The recent surge in discourse surrounding female fertility highlights a broader cultural shift, encapsulated by the 4B movement. This ideology, promoted by some as a pushback against Vice President Kamala Harris’s failed presidential bid and President-elect Donald Trump’s victory, encourages women to eschew traditional relationships and family structures. This philosophy, reminiscent of earlier feminist waves, reflects an ongoing struggle with the core principles of individual liberty, societal roles, and personal fulfillment.
Historically, feminism has grappled with balancing independence and traditional family roles. As far back as the feminist movements that emerged in the late 20th century, there was an effort to liberate women from societal expectations tied to marriage and motherhood. Advocates promoted a vision where women could engage in relationships with the same perceived freedom as men, often downplaying the potential consequences such as emotional distress or unwanted pregnancies. The advent of abortion as a solution to these consequences further complicated the discourse on women’s rights and bodily autonomy.
Amid fears of restricted abortion access in a Trump-led administration, some women have adopted the 4B philosophy, which eschews sex, dating, marriage, and childbearing. Drawing inspiration from such works as Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s “Herland,” where a world devoid of men was envisioned as utopian, this movement underscores an enduring belief that men are an impediment rather than a complement to women’s potential. Yet, this notion of independence may fail to recognize the intrinsic social and emotional needs inherent to human nature.
Through the decades, the feminist agenda has left an indelible mark on societal structures, yet happiness metrics indicate that these shifting ideals have not necessarily led to increased fulfillment among women. The pursuit of independence often means foregoing the meaningful relationships and community ties that can provide support and enrichment. This perspective overlooks the foundational role that marriage and family—institutions upheld by conservative values—play in nurturing both men and women.
Feminism, especially in its more radical forms, has promoted individualism at the expense of communal ties, inadvertently paving the way for cultural phenomena such as internet pornography, sex trafficking, and the normalization of transient relationships. These are not progressive strides but signs of a fragmented society that has pulled away from the protective bounds offered by strong family units and traditional roles.
Today, many women at a crossroad lament the difficulty in finding worthwhile relationships, perhaps not realizing that the diminished societal emphasis on family and commitment can deter men from pursuing these ideals. The philosophy that once promised liberation now seems to undermine the very foundation of collaboration and interpersonal growth.
It is through the lens of pro-liberty, ultra-conservative values that we can fully appreciate the need for a balance between independence and interdependence. Women and men were designed to complement each other, not to engage in perpetual struggle. The restoration of robust, faith-anchored family values may indeed provide the solutions modern society desperately seeks—a return to serving, loving, and building a future together rather than apart.
