Author archives: Sharon Barrett

Florida: Family Planning Vs. Family Belonging

by Sharon Barrett

December 4, 2012

As MARRI intern Lindsay Smith notes in her recent post, “The State of a Woman’s Union,” family structure and religious involvement are strong predictors of a teen’s sexual activity. Growing up in a stable married household decreases a young woman’s likelihood of having either an abortion or an out-of-wedlock birth. Lindsay continues,

Combining regular worship attendance with an always-intact family bolsters these effects. As seen in diagrams here, here and here, MARRI research verifies that teens attending weekly worship with an always-intact family are least likely to sexually debut as a teen or have a premarital pregnancy.

Why is this important? The state of Florida is surveying young women’s sexual lifestyles to help design state family planning services, including pamphlets and counseling.

The South Florida Sun Sentinel reported Sunday that the Department of Health sent surveys to 4,100 women between 18 and 24, giving participants a CVS gift card.

Officials say the survey will help them understand women’s need for and approach to family-planning services.

So far, 782 surveys have been returned. The survey, which is voluntary, contains questions like the following:

-How old were you when you first had sex? The last time you had sex with a man, did you do anything to keep from getting pregnant? If not, why not?

-Has a sexual partner ever “told you he would have a baby with someone else if you didn’t get pregnant?”

-Are you depressed? Have you ever been physically abused? What’s your religion? Do you smoke? How much do you weigh?

Some women who received the survey (which is voluntary) in the mail were offended by the questions, finding them “offensive and invasive.” But what Florida’s Department of Health is really looking for, according to state Surgeon General Dr. John Armstrong, is insight into why women in Florida choose not to use birth control, because the state “has one of the lowest rates of contraceptive use among women of child-bearing age.”

A more important question than why Florida’s young women are not using contraceptives is why they are sexually active. Rather than survey their sexual experiences, we should ask about family background. In MARRI’s Second Annual Index of Family Belonging and Rejection, Florida ranks eleventh from the bottom among all states in measures of family belonging (Washington, D.C., ranks lowest, while Minnesota has the highest family belonging index).Twenty-one % of children live in poverty, and 9.9% of births are to unmarried teenagers. According to MARRI researchers:

Family belonging and child poverty are significantly, inversely related: States with high Index values have relatively low child poverty rates, and vice versa.

Also, there is a significant, inverse relationship between family belonging and the incidence of births to unmarried teenagers.

The state of Florida would be better served by a survey of the reasons young women have unmarried sex, not the reasons they don’t use birth control – like the surveys MARRI has already gathered on its website. The best support for Florida’s young women is not family planning, but family belonging.

Enlightened Death: The Argument for Assisted Suicide

by Sharon Barrett

November 19, 2012

Since the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, science has offered a panacea for mans problems. From the vaccine to the internal combustion engine to the computer chip, man has discovered that whatever his need happens to be whether it is transportation, communication, or that all-important commodity, health he can invent a solution and put it on the market.

The Enlightenment worldview affected more than Western cultures view of science and technology. It also affected our view of God first, by denying His supernatural intervention in the world, and second, by rendering His moral revelation unnecessary.

As a result, human needs and desires replaced transcendent truth as mans measure of morality. For instance, Frances Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, adopted in 1789 in the wake of the bloody French Revolution, declares that law and government derive their authority from the general will of the people. In other words, mans inalienable rights do not come from his Creator, and neither do his moral duties to other men.

The end result of this worldview is the radical individualism of the Romantic era that followed the Enlightenment. The only thing that matters is whether the individual finds fulfillment in his circumstances. If his circumstances dont meet his needs and desires, he has the right to change them.

The twentieth century saw the effects of this thinking in social issues like no-fault divorce and abortion on demand. In the twenty-first century, another issue arose, making its way onto two state ballots this November: assisted suicide. As MARRI intern Maria Reig Teetor points out, modern medicine has empowered us to eliminate many causes of death, so legalizing the choice to end ones life medically is ironic.

More than ironic, it is an illustration of the decline of Western culture:

The key to this discussion is to acknowledge that when we eliminate religion from a culture, when we deny moral values and human dignity, were left with our own self-preservation as our only ethical guiding light.

When justice and human dignity are no longer a priority, we go to every length we can to prevent suffering and to create comfort. As with numerous other areas of life, like education, sexuality, marriage, friendship, and leisure, our culture teaches us that its all about our personal satisfaction. When there is no ultimate respect for human dignity, its natural for men to elevate health to their highest goal in life.

Health, comfort, protection from suffering, personal satisfaction…these are now rights that outweigh the protection of life itself. Using right-to-die language places assisted suicide on the same level as the right to kill implicit in most abortion legislation. Maria Reig Teetor follows this line of reasoning:

What if a person has the power to decide for someone else that his or her life is filled with pain or distress, as Terri Schiavos husband did in Florida in 2005? Or to decide that someone elses life is causing him or her to suffer, so he or she has the right to eliminate that suffering by eliminating the other person? (This is an argument used to support abortion, when an unborn baby causes financial or personal inconvenience to the mother.) Has our society drifted so far from ethical moorings that we would legalize murder on demand?

Modern medicine cannot solve the question of legalized murder. Neither can a worldview that ignores moral revelation. Without the enlightenment of Gods Word (Ps. 119:104-105), our culture will continue its unassisted slide toward suicide.

Whats Wrong With Generation Y And Why?

by Sharon Barrett

November 15, 2012

What is the matter with todays young people?

Its a question asked regularly by every generation of parents and authority figures. As we move further into the 21st century, however, the struggles and weaknesses of the younger generation are more pronounced than ever before.

As MARRI intern Lindsay Smith documents in her recent post, Belonging to the Exception, young adults of Generation Y (born between 1977 and 1995) are likely to have a lackadaisical attitude toward work and therefore to be unemployed and even unemployable. Although they boast technological savvy, members of this generation also display short attention spans and the inability to discern actions and consequences.

While the factors creating this generational fault line are complex, they start in the home. Lindsay Smith says,

[O]ur culture (sitcoms saturated with sex, personal credit cards, and adult privileges sans consequences) bears some responsibility for Gen Ys behavior, but the formation of these characteristics begins with a fractured family.

The decline of the married intact family is responsible for many changes in family life, national demographics, and the economy, as MARRI research explains in 162 Reasons to Marry. One of the biggest factors is the rise of rejection index scores to over 50% nationwide. Currently, more children grow up in families whose parents have rejected each other through divorce or breakup than grow up in intact families. While family belonging is associated with positive outcomes such as educational attainment and higher income, family rejection is associated with negative outcomes such as early sexual activity, unwed teen births, and abortion, as well as child poverty and future risk of divorce.

The national trend toward family rejection has affected Generation Y by removing the stability that children need to develop a work ethic and life skills. To some extent, the media and social networking have replaced family relationships and adult role models for this generation.

But family rejection has other, graver effects that are less well known. The Gen Why Project reports there are over 1.6 million homeless youth in the United States. Of these, Over 50% of youth in shelters and on the streets report that their parents told them to leave or knew they were leaving and did not care (emphasis mine).

These youth have far less chance than the average Facebook-surfing, not-interested-in-working Gen Y member of finding employment or raising a stable family of their own someday. And family rejection not only of a marriage partner, but of a child is largely to blame.

From Gen Y to Gen Why, whats the matter with todays young people is that they need others to invest in their lives. The Gen Why Project offers a list of organizations that are working to end youth homelessness. A thirty-second internet search turns up faith-based groups across the country that minister to homeless youth (here, here, and here are some examples). Why wait? Lets get involved.

Charity and Pornography: Can They Coexist?

by Sharon Barrett

October 26, 2012

Princeton professor Robert P. George writes in a piece for The Public Discourse, Theorists of public moralityfrom the ancient Greek philosophers and Roman jurists onhave noticed that apparently private acts of vice, when they multiply and become widespread, can imperil important public interests.

Pornography, especially internet pornography, is this kind of private vice in our generation. Even though pornographys devastating effects are well-documented (for instance, in publications released by MARRI and the Witherspoon Institute), some in the industry try to make pornography look acceptable by uniting it with socially respected activities. MARRI intern Sarah Robinson reported on Charitable Pornography: a non-profit pornography organization has created a website where users can upload videos along with links to their charity of choice, so that every hit on a video sends a donation to that charity.

While the organizers of the website win points for creativity, their score on social responsibility is zero. As Sarah Robinson says,

This idea crosses the threshold of moral relativity into dangerous territory that debases the value of human beings and sexuality. How do you place a price tag on sexuality? No charitable organization should receive money made by degrading human beings who were created in the image of God.

The idea of charitable giving depends on the ability to value others needs above ones own immediate gratification. Charitable organizations, inspired by Biblical commands to consider the poor, have long been a prominent part of Judeo-Christian society (and came into their own in 19th-century America, thanks to the energy of social reformers). Is charity at home, however, in a culture of sensuality that permits the degradation of human beings?

Robert P. George argues that acceptance of pornography affects society deeply, cheating children of not only a healthy sexuality, but a healthy view of the human person:

Parents efforts to bring up their children as respecters of themselves and others will be helped or hinderedperhaps profoundlyby the cultural structure in which children are reared….It is the attitudes, habits, dispositions, imagination, ideology, values, and choices shaped by a culture in which pornography flourishes that will, in the end, deprive many children of what can without logical or moral strain be characterized as their right to a healthy sexuality. In a society in which sex is depersonalized, and thus degraded, even conscientious parents will have enormous difficulty transmitting to their children the capacity to view themselves and others as persons, rather than as objects of sexual desire and satisfaction.

Pornography is the last thing we need as we seek to raise a generation with humane values. If the authors of this porn website truly care about charity, they should shut down the site and start producing informational videos. There are plenty of causes, like raising awareness of human sex trafficking, that they can benefit with charitable donations.

A Cost Reduction Plan for Unplanned Pregnancies

by Sharon Barrett

October 25, 2012

One of the most unfortunate trends in our day is Politics Posing as Medical Science, as MARRI director Dr. Pat Fagan points out in a post on the MARRI blog. Dr. Jeffrey Peipert, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, helped author a study on the effects of birth control that was released just in advance of the presidential election. The study, titled Preventing Unintended Pregnancies by Providing No-Cost Contraception, was designed to promote the use of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods (intrauterine devices [IUDs] and implants) and provide contraception at no cost to a large cohort of participants in an effort to reduce unintended pregnancies in our region.

In other words, the Peipert study tries to suggest that the HHS contraceptive mandate is beneficial to society because, in the words of an NBC News report, offering women free birth control can reduce unplanned pregnancies and send the abortion rate spiraling downward.

Dr. Fagan explains, however, that it is impossible to draw this conclusion from the Peipert study. First, the studys methodology is flawed. The authors did not use a control group, exaggerated the statistical effect of LARCs on the abortion rate, and tracked data that were not generalizable to a larger population over the long term (for example, they only reported on abortions and births, not on public health outcomes like STDs).

Second, by concentrating only on abortions and unplanned births, the study ignores the whole life cycle of women. As Dr. Fagan explains, as social science has tracked the consequences of contraceptive use for the long-term marital, family, parenting, and sexual habits of the women involved, negative outcomes have been found to be typical.

My prediction is that young women who use these methods…will have many more sexual partners, behavior that itself increases the likelihood of procuring an abortion. The program will also have high STD effects, likely have very significant effects on future marital stability, and in turn have significantly weakening effects on these womens future childrens life outcomes.

According to the NBC article, experts, including Peipert, point out that no-cost contraception saves money. In 2011, the Guttmacher Institute calculated that unplanned pregnancies cost the United States $11 billion each year. Princeton University professor of economics James Trussell argues that using LARCs to reduce unplanned pregnancies will cut other, invisible costs as well for instance, by reducing the economic burden borne by on single teen mothers.

The best cost reduction plan, however, is not to flood the market with free birth control, but to encourage women and men who are sexually active to do so in the context of committed marriage. Not only is the married intact family our best insurance of economic prosperity, but growing up in an intact household reduces the likelihood of negative outcomes throughout a womans life including abortion and unplanned pregnancy.

Adoption: Welcome to the Family

by Sharon Barrett

October 24, 2012

What if all children could have the chance to grow up in a loving, intact home? What if those who are bereft of father and mother through disease, poverty, famine, or war could be assured of a bed at night, a place at the table, and warm arms to hold them? What if even a small number of the worlds 153 million orphans could be welcomed into someones family?

These are questions posed by MARRI intern Lindsay Smith as she explores Adoption: What If. For many orphans (children who have lost their father, their mother, or both parents) around the world, the loss of their family signals an end to any kind of stable existence. In Russia, for instance, orphans living in state-run institutions are booted out once they reach age sixteen. These teenagers estimated to number around 10,000 must fend for themselves on the streets, often turning to crime or prostitution, and sometimes to suicide.

Closer to home, the picture is shockingly similar. According to an article from Relevant Magazine,

As of late 2010, more than 408,000 children were in the U.S. foster care system. Of those children, 107,011 were considered adoptablemeaning, their parents rights have been terminated or relinquished.

Every year, 20,000 to 30,000 kids age out of the foster care system. Of those, 50 percent will have dropped out of high school (compared with 8 to 9 percent of the general population). Sixty-two percent will be unemployed within 12 to 18 months. Half will be unemployed at 21 years of age. A quarter of them will be homeless within two years. Nearly 50 percent of females will have a child within 12 to 18 months. And 30 percent will be arrested between the ages of 18 and 21.

When compared to these tragic statistics, the evidence that Adoption Works Well should sound a clarion call to every family that is in a position to consider adoption. Adopted children experience positive outcomes in academics, health, relationships, and parent-child communication in some cases even better than children raised by their biological parents.

When we consider the nature of adoption, this should come as little surprise. Adoption is, in the purest sense, a divine act. Lindsay Smith explains,

Adoption in its truest form is a response to the love and gospel of Jesus Christ. We were adopted into His kingdom, so we in turn adopt children into our homes. Not just so they will have an earthly room, bed or siblings, but so they may have a chance to know about a Heavenly Father who is recklessly and passionately pursuing their adoption to Himself.

On Sunday, November 4th, churches all over the United States and the world will be celebrating Orphan Sunday. Started by the Christian Alliance for Orphans, this Sunday raises awareness for the plight of the orphan through local church services.

Whether or not you and your family are able to adopt a child (either domestically or internationally), consider other ways to support families who adopt and the agencies that walk them through the process. The Christian Alliance for Orphans offers numerous links for this purpose. Remember: what if even one more orphan could be welcomed into someones family?

Polygamy and the Promiscuity of the Beasts

by Sharon Barrett

October 23, 2012

Have we ever considered that we might be living in a polygamous society?

This is the question posed last week by MARRI intern Maria Reig Teetor. Maria observes,

Its common to hear complaints of how horrible it is that in certain cultures and religions, polygyny is respected and normal. We hear an outcry that it attacks womens dignity and reduces them to objects. But have those who are raising this outcry ever stopped to question whether their own sexual behavior may be reducing their human dignity?

Where is the difference, when men and women in Western society embrace sexual activity with whomever they please, whenever they please, leading to multiple sexual partners by the time they are thirty?

A French intellectual writing over 200 years ago made a similar observation. Louis de Bonald was a French reactionary a conservative in France who opposed the libertinism of the French Revolution just as MP Edmund Burke opposed it in England. In On Divorce, published in 1801, Bonald wrote the following:

The union of all with all indiscriminately is the promiscuity of the beasts; the successive union of one with many is polygamy, repudiation, divorce; the indissoluble union of one with one [is] Christian marriage….

Thus, as promiscuity is the union of the most imperfect of human beings, the beasts, it appears that indissoluble union, which is the other extreme, must be the union of the most perfect of living beings, men….*

In other words, sexual promiscuity reduces ones human dignity because it is equivalent to animal behavior. Promiscuity can be made more socially acceptable when covered with the veneer of divorce and remarriage, but it still fails to reach the standard of fidelity for Christian marriage prescribed by in the teaching of Christ (Matt. 19:3-9). As a conservative Catholic, Bonald believed in an indissoluble union; but as a student of history, he also believed (as MARRI research also shows) that lifelong marriage is naturally superior to other unions because it provides security for every member of the family.

Bonald, along with other conservatives of his time, thought of human society as a community ordered by the duties each member owes to all others (what Edmund Burke called a web of obligation, stretching from our forebears to future generations). He described marriage and the family as a society in itself, one that the larger human community has a duty to uphold and protect.

The French Revolution upset this social balance by proclaiming radical individualism and freedom from religious restraint (which, as Bonald pointed out, led to new divorce laws and an epidemic of divorce that he called serial polygamy). The same is true today, as Maria Reig Teetor describes:

As Pat Fagan points out, in the Western culture of polyamorous sexuality, family life is just one option among many other lifestyles. This culture treasures sexual freedom, meaning whatever is desired by the partners (two or more partners, as the case may be). It wants to eliminate religion and suppresses its public manifestations, attacking religious freedom. Ones moral code is individual and consequently relative; anyone should do as he or she pleases, not only sexually but in any arena of life (so if I need to kill an unborn child, I should have that right). In short, the idea of freedom is to have no constraints imposed on you, to have a carefree life.

The Enlightenment concept of freedom that shaped the French Revolution continues today, shaping our cultures view of marriage and sexual license. Those working to strengthen the family will find a powerful resource in writers like Bonald, who fought for social conservative principles long before the term culture wars was coined.

*De Bonald, Louis; trans. Nicholas Davidson. On Divorce (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1992), 60.

The Romance Revolution: Effects on Children and Couples

by Sharon Barrett

October 15, 2012

As a fellow MARRI intern recently observed, Watch any Hollywood romance, and you might think the best reason to get married is passionate romantic love because the purpose of marriage is the satisfaction of the couple. Maria Reig Teetor describes how redefining married love paved the way for the no-fault divorce revolution. The Romantic philosophy of the 1700s and 1800s advocated self-fulfillment through experience, and the 1960s sexual revolution carried Romanticism to its logical conclusion: free love.

In past centuries, marriage had been an institution characterized by permanence. But no-fault divorce embodied the values of free love with no strings attached; now, marriage need be only as permanent as the feelings that fueled the couples initial attraction. In Maria Reig Teetors words,

With the legalization of no-fault divorce, it became clear that marriage was only about being in love. This relationship was now independent of common good, community, generosity, hard work, self-giving, children….

If falling in love is as easy as Hollywood makes it look, falling out of love and moving on is nearly that easy. While treating marriage as permanent had kept the couple accountable to the parties who are the reason for marriage (that is, children who need a committed mother and father), now the partners were accountable only to themselves. The romance revolution, by jump-starting the divorce revolution, left a wake of damaging impacts on children: broken relationships; reduced educational attainment and earning capacity; disillusionment with religion; and increased risk of crime, drug abuse, and suicide.

Another, equally disturbing trend has arisen as a result of the romance revolution: couples who choose childlessness in order to focus on their personal fulfillment. In Canada, this trend has risen so far that the 2011 census shows 44.5% of couples are without children, compared to 39.2% with children. According to the Toronto-based National Post, while the 44.5% figure is padded by empty-nest parents, it includes the growing number of Canadian women currently one in five who will never have a child. Without the burden of children, life can be less demanding and more exhilarating:

Having children used to be the point of being a pair. It was the great aspiration along with finding love everlasting a biological impulse to go forth and multiply….

No more. Gone are diaper changes and ballet classes, replaced by hot yoga and shopping trips to New York City.

But is a partnership without children as fulfilling as one with children? Mariette Ulrich, writing for MercatorNet, notes the irony of this lifestyle. Ulrich says the idea that life without kids is a never-ending joyride is as much a myth as the contention that life with children is overwhelmingly stressful, exhausting, expensive and heartbreaking.

This is a myth of the same class as the myth that marriage is about falling in love, rather than providing a permanent home for children and a safe haven for ones spouse. Maria Reig Teetor sums it up:

…As modern love is individualistic, so is modern marriage. The soul of marriage has become myself.

Humans were designed to live in community, which involves giving to others before seeking to receive fulfillment from them. As we recognize that the foundation of marriage is in the human community, not the individual, we can begin to reverse the unhealthy effects of the romance revolution.

 

From the Industrial Revolution to the Contraceptive Revolution

by Sharon Barrett

October 11, 2012

As MARRI intern Alex Schrider points out in Student Debate: Taxing Conscience, the HHS contraceptive mandate is a direct attack on religious freedom. It does more than require employers to deny their personal beliefs about life and contraception; it forces many (primarily conservative Catholics and Evangelical Protesants) to violate church teachings and religious convictions..

This is significant for more reasons than the obvious wrong of asking religious Americans to violate their conscience. It represents an attack on religion itself.

Historically, religious practice formed the fabric of American culture. From New England Puritans to Maryland Roman Catholics, colonists came to the New World seeking religious freedom. After the nation was established, revival meetings helped unify the ragged frontier. Immigrants from all ends of the globe relied on religion to keep their families and communities intact.

The twentieth century, however, saw a cultural about-face. The ostensibly conservative, religious postwar era gave way to urban riots and juvenile delinquency. America left the 1950s baby boom for the 1960s free love movement, followed by four decades of increase in non-marital births and decrease in the overall birth rate.

 

MARRIs Patrick Fagan and Henry Potrykus suggest part of the impetus behind this shift:

The contraceptive mindset…is of one cloth with the West shifting its economic orientation from family enterprise to individualist labor activity while simultaneously moving from religious to secular social values.

The Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century weakened both family life and the American economy, because industrialism severed the workplace from the home. Urbanization in the twentieth century further undermined ties to family and local community. As this shift happened, the religious values that emphasized marriage and the family as a context for childbearing also declined.

The shift in values has economic effects, as Alex Schrider explains:

MARRI has documented the effects of widespread contraceptive use: when birthrate decreases, the average age of a population increases, eventually leading to population decline. An aging and declining population is associated with economic problems, not the least of which is the substantial burden placed on the shoulders of the smaller, younger generation, which must provide for the disproportionately large elderly generation.

There is a solution, but it does not lie in the HHS mandate. Rather, according to Fagan and Potrykus,

Remediation lies in a re-adoption of stable marriage as a societal norm and the rejection by governments and peoples of this non-sustainable model of society a religious, sexually polymorphous, serial polygamy and its replacement by a less secular, more traditional, family-oriented life.

Rebuilding our culture and economy requires us to return to family-oriented values. To start this process, our culture must return to religion, which creates these values. The federal government should not attack the very bedrock of society with an ill-conceived mandate that smothers religious freedom.

The End of Men, the End of Families

by Sharon Barrett

October 10, 2012

In a recent MARRI blog post, I posed the question, What do women want? Feminist writer Hanna Rosin, who published an article (2010) and then a book (2012) titled The End of Men: The Rise of Women, says women want a smooth path to a career, coupled with abundant sexual pleasure. Rosin suggests that in the post-industrial age, we have entered a post-masculine economy. She says men have had to learn traditionally feminine skills social intelligence, open communication, the ability to sit still and focus to compete with women for the jobs that are available today.

But what if the issue is not so much a change in the job market as a change in mens character? In 2003, Dr. Terrence Moore (one of my Hillsdale College professors) argued that the sexual revolution caused our culture to abandon the traditional definition of manhood and replace it with two extremes: the wimp and the barbarian.

[Women] say matter-of-factly that the males around them do not know how to act like either men or gentlemen….[They] must choose between males who are whiny, incapable of making decisions, and in general of acting like men, or those who treat women roughly and are unreliable, unmannerly, and usually stupid.

Commenting on Dr. Moores essay in a piece for the blog CounterCultured, a fellow Hillsdale alumnus states:

Manhood is…a standard from which barbarians and wimps deviate.

In other words, both barbarism and wimpiness are clues to an underlying deficiency our culture encourages in men. Where the barbarian lacks gentleness, the wimp lacks strength. But the standard from which they deviate is neither strength nor gentleness, but something more fundamental. As I explained in my MARRI post,

Masculine strength is best defined in one word: commitment, the decision to give ones word to another and stand by for the long haul. Men who embody commitment to a wife, family, job, and community are the ones who can reverse the current trend of fatherless families, broken marriages, and child poverty.

Marriage, because it demands commitment, makes men more employable. This has little or nothing to do with the type of jobs available (unskilled labor or high-powered executive, versus childcare or phone sales) and far more to do with the desire to work to support a family. In fact, this desire may be part of why marriage correlates with increased job satisfaction.

The sexual revolution elevated singleness and sexuality over marriage and family formation. What Ms. Rosin sees as a benefit the separation of sex from childbearing, which enabled women to pursue a career without needing mens support in actuality contributed to the consistent trend of unemployment and lower earnings among single men compared to married men. Men are less employable today not because women have squeezed them out of the job market, but because women are not marrying them.

As I concluded in my previous post, When women live as if they dont need men, real men disappear. What comes with the end of men will not be, as Ms. Rosin predicts, the rise of women; rather, with the end of men will come the continued decline of families. If MARRIs original research is any indication, the success of the post-masculine economy may be short-lived.

  • Page 1 of 2
  • 1
  • 2
Archives