Focus on the Family thinks life was better in 1964.
You know, when many minorities in the U.S. had few civil rights. When women couldn’t leave abusive husbands. When women couldn’t get credit in their own name, or get a mortgage.
That was better!
When Rebecca and I were preparing for our podcast last week about how we all get sucked in to toxic teachings (so we can avoid getting sucked in again!), someone in our Patreon group shared a post from Focus on the Family which perfectly encapsulated part of what we were arguing.
Focus on the Family created a series of graphics based on “Jill” and “Jane”. Jill was from 1964, and Jane was from 2024. Here are two slides from their post:
What was the point of all of these slides (and there were several more, including one where Jill suffers from anxiety and depression while Jane is fine). They explain it in the last one, which reads:
The sexual revolution promised “free love”, but instead left behind heartache, confusion, and a distortion of God’s design for sexuality.
It’s not too late to reclaim God’s truth and restore God’s design for love and sexuality.
So, so much we could talk about here.
Rebecca and I concentrated on the Us Vs. Them aspect of these posts, where Focus on the Family is encouraging Christians to think of everyone outside our camp as OnlyFans creators with tons of sexual partners. They’re taking an extreme caricature of the average person and making it seem like this is normal.
This post is really not about reaching the lost. It’s about keeping Christians in the fold, by making Christians think that anyone outside the fold is especially evil.
(and you should listen to the whole thing!)
But let’s take a few other takeaways from this post:
- It’s idealizing a time that was good for certain women and most white men, but not for anyone else
- It’s idealizing family arrangements where women had no power
- It’s making it clear that women’s main role is in the home. No one would ever say of a man, “he works while his children are in school.”
- And most of all, it’s blaming “Jill” for OnlyFans, rather than the men who consume it. It’s looking at the number of producers, rather than the number of consumers. OnlyFans would not exist without the demand, AND it has been shown that much of the content on OnlyFans is actually coercive.
- (It’s also weirdly a commercial for OnlyFans. A miniscule number of producers will be raking in 5 figures a month on OnlyFans, but Focus on the Family seems to be telling people that in this era where living costs are really high, OnlyFans is a good career opportunity).
After the outcry over this post, Focus on the Family did create a series of posts about Jack and John, too, which you can see here. They did then note how much traffic OnlyFans gets, presumably from mostly men.
A reader, Laura, “Fixed” it for us!
I had a DM on Instagram from a woman named Laura who “fixed” this for us–including the later slide that talks about how Jill suffered from anxiety and depression while Jane was fine. She writes:
Jane lived in a world in which her husband had sexual freedom while she was shunned for having more than one sexual partner.
We continue to live in a world where married men can consume porn and women are blamed for it.
In 1965, Jane had limited employment options and could lose the job she had just for being pregnant (which she may or may not have had any say about because until 1972, she would need her husband’s consent for birth control.)
Based on data from a 2018 study, if Jill and Jane are between 25 and 45 years old, the men around them have had an average of 6-35 more sexual partners.
“among women aged 25 to 44 years, sexual activity group 2 (2–4 lifetime sex partners) was the most frequently reported sexual activity group (30.3%–30.9%), whereas for men aged 25 to 44 years, sexual activity group 4 (10–39 lifetime sex partners) was the most frequently reported (27.8%–34.2%).”
The majority of users on the only fans website are married, white males. There are currently over 305,000,000 users (see source).
Intimate partner violence is strongly linked to an increase in mental health disorders including PTSD and depression (see source).
(It seems convenient to compare research and studies about women, abuse, and sexuality to now. In the 1970s and 60s, domestic violence was unrecognized, unresearched, and blamed on the victim when it was acknowledged. (see source))
The fact that Focus on the Family targets Jill before Jack is telling.
It was only after the outcry on social media that Focus on the Family put up its posts about men. Focus on the Family’s first instinct was to blame women’s behaviour for the sexual revolution, and to blame women for porn. That says a lot, doesn’t it?
And when you look at the stats that Laura shared (loved that she linked to so many peer reviewed studies!), it really reveals how little Focus on the Family understands about what women go through today (let alone in 1964!), and how little Focus on the Family cares. There is nothing about the exploitation of women. Nothing about abuse. Nothing about the realities of life that women actually face.
Let me challenge you to do something (if you can stomach it):
Look at that original Focus on the Family post about Jane and Jill in its entirety. And ask yourself: Who is this aimed at? What effect will this actually have? What is their motive here?
Do you think this will actually bring any “Jills” into the fold? Do you think this will convince a “Jill” that they are better off if they turn to Christ? Or do you think the aim is actually help “Jane” feel superior? Do you think the aim is to help “Jane” feel like feminism is a bad thing (since life was better in 1964)? Do you think this is really trying to reach the world “out there”, or do you think this is trying to make sure Christian women stay in their lane?
Then let me know in the comments! (and thank you to Laura for the great DM on Instagram!)
I need your help!
The social media algorithms are killing me on Instagram and Facebook! So here are some quick things I need you to do:
- Every time you see a post from me in your feed, “like” it or, better yet, leave a comment, even if it’s just to say, “way to go!” That gets more engagement on the posts and tells Instagram, “people like this want to see this”!
- Follow me on other platforms too, like Threads or YouTube!
- But most of all–subscribe to our email list! You’ll get an update every Friday with the best stuff from the week, and it will come directly from me (so they can’t mess with any algorithm!)
The moment I saw the graphic, I immediately thought “what about the Onlyfans users spending money on Jill?” as well. The bad thing is, if they really wanted to push “sexual revolution bad”, they could have done it by pointing out legitimate flaws such how it was still very male sexuality centric (after all, which side had more “pick up” articles, and which side had more “how to pleasure a partner” articles), vilified emotions, and created the quite frankly rather toxic for all involved hook-up mentality. But no, they had to go with the easy mark that would help keep their own women in line.😓
I would love to know where they got their data from. My mother was an office worker in her early 20s in 1964 and she’s often spoken of how difficult she found it listening to all the other women talking about their affairs and mocking her for still being a virgin.
It may depend on the sub-culture. I do believe the Christian world of my youth, and my parents’ era, was a lot better than what married women face today as regards unfaithfulness (I admit other things weren’t so good back then for women).
Yes back then people still cheated, but there was no internet, no possibility of naked women for free, no internet girlfriends to hang on your every word while they undress for you and potentially scam you out of money that is half your wife’s.
If a Christian husband really wanted to cheat back then, he had to actually get out of his house and do something. Go to the corner shop and buy that magazine, and ideally go to a corner shop far from where he lives. Go to a strip club, find out where they were etc, risk being seen.
The fact that a Christian husband can cheat today anywhere he has his phone with him, is a whole different ballgame. And i’ve seen the consequences on my own demographic of friends. More friends than I’d care to admit have experienced their husband giving in to temptation and then living a lie, as living in two worlds, since the internet came, is so much easier than before. Even really passive men can cheat with ease. The fact the church doesn’t talk about this, and doesn’t give newly married couples the awareness (as some Christian girls may not be aware everything is available completely for free on the internet) that without certain things in place, most husbands are at risk of cheating at some point in a way they weren’t previously, doesn’t help. Much better to be aware of the fact this temptation – to have whatever they want to look at and to make love to with their bodies – surrounds them constantly, than to be unaware and trust in the marriage relationship to keep faithfulness.
What I’d love to see somewhere is a conversation where men put themselves in women’s shoes. And asked themselves, if women were the ones nowadays living double lives and looking at, fantasising about and masturbating to other men than their husbands online, and even interacting with, as most porn today is interactive with chat, how would the men feel? Would they view it as many of them seem to – as something that just is normal and impossible to stop?
“ … blame women’s behaviour for … “
It appears that some VERY holy people seamlessly align with those noble Pharisees who dragged before Jesus a woman taken in the very act.
Ought Jesus’ reply be cited to them?
It ought.
Will it cause them to question themselves? Not likely.
I checked out the Jack and John post and freely gave them my 2 cents and I linked this article with my comment. Of course, this stuff on the two J women (Jill and Jane) coming from FotF just does not surprise me. I don’t think this organization will ever change for the better. Though I would like to hope they will. Thank you Bare Marriage for pointing us to peer-reviewed articles and statistics.
Thanks for trying, Laura!
Can you please fix the names in your post? You have Jill as the good role model and Jane as the modern -day woman, but the graphic shows the opposite. Thanks!
Oh my goodness you’re right! I’ve been thinking it’s the other way around.
Such a bummer that Focus on the Family has such a biased and patriarchal view of women. So unbiblical. It bums me out that such an influential organization is still getting is so wrong.
It bothers me so much too!
It’s worse than trying to keep women in line – it’s giving us standards most of us *can’t* measure up to, then shaming us for not meeting them. Reminds me of Matthew 23:4, because these Pharisees certainly aren’t lifting a finger to help.
Absolutely!
Before seeing this, I had no clue Only Fans existed. My first thought in seeing it was, “Oh, FotF hates women working so maybe that’s a legit work option. I may look into that.” I know, I live in a bubble- but I’m just adding to your point that it really is an advertisement for that site.
If FotF actually wants to make disciples as Jesus instructs, perhaps their good/bad lists should focus more on how to show people Jesus’ love vs. simply trying to shame people? Instead of going outward to make disciples, they are encouraging isolation- which is often a tacctic of abusers.
I noticed Jane had to move in to her husband’s home instead of him in to hers or finding a new to them both dwelling.
I also am sorrowfully amused by FotF’s projection, “… but instead left behind heartache, confusion, and a distortion of God’s design for sexuality.”
It really did read like an advertisement for OnlyFAns.
And it is just shame inducing!
For everyone’s information, OnlyFans is the streaming video equivalent of a phone sex line.
i.e. Personal Video Prostitution doing the “subscriber’s”/trick’s “requests” on-demand, charging by the minute.
Several OnlyFans channels are not run by “Janes” but by online (male) Pimps such as the infamous Andrew Tate.
These OF Pimps are surprisingly easy to find – most of them constantly brag about it on Manosphere Social Media.
Thanks! I had a feeling that I didn’t want to Google it n find out.
Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?”
For it is not wise to ask such questions.
Ecclesiastes 7:10
I think the greatest attraction of 1964 is that no one alive today was middle aged or older at that time. I bet with some digging you could find some materials written in 1964 comparing it to 1904 and concluding the world was going to hell and the youth had no morals.
That stuff has been going on forever. And in 1904, people were moaning about how great things were in 1864 and 50 years from now they’ll be moaning about how great things were back in 2025.
I saw a letter once from a guy who was a business owner. He was writing to his friend about how he’s trying to teach his son the business, but according to dad, all his kid wants to do is hang out with his friends and drink beer all day, and he’s worried that this whole new generation is the same way, and taking us all down to oblivion.
This sounds like it was written in the 60s, 70s or 80s, but not so. It was written by a Middle Eastern tin merchant in 1000 B.C. People have been complaining about this kind of thing for at least 3000 years.
That said, there are things about the “olden days” that were better than they are now, and things that are worse. The key is to take the good from then and combine it with the good from now.
Yes, that’s what people always think, ‘what’s wrong with young people these days?’
It’s also interesting that the entire senior leadership team of Focus on the Family is male–and older male at that.
The world of old white men…
Guess FotF never watched “Mad Men”?
I mean, at least Jill gets paid for being sexually devalued…
Not if she’s part of the stable of some OnlyFans pimp with a brand-new Lamborghini.
“Focus on the Family thinks life was better in 1964. You know, when …”
Everyone went to Church, there were only two genders, NO Queers or Trannies or Heathens, only a Strong CHRISTIAN Nation.
Just like Putin’s Russia, which is making a PR bid to attract American Culture War Christians.
The Russia angle is honestly terrifying.
Clearly, enough research has been done on the statistics and factual claims of the original post. So, I’ll note that I am irked by the rhetoric.
Why is Jill “cohabitating with her boyfriend”? Why can’t she just be “living” with her boyfriend?
Everyone says, “They’re living together.” This is the way normal people speak about this type of arrangement here in 2025.
If I’m trying to get Jill to go to church or something (I mean, I’m not, but let’s say I was), I would ask, “Oh, are you guys living together?” in a friendly, conversational tone. I would not look her up and down in clinical appraisal, and say, coldly, “I see that you and Jack are *cohabitating*.”
It’s distancing and judgy and subtly transforms someone’s entire domestic life into a symptom of societal decay. And maybe you THINK their home life is a symptom of societal decay, but still…when, exactly, were we instructed to “be rude as God has been rude to us”? So, yeah, no. I don’t think this post is targeted at “Jills.”
I should really get back to grading freshman comp essays now. Here’s hoping my students don’t suffer from my mood.
Good point!
It’s very strange to look at these old resources that I trusted so much with a new perspective. I do hope this isn’t too off-topic, but does anyone have any advice or resources for this… cognitive dissonance? Grief? I’m not sure what to call this feeling.
All I know is that I used to trust them so much… i feel like I should’ve known better, but how could I have? I was a literal child, growing up in the church.
Very confusing. A little saddening. I guess I’ll figure it out eventually, but it’s an important thing, to look carefully at what I used to believe and what I believe now. I don’t want to fall into the same traps again. But boy is it emotionally draining.
It’s definitely grief! I’ve been going through this for a few years now, and it’s hard, but it gets better over time and as you see a healthier view of God.
I tell my children over n over, ‘God’s Word never fails, when everything else around you is falling apart, go back to God n His Word.’
Deconstruction of twisted foundation needs to happen. Followed by careful reconstruction.
I wonder if there might be a bit of betrayal trauma going on, too?
I don’t disagree with why you are writing or what in essence I understand you to be trying to say. But when we use the term “feminism” – I balk. Because feminism – to some extent – defies definition (this lack of definition becoming a hallmark of the third wave)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism
It was third wave feminism that promoted “sex positive feminism”, which included forming coalitions …. with producers of pornography and erotica – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism
So (I HATE to say it) FotF wasn’t TOTALLY out to lunch on all of their analogies.
And if we don’t differentiate between the feminism we DO mean, versus the feminism we DON’T mean, then we leave other people to interpret us. And that can be a problem.
You’re not wrong; but what DO we call ourselves? I favored “womanist” for a minute, until I found out the history of that term for black women and realized that I could not use it for myself. So what do we do with our terms? I hate to give up “feminist” without a good replacement.
That is a GREAT question!! I was having a similar discussion with one of my daughters earlier – and we were teasing out the concept of striving for empowerment (especially with regard to a sense of purpose, power and agency within oneself) versus power OVER others.
From a personal perspective I’m a great supporter of the first category and extremely leery of the second.
This isn’t really an answer. But if I use the term “Christian feminist” I’m trying to nod to that first category. It’s not a political or social tool for social power and control – But empowerment of women with validation and love – rooted in their value as seen by Christ, at a personal level.
But using the term doesn’t mean that anyone hearing me would understand all of that. So the term would be essentially meaningless/open to interpretation again.
If anyone has another perspective or idea that would be awesome. I haven’t found a “neat box” for this one!! But you sure nailed the question!!
I like Christian feminist too!
Agreed that feminism means different things to different people. I use it, and when I do I often clarify that what I mean by the term is that it acknowledges that women have not been treated equally to men throughout most of history, and therefore there is a need to rectify that and I want to be part of it.
Sadly, the generation coming after me takes feminism totally differently. Girls 10-20 years younger than me tend to express feminism as meaning a woman can do whatever she wants. If she wants to strip naked she can, if she wants to act in inappropriate ways, she can etc etc
I find this definition so frustrating. I keep trying to fight it by saying feminism is there to get us equality. Equality is not being able to do whatever we want. We don’t want that for anybody. We don’t want that for men. We don’t want men stripping their clothes off everywhere because they are suddenly under no pressure to follow any moral or ethical codes of normal decency etc.
To me I see this younger generation of girls, who are dressing for concerts in the kind of clothing that you would tend to see on OnlyFans, (and I know they are probably doing it cos they now have to compete with porn, so I do feel for them), and I just feel their definition of feminism is failing them. It’s not bringing them equality. It’s making life more unequal, cos men get more of exactly what a lot of them want, right on their plate, and they have not had to move one iota towards admiring the girl’s skills, brains, capabilities, ideas, opinions or expertise. It all seems body focused.
I don’t have a problem with feminist, personally. I want to reclaim it. It just means we have to explain ourselves a lot. I also like “mutualist.”
I like the term “mutualist” – that’s very attractive in terms of the imago dei, it transcends gender wars – and doesn’t smell of “you must decrease so I can increase”!!
I’m not convinced that we can “reclaim” the term feminism – without a strong apologetic that its provenance is distinctively Christian. (Feminism doesn’t identify itself as having started with the suffrage movement.)
I would also argue that feminism does not start with the imago dei, but the imago femina – which is individually determined and ones actions/motivations are necessarily dictated by and in response to society.
The imago dei both includes and transcends us – but not at our expense. It should make us more, and better than what we are, without doing violence to what ultimately brings us the greatest joy.
Feminism as it stands, also has a body count – which I cannot turn a blind eye to. I can’t complain about how men are treating women, and then ignore the bodies of the innocents behind my own position. That is too much of a double standard for my own comfort.
It’s complicated!! I’m thinking out loud here. This isn’t the thesis version – but even in sketch form I don’t see the way clearly.
The thing is that the definition of feminism is simply someone who believes women are equal to men. That’s it.
If some, in the name of feminism, have called for things that have done harm, we can’t dismiss the whole term.
And it’s really only the term feminism that we do this to. We don’t reject other good social ideals because some people co-opt them. We still know that being against racism is important even if some have gone too far. We still know that freedom of religion is important even if some go too far.
To reject what is very very good–that women are equal to men–because some have taken it in a way you don’t like is really problematic because it gives people no word for what is so very important. And feminism is the word that people use for this. If more of us used it in a good way, then it could be associated with that again. But if we stop using it, then the movement itself loses a way to talk about itself and to join forces with others and to advance ideas. And that’s really dangerous I think.
I’d also recommend reading some British biographies and get out of the American context of some of these movements. Josephine Butler in the 1800s was AMAZING and coming at it from a very Christian point of view. But again, shows the need to join forces and reclaim the word!
And one more thing: In other areas of the world women are literally risking their lives to fight for their rights–in Iran; in Afghanistan; etc etc. They are doing so as feminists, because that’s the main word we have. If we in the west say that word is bad, they lose the ability to get people’s support. This is life and death for so many women, and we have to use the words that they are using as they fight for their rights even to exist!
Hi Sheila, thank you for taking the time to respond.
I think the confusion here is not that I am disagreeing with you in principle. But I’m trying to find something beyond pragmatism in practice.
Britannica’s definition of feminism is: “feminism, the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes.”
The equality is defined as social, political and economic. In other words feminism needs a society in which to define itself.
I think as Christians our apologetic needs to go beyond this – because our equality is inalienable and eternal – as part of our created image. That equality is part of our inherent identity whether the powers that be grant equal rights to us or not. (This inalienable equality forms the basis of our own empowerment.)
Trying to change a church culture without an accompanying metaphysical apologetic becomes a primarily political exercise and tends to be seen as a “power move”, (which can and is blown off by the Theobro’s) rather than a discussion about the inherent fabric of ultimate reality that needs to be engaged with.
I would argue that the evils done in the name of feminism are consistent with its pragmatic non metaphysical definition. The harms done reflected the perceived needs/desires of groups of women within a given society in the name of achieving equality.
I’ve lived on 3 continents and don’t (and haven’t) resided in the States.
But I still have lots of questions.
Thank you for mentioning Josephine Butler, I’ll be following that up.
What I would like FotF to explain is, if women had it so great back then, why was Valium so popular in the 60’s and 70’s?
Exactly. It doesn’t take much reading of literature, diaries, letters, watching of films, etc. to realize that a lot of women were not particularly happy with their assigned roles in a patriarchal/male-dominated society.
You may well have noticed this and let it go unremarked to focus on other things but…how is it that John’s “marriage is far from easy” and “not all sunshine and rainbows” but Jane has “a strong sense of fulfillment” from her faith/job/husband/children?
If they’re using FF marriage resources, I doubt either of them is very satisfied, but if it’s one or the other, Jane will be less “fulfilled” than John.
Absolutely! We definitely found that in our marriage study, and it’s pretty much an established fact in the literature that men have much higher marital satisfaction than women, and that women’s falls much faster than men’s does.
I heard the very same rhetoric at my former church. They would say something about being a wonderful Christian because they were still married to the same wife, she’s a SAHM, and they have family devotions every night. Then there’s more about how the world doesn’t see the “right” way to form a family. But they have a “right” family in God’s eyes.
One time I sat there listening to that junk (I’m a single parent BTW), and I realized that as precious as a marriage can be, it’s only for this life. There is no marriage in heaven. None. And I am not a failure in God’s eyes because my ex-husband ran off. God loves me the same, married or not. And that will go with me into heaven, not my married (or not) state. And if you are a single mom, you probably can’t be a SAHM, and there’s no shame in that. You have to do what you can to pay your bills. And God is just as pleased with that as He is with an “intact” family, and I very much feel that He comes alongside me in all of my struggles as a single mom. And that relationship is what I’ll enjoy in heaven and forevermore.
Among my believing single mom friends, I know two who did Onlyfans when they were struggling with feeding their kids. Yes, really. And I don’t judge them for that. It was something they were very glad to get away from. Not everyone who does that is a wreck spiritually. Some of them are just desperate. I wish the church had been willing to come alongside and monitor their financial situation so that they didn’t have to do that, but most evangelical churches blame single moms. These are hardworking women who fell on very bad times. I watch out for people like that because I know.
So true, Elsie! The church is too busy lambasting single moms that it doesn’t help when people need it. Today’s single moms are the “widows” that we were supposed to care for in the book of Acts.
The problem is it’s a cycle. It’s the problem of a world where a newly single Mom desperate to feed and clothe her kids can easily and quickly (if she’s still young enough) make more money out of her body than in a job doing harder work and for less pay.
But in making money out of her body she is actively encouraging more men in marriages to cheat on their wives, live double lives, and sooner or later many of those marriages will end, leaving more single grieving women who feel worthless, trying desperately to feed their kids.
I don’t honestly want to judge either, and I don’t think any online stripper or camgirl grew up dreaming of doing what she is doing, but choices still matter. Choices impact other people. The 2 Canadian women who stripped online for my ex and who along with him were the cause of my own marriage breakup were probably also Moms trying to feed kids. I know at least one of them was. But they still destroyed my marriage and my sense of trust.
It’s 100% a cycle the church needs to engage with, so these women have options. A world where a woman can make more money from her body than her work or talent is the opposite of an equal world.
Sad. One would think Focus on the Family would at least refer and uphold evidence based data instead of prejudicial ones. While I agree that” free love” turned out to be anything but free; think STI’s, out of wedlock pregnancy, abortion, etc etc to suggest 1964 is better is beyond ignorant. Less anxiety or depression??! Not so. There is a correlation that indicates the opposite; limited choice and power. Or why the Valium use of that time??
Exactly, Bonnie!
I’m trying to figure out where all these narratives about stay at home mothers, dependant on their husbands came from. I’ve been reading diaries written by my great-grandmother (born 1904) and my grandmother (born 1926). My great-grandmother started working in a boarding house at the age of 12. Her husband became interested in dating her when he saw her using a cross-cut saw with her brothers at the age of 18–he was looking for a hard-working wife! My grandmother moved away from home to work as soon as she finished high school, and her older sisters were already working. My great-grandmother references her mother working in a bakery to supplement the family income. I’m into the 1800’s, and every single woman in my family had a job (my mother and myself included).
Most women did. It was upper class women who didn’t, and that became a sign of prestige–that your wife didn’t work.