Our society is going through an age of feminism. Everyone agrees that feminism is a wonderful thing for women. Secular leftists and pro-marriage conservatives agree: women should follow their hearts, and never face judgment or accountability. Christian leaders tell us that modern women are entitled to protection, and provision from any man they choose. But is that a good deal for men?

Here’s a fun new article from the New York Post about a recent survey showing how well things are working out for women.

It says:

Liberal women are the least likely to report being fully satisfied with their lives and are far more likely to report feeling lonely often, according to analysis from a recently published poll.

The 2024 American Family Survey reportedly found that 37% of conservative women and 28% of moderate women, between the ages of 18-40, reported being “completely satisfied” with their lives, but just 12% of liberal women in the same age group said the same.

Liberal women were also nearly three times more likely than conservative women to say they experienced loneliness at least a few times a week.

And the survey author, feminist professor Brad Wilcox, has an idea about what’s behind these findings:

Brad Wilcox, a sociology professor at the University of Virginia and fellow at the Institute for Family Studies who analyzed the survey’s data, said he believes there are a couple of reasons why conservative young women are more likely to be happier than their liberal counterparts.

“We’ve seen in the research that conservative women tend to be more likely to embrace a sense of agency and to have the sense that they are not, in any way, the victim of larger structural realities or forces,” he told Fox News Digital.

“They’re also less likely to catastrophize about public events and concerns,” and “more likely to think of themselves as captains of their own fate,” Wilcox added.

The victim mentality is a central feature of the feminist ideology that is promoted to young women. To me making yourself into a victim is a mental illness. Is anyone challenging women about it? It seems like good men would not marry a woman who blames her bad outcomes on other people instead of on her own choices.

Consider this article from Evie Magazine, a moderate feminist website:

A 2020 survey showed that 56% of white liberal women between ages 18 and 29 were diagnosed with a mental health condition, compared to 27% of conservative women in the same age bracket. 40% of liberal women between 30 and 49 reported having a mental health condition, compared to 26% of conservative women of the same age.

Will good men bail out women who are diagnosed with a mental health condition? Is that safe? Is it a good deal for men?

It seems to me that good men don’t want to deal with secular leftist women’s student loan debts. They don’t want to be punished with her STIs and mental illnesses. They don’t want to be the man that women “settle” for when they fail to land the hot bad boy they really wanted. Good men don’t want to lose half their assets and future income in a divorce. They don’t want to be servants to women who see male leadership as something to be avoided.

Good men want to retire at 50. And that means steering well clear of aging secular leftist women. Sorry, Brad Wilcox. No deal.

I like about a third of Trump’s Cabinet picks. A third are OK. And a third are terrible. The worst pick of all is his pick for Secretary of Labor. He picked Lori Chavez-DeRemer, who is endorsed by a teacher union leader. Lori opposes right-to-work laws. She supports job-killing labor unions. And she is a former employee of Planned Parenthood. Democrats love this pick.

Here’s an article from Christian Post:

President Donald Trump’s nominee to serve as secretary of labor, who is expected to face opposition from Senate Republicans, admitted to lawmakers that she once worked at a Planned Parenthood facility.

A source close to the situation confirmed to The Christian Post Thursday that Lori Chavez-DeRemer worked for a Planned Parenthood in Fresno, California, from January 1989 through February 1991.

Chavez-DeRemer, a Republican who represented Oregon’s 5th Congressional District in the 118th United States Congress, took appointments at the abortion provider’s front desk.

That’s a problem with her on moral issues, but there are also problems with her economic views.

Daily Caller explains:

Chavez-DeRemer, who represented Oregon’s 5th congressional district from 2023 to 2025, supported several pieces of legislation favored by Democrats, including the PRO Act, a bill championed by former President Joe Biden that targeted the private sector. Notably, Chavez-DeRemer also supports the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act, which would “strengthen” the rights of public sector workers who want to join unions and or bargain collectively.

Rand Paul, author of “The Case Against Socialism” is opposed to her:

“I’m not going to support her,” Paul told NBC News in January. “I’m the national spokesman and lead author of the right-to-work bill. Her support for the PRO Act, which would not only oppose national right to work but would pre-empt state law on right to work — I think it’s not a good thing.”

And the far-left website The Atlantic has this to say about her:

After Chavez-DeRemer’s nomination was announced, two senior Democratic senators, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Patty Murray of Washington State, issued cautiously optimistic statements about her—a rare sentiment for Democrats to express about any Trump nominee.

[…]“It’s a positive move for those of us who represent workers and who want workers to have a better life,” Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers and a close ally of Democratic Party leaders, told me. She noted that Chavez-DeRemer bucked her party not only by supporting the PRO Act but also by voting against private-school vouchers and cuts to public-education funding.

[…]An anti-union group, the National Right to Work Committee, wrote in a letter to Trump before he announced Chavez-DeRemer’s nomination that she “should have no place” in his administration: “She would not be out of place in the Biden-Harris Department of Labor, which completely sold out to Big Labor from the start.”

She should be withdrawn as a candidate, and someone who understands economics, and is pro-business, should be nominated in her place.

If I have time, and it’s not too complicated, I’m going to call both of my senators this week and urge them not to vote for her.

I saw that Tennessee recently enacted a school choice problem, and on Facebook, there were a lot of negative comments. I was able to click on the profiles of some of the negative commenters – the majority of them were white, female public school teachers. Well, I thought it might be a good idea to explain to people why Republicans are so interested in letting parents choose.

First, here’s the story from Focus on the Family:

Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed the Educational Freedom Act of 2025 earlier this week, creating 20,000 educational scholarships for students for the 2025-2026 school year. The bill also gives all public school teachers a one-time, $2,000 bonus for the current school year.

This legislation is part of a growing movement toward giving families the freedom to choose the best type of education for their children, allowing them to thrive and succeed.

[…]The scholarships, amounting to a little over $7,000, can be used for tuition and fees at a private school of a family’s choice, along with textbooks, instructional materials and uniforms at the private school. Money can also be used for transportation, tutoring and computer technology for educational needs.

In addition, “There will be an automatic growth trigger of 5,000 additional scholarships for each year after 75% of total scholarships are taken in the prior year.” The bill denies scholarships to students who cannot establish their “lawful presence in the United States.”

The Education Freedom Act was applauded by groups who want parents and families to have more freedom in choosing the education that best fits their children’s needs.

So, why would the opponents of school choice want to prevent parents from having a choice? Well, they view parents – the very people who pay their salaries – as enemies. They report them to the federal government as “domestic terrorists”. Why? Because those parents object to having their children indoctrinated with secular leftist ideologies.

Here’s an example of school choice opponents dealing with parents who object to their indoctrination:

First Daily Wire post:

On Tuesday evening, school board members representing Penfield Central School District in Rochester, New York, walked out on a packed house of parents who were upset about an inappropriate book on display at the elementary school library called “The Rainbow Parade,” authored by Emily Neilson.

The book in question is about a young girl attending a pride parade with her lesbian parents. The illustrations show men in sexual BDSM gear holding hands, drag queens, and naked people.

Instead of taking on comments from concerned parents, the board’s president called a motion to adjourn and ended the meeting abruptly. Kimberly DeRosa, who attended the meeting, told The Daily Wire that it ended after “more than an hour of presentations celebrating Black History Month and the superintendent detailing the process of submitting objections to books in the school.”

As noted by DeRosa, the board told parents that they should submit their complaints, which apparently negated their right to speak out at the meeting.

“We are here at our board meeting, conducting our business,” one board member told parents, who began booing. One parent responded, “It’s our board meeting,” and others yelled, “cowards!”

DeRosa, who is a Penfield taxpayer, concerned mother, and on the executive board of the Monroe County Federated Republican Women, told The Daily Wire that it was “a slap in the face to everyone there when the board members walked out before any public comments could be made.”

Second Daily Wire Post:

After school board members walked out on parents who were upset over LGBT book “The Rainbow Parade,” the board is doubling down and prohibiting public comments at meetings until at least the end of April, citing alleged racism.

[…]Now, the board representing Penfield Central School District has barred public comment at all meetings for the months ahead.

[…]The message also cited alleged racism, since one of the board meeting attendees showed up on Tuesday wearing a gorilla suit and a black “Make America Great Again” hat. Roberts suggested it was worn as an act of racism, since the district’s superintendent and some of the board members are black.

Can you imagine being treated like this by companies in the private sector, like Amazon.com or Apple? Recently, I ordered some Indian simmer sauces from Wal-Mart. They didn’t arrive for 2 weeks. So I asked for a refund. They gave me the refund immediately, no questions asked. But public school education isn’t like the private sector. You pay your money up front – in taxes – and then they give you whatever they feel like. It’s the complete opposite of the private sector, where they compete with rivals in order to earn your money.

And the Trump administration is aware of this, and they are already doing something about it.

Here’s a story from The Federalist:

The U.S. Department of Education has launched a Title IX investigation into five Virginia school districts that allow boys to use girls’ facilities like restrooms and locker rooms, moving one step closer to revoking their federal funding.

The Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) confirmed to America First Legal (AFL) that it is investigating Loudoun, Fairfax, Arlington, and Prince William Counties, as well as the City of Alexandria, for violating allegedly Title IX civil rights law meant to protect women and girls at school. AFL filed a formal complaint about the far-left Washington, D.C., suburb school districts in early February.

[…]The school districts in Northern Virginia, which serve some of the largest populations of students in the commonwealth, are notoriously defiant and completely consumed by gender theory, critical race theory, and a dedication to conducting far-left social and academic experimentation on children. If the Department of Education finds them violative of Title IX and they continue to be defiant, the districts are poised to lose federal funding.

You might remember that the Loudon County school board is the one responsible for working with the Biden administration to label concerned parents as “domestic terrorists”. This is why elections are important. The Democrat party thinks that parents should be forced to pay, and if they object to what they get, then they are “domestic terrorists”. The Republican party thinks that parents are more important than the school boards. I hope you voted Republican in the last elections, because they are looking out for your kids.