Sliding toward Pedophilia

BreakPoint Daily

Today’s BreakPoint: Sliding toward Pedophilia

AdobeStock_205033873

Each chapter of the sexual revolution has featured an updated version of the same myth: “Don’t worry, the kids will be fine. Sex with anyone anywhere? The kids will be fine. Separate marriage from procreation? The kids will be fine. No-fault divorce? The kids will be fine. Graphic sex education in schools beginning in kindergarten? The kids will be fine. Same-sex marriages eliminating either a mom or a dad from the picture? The kids will be fine. 

They weren’t…

READ MORE 

 

 

Gender-Transition Surgery Does Not Improve Mental Health after All

BreakPoint Daily

Today’s BreakPoint: Gender-Transition Surgery Does Not Improve Mental Health after All

 

JOHN STONESTREET WITH ROBERTO RIVERA

Last fall, the American Journal of Psychiatry published a study entitled “Reduction in Mental Health Treatment Utilization Among Transgender Individuals After Gender-Affirming Surgeries.” According to the study’s authors, people with “gender incongruence” (that means they struggle to identify with their biological sex) have higher risk of mental-health disorders. In fact, they are “more than six times as likely to have been hospitalized after a suicide attempt” as others.

This study was not the first to highlight the significant rates of depression and suicidal ideation among those who struggle with gender dysphoria. In fact, the high correlation between mental health struggles and the transgender community is agreed upon by all sides…

READ MORE

 

The United Nations’ Quest to Create a Genderless World

BreakPoint Daily

The United Nations’ Quest to Create a Genderless World

thumbnail_UN

JOHN STONESTREET WITH ROBERTO RIVERA

Created 75 years ago this October, the United Nations was hailed as “the last, best hope for peace,” a moniker that proved neither true nor possible (though, as I once heard a former Israeli special forces guy put it, “no one ‘monitors’ better”). A recent tweet reveals how the organization’s goal has been expanded to include the ever-elusive “equality.”

“Help create a more equal world,” said the Tweet, “by using gender-neutral language, if you’re unsure about someone’s gender or are referring to a group.” As part of the System-Wide Strategy on Gender Parity,” UN employees are being encouraged to speak and write in ways “that [do] not discriminate against a particular sex, social gender or gender identity.”

Continued at: Source

 

Adoption Is Beautiful, Surrogacy Isn’t

BreakPoint Daily

Adoption Is Beautiful, Surrogacy Isn’t

thumbnail_adoption

Responding to Concerns and Questions

JOHN STONESTREET  WITH MARIA BAER

Recently, prompted by the news that CNN anchor Anderson Cooper and his homosexual partner paid a woman to carry a child for them, my colleague Maria Baer and I released a BreakPoint commentary on the serious ethical problems of surrogacy. Surrogacy intentionally breaks the mother/father/child connection, commodifies both babies and women’s bodies, and puts both women and children at risk of exploitation. That this immoral practice is now normal is, as we said, another chapter in the bad ideas of the sexual revolution and its victims.

A few readers and listeners wrote in to ask whether our concern that surrogacy intentionally severs the bond between mothers, fathers, and children also extends to adoption.

In short, the answer is no. Adoption repairs a fracture. Surrogacy creates one.

God’s design for the family is that a man and wife become one flesh and raise children together. The Fall frustrates this design in different ways. Families can break. Couples may find that their sexual union is infertile. Biological parents find themselves unable to care for their children for various reasons. A sexual act, disordered toward illegitimate pleasure or even selfish violence, produces a life unintended and unexpected.

Whatever the brokenness, adoption offers a means of restoration. Implicitly, the act of adoption recognizes that something is not as it should be, whether or not someone is morally culpable. A family break of some kind, typically at the beginning of the procreative act, is addressed and, many times, even restored by a new family. As open adoptions become more common, there is even, to some degree, a merging of families or of biological parents into the new family.

In all of these ways, adoption portrays God’s relationship with us. Adoption is among the many marriage-and-family metaphors used in Scripture to describe how God relates to His people. Paul, in Ephesians, calls Christians “adopted” sons and daughters of God, though Jesus Christ. The fracture created in the Garden and extended by our own brokenness is repaired by Jesus. As a result, we are adopted children of God, with all of the rights and benefits and status involved.

In the comments we received about the previous commentary on surrogacy, some questioned whether a woman’s relationship to the children she bears is really all that important. This was asked by adoptive moms who are just as emotionally and spiritually connected to their children as any biological mother could be. In our view, that’s obviously and beautifully true, and not something we questioned in our commentary.

What we did say is that women who bear children do have an inherent connection to the children they bear. This is true whether or not she enters into a surrogacy situation or an adoption contract. When a mom relinquishes her right to raise a child, which in some adoption cases is a wise and selfless thing to do, she is still a mom. Adoption recognizes that reality and attempts to, at some level, redeem the brokenness. Surrogacy intentionally creates the brokenness. A mother-child relationship is created only to be knowingly and intentionally severed.

Adoption is proof that physically bearing children is not the only way a woman becomes a mother. Among the darkest evils of surrogacy is that it treats a mother as less than a whole person, wanted for her procreational parts that are increasingly treated as consumer products, especially as commercial surrogacy becomes more common (driven as it is today as part of the LGBTQ remaking of marriage and sexuality). Surrogacy also treats children as consumer products, instead of as gifts.

We received other feedback on the surrogacy commentary, too. Unfortunately, it confirmed the concern that led us to take on this issue in the first place. Surrogacy has been so normalized, even in the Christian world, that speaking against it is quite controversial.

It shouldn’t be. In our fallen world families break, but we should never break them on purpose.


Resources:

Anderson Cooper and the New Normal

John Stonestreet & Maria Baer | BreakPoint | May 8, 2020

New York Legalizes Commercial Surrogacy

John Stonestreet & Roberto Rivera | BreakPoint | April 15, 2020

Anderson Cooper and the New Normal

BreakPoint Daily

Anderson Cooper and the New Normal

thumbnail_cooper

Why Surrogacy Is Oppression

JOHN STONESTREET  WITH MARIA BAER

A couple of weeks ago, a woman had a baby. Childbirth, of course, happens tens of thousands of times a day in the United States, but this baby was a product.

A couple paid a doctor and an agency to secure the child. The mom’s relationship with the child is governed not by biology, but by contract, one with clauses and exceptions and conditions. A man who made no genetic contribution is being called the child’s other “father,” along with Anderson Cooper, a major media celebrity, which is why this baby’s birth made national headlines.

Cooper is a homosexual man. He and his now-ex partner hired a woman to be a surrogate, a practice increasingly common in the U.S. The headlines announcing the couple’s acquisition were universally fawning, as if this story carried none of the extraordinary details listed above at all: Anderson Cooper talks first weekend as new Dad;” “Anderson Cooper announces birth of his son; urges people to hold on to ‘moments of joy.’”

None of these articles, in fact not a single one that I could find in any major publication anywhere, even hinted that there might be any ethical concerns with Cooper’s purchase. In fact, when author Joyce Carol Oates mentioned on Twitter – after explicitly congratulating Cooper, by the way – that she found it curious the news coverage never mentioned Cooper’s hired surrogate at all, she was excoriated.

The speed at which our culture is able to normalize a behavior thought just yesterday to be somewhere between questionable to unthinkable is stunning. To not mention any shred of ethical hesitancy around the decision to purchase procreation, particularly by a couple who chose an intentionally sterile union in the first place, is one thing.

To gush over the doting dads as if the way this whole thing happened is quite unremarkable? Well, that’s something else entirely. After all, culture is often most powerful in our lives where it makes the least amount of commotion. When something is no longer considered debatable, and is instead assumed, it’s been normalized.

This story demonstrates that commercial surrogacy, including cases in which the child is intentionally deprived of its mother, is now fully normal.

We’ve repeatedly pointed out the many ethical problems with surrogacy on BreakPoint: it assumes “children” are a right that God never promised; it assumes a Gnostic view of human bodies and relationships; it denies children the opportunity to be raised by their biological mom and a dad; it treats children as products instead of image-bearers; it poses a significant risk for women to be exploited financially.

We’ve also talked about the disastrous consequences of the sexual revolution, especially how it has divorced sex, marriage, and procreation and devalues other human beings for how they can serve our own sexual desires.

Here, in this story, we have a new chapter of this: Two men who choose a sexual relationship that doesn’t include a uterus still consider themselves entitled to the products of a uterus. And so, they hire a uterus, not really the whole woman. After all, their decision makes the woman a mom, but they don’t want that part of her. They only want the part that will allow them what they want.

We see the world through the stories we tell ourselves, and each reporter who told this story tacitly agreed that Cooper and his partner were the good guys. As Joyce Carol Oates quickly discovered when she asked why the baby’s mom should be left unnamed, the protagonist role was already taken, and it would be awkward to cast the hired help as the antagonist. So, they just didn’t mention her at all. That was probably what was specified in the contract anyway.

But what about her? Was she, as most women who agree to surrogacy tend to be, lower-income? Was the financial pressure simply too great to not be attracted by the payday?

Perhaps the strangest part of the growing cultural acceptance is how surrogacy is so often championed by the Progressive Left, especially as it has increasingly served the cause of same-sex marriage. Yet, it violates almost every central tenet of the worldview they claim.

After all, if anything is “capitalism run amok,” it’s commercial surrogacy. Is there a more disgusting display of greed than the rich paying the poor for their babies? And, surrogacy exploits the vulnerable. It robs women of their bodily autonomy, especially when contract clauses commit them to reproductive decisions, including abortion. Increasingly, surrogacy is about two wealthy men using a woman for her body, while appropriating a role that only she can fulfill.

Surrogacy is also the final chapter of a culture that prioritizes adult happiness over children’s rights, in this case by offering a service only the very wealthy can afford. Surrogacy denies that children have rights to their mother and father, and that a mother has a right to her own child. Like transgenderism, surrogacy denies biological realities, in this case the miraculous bonds, both physical and emotional, that connects mothers with their children. Surrogacy serves money, and makes winners and losers. The losers are always women and children. The winners are always those with big bank accounts.

If there were a segment of culture that should rebuke surrogacy but often doesn’t, it would be the Progressive Left, which fancies itself the champion of the vulnerable, the poor, and of women. Some do, in particular feminists who see the potential for exploitation.

If there were another segment of culture that should rebuke surrogacy but often doesn’t, even more so in fact, it would be Christians. Some do, but too many don’t, mostly because their worldview analysis stops at what’s normal, rather than what’s right.

Behind Anderson Cooper’s money and these headlines is this baby’s mom. No matter what we tell ourselves about how willing she was or how better off she is now, she is harmed and so is her son – who somehow knew from the moment he was born to look for her. Unfortunately, he won’t find her. Shame on us.

Resources:

New York Legalizes Commercial Surrogacy

John Stonestreet & Roberto Rivera | BreakPoint | April 15, 2020

Women Are More Than Wombs

John Stonestreet & Shane Morris | BreakPoint | February 28, 2020

The Sexual Revolution and Its Victims

John Stonestreet | BreakPoint | September 24, 2019

Is Critical Theory Compatible with Christianity?

BreakPoint Daily

Is Critical Theory Compatible with Christianity?

thumbnail_critical

If you haven’t heard the terms “intersectionality” and “critical theory,” your children likely have, at least if they are in college or even high school. What began as an academic theory decades ago is now a dominant way of seeing human relationships, at least for many: There are the oppressed, and there are the oppressors.

JOHN STONESTREET

If you haven’t heard the terms “intersectionality” and “critical theory,” your children likely have, at least if they are in college or even high school. What began as an academic theory decades ago is now a dominant way of seeing human relationships, at least for many: There are the oppressed, and there are the oppressors.

In our latest “What Would You Say?” video, Joseph Backholm describes how critical theory reduces human beings to categories according to race, gender, sexual preference and orientation, income, and on and on. Because some groups of people are more privileged than others, identifying one’s group ultimately determines one’s moral authority. Intersectionality, as Joseph explains, is an attempt to solve the problem of belonging to more than one group by measuring out the level of oppression a person experiences due to their various identities.

Ultimately, critical theory seeks to address these perceived privileges and imbalances of power and oppression, and it has become a dominant theory in higher education and in other arenas of culture.

So how should a Christian look at the critical theory and intersectionality? Are these concepts compatible with Christianity?

Here’s part of Joseph Backholm’s response from the latest “What Would You Say?” video:

Critical theory and intersectionality are not consistent with Christianity, and here are three reasons why.

First, critical theory offers a different view of humanity than Christianity.

Critical theory claims that our identity as human beings is rooted in things like race and gender, features that differ from person to person. But the Bible grounds our identity as human beings, and the value every human has, in the fact that we are created in God’s own image. This is something every human being shares.

While critical theory pits some groups of people against other groups based on their status as oppressors or oppressed, the Bible says we are all equal before God: created equal, equally valuable, equally guilty of sin, equally deserving of punishment, and equally able to find grace and mercy in Jesus.

Which leads to the second point.

Critical theory offers a different view of sin than Christianity

The Bible identifies sin as anything that violates God’s design for people, including unjust oppression of other people, but critical theory identifies sin only as oppression. As a result, advocates of critical theory would see biblical practices such as discipleship, correction, leadership, and reproof as sinful assertions of power, if the speaker is among the oppressors, and would excuse sins such as anger, jealousy, hatred, bitterness, unforgiveness, or envy among the oppressed.

The Bible says that we are all guilty before God, regardless of social status, race, or economic situation. The Bible condemns oppression as one of but certainly not the only way in which humans rebel against God.

Because critical theory gets the problem wrong, it also gets the solution wrong, which leads to the third point.

Critical theory offers a different view of salvation than Christianity.

According to the Bible, because we are all equally guilty of sin, salvation can only be found in Jesus through repentance. Our hope is found in being forgiven of sin.

Because critical theory teaches that oppressors are guilty and the oppressed are not, salvation for the oppressed is found, not through repentance, but in social liberation here and now. Their hope is only though activism.

In other words, critical theory has a completely different understanding of who we are, what the problem is, and how to fix it, than Christianity.

Come to WhatWouldYouSay.org for the full video or subscribe to the What Would You Say? channel on YouTube

Resources:

What Would You Say about Men Competing as Women?

BreakPoint Daily

What Would You Say about Men Competing as Women?

thumbnail_wwys

JOHN STONESTREET  WITH ROBERTO RIVERA

On February 29, Megan Youngren made sports history. Not by breaking a world record, or by overcoming a particularly devastating injury. No, Youngren became the first openly transgender athlete to compete at the U.S. Olympic marathon trials.

As is almost always the case with athletes competing across gender lines, Youngren is a biological male who attempted to make the U. S. Olympics women’s team. And even though Youngren didn’t make the cut, no doubt he is just the first of many men who will try to seek Olympic glory by competing against women.

And that means there’s more than a good chance we’ll find ourselves in conversations about the fairness of biological men in women’s sports.

The latest in our “What Would You Say?” video series tackles this question. Each video offers clear, articulate, and useable answers to tough cultural issues like this one. Here’s just part of the latest video, with Joseph Backholm’s response to the question of men competing as women:

CONTINUED AT:  SOURCE

What Is A Woman?

BreakPoint Daily

What Is A Woman?

thumbnail_what is woman bp

Two Marches, Contradictory Catechisms

JOHN STONESTREET  WITH SHANE MORRIS

One of the things I learned from years of teaching students how to defend their faith is sometimes the best way to test an idea is through questions: “What do you mean by that?” “Why do you believe that?” and “Can you define that?”

My colleague Joseph Backholm is a master of asking these revealing questions. You may know him from a viral video from a few years back when he asked university students whether they would accept him if he identified as a six-foot-five Chinese woman. They reluctantly all said “yes,” even though Joseph is a not-even six-foot white guy.

Over the last year, Joseph has led the Colson Center’s “What Would You Say?” video series. As part of this project, Joseph traveled to Washington, D.C. a few weeks ago to interview participants at two very different demonstrations: First, the Women’s March, and then, the March for Life. His question this time was probing, and the answers were revealing.

“What is a woman?” It seems like answering that question would be a prerequisite for participating in, I don’t know, a women’s march. Yet incredibly, none of the women he talked to—despite their passionate advocacy of women’s rights—could give him a clear answer.

“A woman is anything that she wants to be defined as,” said one. “A woman is someone who chooses to express themselves,” said another. “That’s a trick question,” said still another. Two other women who were selling uterus pins told Joseph that they don’t think having a uterus is what makes a person a woman!

Joseph and I talk about these interviews on the latest episode of the BreakPoint Podcast. He explains how the video wasn’t produced by cherry-picking or selective editing. None of the women he talked with could clearly or objectively define a woman.

“They have been catechized so effectively,” Joseph said, “that they don’t spend any time thinking about whether what they say is true or consistent.”

He also asked marchers two more questions, which we’ll feature in another upcoming video at WhatWouldYouSay.org. First, he asked whether these women supported a new California law that requires that corporate boards have female members. All enthusiastically said yes. Yet when asked whether children need both a mother and a father in the home, these same women said no. Love, they said, not gender, is all that matters in parenting. The contradiction was apparently lost on them.

Thankfully, there was another march in D.C.—a much bigger, more energetic one. The 47th annual March for Life was filled with women calling for an end to legal abortion. And when asked the same question, “What is a woman?” these ladies were able to answer quickly and consistently. They were clear: A man cannot become a woman, regardless of how he identifies. In other words, those who clearly understand when human life begins also clearly understand what a woman is.

Still, I couldn’t help but notice how some of the younger women that Joseph asked to define a woman hesitated before giving what they knew to be a politically incorrect answer. It was as if they expected the LGBT Zeus to smite them for telling the truth. And yet they bravely told it, while also bravely standing up for the unborn. I tell you, I hope their march is the one that represents the future of America.

All of this should remind us of how much what’s “normal” has changed for the younger generation, and how far-reaching the contradictory catechism we saw at the Women’s March really is. Folks, when we say ideas and worldview matter, this is what we mean, and it’s why videos like “What Would You Say?” are so important.

Those of us who didn’t grow up with modern gender politics need to realize that we are immigrants in this brave new world, but our kids are natives. They’ve never known any different. What’s obvious to us isn’t always obvious to them. And answers that come naturally for us often take courage for them. That’s why we must keep exposing lies about the human person and prepare them to speak politically incorrect truths. And maybe the best way to do that is to teach them how to ask good questions.

Resources:

LGBT Character Quotas

film

LGBT Character Quotas

JOHN STONESTREET  WITH SHANE MORRIS

Just about every major movie release these days is scrutinized about whether or not it will feature an obvious LGBT character. Ever since the live-action remake of “Beauty and the Beast,” and a bit before, Disney has been sprinkling LGBT characters generously across its film properties.

Even the most recent installment of “Star Wars,” (now owned by Disney) features the franchise’s first, albeit strangely placed and obviously forced, same-sex kiss. And, Marvel Studios (also owned by, you guessed it, Disney) has joined the cause, including a gay character in its upcoming movie, “The Eternals.” The studio also recently announced a new film currently in production that will feature its “first ever transgender superhero,” marking what will likely become an endless parade of token “Ts” following in the wake of the “Ls” and “Gs.”

“Token” is the right word for what we are seeing. What most stands out about all these characters is just how tacked-on they feel. Few are essential to the stories being told. In some cases, they even detract or, at least, distract from them. Disney and other studios aren’t making movies about LGBT identity or lifestyle, they’re capitulating to character quotas—virtue signaling to the loud and influential LGBT lobby in order to keep protests down and ticket sales up.

The whole thing is reminiscent of Dave Barry’s satirical history of the U.S., “Dave Barry Slept Here,” in which he ends several chapters with the obligatory closer that “around this time women and minority groups were accomplishing a great many achievements, too.”

In no way am I suggesting that we shouldn’t expect more overt LGBT stories in the future. We certainly can. But in the meantime, the reality is that even a “woke” entertainment titan like Disney is not so much pushing a cultural agenda as they are bowing to it. Nor am I suggesting that their obvious capitulation to these imposed character quotas is ineffective sexual propaganda. As Brett Kunkle and I said in our book A Practical Guide to Culture, ideas are often most powerful not where they are the loudest, but where they are made to just appear normal.

Since the TV show “Will and Grace,” the most commonly advanced message has been that gay people are just like everyone else and just want to live and love in peace. Cultural acceptance of same-sex relationships grew steadily until Obergefell was enshrined into law. From there the demands only grew, from cultural power to legal power. Though many in the “G” and “L” camp were satisfied with “living and loving in peace,” the movement itself was far more ambitious, first demanding affirmation, then conformity and even participation from charities, public employees, bakers, florists, schools, and t-shirt makers.

Now, transgender characters are being introduced into big-budget films as characters who just want to live in peace. If this sounds familiar, it should. The “T,” which has almost nothing in common with the larger acronym and even contradicts the other letters in several places, has assumed enough soft cultural power to demand representation nearly everywhere. The question is: Will it also make the transition to legal power?

The strange tale of J. K. Rowling leaves some doubts. In early December, the multi-billionaire author of “Harry Potter” tweeted her support for a researcher in the U.K. who was fired from her job for saying that male and female are biological realities.

When a judge at an employment tribunal upheld the firing, calling the researcher’s views “transphobic,” and “unworthy of a democratic society,” Rowling tweeted that while she supports loving whichever consenting adult you choose, firing Maya Forstater for insisting that women are real was a bridge too far for her. Despite the intense backlash and calls for boycotts, Rowling still hasn’t retracted the tweet.

As Rod Dreher points out, this raises an interesting question: If all the soft power in that movement can’t move Rowling, can’t other entertainers say “no,” too? Maybe the claims of the transgender movement are just too radical. Maybe the “T” fails culturally where the “L” and the “G” largely succeeded?

We’ll find out soon enough. Until then, token transgender characters at the movies are an ironic reminder that this is a movement still trying to gain acceptance. Which means there’s still time for dissenting voices—even very influential ones—to say “no.”

Resources:

Why is JK Rowling being denounced? Because she said No to a lie C C Pecknold | Catholic Herald | December 20, 2019

A Practical Guide to Culture John Stonestreet & Brett Kunkle | David C. Cook | 2017

Women at Work

BreakPoint Daily

Women at Work

thumbnail_work at home

…in the Home or in the Marketplace

01/22/20 

Many modern feminists insist that if women were given the same education and opportunities as men, they would almost certainly choose careers over family. It’s an attitude reflected in the comments by French President Macron a couple of years ago that educated women don’t have large families. In addition to the good bit of Twitter backlash Macron received then, studies continue to debunk the idea now.

Seventeen years ago, reporter Lisa Belkin wrote an article titled “The Opt-Out Revolution” based on a study that indicated how vast numbers of educated and highly successful women were giving up their careers to be stay-at-home moms. Last month, a follow-up study showed that, in large part, these same women who took a break from work to focus on momhood ended up wanting to stay home a lot longer than they originally expected—often until their kids graduated high school. Even after their kids graduated, these moms were less likely to return to their old careers as they were to find work at schools, nonprofits, philanthropies, or as consultants in their previous fields.

According to the study’s authors, these women were “seduced by the patriarchal bargain of privileged domesticity.”  Apparently, these women who were in a strong position to further the feminist cause were expected to do their part in promoting the narrative of the “freed” woman embodying equality by succeeding in realms previously dominated by men. Despite the rhetoric of the movement, whether or not they achieved individual fulfillment was irrelevant. No, these women were expected to advance the feminist agenda.

This agenda was on display at last weekend’s Women’s March. My colleague Joseph Backholm attended the march and interviewed a cross section of those women championing its modern feminist values. I’ll let the video, which you can see here at BreakPoint, speak for itself, but I will just say that as the dad of daughters, I was deeply saddened to hear women justify their existence only in their opposition to men. Even worse, having bought the new sexual orthodoxies of our day, they went on to say that the only thing that makes a woman a woman is self-identification. The confusion is palpable.

Early feminism was about correcting social injustices in pursuit of equal rights for women. Modern feminism went wrong by adopting the very framework that devalued women in the first place. In seeking to liberate women from sexism, modern feminism too often presumes that a woman’s value is in how she compares to and competes with men. According to my colleague Brooke Boriack, this means that modern feminism only devolves into another form of sexist tyranny. By elevating a male-dominated value system, women are forced to operate within a framework that devalues skills they alone can contribute to the world.

Or as Eric Metaxas wrote in the introduction of his terrific book “Seven Women,” “The lesson in all this is that to pit women against men is a form of denigration of women, as though their measure must be determined by masculine standards (strength, power, i.e. the woman who was annoyed by men lifting things for her)… How ironic that modern culture, by so often intimating power as the highest good, should force women to accept what amounts to nothing less than patriarchal thinking, in the most pejorative sense of that adjective.”

Thankfully, there are many women willing to resist the message that says they must act like men to make a difference. I highlighted eight of them in a Breakpoint commentary a few weeks ago, women who are changing the world in ways men cannot. Their experiences, talents, positions, and voices as women set their work apart.

The highly educated women in that recent study did not choose to exercise their power by doing something as well as men—they’re doing something men can’t do at all. A father’s contribution to the home is vital, but a devoted mom is a force of nature like no other.

After all, a pivotal point in all of human history was when a young woman said “Yes” to God, agreeing to do something that no man could have done. She became the mother of our Lord.

Healthy cultures support women as women, allowing them to thrive according to their unique gifts and talents—in business, in government, in the home, or in any realm—without fear of belittlement, and without pressure to support political agendas that inadvertently devalue them.

Resources:

They Don’t Wanna Work Naomi Schaefer Riley | Commentary | December 19, 2019

Eight Women You Should Know John Stonestreet & Shane Morris | BreakPoint | December 4, 2019

7 Women and the Secret of Their Greatness Eric Metaxas | Thomas Nelson | 2015