Latest news with #AllieBethStuckey
New York Times
7 hours ago
- Politics
- New York Times
The YouTube Host Defining Conservative Christianity
transcript The YouTube Host Defining Conservative Christianity I don't think anyone would argue that Stephen Miller is sitting in his office in the White House, carefully balancing the dictates of Christian charity and the biblical admonitions about the importance of building walls. Stephen Miller just wants to deport people. I'm for deporting people. I really like Stephen Miller. Evangelical support for deporting illegal immigrants is very high. In the world of online influencers, one evangelical Christian writer and podcaster stands out. So we've got a lot to get to on today's episode of Relatable. Offering her audience a blend of politics, theology, and lifestyle advice. Trump round 2 is not here to make friends. And I love that. Progressive propaganda is everywhere, especially on TikTok. Wear a dress to church. Don't act ugly. Is Allie Beth Stuckey an example of what religious authority looks like in America today? Satan is in a battle not just for our souls, but for our bodies. Liberals will do anything but read their Bible. And why does she think the biggest problem in American politics isn't too much cruelty, but the wrong kind of empathy? Your empathy becomes toxic when it encourages you to validate lies. To affirm sin. And when we ignore facts in favor of feelings, we tend to push for policy that does not make sense and is destructive. Allie Beth Stuckey, welcome to Interesting Times. Thank you, I appreciate it. It's- no, the pleasure is all mine. So we're going to try and have a conversation that covers evangelical Christianity, some of the divides within it, its relationship to Donald Trump. But first I want to talk about what it is that you do. So you make a podcast called Relatable, and The Atlantic wrote a profile of you a little while ago, and I think they called you something like 'the New Phyllis Schlafly,' which is a reference, of course, to the famous female conservative activist from the 1970s and 1980s. So just to start out, what is it that you do? Are you a political commentator, a religious teacher, a lifestyle influencer? Yes, that's a great question. So I try to occupy that space where politics and theology intersects Christian theology, specifically. And I describe myself as a Christian wife and mom who is trying to navigate the chaos of our culture with as much clarity and courage as God is willing to give me. And so that does mean talking about politics. There are seasons over the past few years that I have focused mostly on politics, especially in an election year. 'You're not simply voting for the lesser of two evils, you are voting to lessen evil.' I really want, especially the mostly suburban moms and women ages 25 to 45, that are listening to this show to understand what is at stake, what's the difference between the two candidates. And I don't try to remain neutral in that. Everyone knows I'm a Christian conservative. Thus far I have always voted Republican, but there are also a lot of times, and I would say right now is this kind of season where I and I think my audience kind of feel exhausted by the news cycle. They're not as interested in politics as they were before. And they're more interested in talking about the deeper underlying theological issues or topics or trends. And I like to focus on that. And so, I don't know if I could say that I am squarely a political commentator. I certainly wouldn't call myself a Bible study leader or religious teacher. I just try to occupy the space where those two things very clearly mix together and intersect as much as I possibly can. There's also just a strong parenting and motherhood and, sort of, female life element. I feel like, to what you do and what you talk about. So just looking at, looking at your recent podcasts. There's discussions about Christian evangelism in L.A., and abortion and politics. 'We need to start thinking about the dignity and the humanity of every human being from the moment of conception.' And then there's also discussions about sunscreen and parenting styles, right? And the secret to fixing your period. So it sounds like there are a lot of potential natural remedies for the menstrual issues that people have. So I almost feel like you're selling yourself almost a little bit short by saying it's just about politics and theology, right? Like, it's a larger discussion about how to be a Christian woman with an emphasis both on 'Christian' and on 'woman.' Yeah, I think that's a fair point. We certainly do talk about lifestyle things, and while I don't consider myself some mainstay in the MAHA movement, there are a lot of principles in that I really appreciate. We have been talking about health and wellness, certainly since COVID, some of the deception that we see in the medical industry coming from official science and scientific institutions like the C.D.C. And I think that has kind of given way to a conversation consistently on my podcast about O.K, what is actually true scientifically? What is true about our bodies and how do we apply that to how we take care of ourselves and how we take care of our families? And so, yes, that definitely intersects with motherhood. But I also don't consider myself some kind of family or motherhood influencer, if that makes sense. Yeah no, it absolutely does. So who is your audience right now? Who is the Allie Beth Stuckey listener? Yes, I would say it is mostly Christian conservative women ages 25 to 45. There are obviously men who listen as well, but that is- How many men, how many men listen to the show? Well, they have their own name- You don't have to give me a specific number but- They're even called the Relatabros. And I call my husband chief Relatabro. He is the head of the Relatabros. And I would say, at least from the YouTube demographic information that we have, I believe it's 85 percent female or maybe 80 percent female. And so, there's a chunk, there's definitely a chunk of men who listen to and watch the show. And it's not like always- some episodes like 'How to Fix Your Period' - probably not going to be for them, but other episodes they can enjoy just as much. So Relatabros. Women 25 to 45. What else would you say that people who are in your sphere are listening to and reading and consuming? Do you feel like you're part of a larger millennial and maybe Zoomer ecosystem for younger Christians? I would say if my audience wants day to day news, they are probably a lot of them are probably watching Megyn Kelly, which I would say me too. I love Meghan and I love her analysis of the news. And so I think a lot of them are probably going to her for that for a big chunk, it seems, of my audience, I am the only connection to the news and politics that they have, which I take that role very seriously in their lives. And so they're not listening to a bunch of other political shows, too. That's really interesting. Do you feel like you're the main religious of conversation partner for. Yeah, not in terms of the home or church, but in terms of the internet. I don't think so. I think for Christian women, I think in the Christian world I am seen as political. So in the larger evangelical world, if they think Allie Beth Stuckey, they're thinking she talks politics. I think in the political world, when I'm going to speak at Turning Point or speak at a conservative organization conference, they think of me as the Christian one. I am going to talk about the legacy of Christian courage that is our heritage as Christians. The one who is always talking about the Bible. So yeah, I think for one group, I'm probably the plugin for religion and Christianity. For another group, they see me as their connection to politics. Interesting and why do you think younger women are drawn to your particular style, your way of talking about the world. I think it is number one, clarity. I think, from a lot of evangelical leaders and pastors who have, I would say, a tougher job than me in a lot of ways. So I'm not trying to throw all of them under the bus, but they're just not as clear about what. What does the Bible say about gender. What does the Bible say about marriage. Does the Bible have anything to say about immigration. I think the biggest surge in followers, listeners that I had, at least at in a short period of time, was in 2020 when everyone was posting the black square. Everyone was saying that George Floyd was killed because of racism. Everyone was saying that white people, and especially white evangelicals, had a role to play in George Floyd's death. We all need to sit back and listen and learn. And even in churches, we need to be reading white fragility, and I don't like to Pat myself on the back at all, because I certainly wasn't alone. But among white evangelical women, I have been one of the only ones to say, no, that's not biblical, and that's not how I'm talking about it. I'm not going to shame white women. I'm not going to say that they need to sit down and shut up and be lambasted for something that someone who might have looked like them in the same geographical region did 200 years ago or 50 years ago. That's not the biblical definition of justice. And so I think that there have been a lot of points like that over the past five years where it seems like evangelicals have gone soft, just moved to the left, especially on social justice and race issues, where I have been one of the only ones that these women are listening to willing to say no. And not because I'm cruel, not because I'm harsh, but because I don't think that's what the Bible says. And I think God's justice and love and mercy And truth are much better than the secular social justice mongers would have you believe. So I want to go further on the argument that you just raised the critique of evangelical leaders drifting to the left. But before that, can you talk a little bit about how you grew up and your religious upbringing. Yes so I am very grateful that I was raised in a conservative Christian home. I don't remember talking about politics a whole lot growing up. I do remember really caring about the bush-gore election. Now, mind you, I was in second grade at this time, and I remember we had this mock election in our classroom, and only one girl said that she and her parents were going to vote for Gore. And it was this huge deal. And because I was raised in a very conservative suburb of Dallas, and I went to a conservative Christian school, kindergarten through 12th grade. And so all of that, I'm sure, contributed to my natural conservatism. But certainly a Christian upbringing, certainly, that contributed to the values that I still hold today. Southern Baptist church growing up, Wednesday, Sunday morning, Sunday night, all of that good stuff. Parents really not only talk the talk, but walk the walk, which I think also has helped me. And are you still a Southern baptist? Yes, I still go to a Southern Baptist church. I don't know if I align with every single doctrinal belief that I had in the churches growing up, but I do still consider myself a Southern Baptist. We'll talk a little bit about that. Was there any kind of pivot point in your own religious development. So I grew up going to Southern Baptist churches in high school. I started going to a nondenominational, non-denominational church by myself, I think, when I was a junior. I do remember that church and a Bible teacher that I had in school in my junior year, really kind of opening my eyes to reformed theology. And it was in college that I probably would have started identifying as reformed. So go, go a little further, because my suspicion is that at least part of our audience isn't intensely familiar with, for instance, reformed or Calvinist views on the end times. So what does it mean to in the context of American protestantism? If somebody says, I identify as reformed, what. What does that mean. Well, a lot of things within Protestant in less than in less than, Yes, in less than all I'll say it's a long there's a long answer, a short one, I'll give a short answer. But suffice it to say, there are disagreements about what it means to be reformed. I would consider myself a reformed Baptist. What I mean by that is that gosh, I don't know if there's a short way to explain all of this talking about predestination that is a centerpiece of Calvinism, whether you believe that people were predestined to be Christians or whether it is by human effort that we are saved. But I fall into the predestination camp. We also just have a really big emphasis on theological study. And I would say biblical literalism in a lot of ways. And yeah, gosh, I don't know. It just depends on when you want me to go. Well, we don't want to take up the whole conversation with this, but let's extend it in a couple ways. So reformed. Means, let's say, a really strong emphasis on God's grace and God's will over and against human effort, human effort alone. There's an incredibly strong emphasis on the Bible, not just as the word of God, but as the defining test of Christian life in a way that again, is distinct from catholicism's emphasis on the authority of the Pope or the bishops. But let's do the beginning and the end of the world, and then we'll. And then we'll move on. So we can do the end of the world first. So there's a lot of debates in evangelical Protestantism about the end times and what Christians should expect, how to interpret the Book of Revelation, all these kinds of things. So where does your tradition fall on that. Yeah, I would call myself a classic or historic pre realist. And for those out there that are like, what are y'all even talking about. I'm sorry. You don't need to know this right now to become a Christian. But like classical premillennialist means that I don't believe that Christians are going to be raptured before the tribulation. I think that we are here for that. We're not going to escape that by rapture. And then there are differences in view as well. On the role of Israel. What is Israel. Who is Israel. There's a lot of debate about that right now within Christianity, too, especially in light of the end times. And just to oversimplify, your camp is a little less likely to identify the current state of Israel with the biblical Israel in a way that other evangelicals might be likely to do. And that is where I would diverge from the vast majority of Southern Baptists who do believe that God has a special particular plan for Israel salvation, that it is the current geographical state of Israel. Whereas I would point to several passages in scripture to say that that's not quite right, even though, as I've said many times, I do support supporting Israel in a variety of ways for other reasons. And so just since I promised the beginning as well. Are from your perspective. Are you. Are you a six day creationist? Do you think I am. The world was literally. It literally made in six days, right. As in as in the beginning of Genesis. Right Yes. It seems to me that that's what Jesus believes. And when he speaks about the Old Testament and the creation order, he seems to speak of it in a literal sense when he's speaking in the Gospels. And that's a good verification for me. So that's where you've ended up. You belong to a tradition that does not have female pastors that, follows Saint Paul's words about how women should not be leaders speaking in church. And so on. And I think a lot of people outside your religious context would see that as a tension. That here's someone who belongs to a church that doesn't have female pastors, and yet is presenting herself as an authority figure. As in your framing filling the breach when actual pastors are failing. So do you think that's a tension. That's a great question. Yes I do. Take literally Paul's admonition that women are not to teach in church. Now, there is a debate and we could even get into this. This would probably be an interesting conversation. How I think the Christian right has actually changed in the past five years when it comes to how they see the role of women. Five years ago, no one talked about that tension to me. No one had an issue with me saying, yeah, I don't think women should be pastors and preachers, but I don't take that to mean that women shouldn't talk, that women can't be persuasive, that there aren't different ways for women to lead and influence and persuade outside of the context of the pulpit and the local church on Sunday morning. It does get tricky when it seems like I am saying, which I try not to say explicitly, but hey, your male pastor is acting cowardly and he's not being clear on this. Don't listen to that because he's asking you to compromise. But I'm not trying to say, listen to me or follow me, or you should listen to this podcast instead of going to church. I'm trying to say, whether you listen to me or not, read your Bible, and I want your reading of the Bible to determine what church you go to. And if you don't go to a church that is preaching the entire counsel of God, even when that is inconvenient for the culture, then you should go to a different church. What do you think Paul means then. Or what do you what do you think is the key distinction here between church Sunday morning as a space of male authority and Tuesday morning podcasting as a space of we'll just call it female communication, but. But look, let's be honest. You're not just communicating, right. You're making an argument, you're making a critique. And whether you invest yourself with a pastor's authority or not, there are people who regard you as authoritative. So what is the theological distinction from your perspective, between that kind of Sunday morning space and your work outside of the work of a pastor. Well, one is church and one is not. And the church has a distinct governing body, and the pastor has not only the role of persuasion. Although I agree with you, that's basically what a sermon is. But he's not just a preacher, he is also a pastor. He is also a shepherd. He has the ability to exercise church discipline. And I am not that I don't have the authority to exercise those things over someone's life. And Yes, of course, people do regard me as a leader in some sense, but I don't think that there is any command against that kind of influence. And mode of persuasion in scripture when it comes to women. The church is the body of Christ, or the church is the bride of Christ, rather is what I meant to say. And it is distinct from a Podcast Studio, as and I'm sure you agree with this as a Catholic, it's not just four walls. It is distinct from the rest of the world. I do agree, I think that in if you look at the Catholic tradition, you see a lot of cases where prominent female leaders seem to emerge with a message that seems intended to honestly, to shame men in authority in the church. And I'm curious if you think that the exercise of female authority in your church, in your religious landscape, is itself a reflection of male failure, right that you're here and people are listening to you because men are failing. I do think that many pastors are failing. I don't know if I can say all men in the Southern Baptist or evangelical world not all are failing. Not all, but I think many. And now I think that there are a lot of clear and obedient and courageous pastors. And just because they're not going viral or they're not written about in the media, that doesn't mean that they don't exist. But there are some very prominent leaders and prominent figures within evangelicalism who are straight up soft. They're soft when it comes to sexuality. They were soft when it came to the necessity of churches meeting together physically during COVID. They were soft when it came to the difference between biblical justice and secular social justice, and they are unwilling to say simply what the Bible says about these things. I don't think that pastors should get up every Sunday and tell you what's going on in the news. I don't think that they are bound to the news cycle, but when the Bible says, in the beginning, God created them male and female in his image, he created them. They shouldn't avoid that. They shouldn't pretend like that doesn't mean what it means. We shouldn't pretend that the Bible doesn't speak so clearly to so many of the so-called culture war issues of our day, and because they are scared of what they may lose by speaking up, because they like to be written about nicely in the New York Times' or wherever, they're just not willing to say it. And I think that's a travesty, because I think clarity is the most loving thing that we can give the people who listen to us. All right. So let's go a little deeper into this critique. So you wrote a book entitled toxic empathy how progressives exploit Christian compassion. And so you can see just from the subtitle that it is effectively both a critique of secular progressivism and also a critique of your fellow Christians. And I think a lot of people hear a word like empathy and think that it is just something that Christians are automatically called to and that a critique of empathy is effectively a critique of Christianity itself. So what is toxic empathy. What is wrong with some forms of empathy from your perspective. And that is correct. Some forms of empathy, I argue, and this is not my original argument. I heard Abigail Shrier first say this, and I think she might have even gotten this from Paul Bloom, which is a Yale psychologist who wrote a book called against empathy. An interesting side note is that in fact, my own mother once wrote an essay critiquing empathy for First Things magazine some years ago, in which she drew on Paul Bloom, who is a secular psychologist, criticizing from a secular perspective a overidentification with other people's feelings. All of which is to say I am. I am a somewhat sympathetic audience for this kind of argument. So I just wanted to give proper credit to what for this first line that I'm about to say is that empathy by itself is neutral. Empathy by itself, I believe, is neither good nor bad. And I that's probably not an exact quote from Paul Bloom, but that's kind of where I got that line of reasoning, is that it is not in itself a virtue. It is not in itself, something that we should aspire to. And that alone kind of like knocks people off their skates. When I say that, I say that it can be positive in what it can lead you to or it can be negative in what it can lead you to. An example I give in my book. I was traveling with my three-year-old at the time we were going to Atlanta. My hands were full. She was in her runaway era. I was trying to get down the jet bridge. There was no way that I could control her and get all the stuff that I needed down. So I just literally sat down and I didn't know what to do, and I was almost on the verge of tears. And this woman came up to me. I had all these people pass me by and this woman came up to me and she just looked at me and she said, it's O.K, I'm a mom. I get it. And she got one of my bags and we made it to our seat and it was great. And then just a couple weeks later, I was traveling by myself and I saw this mom with her toddler. She had her stroller, she had all of her stuff, and I could see it like she was on the verge of tears. She was trying to get to her seat and she didn't know how she was going to do it. Well, I had been there. I felt so deeply exactly how she felt. And because of that, because I just knew so personally the stress that she was feeling, I was able to meet her need and I grabbed her bag. She made it to her seat, and she was good to go. And so having been there, being able to put yourself in someone's shoes can lead you to do the right thing. It can lead you to sacrifice. It can lead you to selflessness. It can lead you to acts of love and kindness. But putting yourself in someone's shoes, feeling what they feel can also lead you. I say to do three things that makes empathy toxic, and that is one validate lies. That is to affirm sin, and that is 3 support destructive policies. Those are the three characteristics that I put on empathy that I think can make it toxic. So in your definition, just so listeners are clear, empathy means the act of feeling or trying to feel what others are feeling. And it's distinct, therefore from compassion or sympathy where you are trying to help someone, you might feel bad for them, but you aren't trying to feel directly their set of emotions. This is primarily, then, about empathizing with people who are either doing something that is wrong for understandable human reasons, or who are supporting policies that are themselves going to lead to bad outcomes, even if they have charitable motives. Well, it's not against even feeling trying to feel how they feel. It is allowing feeling how they feel to lead you to justify what they are doing, which happens in abortion, in the gender debate and the sexuality debate and the Justice debate and the immigration debate, because we feel so deeply for this one purported victim. We say, well, maybe deportation is wrong, or maybe I should affirm this person's stated gender even though it Mrs. mismatches, their biology. Or maybe I should affirm the right to have an abortion because I feel so deeply for this person's plight. That is when your empathy has led you in a bad direction. And I think has turned toxic. But this is somewhat distinct, then, from one of the arguments that Paul Bloom makes in his book. which is that one problem with empathy is that it can actually lead in the other direction towards this kind of helplessness. Everything that happens in the world, you feel in some way because you're empathizing with other people so much, and this paralyzes you. It's like, O.K, the problems of the world are too large. I can't possibly solve them. Do you think that's a problem with empathy as well. Yes that's not a theme that I explore in my book, although I think it's interesting. I also think it's interesting that actually, the more you emphasize, especially with kids like in the classroom, the more you emphasize empathy, the meaner those kids can get to those in the outgroup. I think that Abigail Shrier phrased it like this full of empathy and mean as hell. And I see that with a lot of progressives, and I call it misplaced mothering. I think a lot of progressives, they take under their wing those that they see as victims. So say it is the man who identifies as a woman who wants to go into the women's bathroom, wants to play against women in sports. They see this person as marginalized, as vulnerable, as misunderstood, and they feel so deeply for them. They feel so deeply for their pain that anyone who comes against their chosen victim, this person that they care for, they have a hostile reaction to in the same way that a mama bear would have a hostile reaction to someone who is trying to attack her Cubs. That is how I think a lot of deeply feeling progressives feel about illegal aliens, or whoever they see as a victim. Those of us who are on the other side of the issue, they actually see as oppressors, as enemies of their chosen victims. And I think that's why it causes just the absolute cruelty that often we see from progressives who simultaneously say that they are deeply empathetic and loving. So this is a critique of progressivism and how progressivism has ended up essentially taking particular sides in the immigration debate and the debates about transgenderism, other issues like that. But then it's also a critique of your fellow Christians, right. You think that this is a trap, that people who have theologically conservative commitments, in fact, in many cases have fallen into, especially over the last five or 10 years. Yes, especially, I would say in the summer of 2020. I mean, I saw this a lot with COVID, but I also saw this a lot when it came to the conversation about race and police brutality. We'd have these claims that America is systemically racist, that the church has played a large part in that white people need to be apologetic and humble and listen and learn and all of this stuff. And I would point to certain statistics or I would question certain narratives. And what I got told over and over again is that sometimes the truth doesn't matter. Sometimes it doesn't matter what the data says, that you just have to have empathy. And while I don't disagree that sometimes you shouldn't bring up data and facts in a conversation with a person when you just need to have compassion for them, the truth actually does matter, especially when it's leading to certain policy decisions. And so I just don't buy that idea that sometimes we have to exchange the truth for empathy and let people believe a lie, because it feels better for them. I think that is actually really cruel and hateful and ultimately destructive. So now let's talk about how this argument looks from the other side of the debate for a minute. And I think what's interesting about how you're describing this is you're framing the divide in terms of what happened in the year 2020. And that from your point of view, it seems like the divide reflects the evangelical response to COVID, to the pandemic, to whether churches should accept long running restrictions and Trump and Trump. So that's what I wanted to bring it around to because from the point of view of I think a lot of people who you have criticized or and who have certainly criticized you, the divide just starts with Trump. And where you see toxic empathy. They see, I think, I'm not sure if there's a single word for it, but a systematic delight in other people's tears. I think that is cruel. Actually I mean, cruel cruelty. I guess cruelty, I guess is the one word phrase that Trump himself is cruel. He mocks people, he's savage to people and so on. But that also attached to this. There's this sense of we love to hear the liberals cry. If we're deporting people. You see this in the second Trump term. We're going to make a YouTube video about deportation, that reveling in reveling, reveling in rounding people up and these kind of things. Yeah And I think clearly, if empathy can be toxic, cruelty can be even more toxic, right. And so I do. Do you think that is a fair critique of Trump and Trumpism and its impact on American politics. Maybe but it's not a fair critique of my argument. It's not a fair critique of my book, because my argument is that toxic empathy is cruel, that it ignores the people on the other side of the moral equation. For example, if you take the abortion issue, I start out by telling the story of a woman named Samantha. Her story was first told by NPR. She found out that her baby had a fatal fetal anomaly at the 20 week mark. But in Texas, she wasn't allowed to abort her child. NPR tells the story as if this was horrible for Samantha, who had to go through the financial, physical, and emotional burden of bearing this child only to have this child to die by the end of the story, the reader feels exactly how it seems NPR wants them to feel, which is that this is a great injustice towards Samantha. How dare these draconian laws force her to do something so painful, so financially burdensome. We need to liberate women from these anti-abortion laws that are making them go through so much. O.K, so you have so much empathy for Samantha that you support the pro-abortion position by the end of through the mode of storytelling. But then what I try to do is tell the story from the other perspective. The actual victim in this story, the would be victim in this story that NPR and most mainstream media outlets do not want you to know about. And that is the baby. They don't want you to think about the actual victim of abortion. So what would have been this baby whose name is Halo. What would have been her fate if Texas had not had this quote unquote draconian pro-life law. She would have been poisoned. She would have dismembered, been dismembered, she would have been discarded like toxic waste. But instead she was delivered and clothed and named and held and loved and buried like the full human being that she is. So my argument is that toxic empathy, because it only focuses on one purported victim and ignores the actual victims on the other side of the equation when it comes to any issue, not just abortion. It is actually cruel and destructive and deadly, both for the individual and for society. So we can agree that some of the things that Trump has said, that even Republicans, they're much more brazen. I would agree with you now about what some people would call cruelty. And we can get into that. But it's I'm not saying that all compassion is bad. Actually, compassion and empathy aren't even the same things I'm saying. No what you progressive in many cases are calling empathetic are calling nice is actually really cruel. It's actually really bad. So yeah, that's what I'm saying. I'm actually saying that the progressives use empathy as a vehicle to ultimate cruelty. But, but so let's talk about a different issue for a minute though. Let's talk about immigration. So part of your argument is that as I understand it would be that you have a set of conservative leaning evangelicals who are alienated from Donald Trump in some way alienated from the Republican Party and end up being pulled to the left. But that this happens not just on issues like abortion and transgender issues, but it also happens on an issue like immigration. And seems to me that immigration is just an issue where you have competing entirely and entirely reasonable forms of we don't even have to call it empathy. We can just say sympathy instead a reflection that people have understandable desires to have a better life. And people have understandable desires to have immigration proceed at a reasonable rate that doesn't overwhelm their communities. People have understandable fears about crime and disorder and violence. But these things need to be balanced in various ways. And it doesn't seem to me that there is a single definitive. Christian position on what the absolutely best immigration rate should be or anything like that. Yeah, I would agree with that part. Where do you think your fellow Christians have gone wrong on immigration. Yes so you are absolutely right. There are always going to be people on any issue, but especially immigration, who demand our empathy. And, I'm O.K with saying that. Or you could say sympathy or just feeling deeply for their plight. I would say a lot of people on the progressive side don't even consider the plight of those who have been negatively impacted by illegal immigration on a large scale or on an individual level. I think that ultimately, and this is really kind of my argument in the book, is that there are always going to be people on both sides of any story with real pain, with real stories that matter. And both people are made in the image of God. So at the end of the day, that's why you can't be led by empathy. Because if you allow yourself, you can feel really deep empathy for people with competing needs and interests. And so at the end of the day, I think the Christian has to ask ourselves, but what is true. And then what does the Bible say. And you're right. On an issue like immigration, it's not as clear as where the Bible stands when it comes to the reality of the gender binary of male and female. The definition of marriage is between one man and one woman, or the value of life starting at the moment of conception, as made in the Imago DEI. Immigration is not as clear. We can only look to scripture to see the principles of nations of governance, of laws, of borders, of security, of God's provision through walls, the book of Nehemiah and say, O.K, can we apply those principles to America today. Do they still have wisdom. Does it make sense why God wanted secure walls for Jerusalem. Does that still apply to America. We can just use logic to say, O.K, if we don't have borders, we don't have sovereignty, then we don't have citizenship, then we don't have rights. And that's bad for everyone, especially the most vulnerable. And if we can't enforce immigration law, then we essentially have no borders or sovereignty. And of course, there are going to be sad stories within that. But at the end of the day, sovereignty matters for every single country, not just for America. That's how I think through it. And I think that there are people in good faith who are sincere Christians who could agree, disagree with me on different forms of immigration policy. But for the people who simply use this issue to what I would say, virtue signal, say, I can't believe ICE is doing this or Trump is doing this, or this is so bad. Or look at this one story, even though they'll never talk about Kate Steinle or Lincoln Riley or the stories on the other side of it. The stories on the other side are stories of Americans who have been murdered or assaulted by illegal immigrants. I forget the New York Times' audience might not just know those stories automatically in those names, but I just want to What is their solution. Really any progressive, not just a Christian, but what is their solution. Like, I guess I don't know the answer either, but I don't hear from the other side. Like, do we have an unconditional, unmitigated obligation to accept everyone into America no matter what just because they want a better life. Is there any limit. Is there any immigration law that we can enforce. Is there any kind of way to nicely deport and detain people who shouldn't be here. And so I'm not hearing a whole lot of solutions from the other side either. And maybe that's I don't a place that we can try to come together and figure something out. Well, I guess what I'm interested in is in part, just how evangelicalism has ended up so polarized. And this does seem like a case, honestly, where it kind of makes a case for empathy that where I feel like my evangelical friends who are very, very anti-trump extremely anti-trump, often show a failure of understanding toward why so many conservative Christians would end up voting Republican, even under Trumpian conditions. And I feel like there's a pretty clear failure of just understanding how the world looks from the perspective of somebody who decides to stay Republican and decides to stay a Trump voter. I feel like I see this, I see this all the time, but I also feel like there's a failure of empathy from your side. You're an evangelical Christian. In 2015, 2016, you watch your political party being taken over by a man whose personal life obviously defies all of the moral norms that evangelicals struggled so hard to uphold in the 1990s. During all the Bill Clinton controversies and so on, a man whose policies break with places where sincere, pro-life, pro-marriage conservatives were deeply, deeply involved in work aid, aid to Africa, aid to the developing world, and a president who on immigration doesn't just say, we need to build the wall, right. He also clearly uses the language of scapegoat and cruelty around the very large number of people who have understandable reasons to migrate to the United States, whether or not it's reasonable for the United States to welcome them. Sincere Christians recoil from this man, recoil from his takeover of the Republican Party, and in the process, Yes, end up kind of inevitably pulled somewhat to their left on issues where previously they were further to the right. But isn't that understandable. Like, doesn't that seem understandable to you as someone who disagrees with these people. It's totally understandable. And I would say that I have given a lot of credit to that over the years, not only because I sincerely understand it, but because it's more persuasive when you try to Steelman someone's concerns rather than diminish them. And I've never voted for Donald Trump in a primary, because I've had plenty of issues with how Donald Trump talks or conducts himself. And honestly, my critiques have been from the right, though I have been troubled by some of the things that he said about abortion, have worried if he was really strong enough on the issues that I care about or if the second term would only be about some kind of personal vendetta. I've actually been very pleasantly surprised and pretty satisfied with a lot of the things that he has actually done in the way of conservatism. And so what I would want the other side to understand is that I hear you. I absolutely hear you. However, from my perspective, the other side is worse. Is was Donald Trump my pick in the primary. Obviously, he was the pick of a lot of people, but was he my pick in the primary. And there's a lot of substantial majority. Yes And for a lot of Christians, though, who are in my camp, there are plenty of things about Donald Trump that we don't love. But at the end of the day, when we look at the policies that affect our country, that affect our family, and Yes, when we weigh them against scripture, especially when it comes to the gender debate, Donald Trump wins every time against Joe Biden, every time against Kamala Harris and all of the things that they say that, well, at least the Democrats do this better or more compassionately or more biblically. I just don't think that's true. I judge policies by their outcomes, not by their stated intentions. Democrats have a lot of good stated intentions. I don't think that the outcomes are kind or good, beneficial for society. And so Yeah, understand that there's a lot of us over here who hear your concerns about Donald Trump, who don't like his past adultery and different things that he has said, who would even take issue with him saying the F word. There are a lot of us out there like that who still say, Wow. But under Joe Biden, the USDA took funding away from public schools that didn't allow boys into girls' bathrooms. That's evil. And the Trump administration is doing the opposite of that. And that's good. So yeah, there are some really big things and a lot of big reasons that for I mean, we would just never wouldn't vote for Donald Trump if it's against another Democrat like that. I want to go just further into your critique of Trump and his second term, but just to pause on that issue, on the question of good and evil policies. Is there something that Donald Trump could do on immigration policy that you would consider evil. I am most sympathetic when it comes to the taking in of Christian refugees from the Middle East and elsewhere. I want these people to be protected. I mean, my highest priority is the protection of the preservation of Christians and especially persecuted Christians. And so the stories that I've seen about that of Christian refugees from war torn areas having a difficult time coming to the United States, that I would say is the most difficult for me, although even in that it's so difficult because I don't think that I can trust Christianity today and other liberal outlets to tell the total truth, because I know that they hate Donald Trump. And so it takes a lot of effort for those of us who are on the conservative side, who are open to arguments against some immigration policy, if it is truly cruel, if it is truly unwise. It's difficult for us to know where to go to get the accurate information, because when you're only seeing that stuff from people who hate Donald Trump anyway and want Christians to hate him, it's a little hard to take that at face value. And do you do you think that there are clear theological what issues have clear theological answers and meaning. Is there a distinction between culture war issues or abortion or right to life issues. And we haven't talked about climate change, but that's another issue. Where there's a critique of evangelical elites or evangelical pastors drifting to the left. But it seems to me that there are certain issues that Christian tradition speaks to in a way that is distinct from how to think about scientific debates about the rate of the impact of like, that's just not a question where you open Nehemiah and say, this is the thing to take out of the Bible. right, right. Now, I agree with you. I would distinguish between creation order issues and non-creation order issues. I think that a lot of the so-called culture war issues that we debate today are answered. I mean, I could say in the first 27 verses of the Bible, but you could say in the first three chapters of the Bible or the first 11 chapters of the Bible, we get a lot of questions answered. I don't think there's any wiggle room about the definition of gender or marriage, or the value of life inside the womb, when it comes down to the nitty gritty of policy. Maybe, although I think there's very little wiggle room when it comes to policy on those three issues when it comes to climate change, I actually do think that goes back to the creation order, our stewardship of the Earth, but also realizing that we do as humans have Dominion over the Earth. It's not the other way around that human beings do matter more than plants or animals or any other part of creation. But when it comes to all of the different scientific discussions and policies surrounding that, you're right. I don't think that the Bible speaks clearly to that. I think we can look throughout Scripture to see the principles for a lot of things Justice and immigration and all of that, but those are going to be open to more debate and discussion, which I am also very open to than the big three abortion, gender and sexuality, which I think there should be zero debate on within Christianity. So in theory, though, then there isn't any reason why you couldn't share a church or a tradition with someone who was pro-life pro-traditional marriage and thought Christian refugees from the Middle East deserve better treatment than the Trump administration is giving them. Oh Yeah. Totally But in practice, though, it does seem like you think that conservative Christians who hold those views are in too far inside the liberal bubble. In the grip of us, in the grip of toxic empathy. Maybe in some cases, but. But mistaken. No, it would really depend. I mean, sure, if they were posting out there, if. Here's the thing. This is what. Something that bothers me when I see this among a lot of evangelicals. They will only post about the news when it is an opportunity to be critical of Trump, and they will claim they're not being political. They will post about if there is a case that seems like it is racism against a Black person by the police, or that's how maybe the New York Times' or another outlet is describing it, or whether it seems that the Trump administration is being cruel to refugees or to immigrants, they will post those stories, but they will never post stories that are critical of Joe Biden or the Democrats or on the other side of the equation. I think we can disagree as Christians on some of those things and the policy solutions to some of those things. But Yes, if you are allowing your outrage and your compassion to be exclusively or primarily dictated by what the mainstream media says is right and wrong, then Yes, I do think that you are probably being led by toxic empathy. Now if you're truly outside of the political binary and you're like, I always care about the issues no matter what human dignity like is my. That's what I'm following. And I care about whatever story is out there, no matter how it makes any politician look. I can respect that. All right, so let's then let's finish with Trump himself and Trump's second term. You mentioned earlier that you have critiques of Trump. You have critiques of his administration, but that there are often critiques from a culturally conservative perspective. And these range from critiques of Trump tap dancing or just striding away from some pro-life positions during the campaigns. You've been pretty critical of the Trump administration's pro-life stance, which is, I think, pretty clearly a violation of pro-life principle from almost any reasonable definition of the term. Has Trump done anything, though, that isn't in some way functionally pro-choice on abortion policy. Well, I know that he issued that executive order on IVF, which didn't have a whole lot of teeth to it. I think he was just trying to communicate. Hey, I promised that I was going to do this when I was campaigning. And look here, I'm doing it. Obviously, I think that that's a step in the wrong direction. You and I think, share that ethic on life that a lot of people out there, including conservatives, including a ton of evangelicals, maybe even professing Catholics, do not understand what you just said, that it is a violation of the pro-life ethic to be pro IVF. And I don't expect Trump to understand that. And I don't even know that. I expect a lot of people around Trump to understand that, because what I've realized in conservative evangelicalism at least, that is a very niche view. I just think it's clear from a rhetorical perspective, that Trump, in the aftermath of Roe, has positioned himself as someone who says the issue should be returned to the United States. We're not going to have national policy on abortion. We're going to have some kind of support for, or at least rhetorical support for IVF, which I agree with you. Pro-life opposition to embryo creation and destruction in IVF is a. Narrower it's a more niche position even within the pro-life movement. But I guess to me, right. It seems that religious conservatives got a. Lot out of the bargain with Donald Trump. More than a lot of anti-trump evangelicals and anti-trump religious conservatives expected. They did, in fact, get Roe v Wade overturned. They got a lot of moves, including moves on issues related to gender identity that would not necessarily have been predictable 5 to 10 years ago. So I would never argue that religious conservatives have just been taken for a ride by Trump. At the same time, when I look at Trump's second term. When I look at the issues that he's invested in, the issues that people around him are most invested in, very few of them seem to have anything to do with cultural conservatism, religious conservatism. Trump doesn't want to talk about abortion. You can defend his policy on immigration from a religious perspective, but I don't think anyone would argue that, Stephen Miller is sitting in his office in the White House carefully balancing the dictates of Christian charity and the biblical admonitions about the importance of building walls. Stephen Miller just wants to deport people. It just seems to me that at this moment, religious influence on the Trump administration and on conservatism is ebbing. And I'm curious if you think that's right, or if you think I'm overreading that from my position at the New York Times' Yeah, maybe so. I mean, I'm for deporting people. I really like Stephen Miller. Evangelical support for deporting illegal immigrants is very high. And I just I see a lot of effort from the left. It seems to go after that Christian demographic who is not so sure about Trump and is almost looking for an opportunity to not support Trump anymore by highlighting these stories of supposed cruelty from ice or the Trump administration. So that more and more Christians will say, yeah, I voted for Trump, but this is just too far. And I was more sympathetic. But wait, but wait, isn't that but isn't that a reasonable thing to say. Like, don't you want people in the position of the Christian supporter of Donald Trump to say, I support deportations, but the way we're deporting people to a prison in Salvador seems like a violation of natural log. I mean, you just did. I support Trump's position generally on abortion, but I think what he's doing on IVF is wrong, you're worried about the progressives, and toxic empathy leaking into leaking into conservative evangelicalism. But doesn't conservative evangelicalism have more credibility if it can critique Trump. I would say it might be reasonable. It might be reasonable. I'm not saying that it is always unreasonable to listen to those critiques of Trump, or to see those highlights of supposed cruelty from the Trump administration and to say, Wow, that does seem bad. What I'm saying is that if Christians are looking to have credibility with the left or credibility with progressives or credibility with the world, and they are looking for an escape route to no longer like Donald Trump or support Donald Trump, that they so easily, without thinking, latch on to the deeply feeling stories that we are given and say, this is just too far for me without even digging in and asking the question, but is this true. Or what is the other side to the story. That's what I see as a form of toxic empathy. That's what leads to what I call the mushy middle. That's where I see a lot of evangelicals are going. That's the question that I always want people to ask whether I'm talking or the New York Times' is talking, but is this true. If it sounds too good or too bad to be true about either side. That's the question that we need to ask. But is this true. And what is on the other side of it. So like I said, not always unreasonable, but it's unreasonable if you're not using reason. What would you say to someone watching or listening to this program who is in the mushy middle. Who doesn't like Donald Trump. Who is not maybe not a reformed Calvinist Protestant, but is religious, is Christian, is sympathetic to some of your views on abortion, some of your views on transgender issues, but feels like Trump is using Christianity rather than Christianity operating through Trump. Like what is. What is your evangelical in the fullest sense of the word. Are a public representative of Christianity, right. You're talking about what is truth. You are you are an arbiter of truth in contemporary America. What is your message of outreach to someone who is not sure who is cross-pressured? Yeah what I would say is. I really don't care how you feel about Donald Trump. You can loathe Donald Trump. You can be someone who never voted for Donald Trump. But maybe you're starting to see that progressive policies aren't in alignment with the Bible, or that they are just destructive. And I am happy to have people like that in my community. There are people like that in my audience who have never voted for Donald Trump, but they really agree with me when it comes to the policies. What I would say to that person, even if your mind never changes on Donald Trump, I don't care. Politicians come and go, but things are clearer than you think. Make sure that you are not using nuance as an excuse not to dig into the truth about something. And what would it take to alienate you from politics. I know a lot of people in the camp of never Trump or anti-trump evangelicals never Trump anti-trump Christians. Some of them have become vehement partisans of progressive politics. Some of them have become reluctant supporters of the Democrats. Some of them have just said, look, American politics doesn't present choices that Christians in good conscience should be deeply associated with. Like maybe you still vote and so on. But you just back out, opt out a little bit. Is there a line like that for you. Well, I already don't like politics very much, and I feel like a lot of people do after the election is that I have backed away from talking a lot about politics because we were so in it before the election. And I think a lot of people are just tired of it. I'm not even saying that's the right thing, but I think that's the feeling that a lot of people have. I see my role as an anchor on the right, as basically as conservative as you can get on virtually every issue, but especially the life issue, especially gender, especially marriage. I mean, we are few and far between those of us who actually believe that the law should have something to say about the reality of natural marriage between man and woman, and that children have a right and should have a legal right to their mom and dad. A mom and dad at the very least. I mean, there aren't very many of us over here, but we have a role to play in persuading people and pulling people as far as we can into our camp. But that would imply basically that there's never a moment when you leave because like functionally on same sex marriage, right. The Republican Party under Trump has basically abandoned that fight and that debate. If you cast a vote for a Republican politician today outside of some very particular situations, you're just not casting a vote for the traditional definition of marriage. You're not. And there was a time, it seems, that Republicans probably felt like they had given up on the abortion fight, too. And then, of course, Roe v Wade was overturned in 2022. And so things can change. And so you're so your view is you stay in stay in the fight basically. Well I guess it depends on what you mean by stay. I am not really that involved in politics. I care about the underlying issues and making sure as much as we possibly can that the Bible is informing our views on those issues. When it comes to election years, I'm going to speak up and say what I think Christians should do. So if your question is, will I ever stop doing that. Will I ever stop saying, hey, I do think Christians should vote for this person. It depends on if the left stays as bad as it is, and if the left stays as bad as it is the unfortunate reality. And I truly don't like this reality as long as the right is to the right of that, as long as the right is more sane than the left, than my position right now is that we have an obligation to vote for the more sane policy platform. I think that's a low bar right now. Maybe I could change my mind in a few years, but that's where I am right now. All right. On that note, Allie Beth Stuckey, Thanks so much for joining me. Thank you. Below is an edited transcript of an episode of 'Interesting Times.' We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. Ross Douthat: In the world of online influencers, one evangelical Christian writer and podcaster stands out, offering her audience a blend of politics, theology and lifestyle advice. Is Allie Beth Stuckey an example of what religious authority looks like in America today? What does she offer to her audience of younger religious women? And why does she think the biggest problem in American politics isn't too much cruelty but the wrong kind of empathy? Allie Beth Stuckey, welcome to 'Interesting Times.' Allie Beth Stuckey: Thank you. I appreciate it. Douthat: We're going to have a conversation that covers evangelical Christianity, some of the divides within it and its relationship to Donald Trump. But first, I want to talk about what you do. You make a podcast called 'Relatable.' The Atlantic wrote a profile of you a little while ago, and it called you 'the new Phyllis Schlafly,' which is a reference to the famous female conservative activist from the 1970s and 1980s. To start out, are you a political commentator, a religious teacher, a lifestyle influencer? Stuckey: I try to occupy that space where politics and theology intersect. Christian theology, specifically. I describe myself as a Christian wife and mom who is trying to navigate the chaos of our culture with as much clarity and courage as God is willing to give me. And so that does mean talking about politics. There are seasons over the past few years that I have focused mostly on politics, especially in an election year. I really want the mostly suburban moms and women, ages 25 to 45, that are listening to the show to understand what is at stake — what's the difference between the two candidates. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Newsweek
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
The Rise of the Young, Female Conservative Influencer
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. For years, American conservatism had a certain face. It was loud, brash and old, frequently red-faced, armed with a podcast mic and unequivocally male. In 2025, that face is changing. Under the second Trump administration, the cultural, political and social landscape of politics and the media is shifting, ushering a new dawn for a conservative figure whose poise and position are helping to market conservativism for a new generation. Welcome to the era of the young, conservative, female influencer. The New Face Of Conservatism The list of young, female conservative influencers who are rising—or maintaining their prominence—on social-media platforms is long. These women may be from different walks of life and live in different parts of the country, their content may focus on specific issues like abortion or more generally about family. What they do share, though, is a conservative belief system that prioritizes traditional gender roles and a social media presence that is as carefully curated as a good manicure. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva One such woman is Isabel Brown, author and host of the Isabel Brown Show, who has amassed more than a million followers on Instagram alone. Brown is affiliated with the campus-focused conservative organization Turning Point USA, having started her own chapter at Colorado State University. In an email to Newsweek, Brown said: "As our nation continues engaging in what we often call the "culture war," we're watching women shift substantially away from left-wing ideology in pursuit of something more fulfilling. "We've watched voices like Jordan Peterson, Charlie Kirk and Michael Knowles connect with young men throughout the past several years on social media reminding them that masculinity is not something to shy away from, but to embrace," Brown said, adding that though most people associated "'conservative' media online with the 'podcast bro' genre," she believes the "future of conservatism is entirely dependent on this next generation of young women." As for the message of her content? It's simple: embracing your God-given identity. This week will mark Turning Point USA's annual Young Women's Leadership Summit in Texas. The event will feature multiple speakers, including former competitive swimmer Riley Gaines, Representative Beth Van Duyne of Texas, and Allie Beth Stuckey, whose value system is similar to Brown's, anchored by faith, marriage and children. Stuckey is the host of the podcast Relatable w/ Allie Beth Stuckey, the core audience of which is women aged 25-45. She has around 667,000 followers on Instagram and another 618,000 subscribers on YouTube. In 2019, she testified before the U.S. House of Representatives during a hearing titled "Examining State Efforts to Undermine Access to Reproductive Care," and discussed anti-abortion policies. Speaking to Newsweek over email, Stuckey said: "Conservative women are, in general, happier and more fulfilled than our progressive counterparts, and our message to young women extends beyond politics." According to the 2024 American Family Survey, 37 percent of conservative women aged 18–40 say they are "completely satisfied" with their lives, compared with just 12 percent of their liberal peers. Newsweek also spoke with Savannah Craven Antao, the New York-based conservative known for her YouTube channel, Her Patriot Voice. "Most women want to embrace their femininity and feel confident choosing a path that the left and the modern feminists despise. This being opting out the 9-5 grind, choosing to not go to college, or simply marrying young and starting a family," said Savannah Craven Antao, a New York-based conservative personality known for her YouTube channel, Her Patriot Voice. Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, is quoted on the website for the summit, where he says that the event is "A sanctuary for women who embrace faith, family, wellness, and freedom," promising that this year's event will be the "biggest and most impactful yet," as the movement "continues to grow." Newsweek reached out to Turning Point USA via an online contact form for comment. The Reasons Behind The Rise National polling shows no measurable migration of Gen Z women toward the political right or a revival of traditional-role attitudes—just a louder online niche. Laura Toogood, author of the book Journalism and PR: News Media and Public Relations in the Digital Age, told Newsweek: "Social media gives influencers direct access to their audience, without the same barriers that are present when information is communicated via the mainstream media, for example, editorial guidelines. "It is easy for certain viewpoints to gain a significant amount of traction and to gather momentum quickly, especially among a young audience who use these platforms to consume their news." Majid KhosraviNik, a reader in digital media and discourse studies at the U.K.'s University of Newcastle, told Newsweek that that there has been a shift in both digital media and society, leading to media platforms "promoting, normalizing and widening," right-wing populist values. Professor Karin Wahl-Jorgensen of the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Culture told Newsweek by email: "Social media allow for influencers of all stripes to share their content and build a following without the scrutiny of traditional media." Social media has hit the public sphere like a hammer to an egg, and conservative and right-wing actors have risen to prominence through the fractures. And as is often the case in modern culture, it all comes back to the algorithm. "Algorithms help to accelerate the spread of information, especially if it attracts a lot of engagement and interest, thereby showing it to an even larger audience," Toogood said. Eviane Leidig, author of The Women of the Far Right: Social Media Influencers and Online Radicalization" told Newsweek: "Social media algorithms and recommender systems play a significant role in amplifying young, politically engaged influencers, especially those with conservative and anti-feminist views. At the same time, conservative content creators are strategic in optimizing their content to gain visibility, such as clickbait titles, trending hashtags, and hot takes commentary about the culture wars. Leidig highlighted changes at Meta in January this year, the same month Trump returned to the White House, where platforms—including Instagram—"changed their content policies to allow for more personalized political content in users' feeds." "Users are automatically suggested political content from accounts they don't follow," she said, adding that she is increasingly recommended posts from the Trump administration. A view of the atmosphere at the 2019 Girlboss Rally at UCLA on June 29, 2019, in Los Angeles. A view of the atmosphere at the 2019 Girlboss Rally at UCLA on June 29, 2019, in Los Girlboss But there's another driver here—young Gen Z women who have become enchanted by a traditional political value system. Wahl-Jorgensen said that traditionalist messages "appeal to Gen Z audiences, particularly young women, who feel disenchanted with the opportunities afforded by corporate life." Leidig echoed this, attributing the rise in traditional value systems to "a reactionary movement against mainstream girl boss feminism." "Many young people feel lonely and isolated, so they're searching for meaning and purpose in community, whether online or offline," Leidig said, pointing to an increase in religiosity among young people. In the U.K., findings from YouGov and Bible Society show that 48 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds in England and Wales now say they "definitely or probably" believe in a God, gods or "some higher power"—up from just 29 percent in 2018. And on this side of the pond, there's a similar trend, with the percentage of young adults engaging with the bible and committing to Christianity on the rise too. Findings from the American Bible Society this year showed the first increase in "bible use and scripture engagement" among younger adults since 2021. "Young women feel pressured to 'have it all' in terms of achieving a successful career and family life, so the messaging of traditional gender roles in which women reject career demands in favor of a family is appealing," Leidig said. KhosraviNik told Newsweek that "Gen Z were born into a history of women activism and establishment of various equality measures in the society," adding that Gen Z see feminism as more of a "political label." But KhosraviNik said that what conservative influencers are promoting is more about "political positioning," than feminism. "This trend will, sooner or later turn into regressive arguments, values and ideology," KhosraviNik said citing the "myth of happy subservient housewife." "Against this culture, they may see some allure in alternative ways of womanhood in a romanticized way, as a choice, as an alternative, as a protest. Choice is in fact pretty feminist," he added. Anti-abortion rights demonstrators march past the U.S. Capitol to the Supreme Court for the 52nd annual March For Life in Washington on January 24, 2025. Anti-abortion rights demonstrators march past the U.S. Capitol to the Supreme Court for the 52nd annual March For Life in Washington on January 24, 2025. BRYAN DOZIER/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images It's A New Political Era, And It's Only Just Beginning "We are already seeing more and more creators share their beautiful journeys of marriage and motherhood, pursuit of faith in God, homeschooling journey, or quest to Make America Healthy Again—and I predict we are only going to see more of that content in the next few years," the content creator Isabel Brown said. She also said that we are in real time watching what she described as the "lies," sold by leftist feminism be unpacked in real time on social media. Brown's view sits on one side of the political coin. On the other are feminists who hold strong in their belief that feminism is essential. Chimamanda Ngozi Adiche, in her 2014 essay, We Should All Be Feminists wrote "I am a feminist. And when I looked the word up in the dictionary, it said: Feminist: a person who believes in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes." Laura Bates meanwhile in her 2022 book, Fix The System, Not The Women, wrote "We have wasted decades telling women and girls how to fix things. How to fix themselves. How to stay safe. It hasn't worked. Because women were never the problem in the first place." As for where the movement will go next? Podcaster Allie Beth Stuckey said: "People long for more substantive commentary and debate than they did even a few years ago, when those who only churned out viral hot takes thrived. Conservative women are stepping up to the plate and will continue to." Her Patriot Voice host Savannah Craven Antao said: "Everyday I see more and more young Conservative women posting their views on social media and being unapologetically themselves," adding "The movement will continue." As for Brown? She has high hopes: "The next generation of women will revive the American family, embrace true lasting love in marriage again, experience the unparalleled joy of motherhood, seek God over government, and honor true womanhood again." Whether their influence remakes the movement or merely refreshes its image, one thing is clear: the next chapter of American conservatism will be written as much in the glow of a ring-light as on the stump of a campaign stage.
Yahoo
14-02-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
'Work wife' Valentine's cards spark heated debate about appropriateness of workplace relationships
A line of Valentine's Day cards out this holiday sparked outrage on social media and heated debate about the appropriateness of workplace relationships. In a now-viral TikTok, a woman shopping for Valentine's cards this week expresses shock to find cards addressed to a "work wife" or a "work husband." "Work wife" or "Work husband" is a term commonly used for a co-worker whom you have a close, supportive working relationship with, who is typically the opposite sex. The cards read, "For my work wife [or husband] on Valentine's Day. I've finally found someone just as inappropriate as me!" History Of Valentine's Day And Its Rise As A Billion-dollar Consumer Industry The woman filming the video gives the cards a thumbs down and asks, "Who approved this???" Read On The Fox News App Internet users largely seemed to agree in the comment section, trashing the cards as crossing the line. "HR [Human Resources] will be busy this month," one comment said. "Why not just make an affair partner card?" another asked. Over on X, several commentators argued that being married and having a "work spouse" was foolish and dangerous. "If the terms 'work wife' and 'work husband' are harmless, why not call it 'work brother' or 'work sister'? Because it's not platonic," one person posted. Christian conservative commentator Allie Beth Stuckey also criticized the idea: "Your spouse doesn't have a playful 'work wife' or 'work husband.' They're just cheating on you - emotionally or otherwise," she posted. Former athlete and conservative commentator T.J. Moe also wrote, "The sanctity of marriage matters. Mocking it with the idea of a 'work wife' is foolishly self-sabotaging. If you have a shred of common sense, you will avoid this nonsense." Fox News Digital spoke to relationship experts to get their take on the viral cards and whether it was harmless to have a "work spouse." Dr. Robi Ludwig, a psychotherapist who works with married couples, said she thought the cards were inappropriate in the workplace and could invite misunderstanding or even be considered sexual harassment. For those already in relationships, Ludwig said the biggest issue was that "husband" and "wife" suggests an intimate, unique relationship. To call someone else your spouse, even light-heartedly, could invite misunderstanding and threaten your primary relationship. "It is playing with fire because it's labeling something in a way that dismisses appropriate boundaries," she said. Click Here For More Coverage Of Media And Culture Relationship expert Susan Trombetti, CEO of Exclusive Matchmaking, called the cards a "slippery slope" into "emotional affair" territory. "I think they're treacherous," she said. While there is nothing necessarily wrong with having a close relationship with a co-worker, she argued that when you start classifying that relationship in spousal terms, you're crossing a line and starting to invest emotionally in the relationship. That could be harmful to your career and your relationship outside the workplace. "At the very least, I think it's micro cheating. And I definitely think it's an emotional affair," she added. Manhattan psychotherapist Jonathan Alpert agreed, saying that giving a Valentine's card to a co-worker blurs the line between professional and personal and could signal a dangerous attachment to someone you're not married to. "If you're giving your 'work spouse' a Valentine's card, you have to ask yourself—would you be comfortable if your real spouse saw it? If the answer is no, that's a red flag," he told Fox News Digital. "In the best cases, a 'work spouse' is a close, platonic colleague who provides support in a stressful environment. But it can also create emotional dependencies that undermine real relationships. If you find yourself confiding in your 'work spouse' more than your actual partner, or keeping secrets, that's a problem," he said. For married employees, having a work spouse could do more harm than good, he cautioned. "At the end of the day, respect and honesty are key. If you wouldn't feel comfortable being upfront with your real spouse about your work spouse, then you probably need to take a step back and re-evaluate those boundaries," he article source: 'Work wife' Valentine's cards spark heated debate about appropriateness of workplace relationships
Fox News
14-02-2025
- Entertainment
- Fox News
'Work wife' Valentine's cards spark heated debate about appropriateness of workplace relationships
A line of Valentine's Day cards out this holiday sparked outrage on social media and heated debate about the appropriateness of workplace relationships. In a now-viral TikTok, a woman shopping for Valentine's cards this week expresses shock to find cards addressed to a "work wife" or a "work husband." "Work wife" or "Work husband" is a term commonly used for a co-worker whom you have a close, supportive working relationship with, who is typically the opposite sex. The cards read, "For my work wife [or husband] on Valentine's Day. I've finally found someone just as inappropriate as me!" The woman filming the video gives the cards a thumbs down and asks, "Who approved this???" Internet users largely seemed to agree in the comment section, trashing the cards as crossing the line. "HR [Human Resources] will be busy this month," one comment said. "Why not just make an affair partner card?" another asked. Over on X, several commentators argued that being married and having a "work spouse" was foolish and dangerous. "If the terms 'work wife' and 'work husband' are harmless, why not call it 'work brother' or 'work sister'? Because it's not platonic," one person posted. Christian conservative commentator Allie Beth Stuckey also criticized the idea: "Your spouse doesn't have a playful 'work wife' or 'work husband.' They're just cheating on you - emotionally or otherwise," she posted. Former athlete and conservative commentator T.J. Moe also wrote, "The sanctity of marriage matters. Mocking it with the idea of a 'work wife' is foolishly self-sabotaging. If you have a shred of common sense, you will avoid this nonsense." Fox News Digital spoke to relationship experts to get their take on the viral cards and whether it was harmless to have a "work spouse." Dr. Robi Ludwig, a psychotherapist who works with married couples, said she thought the cards were inappropriate in the workplace and could invite misunderstanding or even be considered sexual harassment. For those already in relationships, Ludwig said the biggest issue was that "husband" and "wife" suggests an intimate, unique relationship. To call someone else your spouse, even light-heartedly, could invite misunderstanding and threaten your primary relationship. "It is playing with fire because it's labeling something in a way that dismisses appropriate boundaries," she said. Relationship expert Susan Trombetti, CEO of Exclusive Matchmaking, called the cards a "slippery slope" into "emotional affair" territory. "I think they're treacherous," she said. While there is nothing necessarily wrong with having a close relationship with a co-worker, she argued that when you start classifying that relationship in spousal terms, you're crossing a line and starting to invest emotionally in the relationship. That could be harmful to your career and your relationship outside the workplace. "At the very least, I think it's micro cheating. And I definitely think it's an emotional affair," she added. Manhattan psychotherapist Jonathan Alpert agreed, saying that giving a Valentine's card to a co-worker blurs the line between professional and personal and could signal a dangerous attachment to someone you're not married to. "If you're giving your 'work spouse' a Valentine's card, you have to ask yourself—would you be comfortable if your real spouse saw it? If the answer is no, that's a red flag," he told Fox News Digital. "In the best cases, a 'work spouse' is a close, platonic colleague who provides support in a stressful environment. But it can also create emotional dependencies that undermine real relationships. If you find yourself confiding in your 'work spouse' more than your actual partner, or keeping secrets, that's a problem," he said. For married employees, having a work spouse could do more harm than good, he cautioned. "At the end of the day, respect and honesty are key. If you wouldn't feel comfortable being upfront with your real spouse about your work spouse, then you probably need to take a step back and re-evaluate those boundaries," he added.
