Andrew Wilson’s Anti-Feminism Exposed: The Birthrate Blame Game

In debate after debate, Andrew Wilson of The Crucible repeats the same core claim: feminism is to blame for the falling birthrate in America and the decline of the traditional family. To him, the answer is simple—women abandoned the home, chased independence, and turned away from their duty to marry young and raise children.

As a devout Orthodox Christian with extreme traditionalist values, Wilson calls for a return to patriarchy as the only salvation from what he sees as societal collapse.

But is any of this actually true?

Does the data support the idea that feminism broke society? Or is Wilson simply projecting a religious fantasy onto a complex modern reality?

🔥Article Choice: Why Self-Righteous Christians Play Dumb on the Whatever Podcast

This article dives deep into Wilson's anti-feminist claims—analyzing the facts, the distortions, and the dangers of building a worldview around a mythologized past.

The Core Claim: Feminism Caused the Birthrate Crisis

Wilson argues that since the rise of feminism in the 20th century, women have strayed from their "natural role" as mothers and wives. He says that by delaying childbirth into their 30s, pursuing education and careers, and asserting independence, women are skipping their prime reproductive years and causing a demographic crisis.

“Women should be having children in their late teens and early 20s,” he says. “Waiting until your 30s is too late.”

Let’s break this down.

Yes—birthrates are declining. The U.S. fertility rate dropped to 1.6 children per woman in 2023—well below the 2.1 replacement level.

Yes—the average age of first-time mothers has risen from 21 in 1970 to over 27 today.

But is feminism to blame?

No. The reality is more complex:

Economic insecurity.
Skyrocketing housing and healthcare costs.
Lack of affordable childcare.

Feminism didn’t remove motherhood—it gave women options. It allowed women to decide when and if they wanted to become mothers—not to be trapped into it by economic dependence or religious dogma.

These are the real forces driving the decline. Many couples want children but feel they can’t afford them. 

Stepdads, Abuse, and Cherry-Picked Fear

Wilson also claims that single mothers choosing stepfathers is a major source of child abuse. While it’s true that children in households with unrelated adults may face greater risks, the full picture is much more nuanced.

That risk is often tied to poverty, instability, and lack of support systems—not simply the presence of a stepfather.

Many stepfathers are loving, responsible, and protective. It’s not the role that creates harm—it’s the individual, the environment, the systemic neglect.

Wilson takes extreme cases and uses them to paint all non-traditional families as dangerous. That’s not truth. That’s emotional manipulation wrapped in moral panic.

Should Unhappy Couples Stay Together "For the Kids"?

Wilson has argued that couples should stay together even if they dislike each other—because it’s better for the children than divorce. He mocks emotional fulfillment as selfish, even hedonistic.

But let’s talk evidence.

Studies show: high-conflict homes can be more harmful to children than divorce.

Kids raised in households of tension, coldness, or contempt often carry deep emotional scars into adulthood. Staying together in misery doesn’t protect children—it models dysfunction.

Supporting people to leave toxic relationships isn’t “moral decay.” It’s evolutionary growth. It’s valuing emotional health, self-realization, and generational healing.

Divorce, Female Independence, and The "Virgin 1950s"

Wilson blames feminism for “making women too independent” and too willing to file for divorce. He notes that women initiate most divorces and calls it a symptom of cultural decay.

The implication: women are destroying the family unit.

But here’s the truth:

• Women leave because they’re exhausted—doing the majority of emotional labor, childrearing, and working jobs.

• They leave because their needs aren’t being met—physically, emotionally, spiritually.

• They leave because they can. Financial independence means they no longer have to endure emotional starvation or abuse.

That’s not family destruction. That’s progress.

The Fantasy of the 1950s

Wilson loves to romanticize the 1950s. To him, it was a golden age:

• 95% of women were virgins before marriage

• One-income households

• Low crime rates

• Stable nuclear families

• “Mental health was better”

But this is revisionist mythology.

In the real 1950s:

• Women couldn’t open a bank account without a husband’s permission

• Domestic abuse was normalized and ignored

• Mental illness was hidden, shamed, or institutionalized

• LGBTQ identities were criminalized and erased

• Marriages lasted—not because they were healthy—but because there were no options

That’s not a golden age. That’s a gilded cage.

Should We Move Women Back Into the Home?

Wilson says it outright: If women don’t prioritize motherhood and home life, society will collapse.

But let’s look at the facts.

Countries like Sweden, Norway, and France have higher or stable birthrates without forcing women back into domestic submission. What do they do instead?

They invest in:

• Universal childcare

• Paid parental leave

• Affordable healthcare

• Flexible work policies

• Gender equality

These nations support families structurally, not ideologically. That’s how you raise children and uphold human dignity.

The Public School vs. Catholic Church Claim

Wilson also claims that children are 100x more likely to be sexually assaulted in public schools than in Catholic churches.

This is a dangerous, baseless claim.

The truth:

• Public schools are mandated to report and investigate abuse.

• The Catholic Church covered up systemic abuse for decades, silencing victims and protecting predators.

Weaponizing child safety to shame women back into submission isn’t just wrong—it’s morally repugnant.

Feminism Isn’t the Enemy. It’s the Evolution.

Wilson’s war on feminism isn’t based on data—it’s based on fear.
The fear of feminine autonomy. The fear of societal change. The fear of losing control.

Feminism didn’t destroy the family. It redefined it.

It said:

• No to abuse.

• No to forced domesticity.

• No to emotional starvation.

• Yes to choice.

• Yes to growth.

• Yes to becoming fully human.

If birthrates are falling, the solution isn’t to shove women back into a 1950s fantasy.

It’s to build a future where love, freedom, parenting, and equality can thrive—together.