Relationships Of Welcome, Not Fear (Re: How Sexist Christian Views Marginalize and Isolate Adult, Single Women and Maintain Other Stereotypes About Adult Singles)

Relationships Of Welcome, Not Fear (Re: How Sexist Christian Views Marginalize and Isolate Adult, Single Women and Maintain Other Stereotypes About Adult Singles)

(Link): Relationships Of Welcome, Not Fear

Some male commentator left a reply under this post at Missio Alliance that I had to reply to, so I left a reply for him there. He was basically arguing against everything the author was saying in her page.

It’s amazing how weak and sexist some Christians are that they would rather keep upholding nasty stereotypes and views and practices that stigmatize single women than do what Jesus role modeled, which was talk to women and include them.

Not only are these views insulting towards adult single women, but toward males in general, and they are unbiblical.

These views are premised not just on the insulting assumption of un-married women being easy harlots who are just dying and eager to fall into bed with any and every married man they meet (even a middle aged, balding, fatso who is not good looking), but they assume that all or most men lack sexual self control, even though the Bible teaches that people have sexual self control.

This stereotype also assumes only MEN cheat and have affairs, and that only MEN want and enjoy sex. Wrong! I have many blogs posts with examples of married women who had affairs on their husbands.

Christians also teach out of the other side of their face that getting married makes a person immune from sexual sin, because, supposedly, the married person is getting his (or her) sexual needs met. (This is one reason why a lot of evangelical Christians tend to think of single adults as horny horn dogs who sleep around all over the place.)

Also, that some Christians let their guards down at times and admit, via these dopey, insulting pages warning married men to avoid single women because married men are prone to cheating goes to show that

    1. you don’t have to become perfect and godly before God will send you a spouse (which is sometimes a view taught by some Christians)
    and
    2. that being married does not make a person more godly, mature, or ethical than being single

I’ve blogged on this topic before (see links at the bottom of this post).

(Link): Relationships Of Welcome, Not Fear

Excerpts (if you want to read the entire thing, please use the link above; I am only presenting a few excerpts here):

    JULY 16, 2014 | BY: KARINA KREMINSKI

    Sometimes I feel like I live in my own little bubble far far away from certain debates and discussions that plague church circles. When I do read some of those discussions through social media, the effect it often has on me is one of experiencing sheer puzzlement.

    This happened again as I randomly came across and read two articles on social media within a short space of each other. One was called (Link): 5 Things Every Married Man should do around Single Women and the other was called (Link): Avoid any Hint.

    Granted, the articles could apply to both genders but they were written by men and the implication in the content was more around the matter of how men must deal with that pesky, recurring issue of women in their lives.

    According to the articles, in order to avoid potential problems with women, men should for example, ‘keep eye contact simple and short’, ‘Not go to lunch alone with the opposite sex’, and ‘Keep conversation general and professional’. I was utterly bemused.

    Is this how most people view the relationship between men and women?

    Are we as Christian leaders teaching this kind of thing in our churches? Can’t anyone see the problems around thinking in this way?

    And more importantly; is this the direction that the church wants to go regarding our vision for ministry? Is this the kind of attitude which truly embodies the radical values of the kingdom of God for witness to our world?

    A Premise Of Fear

    It Marginalises Women Further

    I am aware that the cautions and rules in the articles mentioned can apply to both genders.

    However, many articles like these are written by men and the rules and cautions such as these mentioned are implemented by men who are mostly the ones in positions of power in churches and other institutions.

    The effect that this has is that it marginalises women further as men exert their power however unintentionally, to isolate women. If men are being told to practice avoiding eye contact or the implication is to be fearful in connecting with women, then women will continually be viewed as the problem to be pushed to the side and will be further isolated from being fully involved in the life and ministry of the church. Less ministry opportunities are given to women in this kind of atmosphere.

    Impedes Building Healthy Male/Female Relationships

    Here Are 4 Things That Ministry Leaders Can Do To Help Build Welcoming Relationships Between Men And Women:

If you want to read the author’s suggestiona, and the rest of the page’s content, please click here
————————-
Related posts:

(Link): Jesus Christ was not afraid to meet alone with known Prostitutes / Steven Furtick and Elevation Church Perpetuating Anti Singles Bias – ie, Single Women are Supposedly Sexual Temptresses, All Males Can’t Control Their Sex Drives – (but this view conflicts with evangelical propaganda that married sex is great and frequent)

(Link): Christian Stereotypes About Female Sexuality : All Unmarried Women Are Supposedly Hyper Sexed Harlots – But All Married Ones are Supposedly Frigid or Totally Uninterested in Sex

(Link): Hey Ed Stetzer: Opposite Gender Friendships Are Not Sinful – Ed Stetzer’s Advice: “Avoid Any Hint” – More Like: Re Enforce UnBiblical Stereotypes About Men, Women, Sex, and Singles

(Link): Brotherly Love: Christians and Male-Female Friendships

(Link): How the Sexual Revolution Ruined Friendship – Also: If Christians Truly Believed in Celibacy and Virginity, they would stop adhering to certain sexual and gender stereotypes that work against both

(Link): Why So Much Fornication – Because Christians Have No Expectation of Sexual Purity

The Not Mom Blog: Childless by Chance Topic and Other Posts

The Not Mom Blog: Childless by Chance Topic

From the (Link): Not Mom Blog,
(Link): Childless by Chance

From their blog:

(Link): 15 DIMENSIONS OF CHILDLESS BY CHOICE OR BY CHANCE

    Remember that niches aren’t walled divisions, just different shades of a shared story. Here’s what you’ve told us so far about our many sub-communities. Don’t see yours? Let us know.

    By Choice and By Chance are like the East and West Sides of our ‘city’. Except, our map includes a Venn diagram where the two sides share land for women who describe themselves as Both. They once wanted kids, very much so in many cases, but at some point they realized the effort to conceive was too taxing, or that the idea of motherhood simply didn’t fit anymore.

    …The big umbrella of Infertility/Age includes women who’ve tried IVF, or experienced miscarriage, or simply waited too long before trying to conceive. A partner’s infertility counts, too. And Age can push a woman to declare herself without children By Chance and By Choice: Both.

    Health-Challenged NotMoms may well be fertile, but conditions such as cardiovascular disorders or kidney and liver disease, make the attempt life-threatening.

    Childless by Marriage is a term I credit to Sue Lick, who wrote a book and more about marrying an older man who was already a father and didn’t want more kids. When he died suddenly, her stepchildren vanished from her life, and her age made childbearing distinctly improbable. That was her ‘by marriage’ story, but there are many more.

    Continue reading

‘When Women Refuse’ Proves Violence Doesn’t Usually Come With a Misogynistic Manifesto

‘When Women Refuse’ Proves Violence Doesn’t Usually Come With a Misogynistic Manifesto

(Link): ‘When Women Refuse’ Proves Violence Doesn’t Usually Come With a Misogynistic Manifesto

    Male violence against women who refuse sexual advances isn’t merely the domain of a college student suffering from mental health issues. It’s an epidemic that’s a troubling part of the fabric of America. That’s the message sent by (Link): When Women Refuse, a Tumblr blog created on Monday in response to Friday night’s horrific mass shooting in Isla Vista, Calif., near the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara.

    The blog’s creator, feminist activist, author, and Lux Digital cofounder Deanna Zandt, told Think Progress that she was inspired to start the site because “we still don’t view gender based violence as a large cultural issue—we tend to think of these as isolated incidents.”

    In the aftermath of the shooting, media detailed the mental health challenges of the shooter, 22-year-old Elliot Rodger, who targeted women who had spurned his advances. Rodger killed six people before turning a gun on himself. Snippets of Rodger’s 137-page manifesto to friends and relatives have been published, and then there are the chilling videos he posted on YouTube.

    “I don’t know why you girls aren’t attracted to me, but I will punish you all for it,” Rodger declared in one video just hours before he embarked on his shooting spree.

    In an effort to distance themselves from Rodger’s deadly misogyny, men took to social media with the hashtag #NotAllMen to post tweets like, “Dividing men into the ‘good guys’ and the ‘bad guys’ is short-sighted.” Zandt told Think Progress that she noticed that several guys in her social networks also shared the belief that Rodger’s actions were an exception. Then, after seeing writer Kate Harding sharing news stories on her Facebook page of men who’d used violence after being rejected, Zandt decided to launch the Tumblr to show Rodger’s actions weren’t an isolated incident.

    Anyone can submit a story of a woman who’s been the victim of violence because she rejected sexual advances. Scrolling through the When Women Refuse submissions shows that Rodger’s actions aren’t unique. There’s the story of a 16-year-old stabbed to death after refusing to be a guy’s prom date, and the tragic (and all-too-common) tale of a woman whose controlling ex couldn’t get over her and stabbed her, her mother, and her new boyfriend.

((read the rest))
————————–
Related posts:

(Link): Bitter, Frustrated 22 Year Old Male Virgin and Member of Men’s Rights / PUA Groups Kills Several Women Because He Couldn’t Get Dates – what an entitled sexist doof

(Link): Nice Guys: Scourge of the Single Woman

(Link): Testosterone-Deficient Gamma Male Whines About the ‘Friend Zone’ (post from The Other McCain) – AKA, Ugly, Fat, Weird, Awkward, or Poor Nice Guys Who Unrealistically Expect to Attract Rich, Pretty, Thin, Socially Normal Women

(Link): Guy So Depressed Over Being Single He Cut Off His Own Penis (article)

(Link): When Adult Virginity and Adult Celibacy Are Viewed As Inconvenient or As Impediments

The Christian, Liberal, and Feminist Tendency to Intellectualize Away the Meaningfulness of Female Virginity; Also: Are Engagement Rings Sexist? Liberal Vs Conservatives Sound Off

The Christian, Liberal, and Feminist Tendency to Intellectualize Away the Meaningfulness of Female Virginity; Also: Are Engagement Rings Sexist? Liberal Vs Conservatives Sound Off

✮ From the liberal corner:
(Link): Engagement rings are barbaric

✮ The conservative reaction:
(Link): Engagement rings are barbaric because men are awful or something

✮ My reaction:
This is another time the secular, left wing feminists are off their rockers (I sometimes agree with them, usually do not and this is one of those times, no, I don’t agree). I see no harm or inherent sexism in a freaking engagement ring.

Here are excerpts from the Salon page, with commentary about it, by me, below it:

(Link): Engagement rings are barbaric

    Sparkly rocks remind us of an age when women were considered a form of chattel
    by SHANNON RUPP, THE TYEE

    Unsavoury custom

    … The engagement ring is not, as diamond advertisers of the last 80 years or so have insisted, a symbol of love: it’s a sort of down payment on a virgin vagina.

    I’ve always thought giving engagement rings was a slightly unsavoury custom, given that it began in an era when women were chattel, more or less. It’s hardly romantic. The rings remind me of a time when women couldn’t own property because they were property. Well, except for widows. There’s a reason that Merry Widow of opera fame was so merry.

    As Scott Fitzgerald noticed in the 1920s, the rich are different from you and me, and the custom of laying down an engagement ring was something rich people did in an era when marriage was recognized for what it really is: a business contract. It was done to secure property (and political alliances among royalty and the aristocracy) and to ensure there would be an heir and a spare to inherit it all.

    That’s why female virginity was such a big deal. It had financial value because it was connected to property. Pre-DNA testing, no one could be sure who the father was unless the bride was irreproachably chaste. And no one wants to see property going to bastards. Post-delivery of the requisite sons, everyone was free to go about discreet amusements, and the country weekend at the manor house came into vogue.

    … Then, engagement rings functioned as a sort of retainer — a lease-a-womb scheme, if you will. The unspoken part of the deal was that an engagement often allowed for a sampling of the goods.

    … Frances Gerety (who incidentally was a spinster) cleverly connected romantic love to diamond engagement rings, forever. She obscured their creepy origins as down payments on chattel, and diamond purveyors are still profiting from her sharp thinking.

    …That’s not a coincidence, and it’s not just the wedding industry ramping up. Apparently about half of couples were having premarital sex in the 1940s, and researchers believe that women were looking for some sign of commitment from a man before doing the wild thing. In an era of unreliable birth control, a ring was still seen as a down payment and a sort of insurance policy in the event the man bolted and left her holding the baby.

Since when is a woman having a “virgin vagina” or entering into marriage with one, an “unsavory custom?”

Is this another sign that secularists, left wingers, and others, are biased against adult virgins, or biased against the idea of a woman choosing to remain a virgin until marriage? Because it kind of sounds like it.

As to this:

    That’s why female virginity was such a big deal. It had financial value because it was connected to property. (etc)

This is another dismissal of virginity, another tactic I have seen used not just by secularists and left wingers, but one I’ve seen used a time or two on Christian, or ex-Christian sites, especially by women who are red hot infuriated over “modesty” and “purity” teachings.

Women who are opposed to virginity try to argue that the only reason any woman at any time in history has remained a virgin until marriage is due to patriarchal concerns about tracing the family tree, and at that, with monetary inheritance concerns.

Continue reading

Pervy Preacher from Seattle who teaches men “to objectify women, by his over emphasis of sexualization of women and subservience” (Re Driscoll)

Pervy Preacher from Seattle who teaches men “to objectify women, by his over emphasis of sexualization of women and subservience” (Re Driscoll)

I have blogged on this cretin before. Driscoll is sexist, and anti-singles, both anti male singles and anti female singles.

Driscoll, oddly, out of one side of his mouth, will condemn pornography in some of his sermons or books, but then tell his male church members on other occasions, whether in sermons or in books, that their wives are nothing more than sex blow up dolls, there to do their every sexual bidding, even indulging in sex acts most women do not want or enjoy, such as anal sex, or performing a blow job on their husband.

(That’s right men, most women do not like giving blow jobs, which is one of your seemingly biggest fantasies. Over the span of my entire life, all women I’ve met in person, or have read their musings online, only one or two have said they enjoy performing oral sex on a man. Most women get no pleasure out of it, it grosses them out, and many say it makes them feel like a five dollar crack whore.

I also notice that when writing about marital sex, or sermonizing on it, many conservative male preachers never, ever advise the husbands to perform oral sex on their wives, or perform whatever other sex act… it’s always very selfishly framed in how the woman can meet the man’s sexual needs.)

Mark Driscoll is a married father, and he is a sexual pervert… and yet, Christians insist on portraying or thinking of all older (as in over age 30) never-married, childless men as being homosexuals, over sexed Don Juans, or some other type of sexual deviant.

That Driscoll is on record (in his book on marriage, if I am not mistaken, or was it a sermon?) as saying he and his wife’s marriage was sexless for a few years (or unsatisfactory sexually in some other manner) also does not speak well of the conservative Christian propaganda that married sex is super great, so, if you just wait until you’re married to have sex, there will be fire works in the bedroom all the time.

A long excerpt from
(Link): Inside Mars Hill’s massive meltdown

    by By Stacey Solie
    July 2014

    SEX

    It was also around the mid-2000s that members noticed Driscoll’s growing preoccupation with sex.

    Driscoll also started to preach more about male privilege and sexual entitlement. This had a damaging impact on many marriages, said Rob Thain Smith, who, with Merle, was acting as an informal marriage counselor to many young couples.

    “He created enormous abuse of wives,” Smith said. “He helped young men objectify women, by his over emphasis of sexualization of women and subservience.”

    “The way Driscoll talked, you thought that he was getting it every night. All these men are seeing his hot wife, and are thinking he’s got it made.”

    In Real Marriage, Driscoll bitterly describes a largely sexless marriage, and seems to imply that he’s been acting out all these years because he was sexually frustrated at home.

    Continue reading

Don’t Give Up On Your Dreams

Don’t Give Up On Your Dreams

Don’t Let Someone Who Gave Up On Their Dreams Talk You Out Of Yours

In a couple of posts in the past (such as (Link): this one), I discussed the disheartening trend I see in Christian books, articles, interviews, or blogs by (1.) other never-married adult Christians who are over age of 35 or 40 (or, (2.) on occasion by married Christians who condescendingly lecture adult singles on these issues).

These (I am speaking of group 1 above) are adults who had hoped to marry, but they remain single into their late 30s or beyond.

(There is also another group, Christians who are over 40 years of age, who are thrilled and totally at peace at having never married and never really cared either way if they ever married or not. They are guilty of what I write about in this post, too.

Hell, I sometimes see single Christians below the age of 35 who are guilty of this, but their views stem more from being naive about life.)

The never-married Christians, who are past the age of 35 or 40, who have given up on ever getting married themselves then turn around in their interviews, articles, and books and shame other post-age-35 singles from pursuing marriage.

I kid you not. They will guilt trip you if you still hope to marry some day, and you are past 35 years old.

They have given up hope of ever getting married themselves, so they go about trying to convince other singles to give up, too. They will try to shame you out of pursuing your dream. They will tell you that at 40, you are too old to be on dating sites and still expecting marriage.

They believe you should only think of “eternity,” or, they will argue, you should be consumed in this life only with thoughts about Jesus or with how to serve Jesus in the here and now.

They will shame you by telling you that it’s selfish, immature, un-christian, or self-centered (or a combination of all those things) to go after an earthly pursuit such as marriage, even though Jesus did not preach a “pie in the sky” theology, but said he came so that you may have life more abundantly – that means NOW, not after you’re dead.

Many Christians believe in a theology of CODEPENDENCY and ASCETICISM, both of which are condemned in the Bible (see for example Colossians 2:16-22). It is okay to seek after your own personal happiness in the here and now. People who tell you otherwise are peddling false doctrine.

Don't Give Up On Your Dreams

Don’t Give Up On Your Dreams

If you are over 35, have never been married, and would still like to be, don’t let anyone else dissuade you from pursuing marriage, especially the ones who once held the dream but have given up.
———————-
Related posts:

(Link): Radical Christianity – New Trend That Guilt Trips American Christians For Living Average Lives

(Link): Christian Singles Never Marrieds – it’s okay to get your needs met

(Link): Christian Double Standard – Pray Earnestly For Anything & Everything – Except Marriage?

(Link): Singleness is Not A Gift

(Link): Desire for Marriage is Idolatry?

(Link): Gift of Singleness Gift of Celibacy Unbiblical – Those Terms and Teachings Contribute to Fornication / Editorial About Sex Surrogates

This applies to marriage, too:
(Link): Hypocrisy in Christian Culture – Those who idolize parenting chide infertiles for trying to have kids
———————————-

A Sexual Revolution for Young Evangelicals? No. (from NR, by Russell Moore)

A Sexual Revolution for Young Evangelicals? No.

Moore is at it again. And he’s flip flopping in a way.

Moore goes from bashing the concept of virginity until marriage ((Link): see this post) to now sort of arguing in favor of, or thinking it’s great that more Christians are supposedly remaining sexually pure. He also (like the rest of Christendom) seems to assume there are no virgins past the age of 30 (but there are).

(Link): A Sexual Revolution for Young Evangelicals? No.

    Defying the secular culture, churchgoing Christians are sticking to Biblical teaching.

    By Russell D. Moore and Andrew Walker

    In any discussion about the future of religion in America, especially as it relates to stalled growth in churches and denominations, those outside our religious communities find one theory especially compelling.

    This is the idea: that young Evangelicals are frustrated with Christian orthodoxy’s strict standards of sexual morality.

    We’re told that these young Evangelicals will soon revolutionize our churches with liberalized views on same-sex marriage, premarital sex, gender identity, and so on. But a new study by a University of Texas sociologist finds that Evangelical Christians ages 18 to 39 are resisting liberalizing trends in the culture.

    Continue reading

Follow Up – Reactions by Other Writers to Sexist, Condescending 50 Something Men Who Think They Are Final Arbiters of If Women Are Attractive Past Age of 40 (Re: Esquire Editorial by Junod)

Follow Up – Reactions by Other Writers to Sexist Condescending 50 Something Men Who Think They Are Final Arbiters of If Women Are Attractive Past Age of 40 (Re: Esquire Editorial by Junod)

This is a follow up to my post from yesterday,
(Link): Obnoxious, Condescending, Sexist, Pervy Esquire Editorial by 50-Something Year Old Man: “In Praise of 42 Year Old Women” – Condescendingly Reassures 40 Something Women He’d Sex Them Up

Here are other people’s reactions to the insufferable, obnoxious, ageist, and sexist Junod editorial on Esquire.

(Link): Older women don’t need mansplaining boner prose in praise of their sexiness

    by Jessica Valenti
    theguardian.com,
    Friday 11 July 2014 07.15

    An homage in a men’s magazine to the ‘carnal appeal’ of 42-year old women is no great win for feminism

    Breaking news! Men’s magazines have determined that it is not abnormal for men to ogle and objectify women over the age of 40! Women of the world, feminism has won! Rejoice!

    Or not.

    To kick off its annual women issue, Esquire magazine on Thursday published an essay called “In Praise of 42-Year Old Women”, assuring the normally-depressed old hags that dudes (or at least the writer Tom Junod) still want to bang them. Junod – who has an “interesting” history writing about women – writes that, while “[t]here used to be something tragic about even the most beautiful forty-two-year-old woman”, they now have “carnal appeal”.

    — start Junod quote
    A few generations ago, a woman turning forty-two was expected to voluntarily accept the shackles of biology and convention; now it seems there is no one in our society quite so determined to be free. Conservatives still attack feminism with the absurd notion that it makes its adherents less attractive to men; in truth, it is feminism that has made forty-two-year-old women so desirable.
    — end Junod quote

    Protip to male writers gorging on self-congratulation as they deem grown woman fuckable: leave feminism out of it.

    Junod, careful to qualify that the 42-year-old women worthy of praise are those who “have armored themselves with yoga and Pilates even as they joke about the spectacle”, seems to believe that he has done women a great kindness with this piece. But when he writes that 42-year-old women are “superior” to men and that “the best thing that that forty-two-year-old American men have going for them is forty-two-year-old American women”, he does so with the same benevolence of a lazy husband praising his wife’s laundry skills. (Or financial skills, in his case.)

    It’s easy for men to call women “superior” in a society that privileges men at nearly every turn: they’re not the ones being grossly objectified under the guise of a compliment.

    Certainly, women over 40 deserve more reverence and respect than they typically get – and I’d love to see women of all ages receive that … outside of women’s magazines and day-time talk shows. We live in a culture, often driven by the media and Hollywood, that paints women over 25 as desperate and pathetic: we’re considered past our prime, never to be “nubile” (a word worth banning from our collective consciousness if there ever was one) again!

    But the validation that women seek is generally not of the erection-producing variety. It’s very nice and all that writers are catching on that women of all ages can be sexy, but framing that as an amazing new discovery makes it more about men than it is about us (which feels about par for the course).

    For example, in a companion piece on Esquire’s website, writer Stephen Marche urges us all – in a slightly less cringe-inducing way than Junod’s overwrought boner-prose – to retire the word MILF. He writes that “there’s another explanation for the rise of 42, one that’s even more revelatory. Maybe it isn’t fashion at all. Maybe it’s what men wanted all along.”

    Right. But maybe, just maybe, what men want isn’t – and doesn’t always have to be – the damn point.

(Link): BREAKING: Esquire Declares 42-Year-Old Women Now F-ckable by Tracy Moore

    Why, used to be, a woman at the age of 42 could hardly be glanced at, much less taken to bed and ravaged shame-free in broad daylight. No longer. Esquire has sent word across all channels that 42-year-old women have been removed from the Do Not Bang list and are no longer off-limits to respectable men. In other news, FIRE SALE AT CHICO’S.

    Forty-two year-old broads everywhere can now pack up their loose but crisp linen shirts, let their slightly graying hair down, and select their finest modest but sexy cocktail dress and get back out there.

    Behold the clarion call courtesy of author Tom Junod:

    —- start Junod quote
    Let’s face it: There used to be something tragic about even the most beautiful forty-two-year-old woman. With half her life still ahead of her, she was deemed to be at the end of something—namely, everything society valued in her, other than her success as a mother. If she remained sexual, she was either predatory or desperate; if she remained beautiful, what gave her beauty force was the fact of its fading. And if she remained alone… well, then God help her.
    — end Junod quote

    We’ve all seen those women — you know, the beautiful aging ones who just seemed so pathetic for existing at all. Also, he is right, I can’t think of more forceful beauty than the fading kind. The not-fading kind is great — don’t get me wrong — but if you think about it, it’s just not quite as potent, all said. However, a hint of beauty once there is just, well, sickening. Really sad, too.

    The only thing more ludicrous than Tom Junod’s feelings about 42-year-olds are the misguided assumptions that lurk beneath them… like a 42-year-old woman clawing at the icy surface above her, desperate to escape the tomb of her old age and fading beauty, trapped in part because she acknowledges that icy cold water could significantly invigorate her appearance.

    Continue reading

Obnoxious, Condescending, Sexist, Pervy Esquire Editorial by 50-Something Year Old Man: “In Praise of 42 Year Old Women” – Condescendingly Reassures 40 Something Women He’d Sex Them Up

Obnoxious, Condescending, Sexist Esquire Editorial by 50-Something Year Old Man, Tom Junod: “In Praise of 42 Year Old Women” – Condescendingly Reassures 40 Something Women He’d Sex Them Up
—————
WARNING: This post contains the “F” word in it a lot, mostly by other people who I am quoting. I am not going to sit here and edit out all the “F” words. Proceed at your own risk if naughty words make you blush

Edit. There is a follow up to this post on this blog here:
(Link): Follow Up – Reactions by Other Writers to Sexist, Condescending 50 Something Men Who Think They Are Final Arbiters of If Women Are Attractive Past Age of 40 (Re: Esquire Editorial by Junod)
—————-
I do acknowledge that there is a lot of sexism and ageism in our culture. Women are thought to have “sell by” dates – and I notice this age varies.

(By the way, the same thing has caught up to men now. See for instance: (Link): Men Become ‘Invisible’ And Lose Sex Appeal At 39 – Article from Daily Caller)

This attitude about women and women’s ages varies from person to person, and from decade to decade.

I remember when I was a kid, age 40 was thought to be a little on the “old” side – not by me personally, but by the wider culture, the TV shows, magazines, newspapers, people in their 20s and maybe 30s at the time.

(Starting when I was around age eight, I began reading the newspaper almost daily, even the front section, that had the political and cultural news, and I watched the evening news with my father every night. That’s how I can say with confidence I’m pretty well attuned to how people viewed things back then.)

In the last few years, sexist PUA and MRA guys have said a woman’s expiration date is age 25, while others of them say no, it’s 30, while others might say 35. Of course, all of them overlook the fact that women do not even have an expiration date to start with.

That none of these males can agree with each other on when a woman supposedly loses her hotness testifies to the truth that it’s all bogus.

Even in the sub-heading of this nauseating editorial, it is stated from the out-set,

    In our occasional ranking of the ages, we found that this year’s most alluring is not what you’d expect. It’s not 27 (honored in 1999) or 39 (2008) or 86 (1937 and 1983). No, this year it’s 42. Because it’s not what it used to be.

You might be tempted to think, well, if that is so, if this magazine is honoring 40 something women, wouldn’t you be thrilled that a magazine is writing an editorial saying that 40 something women are no longer considered old, past their prime, or old hags? No, not entirely.

Because the editorial is condescending, and the author, Tom Junod, says insulting things, such as, a woman’s beauty is fading when she is in her 40s (no, it’s not).

This reminds me of an editorial at a Christian site, by a married man, who tried to reassure adult singles that we are fine dandy dan just they way we are.

I appreciate that the Christian author was trying to be helpful or compassionate to older singles, but the condescending attitude was more of a put down (read that page here: (Link): Oh geeze. Another married Christian condescendingly patting single Christians on the head, reassuring them they are dandy as-is, and to remember they have the fictional Gift of Singleness)

It’s the same thing with this editorial. The male author, who is 55 or 56 years old, says he would gladly have sex with a 42 year old woman.

I saw photos of this guy at Gawker, and I find him terribly unattractive. I am in my early 40s, fit, attractive, and I would not give him the time of day. What on earth makes him think I’d want to do him, out of gratitude that he says he finds women of my age still attractive? No, no, no. That is condescending.

As an author at Gawker summarized the Esquire editorial:

(Link): Esquire Writers: We’re Willing to Fuck Early Middle-Aged Ladies, (from Gawker)

The original ed is here:
(Link): IN PRAISE OF 42-YEAR-OLD WOMEN, by Tom Junod (on Esquire’s site)

Yeah, see, I don’t need a dude more than ten years my age reassuring me I’m fine as I am. I already know I’m fine as I am.

Here’s the intro:

    by Tom Junod
    Published in the August 2014 issue

    Let’s face it: There used to be something tragic about even the most beautiful forty-two-year-old woman.

    With half her life still ahead of her, she was deemed to be at the end of something—namely, everything society valued in her, other than her success as a mother.

    If she remained sexual, she was either predatory or desperate; if she remained beautiful, what gave her beauty force was the fact of its fading. And if she remained alone… well, then God help her.

From the Gawker author’s take on Junod’s editorial:

    Esquire magazine (Motto: “The Inactive Ingredients of Erection Pills, in Magazine Form”) has a very important message to all the 42-year-old women out there: Esquire writer at large Tom Junod might like to fuck you.

    That’s right, ladies of a certain age (42). Tom Junod has decided you may still be hot.

    This was not always the case. Once upon a time, 42-year-old women were not really worth wanting to fuck, or if Tom Junod did want to fuck one, it made him sad.

    [snip Juno intro]

    Now, though? Now 42 is awesome. Tom Junod can name several famous women who are 42 who he would be willing to fuck. Right in their 42-year-old vaginas. Cameron Diaz. Sofia Vergara. Leslie Mann. Amy Poehler.

    He would fuck these women, despite their age, and even share a joke with them, because the 42-year-old woman, she is a person, or at least a person-like idea:

    [Gawker author quoting Junod]:
    It is no accident that every woman mentioned here has comic as well as carnal appeal, and entices with the promise of lust with laughs.

But it’s not all easy. Being sexually attractive to Tom Junod at the age of 42 is a real job:

    [Gawker author quoting Junod]:
    Of course, they have to work for their advantage; they have armored themselves with yoga and Pilates even as they joke about the spectacle.

    Still, what has made them figures of fantasy is not that they have redefined the ideals of female strength but rather their own vulnerabilities.

    Go to a party: There is simply no one as unclothed as a forty-two-year-old woman in a summer dress. For all her toughness, and humor, and smarts, you know exactly what she looks like, without the advantage of knowing who she is.

Were you afraid you might go to a summer party, as a 42-year-old woman, and not have a magazine writer mentally appraise what you would look like without your clothing on? Fear not (as long as you’ve been doing yoga and Pilates)—Tom Junod is so thoroughly prepared to undress you with his mind, you’re already naked.

What accounts for society’s and Esquire’s sudden tolerance of women of this age, 42? Tom Junod, according to Wikipedia, was born in the Eisenhower Administration, and is currently either 55 or 56 years old. Nevertheless, Tom Junod is gracious enough to admit he’s capable of wanting to fuck women who are within 13 or 14 years of his own age.

I, myself, by coincidence, am 42 years old right now. But I am male. As such, I would like to follow Tom Junod’s lead and reassure all the 28-year-old women of the world that I do not believe their advanced years should render them sexually unattractive to me.

Or maybe he’s using a percentage, rather than a spread of years. Tom Junod is willing to entertain the thought of intimate relations with women all the way up to 75 percent of his own age.

Tom Junod, age 21, cruises into the high school parking lot to tell the 15-year-olds they’re still OK. (He shakes his head at Sweet Sixteen parties, though.)

Tom Junod, age 30, is ready to consider dating a summer intern in his office, even if she has already finished college. Tom Junod, age 85, tells a 63-year-old woman not to worry, she’s still got a little something going on, in his eyes.

It boils down to feminism, you see:

    [Gawker author quoting Junod]:
    A few generations ago, a woman turning forty-two was expected to voluntarily accept the shackles of biology and convention; now it seems there is no one in our society quite so determined to be free.

    Conservatives still attack feminism with the absurd notion that it makes its adherents less attractive to men; in truth, it is feminism that has made forty-two-year-old women so desirable.

This is what it was all about, ladies.

But Tom Junod is, after all, only one man. You may be asking yourselves: Do other men also want to fuck 42-year-old women? Do they ever!

There’s a double feature playing at the Esquire Drive-In, and the second show is by Stephen Marche, who is not quite even 40 yet. Guess what?

    [Gawker author quoting Marche]:
    Women who are 42 are grown-ups, they are in control of their own lives, or as in control of their own lives as they are going to be anyway, and it is altogether good that American men desire women in this state. Desirability and self-possession should go together.

Marche, though, is not sure this is so nice. He is writing to express the fact that he is uncomfortable about the use of the term “MILF,” when applied to these 42-year-old targets of male desire.

Why? Possibly because it is a porn indexing term, inherently and exclusively used to objectify women? Well, yes, but no. The fact that “MILF” is a popular pornographic search term, to Marche, indicates not that it is a constructed concept, which is shaping men’s sexual expectations, but the opposite—that it reflects some deeper or prior impulse. You can ((( click here ))) to read the rest.

No, I don’t find it flattering or reassuring that a wrinkly looking 55 year old writes an editorial telling women of my age he’d still like to boink me.

The guy who wrote this travesty apparently thinks this is a one way street, where only men are visual and only men care about what a person looks like. Wrong! Women are visual and care about when men look like.

I find that condescending on so many different levels, that for one, he assumes I’d find him handsome or charming enough to want to boink back (and the answer to both is no, I don’t).

I don’t need anyone reassuring me it’s okay to be 40-something. I already know that. Trying to convince me it’s okay is actually insulting in a way.

Here are a few of the reader comments from Gawker that were underneath this article:

by NoLackawannaTom Scocca
Yesterday 8:04pm
I find it sadly comical that men— aging, fat, balding— always think they can attract women half their age. (Actually, they often can—if they’re rich or famous or both.)
I wonder if they ever considered that some hot, beautiful women ten years older than them would drink battery acid before they would fuck them.

by baddoggy
Thursday 2:05pm
This is fucking jaw dropping.

It takes a lot to get a rise out of me but this Tom Junod guy has hit a spot I didn’t know was there. I’m a 40 year old male and this sickens me.

This guy is disgusting.
I couldn’t even finish the article.

The parts I did read made me puke in my mouth a little bit. He’s what? 55 or 56? So who in the hell is he lusting after in real life? What age is the lady he’s dating or married to? Jeez.

by courtneys_keyboard
Thursday 1:58pm
What the shit is this shit.

This is nauseating to men and women. The idea that women have a sell by date is ludicrous, and the idea that men should determine who to sleep with based on chronology is moronic.

The truth is that people will sleep with almost anyone. People (mostly in Florida) will have sex with relatives, with animals, with warm soup.

The attempt to make yourself feel more successful by only copulating with what the Esquire staff considers acceptable is pretty pathetic. Fuck who you want, provided they also want you, and shut up about it.

Continue reading

Christian Post Columnist And Wife Maintain Stereotype That Men and Women Cannot Be Friends, Should Not Meet Alone for Dinner in Public, and All Women Are Sexual Temptresses

Christian Post Columnist And Wife Maintain Stereotype That Men and Women Cannot Be Friends, Should Not Meet Alone for Dinner in Public, and All Women Are Sexual Temptresses
—————————————–
Notice from Christian Pundit blogger: There is coming a time when I will either not be blogging as frequently or not at all. Please read more about that here in this post (Link): Blog Break – May 2014 – and List of This Blog’s Best or Most Relevant Posts
—————————————-
No, married lady who wrote to the CP advice columnist below, you should not be concerned that your husband is talking to other women including un-married women.

It’s a nasty, stupid steretype held by Christians and Non Christians that single women are easy harlots who go about wanting to bed married men.

Why is the Christian Post even publishing this? It’s only perpetuating the negative biases against single women, or women in general.

Granted, this specific letter does not divulge what the martial states of the women in question are, but it still gets to the notion that ALL relationships have a sexual undercurrrent, or will.

It is possible for men and women to be platonic friends. It is possible for two men to be platonic friends with each other.

Jesus was recorded in the Bible as having spent time alone with women, including women who were known to be “easy” or who literally worked as prostitutes – and Jesus is to be your example if you are a Christian. If Jesus did not avoid alone time with women, what is your excuse?

The Bible also says Christians are not to bear false witness against their neighbors.

Every time Christians repeat the secular lie that women are sexual temptresses (with the logic being that men should avoid them), they are in effect bearing false witness against an entire group of people.

This also shatters a very popular evangelical, Reformed, and Baptist myth about sexual purity and marriage: these types of Christians frequently repeat (or used to, up until a few years ago, when they started jumping on the “bash virginity” band wagon), that if one waited until sex to have marriage, that the sex would be “mind blowing” (their usual word of choice), and it would, they implied, be regular – daily or weekly.

Hand in hand with that nonsense, is the idea that un-married people are having lots of sex outside of marriage. The idea being that married people are supposedly getting their oats sewn in marriage, that married sex is so satisfying, that they will not be the least tempted to boink anyone else.

Well… if Christians are sitting there worried that their husbands are meeting alone with other women on business dinner dates and the like, and these Christian advice columnists are telling them “damn right you should be worried, that is how affairs start” then these ideas of marriage being a magical protective shield from sexual sin is totally bogus, is it not?

This reminds me of the blow back over the post by the Christian lady who shamed other women in her post called “My Husband Doesn’t Need to See Your Boobs.”

If you have not heard of this latest controversy in blog land which broke out last week, or the week before, about a Christian woman who, in her blog post, commanded other women to cover their cleavage adequately during bikini season, you can read about it here (off site link – this is a rebuttal to that woman’s post): My Boobs Are Not A Threat To Your Marriage (By Rachel Kramer Bussel)

The woman who wrote the “boobs” post was treating all other women as her enemies, as though all women are sexual temptresses out to turn her man’s head and make him stumble – she was holding other women accountable for what her husband may say, think, or do, rather than holding him squarely accountable.

I am a hetero lady. One of my movie actor crushes remains Hugh Jackman. I guess Christians don’t care every time I see Mr. Jackman in a movie or a movie poster – particularly in those shirtless shots showing off his fine chiseled features – I sure do come close to stumbling.

Actor Hugh Jackman

Actor Hugh Jackman


Why aren’t Christians engaging on a large scale letter writing campaign to encourage Mr. Jackman to keep fully clothed, for my sake? I guess Christians don’t care about a woman’s sexual purity, or think that men should be held responsible for causing a woman to stumble. Sigh.

Without further ado, here is the link that prompted me to write this post to start with:

(Link): Should I Be Concerned My Husband Spends Time With Other Women?

    BY JOE BEAM,
    CP GUEST COLUMNIST
    July 4, 2014|8:32 am

    QUESTION: Joe, my husband works with several women, and occasionally they will have lunch meetings (usually as a group).
    I was okay with this until a friend told me recently that she saw my husband and one of his co-workers at lunch (in a very trendy lunch spot) and that they looked “too comfortable” for her liking.
    She said they laughed, looked at iPhone photos, and seemed to be socializing more than working. Should I be concerned my husband spends time with other women?

Here is in part how the guy answered this woman’s concerns:

    Second, I personally think that in most situations it is a bad idea for any married person to have lunch with a person of the opposite gender. Groups are one thing; lunch with just one other is another.

    Every month I conduct a workshop for marriages in trouble. While difficulties range from controlling behavior to in-law problems to fighting over money and more, by far the most common marriage problem we work with is infidelity.

    Typically, unfaithfulness does not occur because someone looks for a sexual partner, but stems from two good people crossing boundaries.

    They become friends. Then the friendship deepens as they begin to share their thoughts, histories, frustrations, dreams, and feelings.

    They erect no barriers because they do not intend to do anything wrong. As I said, good people living good lives. However, somewhere along the line their openness and transparency with each other develops emotions much stronger than friendship.

    … In his organization, The Lampo Group, my friend Dave Ramsey refuses to allow one man and one woman to work together without others present. Why? Dave is wise enough to know how many wonderful people wind up in trouble from such seemingly innocent beginnings.

Hmm, so, you mean to say that married people can only hang out in groups? I’m sorry, but I totally disagree with the thinking that to avoid fornication, one should totally avoid the opposite sex at all times, or never, ever be alone with one.

See my other posts on this topic:

(Link): Jesus Christ was not afraid to meet alone with known Prostitutes / Steven Furtick and Elevation Church Perpetuating Anti Singles Bias – ie, Single Women are Supposedly Sexual Temptresses, All Males Can’t Control Their Sex Drives – (but this view conflicts with evangelical propaganda that married sex is great and frequent)

(Link): Hey Ed Stetzer: Opposite Gender Friendships Are Not Sinful – Ed Stetzer’s Advice: “Avoid Any Hint” – More Like: Re Enforce UnBiblical Stereotypes About Men, Women, Sex, and Singles

(Link): How the Sexual Revolution Ruined Friendship – Also: If Christians Truly Believed in Celibacy and Virginity, they would stop adhering to certain sexual and gender stereotypes that work against both

(Link): Why So Much Fornication – Because Christians Have No Expectation of Sexual Purity

(Link): Focus on the Family advice columnist perpetuates stereotypes about single women

Another Too Long, Too Strict Suitor List That Will Keep A Single Single Forever: “The Man Who Will Marry My Daughter” by Tony Miano

Another Too Long, Too Strict Suitor List That Will Keep A Single Single: “The Man Who Will Marry My Daughter”

The dude who wrote this, Miano, is sexist. He is a gender complementarian and thinks it is sin for a woman to teach the Gospel to men in public.

Based on other sites I have visited, he does not have a paying job, but his wife does, yet he teaches that a man is head of the house and actually lists this quality as being one he insists a man must have if a man wants to marry his daughter:

    “[a man must] …be able to provide, financially, for his wife and family (1 Timothy 5:8) “

Miano himself is incapable or unwilling to financially support his own family (this is according to information I have read on other sites), so I have no idea why he makes that a requirement for a man who would want to date his daughter.

He also, based upon what others have said on other blogs, goes on his Facebook ministry’s page and begs for people to send him Wal-Mart gift cards and to buy him vans and stuff. If he was financially supporting himself, he would not have to beg funds and for cars from other people.

This blog posting by Miano, by the way, came to my attention via (Link): Stuff Christian Culture Likes. (I would encourage you to click that link and read visitor comments.)

(Link): “The Man Who Will Marry My Daughter” by Tony Miano

You’ll notice in this essay that this guy does not view his daughters as fully functioning, independent adults capable of making their own choices in life.

Miano has infantilized his daughters, who range in age at the time of this writing of about 17 years of age to age 26 or 27, which is a very huge mistake. It is not his duty to choose boyfriends or husbands for his daughters.

A father is certainly welcome to offer his daughter his advice or views on aspects of her life, including whom she is romantically involved with, but not to act as final arbiter of whom she marries.

I completely object to the “dating is sin” or “dating is wrong” mindset this guy has.

Notice also that Miano assumes each daughter will be married and that God “chooses” spouses for them – this is totally unbiblical.

The Bible nowhere states that God will send a spouse to someone; God makes no statement in the Scriptures that he promises that he will send you, or anyone else, a spouse.

Let me also use myself as an example of why this belief that everyone is destined for marriage and God “sends” them a spouse, or chooses a spouse for them, is a falsehood.

I am over 40 years of age, a woman, had expected to marry, was a Christian from girlhood, and prayed daily from childhood onwards for God to send me a husband, and I never got a husband.

It is simply not true that God “sends” or “chooses” spouses for people. If that were true, I would have been married years ago, but I am still single to this day.

It may be that even if you are a Christian and want to marry that God will never send you a spouse, no matter how long you pray for it, and no matter how much faith you have.

You may be single your entire life. Miano’s daughters may never marry.

Here, a bit below, are some excerpts from the page by Miano – please understand that his list is pretty long.

I am not going to reproduce the entire list here; this is only a portion of it (I have additional comments below this excerpt):

(Link): “The Man Who Will Marry My Daughter” by Tony Miano

    by Tony Miano

    Godly, manly young Christian men are harder to find these days.

    But I will not lower my standards for my future son-in-laws.

    I will answer to God, not the culture, for to whom I give my daughters.

    Since our daughters were very young, Mahria and I have instilled in them a family commitment to courtship.

    Our girls will not “date” before they are married.

    We see no biblical precedence for “trying people on for size” or being in relationship with a member of the opposite sex because it is pleasurable or “something to do.” Courtship is a family affair.

    … Mahria and I understand that the day will come, probably soon, when three godly men (one for each daughter) will seek our daughters’ hands in marriage.

    … (Note to any potential candidate who may read this: if this first essential quality is not true in your life, you need not bother reading the rest of the list. You may be a wonderful young man, but you are not the one my Lord and Savior has chosen for my daughter.)

    … not be an adulterer in any form, including pornography (Matthew 5:27-28).

    … open car and building doors for women whenever given the opportunity. Chivalry is not dead (1 Peter 3:7).

    … understand and accept his biblical role as head of the home and his wife (Ephesians 5:25-32).

    Continue reading

Japanese Parliament to Women: Breed, Don’t Lead

Japanese Parliament to Women: Breed, Don’t Lead
—————————————–
Notice from Christian Pundit blogger: There is coming a time when I will either not be blogging as frequently or not at all. Please read more about that here in this post (Link): Blog Break – May 2014 – and List of This Blog’s Best or Most Relevant Posts
—————————————-
(Link): Japanese Parliament to Women: Breed, Don’t Lead

Excerpt:

    Sexist remarks made to a female politician in Tokyo have sparked a wave of protest in Japan.
    “Hey idiot, hurry up and get married!”

    Japan is up in arms about insensitive and sexist remarks made by male members of The Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly (the equivalent of a U.S. State Government Assembly) toward a female representative during her presentation earlier this week. She was speaking on issues of raising children in Japan.

    Ayaka Shiomura, a 36-year-old member of the opposition Your Party, called for the Tokyo metropolitan government to support women who need assistance while pregnant or raising children during a June 18 assembly session. She also suggested that the government should help Japanese women who have fertility issues to conceive children.

    Japan is wrestling with a declining birth rate and growing elderly population. It has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world.

    While she was speaking, men in the section for the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) began jeering at her with lines like: “Hey you, should hurry up and get married!” and “Can’t you have babies?”

———————
Related posts:

(Link): (Article) Young People in Japan Have Stopped Having Sex – sekkusu shinai shokogun – Celibacy Syndrome

(Link): More Criticisms of the Pope’s Anti Childless Anti Childfree Comments

(Link): Cultural Discrimination Against Childless and Childfree Women – and link to an editorial by a Childless Woman

(Link): Why all the articles about being Child Free? On Being Childfree or Childless – as a Conservative / Right Wing / Christian

(Link): Bizarre Chinese dating advert urges single girls to marry to ‘please your family’

(Link): With Glut of Lonely Men, China Has an Approved Outlet for Unrequited Lust (article)

(Link): Man / Husband Shortage in Hong Kong – just like in American Christian circles

(Link): Conservatives and Christians Fretting About U.S. Population Decline – We Must “Out-breed” Opponents Christian Host Says

(Link): Christian Patriarchy Group: God Demands You Marry and Have Babies to Defeat Paganism and Satan. Singles and the Childless Worthless (in this worldview).

Christian Confusion on Sexual Ethics – Sexual Purity is For All Ages and All Marital Statuses, and Sexual Sin is Not Just Limited to Adultery – Rape is Not An Extra Marital Affair

Christian Confusion on Sexual Ethics – Sexual Purity is For All Ages and All Marital Statuses, and Sexual Sin is Not Just Limited to Adultery – Rape is Not An Affair

Conservative Christians keeps presenting some very skewed views about sex and sexual sin.

While a lot of Christians have watered down the biblical teaching of “virginity- until- marriage,” the ones who still do bother to give it lip service seem to think that sexual sin only befalls unmarried people who are younger than age 25.

There is an ignorant assumption by most Christians that married couples will never commit sexual sin, because they are supposedly getting their sexual desires satiated on a regular basis with their spouse (which is false, see these links: Link 1, Link 2, Link 3, Link 4, for just a few examples).

In some recent news stories about rape, some Christians have been characterizing the reported rapes as being “extra marital affairs,” and one young lady, who was raped several times at age 19 by a co-worker, told her Christian college (B.J.U., Bob Jones University) about the rapes, and was told by college staff that she needed to repent of her sin of being a rape victim.

I wrote about the first story here:
(Link): Married Youth Pastor Jailed for Sexually Assaulting Teen Girl Writes Editorial About Said Abuse for Christianity Today, Uproar Ensues On Christian Blogs

One rape victim also made the comment in an interview that she thought in terms of sexual sin as being ‘adultery’ and did not have a concept of rape.

As one commentator over at SCCL Facebook group pointed out in regards to this news story about BJU’s mishandling of response to sexual assault victims (source),

    The lack of a working, moral vocabulary for sexual violation is a huge blindspot for faith communities. The Christianity Today article last week was also couched in “adultery” terms. The discussion of sexual morality has to grow outside the marriage/adultery frame. Also, that moral vocabulary has to do a better job in connecting to broader social justice. Less hush-up. More call-out.

It is true that often, in their stereotypes about sex and sexual sin, the Christians who do bother to preach against sexual sin any more (many do not preach against it), still often neglect to teach that celibacy applies to married couples (e.g., when one partner cannot perform, or the couple are apart for whatever reason), as well as to unmarried people, and that sexual purity applies to people of all ages, not just to teen-aged kids.

(Link): Rape victims say Bob Jones University told them to repent

Excerpts:

    June 18, 2014 1:00PM ET
    by Claire Gordo

    Raised in a conservative Mennonite home in rural Ohio, Katie Landry was a sheltered kid. She hadn’t even held hands with a boy when, at age 19, she says her supervisor at her summer job raped her. Two years later, and desperate for help, she reported the abuse to the dean of students at her college.

    He goes, ‘Well, there’s always a sin under other sin. There’s a root sin,’” Landry remembers. “And he said, ‘We have to find the sin in your life that caused your rape.’ And I just ran.”

    …But most damaging was how, through the language of Scripture, victims say they were told that their sins had brought on their rapes, that their trauma meant they were fighting God and that healing came from forgiving their rapists.

    [Katie Landry discusses having been raped by a co-worker]

    Landry didn’t know the word rape; she only knew adultery, and liked the man’s wife, she said. Afraid of her attacker and deeply ashamed, she said she failed most her classes first semester, and kept her assaults a secret until her junior year.

I do think there is something very amiss with any so-called Christian group, church, or denomination, that speaks of sexual sin only in terms of adultery, so that when a young, unmarried woman is sexually assaulted, she does not even have the terminology to describe it, or is not even familiar with the word “rape.”

I also wonder if the church Ms. Landry attended did not read aloud from the Scriptures, where episodes such as the rape of Tamar are discussed (see (Link): 2 Samuel 13:32).

Christians have idolized marriage to the point that it’s given them faulty views about sexual sin, where some of them think only un-married adults are capable of sexual sin, or others think that the only sexual sin married people are capable of is “adultery” (never mind all the married men who view porn, use prostitutes or who sexually fondle children, aside from men raping 19 year old women).

I see a lot of outrage over this B.J.U. story from left wingers, ex Christians, etc, and rightly so – but – these are the same groups who criticize sexual purity teachings, which I find a tad hypocritical.

If Christians supported and taught sexual purity across the board rather than only emphasizing virginity for females ages teen to 25, but also taught and upheld the biblical views that males are to remain virgins until marriage as well, and that any sexual activity outside of marriage (rape, consensual affairs, porn use, etc), was wrong, maybe some of these problems could be lowered.
————————-
Related posts:

(Link): Marriage Does Not Make People More Loving Mature Godly Ethical Caring or Responsible (One Stop Thread)

(Link): Perverted Christian Married Couple Wants to “Wife Swap” (For Sex) With Other Christian Couple – Why Christians Need to Uphold Chastity / Celibacy For All People Even Married Couples Not Just Teens

(Link): No Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity – Christians Attack and Criticize Virginity Sexual Purity Celibacy / Virginity Sexual Purity Not An Idol

(Link): Males and Females Raped at Christian College, College Doesn’t Care – Equally Yoked is a Joke

(Link): How Feminists Are Making Women Easier Rape Targets

(Link): The ol’ Christian myth that married couples are impervious to sexual sin but singles have lots of sexual sin

(Link): New ‘Christian Swingers’ Dating Site Offers Faithful Couples Chance to ‘Hookup’

(Link): Marriage does not guarantee sexual purity: Married guy discovers his wife is having sex chats with online buddy

(Link): Why Christians Need to Uphold Lifelong Celibacy as an Option for All Instead of Merely Pressuring All to Marry – vis a vis Sexless Marriages, Counselors Who Tell Marrieds that Having Affairs Can Help their Marriages

(Link): Jason the Christian’s Sexless Marriage – Christians promise hot regular steamy married sex but it isn’t true

(Link): AARP post: How to Handle a Sexless Married Life – But Christians Promise You Great Hot Regular Married Sex

(Link): More Married Couples Admit to Sexless Marriages (various articles) / Christians promise you great frequent sex if you wait until marriage, but the propaganda is not true

Old Testament Studies Blog on Various Topics From Early Marriage to Sexual Sin to Evangelical and Baptist Propensity to Make an Idol Out of Family Marriage and Parenthood Etc Etc

Old Testament Studies Blog on Various Topics From Early Marriage to Sexual Sin to Evangelical and Baptist Propensity to Make an Idol Out of Family Marriage and Parenthood Etc Etc

I’m not necessarily in agreement with all views of the guy behind this blog, the OTSB (Old Testament Studies Blog).

For one, he seems to be a Calvinist, and I disagree with Calvinism.

OTSB guy discusses some of the same issues at his blog that I discuss here on mine. It looks as though he has not made a new blog entry since October 2013.

Blog’s Main Page:
(Link): Old Testament Studies

(Link): The Dark Side of Evangelicalism-A Response to Accusations on the Boundless Blog
(Re: Christians denigrating singlehood and idolizing marriage)

Excerpts:

    The case in point is a recent radio podcast put out by the folks over at Boundless. Steve and Candice Watters were in Louisville, Kentucky for the Give me an Answer conference at Southern Seminary.

    While they were there, they interviewed Albert Mohler for their podcast.

    During the podcast, the following dicussion took place. I want you to read this carefully, and ask yourself if what Dr. Mohler says in the bold portion is consistent with scripture! It begins at 24:15:

    Candice- Are you encouraged by Mark Regnerus and others who are encouraging early marriage, and do you think that this movement will gain traction?

    Dr. Mohler- Well, I’ve been at that a long time, and I can tell you its extremely controversial whereas throughout most of human history that would be the mormal expectation.

    I am encouraged…It’s going to be a counter-revolution. We are literally going to have to stand against the kind of demographic tide that is coming at us, and say…you know, here is the question.

    I just want to ask you this honestly. I talk to young guys about this more than probably any other subject when they bring it up and say, you know, here is the issue: How are you going to be holy without marriage?

    And that’s a tough question to answer, unless, you know, if God has called you to missions, if God’s called you to special service and deployment in this area, then the word is going to compensate for that, but, for most guys, the big issue is just this now long wait.

(Link): Kristin and Ted Kluck Write of the Familiolatry in the Modern Church

(Link): Famliolatry on Display Again

(Link): Why Getting Married Early Will Not Stop Sexual Sin

(Link): Marital Gnosticism in Evangelicalism

Excerpts:

    I think we as a church have boughten into a form of gnosticism which I will call “marital gnosticism.” We seem to think that the way to the higher Christian life is through marriage, and, although single people are a part of the church, they simply are not as “enlightened” as those who are married.

    Hence, we need to encourage, and even shame single people into getting married, so that they will become “enlightened” like the rest of the married people. It is gross, ridiculous, gnostic thinking.

    Not only does it not work [marriage cannot change the heart; only Christ can], even worse, it alienates singles. Singles who see this kind of behavior know that they are not part of the “enlightened” gnostic group, and thus, they are pushed further and further away.

(Link): Another “Marriage is a Cure All” Message

(Link): Horrendus Eisegesis from Evangelicals in the Culture War

(Link): Challenging the Challenge to the “Unnecessary” Delay of Marriage

Continue reading

Hypocrisy From The ‘No Slut Shaming’ Crowd by C. Nance

Hypocrisy From The ‘No Slut Shaming’ Crowd by C. Nance

Nance repeats a lot of the same arguments I have been making on this blog the last two years (see the link with excerpts much farther below).

I don’t think Nance (nor I, for that mater) will ever fully convince all, or most feminists, that some of us ladies freely chose, of our own minds, to remain virgins until marriage.

Why?

Because a lot of Non-Christian, secular, left-wing feminists are absolutely convinced that women who say they chose to stay virgins were shamed or brain-washed by their Christian or conservative upbringing into staying sexually pure.

And yes, one can see numerous blog posts or comment sections elsewhere that typically read as follows:

    Hi. My name is Jane.

    I was brought up in a Christian home, used to believe in Jesus, but am now a vegan New Ager who also practices Wicca, worships Gaia, and knits friendship bracelets out of hemp, which goes towards charity that frees girls from horrible sex trafficking, thank the Goddess!

    I was taught to believe when being raised as a Christian that good girls don’t have sex before marriage, and I really believed that at one time, but now, praise Gaia, at the age of 28, I think sex before marriage is okay, I’ve tried it, and it’s great.

    Christians brainwashed me and shamed me into being afraid of sex. That is why I was not having sex.

Bearing in mind I just made that story up. I did not paste that from anywhere else, but really, I’ve seen similar stories time and again at ex-Christian, secular feminist, or pagan- type sites.

It doesn’t seem to dawn on such feminists that some women freely choose to remain virgins (or become celibate, if once sexually active in the past).

Left wing, secular, Non-Christian feminists cannot fathom any human willingly giving up sex for any amount of time, or avoiding sex altogether until marriage.

Voluntarily choosing to sexually abstain is a totally foreign mindset to sex-obsessed, sex-worshipping people who do not even bother to control their own libido.

They choose not to control their own sexual appetites and falsely assume other people are just as weak-willed and impulsive in this area as themselves.

They live with this delusion that no woman can possibly choose of her own accord to stay a virgin, because doesn’t everyone have sex and feel powerless to resist?

In this, they are like the Mark Driscolls, Doug Wilsons, and other conservative Christian preachers and talking heads, who assume it is impossible for anyone, including Bible believing Christians, to stay a virgin past the age of 25, or to go without sex for more than ten minutes, unless God sprinkles magic “No Sex Fairy Dust” on them; such Christians essentially deny that the Bible teaches all believers have sexual self-control.

See there, your conservative Christians and your secular feminists, and other assorted Non-Christians, all assume – and quite wrongly – that nobody can voluntarily give up sex indefinitely or for long stretches of time. This is one area all these otherwise conflicting sides have in common.

I have another comment or two to make below this long excerpt by Nance:

(Link): Hypocrisy From The ‘No Slut Shaming’ Crowd

Excerpts:

    BY CLAIRE NANCE
    June 15, 2014|8:44 am

    As a teenager, I’m used to facing peer pressure. Everything from T.V. and magazines to parents and teachers tell me how to live and act. Don’t get me wrong, many of those influences are positive and uplifting, but a new pressure has completely blindsided my friends and me.

    This new pressure, namely liberal feminists, accuse me and other teenage girls who wear purity rings and pledge to save sex for marriage, of valuing our virginity too much. Umm, what?

    Tracy Clark-Flory wrote an article, The Virginity Fetish, that compares young women like me who believe in saving sex until marriage, to Natalie Dylan, a young woman who sold her virginity online to the highest bidder.

    Clark-Flory claims that young women saving their virginity for marriage “auction off [their] virginity to the person with the biggest ring.”

    The person who compares love and self respect to prostitution obviously doesn’t understand what a purity ring, or even virginity in general, represents.

    ….The irony that these are the same women who accuse conservatives of waging a war on women is not lost to me.

    …Tracy stated that a girl’s value shouldn’t lie in whether she’s a virgin or not. I agree, and the same should apply to those who are.

    Liberals such as Tracy claim you can be free with your sexuality while in the next sentence implying that unless you are willing to give it all away you are a prude and not worth anyone’s time.

    Unfortunately, I know more than one girl who bought into this lie and, no surprise, they’re not happy with the result. Any conversation about it tends to go the same, “How will I tell my husband?”

    So what’s the big deal? In today’s atmosphere of “tolerance”, “diversity”, and “being yourself,” I’m shocked at the hostility from liberals directed at women of moral fortitude. Many of these women claim to be in the “pro-choice” tent. Why then is my choice being scorned?

    Continue reading

Christian School Fires Single Woman For Having PreMarital Sex But Offers Her Job to Her Single Boyfriend Who They Know Had PreMarital Sex Too (and similar news stories – Re Christian Employers and Sex)

Christian School Fires Single Woman For Having PreMarital Sex But Offers Her Job to Her Single Boyfriend Who They Know Had PreMarital Sex Too

It’s double standard time, double standard time! Some Christians value female virginity, but not male virginity.

I’m rather divided about this.

If Christian employers are going to be strict about pre-marital sex, obviously, a woman’s pregnancy status reveals she had sex (unless she used artificial means, see other story below), but how does one tell looking at a man if he had sex or not?

It’s nice to see some Christians upholding sexual purity standards, because most Christians these days excuse and rationalize sexual sin which makes me want to barf, but I’m not cool with it when it’s being inconsistently enforced, holding women accountable but not men.

Another reason this bothers me: do these same employers kick out or penalize married Christian men (or married women) who have affairs, who use porn? If a married guy is looking at porn on his home computer, how would his Christian employer know?

Are they only singling out singles for sexual misconduct? If so, I don’t know if I can hop on board in agreement with schools and other Christian organizations who handle employees this way.

Another thing that strikes me as weird about these types of stories is that many Christians are opposed to abortion, which is fine (I myself am pro-life), but it seems strange to me to, in a round-about way, punish an unmarried woman for opting to carry her pregnancy to term.

The women in these stories could have easily run down to an abortion clinic somewhere and had their unborn child aborted, but they did not.

Some of the college spokespersons say no, they are not punishing these women for being pregnant, but rather for having pre-marital sex – but to me, that’s a distinction without much of a difference.

(Link): Teri James, Pregnant Woman Allegedly Fired For Premarital Sex, Sues Christian School

    By Katherine Bindley
    Posted: 03/01/2013 3:20 pm EST

    A former employee at a Christian college has enlisted the help of high-profile attorney Gloria Allred to sue a California school that allegedly fired her for engaging in premarital sex, NBC’s “Today” reports. In a bizarre twist, the school reportedly went on to offer the pregnant woman’s job to her then-fiance.

    Teri James, 29, told the news outlet that she did sign a two-page contract with San Diego Christian College that included a provision agreeing not to engage in “sexually immoral behavior including premarital sex.”

    “I needed a job in this economy and so I never thought that anything would happen,” James explained to “Today.”

    But James said she was humiliated after being pulled into her supervisor’s office last fall, where she was asked if she was pregnant and then was let go. After James lost her job, she claims the school offered a position to her now-husband, even though they were aware he’d had sex before getting married, too.

    During a news conference featured in a KTLA report, James said she felt she was treated unfairly.

    “I was unmarried, pregnant and they took away my livelihood,” James said.

    Legal clashes involving teachers at religious schools who’ve been fired for pre-marital sex are not entirely uncommon.

    … And as ABC News previously reported, an unmarried teacher in Texas sought legal counsel after she was fired over her pregnancy. The women offered to expedite her wedding in order to keep her job, but school officials still said “no,” claiming the pregnancy violated their definition of being a Christian role model.

    … As Christianity Today reported in 2012, a third of the faculty at the Southern Baptist-based Shorter University decided to quit rather than sign a “lifestyle statement,” which condemned drinking in public, sex before marriage and homosexuality.

Links to the same, or similar, stories:

(Link): Woman fired from San Diego Christian College for premarital sex, lawsuit alleges

(Link): Teachers Still Suing Christian Schools over Sex Standards (Despite Hosanna-Tabor)

    (UPDATED) The Supreme Court may have strengthened the rights of Christian employers, but Cincinnati jury sides with lesbian teacher fired after becoming pregnant via artificial insemination.

    … Even after Hosana-Tabor, fired employees are continuing to sue.
    High-profile lawyer Gloria Allred has filed a lawsuit against San Diego Christian College alleging it fired a then-unmarried employee, Teri James, for having premarital sex with her fiance and getting pregnant.

    James, who is now married and expecting her child in June, alleges she was wrongfully terminated; the college says James violated its moral code, which she had agreed in writing to uphold.

(Link): San Diego Christian College sued for firing pregnant woman

    School says she was fired for having premarital sex, violating agreement
    By Dorian Hargrove, Feb. 13, 2014

    A former employee at San Diego Christian College claims administrators fired her after learning she had engaged in premarital sex with her then-fiancé, becoming pregnant out of wedlock, a violation of the school’s contract with employees.

    Attorneys for Teri James filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday, February 12, accusing the Christian liberal arts college in Santee of employee and gender discrimination.

——————–
Related posts, this blog:

(Link): No Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity – Christians Attack and Criticize Virginity Sexual Purity Celibacy / Virginity Sexual Purity Not An Idol

(Link): Modesty: A Female-Only Virtue? – Christian Double Standards – Hypocrisy

(Link): The ol’ Christian myth that married couples are impervious to sexual sin but singles have lots of sexual sin

(Link): Links About Sex Week / Male Modesty & Male Shaming / Online Dating Scammers / Female Sexuality / Rampant Pre Marital Sex Among Christians / Single Christian Women Feel Pressured to Fornicate In Dating / other topics (Link Dump)

(Link): On ‘Late’-In-Life Virginity Loss (from The Atlantic)

(Link): I Shouldn’t Need An Excuse To Be A Virgin – (Secular Editorial Defends Virginity – More Rare Than a Unicorn Sighting)

Oil Town Where Single Male Population Vastly Outnumbers Females and they practically rape the women – Reflections on the Christian argument that men will treat women better if women in short supply

Oil Town Where Single Male Population Vastly Outnumbers Females and they practically rape the women

This is a creepy story (see link way below), but also odd, in that, one argument I’ve heard from Christians about young single men (or older single males) not “manning up” and being into prolonged adolescence, is that one reason (according to Christians) is that churches make women too readily available to single men.

If the company of single women was kept more rare, it would behoove the single men to date the women and make more marriage proposals. (That is what I’ve read by Christians, I am not arguing that point myself.)

To put the argument another way, rather than the current practice of churches – which is to let the single men hang out with the single women in classes or church dances, thus giving them lots of female companionship – some Christians think churches or parents should limit the time women spend around such men.

In this article, there is a woman shortage in this one town described. But instead of the men stepping up to the plate, treating women with respect, and courting them as gentlemen, most of these men have turned into almost-rapists (I am not exaggerating).

If I remember right, this article, which interviewed female prostitutes, said that some of their clients include MARRIED men.

Some of these married men travel to this city “X” months out the year, leaving their wife back home, and once in City Z, these men hire prossies.

And what do we learn from this? We learn that, contrary to Christian mythos, married people are not immune from sexual sin, nor are they more godly or ethical than adult singles.

(Link): An Oil Town Where Men Are Many, and Women Are Hounded

    By JOHN ELIGON
    Published: January 15, 2013
    WILLISTON, N.D.

    …The rich shale oil formation deep below the rolling pastures here has attracted droves of young men to work the labor-intensive jobs that get the wells flowing and often generate six-figure salaries. What the oil boom has not brought, however, are enough single women.

    At work, at housing camps and in bars and restaurants, men have been left to mingle with their own. High heels and skirts are as rare around here as veggie burgers. Some men liken the environment to the military or prison.

    “It’s bad, dude,” said Jon Kenworthy, 22, who moved to Williston from Indiana in early December. “I was talking to my buddy here. I told him I was going to import from Indiana because there’s nothing here.”

    This has complicated life for women in the region as well.

    Many said they felt unsafe. Several said they could not even shop at the local Walmart without men following them through the store. Girls’ night out usually becomes an exercise in fending off obnoxious, overzealous suitors who often flaunt their newfound wealth.

    “So many people look at you like you’re a piece of meat,” said Megan Dye, 28, a nearly lifelong Williston resident. “It’s disgusting. It’s gross.”

    Continue reading

Are Single Women – and specifically Never Married Women – More Likely To Be Victims of Abuse? Rebuttals to this view

Are Single Women – and specifically Never Married Women – More Likely To Be Victims of Abuse? Rebuttals to this view

The study mentioned on this page below is familiar. I read about it over a year ago. Someone did a study claiming that women who never marry are more likely to be abuse victims.

I’m not sure if I totally understand the study correctly.

I’m a never-married woman who is over the age of 40, but I fail to see how my single status supposedly makes me more vulnerable to being a crime victim than that of a married woman.

Or, given that some conservatives are using this study with the assumption that it’s single women who are “shacking up” with a man who are more prone to being victims, I guess I understand that, though I do not necessarily agree.

That is, some conservatives are using this study to shame single women from having pre-marital sex, or from not having a live-in lover. They are using this to pressure single women to force their live-in lover to marry them.

I understand the Bible does not condone “shacking up” or pre-marital coitus, but, I am not a fan of my fellow conservatives using such “scare” or “shame” tactics to convince single women from not having pre marital sex or live-in BFs. I think it’s a distasteful, sexist approach.

You can read more about all this stuff using these links:

First, here is the offensive, sexist editorial – I mean, how can they blame WOMEN for being the victims of violence?

They should be calling out the men who are abusing these ladies and/or the children. Also note, on the “One Stop Thread” page of this blog, I have link after link to news stories of married men who were caught sexually or physically abusing their OWN kids or someone else’s!

Again, here is a link to the offensive editorial:
(Link): One way to end violence against women? Married dads.

    by W. BRADFORD WILCOX AND ROBIN FRETWELL WILSON June 10

    The data show that #yesallwomen would be safer with fewer boyfriends around their kids.

    … The bottom line is this: Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father.

The Bible no where suggests that a woman needs to marry or is obligated to marry – Jesus and Paul, in the New Testament, actually depict singleness as being preferable to marriage and parenting!

If it were true women were safer being married, I think Jesus and Paul would have taught on the topics of marriage and singlehood differently than they did.

Here are various rebuttals and commentary in response:

(Link): The Washington Post Says Women Get Abused Because They’re Not Married

Excerpts:

    The story, which was originally titled “The best way to end violence against women? Stop taking lovers and get married,” got re-named after wise Internet users made a rightful stink over its controversial content. Also noteworthy: the sub-header read “The data show that #yesallwomen would be safer hitched to their baby daddies.”

    Now it’s called “One way to end violence against women? Married dads.” But I think the Post should have taken it down completely.

    Using legitimate data to back up their claims (nothing says “I’m telling you the truth!” like a graph), authors W. Bradford Wilcox and Robin Fretwell Wilson do the world a great disservice by making it sound like women have the power to avoid being abused — and it apparently comes down to what they should be doing with their bodies, their kids, and their lives.

    …. Further, Wilcox and Wilson feign total ignorance of a problem they themselves are perpetuating — institutional sexism and misogyny, which are major factors in the widespread problem of violence against women and children.

    By drawing the conclusion that a simple marriage certificate is actually responsible for the stats, they’re doing both genders a huge disservice, and they’re tricking readers into thinking abuse doesn’t have anything to do with misogyny.

    As they write, “The bottom line is that married women are less likely to be raped, assaulted, or robbed than their unmarried peers.”

    Well, that’s certainly an interesting point. How did they arrive there, and what explains it? Is it true that getting married can protect you from abuse?

    Actually, no. Because correlation doesn’t mean causation. While they back up their conclusion with legitimate data points, the statistics say more about healthy relationships than they do about the institution of marriage.

(Link): Violence Against Women: The Washington Post’s Sad, Sloppy Journalism

    The most serious problem with the Washington Post’s sloppy journalism is that it none-too-subtly suggests that all partner violence against women can be boiled down to a single factor: your relationship status.

    Decades worth of research blow that simplistic idea out of the water in two seconds.

    Continue reading

“Because I was single I felt second class.”-by Chandin, former Mars Hill member & single, on Mars Hill church

“Because I was single I felt second class.”-by Chandin, former Mars Hill member & single, on Mars Hill church

The lady who wrote this started out single at Mars Hill and later got married. But she discusses, that while she was single, there was some adult singles shaming going on at Mars Hill.

Early on, Chandin served as a leader of a woman’s only Mars Hill Bible study group.

(Link): Chandin’s Story, from We Love Mars Hill Blog

Here are excerpts:

    Community groups discussed the sermons from the previous Sunday. Group leaders were given guides to go through with our groups.

    This was particularly difficult when we studied Song of Songs. Driscoll’s view of sex and marriage in Song of Songs (the Peasant Princess series) was extremely uncomfortable to talk about in a group of single ladies who wanted to be married and one married woman (I am amazed she stuck with us!).

    I asked my coach if we could do a Bible study rather than discuss the sermon on Sunday. I was flatly told no.

    That this was good information to have while we were single, so when we married we would be prepared.

    The sermon series felt torturous.

    Because I was single I felt second class. I know Pastor Mark would address singles occasionally, but for the most part it was difficult to sit through and then lead discussion on it.

    I had attempted to step down from my group twice, but was talked out of it by coaches and pastors.

    …. One of the Pastors reached out to me shortly after the meeting and expressed that he wanted to get to know me more and talk about my abuse further. I agreed, thankful that he cared and wanted to help. I went over to his house for dinner with his family.

    We talked about Anchor and of Brian who I met there.

    Brian and I had discussed dating and marriage, and the pastor was interested in talking to him. After we finished our meal, we began to talk about the abuse I was just coming to terms with. I started to cry.

    His wife stopped me and looked me in the eye and said, “You don’t have to wallow in self pity”.

    I was stunned. I looked at her husband, the pastor, and he nodded in agreement. Crying about trauma, though it happened years before, was considered self pity. I didn’t want to talk about it further. I left confused and felt ashamed for crying.

    Continue reading

College Women, Don’t Listen to Marriage Concern Trolls

College Women, Don’t Listen to Marriage Concern Trolls
—————————————–
Don’t forget, I may not be blogging as much or as often in the future, if at all.
See this link (Link): [Blog Break] for more info.

—————————————–
Hat tip to Shawna R B Atteberry ((Link): visit her blog here), which is where I think I may have first seen this. It does seem familiar. I may have read it before but don’t recall blogging about it here.

(Link): College Women, Don’t Listen to Marriage Concern Trolls

Excerpt:

    by Amanda Marcotte
    February 18, 2014 – 7:49 am

    Susan Patton may be the only person in the history of the world to get a book deal by being a crank who writes nutty letters to the editor. Back in March, Patton wrote a letter to the editor of the Daily Princetonian—both her sons went to Princeton—warning college women that they best find a husband before graduating college or, well, she didn’t exactly say they’d be dried-up old hags who would only have a handful of uneducated boors left to marry, but that was the general gist of it.

    …. The letter went viral, feeding off widespread cultural anxieties that young, well-educated women are shirking their duty to put men and marriage before their own ambitions, and so now she’s back with a book and an editorial in the Wall Street Journal.

    Continue reading