Indeed, and this is what I have come to think of as the “engine of feminism”. Daddies. It was this sentiment that caused the men in power during the mid 20th Century to back feminism the way they did — they wanted it for their daughters. This is still the case today, for the most part, among “mainstream” men of all political persuasions (including, as everyone here knows, our social conservative friends). At some point mid-to-second-half-Century the mainstream agenda of American fathers of daughters flipped from being primarily oriented toward marrying them well towards being primarily oriented toward equipping them to be maximally viably independent. Without this massive flip by most mainstream fathers of daughters, feminism would have fizzled to a large degree. It is sustained largely by this, precisely because any real criticism of the new system runs headlong into an army of mainstream fathers who are very protective of their daughters, and exercise this protection in terms of encouraging maximal viable independence (from men, of course). This is both the engine of feminism and the main obstacle to any serious reform of any of the things we discuss on these blogs, really.
Anyone who tells you that getting married and having children fights feminism is wrong. Feminism is dependent on marriage and family. Without it, feminism would collapse. When socons and tradcons push for marriage, they are working to create more feminism.
Some of you are thinking, “what about all those feminists who want to ‘destroy marriage’?” Like TFH says, they don’t understand cause and effect well, but this represents a misunderstanding of what feminism is and how pervasive it is. A few lesbians who want to destroy marriage don’t really represent the totality of feminism. The most prominent strain of feminism currently in existence is hybrid feminism or cafeteria feminism, which combines anything from what is traditionally thought of as “feminism” to conservatism and traditionalism that benefits women. The hybrid or cafeteria feminist does not want to “destroy marriage” as such. They have no interest in living in lesbian communes. They want to be able to cash out and destroy THEIR marriages via divorce whenever they feel like it, but they still want to get married when they want. If marriage was completely destroyed, then they wouldn’t be able to fleece men of their children and financial assets because they wouldn’t be able to get married in the first place to have a divorce. Without the use of marriage and divorce, it becomes nearly impossible for feminism to steal the wealth of men. Even increased taxation will not do it because men have less reason to work harder in such a scenario. Feminism is now completely dependent on marriage and family.
This is the reason why the marriage strike is such a large threat to feminism. Without men getting married, the engine of feminism doesn’t have the fuel it needs to keep going, and it stalls.