How Getting Marriage ‘Wrong’ Destroyed Every Great Civilization in World History

The title is a bold claim, but it’s one I intend to prove.  This article will end someplace I doubt you will expect, but it’s where it must end because that’s where the facts point.  (I had alter some long held beliefs while researching it.)

This is the first part of a series on marriage and gender.  Please note: I’m doing this article series backwards. Typically, I show what the scriptures say and then apply that to life.

However, sometimes the Bible teaches hard truths.  I’ve found people are more willing to listen to these hard truths if show the consequences of ignoring them first.  Therefore, I’ll provide historical, sociological, and biological evidence of what happens when you ignore the Bible’s prescriptions on marriage.  Afterward, we’ll see the right way according to scripture.

Let’s dive in.


Fatherless Homes = Bad

I”ll be making the case that fatherless homes cause a society’s destruction.  But while they are the cause, fatherless homes themselves are an inevitable result of the true root cause.  The trail will end at marriage, but it’ll take a few steps to get there.  Please bear with me.

For starters:

…almost every social ill faced by America’s children is related to fatherlessness.

The above quote is from an article on about the consequences of fatherless homes. Here are a few chilling facts on the topic: (source citations in article)

  • 80% of adolescents in psychiatric hospitals come from fatherless homes
  • 71% of high school dropouts are fatherless; fatherless children have more trouble academically, scoring poorly on tests of reading, mathematics, and thinking skills; children from father-absent homes are more likely to be truant from school, more likely to be excluded from school, more likely to leave school at age 16, and less likely to attain academic and professional qualifications in adulthood.
  • Children living in female headed families with no spouse present had a poverty rate of 47.6 percent, over 4 times the rate in married-couple families.

Just to point out, that’s nearly half of all single mother homes live in poverty.  The following are from another article that’s collected more fatherless home stats:

  • 90% of homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes. [US D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census]
  • 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes. [Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, pp. 403-26, 1978]
  • 71% of pregnant teenagers lack a father. [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services press release, Friday, March 26, 1999]
  • 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. [US D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census]
  • 85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. [Center for Disease Control]
  • 90% of adolescent repeat arsonists live with only their mother. [Wray Herbert, “Dousing the Kindlers,” Psychology Today, January, 1985, p. 28]
  • 75% of adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes. [Rainbows f for all God’s Children]
  • 70% of juveniles in state operated institutions have no father. [US Department of Justice, Special Report, Sept. 1988]
  • 85% of youths in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. [Fulton County Georgia jail populations, Texas Department of Corrections, 1992]
  • Fatherless boys and girls are: twice as likely to drop out of high school; twice as likely to end up in jail; four times more likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems. [US D.H.H.S. news release, March 26, 1999]

Need I go on?

Okay, one more:

Of the 27 deadliest mass shooters, the vast majority came from broken families with no biological dad at home.

(Source. there’s conflicting data, but some say its as high as 26 out of 27.)


The Result of all These Fatherless Homes

Again, from the article on

– A study using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health explored the relationship between family structure and risk of violent acts in neighborhoods. The results revealed that if the number of fathers is low in a neighborhood, then there is an increase in acts of teen violence. The statistical data showed that a 1% increase in the proportion of single-parent families in a neighborhood is associated with a 3% increase in an adolescent’s level of violence. In other words, adolescents who live in neighborhoods with lower proportions of single-parent families and who report higher levels of family integration commit less violence.

Fatherless homes = bad. (understatement of the century)

If you’ve ever wondered what makes inner city ghettos so bad, this single statistic explains it.  You say: “but wait, it only says ‘single-parent families’ not ‘fatherless families’.”  That’s true, but “single parent” means fatherless in over 80% – 90% of cases (which I’ll prove lower down).  We’ll see why, and look at the cause of all these fatherless homes in just a minute.

Here’s the point: fatherless societies are criminal societies, and no civilization can long survive when large portions of its populace are criminals.

Please read that again.

It’s important.

A great example of this is the black community. I would break it down for you, but PragerU has already done that for me:

As an interesting addendum:

Children living with their married biological father tested at a significantly higher level than those living with a nonbiological father.


Not only do children need a father, but their actual biological father is best.  Not that adoptive dads can’t be an excellent influence – they can be and are – but a child’s biological dad is best.

Regardless of the reasons: 1 in 3 American children live in a fatherless home. (source)


Why Fatherless Children Misbehave more than Motherless Children

Fathers intentionally parent for well-behaved children; that’s actually most of their goal.

Dads tend to discipline because they want their children to grow up to do well in the world and not get denied opportunities because they’re not well behaved,” Bryson explains. In other words, the impact of paternal [father] discipline may show up later in life because that’s actually the intent.


By contrast, mothers  do things differently:

Mothers tend to discipline kids more because they care about their social relationship with their child. That’s why mothers are more likely to take misbehavior personally, and kids appear to fall apart more in response — because they are primed to react more emotionally.

This different focus (behavior vs relationship) is why it’s the father who matters in terms of making the kids behave.  Strict mothers can actually be counter-productive.

Based on the self-reported accounts of disciplinary styles moms and dads, results showed that when mothers used more harsh, coercive, and power-assertive forms of discipline, their kids displayed more aggression and were generally less popular with among their peers. Paternal [father] disciplinary behaviors, on the other hand, seemed to have little to no effect.

Of course, being only strict isn’t good either.  You also need the warmth and love of parents to raise healthy children.

‘Multiple studies have documented that children who have authoritative parents – that is, both firm disciplinarians and warm, receptive caregivers – are more competent than their peers at developmental periods, including pre-school, school age and adolescence,’ said the report.


Now, let’s look at how all these fatherless homes are created.


How did we get all these fatherless homes?

No surprise, but the answer is primarily through divorce and out-of-wedlock births.


Out of wedlock births

According to the CDC, 39.8% of births in the United States are to unmarried women. (which I’ll round up to 40% for the remainder of this article)  You might initially assume that statistics means 40% of children start in a fatherless home, but that’s not the case.  There has been a dramatic increase in the number of cohabiting, unmarried couples with children.

Growing share of unmarried parents are cohabiting

However, cohabitation is not equal to marriage.  Not Biblically, morally, and certainly not where the health of the child is concerned. 

To start with, the father has no legal rights because – unsurprisingly – unwed mothers automatically have sole custody of their children.

According to

When a child is born to an unmarried mother, the father has no legal right to see his child without a court order. There is no legal presumption of paternity, as unwed fathers are not automatically presumed to be biologically related to their children.

This type of situation prevents an unmarried mother from seeking child support from the child’s father, while also preventing the father from being awarded visitation or child custody.

Further – and more importantly for the purposes of this article – cohabiting couples split up far more than married couples.

By the child’s 5th birthday, 50% of cohabiting couples have split up, rendering it a fatherless homes.  (Remember, fathers have no legal rights unless they are married or can legally establish paternity.)  By the child’s 12th birthday, over 70% of cohabiting couples will have split.

Further, this 70% number happens just before the crucial teen years in a child’s development.

Lastly, cohabitation is far worse than marriage for children. Some of the differences include:

  • greater stress on the child because of the shifting and complex family dynamic
  • far greater poverty rate (nearly half will live in poverty)
  • 4x times greater likelihood of abuse (physical, sexual and/or emotional)
  • more likely to use drugs, suffer depression and drop out of school than married parent families.

While cohabiting is better than single mother homes, it’s far healthier for the child when their parents are married. (here’s more evidence if you care)



The actual rate of divorce in the United States is hard to measure.  The oft-quoted figure of 50% is based specious analysis of data from the late 70s and early 80s.

According to the Census Bureau, the highest rate of those “ever divorced” is 36.5% for men and 37.3% for women. That establishes a reasonable minimum, though the actual rate will be higher because that doesn’t count second or third marriages.  The average length of a first marriage (that ends in divorce) is only 8 years according to the same Census Bureau report.

Most of the research I’ve done puts the actual rate of divorce for all marriages – including 2nd and 3rd – at 40% – 45%.

Again, the divorce rate for a first marriage seems to be 36% – 40%.

But what about Children?

Strangely, I had some difficulty find hard data on what percentage of divorces include children.  I did find one source that says half the divorces in Washington (state) involved children. I’d guess it’s about the same everywhere.


Why such a high divorce rate?

In the research paper “These Boots Are Made For Walking: Why most Divorce Filers are Women” found that, in more than 68 percent of U.S. divorce cases, women were the ones who initiated the divorce proceedings.

What is the reason?

The finding of most significance (statistical, coefficient size, and political interest), though, was that the spouse anticipating child custody was mostly likely to file. Since women more often than men receive custody, this explained most of the difference in filing behavior. To miss this point is to miss the major finding of the work. (source)

Merely switching the anticipation of custody in this case from the husband to the wife changes the probability of the wife’s filing from 9.5% to 69%—slightly more than a seven-fold increase.

Our results are consistent with our hypothesis that filing behavior is driven by self-interest at the time of divorce. Individuals file for divorce when there are marital assets that may be appropriated through divorce… We have found that who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce.

And women definitely get full custody far more often.  According to a US Census Bureau report:

One of every six custodial parents (17.5 percent) were fathers

To put that another way, 82.5% of custodial parents are women/mothers.  That means after a divorce, a child has a 82.5%chance of becoming essentially fatherless.


Remember the stats on fatherless homes and then think about that.

Really think about it.

Women are virtually assured of custody because of our divorce system in America.  It’s the same in most of the world, and it’s been true throughout world history too (which I’ll show soon).  This assures that fatherless homes will proliferate as long as the status quo remains.


What about joint custody?

There are two kinds of custody. The first is legal custody which gives a parent the legal right to make decisions for the child. The second is physical custody, where the child actually lives with the parent. Legal custody is less relevant to the child’s behavior, as the parent with whom the child lives will naturally have a greater effect on the child’s behavior.

That’s why having physical custody is the more important metric when measuring fatherless homes.

(It should be noted that joint legal custody is far more common than joint physical custody. When you see stats about joint custody, make sure you know which kind they are talking about. They aren’t the same and often a parent – usually the father – who has joint legal custody won’t have joint physical custody.)

According to a study entitled “Joint Physical Custody and Communication with Parents: A Cross-National Study of Children in 36 Western Countries“, these are the physical custody numbers for the United States: (specifically school-aged children of 11, 13, and 15)

  • 60% “Intact families”
  • 22% Single mother
  • 11% Mother and stepfather
  • 3% Single father
  • 2% Father and stepmother
  • 2% Joint physical custody (via divorced mother and father)

Just 2%.

In 33% of cases, the child winds up with the mother but only 5% of cases result in the child ending up with the father. These are the same ratios that we’ve already seen. Joint custody is better for that 2%, but it’s only 2%.


What about Divorce “for the kids sake”?

It turns out that there’s no such thing (except in cases of actual abuse).  From chapter 3 of the book “Real World Divorce“:

The conclusion of the research was that about 85-90 percent of children whose parents divorced were worse off than if the parents had stayed together despite a lack of affection. The children for whom divorce was beneficial were those whose parents were in marriages “marked by physical violence or severe abuse.”

Unless there is “physical violence or severe abuse”, kids are better off with both parents, especially their father (as we’ve already seen).

Further, no one would argue that the death of a parent is a serious blow for a child.  However, divorce is is even worse for a child than the death of a parent. (again, except in cases of abuse)

Painstakingly assessing their data, the authors of the new study see an unmistakable pattern emerging: “Parental separation has stronger and wider effects on mental illness than death.” Specifically, the researchers conclude that parental separation “significantly predicted risk for all disorders except phobia“…  Looking closer at their data, the researchers conclude that “parental separation had the strongest impacts on risk for depression and drug abuse/dependence.”

The Virginia Commonwealth and Tokyo scholars see in their findings strong evidence that “the effect of parental death persists a relatively short time and has weaker impact on adult psychopathology than that of parental separation.” This conclusion, they acknowledge, is “in accordance with previous studies” that have found “no or weak associations between parental death and psychiatric disorders.” The authors of this study indeed interpret the findings of this 2014 study against the backdrop of their own 2002 study in which they “demonstrated that the risk for depressive onsets due to parental death returned to baseline within a limited time whereas a much longer time period was required for the risk due to parental separation to return to baseline.

Divorce is really bad for children.


The myth of “deadbeat” dads

Contrary to popular belief, deadbeat dads are not common.  In fact, deadbeat mothers are far more common than deadbeat dads.  For some highlights:

Almost 47% of non-custodial mothers default on child support compared with the 27% of fathers who default. (Source: Garansky and Meyer, DHHS Technical Analysis Paper No. 42)

66% of all child support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to inability to pay. (Source: U.S. General Accounting Office Report)

That means only 9.18% (34% of 27%) of dads can pay child support, but choose not to.  Less than 10%; hardly an epidemic. Further, the penalties for falling behind can include counter-productive penalties like revoking a father’ driver’s license.  That  makes it nearly impossible to get a good job in most parts of the country.


What causes/Allows all these divorces and out-of-wedlock births?

Now we’re getting to the crux of the issue; the root cause. To unpack this fully, we need to look at more than just America’s history.  We’re going to look at every great civilization in world history.  You’ll see that in every case their fall was caused by the exact same event.  This event always and invariably leads to an explosion of divorces and out of wedlock births, which leads to fatherless homes, which leads to miscreant children, which destroys the civilization.

Let’s take a look.


Sex and Culture

To get a “bird’s eye” look at all these cultures, we’ll look at a book published by J.D. Unwin in the 1930s entitled “Sex and Culture.” (It’s entered the public domain so I’ve uploaded a copy to my website.  You can download the whole book in PDF form by clicking this link)  In it, he chronicled his research into 80+ different civilized and uncivilized cultures. For the ancient cultures, he looked at the written laws and customs from archeological finds.

In every one of the 80+ cultures, the author found a 100% correlation between the ability/opportunity of people to have sex outside of marriage and the culture’s level of sophistication.

  • The more people had sex outside of marriage, the more the civilization declined.
  • The less people had sex outside of marriage, the more the civilization flourished.

It was true 100% of the time; no exceptions. It seems that pre-marital chastity and post-marital fidelity are required for a great civilization to exist. In every single culture – no matter how advanced or primitive – the facts remained the same.

  • The closer you follow God’s standards for sexual purity, the more your civilization flourishes.
  • The farther you get from those standards, the more your society declines.

To quote from the book where he discusses the great civilizations in world history:

These societies lived in different geographical environments; they belonged to different racial stocks; but the history of their marriage customs is the same. In the beginning each society had the same ideas in regard to sexual regulations. Then the same struggles took place; the same sentiments were expressed; the same changes were made; the same results ensued. Each society reduced its sexual opportunity to a minimum and displaying great social energy, flourished greatly. Then it extended its sexual opportunity; its energy decreased, and faded away. The one outstanding feature of the whole story is its unrelieved monotony.

(“Sex and Culture” by JD Unwin, page 381, emphasis added)

In the 80+ civilizations the author studied, there wasn’t a single exception to this rule. Whether the society lived in mud huts or conquered the known world, this rule remained the same. Every time sexual standards were tightened, the society advanced; every time sexual standards were relaxed, the society declined.

Again, no exceptions.

(This shouldn’t be news to Christians. Following God’s commands has always been the path to greater wealth and happiness for a civilization.)


The Why

The author makes zero attempt to show why this was the case.  He makes no attempt analyze the data beyond the raw conclusion the data clearly supported.  He tried – as much as possible – to be an impartial observer, merely reporting what he found and leaving the analysis to others.

I propose that the reason a society declines when sexual customs become lax is not because of the sex itself, but rather the results of the sex: children (who then grow up in a fatherless home)

Intuitively, this makes sense.

Having sex outside of marriage means you will have kids outside of marriage.   This is especially true before the modern era when birth control wasn’t reliable or safe.  Sex outside of marriage creates fatherless homes and as we’ve already seen, fatherless homes destroy a society.



The precipitating event that allows sex outside of marriage and divorce to flourish

In every case – in every society the author studied – the exact same event always preceded this “extension of sexual opportunity” as the author calls it. Before this event, sex outside of marriage and divorce (and thus fatherless homes) were rare.  during the lead-up to this event, they became more common.  Once this event happened, sex outside of marriage and divorce (and thus fatherless homes) flourished back then just as they flourish in America today.

Buckle your seat belt, because this one’s a doozy.

Before I tell you want that event is, I should mention that the author was an egalitarian and almost didn’t publish his findings because he didn’t like them very much. In fact, he almost regretted starting the research project because of what he found. His research is also well documented. Nearly half the book is footnotes with source citations.



The event precipitating the fall of every great civilization in history was the full legal emancipation of women, making them the social and political of men.


You say: “But wait, women today have more freedoms than ever before.” Actually, that’s not the case.  From Sex and Culture:

I mention the matter now because, owing to the egocentricity in our historical outlook, to which I have already referred (para. 159), it is often supposed that female emancipation is an invention of the modern white man.

Sometimes we imagine that we have arrived at a conception of the status of women in society which is far superior to that of any other age; we feel an inordinate pride because we regard ourselves as the only civilized society which has understood that the sexes must have social, legal, and political equality.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. A female emancipating movement is a cultural phenomenon of unfailing regularity; it appears to be the necessary outcome of absolute monogamy.

(“Sex and Culture” by JD Unwin, pages 344-345, paragraph breaks and emphasis added for readability)

Women having fully equal rights is not a new idea. Egalitarianism is not new either and neither is feminism. Both have been practiced many times of the course of world history as astute historians will attest. First wave feminism began before Christ was born; not in the last few hundred years. There’s proof in the book, as well as any other good history book.

For example, let’s look at Rome starting over a century before Christ:

By the late Hellenistic Age, this had resulted in a metamorphosis in the position of women. Equality for women extended beyond politics into economic life, and in some occupations such as plumbing they came to dominate. The rate of divorce increased enormously, and the power “of the paterfamilias was shaken to its foundations and eventually swept away altogether.” “The meek and henpecked Roman husband was already a stock comedy figure in the great days of the Second Punic War.” This changing relationship led Cato the Censor to protest bitterly, “All other men rule over women; but we Romans, who rule all men, are ruled by our women.” Equality had progressed to the point that by the late Empire a woman who married retained her property, “and, legally, the man had not even the right to enjoy the income from it.”

“Egalitarianism and Empire” by William F. Marina here.

As you can see, the supposed oppression of women in 1st century Rome/the New Testament is one of the most pervasive myths in Christendom.

Ancient Babylon, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, and many others others all gave women full, equal rights just before before they began their declineIn every single case, the great civilization began to fall right after they gave women full, equal rights. (again, equal rights leads to unwed mothers and divorce, which leads to fatherless children, which leads to miscreant children, which is what destroys the society)

To quote from the book:

A female emancipating movement is a cultural phenomenon of unfailing regularity; it appears to be the necessary outcome of absolute monogamy.

The subsequent loss of social energy after the emancipation of women, which is sometimes emphasized, has been due not to the emancipation but to the extension of sexual opportunity which has always accompanied it. In human records there is no instance of female emancipation which has not been accompanied by an extension of sexual opportunity.

(“Sex and Culture” by JD Unwin, pages 344-345, paragraph breaks and emphasis added for readability)

And again:

In the past, too, the greatest energy has been displayed only by those societies which have reduced their sexual opportunity to a minimum by the adoption of absolute monogamy (para. 168). In every case the women and children were reduced to the level of legal nonentities, sometimes also to the level of chattels, always to the level of mere appendages of the male estate. Eventually they were freed from their disadvantages, but at the same time the sexual opportunity of the society was extended…  …So the energy of the society decreased, and then disappeared.

(“Sex and Culture” by JD Unwin, page 431, emphasis added)

Another quote.

From a superficial study of the available data it might be thought that the questions of female subjection and parental power are indissolubly allied to that of female continence ; but actually their alliance in the past has been due to the chance factor that sexual opportunity has never been reduced to a minimum except by depriving women and children of their legal status. It is historically true to say that in the past social energy has been purchased at the price of individual freedom, for it has never been displayed unless the female of the species has sacrificed her rights as an individual and unless children have been treated as mere appendages to the estate of the male parent

(“Sex and Culture” by JD Unwin, pages 381-382, emphasis added)

And lastly,

Now in the past, as I have said, sexual opportunity has never been reduced to a minimum except by depriving the female of the species of certain legal rights which she seems entitled to enjoy.

(“Sex and Culture” by JD Unwin, page 375, emphasis added)

On an intuitive level, this makes sense.

When women are fully submitted to men, they don’t have the right or opportunity to engage in premarital/extra-marital sex due to their position.  As they gain more rights, they gain this ability/opportunity.  Once they are the full legal equals of men, nothing prevents them from engaging in premarital sex and/or divorcing their husbands.  That invariably produces fatherless homes.

When women have equal rights, out-of-wedlock births and high divorce rates (and thus fatherless homes) are inevitable.  Fatherless homes inevitable lead to a society’s destruction. 

At the risk of repeating myself:

The subsequent loss of social energy after the emancipation of women, which is sometimes emphasized, has been due not to the emancipation but to the extension of sexual opportunity which has always accompanied it. In human records there is no instance of female emancipation which has not been accompanied by an extension of sexual opportunity.

(“Sex and Culture” by JD Unwin, pages 344-345, paragraph breaks and emphasis added for readability)

Every great civilization in world history bears this out, and so does America’s history. (which we’ll look at in a moment.)


A point of Research Honesty:

Unwin’s personal opinion was that women should have equal rights.  He at no point whatsoever advocated a patriarchal system and ends the book by saying men and women should have exactly equal rights.  However, his data paints a different picture.


How America followed this pattern

To show this, we’re going to compare the divorce rates over our history and compare them to major events in women’s suffrage. For a more complete history, you can either look at the Wikipedia page or’s article on the topic.

If you want to see the info at a glance, here’s a chart about the percentage of marriages that ended in divorce from 1867-2017.  Notice: the biggest spike on the chart below coincides with the rise of second wave feminism in the 1960s.

Now, let’s look at the data at a granular level.  You’ll see every spike in divorce coincided with an advancement in women’s rights.

(Note: unlike the chart above, the divorce rates below are the number of divorces per 1000 population, per year.  They are not the percentage of marriages that ended in divorce; merely the raw number of divorces per year, per 1000 population.  This will allow us to track divorce trendsSource #1, Source #2)

Let’s begin.

The first woman’s rights conference was the Seneca Falls Convention in New York, which was held in 1848.  The movement gained little traction in the 1850s, but was interrupted by the Civil War (1861-1865).

In 1872, Susan B Anthony succeeded in voting, but was arrested for it and the case made it to the Supreme Court.  in 1875, the Court ruled against Anthony, but the case helped the movement gain widespread publicity. Notice what happened to the divorce rates after this publicity…

  Divorces per 1,000 population % Increase over Baseline
1867 0.3 0%
1870 0.3 0%
1875 0.3 0%
1880 0.4 33%

We have our first tick upwards in divorce a few years after women’s suffrage gained widespread publicity.  The divorce rate continued to tick upwards slowly as the movement gained momentum.  The 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote was ratified in 1920.  Notice what happened to the divorce rate that year.

Year Divorces per 1,000 population in a given year % Increase over Baseline
1885 0.4 33%
1890 0.5 67%
1895 0.6 100%
1900 0.7 133%
1905 0.8 167%
1910 0.9 200%
1915 1.0 233%
1920 1.6 533%

The year women were granted the right to vote, the divorce rate shot up 60%!  The divorce rate continued to slowly rise until the end of WWII, where it spiked.

  Divorces per 1,000 population in a given year % Increase over Baseline
1930 1.6 533%
1935 1.7 567%
1940 2.0 667%
1945 3.5 1167%

This is significant because during WWII, women entered the work force in significant numbers for the first time. When women realized they could support themselves, apparently they decided to do without the husband. The numbers dropped in the 50s with the post-war boom, the creation of the suburbs, and TV’s portrayal of the family as ideal.

  Divorces per 1,000 population in a given year % Increase over Baseline
1950 2.6 867%
1955 2.3 767%
1960 2.2 733%
1965 2.5 833%
1970 3.5 1167%
1975 4.8 1600%
1980 5.2 17.33%

However, in 1960 second wave feminism began.  You can see the divorce rate began to skyrocket from there, reaching its peak the early 1980s.

  Divorces per 1,000 population in a given year % Increase over Baseline
1985 5.0 1667%
1990 4.7 1567%
1995 4.4 1467%
2000 3.6 1200%
2005 3.6 1200%
2010 3.6 1200%
2015 3.1 1033%

The number of divorces per year has been dropping since the mid 80s, but that’s actually a bad thing.  The reason the divorce rate started going down is because of the precipitous drop in marriages.  Fewer people married means fewer people to get divorced.

Today, the marriage rate is lower than it has ever been in the history of our country.  According to US government statistics, marriage rates have historically fluctuated between 9-11 marriages per year, per 1000 population. However, recently they’ve dipped as low as 6.8 per 1000, per year. (currently it sits at 6.9)

Further, out-of-wedlock birth rates have been rising slowly since the early 1900s.  It skyrocketed (along with divorces rates) when second wave feminism began in the 1960s, despite the availability of contraceptives (and abortion after 1973.)


It used to be that ~2% of births were out-of-wedlock.  Now, it stands at ~40%.  That’s a 20-fold increase.


The Other Reason a Society Collapses when Women have Equal rights

On average, women tend to favor the leftist/communist/socialist policies that inevitably leads to a country’s destruction.

You can tell because of the significant “voting gender gap” in America. That is to say, women on average vote significantly more left than men. In the last ~50 years as the democratic party has shifted ever more left, they’ve taken female voters with them.

I’m writing this section about a week before the 2018 mid-term elections in the United States. FiveThirtyEight ran an article with predictions on the outcome if only certain portions of the population voted.  Below are the two relevant projections.

2018 midterms - what if only men voted

A win for conservatism, and the country would like continue it’s slow return to sanity. However

2018 midterms - what if only women voted


With women driving the voting, the left would gain a majority and continue to ruin this country. (I’m an unashamed libertarian, and yes the left’s communist/socialist policies are ruining this country.  Further, the reason women vote this way is rooted in biology.  We’ll discuss this more in the 7th article in this series.)

This phenomenon isn’t unique to the 2018 mid-terms either. If you look at historical voting patterns based on exit polling, you’ll see that women have been voting more left since they started collecting data. The following picture is from a Pew Research article.

Gender gap in presidential voting

Even the earliest data suggests that women support more liberal candidates than men on average, though not in every instance. Today, there is an average ~10 point average gap between men and women.

These days, around ~55% of women vote for liberals compared to ~45% of men.

(EDIT: in the 2018 mid-terms, there was a massive 19 point gender gap. That means nearly 60% of women voted for liberals and only 40% voted for conservatives. The gap is widening.)

If women couldn’t vote and men were choosing our leaders/lawmakers, they would be overwhelmingly more conservative. The Leftist socialists/communists are destroying this country and the women are electing them. It’s sad, but true. If women couldn’t vote, the country as a whole would be far better off.

That’s doubly interesting in light of a comment made about the Ancient Babylonian Empire:

Women, from being legal nonentities, had become free and equal citizens; they could possess real estate; they could contract, administer, buy, and sell. They were granted a definite legal status, and could appeal to the court in their own names. A wife could even prosecute her husband. Sons and daughters married without their parents’ consent.

After a few generations the usual symptoms of degeneracy began to appear. A huge bureaucracy sprang up; officials and priests plundered the poor; public funds were misappropriated; and there was great oppression. Urukagina usurped the throne, and tried to stem the flowing tide. He found that the marriage tie had fallen into disrepute.

(“Sex and Culture” by JD Unwin, Page 386, emphasis added.)

The leftist bureaucratic state is nothing new.  It’s as old as Ancient Babylon and seems to appear every time women get equal rights.


A Recap

As we saw in the first part of this article, Fatherless homes destroy a society.  Fatherless homes arise primarily from out-of-wedlock births and divorces.  Unwed births because the mother wins de facto custody.  Divorces because women have been nearly always granted custody throughout human history. (Going all the way back to Ancient Babylon).  As soon as women gain equal rights, they always begin to have children out of wedlock and divorce their husbands.

In human records there is no instance of female emancipation which has not been accompanied by an extension of sexual opportunity.

(“Sex and Culture” by JD Unwin, pages 345, emphasis added for readability)

No instance.


Not even one.

In the whole of human history, there has never been a civilization that was both sexually morally and had equal rights for women.

It simply doesn’t exist.

It never has.

And it makes sense that it won’t ever exist because you can’t change human nature.  As we’ll see in the next article (and especially the 7th article) in this series, this is a consequence of biology… and human biology doesn’t change.

A person can change; but mankind doesn’t change. We are fallen, sinful creatures. You’d be hard pressed to find a more committed Christian nation than America at its founding.  But even then, once women gained equal rights the slide began.


  • Societies are destroyed by fatherless homes (and women in politics)
  • Fatherless homes are caused by divorce and unwed mothers
  • unwed mothers and divorce always accompany equal rights for women.

Therefore, the natural result of equal rights for women is the destruction of any great civilization.

(And I must point out: no great civilization has ever risen to prominence while women had full equal rights.  That alone might tell us something.)

America’s results are nothing new. This drama has played out many times before on the world stage; America is just the latest actor.


These societies lived in different geographical environments; they belonged to different racial stocks; but the history of their marriage customs is the same. In the beginning each society had the same ideas in regard to sexual regulations. Then the same struggles took place; the same sentiments were expressed; the same changes were made; the same results ensued. Each society reduced its sexual opportunity to a minimum and displaying great social energy, flourished greatly. Then it extended its sexual opportunity; its energy decreased, and faded away. The one outstanding feature of the whole story is its unrelieved monotony.

(“Sex and Culture” by JD Unwin, page 381, emphasis added)

In America today, we’ve made the same mistake that every great Civilization in World history made: giving equal rights to women. Truly, Solomon was right when he said:

Ecclesiastes 1:9

9 That which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun.

10 Is there anything of which one might say, “See this, it is new “? Already it has existed for ages Which were before us.

11 There is no remembrance of earlier things; And also of the later things which will occur, There will be for them no remembrance Among those who will come later still.

This has happened many times before.  We have just forgotten it, just as Solomon said.


But WHY!?

When I first learned that women equal rights eventually destroys a society, I was quite confused because I hadn’t made the fatherless connection yet.  I had been raised to believe the sexes were roughly equal in terms of authority and ability.

I tried to find the answer and found one rooted in human biology.  Not Psychology, not behavioral/cultural conditioning, nor parental training.  God hard-wired these differences into the bodies – into the very DNA – of men and women.  He made men and women fundamentally different on a hard-wired,  biological level. Those differences make women far less suitable than men for certain things (like leadership, politics, and business).  I will enumerate those differences in the next article of this series.

The other great reason is the “Why” of submission in marriage. 

Ultimately, this is the crux of the issue.  God so ordered the world that women having equal rights would destroy a civilization.  This makes no sense unless you understand why He did that. Once you understand that, everything falls into place.

We’ll look at “the why” after looking at the hard-wired differences of biology between men and women.


The Cure for Atheism?

I won’t spend much time on this, but I would be remiss if I didn’t mention it.

In the book Sex and Culture, The author noted a 100% correlation between a society’s sexual practices and its spirituality.  Further, their spiritual beliefs followed their sexual practices; not the other way around. (as most people would assume, myself included before I looked into it.)

Basically, the more sexually moral a society was, the more they believed in god(s).

There was no exception to this either.  In societies where women were compelled to be sexually moral because they didn’t have equal rights, they culture as a whole always believed in god(s).


100% of the time.

Again, I want to reiterate that the spiritual beliefs always followed the sexual practices; never the other way around.  Could having a sexually moral society be the cure for Atheism?  If the author of the book is right, then it’s a distinct possibility.



In heaven, everything submits to The Father.  Everything would completely fall apart if that weren’t the case.

Why would it be different on Earth?

We’ve seen that fatherless children (plus women having a political voice) destroys a society.  We’ve looked at compelling evidence for that fact, but believing it isn’t crucial.  The fact remains that every single great civilization in world history began it’s decline after giving full equal rights to women.

There’s no way around that fact.

I recommend you read Sex and Culture by JD Unwin for a complete picture that’s all in one place.  However, a thorough look into history will reveal the same facts.

  • Societies are destroyed by fatherless homes (and women in politics)
  • Fatherless homes are caused by divorce and unwed mothers
  • unwed mothers and divorce always accompany equal rights for women.

Therefore, the natural and inevitable result of equal rights for women is the destruction of any great civilization.

History bears this out with 100% consistency, including America’s own history .

To understand this better – and especially the reasons why – next we’ll look at the Gender Differences and the Biology of Leadership that God hard-wired into men and women.  After that, we’ll look at the Biblical “why” of submission in marriage.  (Full index of this marriage series is below)

Marriage Series Index:

  1. How Getting Marriage 'Wrong' Destroyed Every Great Civilization in World History
  2. Gender Differences and the Biology of leadership
  3. The “Why” Behind God Telling Wives to Submit to their Husbands in Marriage
    1. Does 1 Corinthians 11 Require Women To Wear "Head Coverings"
  4. The Bible on Authority & Submission in Marriage
  5. Does God View Women as the (Social/Political) Equals of Men?
  6. Biblically, What’s the Role of Women in Society and Marriage?
  7. Gender and Attraction: What Men vs Women REALLY Want
  8. Follow up articles coming...


  1. george May 18, 2019
    • Berean Patriot (admin) May 19, 2019
  2. Peter Rambo October 28, 2019
    • Berean Patriot (admin) October 30, 2019
  3. fleus December 2, 2019
    • Berean Patriot (admin) December 3, 2019
  4. Fleus December 6, 2019
    • Berean Patriot (admin) December 8, 2019

Leave a Reply