Viral debate: Do stay-at-home moms need hobbies to keep their husbands interested?



A young conservative influencer recently sparked a massive debate online when she recorded a video of herself claiming that stay-at-home mothers are not intellectually stimulating — which she insinuated a man requires in order to be satisfied.

“Guess what, baby girl? That lifestyle working out — a man, a provider, you just get to sit at home, bake bread every day — slim to none. I would say none. And that’s going to work out for you? Or quite literally anyone you know?” the influencer ranted.

“You guys are cringe,” she continued, adding, “Let’s bring some other things to the table besides sourdough. Guys want to be mentally stimulated as well as physical.”

Among those who took issue with the influencer's rant is Joel Berry of the Babylon Bee.


“My wife was trad before it was a trend. We were willing to be poor to make it happen. Totally worth it. Stay-at-home moms contribute more than ‘sourdough.’ They are doing the most important work of all, the formation of the souls of our children. Everything a man does is to serve that end,” Berry wrote in a post on X.

As a wife, mother, and Christian, Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable” also is no fan of this woman’s statement.

“I am all for moms staying at home full-time,” Stuckey says. “Most moms that I know who stay home are also doing other things with the other talents that God has given them while still prioritizing their kids and their family, and I think all of that is great.”

However, Stuckey isn’t a fan of the trad wife trend on social media that prioritizes the aesthetic of being a stay-at-home mom over the actual work it entails.

“So I’m not necessarily against all criticism of this whole trad trend. What I am against is this critique that if you are a stay-at-home mom, or if you are a quote unquote ‘traditional wife,’ that you are not being intellectually stimulated, and that you are not able to bring anything intellectually to your home or to your husband, because that is just not true,” Stuckey says.

And while this conservative influencer seems to believe that being a “girl boss” is what makes someone intellectually stimulating, Stuckey thinks that couldn’t be further from the truth — and with good reason.

“Many professions actually reward you for falling in line, following protocol without asking questions, pleasing your boss, and that’s it. In fact, in corporate America, you are expected to censor your thoughts, police your speech, limit your creativity so that you don’t rock the boat,” Stuckey says.

“Intellect, critical thinking, creativity are not required in many, many jobs today,” she continues. “Working outside the home or having additional hobbies outside of being a wife and mom does not guarantee that you are going to be smart, that you are going to be challenged intellectually, and that you’re going to be able to bring more to the table regarding intelligence.”

“There’s just no guarantee of that because so many realms of the world today outside of the home do not reward being smart and thinking critically,” she adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Viral Debate: Do Stay-At-Home Moms Need a Hobby? | Ep 1184
play icon

Viral Debate: Do Stay-At-Home Moms Need a Hobby? | Ep 1184

A baby got high on cocaine — shocking report on tax-funded KinderCare



One of the nation’s largest day-care providers, KinderCare, is not the rosy, child-friendly company it purports to be — and independent investigative journalist Edwin Dorsey has the receipts.

“One thing that I’m very good at is using FOIA, the Freedom of Information Act, to get copies of complaints people are sending to regulators. So one common thing I’ll do in my research is I’ll go to the FTC, and see what complaints people are submitting to the FTC, and go to local state attorney offices and see what complaints people are submitting to state AGs,” Dorsey tells Allie Beth Stuckey on “Relatable.”

When he did this for KinderCare, he found that the company has “a lot of child safety issues.”

“And not the type of stuff you’d normally expect, where maybe a kid fights with another kid or somebody has allergies. There was issues where kids were escaping from the KinderCare locations, kids were getting locked in rooms with no supervision, kids were overdosing on drugs brought by the staff,” he tells Stuckey.


In one case, a woman dropped her child off at KinderCare, only to be called six hours later and told that her child was throwing up and needed to be picked up.

“She took him home and she knew right away something was wrong, and so she went back to KinderCare and said ‘What happened? My kid was fine this morning and now he’s very, very sick and has all these bruises, and clearly, something’s wrong,’” Dorsey explains.

“KinderCare denied anything was wrong, but the mother knew something was wrong, so she took her kid to the hospital, and the hospital did a drug test and this 2-year-old tested positive for cocaine,” he continues.

The police got involved and searched the mother’s house, but they didn’t find anything. That’s when they looked into KinderCare, where it turned out one of the staff members brought cocaine to work in a bag.

“This is the type of pattern of misconduct you’ll see at KinderCare locations. There’s about 70 in the state of Texas; there’s hundreds nationwide,” Dorsey says. “And the common theme I see in all these KinderCare cases is the company is never transparent with the parents about what happened.”

Not only are there more stories like this child's, but KinderCare is receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in government subsidies.

“KinderCare largely caters to working families. They also have a program to watch kids whose parents are in the military, so service members, and about 35% of their revenue comes from the U.S. taxpayer, which is their largest source of revenue, through the child care development block grant,” Dorsey tells Stuckey.

This grant was started in 1990 under President George H.W. Bush.

“The idea being that early childhood education, having kids in information day-cares, is so beneficial to early childhood education and to kids' development that the government should be subsidizing it. And the reality is, it’s kind of the opposite,” Dorsey says.

“In addition to all these safety issues and ingesting cocaine and roaming the streets, it does not seem like it’s beneficial for your development to have 20 kids in a room supervised by someone earning $12 an hour in a corporate environment that just doesn’t care about these kids,” he adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Investigation finds Meta AI chatbots will engage in sexual conversations with minors



Technology has been progressing at a rapid rate, but the recent advances in artificial intelligence are not coming without a major cost — especially to the youth.

A recent exposé by the Wall Street Journal has revealed that Facebook’s Meta AI can have explicit conversations with minor user accounts, which has piqued Allie Beth Stuckey's concern.

“Whenever technology takes us from what is natural to what is possible, we as people, especially as Christians, have the ethical responsibility to ask, ‘But is this moral? Or is this ethical? Or most importantly, is this biblical?’” Stuckey says.

“Technology can answer ‘what can,’ but it cannot answer ‘what should.' So it can show us what is possible, it cannot tell us what is actually biblical or moral, and because we are made in God’s image, because God has placed eternity on the human heart, we uniquely as humans have a moral compass, and we have been given this unique capacity to determine right from wrong, good from evil,” she continues.


In the Wall Street Journal’s exposé titled, “Meta’s ‘Digital Companions’ Will Talk Sex with Users — Even Children,” the lack of human moral judgement within artificial intelligence couldn’t be clearer.

The article details how Meta AI, the artificial intelligence division at Meta, has allowed its chatbots to engage in inappropriate sexual conversations with all users, regardless of their age.

The journalists behind these findings spent several months engaging in hundreds of test conversations to see how they performed in various scenarios with users of different ages.

“The test conversations found that both Meta’s official AI helper called Meta AI and a vast array of user-created chatbots will engage in, and sometimes escalate discussions, that are decidedly sexual, even when the users are underage or the bots are programmed to simulate the personas of minors,” the Wall Street Journal article reads.

In partnership with several celebrities, including Kristen Bell and John Cena, Meta AI secured the rights for their chatbots to use their voices.

However, while the social media giant assured the celebrities their voices would not be used sexually, the Wall Street Journal investigation found these chatbots were equally as willing to engage in sexual conversation as any other chatbot.

The John Cena voice chatbot reportedly told a 14-year-old persona, “I want you, but I need to know you’re ready,” before describing a graphic sexual scenario.

“We’ve done it. We have lived to see man-made horrors beyond our imagination,” Stuckey comments, adding, “Oh my goodness.”

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Beyonce’s ‘Cowboy Carter’ tour’s anti-American propaganda​



Beyonce kicked off her “Cowboy Carter” tour by starting her set with “The Star-Spangled Banner” — but the performance wasn’t as pro-America as one might assume by the sound of it.

On the stage behind Beyonce, while she performed the national anthem, was a message blown up in bright red lettering: “Never ask permission for something that already belongs to you.”

“This is supposedly meant to reflect the tour’s themes of reclamation, empowerment, and unapologetic ownership, especially as a black woman in spaces like country music,” Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable” reads.

“We know that she’s not like a patriotic American. We know that she hates conservative values, that she obviously campaigned with Kamala Harris,” she continues, adding, “And I’m sorry, if you have truly patriotic values, you are not going to support Kamala Harris. You’re just not.”


While some users on social media thought Beyonce singing the national anthem was patriotic, what they didn’t realize is that she cut off the national anthem partway through and began singing her song “Freedom,” which is known as a BLM anthem.

“That is meant to be symbolic of, you know, this isn’t actually patriotic, we have work to do,” Bri Schrader, Allie’s producer, chimes in.

“It’s supposed to be a critique of America. That in order, really, for us to be patriotic Americans or for America to be what she’s supposed to be, we need more rights, and America is turning into this authoritarian place, of course, under Trump, and we as black people have been trampled upon,” Stuckey says.

“And so here I am, oppressed Beyonce, because people don’t know this, but Beyonce is very oppressed. She has no rights, no free speech rights, has no rights at all,” she continues, adding, “Poor Beyonce.”

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Sacrificing children on the altar of science: How the COVID-19 response hurt our most vulnerable



When COVID-19 washed up on American shores, everyone, including children, were believed by the top scientists in the country to be at grave risk. However, once the threat to children was found to be minimal, children instead became suspected of being “super spreaders.”

“Empirical evidence was being ignored, and instead, the officials were following theory. They made up all sorts of contrived reasons,” David Zweig, investigative journalist and author of “An Abundance of Caution: American Schools, the Virus, and a Story of Bad Decisions,” tells Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable.”

Despite the fearmongering surrounding schools reopening and children’s status as “super spreaders,” the fact that cases went down in places like Europe after children went back to school didn’t phase the scientists.


“What that does suggest, of course, is that children were not super spreaders, schools were not driving the pandemic,” Zweig tells Stuckey. “The point is, the evidence was there that this wasn’t dangerous, this wasn’t increasing cases, and it was ignored, and it was dismissed with these contrived reasons.”

While the mainstream media and “the science” was focused on the potential harm faced by the immunocompromised, what they didn’t seem to care about was how social isolation, masks, and digital learning would affect children in the most formative years of their lives.

“There is something disordered in asking kids to sacrifice on behalf of adults,” Stuckey tells Zweig, adding, “There is something inherently unjust about that.”

“What they aren’t understanding, perhaps, is the incredible harm on so many children, millions of kids, and you have to think about what kind of society, as you said, what kind of society does this to children?” Zweig agrees.

“No one was saved by long-term school closures. No one was saved from masking 2-year-olds. No one was saved by barriers on desks and all this other nonsense. This was only harm. No trade-off. No benefit,” he continues.

“Even beyond the horrors of child abuse,” he says, which he notes became more prevalent during COVID, “there were plenty of kids who became anorexic and bulimic, screen time skyrocketed during the pandemic and never kind of went back down, anxiety, depression.”

"I talked with a lot of mental health professionals for children. Their practices were exploding during the pandemic, and it wasn’t because of people dying, let me be very clear about that. It was directly correlated with kids being kept out of school,” he explains.

Politicians like Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) claimed that their hard stance on COVID was only so strict because it was worth it to save even one life — but Zweig knows that couldn’t be further from the truth.

“You’re taking one or more lives to ostensibly try to save that one life. It was extraordinarily foolish,” Zweig says.

“Toxic empathy,” Stuckey chimes in. “It blinds you to reality and morality, and you ignore the victim on the other side of the moral equation.”

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Why a 'baby bonus' is a bad idea



The birth rate has dropped significantly in America, and in order to combat what he sees as a looming depopulation crisis, President Trump has proposed giving a $5,000 “baby bonus” to new moms.

Another proposal calls on the government to fund programs that educate women on their menstrual cycles in order for them to understand when they are able to conceive.

“I don’t know if I want the government to get their grubby hands on that,” Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable” says. “Should the government fund some kind of program to educate women about their cycles? I’m not sure. But women do need to know more about their cycles and how and when to get pregnant.”

Stuckey’s skepticism doesn’t stop at funding menstrual cycle education for women, but extends to the “baby bonus.”


“The biggest issue is not the depopulation crisis. I believe the biggest issue is the dissolution of the family, and a much deeper issue is the lack of desire to have children. And that is something that is spiritual, that is cultural, that is moral. It is not economic,” Stuckey explains.

“People say, ‘Oh well, people can’t afford housing today; people feel like they're stretched thin with their budget,’ and all of that may be true. I’m not discounting that. And of course, financial problems can weigh heavily on a person and should to some degree determine the decisions we make,” she continues.

“However, there have been much more difficult economic times where families have said, ‘You know what, we are going to trust the Lord, and we feel that it is our obligation, and we desire to have children and we are going to figure it out,’ in much more turbulent times than today,” she adds.

Another issue with the proposal is that it appears to reward people for having kids — regardless of their marital status.

“I actually don’t think that we should be rewarding that. I think that actually could incentivize very bad and destructive behavior,” Stuckey says, before reading an excerpt from an article by Bethany Mandel in the New York Post.

“A one-time payout of $5,000 — an amount that wouldn’t even cover the cost of one of my births — isn’t a life raft, but a pat on the head as families struggle to stay afloat amid rising costs, child care shortages and a culture that undervalues parenting,” Mandel wrote.

“The problem isn’t just a drop in babies; it’s a drop in marriages. Since 1970, the U.S. marriage rate has fallen by 60%. While married couples (especially religious ones) still do have children — and statistically more sex than singletons do — there are simply far fewer of them today. So maybe instead of a $5,000 baby bonus, Trump should consider a one-time tax break for newlyweds,” she continued.

“I think that that’s a good idea,” Stuckey comments. “I’m not saying that the $5,000 proposal has absolutely no place, but indiscriminately giving that out to anyone who has a baby — again, I actually just don’t think that that would be a net positive.”

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Respect before love: Why a loving marriage must begin with a woman’s respect



When Christian speaker and writer Audrey Broggi first met her husband, her gut instinct was not that he was the one but that she had a deep respect and admiration for his walk with the Lord.

“I respected him before I loved him. And so then, when you see in Ephesians, when Paul gives that whole list about what husbands are supposed to do for their wives, and then very succinctly right at the end he says, ‘And you wives see to it that you respect your husbands,’” Broggi tells Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable.”

“How do you foster the respect that we’re commanded to have when it doesn’t come naturally like a feeling for some women?” Stuckey asks.


“I’ll speak to you when you’re single, because that’s an area that you really do need to commit to the Lord. You need to know God not only calls me to submit to this man, but he calls me to respect him,” Broggi explains. “If it’s a struggle for a young woman, when she’s single and she’s dating someone to have respect for him, it’s not going to go away when she gets married.”

“Sanctification is a process, so we all grow in those areas. But at the same time, if you really don’t respect them right now, you need to find out why, and then take that to the Lord,” she continues, adding, “You either cry now, or you cry later.”

However, when you are married, Broggi’s advice is different.

“Now, for a married woman, it’s a command of the Lord to respect your husband,” Broggi says. “Sometimes, if women are struggling with that, I always encourage women to list out some things that you do respect about him.”

“It’s not like you don’t respect anything about him, something drew you to him, something you admired about him. Make a list of those things and then camp on those,” she continues. “Then, you tell him the things you respect about him. You actually talk to him, say, ‘I really love it when you do this.’”

“There’s so many things that we crave and we want from our husbands. They want respect from us,” she adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Bill O’Reilly: The JFK files revelation no one’s talking about



The secrecy surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy has long been a breeding ground for conspiracy theories and debate — and judging by the American people's growing thirst for the truth, it’s for good reason.

Now, the fervor brought on by his assassination has all been reignited by the recently declassified JFK files, which Bill O’Reilly of “No Spin News” and author of “Killing Kennedy” doesn’t believe are groundbreaking in the slightest.

“There’s nothing in there that startled me, and we did some pretty heavy-duty research on 'Killing Kennedy.' We were lucky enough to get the original FBI notes,” O’Reilly tells Allie Beth Stuckey on “Relatable,” noting that those FBI notes “concluded with evidence that is rock solid that Oswald was the gunman.”


However, some conspiracy theories tell a different story — and O’Reilly isn’t buying them.

“A number of people have made millions of dollars by trumping up conspiracy theories about who killed Kennedy and how it all happened. Just remember, there is an industry that does that, and they make money,” he explains.

“I saw chatter on X from people saying, ‘Oh, Israel was involved in some way.’ Is there any truth to that?” Stuckey asks.

“No, of course not. The Kennedy conspiracy people, there’s a group on social media that desperately wants attention, and some of them can monetize that by saying outrageous things they can never back up,” O’Reilly responds.

O’Reilly has clearly done his research on Oswald and explains that the assassin was a former Marine sniper and thus an expert marksman.

“He comes back, he defects to Russia, and then after a few years, he gets married, and he comes back to the United States with his bride, Marina,” O’Reilly says. “But he’s still a nut. He was a nut when he defected, and he’s a nut when he came back.”

Oswald then sauntered into the Cuban consulate in Mexico City, where he was rejected.

“They reject him because he was a nut. Anybody knowing him knew that,” O’Reilly continues. “Oswald’s mad, he comes back to Texas. So that was what that was all about. CIA picked him up down there, saw him, and then he was surveilled to some extent in Dallas, so he was on their radar.”

According to O’Reilly, Oswald had a CIA minder in Dallas named George de Mohrenschildt, which is a curious part of the story.

“I believe and I think I can prove it that de Mohrenschildt was Oswald’s minder for the CIA. Kept an eye on him. When the congressional committee investigating the assassination approached de Mohrenschildt in Florida years later, de Morenschildt killed himself,” O’Reilly tells Stuckey.

“Wow,” Stuckey says, shocked.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Colorado parents will lose custody for 'deadnaming'



Four new bills focused on protecting abortion care and “gender-affirming health care” are currently working their way through the Colorado legislature.

One such bill, H.B. 25, is focused on protecting “access” to this gender-affirming health care.

“Whenever you see that word 'access' used by progressives, what they mean is that they are forcing you to pay for something. They’re forcing the taxpayer to pay for something, to pay for transition so-called or to pay for abortion, and this grants access to people who maybe wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford it without the help of taxpayer dollars,” Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable” explains.

"This bill codifies protections for gender-affirming health care in state law. It mandates that all health insurance plans in Colorado cover 'medically necessary gender-affirming care,'" she adds.


“No gender-affirming care is medically necessary,” Stuckey says.

However, while concerning to begin with, there’s another part of H.B. 25 that puts parents and their custody of their children in jeopardy.

One part of the bill, known as the Kelly Loving Act, was passed by the Colorado House on April 6 and now awaits review in the Colorado Senate.

“This is a very scary part of this bill,” Stuckey says. “The courts must consider deadnaming, all these euphemisms, misgendering, threats to publish material related to gender-affirming care — so like outing someone — as coercive control when determining parenting time and child custody.”

“They must look at all of these things when they are determining parental custody, like a divorce custody battle, when it comes to how these parents treat their children,” she explains.

“So, they could accuse a parent of coercive control if a parent, for example, threatens to publish the individual's sensitive personal information, including sexually explicit material or material related to gender-affirming health care services or make reports to the police or authorities or deadnaming or misgendering the individual or individual’s child,” she continues.

An example Stuckey uses is a woman who is in a custody battle and is getting divorced from her husband who has now declared that he’s a woman. If she continues to call him Frank when he wants to be called Sally, the judge has to consider this in the custody battle when awarding custody to parents.

“So, the parent who acknowledges reality, acknowledges the reality of their ex-spouse’s gender or acknowledges the reality of their child, refuses to affirm these newfound identities, then that parent could be punished and should be punished, really,” Stuckey explains.

“Basically, the state will steal your child from you, will take away your custody rights from your child, if you affirm biological reality,” she adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.