When white males do wrong these days, everyone takes them to be responsible, and so culpable. Other sorts of perpetrators are almost always treated as themselves somehow victims, devoid of effective moral agency or ratiocination, unable to act rationally in service of the good, and thus essentially insane, chaotic, like a storm or a flood. Their crimes are wholly adventitious, “random attacks” that hurt someone “in the wrong place at the wrong time” because of essentially harmless youthful hijinks or a “botched crime” that would otherwise have been carried forward to a successful and unobjectionable conclusion. The crime then does not generate any moral guilt, but only the legal sort. Thus the sense among liberals of the injustice involved in incarcerating felons: they didn’t really do it, their environments did.
This is our clue to the fact that, despite the ruin of the ancient patriarchal system in the modern West, everyone still subconsciously thinks that only white males possess full moral agency. They feel that their own moral agency is derivative of the agency of white males, and as derivate is therefore but partial. Whatever their failures, then, or the defects in their lives, they blame on white males, whom they still apprehend as fundamentally in charge of the way things work. You can blame him only who has himself done wrong; and in the modern West only white males are understood as thus quite fully competent, and therefore culpable. The less that white males actually do, the more are they blamed for what happens. And lots of white males agree with this analysis; they hate and blame their own ilk just as much as everyone else does.
Almost everyone feels, in other words, that patriarchy is still in full effect. And they are hot with resentment at the patriarchs. They insist that the patriarchy must be overthrown, when they themselves have been in charge of things for fifty years or so, and the patriarchs have (almost) all recused the office of patriarch. Why?
It is because they all take their moral cue from the patriarch. Everyone does. It’s wired into us. We all need fathers. Those who rail against the patriarchy miss the guiding hand of the absent or rudderless father. They resent him for having abandoned or failed in his paternal role, and duties. They resent the patriarchate *because* of its recusal.
And they are correct. Patriarchy *is* still fully in effect. As feminism is a project of patriarchs, and could not endure for more than a week without their acquiescence, so every aspect of society is either intended or allowed – which is in the end to say, intended – by patriarchs, who could if they chose bring the whole charade to an instant end.
The antics of modernists (Including cads) are just like those of an unruly teenager acting out. They are children who have not yet been taught the limits of propriety by the stern discipline of a strong and loving father, and are frantically searching for those limits. They act out as a way of trying to provoke a response from the world by and in the person of the father – a response that will reassure them that they are doing well, by teaching them when they are not. Thus the post-modern cult of transgression.
The Fall of the West could be arrested and reversed in very short order if men were to reclaim serious ownership of their patriarchal offices, and brook no resistance thereto. Such resistance as now everywhere advertises itself so shrilly is no more powerful before the might of the confident, dutiful and loving father than the mewling of a baby.