Before I begin, let me clarify that there is a difference between the moderate Liberal or liberals in general, and the new far-Leftist. This has been discussed already in multiple places online. So when I use the term Leftist or Leftism, I'm distinguishing that "ideological camp" from most other Liberals.
The political far-Leftist' belief in the equality of the sexes, as if inherent and innate gender roles and proclivities do not exist, is a myth, a made-up dogma. Even the atheist and liberal Richard Dawkins admits this. In the LDS Proclamation on the Family, the father is called on to preside over the home in love and righteousness. Yet fathers are to be authoritative not authoritarian, as D&C 121 puts it: they are to lead in righteousness. Mothers are biologically gifted with more compassion biologically and thus better at nurturing, as they are evolutionarily designed to act in the role of mother and be motherly and maternal. Outside of humanity, in nearly every other mammalian species this goes without saying and 4th wave Feminist ideologues do not attack the mammalian world outside of humanity. You don't see modern feminists traveling to Africa and complaining about authoritative male gorillas being patriarchal (father leadership). It is only with human apes that they pretend to be above their mammalian ape nature; yes we are apes according to science, which the Leftist atheists are supposed to believe in. So you can pretend or make-believe that there are no differences between the sexes, but in doing so you are just exercising faith in a Leftist cult dogma.
As many have argued, you cannot get equality of outcome or equality of the sexes without the patriarchy, without men being involved. The stronger, more dangerous men need to provide the enforcement with guns and muscle like the police force in order to enforce the far-Leftist ideology. So no matter how you slice it, the cold hard reality is that women need men in this way, and in turn biologically speaking men need women as nurturing mothers to their children. In other words, the sexes complement each other and there should be no "war of the sexes," only cooperation and love.
One thing I began to realize as I got older and saw the breakdown of society from far Left ideological political policies and harmful ideas, is that they have not changed male nature at all. Spending time around irreligious men as an ex-mormon, I began to realize that there's not much stopping them from committing the most dangerous and cruel acts possible (lacking any religious moral framework). I think too many Ex-Mormons live in some kind of social bubble and don't truly experience the full variety of men, from the civil to the predatory. Living in Southern California, just miles away from vicious gangs, I have seen and experienced what certain types of men are capable of, and how at bottom we are a predatory species like any other mammalian apex predator. And the only thing keeping these types of "bad" men (by nature) at bay is other men, other "bad" men (i.e. men capable of aggression and violence). As Rust Cohle puts it in True Detective season 1, "The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door."
The atheist Christopher Hitchens once tried to dodge the question of whether or not he would feel safer walking down an ally at night and seeing a group of men coming in his direction after leaving a Bible study, but the truth is we all know that we would prefer a group of men coming from a Bible study than a street gang coming our way. Likewise, if I am walking home at night and see a group of women in coming toward me, I do not worry at all but if a group of young men is banded together and coming toward me I will have an innate biological reaction that is different from encountering the group of women. Why is that?
Furthermore, why would a woman feel less safe walking home alone at night than a man, isn't it obvious?
The meaning of the "patriarchy" is simply father leadership, the authority of the male to protect and provide for the female. It is this innate reaction in women to be fearful walking home at night and being afraid of a band of men that produced the patriarchy (male led homes) in the first place, as a biological necessity for the preservation of the species. It is biological, it is natural. What is unnatural and total make-believe nonsense is the modern 4th wave feminist ideas that hide behind the cloak of modern technology and the civility of modern men after centuries of Christian teaching. Wipe away the veneer, and the woman's innate biological nature rises to the surface and she wants respectful male protection, she wants the "patriarchy" which is just another word for a woman in a club relying on the male bouncers to protect them, and the female pop singer (spouting feminist lyrics) relying on her male bodyguards to protect them from "bad" men.
All throughout human history, the woman could get pregnant and was made vulnerable and needed a strong man and/or men of the tribe (i.e. the patriarchy) to protect them and provide for them during their most vulnerable moments. A careful study of evolutionary biology shows that our entire biological makeup and gender is based in these realities. Ancient women especially needed men to protect them from other men who could come and even kill their children in order to mate with them in order to spread their male genes through them. This is the brute reality of life, and modern technology only provides a surface glaze over this deeper biological reality, like frosting over a cake made of saw dust rather than sugary flour. The truth does not taste good in the mouth of far Leftist ideology, so they often spit it out and make up their own quasi religious beliefs about nature, pretending that chewing on sawdust is like chewing on frosting.
So while the atheistic Leftist types among ex-mormons, will make fun of the Mormon concept of a father deity, a strong alpha male who acts as a protector and provider of Wisdom (the Logos) in order to provide through religious symbolism, the psychology that produces a more civilized society, they in turn have invented their own quasi God-concept, as they make-believe in pure and holy "Secular Equity," rejecting competition, meritocracy, and hierarchy, gender differences, and biology. But if they were honest atheists they would deal honestly with Nietzche's argument against their make-belief Secular Equity system, and realize that they are the Tarantulas in his parable. Compare the LDS concept of equity as an emergent phenomenon as discussed in the podcast titled Greg Matsen: The Woke Bastardization of Zion (Full Interview) by Thoughtful Faith
Podcast.
Unlike many modern atheists, Nietzsche had the foresight to see the dangers of communistic socialism and feminism; and by looking at Man as a biological reality and examining human nature realistically, he could see that Man is like a plant that either produces a plantlike culture that is healthy and vitally alive and thriving like a lush green Garden; or culture becomes degenerative and decays into withering leaves becoming dead on the vine.
So even though he was an atheist he actually saw the "death of God" (as he put it) as a tragedy, for in the place of God atheism grew like festering cancer into passive-nihilism: like a deadly weed threatening to sabotage the philosopical gardener's attempt at growing a lush green garden. So to replace the theistic God, he believed was metaphorically killed off by science, rationality, and academia, and avoid passive-nihilism, Nietszche offered as a physician of culture the ripening remedy of a new God-concept, the transformation of the Idea of God into the Biologizing of God. In other words, by using the mythologies of Greece and deities like Dionysus, in his mind the God-concept could be better matched with evolving reality and greatness in Man; so that like a gardener of human culture he could regrow a new lush green garden through his new biologizing of God as non-dual dice throwing Reality and Mankind as capable of becoming Gods themselves (as he first insinuates is necessary after the death of God in his Parable of the Madman); by replacing Luther's super pious man, Nietzsche presented the solution to the weeds of leveling modernity and nihilism, new thought seeds sprouting the idea of humans becoming a new species, the Superhumans: so that like a god, providing tablets of ideals toward a People, the future Overhumans (beyond human) natures (beings), would raise mankind above and beyond a decaying trajectory of the species devolving like a garden withering and decaying. As Nietzche reformulated belief in God by redirecting mankind's innate meaning-making tendencies and innate religious impulses toward the belief in, the hope in, the evolution of a new species: a God-like Olympian species, through healthy two parent families breeding the most heroic type of men and nurturing type of women. In other words, Nietzche could see the importance of the family unit as the best "soil" for replanting his healthy cultural ideal so that "plant man" could evolve into a flourishing Superhuman species. So that on one end of a spectrum was the cultural garden of healthy post-human potential (the Overhumans), and on the other end of the spectrum was the unhealthy and decaying trajectory (his metaphor of the Last Man).
In order to accomplish this thriving ideal of a post-humanity and a new olympian species, even Nietzsche could see the importance of fathers taking the lead as strong men and protectors and providers; and thus he has a whole section in his Zarathrustra on marriage. Furthermore, the reason why Nietzsche is so critical of the feminism of his day is because he had the philosophical foresight, the ability to predict the future, and he could see the trajectory that feminism was growing toward: which was the further emasculation of men, the destruction of the family unit, and the denial of biological reality and differences among the sexes, which is what we see today and the resulting cultural degeneration, just as Nietszche predicted.
