For most of human history, scarcity was the enemy. Territory, calories, energy, and land all had to be fought for, hoarded, and rationed. Wars were waged and innovations forged to survive deprivation. But the material hardship that once united societies in common struggle has largely faded in the affluent world.

Now we face a different enemy: artificial abundance.

The future belongs to those who reject the simulacrum and embrace reality.

In the wealthiest nations, human beings are no longer selected for resilience in the face of scarcity. They’re selected for their ability to resist the seductions of abundance — synthetic food, fake relationships, dopamine on demand. The danger isn’t hunger or want, but the numbing comfort of simulated satisfaction.

Loaded with empty calories

Once, entire civilizations rose or fell depending on their ability to produce and preserve food. Famines routinely devastated societies, and most people spent their lives just trying to eat.

Now, calories come cheap and easy. Factory farming, food science, and global logistics mean even the poorest Americans can gorge on processed junk. A trip to McDonald’s or a few bucks at Walmart buys a week’s worth of empty calories.

But artificial flavorings and chemical fillers are no substitute for real food. They simulate nourishment, but slowly poison the body. Calories are now so available that obesity, not hunger, is the largest threat to the well-being of the poor. The need has been met — and subverted.

Sex and glory, sold cheap

The same dynamic has corrupted sexual desire. Historically, sex drove men to build civilizations, conquer enemies, win wealth, and rise in status. Today, that drive is short-circuited. Men can now simulate conquest and fulfillment without risk, pain, or purpose — through pornography and video games.

Why fight for honor or love when you can get the illusion of both from a screen? Instead of greatness, many young men settle for a life of digital masturbation — and that’s how the system likes it. Young men remain trapped in a kind of eternal adolescence: satisfied just enough to avoid rebellion, addicted just enough to stay quiet.

Fake attention, real loneliness

Social media and dating apps have similarly distorted the lives of young women. Women crave connection, validation, and community — roles they once fulfilled in family, faith, and friendship.

Now they chase attention online, deluding themselves into believing that likes and comments are the same as love and loyalty. Social media simulates female community and male desire, but gives neither. Depression rises. Real-life relationships crumble. Women fear male attention in person but crave it online, where they feel in control.

Blaze Media Illustration

What results is a dysfunctional, hypergamous dating market. Men won’t approach. Women hold out for the fantasy of the “perfect man” who never arrives. Both sexes lose.

Lockdowns revealed the lie

COVID-19 lockdowns showed us the true danger of attempting to simulate every aspect of human experience.

During the lockdowns, social interactions from school, church, work, and even bonding with friends over a meal became impossible. School, church, work, friendship — all of it was forcibly digitized.

The results were catastrophic: soaring depression, stalled childhood development, and broken education.

But the worst part? People stayed in their digital cages even after the doors opened. Simulated connection became easier than real interaction. And easier won.

The real thing is harder — and worth it

Reality demands effort. Family, community, faith, and responsibility are hard. They hurt. They risk rejection. But they matter.

Left alone with simulated choices, most people will pick the path of least resistance. That’s why society must rethink what it rewards. Because the simulations aren’t harmless distractions — they’re traps.

The French philosopher Jean Baudrillard called this phenomenon the “simulacrum” — a copy with no original. A cheeseburger that isn’t food. AI “friends” that aren’t human and virtual “communities” that cannot possibly relieve loneliness. A porn star who looks and behaves nothing like a real woman. Online attention that ruins offline romance. Video game violence that replaces true heroism.

An evolutionary filter

We face an evolutionary bottleneck as serious as any in human history. But instead of favoring the strong, smart, or adaptable, survival now depends on who can say no.

Can you say no to simulated sex? Simulated success? Simulated community? Can you hunger for meaning, not just comfort?

Those who make it through this filter will be the ones who choose austerity over ease — who hunger for the real thing. The future belongs to those who reject the simulacrum and embrace reality.

Artificial intelligence will only make these temptations worse. But those who refuse to be pacified will also be the ones who endure.

Choose meaning. Teach your children to do the same. The future depends on it.

TikTok trauma queens are scaring off decent men for good

Let’s stop pretending we don’t know why men are done with marriage. They’re not “afraid of commitment.” They’re not “toxic.” And they’re certainly not “intimidated by strong women.” No, men have just finally figured out what the rest of us should’ve admitted years ago: It’s a terrible deal. Not for women — oh no, we’ve gamed it beautifully. For men.

And now, they know it.

Any man who walks away from marriage isn’t afraid of commitment. He’s just smart enough not to sign up for a state-sanctioned mugging disguised as romance.

According to research from the Marriage Foundation, between 70% to 80% of divorces are initiated by women. Among college-educated women, that number jumps to 90%. Translation: The more educated she is, the faster she realizes she can exit stage left with the house, the kids, the 401(k), and a monthly check. All she has to do is say, “I’m not happy,” and a judge will handle the rest.

And what a show it is! He loses his kids, his paycheck, and often his sanity, trying to keep up with court-mandated payments while living in a sad little apartment, granted visitation rights so limited he needs a calendar app and a court order just to see his own kids. Meanwhile, she’s posting #SingleMomStrong like the children are accessories she won in the divorce. How exactly is this empowering for anyone?

Women’s emotional garbage cans

It’s not just the divorce itself — it’s what leads up to it. Modern women have traded femininity for feral instinct, egged on by a culture that rewards emotional instability and calls it “empowerment.”

Think I’m exaggerating? Just spend five minutes on TikTok. You’ll find women screaming into their phones about “healing energy” and “divine feminine rage,” sipping boxed wine in a bathtub surrounded by crystals and court summonses. These women don’t want to love a man — they want to fix their daddy issues with a living, breathing human wallet.

They call it love, but what they really mean is trauma alchemy: “If you loved me, you’d fix me.” No, sweetie. You fix you. Then maybe, just maybe, you’ll attract a man who doesn’t have to call his therapist after every date.

This epidemic of emotional dysfunction isn’t accidental. Many of these women were raised in homes where masculinity was vilified, fathers were absent, and mothers were so bitter they could curdle milk with a glance.

These girls were handed generational rage and told it was feminism. They didn’t heal; they weaponized their pain and waited for the first man dumb enough to step into range. And if he’s not dumb? He’s the enemy. Because how dare he not offer himself up as a sacrifice on the altar of her unprocessed trauma.

Courts eat men alive

Family courts, of course, are the handmaids of this dysfunction. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that less than 20% of custodial parents are fathers, despite all evidence that children need both parents. But try telling that to a judge who thinks “fatherhood” is a weekend hobby and “child support” is a government-backed extortion racket.

Many states rake in billions through Title IV-D incentives, meaning the more money the state extracts from fathers, the more it receives from the federal government. It’s not justice — it’s a racket. It's a taxpayer-funded kickback scheme that rewards broken families and punishes paternal love.

Ivan Rodriguez Alba via iStock/Getty Images

Worse, child support is often calculated not on what a man actually earns but on what the court believes he should earn. That’s called “imputed income” — and it’s how you turn a plumber into a felon because he couldn’t pay child support based on the fantasy that he’s a brain surgeon. If he misses a payment, he goes to jail. If she violates a custody order, she might get a warning. Maybe.

This isn’t equality. This is Turner v. Rogers in action. The Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that authorities can lock a man up for not paying child support without providing him a lawyer. Land of the free, indeed.

Here’s what’s wild: Women still don’t get it. Men aren’t angry at women — they’re done with them. Like this woman said, men are done negotiating with feral energy. They’re not trying to win an argument anymore. They’re exiting the game. Quietly. Permanently. And still, the same women who created the chaos stand around wondering, “Where did all the good men go?”

Honey, they’re over there — dodging alimony, living in peace, and thanking God they never married you.

‘Empowered’ women, depressed men

Here’s the kicker: We’re not even ashamed of it. We brag about it. We meme about it. Divorce glow-up. Trauma bonding. “Soft girl era.” Meanwhile, the men are just trying to stay out of court and off antidepressants. Feminism? Please. This is narcissism with a publicist.

Men want peace. They want loyalty, partnership, and respect. They want what their grandfathers had — a woman who had their back, not a woman who records their fights for social media clout.

But those women are rarer than ever. We’ve traded homemaking for hot-girl summer, traded character for chaos, and traded companionship for control. And then we expect men to marry us?

Newsflash: Men don’t marry liabilities.

We told them they weren’t necessary. We told them masculinity was toxic. We told them they owed us emotional labor, financial support, and full-time access to their phones. And when they refused, we called them weak. Now, they’re gone. And we still have the audacity to act confused.

Maybe it’s time we stop blaming men for not wanting us and start asking if we’re actually worth wanting. Until we clean up the emotional landmines, stop weaponizing the courts, and remember what being a woman actually means, we’re not a risk worth taking.

And any man who walks away from this mess isn’t afraid of commitment. He’s just smart enough not to sign up for a state-sanctioned mugging disguised as romance.

Women won the ‘war on marriage’ — now they miss the spoils

If feminists were honest revolutionaries, they would change their slogan from “Smash the Patriarchy” to “Mission Accomplished.” The numbers don’t lie. Single women own more homes than single men. More women are primary breadwinners than ever before. The gender balance on college campuses has completely changed over the past six decades. Women earned 35% of Bachelor’s degrees in 1960. Today, they earn close to 60%. Even the norms on sex have changed. Magazines like Teen Vogueand sex-positive feminist outlets will write in defense of “sex work” but would never publish a modesty manifesto urging women to be more “ladylike.”

Despite the “pay inequality” propaganda the left weaponizes to make women see themselves as victims, the truth is that the sisterhood has been victorious. The problem is that women's triumph has come at the cost of the one thing they want most: a family.

Plenty of men aren’t hostile to working women — they’re just not interested in marrying women who act like the job comes first.

Megyn Kelly recently highlighted a growing tension on the right: Young conservative women struggle to find marriage-minded men. The former Fox News anchor said many right-wing men avoid marrying women with careers. According to Kelly, these men see professional ambition as a threat to traditional family life. She warned this mindset could marginalize outspoken conservative women in high-profile jobs.

This debate cuts to the core of the right’s broader conversation about rebuilding the family. I’ve spent years researching marriage trends, and the concerns these women voice reflect real dilemmas. But the men aren't speaking nonsense, either. Many believe that career-driven women will inevitably choose ambition over family. They want wives who share their priorities — not women chasing a different future.

Recent data from the Pew Research Center backs this up. Just 43% of Republican women say society benefits when people prioritize marriage and children. That’s nearly 10 points lower than Republican men. Meanwhile, women are more likely than men to say careers make life fulfilling — 74% compared to 69%.

Men put more weight on family. Twenty-eight percent of Republican men say marriage is extremely or very important to a fulfilling life, compared to only 18% of women. When asked about children, 29% of men agreed, seven points higher than their female counterparts.

Some men may oppose working women on principle, but most simply want wives who put family ahead of career — especially during their children’s early years. Yes, many households need two incomes to get by. But the right’s current debates over gender, marriage, and fertility go far beyond money.

The word “economics” comes from the Greek "oikonomia," meaning household management. The home was never meant to be a holding cell. It was supposed to serve as the engine of spiritual, social, educational, and economic life.

Feminists like Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan rejected that idea. They framed the home as a prison, a place where women played “hostess” and “housekeeper” under the thumb of domineering husbands.

That mindset reshaped the culture. The most successful front in the gender wars wasn’t about breaking glass ceilings — it was about “liberating” women from any perceived duty to their husbands, children, or homes.

This obviously isn’t to say women don’t contribute at home. In most families, they’re the ones making sure meals get made, appointments get kept, and the kids show up to practice. But these actions aren’t framed as public obligations. No one shames a woman who misses the mark. There is no social penalty for opting out.

Meanwhile, the standards for men remain clear and unforgiving. For all the upheaval American families have seen in the past 50 years, society still expects men to provide and protect. A man who fails to support his family financially gets branded a “deadbeat.” A man who ducks behind his wife during a street altercation becomes a viral punchline.

Nothing comparable exists for women. Some suggest nurturing and supporting the family are equal expectations, but society rarely defines what those look like. Why? Because the feminist movement made it taboo to speak as if women must do anything in particular to be considered a good wife and mother.

That silence creates an imbalance in the home — an asymmetry that underlies not just policy debates on maternity leave but cultural arguments over “trad” lifestyles and modern family roles.

Society lectures men about duty and responsibility. It tells women about rights and freedom. When a father sacrifices for his family, he earns praise. When a mother does the same, she gets told to prioritize self-care — because a “whole” woman supposedly makes a better parent.

Even when women abandon their families, the media often wraps the story in the language of empowerment. A woman who leaves a decent husband and young kids to drink Chardonnay on Wednesdays and sweat through Bikram yoga on Thursdays won’t be condemned. She’ll be celebrated. Outlets will rush to reframe the desertion as a stunning and brave act of self-discovery. We can’t fix the American family without confronting sex differences. The political right burns energy on gender identity while ignoring a more urgent problem: how men and women function differently at home.

Plenty of successful men marry high-earning women. But no culture teaches that women should support both a grown man and their children. That’s why women tend to seek partners who earn more. U.S. Census data backs this up: Female physicians often marry within their profession. Male doctors, on the other hand, marry nurses and teachers.

Conservative women misunderstand the men they complain about. Most aren’t hostile to women in the workforce. They’re just not interested in marrying women who treat the job as their top priority. They want a wife who puts family first — because they do.

Even those who claim women can “have it all” admit they can’t have it all at once. You can’t spend 70 hours a week at the office and be as present for your children as a stay-at-home mother.

Men make that trade-off because we’re expected to provide. That’s why we don’t gripe when mom gets the first hug at graduation. But every career-driven woman who outsources her maternal role needs to answer one hard question: Is she comfortable with the nanny getting that moment instead?

Feminism weakened our military — now it’s time to fix the damage

In the spring of 2003, the U.S. military spearheaded a major push in high schools nationwide to recruit young women. Military recruiters even called homes asking for high school girls by name.

Meanwhile, military recruiters handed out trendy military “swag” at schools to help boost recruitment efforts. This occurred against the backdrop of the tragic story of 19-year-old Pfc. Jessica Lynch, whom the enemy captured in the post-9/11 Iraq War.

Truly moral nations do not place their women on the front lines.

Her eight days in captivity and her dramatic rescue became a round-the-clock news event. Jessica’s story was initially romanticized to lure young women into military service. Many moms, however, sensed the “fake news” was not telling the whole story.

Jessica Lynch’s nightmare

The heinous reality of Lynch’s captivity, revealed in her authorized biography, “I Am a Soldier, Too,” shattered the romanticized narrative surrounding women in the military. In captivity, Jessica endured three hours of torture by several Iraqis, which included anal sexual assault and rape. Her spine was fractured, her arm shattered, multiple other bones were broken, and she suffered internal injuries.

By the grace of God, Jessica was rescued by U.S. special operations forces from behind enemy lines. When asked eight months later in an interview by ABC’s Diane Sawyer about the decision to include the brutal sexual assault in the book, Lynch — to her credit — said, “It was a decision to tell the reality, not selective parts, of a story of going to war.”

We owe Lynch a debt of gratitude for her honesty and courage in sharing such a painful truth.

Obama lifts the ban

In 2013, 10 years after Lynch’s rescue, the Obama administration officially lifted the ban on women serving in combat roles. In fact, women were already serving in combat when Obama initiated this major policy shift, even though Congress had not approved it.

The original policy only allowed women in combat roles if they met the same training standards as men. When they failed to do so, the Pentagon lowered the standards, weakening military readiness and effectiveness. Twelve years of data now justify reconsidering why women were banned from combat roles in the first place.

Beyond physical strength differences, other practical concerns make integrating men and women in training or war zones problematic. These include increased romantic relationships, sexual activity, higher rates of STDs, unintended pregnancies, abortions, and sexual assault. Military leadership ignored these concerns to push a political agenda.

Thankfully, the “roar to restore” was heard in the 2024 election.

Reinstating sanity

Moms for America is grateful to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for having the courage to say aloud that women — especially moms — do not belong in combat. Years of radical feminist indoctrination have led young women to believe there is no difference — physical or emotional — between men and women. Such indoctrination has misled women, marginalized men, and perverted the natural chemistry of relationships between them.

Strong, intelligent, determined, and accomplished women have long held critical noncombat roles in the military, including medics, nurses, doctors, intelligence analysts, communications specialists, cybersecurity experts, logistical specialists, linguists, and many others. These roles are no less essential to the military’s mission than the infantry.

Men and women possess incredible and unique gifts and, in some roles, can perform to the same standards. Yet men and women are different, and acknowledging those differences is not discriminatory.

The call to reinstate the ban on women in combat does not disrespect the valued women who serve in the military, the parents who have daughters in the military, or those women who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Instead, it is a call back to sanity — to evaluate and assess a policy that never should have been changed.

Lowering standards for women decreases the military’s effectiveness and strength to protect and defend America. Moreover, keeping women in combat puts them at the same risk of torture and rape that Jessica Lynch endured during active combat.

Truly moral nations do not place their women or children on the front lines.

The feminist left has demonized the God-given instinct of men to protect women since at least the 1960s. It is time to tell the truth again. It is OK to say that we want men to protect women — and we are grateful for it.

It’s time to protect once again America’s mothers and daughters: Ban women in combat.

Timothy Gordon's mission from God: Restore the patriarchy

For a number of years, I’ve written about the so-called patriarchy, arguing it doesn’t truly exist — not in this weird world where women can do everything men can up to and including identifying as men.

But then I encountered Timothy J. Gordon, and my perception shifted. That's because Gordon, a self-described traditionalist Catholic, is a vocal advocate for the “online patriarchy." His ideas do not fit neatly into contemporary discourse; in fact, they brazenly reject it.

'I am not analogous to Andrew Tate any more than any Christian honestly attempting to live the true Faith would be to any smut-peddling, whoremongering warehouse-pimp in Eastern Europe.'

He goes into depth on his worldview in his new documentary, "What A Woman Is," which will be released this Valentine's Day.

For Gordon, patriarchy isn’t some nebulous bogeyman — it’s the natural order, divinely and biologically ordained, and society’s survival depends on its restoration. A lawyer turned philosopher in training, he mixes sharp arguments with no-nonsense critiques of the left, the Deep State, and what he sees as a society gone soft.

In other words, Gordon is a very interesting man. Think Jordan Peterson but without the word salad detours.

Digital dadosphere

“Patriarchy designates ‘power to fathers,’ meaning that God and nature clearly designed the family as having distinctly male leadership,” he tells me. “It doesn’t mean sex without consequences or that all women answer to all men. It means that individual fathers are the unequivocal leaders of their individual households.”

Gordon sees patriarchy as the backbone of functional society, an ancient organizing principle discarded at our peril. His vision is unapologetically hierarchical, rooted in scripture and 2,000 years of Christian tradition. According to Gordon, anything short of male-led households and all-male clergy is a “false gospel” that undermines Christianity itself.

Gordon’s concept of the “online patriarchy” is both niche and uncompromising. “Its core philosophy is Christianity, plain and simple,” he says, lamenting that even most Christians have been “totally brainwashed by feminists.” For Gordon, the patriarchy isn’t a metaphor for male dominance in boardrooms or politics — it’s about male authority within the family, a structure he believes is ordained by God and essential to human flourishing.

Critics might lump Gordon in with movements like the “red pill” community or men’s rights activists, but he rejects such comparisons outright. “The ‘red pill,’ ‘men’s rights,’ and ‘pick-up artistry’ do not constitute patriarchy,” he insists. “They categorically advise against men marrying, for sex before marriage, for contraception, and for the ‘empowerment’ of women in the workforce. Like feminists, they reject vital aspects of patriarchy.” Gordon believes that these movements are rife with impostors, and we should reject their philosophies.

Feminism as Original Sin

Gordon’s critique of modern feminism is also unsparing.

The American views it as nothing less than a “civilizationally subversive movement.” To him, feminism isn’t just political or social — it’s a theological betrayal rooted in the “Original Sin described in the Garden of Eden.” He frames it as “functional gender dysphoria,” a rebellion against God’s natural order. “Feminism convinces women that it is unhealthy to be feminine and salubrious to be masculine,” he argues. This rebellion, he claims, has dismantled families and plunged society into moral and spiritual chaos.

The push to force women into the workforce, Gordon says, is feminism’s most corrosive triumph. “Simone de Beauvoir famously urged the forcing of women; Betty Friedan countered her by suggesting that shaming ought to be the primary means. But the result was the same: misery and the destruction of the home.” Quoting Pope Pius XII, he underscores his point: “Equality of rights with man brought women’s abandonment of the home, where she reigned queen, and her subjection to the same work strain and hours, entailing depreciation of her true dignity and the solid foundation of her rights — her feminine role."

For Gordon, the fallout is undeniable. Citing studies like "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness," he states, “Almost two-thirds of working women are plagued by chronic diarrhea and other such functional disorders. Women who leave the matrix of the American workforce quickly get restored to better mental and physical health. Their families become fundamentally happier.”

Crude as the claim may sound, diarrhea and all, he’s not entirely off the mark.

The Christian mandate for patriarchy

Central to Gordon’s philosophy is the belief that patriarchy is far more than a cultural relic — it’s a divine mandate, etched into scripture, upheld by Catholic tradition, and enforced by the magisterium.

“Roman Catholicism requires household patriarchy not only in Scripture, but also in its Tradition and Magisterium,” he asserts. He backs this claim with no shortage of evidence, quoting Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical "Rerum Novarum": “A family, no less than a State, is a true society, governed by an authority peculiar to itself, that is to say, by the authority of the father.”

He points to further examples in Catholic teaching. “Leo makes it clear that married women must be at home: ‘A woman is by nature fitted for home-work, and it is that which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty and to promote the good bringing up of children and the well-being of the family.’”

He also highlights Pope Pius X’s unequivocal stance: “After creating man, God created woman and determined her mission, namely, that of being man’s companion, helpmeet, and consolation. ... It is a mistake, therefore, to maintain that women’s rights are the same as men’s.”

Gordon’s disdain for figures like Andrew Tate stems directly from this Christian framework. While both reject feminism, Tate, says Gordon, ends up perpetuating its core tenets.

“Tate advocates for feminism’s most basic elements: women in the workforce, free love, contraception, and the widespread avoidance of marriage,” Gordon argues. “Tate has convinced tens of thousands of men that they cannot reasonably hope to become happily married, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s really, really evil.”

For Gordon, true patriarchy is inseparable from faith, and anything less is just another distortion of the divine order.

“I am not,” he stresses, “analogous to Andrew Tate any more than any Christian honestly attempting to live the true Faith would be to any smut-peddling, whoremongering warehouse-pimp in Eastern Europe.”

The Moon-Beesly complex

One of Gordon’s more provocative takes is his critique of how media subtly undermines the appeal of marriage. He calls this phenomenon the “Moon-Beesly complex,” drawing inspiration from two beloved sitcom characters, Daphne Moon (of "Frasier") and Pam Beesly (of "The Office").

He explains: “Each transforms violently during their fictitious marital engagements, going from lovely and amicable young maidens who admire their future husbands ex ante, to spiteful married hags who actively subvert and resent their husbands ex post.”

For Gordon, this transformation isn’t just a storytelling trope — it’s a deliberate narrative designed to sour audiences on the idea of marriage. His theory holds up when you consider other iconic portrayals of married women. From Debra Barone (of "Everybody Loves Raymond"), constantly nagging and tired, to Carrie Heffernan (of "King of Queens"), perpetually frustrated with her husband’s antics, the pattern is undeniable.

Conversely, the depiction of married men is hardly flattering. From Homer Simpson to Peter Griffin, and even as far back as Al Bundy in "Married… with Children," husbands are cast as bumbling fools, barely tolerated by their exasperated wives. More recently, Hal from "Malcolm in the Middle" and Phil Dunphy from "Modern Family" carry on this tradition of the lovable but hapless dad, clueless about family dynamics and often the butt of every joke.

Fighting back

For Gordon, the media’s relentless portrayal of marriage as a joyless trap is no accident. “Disincentivizing marriage is the clear purpose of this vast psy-op,” he argues. But he insists this narrative is entirely false. “My own wife of nearly twenty years has borne me seven children and is stunningly beautiful, thin, submissive, friendly, and the most enthusiastically helpful person I’ve ever known.”

Despite the grim cultural tide, Gordon sees hope. “Yes, today’s average woman has been poisoned with bad ideas,” he admits. “But Christian women can be pulled out of the matrix, just as men can be. We are helping to do so in encouraging numbers.” For him, this is the essence of the “online patriarchy” — not some performative fantasy of playing farmer or homesteader but a practical call to action.

“We are just telling young Christian people of all three major types (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) that aside from being ordained a priest, getting married at a young age — prior to being morally and sexually corrupted, if possible — provides the best opportunity to lead a good, natural, Scriptural, Christian path to paradise,” he concludes. Gordon’s vision is clear, his message even more so.

Marriage isn’t a burden; it’s a calling from the man above.

Scott Galloway wants to save American men — so why does he seem like part of the problem?

America is facing a masculinity crisis. Disillusioned men, grappling with economic stagnation, addiction, societal alienation, and diminishing prospects, are seeking answers.

Enter Scott Galloway, an articulate, successful, and self-assured commentator who has positioned himself as a voice for this growing demographic.

By creating new terms like 'aspirational masculinity,' Galloway capitalizes on the crisis rather than offering a deeper or more original understanding of it.

Raised by a single mother, Galloway is no stranger to adversity, and his rise to prominence lends credibility to his calls for resilience and self-improvement. He offers some solid advice to men: save money, cultivate a strong work ethic, find a skill or craft and dedicate yourself to it, work out, and avoid numbing yourself with pornography. All these tips are laudable and necessary, yet they’re hardly revolutionary.

This is the paradox of Galloway. His advice, while practical and important, often feels like repackaged common sense. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this; sometimes people need a reminder of the basics. But it’s the authority with which he states the obvious that allows him to slip in less palatable ideas.

Common sense as Trojan horse

Galloway’s emphasis on basic principles such as saving money or maintaining physical fitness is difficult to dispute. These are universal truths that can improve lives, particularly for young men in search of direction.

But such advice is not novel or unique to him; it’s what fathers, coaches, and mentors have been telling young men for generations. This lack of profundity does not discredit Galloway entirely, but it raises the question: Why does he attract such an audience?

The answer, I suggest, lies in his ability to use this plain-as-day foundation as a Trojan horse for smuggling in more noxious narratives.

In a recent discussion with comedian Theo Von, Galloway claimed that masculinity is a social construct, a statement that undermines the very crisis he claims to address.

Masculinity is not a construct; it is rooted in biology and evolution. Testosterone drives traits like risk-taking, competitiveness, and dominance, traits that have been essential for survival and resource acquisition for millennia.

While cultural norms influence the way masculinity is expressed, the underlying biological framework is undeniable. Across cultures, men have been leaders, protectors, and providers not because society arbitrarily decided so but because these traits were adaptive.

The narrative of masculinity as a mere social construct, however, has been shaped and championed by universities. Galloway himself is a professor, a product of, and participant in, this academic culture. His vocation and its implications will be discussed in a minute, but by framing masculinity as a construct, he risks alienating the very audience he seeks to empower. Moreover, he dilutes the urgency of addressing the genuine struggles men face today.

Rage against the machine?

Galloway, a man incredibly fond of his own voice, likes to sell himself as a renegade truth-teller, someone unafraid to challenge societal narratives.

However, the 60-year-old is also an employee of NYU, a university that has for years pushed nonsensical and rather harmful narratives, including the scourge of "toxic masculinity" and the ubiquitous presence of "white privilege." In other words, Galloway is not an outsider taking on the system; he is very much a part of it.

NYU and institutions like it have unapologetically and unforgivably steamrolled over the men of America, particularly white men, for years. These universities have fostered a culture that vilifies traditional masculinity and imposes ideological conformity. All in the name of progress, of course.

Galloway’s association with such an institution casts doubt on his credibility as a champion for men, raising the uncomfortable possibility that his critiques are carefully curated to stay within the boundaries of acceptable discourse as defined by the very system he claims to critique. He’s less Jordan Peterson and more Judith Butler.

Aspirational masculinity

Galloway has recently started promoting the concept of "aspirational masculinity."

Although not as blatantly nonsensical as "toxic masculinity," it makes the same fundamental mistake. Just as there is no such thing as toxic masculinity, there is no such thing as aspirational masculinity.

We have masculinity and femininity. These are biological realities shaped by evolution. There are aspirational qualities that a man can embrace — courage, discipline, resilience — just as there are toxic traits, such as cowardice or cruelty. However, these qualities exist separately from masculinity itself.

Masculinity is not inherently good or bad; it simply is. Attempting to redefine it with qualifiers like "aspirational" or "toxic" muddles the conversation and risks further alienating the very men Galloway claims to help.

As a professor of marketing, Galloway is clever, and one might assume he is using the term "aspirational masculinity" as a savvy branding tool to promote his upcoming book on the topic, which he recently revealed in the interview with Von.

This is where his critique becomes more of a commercial pitch. By creating new terms like "aspirational masculinity," Galloway capitalizes on the crisis rather than offering a deeper or more original understanding of it.

Plant-based pandering

Another suspicious aspect of Galloway’s advice is his promotion of plant-based diets.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that true masculinity requires eating five chickens and three cows every day. However, a good diet is the cornerstone of good health, and without good health, no man — or human — can aspire to become their best self.

Plant-based diets that completely exclude meat-based proteins are dangerous and destructive to one’s health. A man surviving on avocado toast and lentil soup isn’t the guy to call when the proverbial s**t hits the fan. Meat provides essential nutrients, including high-quality protein, iron, zinc, and vitamin B12, that are difficult — if not impossible — to replicate with plant-based alternatives.

While moderation and balance are important, Galloway’s promotion of such dietary ideologies seems more aligned with trendy health movements than with the pragmatic advice he claims to offer.

The need for better role models

Galloway’s willingness to insert feminist-friendly narratives, emphasize LGBTQ issues, promote plant-based eating, and invent new terms like "aspirational masculinity" creates a contradictory and, at times, incoherent message.

Why should straight men, already struggling with disillusionment and isolation, turn to movements and ideologies that often marginalize or vilify traditional masculinity? The inclusion of these talking points feels more like a strategic attempt to avoid controversy than a genuine engagement with the issues at hand.

Masculinity’s crisis cannot be resolved by diminishing its biological foundation or by conflating it with ideologies that often run counter to the traditional male experience. Men do not need more guilt or a forced adoption of narratives that ignore their lived realities; they need role models who celebrate their strengths and offer practical solutions without undermining their identity.

True role models would reject the notion that masculinity is a social construct and instead celebrate the biological and evolutionary traits that have shaped men for centuries. They would focus on fostering purpose, resilience, and accountability without veering into unnecessary ideological territory.

Galloway’s upcoming book on the masculinity crisis may offer insightful insights, but I have my doubts. Unless he clears up his meandering messages, it won’t land with the men for whom he claims to speak.

Sure, it’ll probably get glowing reviews from CNN, where he’s a regular guest, and the New York Times, a publication that’s made no secret of its disdain for the average American man.

And that’s the real issue. Galloway acts like he’s talking to the men of America, but he’s really preaching to the same machine he’s part of — the one that’s been grinding masculinity into the dirt for far too long.

Our sons deserve to dress like men

Our sons are born into a world of moral and aesthetic chaos. There are no rules, no expectations, no limits.

The barriers that frame our traditionally fixed forms are broken down in front of our very eyes. Any sense of hierarchy is eviscerated. The definitions of man and woman are mutilated. Sacred and profane are turned in a blender together. Culture is flattened, and American aesthetics are forgotten.

Your grandfather learned how to dress from his father, and your father from his father. What are you teaching your son?

And in this perilous state, there are men who claim that clothes do not matter.

Cultural slop

These men do not understand the harsh reality that if they do not teach their sons how to dress, their sons will be swallowed up by the cultural slop of our era. They claim that clothes aren’t important and that men don’t need to care about how they dress. They couldn’t be more wrong.

It’s not only that this idea is wrong. It’s dangerous. It’s giving up and surrendering your son to the tides of mass-culture 2024. It’s this attitude that allows the creeping hands of culture-less androgyny to grasp the throat and squeeze.

This androgyny is a primary thrust of our time. A confusing of man and woman. Telling children that boys can be girls and girls can be boys. It’s in the language; it’s in the messaging; it’s in the clothes. If you do not resist aesthetically, you will be eaten alive. If you do not swim, you will float down the river like a dead log. To oppose the culture of 2024, it’s not enough to talk about it. You must embody it aesthetically. If you do, the impact is powerful.

Man or beast?

Why do we wear clothes? Because we are not beasts. We were exiled from the Garden many years ago, and since then, we have covered ourselves. Today, we have civilization. Since we do not walk around nude, our clothes reflect the divine and eternal forms of man and woman.

Deuteronomy 22:5 should come to mind. There is a reason why God tells us that men should not wear women’s clothes and women should not wear men’s clothes. Concerns about men and women wearing appropriate clothing are as deep in our civilizational psyche as practically any other concept.

Of course, clothes are not only about making a distinction between man and woman. Clothes are also about culture and values. When we look at someone, we see his clothes immediately. You cannot meet people and ignore their clothes. They scream out at you. You will always remember something about what someone wears. It’s not only the colors or the fabric. You communicate with your clothing. Clothes tell the world who you are, where you are from, and even what you believe — whether you like it or not. Clothes are an acute aesthetic manifestation and representation of both culture and sex.

How much “gender confusion” was there when women wore dresses and skirts regularly and men wore ties and jackets every week? Very little. It’s not that those things were the only things preventing the tragic chaos and confusion we see today, but those things were part of the broader aesthetic structure that kept order. We live in the world, not only in our minds. When men dressed like men, it kept them strong men. When women dressed like women, it kept them beautiful women.

Derelict

We read endlessly about the dire state of young men these days. After reading, do you think there is no connection between the nihilistic misery of young men and the fact that a great majority of them look like street urchins?

Do you think there is no connection between the depression and social isolation of the boys who wear foolish clothes and those clothes that only remind themselves of how foolish they are? Of course there is a connection. It is clear as day. Young men are being beaten down by their clothes, and no one will help.

Claiming that clothes don’t matter and thoughtlessly turning your son over to the mode du jour is surrendering to madness, giving up the fight, abdicating responsibility. It’s a sign of ignorance and unawareness.

A traditional value

It’s our job as fathers to teach our sons how to dress like men and with a sense of dignity. No one else is going to do it for us. It’s our responsibility. Our boys look up to us. We are their first teachers. This is not a new value. This is a traditional value. Your grandfather learned how to dress from his father and your father from his father. What are you teaching your son? That you don’t care? Or how to dress like a man of the West?

If you do not teach your son how to dress, the culture will do it for you. And this culture will not teach him to dress like a man. It will teach him to dress like a slob. It will teach him to dress in a way that depresses him. Our current culture will not try to elevate him. It does not want him to be strong and confident. Counting on the current culture to teach our sons how to dress is equivalent to turning your son loose on the internet all day, every day. You would never do that, would you?

Teaching our sons aesthetic values in personal dress is an important part of teaching them how to be men. This value has been terribly neglected in recent decades, and we are tragically living with the consequences. It is chaos, confusion, misery, and an ugly world. Our sons deserve better. Our sons deserve to dress like men.

Today's most urgent question: What is a man?

In my last piece, I reflected on the state of the NFL’s relationship with the rise of data analytics and how it’s been contributing to the progress of the transhumanist agenda.

It made me ponder more deeply the questions we as human beings are confronted with as we hurtle headfirst into a more and more technology-dependent society.

The things that gave men meaning in their lives have all but disappeared. And how do the masculinity gurus of conservatism address this? They cope.

As we become more dependent on technology to complete the tasks that human beings have always performed, we’ve come to the point where we must ask ourselves … what exactly are we?

Division of labor

My mind naturally began to think about the division of labor within traditional family households.

A wife and mother would traditionally be a homemaker and nurturer of the children. A husband and father would traditionally be the one who would labor out in the world and bring home the income and provisions.

This gender-oriented division of labor came into being almost entirely out of necessity. Sure, maybe social ideologies sprang up over time about gender roles that may or may not have been healthy. But fundamentally, a husband and wife performed the roles they did because a man can do things only a man can do and a woman can do things only a woman can do.

But now, we live in a different world, a very affluent, technology-dependent world. Everything is taken care of for us. Machines do almost all the essential work for us, and it’s only a matter of time until they do the entirety of it.

The American economy isn’t a manufacturing one any more. When most Americans go to “work,” it is not to labor but to provide some kind of service, which both men and women can do. And compared to the rest of the world, we make a lot of money performing these services.

Idle hands

It’s given us Americans security and time. And with security and time, we’ve gotten bored. So bored that we make up new problems for ourselves just to give us an artificial sense of insecurity. People are so free from their traditional gender roles (and therefore actual problems) that they now identify as new genders.

That conservative commentator Matt Walsh was able to produce an entire documentary dedicated to answering the question “What Is a Woman?” is a clear sign of how out of hand the situation has gotten. Everyone had a big, hearty laugh as they watched some blue-haired child psychologists squirm and struggle to define what an adult female human being is in exact terms.

But the problem is real, and it’s much deeper than a predatory pharmaceutical industry pushing kids and adults into gender-affirming surgery.

The necessary question

To fully appreciate the scope of the question “What is a woman?” we must ask the necessary (and more urgent) follow-up question: What is a man?

Seriously, what is a man in the 21st century … and beyond? It’s the most important question that absolutely no one is thinking about.

Think about what I’ve already said within this one article. We live in a time when all traditional roles have been stripped from both genders due to affluence, which is due to the development of automated technology.

And because we don’t make anything any more, what do we offer as an economy instead? Health care, education, retail, and entertainment.

Or in other words – nurturing, child-rearing, homemaking, and sex.

Monetizing the feminine

Any role that’s ever been traditionally feminine has been taken out of the households and plugged straight into the economy. In his book "The New Politics of Sex," political theorist Dr. Stephen Baskerville cites G.K. Chesterton on the matter:

If people cannot mind their own business, it cannot possibly be made economical to pay them to mind each other’s business; and still less to mind each other’s babies. ... The whole really rests on a plutocratic illusion of an infinite supply of servants. When we offer any other system as a "career for women," we are really proposing that an infinite number of them should become servants, of a plutocratic or bureaucratic sort. Ultimately, we are arguing that a woman should not be a mother to her own baby, but a nursemaid to somebody else’s baby. But it will not work, even on paper. We cannot all live by taking in each other’s washing, especially in the form of pinafores.

Motherly instincts have merely been bureaucratized, resulting in every woman either being cooped up in an office doing meaningless paperwork or cooped up in a shoebox apartment making OnlyFans content. Or both.

No market for manhood

Meanwhile, masculine roles got absolutely and systematically shafted by modernity.

Wanna get married to the woman of your dreams and raise a family? Sorry, the no-fault divorce and state welfare machineries have all but made real, long-lasting marriage an unappealing artifact of history.

Wanna take masculine pride in your occupation or the money you make? Good luck. America hasn't been a manufacturing economy in decades. All productive jobs involving real labor have been outsourced to China, automation, or H-1B immigrants.

Any man who currently has a “masculine” job such as farmer, truck driver, construction worker, or oil rigger will be replaced by a robot running the latest ChatGPT woke programming within the next 25 years.

That’s where we're at as men, and that's where we're going. We've been systematically disenfranchised. We've lost the means to exhibit patriarchal authority over the family unit due to the failure of marriage policy, and all opportunities to pursue productive labor and upward mobility are quickly dwindling due to automation.

The things that gave men meaning in their lives have all but disappeared.

Plato's man cave

And how do the masculinity gurus of conservatism address this?

They cope. They preach “primitivism” as the escape hatch from modernity. Go hunt. Go chop wood. Drink whiskey. Eat beef.

Even Matt Walsh gives his diagnosis on how to be a man: Don’t take any sick days from work.

Yeah, Stacey is girlbossing as she runs up racks with her nursing job and OnlyFans side hustle with $500K saved up in the bank while you're busy telling young, impressionable boys to man up and stay committed to an office job that will have him replaced within a decade, all from the comfort of your man-cave studio.

There is no “manning up” in 2024 and beyond. Wake up. The system has all but wiped out everything that once allowed men to find meaning in their lives.

So we need to tackle the question seriously and sincerely.

What is a man?

Should women date gamers? Should gamers watch 'Titanic'?

A couple of weeks ago, Liz Wheeler went viral on X for a post that listed men’s least attractive hobbies according to women.

While Wheeler (and now the community note) clarified that the statistics presented were satirical, it still managed to stir up quite a bit of controversy. The top hobby on the imaginary “most hated” list was video games.

What if regularly spending six consecutive hours playing video games isn’t bad because it’s unattractive but because it’s actually unhealthy?

Predictable gender war crossfire ensued. Men hissed back:

“Women like you assume your company is more interesting and valuable than a good video game. You are incorrect.”

“Women really do hate when men are happy doing something that isn’t centered around them.”

“Well, we're not going to sit around and watch the Titanic for the tenth time.”

On one hand, it is understandable to feel defensive when you perceive that something you personally enjoy or take pride in is generalized and belittled. This is the essence of stereotyping, and no one has the stomach for it any more. On the other, is the response proportional to the perceived offense, which was simply an expression of preference?

The internet has become a battleground for gendered infighting, and the constant bickering has done nothing but send us farther into our respective corners. We all want to generalize but not be generalized. Meme warfare offends this sensibility. It’s not for the faint of heart.

But — and hear me out — stereotypes exist for a reason. What if regularly spending six consecutive hours playing video games isn’t bad because it’s unattractive but because it’s actually unhealthy? In other words, what if it’s unattractive to women because it’s bad for men, not bad for men because it’s unattractive to women?

There's growing evidence to suggest that gaming can be just as addictive as gambling, leading to withdrawal from and loss of interest in social life and problems at school and work.

According to recent study on what's been termed internet gaming disorder:

Current prevalence estimates of IGD vary widely (2–15%). ... Prevalence may be underestimated due to low response (surveys take time away from gaming) and underreporting (a criterion of IGD is hiding one's extent of internet gaming). Yet, even by conservative estimates, with 318 million people in the US playing digital games, at least 5 million (probably many more) meet criteria for IGD, experiencing personal, social, and academic difficulties.

Perhaps women’s intuition isn’t as shallow as some have made it seem. Perhaps hard-core gaming, as the study suggests, indicates a deeper problem that impedes long-term social success in life. It’s too easy to dismiss Wheeler and the women who agree with her as nagging busybodies who just don’t like it when men “have fun.” Maybe some of them are. But maybe, deep down, some of these guys don’t like their reflection. Accountability is a bitter pill. Distraction is easier.

That said, on the particular level, does it really matter if a guy is a gamer as long as he isn’t hopelessly addicted and antisocial about it? If a gamer finds a woman and they fall madly in love, is he still “unattractive”? Certainly not to his sweetheart. And conversely, if you’re a woman who finds gaming unattractive, don’t date a gamer. It really is that simple. Who cares?

As one commenter said, “Attraction is subjective; hobbies don’t define someone’s worth or attractiveness. Crazy thought: Maybe we let people enjoy what they love without reducing their value based on personal preferences for entertainment.” Well said.

Meet the mothers defying America's birth dearth

In the midst of a historic "birth dearth," why do some 5% of American women choose to defy the demographic norm by bearing five or more children?

Catherine Ruth Pakaluk’s recent book, "Hannah’s Children: The Women Quietly Defying the Birth Dearth," is a compelling portrait of these overlooked but fascinating mothers, women who, like the biblical Hannah, see their children as their purpose, their contribution, and their greatest blessing.

"After three it gets easier because your older kids organically start to help, and you get better at what you’re doing. That’s a message few people hear. Five kids aren't five times harder than one."

Pakaluk is an associate professor of social research and economic thought at Catholic University and came onto "Girlboss, Interrupted" this week to talk about her (literally) vital work.

Herself the mother of eight, Pakaluk traveled across the United States and interviewed 55 college-educated women who were raising five or more children. Through open-ended questions, she sought to understand who these women are, why and when they chose to have a large family, and what this choice means for them, their families, and the nation.

In this exclusive interview for Align, Pakaluk elaborates on the challenges declining birth rates pose to society and what can or should be done to help.

Align: Why did you write this book? What do you hope that your work will do to add to or change the conversation around motherhood in America?

Catherine Ruth Pakaluk: Super low birth rates mean a future of economic stagnation — as the supply of workers and ideas slows down, political instability, as government revenues shrink, fraying social ties, as people grow up with fewer siblings and extended family. All these worries are coming to the surface in the national dialogue — and everyone wants to know: What will it take to reverse the trend? Can we incentivize women and families to have more babies?

But the conversation has totally overlooked the most important point of all: If people want children, why do they want them? What makes children and motherhood valuable? Are children worth wanting for their own sakes and not only as they fit into adult needs?

I wrote this book to put the question of the desirability of children front and center. We will not reverse the trend of low birth rates until we face that question. So I hoped my work would move us to talk more about the value of motherhood.

Align: Do you think that family life has been intentionally devalued? Cui bono?

CRP: Hard question. Of course, all kinds of things get devalued unintentionally when the comparison set changes. How valuable is this "compared to what"? Shiny new things come along. Apple watches devalued analog watches. The contraceptive revolution — the pill (in 1960) with legal abortion as backup — initiated the largest shift of mothers into the non-domestic workforce in history. I don’t think people thought of reproductive control as devaluing family life — but it fundamentally changed the choice set.

Before the pill, the alternative to having children would have been a lot of abstinence or forgoing marriage. After the pill, alternatives to having children included marriage, and — if you wanted it — more education and a job. All without a life of abstinence.

The pill changed the "compared to what" for family life, and many women, then and now, want some of that new "comparison" option. To the extent that higher education and jobs became viable for women — to that extent family life was "devalued." All of this can be true without any intentional plan to devalue motherhood.

We know that some technologies can be individually rational, that is, any single person feels better off using it — but as a group it puts the whole in a worse place. We’re starting to wonder if smartphones are like this — none of us wants to give one up personally, but overall we’re more anxious, depressed, and socially mixed up. Our kids may be suffering most of all. That’s a collective action problem. Looking back, the pill may be something like that — a rational choice for any one woman, but a bad deal when we’re all in. The pill initiated a shift to where a life dedicated to raising children no longer looks as valuable.

Separately, I do think powerful evil forces — principalities and powers — have worked to devalue human life in general, because God loves human life. These forces employ unsound economic theories and play on irrational fears that there won’t be enough stuff to go around. This is a longer story, but it reaches back at least two hundred years and includes Marxism, Darwinism, eugenics, Planned Parenthood, and the population bomb rhetoric and global policies. Now, any devaluation of human life per se will cash out as an attack on family life, since the family is the cradle of humanity.

Courtesy Regnery Gateway

Align: Why did you choose to focus on college-educated women?

CRP: There is a powerful correlation between higher women's education and lower birth rates, observed across countries and over time — so powerful that education is sometimes hailed as “the best contraceptive.” This is the reason why Emmanuel Macron commented about getting more education for girls in Africa, since “perfectly educated” women wouldn’t go on to have large families. My reply to his statement and my follow-up with a graduation photo inadvertently went viral with the hashtag #postcardsforMacron.

As people struggle to understand the future of fertility in the modern world, the perceived tension between women’s education and sustainable birth rates will be front and center. Some on the right are taking aim at women's education itself, asking if that’s the turn that takes us to below replacement fertility.

I don’t think that’s the story — but unpacking why that isn’t the story required talking to women with college degrees who seem to "defy" the trend. So that’s what I did. Their tale provided a counter-narrative — one in which the value of children takes center stage.

There’s a risk, of course, that some readers will wonder if I interviewed college-educated women because I think college degrees are ideal for women or for people. I didn’t, and I don’t. I actually tend to think too many men and women go to college today — but that's a subject for another time.

Align: Can you address the popular notion that having kids ruins one’s life? Did any of your case studies talk about this idea or mention how they deal with the real difficulties that children can introduce?

CRP: Lol. Absolutely! It came up in lots of ways — throughout the interviews. The short answer was something like — “of course, kids do ruin your life!” But what they ruin is life as you knew it. On the other side you get a new life, one you don’t know about yet.

You become a mom, the center of the universe for a person who will love you more than you knew it was possible to be loved. You become a heroine, a savior, an angel — the only pair of arms that will answer in the night. You get all this — yes, it wrings you dry sometimes, but it’s worth giving up the old life!

One of the moms said, “When you make a choice, something else dies.” That’s true for whatever you do. Nobody says, well, you became a lawyer, so your life is ruined. But of course, as a lawyer, you can’t sleep till noon or do whatever you want. Those luxuries die. And that’s okay. Anything demanding requires a change in your life — it’s just how much do you want it? Is it worth the change?

Chuong Nguyen, host of the "Unlicensed Philosophy" podcast (based in Budapest, Hungary) told me that his father used to say (and I’m paraphrasing): "The man I am today was born the day you were born." I really love that. I think that’s the way to think about it.

There are plenty of stories in the book about how women process the everyday difficulties. One of the main lessons — mothering little ones gets harder up to a point, maybe three kids. But after three it gets easier because your older kids organically start to help, and you get better at what you’re doing.

That’s a message few people hear. Five kids aren't five times harder than one. It’s actually a lot easier than having one — in terms of the lifestyle challenge.

Align: What do you think it will take for America to reverse its low fertility rates, leaving aside the question of immigration?

CRP: To reverse the low fertility trap, more women and men have to come to view children as blessings — expressions of God’s goodness, rather than as something like a consumer good you weigh against other goods in your life.

If kids are in the latter category, we tend to fit them into an ever-expanding set of things we want to have or do, and kids get a smaller and smaller share of time in adult lives. But when they’re in the former category, seen as blessings, they become something of first rank, something we order our lives around and make sacrifices for.

My work suggested that to reverse the birth rate, it won’t be enough to nudge people who see children as consumer goods into an extra child or more. We’ll need more of the people who see children as blessings and lovingly have three, four, or more children.

Israel has a stable above-replacement birth rate today because it has a higher percentage of devout Jews with larger families. That can be our future too. To get there, we need to pass legislation to allow all families to spend their tax dollars on religious and church-based schools where biblical values are nourished and protected.

We also need to pursue all other avenues to widen the impact of living religious communities — this generally means the state taking a step back and letting churches grow stronger by doing more: more charitable work, more youth work, more health care work, and more social assistance work.