One of the reasons modern Westerners are so degenerate is that nobody takes the doctrine of Hell seriously any more, not even the Christians, as this article demonstrates. In fact, modern fashionable Bible translations undermine this doctrine by using words like Sheol and Hades which simply don't carry the same connotation in Germanic languages. (Here is the proof that Sheol, Hades and Gehenna basically mean the same thing).
And then, of course, modern Protestants nearly all believe in some perverted version of "once saved always saved" in which you basically can commit most sins without bringing your soul in danger. Because, if you seriously believe in hell fire, would you do things like live together unmarried and divorce on a whim?
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
An interesting thing is that while many Christian preachers will readily judge a man who changes his wife for a younger version, they often will sympathise with a woman who divorces, which I believe has its roots in Victorian times. The laws of that period compelled wives to live together with their husbands and made divorce difficult, which many prominent Victorian men considered very wrong. Victorians gave us a very warped doctrine of female s*xuality in which all women were innocent doves, like Virgin Mary while evil men defiled them with their passions.
I remember reading about some prominent Victorian who said that he would allow every woman to divorce, but no man should ever be allowed to do it. Women were officially declared victims of their biology, since childbirth was still quite unsafe. Yet, before mid-19th century, most women usually visited midwives, who being older women themselves had little sympathy, but later it became normal to see a doctor who were nearly all male and they decided that the normal process of birth was "torture" and no woman should go through it more than a couple of times at the most.
Husbands were supposed to "leave their wives alone" and separate bedrooms among upper classes became the norm rather than an exception. You can see it reflected in the literature of that period and early 20th century (I think everybody remembers Ashley and Melanie Wilkes, but also Kipling and Leo Tolstoy come to mind) while in previous times it was upper class women who had the most kids (Victoria herself had 9, I think, but had to quit on "doctor's orders").
It's interesting that while 20th century feminists shared the same attitude about pregnancy and children, they also insisted that women could do anything men could and even better and found chivalry insulting. Conservatives, on the other hand, created the double standards in which women were praised for being tough like men, but on the other hand, they had to be treated like the fine ladies they were. Enid Blyton with her famous Five comes to mind.
Remember George? She is a delusional girl who insists on being treated like a boy and wears boy's clothes. In one of the books, she starts a fight with a boy her age but when he tries to hit her back Julian tells him he should be ashamed of hitting a girl. I mean seriously, WT*? Talk about having your cake and eating it, too.
And even Clive S. Lewis whom conservatives like so much portrays Lucy going to war and obviously being admired for being just as good as a man, but, on the other hand, Eustace is a pig for not being chivalrous to her.
The problem with conservatives is that they are always reactive, never proactive. Somebody said that the reason they all love "Lord Of The Rings" so much is because it shows wielding power as evil, and conservatives are always afraid to use power when they have a chance. That's why they keep losing.
So because feminists denigrated homemaking conservatives started portraying it as more important than what the men do. Remember this quote?