All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/

Support for secular left policies increasing among young, unmarried feminists

Young, unmarried women vote overwhelmingly for Democrat party policies: abortion, same-sex marriage, daycare, public schools, no-fault divorce, etc. Cultural dominance of radical feminism has led to surging unhappiness, singleness, infertility and mental illness for these women. Nevertheless, young, unmarried women refuse to abandon radical feminism. They are doubling down.

First, lets review this article by Amanda Prestigiacomo from Daily Wire, that talks about a recent study on women’s declining happiness.

According to a recent study from Yale University researchers, liberated, college educated women are freezing their eggs because they can’t find a man to marry and have children with before their natural childbearing years expire. In the U.K., for instance, one in five women is childless when their natural reproductive years expires, as opposed to one in ten women a mere generation prior.

So what’s to blame for this onslaught of college-educated yet terribly empty women?

The short answer is feminism.

Feminism teaches women to delay marriage for college. College is worth it if you study nursing, computer science, etc. But it’s not worth it to get a worthless non-STEM degree in grievance studies. Especially if the degree comes with secular left indoctrination, promiscuity, misandry, contempt for male leadership, and student loan debt. None of these things are attractive to men who are considering marriage.

And guess what? The marriage rate is plummeting:

Marriage Rate 2020
Marriage Rate 2020

So, how are women reacting to the failure of feminism to deliver the things that make women really happy and fulfilled, i.e. – traditional marriage, and stay at home motherhood, a big family, successful moral children? Are young, unmarried women pulling back on their support for feminism? Are they looking for marriage-ready men to lead them? Are they returning to Christianity? Are they becoming more pro-life, and more opposed to sexual anarchy? Are they voting for school choice? Are they voting for smaller government and lower taxes, so that men can afford marriage and children?

Consider this article from The Federalist, my favorite news source, written by Joy Pullmann, my favorite Federalist writer.

She writes:

NBC News recently compared several polls to find huge shifts from Democrats to Republicans in 2022 midterm voter preferences. The big exception to these shifts across many demographics was college-educated women, who in NBC’s aggregation showed even stronger support for Democrats now than ahead of the last midterm election.

“[T]he gender gap between Democrats and Republicans is actually a marriage gap,” noted columnist Mona Charen in 2014, another midterm year. “Single women vote disproportionately for Democrats and married women vote by a comfortable margin for Republicans. The decline of marriage inclines more women to vote Democrat.”

When women undertake a life plan that delays marriage, they are less attractive to marriage-minded men. Marriage-minded men want to marry early, so they have help during their struggles in school and work. They want lots of well-behaved, successful children. They want to have a legacy, especially Christian men.

When young, unmarried women vote for Democrat policies, men are faced with higher taxes, more regulation, more pressure from cancel culture, more invasion of the home by secular leftists. Men don’t get married in order to have their kids stuck into daycare and public schools. Men don’t get married to have their kids transed by anti-male teachers, doctors, lawyers and judges. Men get married to lead a home. They don’t marry women who have been indoctrinated against male leadership in the home.

Women who make themselves unattractive to marriage-minded men tend to vote for bigger government. They want to be reckless and irresponsible in their young years, then have a safety net later that makes finding a husband “optional”. Remember Barack Obama’s “Life of Julia” plan for women?

The Federalist article continues:

Beyond the obvious fact that big government functions for some single women as a husband substitute, at least financially, it’s also true that women respond more strongly than men to emotional arguments of harm and victimhood of the kind that the Democrat Party of today specializes in. Women are also on the forefront of making the leftist kind of emotional “grievance politics” arguments in both academia and the public square, as Richard Hanania and others have noted.

Men don’t marry women who decide what to believe based on feelings and peer-approval. But that’s the kind of women that society has been making in recent years. Men don’t want that. Men marry women who have solid worldviews that provide a rational grounding for moral values and moral duties.

She also notes the study I blogged about before, about high rates of mental illness among progressive white women:

Pew found in 2020 that more than half of white women who identified as political liberals had been diagnosed by a professional with a mental disorder, such as depression or anxiety.

Men don’t marry women with mental illnesses, either.

Normally, I would write a conclusion here. But her conclusion was too excellent to skip:

Women have been earning more bachelor’s degrees than men have since 1982. From 1982 to 2013, women earned 10 million more degrees than men did. Not surprisingly, women dominate even more the social science fields that incubate leftist political extremism.

It’s well-documented that most colleges now function more as political grooming and social signaling centers than centers of learning. College graduates have for some time demonstrated, on average, no intellectual development from attending college, while college attendance now does correlate with a massive increase in affiliation with the Democrat Party.

At the same time colleges have become essentially academically worthless, if not toxic, they have become saturated with women, and have increasingly marketed and reorganized themselves in feminine terms. The feminization of our culture led by this academic dominance has fueled popular and pervasive messages of cruel and unrestrained female domination of men, rather than the loving cooperation with men that marriage and family encourage.

I love when older, wiser women hold young, unmarried women accountable for their reckless, irresponsible choices. Women today have a visceral hatred for being evaluated for marriage or mentored by men. They don’t think that men with achievements have any ability to lead them. That’s why it’s wonderful when older, wise women step up and teach young, unmarried women that they are their own worst enemies. That’s what Titus 2:3-5 says, isn’t it?

Men aren’t going to solve the problem of young women’s skyrocketing unhappiness. It’s not our responsibility to save women from their own embrace of self-destructive ideologies. Young women don’t listen to men with moral convictions and solid theology. The problem will only be solved when young women choose to make better decisions.

How the presence and quality of fathers affects belief in God

Here’s an article by Paul Copan which points out how father presence/absence and father quality affects belief and disbelief in God.

Excerpt:

Seventh, the attempt to psychologize believers applies more readily to the hardened atheist. It is interesting that while atheists and skeptics often psychoanalyze the religious believer, they regularly fail to psychoanalyze their own rejection of God. Why are believers subject to such scrutiny and not atheists? Remember another feature of Freud’s psychoanalysis — namely, an underlying resentment that desires to kill the father figure.

Why presume atheism is the rational, psychologically sound, and default position while theism is somehow psychologically deficient? New York University psychology professor Paul Vitz turns the tables on such thinking. He essentially says, “Let’s look into the lives of leading atheists and skeptics in the past. What do they have in common?” The result is interesting: virtually all of these leading figures lacked a positive fatherly role model — or had no father at all.11

Let’s look at some of them.

  • Voltaire(1694–1778): This biting critic of religion, though not an atheist, strongly rejected his father and rejected his birth name of François-Marie Arouet.
  • David Hume(1711–76): The father of this Scottish skeptic died when Hume was only 2 years old. Hume’s biographers mention no relatives or family friends who could have served as father figures.
  • Baron d’Holbach(1723–89): This French atheist became an orphan at age 13 and lived with his uncle.
  • Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–72): At age 13, his father left his family and took up living with another woman in a different town.
  • Karl Marx(1818–83): Marx’s father, a Jew, converted to being a Lutheran under pressure — not out of any religious conviction. Marx, therefore, did not respect his father.
  • Friedrich Nietzsche(1844–1900): He was 4 when he lost his father.
  • Sigmund Freud(1856–1939): His father, Jacob, was a great disappointment to him; his father was passive and weak. Freud also mentioned that his father was a sexual pervert and that his children suffered for it.
  • Bertrand Russell(1872–1970): His father died when he was 4.
  • Albert Camus(1913–60): His father died when he was 1 year old, and in his autobiographical novel The First Man, his father is the central figure preoccupation of his work.
  • Jean-Paul Sartre(1905–80): The famous existentialist’s father died before he was born.12
  • Madeleine Murray-O’Hair (1919–95): She hated her father and even tried to kill him with a butcher knife.
  • We could throw in a few more prominent contemporary atheists not mentioned by Vitz with similar childhood challenges:
  • Daniel Dennett (1942–): His father died when he was 5 years of age and had little influence on Dennett.13
  • Christopher Hitchens (1949–): His father (“the Commander”) was a good man, according to Hitchens, but he and Hitchens “didn’t hold much converse.” Once having “a respectful distance,” their relationship took on a “definite coolness” with an “occasional thaw.” Hitchens adds: “I am rather barren of paternal recollections.”14
  • Richard Dawkins (1941–): Though encouraged by his parents to study science, he mentions being molested as a child — no insignificant event, though Dawkins dismisses it as merely embarrassing.15

Moreover, Vitz’s study notes how many prominent theists in the past — such as Blaise Pascal, G.K. Chesterton, Karl Barth, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer — have had in common a loving, caring father in their lives.16

Not only is there that anecdotal evidence, but there is also statistical evidence.

Excerpt:

In 1994 the Swiss carried out an extra survey that the researchers for our masters in Europe (I write from England) were happy to record. The question was asked to determine whether a person’s religion carried through to the next generation, and if so, why, or if not, why not. The result is dynamite. There is one critical factor. It is overwhelming, and it is this: It is the religious practice of the father of the family that, above all, determines the future attendance at or absence from church of the children.

If both father and mother attend regularly, 33 percent of their children will end up as regular churchgoers, and 41 percent will end up attending irregularly. Only a quarter of their children will end up not practicing at all. If the father is irregular and mother regular, only 3 percent of the children will subsequently become regulars themselves, while a further 59 percent will become irregulars. Thirty-eight percent will be lost.

If the father is non-practicing and mother regular, only 2 percent of children will become regular worshippers, and 37 percent will attend irregularly. Over 60 percent of their children will be lost completely to the church.

Let us look at the figures the other way round. What happens if the father is regular but the mother irregular or non-practicing? Extraordinarily, the percentage of children becoming regular goesupfrom 33 percent to 38 percent with the irregular mother and to 44 percent with the non-practicing, as if loyalty to father’s commitment grows in proportion to mother’s laxity, indifference, or hostility.

[…]In short, if a father does not go to church, no matter how faithful his wife’s devotions, only one child in 50 will become a regular worshipper. If a father does go regularly, regardless of the practice of the mother, between two-thirds and three-quarters of their children will become churchgoers (regular and irregular). If a father goes but irregularly to church, regardless of his wife’s devotion, between a half and two-thirds of their offspring will find themselves coming to church regularly or occasionally.

A non-practicing mother with a regular father will see a minimum of two-thirds of her children ending up at church. In contrast, a non-practicing father with a regular mother will see two-thirds of his children never darken the church door. If his wife is similarly negligent that figure rises to 80 percent!

The results are shocking, but they should not be surprising. They are about as politically incorrect as it is possible to be; but they simply confirm what psychologists, criminologists, educationalists, and traditional Christians know. You cannot buck the biology of the created order. Father’s influence, from the determination of a child’s sex by the implantation of his seed to the funerary rites surrounding his passing, is out of all proportion to his allotted, and severely diminished role, in Western liberal society.

Basically, anyone who doesn’t have a benevolent, involved father is going to have an more difficult time believing that moral boundaries set by an authority are for the benefit of the person who is being bounded. The best way to make moral boundaries stick is to see that they apply to the person making the boundaries as well – and that these moral boundaries are rational, evidentially-grounded and not arbitrary. It is therefore very important to children to be shepherded by a man who studied moral issues (including evidence from outside the Bible) in order to know how to be persuasive to others. If you want your child to be religious and moral, you have to pick a man who is religious and moral. And it can’t just be a faith commitment that he makes, he can just lie about that. Women ought to check whether men are bound to what they believe by checking what they’ve read. A man usually acts consistently with what he believes, and beliefs only get formed when a man informs himself through things like reading.

My advice to Christian women is this. When you are picking a man, be sure and choose one who is already invested in Christian things and producing results. It’s very unlikely that he’s going to start from nothing after you marry him. If you value your kids, make a man’s interest in developing and acting on a Christian worldview the main thing you are looking for.

Knight and Rose Show – Episode 23: Quick Answers to Common Atheist Objections, Part 3

Welcome to episode 23 of the Knight and Rose podcast! In this episode, Wintery Knight and Desert Rose discuss quick responses to common atheist objections to Christianity. This is part 3 of a 3 part series. If you like this episode, please subscribe to the podcast, and subscribe to our YouTube channel. We would appreciate it if you left us a 5-star review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Podcast description:

Christian apologists Wintery Knight and Desert Rose discuss apologetics, policy, culture, relationships, and more. Each episode equips you with evidence you can use to boldly engage anyone, anywhere. We train our listeners to become Christian secret agents. Action and adventure guaranteed. 30-45 minutes per episode. New episode every week.

Episode 23:

Episode  Summary:

Wintery Knight and Desert Rose discuss how to respond to common atheist objections to Christianity, in a minute or two. We cover these topics: Christianity as a crutch for the weak, goodness without God, intolerance by Christians, the Bible can be used to prove anything, if you were born in India you’d be a Hindu, why are there so many denominational divisions, why can’t we just all love everyone, and being unhappy about friends and family in Hell. This is the third of a three-part series.

Speaker biographies

Wintery Knight is a black legal immigrant. He is a senior software engineer by day, and an amateur Christian apologist by night. He has been blogging at winteryknight.com since January of 2009, covering news, policy and Christian worldview issues.

Desert Rose did her undergraduate degree in public policy, and then worked for a conservative Washington lobbyist organization. She also has a graduate degree from a prestigious evangelical seminary. She is active in Christian apologetics as a speaker, author, and teacher.

Podcast RSS feed:

https://feed.podbean.com/knightandrose/feed.xml

You can use this to subscribe to the podcast from your phone or tablet. I use the open-source AntennaPod app on my Android phone.

Podcast channel pages:

Video channel pages:

Music attribution:

Strength Of The Titans by Kevin MacLeod
Link: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/5744-strength-of-the-titans
License: https://filmmusic.io/standard-license