If I asked you whether young people or old people are more in favor of feminism, I’ll bet that the majority of you would answer “young people”. Because you would say that old people are more traditional than young people. But that’s not what a recent survey found. There’s an article about it in the New York Post, although the original article comes from an Australian news web site.

Excerpt:

A surprising number of people in younger generations believe that women’s rights have gone too far, with a new survey revealing gender equality progress could be at risk of stalling.

New research conducted by Ipsos UK and the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership at King’s College London found that over half of people in younger generations believe the push for equality is now negatively impacting men and that they are being expected to do “too much” to support progress.

The survey collated the responses from more than 22,500 people aged 16-74 across 32 countries, including approximately 1000 people from Australia.

According to the results, 52 percent of Gen Z and 53 percent of Millennials agree that “we have gone so far in promoting women’s equality that we are discriminating against men”.

This is compared to 46 percent of Gen X and 40 percent of Baby Boomers.

The article is in favor of the women power movement, and it expresses shock and horror that anyone could ever have a reason to disagree with it.

What does this mean? Well, I think older people have an out-of-date view of just how much society (government and other institutions) has done to give preferential treatment to women at the expense of men.

To take just one example, about 60% of undergraduate degrees are being given to women, with men getting only 40%.

The American Enterprise Institute reports:

• For every 100 women who earn bachelor’s degrees from US colleges and universities, there are 73 men.

• For every 100 women who earn master’s degrees from US colleges and universities, there are 65 men.

• For every 100 women who earn doctor’s degrees from US universities, there are 85 men.

• For every 100 women who are recent college graduates but not in the labor force, there are 108 men.
  

• For every 100 women with an advanced degree but not in the labor force there are 114 men.

When I looked into what was causing this, I found out that men underperform women on classroom tests, but men outperform women on standardized tests. Studies have shown that teachers (85% women) discriminate against boys in the classroom, and that’s why boys underperform girls on classroom-administered tests. But on standardized tests, boys do better, because there is no discriminator present and the grading is more fair.

Hypergamy

The problem with this discrimination against men is that women typically like to “marry up”. They are looking for men who have more education and better careers and higher salaries than they have.  When the number of desirable men shrinks, it becomes harder and harder for women to lock one down. That’s the law of supply and demand. When the supply of marriage-ready men (good education, good job, good savings) shrinks, the price of a marriage-ready man goes up. The price of goods always goes up when there is a shortage. And right now there is definitely a shortage of educated men with good careers and lots of savings. Discrimination against men by feminists, feminist laws and feminist policies caused this shortage.

It’s the younger generations who are seeing firsthand how discrimination against men makes relationships, much less marriage, harder to achieve. Sadly, the older generations aren’t paying attention. If men aren’t doing well, then women aren’t going to be able to find men to marry and start families with. What satisfies women in the long run is family. Marriage and family are dying in the west, and young people understand that feminism was the murder weapon. Young people understand this, because they see relationships and marriage drying up.

It’s not just the left-wing feminists who want the discrimination against men to remain. Pro-marriage feminists, including many “chivalrous” Christians (men and women) also want feminist discrimination against men to remain. They blame the retreat from relationship and the decline of marriage on MEN, not on feminism. Until this changes, don’t expect relationships and marriage to return.

Last week, there were some interesting stories posted in the New York Post about how the Biden family was receiving donations from communist China. I’ll link to that story here, but I really wanted to write about another Biden story that I found in The Federalist. When you see this story, you’ll really have to wonder why so many “evangelicals” supported Joe Biden for president.

The Federalist story says:

President Joe Biden’s Department of Education plans to enact new rule changes to civil rights law this May that would end free speech as Americans have known it.

The changes would inject gender ideology straight into the heart of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act by erasing the Supreme Court’s long-standing distinction between protected speech and punishable conduct.

In its 1999 ruling in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, the Supreme Court held that expressive activity such as speech can only constitute harassment when it is “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” that it can no longer be considered pure speech and is more properly viewed as actionable conduct. In the process, the court emphasized that single instances of speech — no matter how offensive to the listener — do not rise to the level of harassment.

The Biden administration is purposefully muddying the waters between mere speech and harassing conduct specifically to force the use of pronouns and gender-affirming language. Under the proposed rule, students and faculty can violate Title IX simply for refusing to use someone else’s “preferred” pronouns.

The subtitle of the article is “Biden’s America is going the way of Canada, and it’s horrible news for anyone who cares about free speech.”

The article notes:

 The administration, spurred on by power-hungry college administrators, seeks the destruction of freedom of speech by other means. It wishes for us to become Canada. In the Great White North, the alleged misuse of pronouns is not just illegal, it is a “human rights violation.”

Following a drawn-out court battle in the Canadian justice system, the court told a Canadian father that he had to stop referring to his own daughter as a girl because his daughter identified as a boy. The father rightfully refused to comply with the court order, and in May 2021, a warrant was issued for his arrest.

He had originally sought mental health help for his daughter, but by the time of the litigation, she had already been “transitioning” for two years. The father was jailed as a criminal.

And that’s why I focus so much about what’s going on in Canada. They are ten years ahead of us on ending Christianity in the public square, and the Democrats want to keep up with them.

I would really like to see more recognized Christian leaders think about what rank-and-file Christians need in order to advocate for Christian values, and then protect those needs. But often, the people who are seen as leaders drop the ball.

Take a look at this quote from an article about David French from Not the Bee:

In case there was any question, French implies that preventing parents from injecting their kids with chemical castration drugs or removing their daughter’s breasts would be an infraction of “civil liberties,” and that we need to be careful that we don’t infringe on rights.

In a nation as diverse as the United States, conflicts over values are inevitable, but our most basic civil liberties must remain inviolate. To govern otherwise both inflicts a grave injury on dissenting citizens and violates the letter and spirit of the Constitution itself. Our right to speak, much less to parent, should not be contingent on our ability to gain political control.

I haven’t heard David French speak up against, say, masking kids for two years and requiring vax mandates in order to keep your job. I haven’t heard him make a case for why many civil liberties would be infringed if common weapons like AR-15s were removed from the public. I haven’t heard him speak about the rampant crime in leftist cities. Heck, I haven’t even heard much about abortion lately from him!

He has spoken out on abortion, but indirectly. By opposing Trump, he opposed Trump’s 3 Supreme Court picks. The same 3 Supreme Court picks who ended Roe v. Wade. What is his position on Roe v. Wade? He wanted a pro-abortion president to have those 3 picks, and to leave Roe v. Wade in place. That’s his view. And it’s the view of many “elite” “Christian” leaders.

I’m glad Cherise Trump (author of The Federalist article) is connecting the dots and warning us about what lies again if we don’t act. I just wish other Christians weren’t so scared about the secular left on these issues. We don’t need to make friends with people who are trying to destroy our freedoms. It’s ok to disagree with them.