[This blog will always be free to read, but it’s also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: cmclymer@gmail.com. And if this is too big of a commitment, I’m always thankful for a simple cup of coffee.]
According to a survey released by Pew Research Center in late 2021, a whopping 44 percent of childless males say it is unlikely or not at all likely that they will have children someday. Of those, about 50 percent simply (and selfishly) offer a simple reason: they just don’t want kids.
America stands in a grave moment: the institution of the family is increasingly threatened by the instability of social change, birth rates in the United States have been declining for decades and reached their lowest point last year, and of course, masculinity has been in a freefall for quite some time.
Rather than building a family and contributing to the God-gifted structure of a home with many children, more and more young males are declining to fulfill their natural roles and instead seek purpose through careers and other personal ambitions.
Some radicals will point out that the survey highlights how males and women are “equally likely to probably not have kids” in the future, but this brazen progressive framing masks a basic scientific truth: it’s much easier for males to have children.
As
writes in her excellent book “Ejaculate Responsibly,” it is only logical to point out that males encounter no significant health threats during the process of pregnancy and childbirth, have far greater control in managing their fertility status, and bear ultimate responsibility for all pregnancies.After all, without emission of sperm, how can a pregnancy occur? Any given male’s sexual production should be magnitudes greater than any given woman, for she has only one uterus with a limited ovulation window during her life, while the male can produce sperm repeatedly and very late into his lifetime.
And yet, radical lawmakers would have us believe that young males should “have a choice” over whether or not they become parents. Sounds to me like they’re enabling an ungodly narcissism that undermines their sole purpose.
I can already hear the radicals now: “But what about males who are impotent and thus incapable of impregnating women?”
Look, I suppose there should be some compassion for males who are born without a meaningful and real masculinity, but while that’s unfortunate, it doesn’t negate their lack of usefulness in God’s divine will that large families be grown.
It’s not only young males who are letting down God and country. Shockingly, according to data gathered by the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 18 percent of males ages 55 and older don’t have children.
What purpose in life could they possible have by that point?
Males should be carrying out the Lord’s imperative by having lots of children, and when they grow older and their children have kids, it’s only right that they drop everything and dedicate themselves to help raising those newborns.
I mean, c’mon, it should be obvious that the whole purpose of the post-andropause male is to help raise children.
As you may have expected, J.D. Vance and likeminded male radicals have said nothing about all this, pretending that our country isn’t being made vulnerable by a generation of young males who reject their calling to be at home with many babies.
I wonder why Mr. Vance is so viciously anti-child.
It sickens me. I weep for our country.
Share this post