Here Are 5 Brands Celebrating Men In Costumes This Women’s History Month

Here Are 5 Brands Celebrating Men In Costumes This Women’s History Month

“Anything women can do, men in dresses can do better.” That’s the message from major American corporations and tech giants on International Women’s Day in 2023.

Already, cities, organizations like the ACLU, politicians like Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and members of the Biden administration, including First Lady Jill Biden, are choosing to share this special month and day with men.

Now, even the companies you likely engage with daily are pushing women out of their Women’s History Month campaigns to make room for confused men. Here are five international brands that chose to use men as the face of their celebrations of female-led advancements.


The first thing Apple users see when they visit their device’s App Store on International Women’s Day on March 8 is a giant red poster featuring a dolled-up plus-size “fat positivity” activist named Naomi Hearts.

Apple users who click on the square are redirected to an article about Hearts’s self-love campaign and desire to garner support for dangerous and irreversible procedures such as chemical castration and genital mutilation.


Google India’s advertisement celebrating “equal rights and opportunities for women” on International Women’s Day features Prakriti Soni, a man who expressed the belief that he was a woman starting in 2020.

The ad has more than 4 million views.


To promote International Women’s Day, Hershey’s Canada chose Fae Johnstone, a man who masquerades as a woman, as one the newest faces of the popular candy bar company’s wrapper.

Johnstone, who leads an LGBT activist organization that prides itself on forcing leftists’ equity agenda in workplaces and on children, is also featured in the company’s Women’s History Month video advertisement.

“We can create a world where everyone is able to live in public space as their honest and authentic selves,” Johnstone says in the ad. “See the women changing how we see the future @Hershey’sCanada.”

Despite backlash for inviting a man into women’s spaces, Hershey’s Canada stood by its decision to include Johnstone.


Popular Australian swimwear brand Seafolly is known for showcasing its products on female models such as Gigi Hadid. This year, right before International Women’s Day, Seafolly chose a bearded man posing as “nonbinary” to be the star of their newest advertising campaign.

“This marks the first time iconic Aussie swim giants @seafollyaustralia have worked with a Trans ambassador/brand partner,” Deni Todorovič wrote in an announcement on Instagram.

Some Seafolly customers are abandoning the brand for “mocking women” by choosing a man to parade around in bikinis.


Even before Women’s History Month began, companies started pushing for men in their ads targeting women.

KitchenAid has a history of pouring money and effort into “female empowerment” campaigns, including its documentary, “A Woman’s Place,” which highlights the company’s “challenging inequality, helping to advance women in culinary arts and support the industry at large.”

That all went out the window when the appliance company selected Dylan Mulvaney, a man who gained online fame for his belief that “girlhood” is a costume that can be worn by anyone, to help headline its 2023 Color of the Year campaign launch and newsletter in February.

It’s becoming all too commonplace for businesses to pay delusional men to sell products- including exclusively female ones like tampons- to real women. That’s a massive slap in the face to the women of the past, present, and future.

Big businesses say they want to support and empower women, but they can’t do that if they are butting females out of their board rooms and ads to replace them with bearded men in dresses.

Asking men to headline is a sign of regress, not progress. Companies that partner with men pretending to be women show nothing but contempt for women and their accomplishments.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.


Happy International Women’s Day

Go to Top

Thank the Source

Ukraine´s Untold Story: The Terror Bombing of Donbass

Tell Me Sweet Little Lies – March 6th, 2023

SourceSouth Australian Gov Criminal Organisation

The True Beauty of Esther

Welcome to this year’s reflection on Purim.

Purim begins Monday night, 6th March, 2023 until nightfall Tuesday, 7th March 2023. In Jerusalem, Shushan Purim is celebrated on 8th March (Shabbat permitting).

In the Jewish Bible, we read of the story of Queen Esther in the Ketuvim (writings).  Queen Esther is a Jewish girl who becomes the queen of King Xerxes of Persia. She walked an unusual path, and her faith and courage were used by God to save her Jewish people from annihilation.

Date of Writing: The Book of Esther was likely written between 460 and 350 B.C.

You may wish to view my previous articles for more background on Esther: (1)(2)

Purim is still celebrated today in Israel and the diaspora. It commemorates the time when the Jewish people living in Persia were saved from extermination through Esther.

Part of the celebrations includes dressing up in costumes, performing plays and even beauty contests.

When the Megillah (Book of Esther) is read, noisemakers (e.g. groggers) are used by many to blot out the sound of Haman’s name. Food is also a big part of the celebration with Hamantaschen, triangle-shaped pastries to represent Haman’s ears or Haman’s pockets. Also, food gifts are given.

The theme of this story and many other Jewish stories has developed into this saying: “They tried to kill us, we won, let’s eat!” And so it is for Purim, a celebration with traditions of its own, including food.


To give you a brief background to the Book of Esther, we find that Jerusalem had fallen to Babylon and the Jews were exiled, around 605 BC. Babylon had been taken over by the powerful Persian Empire in 539 BC. Daniel survived the transition to the new empire, maintaining his administrative role (Daniel 6:28).

By the time of King Ahasuerus, also known as Xerxes in Esther, Daniel was gone and Haman had become the Prime Minister of Persia (Esther 3:1).

Let me introduce you to Queen Esther.

Esther’s name

Hadassah (Myrtle) was her Jewish name, but she assumed the name Esther to hide her Jewish identity. The three-letter root of Esther in Hebrew is s-t-r (סתר‎), “hide, conceal”. The passive infinitive is (לְהִסָּ֫תֶר‎), “to be hidden”.

As we know, Esther’s true name and identity were hidden, but also God’s name is not mentioned in the text, yet His work is evident throughout the story.

Esther’s qualities

  • Youth/Beauty

The scripture declares that she was young and beautiful — these were the conditions of the search made for the new queen for King Xerxes. Ahasuerus is evidently to be identified with Xerxes.

Then said the king’s servants that ministered unto him, Let there be fair young virgins sought for the king: Esther 2:2 (CJB)

… The young woman had a beautiful figure and was extremely good-looking… Esther 2:7 (CSB)

  • Wisdom/Humility

She was wise inasmuch as she listened to Mordecai and learnt what she had to do. There was favour and grace from God upon her life, but she also received the favour of the King.

Wisdom and humility go hand in hand.
The discipline of wisdom is fear of Adonai,
so before being honoured, a person must be humble.
~ Proverbs 15:33 (CJB)

Esther displayed wisdom when she gave her banquets to prepare the way for her requests to the King.

One could say that humility is dependence on the Lord and respecting others, while godly wisdom gives one the ability to discern and choose the best course of action.

When the Lord blesses a person with looks, wealth and His favour, it is not for the person’s benefit, but for the Father’s purposes.

Esther was loyal to Mordechai her cousin who acted as her father, and also to her non-Jewish husband. She moved with poise, based on her principles in the difficult circumstances of her day, and did not act irrationally but stayed the course to see a marvellous victory for her people.

At the time of Purim, we remember Esther’s courage in saving her people in Persia 2000 years ago, even though the circumstances were extreme.

When one fasts, there is a concept that we are untethering ourselves from earthly things and tethering ourselves to the Lord and heavenly realms. The Book of Esther does not specifically mention prayer, but it may be implied.

Esther trusted the Lord in her fasting and as a result, the King extended to her his golden sceptre.

Subsequently, we also see that the law of the Medes and Persians was altered to allow the Jewish people to defend themselves against the evil plans that had been put into place by Haman.

The Bible talks about when we fast, not if we fast.

“Moreover, when you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, with a sad countenance.
For they disfigure their faces that they may appear to men to be fasting.
Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward.” ~ Matthew 6:16

Fasting is the lifestyle of the believer awaiting the return of the Bridegroom —

“But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them,
and then they will fast in those days.” ~ Mark 2:20 (NKJV)

  • Jewish Culture

In the Jewish writings, Esther is called a Heroine, a Prophetess and yes, she was a stand-alone Queen. We can glean much from her life to enable us to stand against difficult odds, keep our eyes on the Lord and see Him break through our obstacles in His own inimitable way.

In fact, we, as Bible-believing Christians, have it within our ability to stand with the Father’s Beloved Chosen people to assist them through prayer, giving and going to the Holy Land to follow in the footsteps of our Lord. All are valid ways of supporting His Beloved Chosen People.

Now Esther was the daughter of Abihail, the uncle from whom Mordecai had adopted her as his own daughter. And when it was her turn to go to the king, she did not ask for anything except what Hegai, the king’s trusted official in charge of the harem, had advised. And Esther found favour in the eyes of everyone who saw her.
~ Esther 2:15 (BSB)

Her life and identity were hidden. It was as if she was the Lord’s secret agent in this perilous setting. The Lord’s solutions come through a man — or a woman in this instance. The Father always has someone through whom He can bring solutions.

The King offered her up to half of his kingdom. Some people throw money at problems, but in this case, money was not going to solve the problem of the Jews being annihilated — something more strategic was needed.

Once Haman was out of the picture, the King, although unable to annul a formal royal decree, instead adds to it, permitting the Jews to join together and destroy any and all of those seeking to kill them. (Esther 8:1–14)

The King spoke to Esther and Mordechai, who then called the secretaries — new letters were issued:

The letters said that the king had granted the Jews in every city the right “to assemble and defend their lives by destroying, killing, and exterminating any forces of any people or province that would attack them, their little ones or their women or would try to seize their goods as plunder.
~ Esther 8:11 (CJB)

The shift had begun and —

“And the Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword,
and with slaughter and destruction,
and did as they wished to those who hated them.”
~ Esther 9:5

They needed to be able to fight for themselves, save themselves, and be given some rights to stand up and defend themselves.

At the same time as Purim today invites lighthearted fun, the battle became serious as the Jews killed 75,000 who were standing against them, causing others to feign Jewishness.

Behind the Scenes

Even though God’s name does not appear in the Book of Esther, we can see His work behind the scenes.

Miracles did take place — the Lord’s hand was at work throughout these days of His people in Persia.

Time to Take Action

I believe prayer is always the first step before doing a work for the Lord. At this time, we can pray for Israel and her national security.

Perhaps you are being challenged to view the plight of the Father’s Beloved Chosen People differently in this season. The approaching nuclear capability of Iran, their enemy is one of the greatest threats to the existence of Israel at this time. May we pray that Iran will not reach this nuclear capability, as their stated aim is to annihilate the nation of Israel.

You are welcome to join Celebrate Israel with our Zoom calls as we pray for the nation of Israel each month.
Or you may wish to contact me for further information

Soon after my conversion experience, I had a special moment when I heard a message stating,
“Who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:14)

This message has stayed with me all my life and brought me to the place in which I now find myself, praying for and serving His Beloved Chosen People. May it be your moment as well.


Thank You, Lord, for bringing each one of us to a moment of realisation
of how we can pray for and bless Your Beloved Chosen People. Amen.


Painting: François-Léon Benouville, “Esther” (1844)/Wikimedia Commons

Thank the Source

Masculinity is Only Celebrated When Men Act Like Women: The Church’s Opportunity

In these challenging times that we now live in, it is of vital importance that the church dedicates itself to maintaining a vigilant watch over our children who are our next generation.  

I believe that the older generations of Christians — mothers and fathers, teachers, leaders and elders — have failed our children in a number of key areas, none more so than in the area of vigilance. And by this, I mean being alert and watchful as to what ideas and narratives — or as the Bible calls them, strange philosophies — that our children are being exposed to and taught; identifying them as lies and countering them through teaching and training in the Truth, otherwise known simply as discipleship.

One of the most effective strategies of the enemy has been the spiritual assault on our boys and men. Who would have thought just a few years ago, both inside and outside the church, that we would be completely at a loss as to what constitutes a man: what is masculinity? We thought it was self-evident. Had we been more aware of the gradual but insidious chipping away or deconstructing of gender identity and roles by the elites of our society, many strategically placed within our education systems, perhaps we would have been better able to counter the lies.


In my book Lost Boys, I laid out much of this attack in detail, and I continue to keep watch on that front. A recent discussion on American TV show Dr Phil exposed some revealing information in an episode titled “The Demise of Guys”, which explored how masculine manhood has been lost due to the increasing fatherlessness over the generations. Healthy masculinity has not been passed on to our boys.

Host Dr Phil McGraw spoke to a number of people, but of particular interest was guest Rollo Tomassi, a middle-aged man who authored the book series The Rationale Male. Tomassi has been interviewing and observing social trends and relations among young men and women for more than 20 years and commands a lot of respect from young men around the world.

He explained that in our culture we have come to the point where an entire generation of young men are being scorned and rejected simply for being males. Like many other observers of this trend including myself, Tomassi calls this generation of young men lost boys, a fatherless generation who have been ‘acculturated and socialised behind a screen.’

“We have a generation of what we call ‘lost boys’ right now who don’t have a father figure,” said Tomassi. “They don’t have any guidance, whether it’s masculinity or much else for that matter.”


He said the greatest problem with men is that they are purposeless and sedated by ‘pornography, online video games, alcohol or marijuana.’

“If in your life your escapisms are better than your life, then you’re going to dwell more on those escapisms. So, what do men do today? They are addicted to pornography and opioids. Anyone in this room on their phone can go get hardcore pornography anytime they want to.  So when you look at marijuana being legalised, if you look at the opioid epidemic right now, if you look at the way we sedate men today, that is the number one.”

Tomassi and Dr Phil reviewed the suicide rates of men in America, which are about three and a half to five times that of women depending on research sources. In Australia, the situation is similar, so this is also relevant to us. Tomassi explains why he believes men are killing themselves at these record rates:

“I interpret that as meaning that those are deaths of despair. We have a term for that right now. Men get zeroed out. They build up lives, they build up personalities. They build a life equity list. Just say they lose a job, they lose their wives, they lose out on something, and no one is there to tell them how to bounce back from that rejection, how to bounce back from that defeat, how to come back from being zeroed out, so they’re faced with two very real decisions: Rebuild yourself or delete yourself. And unfortunately, most men are deleting themselves right now.”


Dr Phil’s discussion panel debated what constitutes toxic masculinity, posing the question: Does this have anything to do with the mental health of men in a way that would cause such a suicide crisis? Could it be that because of toxic masculinity, men don’t have the close networks that women have and therefore do not reach out for help as readily? Tomassi describes this as a simplistic narrative.

“We constantly harp on the fact that men don’t have friends, they don’t have close friends, they don’t have the same networks that women do. And then we put the blame for their mental health back on them by saying it’s toxic masculinity, and if you guys were just more like women than you would reach out for therapy of some sorts.”

Tomassi said that from what he observes, the only time mainstream media celebrate masculinity is when men do something that is conventionally feminine like ‘The Rock wearing a tutu.’ However, when men do things conventionally masculine, this is not celebrated by mainstream media. And this is where I believe Tomassi hits the nail on the head. He believes that as a society we are trying to use “social constructionism as a primary way of socialising human beings.” Or simply, we are attempting to socialise men (and women) against their natural, innate inclinations.

Spiritual Warfare

Church, I repeat that we need to be looking very closely at these discussions and what is going on with our boys and men. Of course, we recognise that this attack is spiritual, and our fight is spiritual, but it also involves practical obedience to Scriptural instruction. We have been commanded to make disciples, and making disciples isn’t just a quick decision after an impassioned message. Discipleship is a committed training relationship that begins first in the home with parents teaching and training children. Fathers teaching their sons to be strong men, and mothers teaching their daughters to be strong women.

Since masculinity has been deconstructed (the horse has already bolted), the elites are attempting to reconstruct masculinity to look like a shadow of its former glory. In fact, society is trying to make masculinity into the image of conventional femininity. The world believes, as one of the other experts on Dr Phil’s panel stated, “We don’t have a positive view of masculinity that we are passing on.”

Hello, church! That’s something that we can offer!

As a counter, the church has an incredible opportunity in this state of confusion to present that positive view of masculinity. I’ve heard it said that we become like the god or God that we serve. If Christian men listened and followed God Almighty, our Great Commander who is the King of Righteousness, I believe it would shine such a beacon of hope to the world and it would draw men back, because what the world is offering men is mere kibble.

Yes, masculinity has been outlawed in the culture, but we must make it known that it hasn’t been outlawed in the Church, it is welcomed, nurtured and honoured.

Our challenge is to stop being like the world to win the world. Rediscover God’s design for masculinity; don’t take part in the feminising of our boys and men. Honour masculinity as the gift it is.

The church can provide the world with an incredible light as to what it means to be a man, because masculinity harnessed in virtue and truth is incredibly powerful.

The Lord proclaims:
Stop at the crossroads and look around;
ask for the ancient paths.
Where is the good way?
Then walk in it
and find a resting place for yourselves.
~ Jeremiah 6:16 (CEB)


Photo by Anna Shvets.

Thank the Source

Sexual License and Culture

How do sexual mores affect a civilisation? Here are two books that closely examine the worldwide historical link between sexual promiscuity and civilisational collapse.

Amidst a mild internet debate, I made a Google search regarding the connection between sexual freedom and societal health throughout history. In the back of my mind was an essay I had recently read under recommendation, titled The Fate of Empires, authored by Sir John Glubb.The Fate of Empires book

Under one heading, Glubb describes aspects of the Arab decline, as described by historians of Baghdad in the early tenth century. The historians despised the degeneracy of the times in which they lived, featuring the laxity of sexual morals.

They commented disapprovingly upon the powerful influence of popular singers over young people, as their erotic songs resulted in a decline in sexual morality. Obscene sexual language became increasingly common, to a degree that would not have been tolerated in earlier years.

Glubb also noted that the increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline. I later discovered that, in his second essay (Search for Survival), he elaborated that the prominence of women seemed to coincide with a desire of some men to imitate women (this may coincide with an increase in homosexuality).

He observed that this ‘reversal of the sexes,’ in which men try to be women and women men, seemed to be a sign of decadence, i.e. societal decline. [It is well worth reading both essays for a broader picture. Glubb’s second essay is particularly expressive regarding the role and importance of women in society.1]

Throughout Time and Space

With these ideas in mind, I soon stumbled upon the name J.D. Unwin and his book Sex and Culture. In this 600+ page work, Unwin summarises ten years of his relentless research as an Oxford social anthropologist.Sex and Culture book by J.D. Unwin

He writes as a rationalist, with no indication of being religious, and examines data from 86 native cultures and civilisations — from the ancients onwards (e.g., Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Romans, Polynesian societies, Indian tribes, etc).

Unwin’s goal was to identify the relationship between sexual liberty and the flourishing of cultures. Flourishing is measured in terms of art, engineering, architecture, literature, agriculture, etc.

Certainly, there is much to be studied. The ancient Greeks were no stranger to homosexuality and paedophilia, and the Romans would gradually lend themselves to self-indulgence, political corruption, adultery, homosexuality, sexual orgies, live sex acts in theatre, brutal sports, family deterioration, and moral laziness — all reaching a climax with their destruction. Unwin described four “great patterns of human culture.” Namely:

  • Zoistic – does not practice any form of prenuptial chastity. Self-focussed on daily life, wants, and needs. No interest in understanding nature. A ‘dead’ or ‘inert’ culture.

  • Manistic – does not practice prenuptial chastity (or maintains limited practice). Holds superstitious beliefs and/or special treatment of the dead to cope with the natural world.

  • Deistic – prenuptial chastity is practised. Attributes the powers of nature to a god or gods.

  • Rationalistic – uses rational thinking to understand nature and make daily decisions. Emerges when a society has been deistic for long enough to appreciate “a new conception of the power in the universe, based on the yet unknown” that is the result of a widening scope of understanding of the natural.

Unwin also divided degrees of sexual restraint into two key categories — prenuptial (before marriage) and postnuptial (after marriage). Prenuptial degrees included:

  • Complete sexual freedom

  • Irregular/occasional restraint – cultural regulations which require occasional periods of abstinence

  • Strict chastity – remain a virgin until marriage

Postnuptial categories included:

  • Modified monogamy – one spouse at a time (association can be terminated)

  • Modified polygamy – men can have multiple wives (a wife can leave her husband)

  • Absolute monogamy – only one spouse for life (or until death)

  • Absolute polygamy – men can have multiple wives (wives cannot leave)


Dr Kirk Durston summarises Unwin’s work into a 26-page collection of quotes. He summarises Unwin’s most significant findings as follows (paraphrased):

  • Increased sexual constraints always led to the increased flourishing of a culture. Increased sexual freedom always led to the collapse of a culture three generations later.

  • Data revealed that the most significant correlation with cultural flourishing was whether prenuptial chastity was required or not.

  • The highest flourishing cultures entailed prenuptial chastity and absolute monogamy. Rationalist cultures that retained this for at least three generations exceeded all other cultures in every area (only 3/86 cultures ever attained this).

  • When prenuptial chastity was no longer the norm, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking disappeared within three generations.

  • Within three generations, a culture that embraced total sexual freedom would collapse into a dead/inert culture. This culture is usually then conquered by another with greater flourishing.

  • The full effect of a change in sexual constraints is not realised until the third generation (about a century — approximately 33 years per generation, after the initial generation has died off).

Randy Alcorn writes that historian Arnold Toynbee similarly concluded that a society’s creative energy is connected to its sexual self-control, which is directly linked to national strength and accomplishment. Alcorn writes,

“Toynbee’s research indicated that of history’s twenty-one greatest civilizations, nineteen perished from internal moral corruption, not external enemies.”

The Modern West

Durston notes that, interestingly, the West is now in a position to test the conclusions that Unwin arrived at. Unwin published his book in 1934, and the West’s sexual revolution occurred throughout the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s. Since then, we have rapidly moved from prenuptial chastity to prenuptial sexual freedom, and from absolute to modified monogamy. He writes that:

“The inherent nature of the human organism, however, seems to be such that these desires are incompatible, even contradictory. The reformer may be likened to the foolish boy who desires both to keep his cake and to consume it. Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom; the evidence is that it cannot do both for more than one generation.”

C.S. Lewis writes, similarly,

“Though the “right of happiness” is chiefly claimed for the sexual impulse, it seems to me impossible that the matter should stay there. The fatal principle, once allowed in that department, must sooner or later seep through our whole lives.

We thus advance toward a state of society in which not only each man but every impulse in each man claims carte blanche. And then, though our technological skill may help us survive a little longer, our civilization will have died at heart, and will — one dare not even add “unfortunately” — be swept away.”

(essay, “We Have No ‘Right to Happiness’“)

Unwin predicts that after one generation, a significant decline in culture sets in and becomes apparent. This “having your cake and eating it too” phase would have ended in the early 2000s (at the latest) — now we are seeing the consequences.

As predicted, absolute monogamy has been replaced with the modified version, with those who practice life-long commitments in marriage becoming the minority. Deism is rapidly declining, as the concept of God is pushed away from government, education, and the public sphere.

In its place rises the superstitious manistic culture, as well as early signs of a non-religious zoistic culture (the lowest of Unwin’s categories). And finally, rational thinking has been largely replaced by post-modernism, featuring scepticism, relativism, post-truth, an appeal to feeling, sophistry, etc.


Evidence of the West’s decline is readily identified. We see increases in children born out of wedlock, millions of babies aborted annually, every letter in the LGBT+ acronym rejects science and the observable nature of man and woman, the definition of marriage has been taken apart, identifying as non-religious has increased, and the concept of anarchy has grown in appeal. In the eyes of many, sexual freedom is synonymous with the liberation of women. Sex is desirable and liberating, while marriage and family are not.

Given the living realisation of these predictions, it seems inevitable that, somewhere in the last third of this century, we will see the collapse of the West. Naturally, we want to believe we are the exception. Unwin describes this as ‘pardonable egocentricity’, and a position that flies in the face of data which reveals a monotonous and regular pattern of decline.

It’s not too difficult to believe that the West will only get more depraved. Indeed, Sigmund Freud (considered a key root in the revolution‘s formation) emphasised the role of sex as a primary force in human behaviour, and Alfred Kinsey (dubbed ‘the father of the sexual revolution’) suggested that incest and paedophilia could benefit children. The reality is that we’re well on our way to collapse. Ruth Graham states, “If God doesn’t judge America, He’ll owe Sodom and Gomorrah an apology.” Sexual hedonism will destroy the West, or at least accompany it as it plummets downward.

One can certainly throw in some criticism along the lines of ‘correlation does not equal causation.’ Unwin doesn’t pretend to know why sexual freedom has a direct link to cultural collapse, though he does make suggestions, but the fact remains regardless of the why. Durston directs readers toward Mary Eberstadt’s research, connecting identity and well-being to growing up with sizable immediate and extended family, and the decimation of the family with the recent sexual revolution. Her research indicates that increased sexual liberties led to the destruction of the family, which in turn resulted in the loss of family identity, which produces ‘primal screams’ (e.g., mental health issues, mass killings, extreme identity groups).

Biblical Injunctions

Of course, the Christian Scriptures are plainly against adultery, fornication, sodomy, prostitution, incest, and all other forms of sexual deviance. Sodom and Gomorrah were cities that were sexually depraved, and God destroyed them. Sexual immorality was widespread in ancient Babylon. Cult and temple prostitutes were common. Wicked or negligent kings of Israel or Judah would lead their people in sexual immorality. It’s easy to argue that King David and King Solomon would ruin the united monarchy due (at least in part) to their lack of sexual self-control.

Sexual immorality (namely adultery and prostitution) is used as images of idolatry and a rejection of God’s covenant relationship. The prophets warn Israel and Judah of their future destruction, which would result from their sin and continual rejection of God. Durston writes that although God’s laws regarding sexuality may restrain us from some immediate pleasure, they “protect us from enormous long-term suffering while maximizing our long-term flourishing.”

Jonathan Doyle et al. identified sixteen facts-based reasons for sexual integrity (i.e., prenuptial abstinence and postnuptial faithfulness). These included the ideas that sexual integrity ensures gender equality, preserves marital relationships, increases satisfaction in sexual relationships, is essential for manhood, is basic to successful fathering and strong families, helps prevent violence against women, reduces child abuse and exploitation, prevents the pornographic exploitation of women and exploitation of men, lowers rape and homicide rates, helps prevent prostitution and sex trafficking of women, is essential to prevent sexual exploitation on the internet, is essential in the media and workplace, and safeguards human health.

Chastity, not sexual liberty, is the sign of a culture thriving.


[1] To further pique your interest, Glubb writes: “Women are the guardians of the national future by the dedication with which they bring up their children. When women neglect small children to earn a double salary for the family, there is grave danger of injury to the next generation… Men should venerate women for their noble and selfless service. Women, in their turn, would do better not to descend from their high estate.”


Originally published at The Walk. Photo by Asad Photo Maldives.

Thank the Source

The Dictionary is Lying

The Cambridge Dictionary recently updated its definition of the word “woman”.

Underneath the existing primary definition of “woman” which reads:

“Adult female human being”

the dictionary now says:

“An adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth”.

The dictionary is lying.

And the consequences of lying dictionaries are dire.

Warped Reality

Next time you say that it is impossible for someone with a penis to be a woman, as any high school biology student knows very well, you will be told that you are wrong.

After all, the dictionary defines a woman as any adult who lives and identifies as female.

You will be told, in no uncertain terms, that a woman can have a penis and testicles. The dictionary says so.

Language is being used to manipulate our minds and corrupt our thoughts.

The great journalist G.K. Chesterton predicted all of this when he opined:

‘We shall soon be in a world in which… people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure.’

Speak Up for Women

It is the duty of all those who still maintain their sanity (no easy task in today’s topsy-turvy world) to oppose Woke language whenever and wherever it is found, before the whole world loses its collective mind.

A woman is an adult female human being. Any other definition, whether in the dictionary or anywhere else, is a dangerous lie.

The lie is dangerous because it puts women at risk by enabling men to enter women-only spaces.

The lie is dangerous because it robs women of the opportunity to excel on the sporting field, making sport an almost pointless endeavour for females.

The lie is dangerous because it makes official documents, from birth certificates to statistics used to develop public policy, all but meaningless.

The lie is dangerous because it reduces women to a pantomime and in so doing robs females of dignity and value.

The lie is dangerous because it leads to utter confusion among children about gender.

The lie is dangerous because it results in perfectly healthy people being surgically disfigured and rendered sterile.

The lie is dangerous because it is enforced by the State which trains people to tell lies, undermining their morality and making it easier for the State to control them.

A woman is an adult female human being. A man can never become a woman. A woman can never become a man. The Cambridge Dictionary be damned.


Originally published at The James Macpherson Report.

Subscribe to his Substack here for daily witty commentary.
Photo by Alexander Grey.

Thank the Source

Debating the Question: When is a Debate an Argument?

As G.K. Chesterton observed, “People generally quarrel because they cannot argue.” In this age of political correctness and emotivism, engaging in honest debate is often frowned upon as something rude. We have lost the art of argument, stultifying public discourse.

At the time when separate playgrounds for boys and girls were abolished in New South Wales primary schools in pursuance of feminist notions of achieving “equality” of the sexes, my sister was a primary school teacher.

She observed that, as a consequence, the boys’ rough-and-tumble play, as it now impinged on and disrupted the girls’ more decorous play, became “bad” and was suppressed. Even so, the girls’ traditional, more formalised and imaginative games became more difficult to pursue because of boys’ unintentional incursions, and were less indulged in.

It seems that something similar may have happened in our parliaments and other workplaces as they have become integrated. Men’s greater vigour in adversarial verbal dispute over matters of opinion, and disagreement in argument, which they find stimulating and rewarding in itself, is being denounced by women participants as bullying and verbal abuse.

Reason vs Emotion

Women as a sex seem to be uneasy with argument (as disruptive of harmony?), even of acknowledging the word itself. We have probably all been admonished at some time to use the word “discussion”, instead.

I remember, as an adolescent on a family visit, my father engaged in a long, loud, and, it seemed to me, angry argument with his friend from university days, a some-time editor of The Sydney Morning Herald. When, afterwards, I remonstrated with him, “No, no,” he said, “we were enjoying a good argument.”

Yet he demurred at my sister’s and my manner of argument at the dinner table, saying: “You put so much emotion into it.” This alerted me to the method and value of dispassionate argument.

There is surely a place in many areas of life for good, hard, dispassionate argument as a means of truth-seeking, if not for the sheer pleasure of pitting mind against mind.

Real Debate

Should men desist from argument with women over matters of dispute in the workplace? Should they treat women, as frailer-natured, to be protected from the rigour of hearing disliked views; as innately gentler beings, as in the Victorian age? (Perhaps we all subliminally expect this.)

Is society to be denied the benefits of vigorous, but deferential debate, on issues of political and social importance? Is argument to be considered “bad”?

This is not to make a case for character assassination such as we witnessed in the lead-up to the federal election in May, which was anything but decent argument. But surely in public life, women who seek it should be prepared to accept, and if they like, deliver some degree of abrasiveness as a necessary element of public discourse, rather than just agreeing to differ.

My general attitude is that no one has to win an argument, but if you both change your position a little as a result, it will have been worthwhile.


By Lucy Sullivan
Originally published in News Weekly.

Thank the Source


Please help truthPeep spread the word :)