Why Men Think Women Are Openly Declaring War on Them

Posted September 1Sep 1

I was scrolling through Facebook the other night, and I saw something that stopped me cold. A woman in a private parenting group posted, “I just couldn’t imagine raising a boy. I terminated my pregnancy. I’ll try again for a girl.”

And the comments? Heart emojis. Congratulations. Women cheering her on like she had just won a prize. I just sat there staring at my screen, thinking, What the hell is happening to us?

This isn’t the abortion debates we used to know. Remember when the big question was, “At what stage is it morally right to abort?” Those debates were hard enough. But at least the argument was rooted in fear, survival, or unplanned circumstances. Now it’s almost casual. A baby is no longer a baby. It’s an option. A choice in the same way you choose the color of your car.

And here’s the part that makes me sick: if that baby is a boy, in some circles, that’s reason enough to get rid of him.

It’s called sex-selective abortion. I think it’s cynical.

At first, I thought it was a wild conspiracy theory — until I read that Slate article. Parents doing IVF not to fix infertility, not to avoid genetic disorders, but purely because they only want daughters. And it’s not just the articles. It’s the quiet confessions in hidden corners of the internet — Reddit threads, closed Facebook groups, even casual comments under TikToks.

“Boys are too hard.” “Girls are sweeter.” “I didn’t want to risk raising another man in this society.” These aren’t isolated incidents.

Even biology gets dragged into the conversation. Some scientists argue that female bodies naturally terminate weaker male fetuses. Churches whisper that societies “function better” with fewer men.

I can’t help but wonder: are we just dressing up our prejudices in science and spirituality so we can sleep at night?

Every time I read those stories, my stomach twists. I think of my nephew, the little boy who brings me flowers from the backyard and tells me I’m his favorite person. I think of my friend’s son, who built her a Lego house because she was sad. I think… how many little boys like them will never get the chance to exist — because someone somewhere decided they weren’t good enough, simply for being who they are?

So tell me, are women really declaring war on men? Or have we just found a polite, socially acceptable way to erase them?

If you’re sitting there wondering, what the heck is going on — trust me, I’m right there with you.

Because for me, it has never been about whether the baby growing inside a woman is a boy or a girl. What matters — what has always mattered — is whether that woman actually wants to be pregnant. Whether she wants to carry that child for nine months, endure the pain of delivery, and face the lifelong commitment that follows.

In a world where safe, legal abortion exists, forcing someone to carry a child they do not want is brutality.

But no — women are not erasing the male gender.

That’s not what this is.

Even the 1967 Abortion Act recognized this nuance. Sex selection wasn’t just some radical whim; it was legal in places where being born the “wrong gender” could literally cost you your life. Places where a dowry system could bankrupt a family. Where a father, denied a male heir, might turn his rage on his wife — or worse, on the baby girl she delivered.

So when you think about that, no one can say those women were wrong? Faced with violence, poverty, and shame, they weren’t being cruel. They were being rational.

I remember when I was pregnant with my daughter. My mom prayed day and night — not for a healthy baby, not for an easy delivery, but for a girl. She was terrified that if my baby was a boy, he’d be branded for life.

“An illegitimate son,” she whispered, “will never be accepted here. They’ll call him cursed. They’ll call you cursed.”

And she was right. I’d seen it with my own eyes. Boys born outside marriage marked as outcasts — ridiculed, humiliated, treated as if they didn’t even belong to this world. But girls had a chance to escape the shame if they married, to disappear quietly into a new life where no one asked questions.

That’s what people don’t understand when they talk about sex-selective abortion like it’s some cold, clinical choice. It’s not.

It’s fear. It’s survival. It’s a desperate attempt to shield your child — and yourself — from a world that can be vicious and unforgiving.

Sex selection isn’t new, though.

For most of human history, parents prayed for sons. In China, during the one-child policy era, baby girls were aborted, abandoned, or killed in the quiet of the night. In some villages, newborn girls were left in baskets by the roadside, tiny pink bundles waiting for someone — anyone — to take pity. In other cultures, even today, infanticide is still a reality, mostly aimed at girls.

If we resurrected every human who has ever lived and told them that, in modern America, parents are disappointed about having boys, they’d think we’d lost our minds. But here we are.

However, the reason is complicated — tangled up in the very ideals of progress and gender equality that we claim to celebrate, while holding onto some benevolent sexism.

You see, when boys are no longer valued as heirs to the family name, or as strong backs for the farm, or as future providers, then… what’s special about them?

We praise our daughters openly — “girls can do anything,” “girls run the world” — and yes, that’s a beautiful thing. But when was the last time you heard someone celebrate a boy without apology, without a nervous laugh, without adding “but, you know, not in a toxic way”?

Even as an unapologetic liberal, I can admit it. This is creating something dark. Something toxic. We’ve built this quiet narrative that boys are trouble. Or, at the very least, ticking time bombs — susceptible to violence, failure, misogyny. And the numbers? Oh gush, the numbers only feed that fear!

Everywhere you look, the crisis of masculinity is being reported. Boys are less likely to finish high school. Less likely to graduate from college. Less likely to marry, to start families, to build stable lives.

One study even found that 60% of young men are single, compared to 30% of young women, many of whom are increasingly choosing queer relationships over heterosexual ones.

So what do we tell these boys? That they’re unwanted? That their existence is a mistake? Sometimes, that’s exactly what it feels like when I’m scrolling through Twitter or TikTok.

I saw a viral post last week, “The world would honestly be a better place with fewer men.” Thousands of likes. Thousands of comments in agreement. I just sat there, staring at my phone, thinking — How did we get here?

Because if society has decided that girls are precious, full of potential, and worthy of protection… but boys are expendable? That’s not progress. That’s just a new kind of cruelty, disguised as wokeness.

For a lot of people, going through all the trouble to make sure they have a girl feels almost… virtuous. Like they’re doing the world a favor.

I’ve seen the conversations. I’ve been in the threads.

They say things like, “If everyone had daughters, the world would be safer.” Or, “Oldest children are more successful — if we all had girls first, we could literally squash inequality.”

It’s wild.

This idea that engineering the perfect family somehow makes you morally superior. And then there’s this other belief — the one that really makes my blood boil. This quiet assumption that girls can do anything, while boys… can’t.

Boys, apparently, can’t do their own laundry. Can’t be trusted to call their moms. Can’t express empathy. Can’t even really belong in the family once they hit a certain age.

So what’s the safer bet? Raise a daughter.

She’s far less likely to grow up and idolize Andrew Tate. Far less likely to commit a mass shooting. And here’s the kicker — when a man works himself to the bone chasing money, we call it toxic, capitalist, greedy. But when a woman does it? She’s a girlboss. She’s celebrated. She’s inspirational. She’s proof of progress in a world where only 23% of technical roles are filled by women.

This is why to some parents, a daughter feels like the ultimate win. All the achievements. None of the baggage.

But I get it. I do. Who doesn’t want to believe they’re raising someone the world will celebrate instead of scrutinize? Still, I can’t shake this gnawing thought — what are we teaching our sons when the unspoken message is that they’re disposable, dangerous, or destined to disappoint?

Even so, I can’t get behind the idea that sex selection is somehow “progressive.” If anything, it’s still sexist at its core. You can’t predict who your child will be. You can’t foresee how they’ll express their gender, or what qualities they’ll grow into as a human being. Yet, sex selection asks you to make an irreversible decision based on… what? Stereotypes.

It’s unfair — cruel, even — to bring a child into the world with the expectation that she will fulfill some gendered obligation, however positive it might seem. A daughter to share secrets with. A future best friend. Someone who will call home every Sunday and never forget your birthday.

What happens when she doesn’t?

When she grows up to be fiercely independent, distant, or uninterested in the roles you quietly assigned her before she ever drew her first breath?

Sex selection reinforces the same old trap — the belief that certain traits — nurturing, closeness, empathy — are tied to gender. The same belief that, for generations, limited women, boxed them in, and told them what they could or couldn’t be.

And now, selecting for girls flips that prejudice on its head — but doesn’t erase it. It just creates a new wound. It quietly tells boys, you are the problem. You are the risk. You are less worthy of love.

If you think you can build a deeper emotional bond with a daughter, fine. But maybe the better question is: why not cultivate that bond with a son? Why not raise boys who are tender, empathetic, present — because you believed in them from the start?

Because until we start making that turn, I don’t think we’re moving closer to equality. I think we’re just repainting the walls of the same broken house.

—

This post was previously published on medium.com.