For an estimated two-thirds of America’s unmarried, childless women, the November 5 election was about rejecting a candidate who exuded “toxic masculinity,” along with rebellion against a Supreme Court that overruled their right to “reproductive health care.” And while these childless women and their candidate lost the election, they’re winning a bigger war. They are leading us to extinction.
We now have tens of millions of American women who think unrestricted access to abortions is more important than prosperity, security, freedom, and world peace. And in alarming percentages, these women are not having babies. What this portends transcends politics and strikes to the very future of civilization.
According to a 2024 study by Morgan Stanley, by 2030, around 45 percent of women between the ages of 25 and 44 are projected to be single and childless. That’s more than 21 million voters. Overall, single women of voting age make up 25 percent of the electorate—more than 40 million voters. And according to exit polls, 60 percent of single women voted for Harris.
The overwhelming rejection of Trump by single and childless women stands out because in their hands rests the future of Western civilization. What Trump represents to them are traditional sex roles, including marriage, family, and motherhood, and they find this repugnant. As a result, we are a dying nation.
We’re not alone. The increasingly popular decision by literally billions of women to opt out of motherhood is happening throughout the developed world and most of the developing world. The only continent still experiencing rapid population growth is Africa. The population of Africa in 1960 was 250 million. Since then, within one lifetime, it has increased six-fold to 1.5 billion. Within the next 25 years, the population of Africa is projected to grow by another billion people, to more than 2.5 billion inhabitants. And while the rate of population growth in Africa is expected to decline by 2050, even then it is expected to still be well above replacement rates.
The best way to gauge population growth (or decline) is to look at the total fertility rate per woman. In Niger, on average, each woman will bear 6.64 children. In the United States, that number is 1.84 and dropping. A rate of 2.1 is considered necessary for a population to remain stable.
Meanwhile, in response to Trump’s victory, liberal American women are embracing the “4B” movement. This is a feminist movement originating in South Korea, where “4B stands for the four ‘B’s or ‘Nos’ in Korean. They are ‘bisekseu’ (no sex with men); ‘biyeonae’ (no dating men); ‘bihon’ (no marrying men); and ‘bichulsan’ (no having children).”
It’s easy to imagine how this movement resonates with liberal American women who are horrified and angry at Trump’s victory, but South Korea is not a nation we should emulate. The projected fertility rate of South Korean women this year is down to 0.68. At that rate, their population is going to decline by 90 percent within two generations. At this rate, Koreans are doomed.
This is the nihilistic consequence of any culture that rejects marriage, family, and motherhood. Whether mindful of the ultimate impact of their choices or not, this is the fate liberal women are imposing on America. It is self-inflicted genocide, occurring in what may appear to be slow motion from the perspective of our short lives, but in the context of human civilization, this is happening at a pace that is stunning and unprecedented. No culture in history, lacking any other destructive variable such as mass starvation or pestilence, has ever just voluntarily dissolved itself into oblivion. But, with the exception of Africa, that’s what’s happening right now throughout the world.
In a guest opinion column written for Al Jazeera on November 4, Julie Bindel, “journalist, author, and feminist campaigner,” characterized the election as “Trump vs. Harris: American misogyny on the ballot.” Bindel’s essay, because it is so typical, is a useful example of how liberal American women have been trained to view sex and society. It is a comprehensive rejection of everything that might embrace traditional masculinity, but it has no answer to the prevailing question that must address her entire movement: if American women are to be liberated from traditional sex roles, how in the more perfect society that she envisions will women continue to have children? And if a huge percentage of women no longer have children, how will we survive as a nation?
Without presuming to speak for Julie Bindel, it would not be surprising if her answer were immediate and unequivocal. To care about your nation is racist. If we need more people, open the borders and let them in. We are privileged beneficiaries of an imperialist legacy, and everything we have is stolen. As a result, giving our nation away to the destitute millions migrating out of Africa and every other pocket of human fecundity left on earth is our moral obligation. As for the appalling treatment of women within these cultures that remain fertile? Never mind. Let them come.
As we fitfully navigate the transition from a Biden/Harris presidency that threw open the borders and celebrated every lifestyle imaginable so long as it didn’t involve having babies, and adapt instead to a Trump/Vance administration that will control the borders and end the demonization of masculine men and motherhood, it’s important to recognize the connectivity. The options for a nation confronting a crashing birth rate are clear and non-negotiable.
You either start having babies again, or you import people, or you die. If we rule out option three and choose to live, the two choices remaining are equally clear. You stop celebrating a culture that stigmatizes masculinity and motherhood, and to the extent your population remains in decline, you screen every single aspiring immigrant to America for character, intelligence, work ethic, and cultural compatibility and only admit the best.
America’s die-hard liberals, men and women, find Trump’s victory terrifying. Rediscovering our collective respect for masculinity and motherhood and screening immigrants for merit is going to scare the liberals even more. But not doing these things is not merely a matter of politics. It’s a matter of life and death. We must find a way.
Rediscovering our collective respect for masculinity and motherhood and screening immigrants for merit is going to scare the liberals even more. But not doing these things is not merely a matter of politics. It’s a matter of life and death. We must find a way.
And I guess post-birth abortion of leftists is out of the question??
Asking for a friend.
Bringing the 4B movement into this discussion is kind of a straw man argument. The women who have decided this is a rational decision in light of the election are A) least likely to live a celibate lifestyle, so I don’t think this particular method of demonstrating their displeasure will be long lived, B) most likely to terminate an unplanned pregnancy to begin with, so at best they are a placeholder in terms of population and C) least inclined to marry & have children if it inconveniences them in any way, so again, they were highly likely to be childless to begin with.
As a culture, we have kind of bought into the idea that an affluent lifestyle is a necessary component of parenthood; it’s part of what has driven the trend towards having children later in life, as has the trend of young people remaining in college for longer periods. The extension of adolescence ( no job, no responsibility, no plans) has pushed many people to delay starting a family until late 20s, early 30s or even later, in order to establish themselves professionally.
If you want to incentivize an increase in birthrates, there are a couple of things that would help. First would be a concerted effort to deprogram women from the idea that they *must * work outside the home to be a fully realized adult. Second, deal with the underlying economics that make two incomes necessary for a household to live above the poverty line. Third, be open to the idea that not everyone who stays home to raise the kids is necessarily the mother-- beyond the actually pregnancy/ delivery & breastfeeding, there is no role in childrearing that a man is incapable of fulfilling. Fourth, invest in trade schools. They may not be glamorous professions but they are necessary skills & a great way to facilitate a return to one- income households.
But let’s go bigger.
Why in the world did anyone take Rousseau seriously?
Why in the world did anyone take Marx seriously?
Why in the world did anyone think that women would thrive with multiple sex partners?
Why in the world did anyone think that women would do better being girl-bosses?
Why would anyone think that there is anything more important than grandchildren?
I don’t get it.
This is a free country, or it’s supposed to be a free country, although the past 20-30 years or so contradict that belief. That means people are free to decide what kind of life they want to live and accept the consequences. What stands opposite so many of these women deciding that “their best life” is a childless and single one? The U.S. government has championed singledom, American businesses certainly have, to the point that women with children are often at odds with competing responsibilities, and the institutions which championed marriage, children, and all of the joys and sorrows that accompany them, have remained mostly silent about the causes behind a shrinking population. So many so-called “leaders” were cowed, and cowered by militant feminists for so many years. Why? Did they feel guilty about treatment of women over the years? After all, women did not get the vote until the 20th century.
Some argue women should not vote based on the numbers of indoctrinated feminists and their choices at the polls. I believe it is a failure to oppose, vocally oppose, much of the feminist agenda (which is really Marxism wearing another disguise) these many years, and a failure until recently, to connect the consequences of that agenda with the agenda itself and do it publicly. There exist many, many cowards in the U.S. and they are mainly men. Yeah, I have to take it there, my peoples. American men have exploited women egregiously under the guise of “supporting feminism”. They have not acted honorably or even as adults, so I find it odd that now, of all times, AG chooses to focus yet another piece holding women responsible for the state of the nation while so many men vociferously supported those “choices”, or remained silent in the face of women making disastrous ones. Simply put, when men begin to act like men again, women will respond.
I am not at all certainly that a country with an ever-expanding population, whether due to native birthrates, or immigration, is a sign of “success”. A growing population does not necessarily connect to peace, prosperity, unity, or even stability. Our population has exploded over the past 30 years. Is our country better off? Would it have been better off had the population increase been due to native births, not mass, uncontrolled immigration? We will never know that. More people doesn’t signify anything but higher economic demands for everything in the country.
I am uncomfortable with men who write about women as some kind of monolithic group, just as blacks would be uncomfortable with whites writing about them as some kind of monolithic group. What men should be doing is writing about a future that makes a family not just possible, but preferred, and how to capture the attention of worthy women all over this world to join that future. Recall that Shakespeare’s “Taming of the Shrew” was ultimately a romance about a woman who did not want to get married, being caught at last in that tender trap.
Oh, how I wish I could give you more than one heart, Alecto!