Survey: women explain why they avoid having children

Is it OK to tell women they are wrong?
Are women today genuinely interested in marriage and children, or do they have other plans?

This article comes from the leftist Huffington Post.

They write:

The Huffington Post and YouGov asked 124 women why they choose to be childfree. Their motivations ranged from preferring their current lifestyles (64 percent) to prioritizing their careers (9 percent) — a.k.a. fairly universal things that have motivated men not to have children for centuries. To give insight into the complex, layered decisions women make, HuffPost asked childfree readers to discuss the reasons they have chosen not to have kids and gathered 270 responses here.

They grouped the responses into 5 categories:

  1. I want to prioritize my career
  2. I don’t like children
  3. I had a bad relationship with my parents
  4. I don’t want the financial responsibility
  5. I like my life as it is

And here are some of the ones that I thought were the most interesting, and pay attention to the ones that include fear-of-missing-out travel, which I blogged about before:

Category 1:

I am a first-generation college graduate in my family. My mother was a single mom my entire childhood, and I was there to see that struggle. Being a parent, for a woman, means for life. Being a parent, for men, seems to be something very different. I understand raising children is a big life change and I don’t want to sell myself short on my potential to become something more and maybe even create change. I am childfree because I want to travel, move, pursue my career wholly and be able to push myself to be an inspiration to other women. If a child comes into my life, it won’t be until I am happy and successful in my work life, and not until I am secure with my finances and a marriage. I don’t want to one day wake up as an old woman wishing I had waited to have children so I could live my own life first, make mistakes, learn new things and find myself. Today kids are not for me.

Category 2:

I’m nearly 47; my boyfriend (domestic partner) of 17 years is nearly 50. I’ve never been pregnant and have taken every precaution to remain childfree. I tolerate other people’s children when I have to. I’m happiest when there are NO children around. I definitely don’t want them in my home. I like my life as it is. My boyfriend and I are both scientists. We also raise snakes and spiders! We like to travel. We travel to ride roller coasters (members of ACE — American Coaster Enthusiasts) and to attend rock concerts. I am also a performer in a senior winter guard. My plate overfloweth! I see no reason to procreate. I would be unhappy. Why be unhappy?

Category 3:

I have a great relationship with my husband. We have the time and money to travel, and that gives us precious memories. I had a bad relationship with my dad, and maybe I’m scared to treat my children like that. I’m very happy with my decision. I have a great relationship with myself too.

Category 4:

My spouse and I have talked in depth about having children. However, we both decided that our desire to travel the world is a financial burden in itself. If we have kids, we will never have the means to travel, and at the end of our life, we would rather be 100 percent committed to fulfilling our own realistic dreams rather than only able to provide a subpar life for a child. Comes down to the fact we are selfish, but at least we recognize this and made the choice early enough to avoid damaging a kid

Category 5:

The thought of having to do kiddie crap every weekend makes me want to shoot myself. I like having the extra money to save for retirement and not worry about braces, summer camp or college tuition. I can travel on a moment’s notice. I can give my all to my job and not have to worry about daycare, sick days, or having to leave my co workers to pick up my slack. I’m the “cool aunt” to all my nieces and nephews. I have more time to do the things that make me happy and productive. My relationship with my guy is not strained due to the constant neediness of children. I don’t want to put my body through pregnancy and childbirth. I can give my dog all the attention he needs and deserves.

If I had to choose one comment to represent the entire survey, it would be this one:

The moment you have children, you’re life ceases to be about yourself. Kids always take priority and I feel like I can do more for this world than just generate offspring.

Or maybe this one:

I honestly feel too lazy. I haven’t achieved enough, and if I had a child I would “just be a mom,” which isn’t enough for me or what I want out of life.

I think this is the real reason why young, unmarried women choose not to prepare or plan for marriage and children . Marriage and children “some day” is like planning for your retirement by winning the lottery. Marriage and children “some day” is an excuse to signal to family and friends that you will eventually want the responsibility of a husband and kids, but that you are justified in being self-centered right now.

We need to move beyond a survey to quantify this, and this U.S. Census data does that:

Childless by choice, not because of men
Childless by choice, not because of men failing to “man up”

These quotations are very troubling if you are a young man who has been serious about obtaining STEM degrees, saving money by not traveling, and making a plan to have a marriage and family that will serve God. I am seeing real hostility in young, unmarried Christian women to the idea that marriage will impose responsibilities, expectations and obligations on them. And their parents, relatives, friends and co-workers are doing nothing to detect and counter this attitude. As Lindsay argued on this blog before, the marriage / children plan is an excellent way for Christians to make a difference. It will take a lot of work, but it makes much more of a difference for the kingdom than just doing whatever makes you feel happy.

UPDATE: Commenter Bee comments below:

Sad to say this but many Christian voices are encouraging Christian women to travel, date around and delay marriage and childbirth. Here are several negative voices:

Mandy Hale is a Christian woman who is mid 30’s, never married and has wasted years in travel and bad relationships. She has a large twitter following. She promotes her travel oriented, feelings oriented lifestyle.

Christian counselor Stephen Arteburn tells of encouraging his daughter to travel and date around and not think about marriage until her late 20’s. Unfortunately, no one can flip a switch on their 28th birthday and quickly get married to a quality guy. Also, late marriage for women means having more than 1 or 2 children is risky.

Bskillet81 found evangelical american princesses (EAP) obsessed with travel, entitlement, feelings, and personal fulfillment.

I just read some of Mandy’s quotes from GoodReads and she is certifiably nuts.

37 thoughts on “Survey: women explain why they avoid having children”

  1. The world has turned evil. Our children are slowly becoming property of a big nanny gub’mint that wants to raise them up as mind slaves. As a Christian mom with two grown Christian daughters, I have encouraged them to avoid procreating utterly. I instead have suggested they adopt, and bring up that child in righteousness, give that orphan a better deal than they would get from a life as a state ward. Purposely bringing a child into the world as it is today is selfish and cruel.


  2. Sheesh, that’s really depressing. Also a very narrow and self absorbed view of motherhood. I’m sorry for those hoping for families.

    On the other hand, we do seem to have another group of women having children like crazy, often poorer women. I wonder what the difference is?


  3. I would be in category 1, my grandmother had my mother at 17 & my mother had me at 19. Everyone woman in my family gradurates highschool but they have never gone to college. They just get married have kids and never leave their small country town. My mother didnt want that for her girls, so im in college for nursing and i do want marriage its just where i live at the moment is not a lot of good choices plus men think im too weird.


  4. Amen brother. It’s a very sad trend, even more so because it has become the default to wait til everything is just right (which may mean never) before they even consider creating families. That means even the young people who want marriage and children are finding it harder to make that happen because they don’t realize what a massive effort it takes to circumvent the way things are now.


  5. “In this encounter, Jesus elevated obedience to Him higher than motherhood”

    I don’t think Jesus was really saying anything about how motherhood ranks in His statement, especially since motherhood is often a form of obedience.

    “Neither celibacy or marriage are commanded.”

    Not commanded, but either one must be chosen for the right reasons; Celibacy for focus on ministry, and marriage for being fruitful and multiplying, among other reasons. Choosing to remain unmarried for personal pleasure or to be married for mutual pleasure are both wrong.


  6. Both the secular world and the churchian world tend to frown on women having children. To make it even more challenging quite a few people claim that it’s morally wrong to bring kids into a broken world. Needless to say, all these forces work against women who genuinely do want marriage and family.


    1. Yes, and not just wanting, but having a plan for it so that marriage and family will achieve something, as Lindsay was arguing. She has a plan to have an influence through her marriage and family, so that makes more sense.


  7. Sad to say this but many Christian voices are encouraging Christian women to travel, date around and delay marriage and childbirth. Here are several negative voices:

    Mandy Hale is a Christian woman who is mid 30’s, never married and has wasted years in travel and bad relationships. She has a large twitter following. She promotes her travel oriented, feelings oriented lifestyle.

    Christian counselor Stephen Arteburn tells of encouraging his daughter to travel and date around and not think about marriage until her late 20’s. Unfortunately, no one can flip a switch on their 28th birthday and quickly get married to a quality guy. Also, late marriage for women means having more than 1 or 2 children is risky.

    Bskillet81 found evangelical american princesses (EAP) obsessed with travel, entitlement, feelings, and personal fulfillment.


    1. This is such a great comment, Bee!!! Thanks for all these links!

      What really makes me angry is when women go forward with a “plan” like this, then they end up unmarried in their 30s, and pastors and the woman’s family and friends blame men for not manning up. Sorry but men prefer to marry a woman who has fertility because men want kids if they are going to marry. Are men allowed to have a choice? It seems to me that this whole selfishness thing is built on ignoring what men actually want.

      Trying to see in Mandy’s biography where her singleness actually serves God, not finding it:

      Blogger turned New York Times best-selling author and speaker Mandy Hale is affectionately known around the world as “The Single Woman.” With a heart to inspire single women to live their best lives and to never, ever settle, Mandy cuts to the heart of the matter with her inspirational, straight-talking, witty, and often wildly humorous take on life and love. Mandy’s message reaches literally millions of women across the world every day through her blog, books, and social media platforms.

      Invited by Oprah to cover her Lifeclass: the Tour events as part of OWN’s “VIP Press Corps” in 2012, Mandy has also been a featured speaker at venues like Lakewood Church and the Women of Faith conference in Hartford, Connecticut. She has been named a “Twitter Powerhouse” by the Huffington Post, a “Woman of Influence” by the Nashville Business Journal, and a “Single in the City” by Nashville Lifestyles magazine. She has also been a featured in Forbes magazine, the Huffington Post, and on, Fox News, The 700 Club, and many other outlets. With followers from all over the world, Mandy has made a name for herself as the voice of empowerment and sassiness for single women across the globe.

      Mandy’s first book, The Single Woman: Life, Love & a Dash of Sass was released in August 2013 and has gone on to garner nearly 500 five-star reviews. Her second highly-anticipated book, I’ve Never Been to Vegas But My Luggage Has hit shelves on March 11, 2014 and was named a New York Times bestseller on September 7, 2014.

      This is EXACTLY who my post is targeting – Christian women who basically emrace fashion, travel, clothes, shoes, glamour, gourmet, home redecorating as a substitute for marriage and children.


      1. “Trying to see in Mandy’s biography where her singleness actually serves God, not finding it:”

        I have read some of her blog and heard her interviewed on Christian TV and have not heard or read it either. Sorry to say, she gets invited to speak at church women’s groups.

        Here is travel agent Brianna Glenn who will be speaking at a Christian Women’s Conference in Orange County this fall:


  8. I find your attitude quite contemptible. Apart from the fact that women, whatever their religion, don’t need to excuse their decision to marry/have children to you, their parents or anyone else, you conveniently ignored many of the unselfish reasons women gave for not marrying/having children – overpopulation, working with disadvantaged and abused children, financial stability etc. – you are reducing complex individuals to their reproductive parts. Women are capable of contributing to civilization by means other than reproduction. As for ‘what men actually want’? You’re projecting what you want. It may come as a surprise to you but not every man on the planet wants children, just like not every woman wants children. You might not have noticed but men have been dictating how women live their lives for centuries, now that women have rights and a choice, some men have tantrums about how unfair it all is.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. “I find your attitude quite contemptible.”

      Then you will not be surprised to learn that we find yours likewise.

      Aside from fundamentally misreading WK’s post, which has been clarified a bit in the comments, you also ignore how staunchly he has urged men to be good fathers. He is far from the chauvinist you imply him to be.

      But assume he is, and let’s see if you still have any standing for your own attitude: You suggest that “men have been dictating how women live their lives” but now “women have rights and a choice.”

      Hidden here is the assumption that *whatever* a woman chooses is the right decision. Do you take women to be pre-redeemed as a group? No women make bad decisions, even/especially when they make decisions on their own?

      Likewise, your principles are clouding your thinking: It is not the case that the men, or parents, or whoever, “dictating” (or advising, or leading, as is biblical) are wrong, just because they’re impressing these decisions on women.

      You could do with a few questions next time, as well. WK has – furthermore – been adamant about the good that single people can do. I don’t see where your hasty criticisms have any support.


      1. You seem to have misunderstood me; I was responding to the post, wherein WK accuses women without children of selfishness. At no point did I say whatever choice a woman makes is automatically the correct one, that is your principles clouding how you read my comment. My point was that only the individual can make the right choice for themselves. As to your question about women being ‘pre-redeemed’, I think that all people make mistakes because we’re all human and fallible. I’ll try to make my point in another way; no one has the right to pressure another into making a decision, especially about something as life changing as marriage or having children.
        When WK suggests in his post that parents and churches aren’t doing enough to press the idea of early marriage and motherhood on young women, it suggests he condones the imposition of another’s principles on an individual. This is what I find contemptous.

        As to your comment that about WK encouraging men to be good fathers, what has that to do with my actual point?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. “My point was that only the individual can make the right choice for themselves.”

          That’s not Biblical. Biblically, people are to seek the input and advice from older Christian mentors, they are to obey the commands in the Bible, and wives are to submit to their husbands’ lead. All this radical individualism is popular in the culture, but not Biblically sound.

          Women need to stop insisting on their own way and submit to the teaching of the Bible, the advice from older Christian mentors, and the leadership of their husbands.


          1. I must disagree with you, though I find your perspective fascinating as it’s quite different from the Christian faith in which I was brought up, for instance I was taught that the Bible was a mix of parable and mythologised history which teaches important lessons. I don’t like to assume anything but you seem to be quite literal in your interpretation?

            As to your comment, I wouldn’t consider bodily autonomy radical individualism but a fundamental human right. All people should have bodily autonomy, pressuring someone in to marriage denies that person that right.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Yes, I take the Bible to be accurate history and straightforward teaching of doctrine, not morality myths. That’s what the Bible says it is and there is good evidence for this view outside the Bible as well. I can see how someone who thinks the Bible is merely myths with a moral lesson would not bother to live according to what it says, but I can’t understand why they would trust what it says about salvation of their eternal soul.

            I’m not saying that women should be forced into marriage without their consent, but I am saying that advising women to be married is not a violation of her rights in any way and is perfectly proper. Advice and encouragement toward a particular course of action is not force, as you seem to think.

            My earlier comment was directed toward your statement that only the individual can make the right choice for themselves, and my point was that not every individual knows the right choice. That’s why we have Christian mentors and the Bible to teach us what we should do. And in the case of married women, sometimes the choice isn’t theirs to make but their husband’s to make for the family.


    2. Even if one isn’t a believer and does not see that as applying to them, Christian men and women have obligations to God and chief among those is being fruitful and multiplying.

      I might buy your arguments for non believers but even there, the amount of unhappy childless women with little family seems staggering compared to women with families who maybe feel discontent sometimes.

      Actions have consequences and in general from psychiatric woes, for almost all women choosing no family is the wrong one.

      Also while women are capable of contributing to civilization and a tiny tiny few have contributions that outweigh parenthood , nothing a women does contributes more than being a wife and mother. If women and men do not make this contribution, humanity has no future.

      So yeah, its important


      1. There’s some evidence that if you have a mental health condition, whatever your gender, then marriage or a long term relationship can help decrease severity of symptoms, but there’s no evidence that single people are more likely to suffer from mental health conditions. The abused and socially isolated on the other hand are. Being a single person does not automatically mean social isolation. From my observation, married people who are home looking after children all day are often more socially isolated than single people who are out working and socialising.

        I’m not even going to bother responding to your ignorant and condescending comments about women’s collective worth and their contribution to culture.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I thought the Golden Rule was do unto others as you would have done unto you, and that that was the chief commandmant from Jesus to Christians?
        Go forth and multiply is taken from the Old Testament, a document first written down in the 6th century B.C.E and probably passed down orally for a few hundred years before that. A time when the human population if the planet was only a few million. There are now over seven billion people on the planet and increasing at a rate if 2 per second, the majority in poverty because resources are limited and unfairly distributed. How can we, in a position to understand the reality of human overpopulation and environmental degradation condemn children to a future of greater deprivation? Having large families puts undue pressure on local and global resources, and on parents who have to support them, even if they are not in a stable financial situation or living arrangements, causing misery. How can that be what Jesus would want for his followers?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Overpopulation is a myth:

          That’s from the ultra-leftist Slate, of all places.

          I am concerned about conservation and the environment, too. And that’s why I am pleased that air and water is cleaner now than it used to be.

          Are you invoking some sort of doomsday scenario for global warming?
          If so, you should know that we have been in a 19-year period of no-warming, which falsifies the doomsday predictions of the global warming alarmists:

          That is according to the more reliable atmospheric measurements of global temperatures, not the surface temperatures which can be easily manipulated by human activity around the sensors.

          Can I ask you a question? Are you pro-choice on abortion?


          1. One – I form my opinions based on reading a wide range of materials including but not limited too books written by qualified people, conversation with a wide variety of people and academic papers. A magazine website would not be my go to source, unless it was New Scientist or History Today.

            Two – concern for unsustainable population growth and environmental degradation, and the possible consequences for future generations is not a ‘doomsday scenario’, nor am I invoking such. The UN population fund notes that increasing population puts stresses on infrastructure and the environment. Here is the link, if you want to broaden your reading material:

            Liked by 1 person

  9. “You might not have noticed but men have been dictating how women live their lives for centuries, now that women have rights and a choice..”

    Actually, I think many people have that completely backwards. First off, it should be God that dictates how we lead our lives, not men or women.

    And prior to the sexual revolution, I’m not so sure it was men dictating women’s lives to us, marriage, family, civilization itself, was really designed to protect women, to value us partially for our very ability to produce children.

    If you go into an inner city and observe the reality on the ground when men are no longer expected to marry women to stick around to be fathers, when women no longer benefit from men’s protection and provision, it’s not so pretty. In fact, it’s pretty much poverty and endless violence.


    1. I can see your perspective, but I disagree with your conclusions. ‘Civilization’ was not ‘designed’ to protect women, civilization developed due to social pressures of large numbers of settled humans living in a small area when human society transitioned from majority hunter-gatherers to majority farming societies. As a way of social organisation it worked because the people with the most controlled those with the least by implementing social rules – laws – to control behaviour. I would suggest that women’s ability to have children and the ‘protection’ women received was more to do with protecting property inheritance through controlling women’s bodies. In ancient societies women were considered property of their father or husband. Marriage originated as a means to transfer property within a legal framework.

      Until the early twentieth century women couldn’t vote, until the middle of the twentieth century women couldn’t take out loans and needed their husband’s permission to have a bank account. Married women were expected to stop working. How are these things not examples of men controlling the lives of women?

      As to inner cities, I would suggest there are more complex causes at work than simply people refusing to marry and support their offspring.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. R Cawkwell,

        “As to inner cities, I would suggest there are more complex causes at work than simply people refusing to marry and support their offspring.”

        You are ignoring the large number of Social Science studies that show children from fatherless homes are most of the children that end up in Juvenile Delinquency, end up as runaways, end up having teen pregnancies, end up in jail. Most of these studies are headed up by PhD’s who know about complex causes but still find that fatherless homes are the fundamental determinant of crime & dysfunction.


        1. Fascinating, I understood from just generally reading a wide variety of books (I’m a book reviewer with a science background) that poverty, lack of available education or opportunity, and abuse are more likely determinants of adolescent criminal behaviour, teenage parenthood or running away. Most recently I reviewed a book called ‘Modern Families’, about current family structures; the conclusions reached by the author, based on several cited peer reviewed research papers, was that being from a single parent household did not produce significantly different outcomes to two parent households.
          Also, there’s an interesting paper from the UK, about the backgrounds and childhoods of prisoners that makes reference to other US studies as well as UK studies. An interesting finding was that 47% – the highest number of the prisoners – were brought up in households with both natural parents.

          You can download the paper from there, it’s quite interesting reading.


          1. Supportive, loving homes are vital for children. The presence or absence of genetic parents doesn’t make much difference. In cases where one or both parents are abusive, outcomes are worse for children and often abuse is perpetuated down the generations.

            What I’d like to know is why you and your friends are taking this conversation into such tangential territory when the OP is about why women are choosing childless lives, and my comments refer to your unfounded accusation that childless women and couples are entirely selfish, and that families and churches need to pressure young people and couples in to parenthood, which seems to condone coercion.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. First, I did give you a research paper, and here is more from a libertarian think tank:


            First, children from single-parent families are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. According to one study, children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior.(3) Moreover, O’Neill found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single- parent households are twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father is present. Nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates.(4) Research indicates a direct correlation between crime rates and the number of single-parent families in a neighborhood.(5)

            As Barbara Dafoe Whitehead noted in her seminal article for The Atlantic Monthly:

            The relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation’s mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family break up as the most important source of rising rates of crime.(6)

            Libertarians are basically amoral anarchists, so it’s striking that they think that crime is caused by children being raised fatherless as well.

            Second, in the original post, we had a sample of comments from women as well as the graph. No one said that ALL women who choose childlessness do so for selfish reasons. I was simply presenting data from a survey published by the ultra-left-wing Huffington Post, as well as the Census data. Others who want to know the ideological underpinnings to this trend can read radical feminists and see what their reasons are for not wanting children, so they can flesh this out more.

            No one said all. I can’t survey ALL the women. However, my experience agrees with the data I presented, which is that the more a woman gets into radical feminism, the more incapable she becomes of caring for the needs of others, particularly men and children. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, an economist, has an interesting way of putting it – she calls it “retreat from relationship”. This is the idea that radical feminists are so self-centered that although they may want to use men and children for their own ends, they resent that men and children would place any moral obligations on them. We call that selfishness, and Dr. Morse argues that it is central to radical feminism’s “retreat from relationship”. Relationships are about looking to the needs of others, and feminism is about looking to your own needs and using others.

            Of course it is POSSIBLE that a childless woman would devote herself to caring for men and children, but that’s not what I am seeing AS A TREND in the culture, and not what radical feminism teaches women.

            There seems to be a trend among young women where they prefer hooking-up sex to romantic relationships.

            Here’s a study on that from UVA researchers:

            Their thinking is this: “I want to get drunk and have recreational sex because it’s fun, and if I happen to get pregnant as a result of my own decisions, then I’ll commit murder rather than be saddled with the needs of this other person I chose to create with the man I chose to have sex with, because I am more important than this other helpless, needy unborn person”. I don’t know what you’d call that, but I’d call that selfish and irresponsible. To me, that’s like saying “I like the feeling of driving backwards on the highway while drunk, and too bad for anyone who runs off the road and dies in a ditch while swerving to avoid me”. I think that attitude of “I’ll do what I want, and too bad for you” is more common in young, unmarried women than the attitude of “I want to take care of the needs of men and children but remain childless”.

            Oh, and finally this – my best friend in the whole world is a woman who is childless, and a little older than me. She is harder on radical feminism than I am and she is devoted to the needs of men and children, and has an excellent career. So it is possible that these women exist, but her view of radical feminism is EVEN MORE OPPOSED than mine is. So she desn’t deny the trend either, in fact, she thinks I have a romantic, idealistic view of women.


          3. Learn to read for comprehension; I, and the report – if you’d bothered to read it – said that 47% of the prisoners interviewed were brought up in two parent households.


          4. I thought my point was reasonably clear, but obviously you missed it.

            If more than 47% of the general population of the UK was brought up by both parents then those who were not brought up by both parents are overrepresented in the prison system.

            The report doesn’t provide any evidence for your suggestion that the presence or absence of genetic parents is irrelevant. On the contrary it suggests that those brought up in the care system in particular are more likely to end up in prison.


          5. “I doubt that only 47% of the UK population was brought up by both parents.”
            Nope, not at all clear. You should perhaps have expanded on that in your original reply?

            As to my comment that presence or absence of genetic parents is irrelevant, you’re taking it out of context. I wasn’t referring to the UK report in that comment but to information gleaned from reading a wide variety of sources, such as the book ‘Modern Families’ that I mentioned. This is a book based on extensive research and cites many reputable, peer reviewed studies. In it the authors conclude that a stable, supportive and loving environment is necessary for positive outcomes in child development.

            As to children brought up in the care system being overrepresented in the prison system, one has to wonder what is happening in the care system that means the children don’t receive that stability, support and love. In addition, in order to be put in care there has to be a serious risk to a child from their home environment, which could suggest that these children have been abused in some way.

            I’d also like to point out that my mentioning of this report in the first place was as a counter argument to an unsupported claim that ‘most people who go to jail’ are from single parent families. This is clearly not the case with those sampled in the report. I’d be amused by the continuous misrepresentation of my comments if I didn’t find the inability of you and other commenters to ignore my original comment and clarification comment regarding the original post in favour of unrelated tangents, quite repetitive, and frankly, dull.

            Liked by 1 person

  10. Which is why single Christian men have good reason to search for alternative avenues outside of marriage for achieving a greater purpose beyond the chasing personal pleasures.

    Society has destroyed a man’s ability to marry, and to maintain order within in that marriage. Not until the forces that prop-up this illusion are destroyed, can a proper societal arrangement be restored.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s