My #MeToo Story

MeToo movement backlash

As a student at art college, one autumn I decided to take a psychology class at a neighboring campus, UMKC. The KC Art Institute didn’t offer psychology classes, at least not formally. (The Art Institute itself was actually kind of like one big psychology experiment, but that’s another story).

One evening after my intro to psych class I was on my bike headed back to my dorm at my own campus. A carload of girls pulled alongside me, and one the girls shouted out, “NICE ASS!” as the car sped past, the girls in the car laughing uproariously.

As a college boy, I thought this was funny. And then I saw that it was about to get funnier. Looking down the road, I saw the traffic light turn red. The carload of girls had to stop at the light. I grinned to myself and pedaled as quickly as I could and caught up to the car.

I put on my most polite voice, looked into the car, and innocently asked,

“I’m sorry…you shouted something out to me back there, but I didn’t understand what you said.”

It took a few seconds for them to figure out that I was the guy they’d harassed. One of the girls shrunk down and buried her head in her hands, others tried to stifle their giggling. The girl sitting next to the driver, to whom I was speaking, pretended not to know what I was talking about.

I innocently persisted. There were no other cars on the street after all. She suddenly remembered, “Oh!…I said nice BIKE. I said I like your bike.” The car erupted with stifled laughter again. Then the light turned green and as the car sped off, she shouted out more profane remarks. The end.

Men and Women are Different
As you read this, you probably recognize that my story doesn’t really qualify as a #MeToo story. I agree. I didn’t feel victimized, or threatened, and I found the whole thing to be amusing. I assume these girls were just having a little fun by getting back at some random guy (me) for all the times they had been harassed on the street, (not by me, just for the record).

I’m really telling my story to illustrate the fact that men and women experience their sexuality differently. No young, female college student in her right mind would purposely approach a carload of guys who had just harassed her on the street. Certainly not in the evening with no one else around.

My Failed Campaign

When I was a hormonal high schooler, I remember sitting in the school cafeteria with my testosterone-crazed male peers and listening to them talk about girls. This wasn’t talking about girls as in, “wow, she’s cute.” This was cold, graphic, predatory talk. By my junior year, in addition to being raised well, I was a serious follower of Jesus, so I had compelling worldview reasons to treat women with respect. Nonetheless, as a normal male I could see within myself the same sexual impulses as those that ruled my hormonally hopped up peers.

As I looked around and compared the guys and girls I knew, I saw stark differences between the sexes that I felt no one was addressing. I felt pretty sure that most girls assumed that most guys approached sex the same way they did. Almost universally, if there was a word to sum up how most girls approached guys, I felt that word would be “unsuspecting.” I sort of took it upon myself to inform my female friends about what guys are really like.

It didn’t go all that well. Mostly I couldn’t get them to believe me.

This was understandable – it is difficult for any of us to imagine ways of thinking that are foreign to us, especially if we would rather hope such things not be true. Regarding male sexuality, it’s probably too generous to even call it a way of “thinking.” It’s more like a way of responding to a hormone-induced state of being.

At any rate, unless a girl had suffered abuse, there seemed to be little evidence for what I was saying, because guys seemed to be so “nice.” I tried explaining that, yes, a lot of guys act nice in order to get into a girl’s pants. I knew a guy who boasted that he would tell a girl he loved her to get her to sleep with him. But what girl wants to believe the world is like that?

Plus, there were factors that confused the picture.

There actually were guys who, for reasons of morality and integrity, fought internally against their animal impulses and worked at viewing women with respect.

There actually were plenty of girls who seemed to be inviting exactly the kind of non-discriminating sexual attention that the unapologetically horny guys wanted to give them.

Nothing was what it seemed to be on the surface.

The Failed Sexual Revolution
Underneath it all was the backdrop of what was then called “sexual liberation,” which seemed like an incredibly stupid idea to me, even at the time, because it raged against the societal taboos that protected women. The sexual revolution seemed to me to overwhelmingly benefit men at the expense of women, and yet, feminists were at the front of the parade leading the charge.

Weird, and yet, predictable, because the feminists were mostly women.

But it’s even wrong to say the sexual revolution “benefitted” men. It simply accommodated the animal impulses of men, which doesn’t truly benefit men or women.

Many #MeToo stories we are now hearing occurred when unsuspecting women accepted invitations to visit a man’s hotel room, home, or office alone. This used to be taboo. But now that we’re all “sexually liberated,” such taboos that once protected women are gone. So the culture has changed, but male animal nature has not, leaving girls and women vulnerable. The proof is that so many women are surprised by sexual harassment and assault by men they trusted and “thought they knew.”

One imperfect but convenient aspect about taboos in more discreet eras was that sexual proclivities could be dealt with, and the vulnerable protected, without going into graphic detail about the reasons why the taboos were necessary. Today we are supposedly more “open,” but we’re open about the wrong things. Who knew that powerful men were using their influence to coerce women for sex??? Well…um…apparently everyone. But no one was talking about it, men or women.

The high-profile men who have recently been outed – including Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Al Franken, and many others – have been called monsters. I call them unethical. Calling them monsters relegates their natural human sexual impulses to some frightening, dark, inhuman realm. For all I know they’re mostly probably pretty normal men, but lacked accountability, and principled worldview beliefs sufficient to restrain their impulses, so they gave in to the temptation to abuse their power. One could argue that, in part at least, the climate produced by the sexual revolution enabled these men to operate freely as sexual predators.

Will the #metoo movement succeed?
In one sense, the #MeToo movement is what I thought I wanted decades ago – a general female awareness that men are jerks. Even though I had theological reasons that told me all of humanity – both male and female – is corrupt and fallen, I still tended to put women on a pedestal.

In more recent years my sympathies toward men have grown, and I believe I see more clearly that both men and women (and everyone in between) are seriously jacked up and in need of redemption and spiritual guidance. I have several close examples of decent men who have been used by women, and lost much in the process.

Regarding the #MeToo movement, I now personally know at least 2 men who have probably had careers destroyed because of unproven accusations from women. I can testify with certainty that not all men are guilty of sexual misconduct. I regularly meet with other men for purposes of accountability, with no “help” at all from feminists shaming me for being male.

I’ve generally been inclined to be sympathetic to the idea of feminism, because historically, men have overwhelmingly tended to abuse their masculine strength, and because I believe in the fundamental equality of men and women. But unfortunately, in practice, feminism consistently veers into a tangle of toxic solutions and malignant ideology. This is not necessarily true of #MeToo.

The Me Too Movement was founded by Tarana Burke, a black woman and survivor of sexual abuse who set up a non profit in 2006 to help young women of color find community and healing from sexual abuse. The more recent social media iteration of the movement is more focused on raising awareness and calling men into account for their actions.

As it is today, I believe the Me Too movement has been a positive force. It is giving formerly silent women a voice, affirming those who have been abused, and bringing to light the issue of sexual harassment and sexual violence. It also contradicts stereotypes about women propagated by the porn industry – lies that many men would like to believe. I think this benefits all women, and helps to create a powerful societal atmosphere of unacceptability around predatory sexual behavior.

In other words it’s a step toward re-erecting societal taboos that have fallen, or perhaps even replacing them with something better.

But the Me Too Movement is not going to change the biological impulses of men. We are all still going to have to learn to live together, in community, in an understanding way.

Furthermore, if the Me Too Movement becomes politicized and partisan, it will be a loss for women. Unfortunately, this already seems to be happening. If the Me Too movement becomes co-opted by, and identified with, left wing feminism(s), it will cease to be a voice and a help for all women, even as it claims to be so. It will become one more divisive faction, issuing irrational ultimatums in our already badly fractured society.

Both the perpetrators and the victims of sexual misconduct cross all political, racial, economic, professional, and ideological lines. No one, (outside of the porn industry), is championing sexual violence. We can’t allow the issue of sexual violence and sexual harassment to become a political tool. May we all move toward more dialogue and healing, and away from walling ourselves off from those who are different from us.

Advertisements

How Creationists & Evolutionists are Evidentially on Equal Footing

creationism vs evolutionism debate

The Science of Rock-Scissors-Paper

In my ongoing discussion with “skeptics”, my “skeptic” friends often appeal to the fact that the vast majority of living scientists, and educated people in general, hold to a belief in microbes-to-man evolution. I do recognize that this is the case.

My “skeptic” friends uniformly assume this must be because the scientific evidence is so overwhelming that only someone with a strong, predetermined, religious bias would seriously hold to creationism. Since relatively few hold to young earth creationism, they sometimes wonder if we think there is an anti-creationist conspiracy in academia keeping the truth of creationism from getting out.

I would like to enthusiastically offer my layman’s observations on those two assumptions.

ASSUMPTION #1: Creationists have a predetermined faith position into which they must fit all scientific data. They do not follow the evidence wherever it may lead, (like real scientists do).

It might surprise some that I actually agree with this assumption. Creationists are, in fact, quite open about their bias right out of the gate. Creationists do begin from a faith position that they choose not to question.

The fascinating point that I want to make here is that materialist evolutionists do exactly the same thing. Not something similar, but exactly.

Belief in microbes-to-man evolution is a faith position, complete with its own dogma that may not be questioned if one is to remain in good standing in academia among one’s peers. This isn’t merely my opinion. It is a fact that we can all observe. I will prove this shortly.

I will also point out that this notion shouldn’t be taken as an insult, but it is. It is insulting to materialists and “skeptics” only because they don’t want to see themselves this way. They’ve spent a lot of ink and pixels “accusing” the other side of acting from faith, while positioning themselves as standing strictly on scientific evidence. I am repeatedly told that there is no evidence for God. What nonsense.

Most often in my discussions, I no longer even attempt to prove that creationism is correct. That is far too ambitious a goal. My aim now is simply to get materialists to admit that they are also acting from a faith position when it comes to beliefs around the origins of the universe and life. I say we’re on equal footing. (Actually, as a theist, I believe that my position is the more rational of the two since my position is at least possible, but I’m trying to seek common ground).

But they will not budge. They have made the stakes for themselves too high.

ASSUMPTION #2: Creationists believe in an academia/media conspiracy designed to keep the truth from getting out, (like flat-earthers do).

This one I don’t agree with. It’s completely unnecessary to believe in such a conspiracy. The truth is much simpler than the existences of a secret conspiracy.

The truth is this: creationism is so embarrassing that it renders a conspiracy unnecessary.

Seriously. Creationists believe in an earth only thousands of years old, that God created human life fully formed in His image, and that a historical guy named Noah preserved humanity on an ark in a global flood that shaped geology. Anyone who claims to believe any of this in a secular academic setting commits career suicide.

It’s not a question of whether or not there is corroborating scientific evidence for all of this, (because there is), it is a question of academic respectability and peer approval. Creationism is not intellectual-sounding, and we all want to be thought of by others as intelligent people.

Furthermore, to even admit the possibility that science might corroborate these stories would amount to, not only scientific evidence for the existence of God, but even worse, it would amount to evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible. The secularist establishment will never allow that if it can be avoided. And it can be avoided by having faith that science will someday fill in the existing knowledge gaps.

The problem with questions of origins is that ALL of the possibilities are embarrassing! It’s just that we’ve been conditioned to accept the evolution story as somehow more plausible and intellectual. But it’s not. It’s ridiculous. As of today, it’s essentially belief in magic.

Just to be clear, materialist evolutionists believe that all of the life that we see today – from daisies, to hummingbirds, to blue whales, to Vladimir Putin – all of this accidentally arose from a single-celled organism – one ancestral genome – billions of years ago; blindly and mindlessly. Yet I would assert that we all innately know this is not how the real world works.

Someday science will fill in the gaps…
Perhaps. But until that day, can we admit that microbes-to-man evolution is a faith position?

Evolutionary science asserts that everything we see can be explained by natural processes. But as of this writing, that assertion is demonstrably untrue. In fact, at the most fundamental points, naturalism lacks known, scientifically observable, natural processes that can explain what we see:

  • There is no known, observable, natural process by which the material universe could have accidentally created itself.

 

  • We have known since the 19th century, from scientific experimentation, that life does not spontaneously arise from non-living matter. Yet materialists must believe that it does.

 

  • Even if simple living organisms could have accidentally appeared, there is no known, observable, natural process by which such organisms could have blindly evolved into doctors, lawyers, and Indian chiefs over time. Mutation (genomic copying errors) and natural selection are insufficient to account for this.

 

  • We know from genetic science that the human genome is deteriorating at an observable rate. Not only can mutation/natural selection not explain how complex information got into our deteriorating genome, it can’t even explain how it could have remained there up until the present time.

Accidental existence shouldn’t even be on the table as a serious option until it can be shown to be possible by natural processes. This is simply holding evolutionists to their own claims.

Yes, this too is dogma
I promised to prove that dogma exists in the realm of evolutionary science. Of several dogmas, here is perhaps the most crucial, authoritative doctrine in secular science: deep time – the belief that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Let us be clear. There can be no theory of microbes-to-man evolution via mutation and natural selection without these billions of years. This is absolutely non-negotiable for naturalism or materialism if one wants to remain a rational believer in those things. Regarding the scientific method, an evolutionary scientist may not, cannot, will not, consider a young earth conclusion even if the evidence should point to that conclusion.

The theist’s job, then, is simple: Any evidence that points to a young earth is essentially hard evidence for a belief in God. And there is a great deal of it, from diverse scientific fields. (See a variety of examples here).

To clarify: creationists don’t have to prove the earth is only 6000 years old. It may be 10,000 years old. It may be 100,000. It may be 500,000. Some evidence indicates it may be one or two million years old. This is still far, far too little time for microbes-to-man evolution to be possible. This fact leaves evolutionists in the hopeless position of fitting all scientific evidence that comes in into a deep time scenario. Much of it does not. The fact that soft dinosaur tissue exists today in supposedly 65 million year old bones is just the tip of the iceberg. The universe continues to surprise us.

Without deep time, rational atheism is dead. The dictionary defines dogma as, prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group.” If you are a materialist, you may object to calling belief in deep time “dogma.” I would ask you to explain why it is not.

Science has its limits, particularly when discerning unobservable, unrepeatable, distant historical events. The creation-evolution debate is ultimately not about what science says. It’s really about what each of us wants to believe, because science says “both.”

 

Do Loving Families Create Inequality in Society?

social justice-parenting

Sometimes it’s astounding to hear the ideas that smart people will entertain.

I thought it would be fun to start off the year by joyfully ignoring some smart people’s wisdom. My hope is that you too will be encouraged and confident in your parenting by taking care to do the precise opposite of what certain smart people recommend.

In 2015, a couple of philosophers, Adam Swift and Harry Brighouse, released some of their thoughts on social justice. To be fair to them, their hearts are in the right place. Unfortunately, they seem to have the hearts of robots. I believe they are still at large.

Swift turned his blinking antennae toward the disturbing fact that certain parental practices can create an “unfair advantage” for kids who come from loving homes. He sees this as a problem.

‘I got interested in this question because I was interested in equality of opportunity,’ he says.

Well…I’m interested in equality of opportunity too. But somehow it never occurred to me to discourage good parenting as a way to level the playing field.

Swift muses, ‘One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’   

Why even entertain this idea? The family is not “the source of unfairness in society.” That’s like wondering if food is the source of eating disorders. Or if cars are the source of auto collisions. Or if water is the cause of drowning.

Shouldn’t the possibility of user-error be considered here?

Wouldn’t it make more sense to wonder if it’s bad parenting and dysfunctional family dynamics that disadvantages kids? So much societal good comes from good parenting that it would necessarily harm society to “create a level playing field” by abolishing the family. Maybe Swift could direct his time and energy toward supporting and equipping disadvantaged families.

I can’t find the source of the following quote, but I think it explains a lot:

“Progressives seek to create a system that is so good that individual goodness and responsibility are no longer necessary.”

Swift’s comment goes to show how decisively one’s worldview will guide one to a particular destination, for better or for worse. Fortunately, he and Brighouse do reject the notion of abolishing the family. But unfortunately, they instead favor the “mere” redefining of marriage, family, and parenting.

Swift continues,

‘What we realised we needed was a way of thinking about what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children, and what it was that we didn’t need to allow parents to do for their children, if allowing those activities would create unfairnesses for other people’s children’.

Here he has in view economic advantages such as private schooling for kids. He’s against that. However, he is willing to allow parents to read bedtime stories to their kids at night, so long as they feel at least a little guilty about it sometimes:

‘I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,’

I wish I were making this up.

Since this is my blog, I get to state the obvious: Benefiting your children through loving and attentive parenting does not “disadvantage other people’s children”! Please DO benefit your children to the very best of your ability! Daily! Use wisdom! Pray for them! Work at having a great marriage for the sake of your kids! These things will also not disadvantage or hurt anyone!

Yes, it’s true… Reading to young children does indeed benefit them in many ways. Notably, it helps to build empathy in them, and can transmit good values to them. The compassionate course for compassionate parents is to raise “advantaged”, well-adjusted kids who will become compassionate adults. Somebody is going to have to care for the disadvantaged in society, after all.

Not surprisingly, in his quest for equality Swift ultimately lands in the same place where our culture increasingly finds itself bobbing like a cork in the ocean with no anchor – the redefining of marriage and parenting:

‘Nothing in our theory assumes two parents: there might be two, there might be three, and there might be four,’ says Swift…Politicians love to talk about family values, but meanwhile the family is in flux and so we wanted to go back to philosophical basics to work out what are families for and what’s so great about them and then we can start to figure out whether it matters whether you have two parents or three or one, or whether they’re heterosexual etcetera.’

While I’m thrilled that these guys are working on figuring out all this stuff for us, I’m not super confident that they will arrive at the truth.

In fact, regarding his basic questions, natural law, empirical research, and the teaching of Jesus all coincide nicely:

“What are families for?”
Even from a non-religious standpoint, lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual marriage benefits society in a way that no other type of social arrangement does, (to borrow a thought from Ryan T. Anderson.) If a man and a woman make a baby together, and they fail to raise that baby, then the costs to that child and to society can be great. If this happens on a large scale, pathologies will increase to the point where a free society will begin to disintegrate.

On the other hand, there is a mountain of research showing that children raised in a low conflict home with a married mom and dad statistically reap benefits, across the board. If society has an interest in seeing children grow up to be contributing citizens, then the traditional family is crucial for healthy society.

“What’s so great about families?”
Love. Love is great. Security. Acceptance and belonging. Identity. An environment where vulnerable children are cared for by adults who are utterly invested in their lives. The village and the state may or may not help, but they are a pale substitute for a married mom and dad.

Are the roles of “mom” and “dad” dispensable?
If one wants to think about what will disadvantage children, this is the place to look.

It is now fashionable among smart people to believe that family structure is not important; that what matters is loving adults, regardless of gender. This is an ideological fabrication that ignores science and research.

I don’t intend to be unkind here. I’m simply saying that biological connection matters, and that kids tend to yearn for relational connection with their biological parents. Adoption is wonderful. We all know many single parents who work heroically to raise their kids well. Gay couples can be just as capable as hetero couples when it comes to parenting. But this issue is not ultimately about love or competency; it’s about what kids are wired to need. Specifically, what a single parent or a gay couple cannot be to a child is a mom and a dad. These roles matter:

A boy simply cannot have his masculine identity imparted and affirmed by his mom. Not because she is incompetent but because she is female. At the same time he cannot experience and appreciate the unity-in-diversity of the deep emotional connection of maternal love with his dad. Not because he is unloving, but because he is male.

A girl cannot receive non-sexual masculine attention, affirmation, and acceptance from her mom. Because mom is female. She cannot receive intimate knowledge and shared, comfortable connection around her innate femininity from her dad. Because he is a dude.

This is simply the shape of reality. I might even agree that it’s not fair.

No one is advocating chasing down gay parents and taking away their children, or shaming single parents, or stoning step-parents. We should all support each other in our parenting and create community to whatever extent possible. But parenting should ultimately be for the sake of children, and it is right to advocate for what is best for them when it comes to public policy. Redefining marriage necessarily redefines parenting, and intentionally denying the unique and complimentary roles of mothers and fathers will inevitably disadvantage kids.

 

Are you on Pinterest? I would be grateful if you would follow me as I try build momentum for marketing my KIDS’ BOOKS on Pinterest. (I’m using the name Scott Freeman) Thanks!

How Wounded People Have Shaped Culture

fatherless atheists, defective father hypothesis

Have you ever wondered about the personal histories of people who have influenced the world in negative ways – philosophically or politically? I have. I’ve harbored a long-held suspicion that influential people who have shaped the world for the worse have generally done so from a position of personal woundedness.

The point of the question is not to establish a reason to judge people or to create division. But I think it’s an interesting and significant question. If anything, establishing such a connection may help foster understanding.

It may also shed light on issues that we may assume to be intellectual issues but which may in fact originate with psychological issues rooted in personal history.

In my opinion it also underscores the importance of marriage, loving family, and the meeting of the relational needs of our fellow human beings.

I’ve finally gotten around to doing a little research, and what I’ve learned is fascinating. We know the names and contributions of world-shapers, but what is less well known is that the stories of those who’ve made a negative impact are very often deeply tragic.

Who is to Say What is “Negative”?
This is a fair question. Let me hasten to add a caveat here. I am unapologetically biased in my opinion about what constitutes a “negative influence” in the world. Justifying my opinion is probably a topic for a separate post. I recognize that some of you may consider what I see as a negative contribution to be a positive one. I also recognize that the contribution of many the folks mentioned below is mixed.

However, I don’t believe it matters. Regardless of what you think about a person’s contribution to the world, the facts of their personal history remain, and, I believe, shaped the course of their lives.

Following is a list of people who have shaped the world in the modern era; especially in the world of academia. There is overlap in these categories as most of these people are/were atheists.

Atheist thinkers
In a recent movie review I mentioned the connection between well known atheists and the “father wound.” Psychologist Paul Vitz has written a book on this connection entitled, Faith of the Fatherless, which I recommend. Here are arguably the most notable atheist names in history:

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)
Popularly known for his pronouncement, “God is dead.” Nietzsche’s father, to whom he was very attached, died just before his fifth birthday. After his father’s death he lived in a religious household consisting of his mother, sister, paternal grandmother, and two paternal aunts, until he went away to school at age 14.

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
Prominent British atheist philosopher and author, notably published a collection of essays entitled, Why I Am Not a Christian. From an aristocratic family, Russell’s mother died when he was two years old. His father died two years later. Russell was then raised by his paternal grandparents, Lord John Russell and Lady Russell. However, his grandfather died when he was six years old, leaving him to be raised by his puritanical grandmother and a succession of nannies.

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)
Influential 20th century French atheist philosopher, playwright, and novelist. Sartre’s father died when he was 15 months old. He grew up very close and emotionally invested with his mother. When his mother remarried in Sartre’s 12th year, she moved into an apartment with her new husband, and Sartre stayed with his grandparents with whom he was not close.

Albert Camus (1913-1960)
French atheist philosopher, author, and journalist. His father died in battle during World War 1 when Camus was 1 year old. Camus was raised by his mother, who was illiterate and cleaned houses for a living, and subsequently grew up in an economically depressed environment. In 1937 Camus was denounced as a Trotskyite and expelled from the French Communist Party, at which time he joined the French anarchist movement.

Madalyn Murray O’Hair (1919-1995)
Perhaps America’s best-known atheist before her death, she led the lawsuit to successfully ban prayer in public schools during the 1960s. According to her son, Madalyn hated her father and unsuccessfully attempted to kill him on at least one occasion. The reason for this intense hatred has not been disclosed.

Richard Dawkins (1941- )
British “New Atheist,” evolutionary biologist, and author. A critic of all religion and especially Christianity, Dawkins is on record stating that the teaching of Christian doctrine to children is child abuse. He attended a religious boarding school at age 9 and experienced sexual abuse at the hands of his Latin master while separated from his parents.

Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011)
British “New Atheist,” journalist, and author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Hitchens grew up in an intact family and also went off the boarding school at age 8. His father was a naval officer and Hitchens claims to have “few clear memories of him,” referring to him as “the Commander.” He was close with his mother, who eventually had an affair with a former Anglican priest. The two lovers subsequently ended their lives together in a suicide pact.

Daniel Dennett (1942- )
American “New Atheist” philosopher, writer, and cognitive scientist. Dennett’s father worked as a counter-intelligence agent for the US government. The family moved to Lebanon during World War 2. His father died in an unexplained plane crash while away on a Middle East mission when Dennett was 5 years old.

Political leaders
Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924)
Leader of the Bolshevik Revolution and architect of the Soviet state. Third of six children in a happy family, when Lenin was 16 his father died of a brain hemorrhage. He renounced his belief in God soon thereafter. 5 months later his elder brother was hanged for his part in conspiring against the Tsar.

Joseph Stalin (1879-1953)
Soviet dictator, orchestrator of the Great Purge against political rivals, and perpetrator of the worst man-made famine in human history. The precise number is unknown, but by some estimates Stalin presided over the deaths of 20 million people. Originally trained for the priesthood, in his 30s Stalin rejected his family name (Djugashvili) and changed it to the Russian word for “man of steel.” Stalin had a very harsh upbringing. His father was an alcoholic and often severely beat him and his mother.

Mao Zedong (1893-1976)
Communist leader and father of the People’s Republic of China. Mao presided over the Great Leap Forward of 1958 (the ensuing famine of which caused the deaths of some 30 million peasants,) and the Cultural Revolution of 1966 (which resulted in some million and a half deaths and destroyed much of China’s cultural heritage.) Mao reportedly hated his father, who was a tyrant and regularly and severely beat him and his three siblings.

Adolph Hitler (1889-1945)
Leader of the Nazi Party, Chancellor and fuehrer of Germany, and initiator of World War 2. Hitler presided over the Nazi Holocaust during which 6 million Jews were executed – nearly two thirds of Continental Europe’s Jewish citizenry. Additional victims included communists, the mentally and physically disabled, homosexuals, blacks, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and political opponents. As a boy, Hitler’s father severely and regularly beat him; “every day” according to his sister. He was one of 6 children, 3 of whom died in infancy. As an 11 year old boy Hitler was deeply affected by the death of his younger brother, Edmund. Hitler’s antagonistic relationship with his father ended 3 years later when his father died unexpectedly. There was no father figure in his life after this.

Opinion shapers
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)
Neurologist and founder of psychoanalysis. While his father was not abusive, apparently Freud considered him to be a weak man and a disappointment; lacking in courage and unable to provide for his family. Furthermore, according to Paul Vitz, in two letters as an adult Freud writes that his father, Jacob, was “a sexual pervert and that Jacob’s own children suffered as a result.”

Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
British naturalist and author of the vastly influential On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. The pure naturalism of microbes-to-man evolutionary theory made materialism (atheism) an intellectually respectable option. Darwin’s mother died when he was 8. He was raised by his sisters until he went off to school at age 9. His relationship with his imposing father was ambivalent. He once wrote, “To my deep mortification my father once said to me, ‘you care for nothing but shooting, dogs and rat catching and you will be a disgrace to yourself and all your family’.”

Feminist leaders
Margaret Sanger (1879-1966)
American birth control activist, sex educator, author, nurse, and racist eugenics proponent. Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in the US and founded the American Birth Control League, which became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Sanger grew up in an impoverished home headed by an alcoholic father. She was the 6th of 11 children. Her mother went through 18 pregnancies in 22 years, (including 7 miscarriages,) before dying at the age of 40.

Gloria Steinem (1934- )
American feminist, political activist, and journalist. Steinem was a leading figurehead for the feminist movement in the 60s and 70s and co-founder of Ms. Magazine. Perhaps her best known quote is, “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.” When Steinem was 10 years old her parents divorced and her father left, leaving her to care for her mentally ill mother.

Bella Abzug (1920-1998)
American feminist, lawyer, congressional representative, and social activist. Abzug was also a leading activist during the 60s and 70s. In her later life she became an influential leader at the United nations working to support womens’ equality around the world. Abzug’s father died when she was 13. She went to the synagogue every morning for a year to recite the traditional mourner’s prayer. This was in defiance of the orthodox synagogue’s tradition that only sons recite the prayer.

Shulamith Firestone (1945-2012)
American feminist thinker and author. Firestone is less well known than the others listed here but she was a central figure in the early development of radical feminism. Her book, The Dialectic of Sex, published in 1970, has continued to be influential in feminist thought, and is also considered to be an early “post-genderist” work. In the book she argues that it is the biological role of pregnancy, childbirth, and childrearing that keeps women oppressed. She envisioned the abolition of the nuclear family with its oppressive parent-child relationship, and doing away with the maternal instinct. She envisioned artificial wombs, and collective child-rearing. Not surprisingly, Firestone’s relationship with her controlling, orthodox Jewish father was wildly antagonistic.

Summary
One would be justified in asking if fatherlessness was typical in past centuries, or if the family dynamic was dysfunctional for most people. Author Paul Vitz answers this question by providing a contrasting list of theistic thinkers and influencers. In virtually every case these theists were raised in nurturing, loving environments. When a parent was lost at an early age, relatives or friends stepped up as affirming father figures. Examples Vitz gives include Blaise Pascal, Edmund Burke, William Paley, William Wilberforce, Soren Kierkegaard, G. K. Chesterton, Albert Schweitzer, Karl Barth, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

It would be wrong to assume that all atheists today grew up with a dysfunctional parent relationship. Atheism has now become a mainstream and academically respectable option. However, I remain convinced that children have a God-ordained right to be nurtured by their married biological parents whenever possible. If you are a parent I hope these stories will strengthen your resolve to stay a loving course in your marriage and parenting.

Happy Father’s day to all the dads reading this! May you be a blessing to your children!

What I’ve Been Learning About “Father Wounds”

Married mom and dad best for children

I’ve been mildly obsessing over this topic for the past few months.

Recently I went to an intense and unusual men’s conference. There was almost no verbal teaching there. Instead it was very hands-on and experiential. That weekend I saw man after man experience emotional release around the issue of his relationship with his father. Some of these were mature Christian men who had been stuffing their feelings down for decades. Since then I feel I’ve been noticing the father wound issue everywhere, in friends, family, and strangers, and in seemingly every movie I see.

On the ride home from the conference, our carload of guys debriefed each other and compared our experiences for 12 hours. When I got home I wanted to learn more. I began meeting with all of my adult children to be sure I hadn’t wounded them as I had seen so many others wounded. I thought I’d share with you some encouraging thoughts that have come out of all of this.

First, it would be more correct to speak of “parent wounds,” because it’s not only dads that mark their children with unmet relational needs. But it is true that it is more often dads who are absent, whether physically or emotionally, from the lives of their children. However, I want to hasten to add here that the point of this post is to encourage you! Whether you are a parent, or whether you aspire to be one, I would like to hold up the following vision before you:

It is not unusual in Christian circles to think of children as a gift from God. In fact, the scriptures explicitly say this (Psalm 127:3-5.) I don’t know that Mollie and I would’ve had 5 children if not for believing this. However, I think it is also true to say that we as loving parents are a gift to our children. If this was too obvious to point out in earlier generations, I would suggest that is no longer the case. As a parent I hope that you can see yourself this way. If you fulfill your parenting role well, your children will certainly grow up to see you as among the greatest of their earthly gifts. More importantly, they will have a much better chance of entering adult life without the emotional baggage that weighs so many people down.

What a parent wound is and is not
As I’ve talked with other dads about this, I’ve sometimes sensed some uneasiness around the topic. Perhaps this is because we are all aware that none of us are perfect parents. We all know it is inevitable that we will let down or hurt our children. But when I speak of parent wounds I am not referring to the occasional mistakes that we all make. Parenting well is not about being flawless. Furthermore, sometimes we’ll intentionally need to make decisions that will disappoint our children. But our children can understand and forgive these hurts if they occur within an overall context of love and affirmation in our family culture.

Rather, when I speak of parent wounds I’m referring to wounds that occur as a result of a regular pattern of deprivation; the withholding of good, healthy, emotionally rich relational expression from parents. If parents do not give their children a secure sense of being loved, accepted, and valued, those children will very likely seek these things elsewhere in a variety of unhealthy ways.

Since we all do make mistakes, humility is an essential part of loving, in both marriage and parenting. A parent who will admit a wrong to a child, and ask forgiveness from that child, is an amazing role model! Apparently there are a lot of people in the world who have never heard the words, “I was wrong” from a parent.

What was your “normal” as you were growing up?
To a great extent, much of family culture seems to be passed down, for better or for worse. For obvious reasons, we tend to repeat what was normal in the home in which we were raised. Think of your own upbringing. If you had a parent who rarely or never verbally expressed his or her love to you, it is likely that parent grew up in a home where love was never verbally expressed. For such a parent, verbally expressing love may feel awkward, forced, or perhaps unnecessary.

Realizing this can help us break the cycle of deprivation with our own children. We can learn from our own parents either way – whether their example was great or poor. Rather than conforming to a poor example, we can commit to be conformed to the image of God in our parenting. I would like to think that parents who are followers of Jesus would naturally excel at creating a family culture of love and acceptance, but unfortunately, dysfunctional patterns from our upbringings can easily assert themselves if we don’t keep our heads in the game.

It IS possible to do this well!
I recently finished a book by PhD psychologist, John Trent, and Gary Smalley entitled, The Blessing. It’s not a new book but I think the message is timeless. The authors contend that children naturally look to their parents to confer a blessing on their lives. If this blessing is withheld for whatever reason, those children will almost certainly feel a deficit in their being, and may spend a lifetime seeking to compensate for what they feel they never received from their parents. Trent and Smalley describe the parental blessing as consisting of 5 parts:

  • Meaningful and appropriate touch
  • A spoken message (because silence creates uncertainty)
  • Attaching high value to the one being blessed
  • Picturing a special future for him or her
  • An active commitment to fulfill the blessing

Do these things resonate with you as they did for me? If not, imagine withholding one of these things from your child. Think of your own upbringing. Can you think of ways that your parents expressed these things to you? My parents were better at some of these than others, but I can clearly remember feeling, for example, their “active commitment,” not only to me but also to my three siblings. One of the ways they did this was by attending our events and involving themselves in the things we enjoyed.

My daily reminder
Over the years when our kids were still young, Mollie and I attended several parenting conference with our church. During one of them in particular, I consciously chose to take home a practical suggestion from one of the speakers. He said,

“Every day, give each of your children a loving look, a loving touch, and a loving word.”

I figured even if I only managed to do this once a week for each kid, the cumulative effect would be very great. So I wrote out a small reminder in abbreviated form and kept it on my nightstand where I would see it. It’s been there now for years. I felt a little sheepish that I needed a written reminder to express love to my kids, but I know I am prone to getting busy and forgetting things. I wrote it in abbreviated form because I was afraid one of them might wander into our bedroom someday and see my reminder, and feel like my expressions of love were items on a “to do” list and not from my heart. I still have my note, now a bit worn:

reminder to love every day

Do whatever it takes to remember. I wish you all the best in creating a rich culture of life and love for your kids! You can do this as a grandparent, aunt, uncle, or caregiver as well.

I can testify to the power of parental blessing. My dad was an “uneducated” construction worker, while I was a skinny, weird, sensitive little artist kid. My mom was only schooled as far as the eighth grade and never even learned how to drive. I doubt if my parents ever read a parenting book. Nonetheless, they created a home environment that met my and my siblings’ relational needs as small human beings created in God’s Image. That truly is a profound gift.

Soon I’ll share some research on how wounded people have shaped our culture.

If may offer a postscript that might appear to be just a wee bit self-serving, reading storybooks to your kids every day is an enjoyable way to cover at least 3 of the 5 aspects of blessing our kids.
(They don’t even have to be my books!)

New Video Release: The Reason for Christmas

From a human perspective, the coming of Jesus changed the course of human history. From a divine perspective, the sending of Jesus was the beginning of the fulfillment of God’s long-awaited promises, and His final answer to human pain, suffering, and all disunity, including the most profound division of all, which is death.

While on earth, Jesus preached the arrival of His kingdom and the promise of spiritual rebirth and resurrection. We see this now in partial fulfillment, and those who believe look forward to the future “uniting of all things, in heaven and on earth, in the Messiah.” The Judeo-Christian scriptures refer to this as the explicit will and plan of God (Eph 1:7-10.) This plan is in keeping with the Bible’s description of God as Life, Light, and Love.

The specificity and verifiability of biblical prophecy is unique in the world. For example the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that the book of Isaiah was indeed written and virtually unchanged for hundreds of years before the coming of Jesus. As knowledge advances in the fields of textual criticism, archaeology, and science, the case for the reliability for the Judeo-Christian scriptures becomes better, not worse. For the honest seeker, the 21st century is a great time to be alive.

A couple of years ago I created a short video with the help of a couple of friends. The video was designed to be an intro for one of my live painting performances, themed around Christmas. Last weekend I performed this piece again and realized that the video could also be viewed as a stand-alone piece, so I am putting it out on Youtube.

If you would be so kind as to view it, this would help my Youtube rankings! I think it might also encourage you. Plus my friend Linda Joy has a really cool accent.

Feel free to share this. If you would like to show it before a large group, such as a church congregation, I would appreciate it if you would let me know. I would like for you to credit me by using my kids’ book website, if you wouldn’t mind: http://www.BigPicturePublishing.com

Speaking of my storybook website. I’m still fulfilling orders for my newest book, The True Story of Christmas. (It is favorably reviewed in the current issue of World magazine!) While this book does not parallel the video, it does tell the Christmas story in the context of the big picture. But it doesn’t include creepy, unusual Christmas imagery like the video does. Like this:

nebuchadnezzars-dream

Image of King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream as interpreted by the Hebrew prophet Daniel.    From the video, The Reason for Christmas – artwork by Scott Freeman

Okay. Now you know you have to watch the video. You could also subscribe to my Youtube channel while you’re at it.

Video Credits:
Writing, graphic design, and artwork by Scott Freeman
Video editing by Bree Hottinger
Voice acting by Linda Joy

Thanks for your support!
You can view my original children’s storybooks HERE.

Why Bruce Jenner Is Not A Woman

Is transgenderism anti-woman

I’m not making fun of Bruce Jenner. But I’m not celebrating either. I have some questions first.

I admit I have no qualifications to write about this. (I haven’t even had my sex talk yet.) But what are we supposed to do? By the time “the experts” start asking the right questions, the revolution will be long over, and then there will be no putting the gender genie back in the bottle. Since the news media are too busy celebrating to do their jobs, I thought it might be helpful to state some facts, and ask some honest questions about the basic facts of life.

Recently I read this in Yahoo Celebrity News:
“Bruce Jenner has been changing his appearance for months, leading to speculation that the former Olympic athlete is becoming a woman. A source for People magazine claims that’s exactly what’s happening,..”Bruce is transitioning to a woman…” (Erin O’Sullivan)

Actually, no, Bruce is not becoming a woman. For people to say so is an insult to women, and demeaning to the female gender.

Since it’s a full time job to keep up on the constantly changing, politically correct terminology around transgenderism, I’m simply going to attempt to be fair, honest, and as sensitive as I can be, and that’s going to have to be good enough. I ask the reader not to read any hostility into my questions, since I actually am committed to valuing transgender people. I think gender dysphoria is a real thing that people don’t choose, and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.

Why it is anti-woman to perpetuate the idea that a man can become a woman
There is something fundamental at stake here: A grip on the basic shape of reality. I would hope that my readers would be offended if I were to refer to a women as a “cunt.” I hope we would agree that this is demeaning to women because it attempts to reduce a woman down to nothing more than a vagina. But at the end of the day, the transgender community seems to be doing something similar. If a dude thinks that buying himself a vagina through “sex reassignment” surgery is going to complete his transition to womanhood, I think it just shows that he is thinking like a dude.

The male reproductive package is relatively simple compared to that of women. One cannot simply trade in a penis for a vagina and call it a sex-change. It’s not an even trade.

Compared to that of men, the female reproductive package is very complex and all encompassing. A girl’s reproductive system dramatically announces and asserts itself at puberty, and continues to do so cyclically throughout her entire adult life until she reaches menopause as an older woman. Her reproductive system pervades her entire body, inside and out. Whether or not she wants to, she must think about her body on a daily basis. Often it demands her attention. If she becomes pregnant, for months she lives minute by minute with the reality that a living being is growing inside of her body; a body that was designed to bring new life into the world. During the birthing process, her body naturally takes over, bringing her through the transcendent and intense experience of childbirth. After birth, first the colostrum, and then the breast milk produced by her body, is the best possible source of nourishment for her baby, delivering exactly the nutrients, minerals, prebiotics, and antibodies that her baby needs. These biological realities, to a greater or lesser degree, must necessarily shape the psyche of every woman.

There is simply nothing like this for guys.

Does the fact that we can now chemically and surgically alter our bodies mean we can change our sex/gender? No. It’s true that “sex reassignment” surgery can construct an authentic-looking vagina, even retaining tissues that enable many MTF (male to female) transgenders to experience orgasm during sex. But at the end of the day, it’s still a hole. It doesn’t connect to a cervix and uterus. There are no ovaries, no cramps, and no menstrual cycles. No possibility or risk of pregnancy. No (naturally) lactating breasts. A surgically constructed transgender vagina must be regularly dilated every day, for life, so that it doesn’t close up.

But what if a biological male identifies as female? This is a real thing.

I think we have to delicately ask, “How does a dude know what a woman feels like on the inside?” What if his idea of “feeling like a woman” is only a cartoonish caricature of femaleness? How would he or anyone else know the difference? We have to take his word for it, and I’m not willing to do that because people are wrong about stuff all the time. He may not “feel like a man,” but what does that mean?

Someone may ask, “Can’t we all live and let live, and let these people do whatever they want if it makes them happy and they’re not hurting anyone?” Yes. People are free today to do whatever they want, obviously. If only that were enough for them.

Why Gender is not a Social Construct
The hip, liberal viewpoint now is that sex is biological, but gender is not. Gender is supposedly a changeable, fluid continuum, and every point on that continuum should be celebrated. There are supposedly as many genders as there are people. But here is the deal: This is an opinion. It’s one, novel way of looking at human sexuality. There has been no new groundbreaking scientific “discovery” that there are a zillion genders (1). It’s a political perspective. It is every bit as legit to hold the opinion that there are only two genders – male and female – and that anything “in between” is disordered. But sexual liberals don’t like that viewpoint because they think it’s exclusionist and mean. It’s not – it should go without saying that people with disorders should not be shunned or hated.

Can we say that near-sightedness, far-sightedness, color blindness, macular degeneration, people with cataracts, and people born without eyes are all simply experiencing different ways of seeing? Are these simply all different points on a continuum that should be accepted and celebrated? Here is why worldview matters. Those of us who believe in a Creator and an intentionally designed universe would say that our eyes were designed for seeing; that there exists an ideal of perfect vision that is good. Do we therefore hate blind people? Of course not.

This is not obvious to everyone. In an accidental, mindlessly evolved universe, things cannot be objectively good or valuable – they simply exist. There is no ideal because there is no purpose to life. I once actually had a conversation with an evolutionist in which he found himself having to argue that working eyesight was not good. He could only say that he preferred having eyes that see, in our present context, but that blindness might someday be an evolutionary advantage. So for him, his preference for organs that actually function according to design is simply a cultural construct. I am of the opinion that this is wacky thinking, and I’m not sorry.

How can we know that gender is not a cultural construct? Because gender is similarly based in biology. Only women have the biological equipment necessary for gestation and childbirth. That’s not cultural. It’s been true in every culture for all of human history. Childbearing is a uniquely female, gender role assigned by our biology. A woman may or may not choose to embrace that role for whatever reason, but this doesn’t turn that gender role into a cultural construct. She may or may not exhibit stereotypically feminine behavior, but that doesn’t either confirm her gender or throw it into question.

Why should the binary, heterosexual system of human reproduction be the standard for defining human sexuality? Because of the fact that the continued existence of humanity has always depended on it. This means something. It means that binary heterosexuality is a good, healthy, proven, whole, and self-sustaining system. To be self-sustaining is part of what defines good. This is not to say that those who deviate from it should be taken out and shot, but neither should we go redefining marriage, sex and gender to help them feel better about themselves. At least not yet.

There remains much to be learned about gender dysphoria before we start breaking out the party hats and dismantling western civilization. I realize that transgenders – people whose gender identity does not match their natural biological gender – find relief in having a sexual category where they fit in. But what if it’s not a true category? What if this is not a natural phenomenon that we should be normalizing? This is a big question. If the transgender movement is correct, then when babies are born, doctors should stop biasing the way parents think about them by announcing, “It’s a girl!” or “It’s a boy!” Because we won’t really know. Apparently, we still won’t know even if the child wins a gold medal in the Olympic decathlon as an adult man.

One possible cause of gender dysphoria
It is possible that environmental factors may cause or contribute to gender dysphoria. There are endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) prevalent in our environment and food now that weren’t there just a few generations ago. If a fetus developing in utero is subjected to such chemicals, which are known to damage or inhibit normal sexual development, could this account for an increasing number of children and adults experiencing gender dysphoria today? We can’t say for sure because more research needs to be done.

But will the research be done in our hyper-politicized environment? Have you ever heard anyone in any media even mention EDCs? I’m guessing that transgender people would prefer to think of themselves as the vanguard of a new, revolutionary, liberated human sexuality rather than as people with birth defects.

Radical Feminism, Transgenderism, and Postgenderism
An alien visiting our planet might assume that a movement called “feminism” would embrace the essential and uniquely feminine role of childbearing. But no, radical feminism sees this biologically defined role as innately oppressive, and the idea of the nuclear family as something from which we must be liberated. Pregnancy is practically seen as a weapon used against women. Therefore, the gender feminist camp of the feminist movement, far from being offended, is heartened by transgenderism, gay marriage, sexual promiscuity, abortion-on-demand, and pretty much anything else that helps to subvert the ideal of lifelong, loving, heterosexually monogamous marriage. It is in the interest of radical feminism to obliterate the connection between sexual intercourse and reproduction in general, and women and the innate role of childbirth in particular.

Here is a vision of equality by radical feminist author, Shulamith Firestone, from her seminal postgenderist work, The Dialectic of Sex, published in 1970:

“Humanity has begun to transcend nature: we can no longer justify the maintenance of a discriminatory sex class system on grounds of its origins in nature…The reproduction of the species by one sex for the benefit of both would be replaced by (at least the option of) artificial reproduction: children would be born to both sexes equally, or independently of either…the dependence of the child on the mother (and vice versa) would give way to a greatly shortened dependence on a small group of others in general, and any remaining inferiority to adults in physical strength would be compensated for culturally…For unless revolution uproots the basic social organization, the biological family – the vinculum through which the psychology of power can always be smuggled – the tapeworm of exploitation will never be annihilated. We shall need a sexual revolution much larger than – inclusive of – a socialist one to truly eradicate all class systems.”

Yes, you read that right. Women cannot be equal with men until their biologically assigned role is overcome through technology, and the nuclear family is abolished. This is at once an admission from the Left that left-wing sexual politics cannot work in the natural world, and also a beaming example of the astonishing arrogance of atheistic humanism.

This explains why we see a curious refusal on the Left to associate sexual intercourse with procreation, and childbirth with the female gender. This is why we see a campaign to keep gender superficial and interchangeable between sexes. It’s part of a utopian political movement.

So what do we do with each other?
With such fundamentally clashing views competing in our culture, how can we all co-exist? The answer is actually very simple – pluralism and freedom. (Here I use “pluralism” to mean the intentional co-existence of competing ideas.) If you’re reading this and you’re a transgender, or gay, or feminist person, I hope you are happy. I really, really do. I don’t bear you any ill will at all. But if you need me to celebrate your viewpoint in order to be happy, that’s going to be a problem for you. If you intend to use the power of government to force your ideological agenda on me, that’s a serious problem for all of us. We need to all be free to carry out our lives, according to our beliefs, in the free marketplace of ideas. Then we will see how this all shakes out.

I think it would be very helpful if we would all go out and meditate on our COEXIST bumper stickers. Then, if you’re looking for a profound movie, I recommend The Giver.

Relevant links:
1) Why Johns Hopkins Hospital Stopped Doing Sex Change Operations
2) Dear Justice Kennedy: An Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay Parent

Sign up to learn about Scott’s extraordinary children’s storybooks designed to instill a biblical worldview: http://www.bigpicturepublishing.com