Short dialogue on liberal contractualism

The question: How can a political society emerge from a convention like a contract between individuals, if all conventions emerge from a political society in the first place?

Myself: The answer is that there is no such contract, and that human individuals are gregarious by nature, from which, then, conventions as contracts start to exist. Which also lead us to the conclusion that individuals are inasmuch there is a society to live in; hence they must adapt to the conventions and traditions from that society in the first place in order to rationally change them if they want to, always bearing in mind that society stands above the individuals. Contrary to this basic statement of common sense, liberal contractual thinking, in its individualistic fanaticism, is destroying the only base from where any rational human individual can live with dignity: society; by destroying its symbols of community. Examples: family, country and religion through feminism, pacifism and atheism.

Wise opponent: Feminism destroys families? Are you suggesting that misogyny fosters societal feelings?

Myself: That is not what I'm implying with my example. Family as a social value of good is between radical feminism and irrational misogyny. Feminism today is an attempt to destroy any kind of manly behavior and value (like honor, for example), also as a complete denationalization of femininity. By alienating persons from their gender background, destroying any truthful and sincere possibility of love between a man and a woman, the emotional base for a healthy marriage. In America feminism is against marriage, which is the same as to say, being against family. I'm not talking about feminism theory, but about main street feminism.
In any case, the examples above are only useful in my comment in order to show the consequences of thinking about society in a contractual way between individuals, instead of the real natural inclination toward living in community that all humans share from birth, with community values before and above individual values.
Again thinking in individual as opposed to community is a misleading assumption. Community values always have a certain level of individual values, depending on the case. But the important thing to point out is the prevalence of communion over ego. The other way around risks destruction. No Leviathan can pull it together without real and spontaneous communion.