
We can reasonably attribute part of this decision to the influence of television programming, which has conveyed similar ideological messaging over the past few decades. Popular shows such as Friends, Sex and the City, and Euphoria, depict women prioritizing their own selfish gratification or enrichment—as they define it—over family and community. Social media is replete with examples of young women voicing their desire to focus on "internal growth." They cite fears of marriage, not trusting their male counterparts.
Two issues emerge from this hypothesis: One, an individual may be tempted to draw moral conclusions from this analysis. Secondly, the connection between television and behavior is not airtight. As for the first issue, I don't think, in this case, a moral judgment needs to be made. However, in the context of species survival, it’s clear that the behaviors encouraged by non-traditional norms are detrimental to societal growth and family health. They also foster greater risk-aversion in intimate relationships, as liberal and non-traditional women report higher rates of divorce and relationship dissatisfaction. These beliefs are patently harmful to social stability, extending into the private lives of their adherents.
As for the second problem, the connection between television and behavior cannot be proved empirically because there are too many confounding variables. That being said, there is undoubtedly a similarity between personal philosophy and that of philosophies depicted in television shows. When Rachel from Friends doesn't want to get married because she would rather focus on her personal development, that behavior, whether consciously or otherwise, is also depicted in the women who enjoy watching the show. So, two conclusions can be drawn from this: either women are being influenced to emulate this behavior, or the type of women who already or wish to engage in this behavior gravitate naturally toward this type of media.
Both conclusions are a net negative for society under our categorization (species survival and prosperity). The first scenario: women are being influenced by these shows is harmful to family growth because they are emulating selfish behaviors. The second scenario: women gravitate toward television that reflects their life philosophies. The second scenario is worse than the first because it means these selfish traits are innate or developed through other social conditioning means. It would be simpler if these women were simply being influenced by television, because that narrows down the problem.
What is ultimately happening is a growing chasm between men's and women's philosophies. There is no doubt about chemical and social forces at play. What conjures uncertainty, especially for the young male, is the gnawing fear that he no longer possesses a place in the garden—that is, he is a pollinator without a flower to pollinate. He can blame the flower, but isn't that misplaced? The soil has tainted the flower. Now you might say the flower has autonomy, can decide for itself. Then why not decide to be sweet? It is because she can't make that decision for herself. She is what we make of her; what the soil allows; what the gardener demands; what the pollinator decides should live. She is tossed by the wind, flirted with by the sun, and rained on by forces she can't comprehend.
The soil has turned against us. It is being poisoned, ironically, by the gardener. His purpose? To allow some to live and others to die. We may attribute his poison to malice—but perhaps it's more practical. Only weeds are killed.
To reassert control over our social and nutritional sources is a vital solution. We circle back to the need for strong families once more because these are meant to be political entities that insulate the individual from the pernicious environment. Without such protection, she wilts.
Comments to the editor are welcome: thedeidaily@gmail.com