How Single, Childless, Women May Drive Us to Socialism

 

"For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck." Luke 23:29

The context of the above scripture is somewhat ambiguous, does it mean society will honor women choosing not to have children, or is it that world conditions will be so ominous that it would be hazardous to bring new life into the world?  Often people assume it is the latter, but what if it is the former? I mean, in a society so pro-childbirth as ancient Israel it would be unbelievable for women, much less society, to not value marriage and childbirth, but isn't that where we are heading today? And how could this affect not only demographics, but culture and politics as well?

According to an article, "Rise of the SHEconomy":

"Based on Census Bureau historical data and Morgan Stanley forecasts, 45% of prime working age women (ages 25-44) will be single by 2030—the largest share in history—up from 41% in 2018." Rise of the SHEconomy | Morgan Stanley 

Apparently, there will be more a market for cat accessories than baby toys if this is correct.  And trends seem to confirm the rise in single-women dominated households.  Marriage rates have plummeted in recent years, pretty much no major Christian church in the USA promotes marriage and raising children like was the norm up until the 1970s, and more and more men are opting opt of marriage.  And even in this age of alleged "egalitarianism" women still want to marry a man who earns as much, or more, than they do.  Whatever the reason for that, it spells less marriages in the future since women are dominating both university graduations as well as business start-ups.  

Check out my interview with the author of "Date-onomics" and please subscribe to my channel: 

So how will this affect society? I hypothesize a trend towards big government as well as a pull to the left in regards to culture. Why? Quite simple, demographic and genetic realities.

In the last election, you saw married women with children voting for conservative candidates, but single women with no kids being strongly for the left. Why?  Simple, women who are married focus their survival and maternal instincts on their children.  Mothers care more about the security of their children than other people, and that is as it should be.  So appeals for less power over their children, as well as employing guilt to get them to vote to "help causes" doesn't work on them.  They watch their household taxes go up, and they get angry, they  watch people challenge their family beliefs in classrooms, they see everyone else but them prioritized and their defenses go up.  No wonder they vote Republican.

The group that is single with no children will have to, for one reason or another, eventually realize they have no biological stake in the future, so they, being human and humans being a tribal species, will begin to identify with "communities." In the same way a middle-aged woman with no kids develops a liking for cats, a universally recognized substitute symbolizing babies, a single woman is quite apt to focus empathy and motherly yearnings onto causes. She may find groups deemed by liberals as "downtrodden" as needing her motherly attention. She might donate money, might volunteer time, but she will certainly demand you and I assist in helping her symbolic "children." These will be perfect targets for the left for manipulation. And while one may say the throngs of single Christian women will resist, it is more likely they will be the easiest to manipulate.  Not only do they have yearnings for children blocked by circumstances, they have been, in many cases, taught to feel guilt for their shortcomings.  This guilt can easily be harnessed by the left, and they can atone for whatever guilt they have by adopting an promoting left-wing "ideals."

One might ask what about single women who get pregnant, by accident or on purpose (i.e. sperm clinics). Well, ironically, this can safeguard against left-wing pressure, if the women are educated and financially able to maintain a household. Those unable may find the left's push for socialist appealing as they feel economically vulnerable. They will not be as likely to latch onto the left's social agenda, but economic safety-net issues might appeal to them enough to vote for the left. 

And what of the males who fail to marry, for one reason or another? Will they merely give up on society and withdraw into their own little worlds? If they do, then it will not matter what their political leanings are if they see no connection to the future, and, thus, decide not to bother with any sort of civic participation.

So in this equation, corporations benefit from an expanded workforce and consumer base (at least for a generation) and the left benefits from a contracting middle-class with its traditionally pro-family and American ideals in general. 

So can this be turned around? Perhaps if various Christian churches can address the trend of men disconnecting from being active in organized religion, thus not being available for dating and marriage to young Christian women. Churches can also stop trying to be appealing to the "modern" world by ignoring traditional teachings from scripture.  Silence on where the world is going implies consent, and, demographically speaking, the world is heading over the proverbial cliff. So, again, can this be turned around? Maybe not in the national context, but within our own families and religious communities it can, and it must. 

If you ever have wondered what the era of Noah may have looked like...https://www.amazon.com/Destiny-Our-Past-Michael-Cross-ebook/dp/B01MY4WASN

,