With a one minute look at culture from a Christian worldview, I'm John Stone Street with the point.

Recently in Box Eric Leavitt's disparaged a group he called the reactionary feminist,

people like Mary Harrington and Louise Perry, who, though feminist, reject the sexual revolution.

He also condemned the conservative Christians who so often point to them.

According to Leibbut's, quote, with religiosity and church attendance in sharp decline,

conservatives need non-scriptural arguments for traditional

social morality. Reactionary feminism offers this. Or stay with me. Perhaps it's the ideas of the

sexual revolution are really that bad.

Maybe the consequence is that obvious, the victim's that numerous.

The promises to liberate women brought instead sexual exploitation and violence.

And as it turned out, it was men, men not women who were the true beneficiaries

of so-called consequence-free sex.

Now the sexual revolution might have promised liberation to women, but it only brought abandonment

and a different kind of oppression.

Feminist are starting to see it, and Christians point to it, maybe because they've been the most

consistent force protecting women in all of human history.

I'm John Stone Street.