The Obnoxious Abuse Survivor Community Is Targeting Julie Roys Again – this time the witch hunt was begun by R L Stollar
The “abuse survivor community” has taken their pitchforks out again, and again their pitchforks and torches are for journalist Julie Roys.
This time, the bullying is being carried out by a R L Stollar, a name I’ve seen on twitter off and on in the last few years.
I believe he originally began speaking out against harms caused by Christian homeschooling? Good on him for that (I mean that, that was not snark).
Beyond that, though, I’m not familiar with Stollar. He may have even tweeted a few things in the past I saw shared by others I follow on Twitter that I agreed with.
To Julie Anne (“Defend the Sheep” on twitter) – why are you participating in this continued pile on?
(Edit: I believe Julie Anne “Liked” some of the comments in that thread, or I saw her share it on her Twitter account, which is how I became aware of it in the first place)
Why are you, Julie Anne, continuing to associate with people who behave this way?
I’m sorry if you feel that Roys did not credit you or friends of yours or whatever on older reportage she did (which she tried to discuss with you), but what is the deal with cozying up to the people singling her out every few weeks?
Anyway. Roys is being bullied online again, and this time it was started by Stollar.
Yes, I said “again” – see (Link): my previous post about this weird, disturbing anti-Roys obsession from the Amy Smiths, Ashley Easters, and other so-called abuse survivor advocates.
If you take note of this obnoxious behavior, as I did, (that is, noting their bullying and mob mentality where they target someone), some of them will erroneously misconstrue you as being a “Julie Roys Stan,” or use that as an ad hominem against you (see embedded tweets below for more on that).
Birth Control Movie
Now, the “abuse survivor community” is targeting Roys for having once appeared in a several years old (conservative created, I believe) movie about birth control and the sexual revolution.
I’ve not seen the movie they are referring to, but I did watch and listen to a clip of Roys presumably from the film (that clip located in a tweet by someone else here), and the comments Roys made were pretty conventional.
There was nothing “far out” there by Roys in that clip, not unless, I suppose, you’re operating from a faulty, far left liberal paradigm, in which case pointing out that sexual behaviors with little- to- no boundaries can result in things like disease or other harmful ramifications will sound judgmental, fuddy duddy, and stodgy.
Speaking of which:
(Link): Monkeypox virus could become entrenched as new STD in the US – via ABC News (warning: auto-playing video file with audio on that page)
The spread of monkeypox in the U.S. could represent the dawn of a new sexually transmitted disease, though some health officials say the virus that causes pimple-like bumps might yet be contained before it gets firmly established
By Mike Stobbe AP Medical Writer
July 22, 2022
… So far, more than 2,800 U.S. cases have been reported as part of an international outbreak that emerged two months ago. About 99% have been men who reported having sex with other men, health officials say.
— end excerpts —
Secular Criticisms of Birth Control and the Sexual Revolution
In the past year, a few secular books criticizing the consequences of the sexual revolution (including the role of the advent of birth control pills) have been published
(which I’ve blogged about here (Where the Sexual Revolution Went Wrong by Maria Albano) and here (The Sexual Revolution Has Backfired on Women by S. Moore),
so it’s not only those evangelicals all you hipster “Exvangelicals” despise pointing out the flaws and dangers with no-holds-barred sexual behavior.
In the past few years, more and more liberals and feminists have been speaking out about the excesses and harms of loose sexual behavior; these are just a couple of examples on my blog:
(Link): Why Sex-Positive Feminism is Falling Out of Fashion by S. Greenberg – excerpts via New York Times
Progressives / Abuse Advocates Define Christianity to = Democrat Party, Progressive Values and Views
Many of the abuse advocates under consideration in this blog post I am discussing are politically driven (or some have left-leaning sympathies).
They conflate Christianity with leftism, progressive views, causes, and the Democratic Party, and reject anyone who doesn’t agree with all their socio-political views.
Link to Tweet embedded below.
So this Stollar guy initially did a tweet with a link to this page (also linked to below, with excerpt) at Right Wing Watch – of course he did.
Does Stollar ever follow sites with names like “Left Wing Watch” (i.e., any accounts that are critical of progressive ideology?) – probably not.
I am a conservative myself, but I actually do (or used to) follow liberal and progressive sites and may still be linked to “Right Wing Watch” on my blog roll off to the right side of the blog post (edit: I just checked: I have left leaning “Raw Story” twitter account linked to on my blog roll off to the right hand side of the page) because I don’t like to stay in a conservative bubble.
I periodically like to run over to left leaning sites to see what the progressives (or run of the mill liberals) are saying from their own mouths (note: this doesn’t mean I enjoy back- and- forth bickering with progressives or with anyone one-on-one).
I’m not sure of how many liberal or progressive sites or accounts I still follow, because after Trump was elected (and no, I did not vote for Trump), they all turned their sites and accounts into non-stop “bash Trump” platforms, which is not why I followed any of them to start with, so I ended up putting a lot on mute or un-following.
The Stollar Right Wing Watch Page
Here is what Stollar linked to (his tweet):
(Link): Religious Right Activists Argue For Recriminalization Of Birth Control In ‘The Birth Control Movie’ by Miranda Blue – article published October 20, 2015
By Miranda Blue | October 20, 2015
A couple of years ago, we heard about a new movie called “Birth Control: How Did We Get Here?” when its director, Kevin Peeples, appeared on the radio program of one of its stars, Kevin Swanson, and Swanson asserted that “wombs of women who have been on the birth control pill effectively have become graveyards for lots and lots of little babies.”
… This is hardly surprising, since one of the tenets of the “natural family” ideology promoted by WCF is resistance to contraception in order to create large families governed by traditional gender roles.
— end excerpt—
I did not see Julie Roys mentioned in that Right Wing Watch page. It’s possible her name is in there, and I overlooked it, but I didn’t see her mentioned.
I’ll return to that page and the movie it’s reviewing at least briefly below.
Cancel Culture and the Abuse Survivor Community
That editorial by Blue at Right Wing Watch that Stollar was linking to was first published in 2015. 2015.
Okay, this cements it for me.
I followed the “ex Christian” or “exvangelical” hash tags or people or groups off and on over a course of a few years, up until about, I don’t know, around two years to four years ago? (I don’t recall when I sort of stopped keeping up with them).
I eventually moved on. Their movement and group are toxic.
I never fully joined in with the “Empty the Pews” or “Exvangelical” crowd, but I sat on the sidelines and lurked for awhile.
The Good and the Bad
I agreed with some of their (the “exvangelicals” and left leaning abuse advocates) criticisms of Christians or how some churches misbehave, but I never accepted or agreed with all their political views, or how they’d “dog pile” on a person or bully people.
I also did not like or agree with how arrogant or mean the “Theo Bros” conservative Christians acted towards church abuse victims.
The “Theo Dudes” – the guys who do things like staunchly defend John MacArthur, for example – could be pretty un-loving to abuse survivors and usually refused to admit to there being any problems with how most churches usually deal with abuse.
Which results in very, very troubling and unfortunate situations like this:
But then, progressives come back with this idiocy
(leftists care more about the media “misgendering” Miller than they did that according to families of young ladies and teens, he’s a serial groomer and exploiter):
You Can Never Be Woke Enough
I’ve sometimes seen the progressives turn on other progressives, even in the “abuse survivor community / exvangelical community” – because one can never be woke enough for the woke!
If you’re woke, the other woke will eventually crucify you too for past mistakes, or for not currently supporting whatever cause sufficiently that the left is rooting for now.
A real life example or two of how this “dog-eat-dog” world of progressive intolerance and activism usually works out for progressives (never mind for conservatives):
In other words, if someone were to force me to live on a desert island whose inhabitants were composed half of “progressive abuse survivor advocates,” (or “exvangelicals”) and the other half were conservative Christians, I’d jump into the ocean and hope to be eaten by a passing shark. 🦈
Both sides have a lot of problems and both have disturbing people among them.
(Which the progressives are loathe to admit and will attack me over for bringing up. I’ve been down this road before.
They honestly think that merely holding liberal or progressive opinions makes them above reproach and infallible.)
The ASC (“abusive survivor community“) or ASAs (“abuse survivor advocates“) mainly consist of ex-Christians who left fundamentalist (or even mainstream evangelical) Christian denominations and beliefs to join fundamentalist far left liberals.
These ex-Christians, or “ex-conservative- Christian- but- now -progressive Christians” (not all of them ditch the faith) are usually very angry, grouchy, and bitter.
I seldom see them happy, unless they’re mocking evangelical Christians – they delight in doing so.
(Hopefully, when they’re not on Twitter railing against churches, they’re more cheerful and doing pleasant things, like going on walks or bike rides.)
Progressives Insist on Socio-Political Purity
Like secular far left liberals and progressives, the leftist Christian abuse survivor advocates insist on purity of socio-political-religious beliefs and will harass anyone who isn’t a part of it.
(Some fundamentalist Christian churches also have purity tests, but theirs usually revolve around: theology based upon their understanding of the Bible and Christian orthopraxy.)
That “(political) purity culture” (ha! and progressive Christians hate Christian (Sexual Abstinence) Purity Culture) got so bad that a woman who is an ex- Christian- turned- atheist once (Link): composed a twitter thread about it and why she no longer associates with the progressive ex-Christians or “exvangelicals.”
I was told by a progressive Christian on Twitter months ago – one who claims he read that post of mine that was just summarizing that woman’s observations, about how so many “exvangelicals” are hypocritical, was “mean.”
My post, though politely written, was “mean” he said, but the actions as described by the atheist of the progressive ex-vangelical bullying was just fine with him, apparently. LOL!
Mean behavior itself is fine, but pointing it out and condemning it is not okay, according to some progressives.
These ASAs practice Cancel Culture, while, like their secular counterparts, will either deny Cancel Culture exists,
or will cavalierly dismiss it by saying, “it’s just holding people accountable!”
or they will play the “what about-ism” card and point to a few instances of conservatives who have supposedly played at Cancel Culture.
(They ignore that “call out culture” – which is what it was known by them as previously – is a hallmark of their movement in the last few years – not the right’s.)
Common: Looking For Old Comments to Get You Cancelled
Progressives have a bad habit of combing through older tweets or posts by people they want to topple, or going to other resources, to look for comments by their object of hate, to “cancel” them over it.
That’s what Stollar is doing here, going back to 2015 to dig up old comments by Roys to use against her now, and to whip up the far left liberal ASAs on Twitter – and it seems to be working with some of them.
The leftist advocates are really trying to cancel Roys.
The whole progressive penchant for calling people out and wanting to demand they answer for old comments reminds me of communist China’s “struggle sessions” of decades ago.
I’ve not seen the “birth control” movie the ASAs are referring to, but one or two people under the Stollar tweet I refer to (this tweet, for your reference again) provided a clip which I think is from the movie.
I did watch that clip (link to tweet with Roys speaking clip).
In that clip, Roys was apparently arguing in favor of more traditional views about sexual behavior, which is nothing shocking or awful, unless you’re a progressive, with progressives supporting hedonistic views about sex.
My Thoughts On the Movie
As to my thoughts on the “birth control” movie, based on what little I’ve seen or read about it:
I think Swanson referring to ‘womb tomb babies’ was weird, and I’m not against people using birth control, in particular married couples.
Sometimes some women use birth control pills for reasons that have nothing to do with sex or preventing pregnancy.
I think the article from “Right Wing Watch” Stollar linked to mentioned gender roles.
I recognize that gender roles are a problem on the right – but they’re also a problem on the left as well.
I rejected Christian gender complementarianism years ago (I wrote a blog post about it (Link): here).
Christian gender complementarianism is heavily steeped in gender roles, which are based on gender stereotypes.
But just as Christian complementarians incorrectly define “woman” or “womanhood” in large part (though not only) by traditional gender stereotypes, so too do the progressives, especially in their gender ideology and trans activism (you can (Link): read more about that here).
Where they differ is that Christian complementarians recognize that there are some biological differences between men and women and admit to it, where-as many leftists do not.
Many excessive, rabid trans-activists and queer theorists disregard biological sex to define “womanhood” to mean performance (i.e., natal men wearing make-up, skirts, high heels).
I do not, however, agree with liberal, progressive, or third wave feminists that everyone should just toss out caution and all boundaries concerning sex, and that anything and everything goes.
The Twitter Thread – Comments
In the thread, Roys stated that her views now are not the same now as they were a few years ago.
Which is fine. People are allowed to change their views, or hold on to them, if they wish.
Here are one or two of her comments in that thread:
Julie Roys reply to Stollar (tweet link)
I’ve never espoused the extreme views you attribute to this 2015 film. But if I knew then what I know now, I would not have agreed to an interview. I certainly would never agree to be in anything with R.C. Sproul Jr or Quiverfull proponents today.
— end quote —
It doesn’t matter that Roys says she does not, or did not, fully agree with all the views in some movie from several years ago.
That is never going to be enough for the progressive Cancel Culture mob.
Predictable Responses by the Abuse Survivor Advocates
Examples of what I mean:
Said one person (Guinevere – @SatNiteParade) below Roy’s comment (tweet link):
So do you now disavow what you said in that interview? Or are contraceptives still, in your opinion, not for Christians to use?
— end excerpt —
My response to that is located here.
“Denunciation rallies, also called struggle sessions, were violent public spectacles in Maoist China, where people accused of being “class enemies” of the Maoists were publicly humiliated, accused, beaten and tortured by people they were close to.” (Source)
— end —
The progressive hounding of people like Roys, who apparently do not share progressive views, is definitely reminiscent of communist, Maoist China.
I also asked that same person (tweet link):
I didn’t catch anything incendiary in the clip you provided there – unless you are disagreeing with some of the stats she was citing? There have been recent secular books out this year critiquing the sexual revolution.
— end —
You Cannot Win With Narcissists (which = many abuse survivor advocates):
Don’t Try to Defend or Explain Yourself, Your Views, Your Past Comments
Roys went on to explain and defend herself in that thread to her inquisitors.
That is, though understandable and relatable, still somewhat of a waste of time, because Roys is dealing with Narcissistic people, with Progressives (one in the same, I guess),
and apologizing or explaining yourself to people with Narcissistic traits (and that would be most Progressives) who insist on political purity, will never satisfy them.
Here’s a typical page or two with advice on how to handle such people:
Excerpt (the entire page is excellent – I highly recommend reading the entire thing):
by Sharon Martin, LCSW
Are you repeatedly drawn into conversations or arguments that seem to go nowhere? Do you feel compelled to respond to accusations that you know are false? Do you feel like you have to justify your behavior or choices? Do you have a difficult family member who picks fights or gaslights?
… Justifying. We feel like we have to justify our behavior and choices because its very painful for us, as codependents, to have others upset with us.
The bottom line is you don’t owe anyone an explanation or reason for your choices. And if you do give one, people who are bullies or narcissists will try to use it against you. Don’t give them this ammunition.
…Explaining. We tend to over-explain ourselves because were afraid of upsetting others and we dont feel its valid for us to make our own choices or do things for ourselves.
Because were very afraid of rejection and criticism, we over-explain ourselves in order to prove that its acceptable for us to set boundaries, spend money on ourselves, or even make a mistake.
by Kaja Perina
… being in a relationship with a narcissist can be extremely toxic and destructive.
In some types of relationships, simply leaving and disengaging from the narcissist is the best solution.
In these situations, changing your behavior is critical to limit the damage of being around the narcissist.
Recognizing when you are falling into the trap of having to defend your decisions and explain your choices is a critical skill to develop to maintain effective boundaries and protect yourself from emotional abuse in the relationships with narcissists.
— end —
The Progressive Abuse Survivor Advocates Want Your Humiliation and Begging and For You To Shut Up
By continually giving these demanding, arrogant “abuse survivor advocates” explanations and defenses of yourself, your views, and/or your past views, you’re actually goading them into coming at you more, and again and again, with them demanding MORE explanations and defenses and/or groveling.
Not just apologies, but they want you to beg and grovel at their feet.
By replying at all (i.e., by defending yourself), in their mind, they are then correct in their assumptions about you to start with, and in their continued harassment of you.
What these particular R L Stollar, Amy Smith, and Ashley Easter and their flying monkeys and enablers (and many of them are progressive) “abuse advocates” truly want is for you to fully shut up and to stop blogging and tweeting – at least about church abuse. That is their end goal.
It does not matter if you have good, loving intentions and sincerely want to assist people who have been hurt by churches:
You do not, from the progressive, or otherwise demanding, kooky abuse advocate mindset, hold the “correct” (religious, political, or abuse advocate methodology) views, so you speaking on such topics is verboten.
Specific Comments in the Twitter Thread
Here, Roys is responding to someone calling herself “church lady,” a person who follows me on Twitter
(perhaps after “church lady” sees this post of mine, she’ll feel differently about me, I don’t know!):
Tweet by Julie Roys (link), replying to “church lady”:
I don’t hold to extreme views attributed to this 2015 film. I don’t think I even knew Sproul was being interviewed for the film when I agreed to interview, nor did I know what he stood for back then. I would never agree to be in anything w/ Sproul or Quiverfull proponents today
— end —
Roys also said (link):
Views change over time, especially when you’re exposed to the extreme misogyny in some of these camps.
— end quote —
This person (NotHereForIt @ApplauseSv) replied – link to tweet – (seeking to ascertain if Roys has passed the Purity Test and is now a loyal little Christian or Atheist Maoist):
So what are your current views?
— end —
Roys again (link):
I’m in process. But I’m also very apolitical these days. I don’t identify with any camp. There’s just way too much manipulation of the masses for personal gain for me to stomach.
— end —
And, of course, that was not, nor was it ever, going to appease the Commie-Progressives; Roys received tweets such as this in reply:
Tweet by Thon Aureate @ThonAureate (link):
Apolitical = Conservative and embarrassed about it
— end quote —
If you’re a progressive, that is definitely something to be embarrassed – and ashamed – of.
Most of these abuse advocates are former Christians, or former conservatives, who have left conservative Christianity for progressive Christianity.
All they’ve done is switched out being a “Christian fundamentalist” for being a “Progressive Fundamentalist.”
by Vardex23 @vardex23 (tweet link)
So what you’re saying is that you hold the exact same views, or you’ve sprinted even further right and you don’t want the stigma. There’s no such thing as “apolitical”. Never has been, but especially not now.
— end quote —
Yeah, there is such a thing as ‘apolitical.’
My sister for one doesn’t care about politics, unless and until it impacts her wallet or bank account, then she develops strong opinions. 😂
I have known other people who are not interested in political matters.
But revolutionaries think EVERYTHING is about politics, or that it should be. It’s more Marxism.
The Judge – Sounds Like Pastor John MacArthur or Dave Ramsey
Stollar himself jumps in with this smug reply to Roys (tweet link):
…that’s neither a sufficient apology for your involvement in this video series nor a sufficient disavowal of the extremist positions you personally espoused here.
— end quote —
Oh. So Stollar gets to be the judge and jury of Roys, and if or how much atonement she’s made, or he thinks it’s up to him regarding how she should think or what she should think.
The arrogance is astounding.
Stollar there comes across like disgraced preachers Mark Driscoll and John MacArthur in the arrogance and entitlement departments. (I’d also include “Chrissy” Stroop on that, but that’s another post for another day.)
Stollar to Roys is there like John MacArthur’s condescending “Go home” to Beth Moore in 2019.
If you’re not familiar with that situation:
(Link): Two Years Later, Beth Moore Addresses John MacArthur Telling Her to ‘Go Home’
And, there’s this (Dave Ramsey is a Christian finance guru):
It’s so typical for men (I assume Stollar is a man, or does Stollar “identify as a woman” now – eye roll) to lecture women on what and how they should believe. Not that far left liberal women are any better at that, though; they can be just as bad.
And why is a man, Stollar, so worked up over if women can obtain birth control (which is the main point of the article he was linking to), since men do not get pregnant?
Or can they, LOL:
To what extremist positions is Stollar referring, exactly?
There wasn’t anything untoward in the clip that I detected – and is Stollar holding Roys responsible for the views of others in the movie?
If so, that doesn’t make sense, and it’s not fair.
Even if Roys did say some wacko things in the film (I have no idea if she did or not, as I’ve not seen it), she’s already said in her replies in Stollar’s Twitter thread that her views on some issues have changed since the time the movie was filmed or released.
I agree with the Progressive ASAs that churches are horrible at handling abuse in their midst – but that by no means suggests I am in agreement with the rest of their views or practices, because I do not.
I think these smug individuals are angry at anyone who isn’t a progressive who gets involved in speaking out against abusive churches or abusive church preachers: they think only other progressives should be engaging in this.
I guess they’re not aware that a person does not have to pass the Twitter “ExVangelical” or “Empty The Pews” abuse survivor socio-political (progressive) dogma and purity litmus tests to be allowed to investigate, tweet, or blog about abusive churches or churches who cover up or mishandle abuse.
How arrogant and sanctimonious of these abusive abuse survivor advocates to think otherwise.
(Yes, that’s some irony right there! The people supposedly opposed to abuse by churches or by pastors never- the- less think it’s acceptable to abuse other people on social media.)
That the same groups, or overlapping groups of persons on Twitter, keep targeting and bullying Roys tells me at this point it’s a politically driven agenda.
The progressives and some other assorted ASAs are agenda driven.
It’s not wholly about defending or assisting people who have been hurt by churches, it’s about promoting their political causes and view points.
They’re acting as gatekeepers.
I remember a few years ago seeing guys like Phil Johnson, I think his name is, (attack dog for pastor John MacArthur), and guys like him, jump to smear and say nasty things to or about abuse survivors or abuse survivor spokespersons.
I thought he (and they) were out of line, but in the last year or so, the abuse survivor community has shifted and are now acting as horribly as the Phil Johnsons ever did.
They’ve turned into the thing they claim to be against. I never thought I’d see the day, but here it is.
Advice for Roys
I’ve never met Roys, I have no idea if she reads any of my Tweets or blog posts, but as I said above, I’ll say again – these people want you out.
Nothing you say or do will appease them.
The only possible, narrow chance I see of you appeasing them is to repeatedly, publicly agree with their world view and affirm it.
You’d have to say in a blog post, video, and/or tweets that you are 100% actively supportive of leftist beliefs such as critical theory, anti-racism, intersectional feminism, and that you’re a person who protests in city streets on most weekends holding “Black Lives Matter” signage, and provide photos on your social media of you doing so.
To get these entitled abuse survivor advocate brats off your back, you would also have to give up any sincerely, currently- held Christian beliefs or ethics in many areas you may hold, or stop speaking publicly in defense of them
(e.g., if you believe the Bible teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman, that sexual behavior is to only take place in the confines of marriage, etc).
These people who are acting like clowns who are attacking Roys on Twitter will probably never admit their world view is wrong, they will never examine their own views and consider “maybe this view is wrong,” but they egotistically demand the people they target admit to being wrong and give up all their views.
But usually, no apologies or backtracking will ever be enough for these people, because they even “eat their own” on occasion.
Going forward, I’d try to disregard and ignore them most of the time.
You cannot win with them, not ever.
I don’t know why Julie Anne of the “Sounding Board” blog or Dee of Wartburg Watch blog continue to rub elbows with these toxic people.
They’re adults and can of course associate with whomever the wish, but why these particular people who periodically bully and badger people online like that?
It does more damage to their cause than help.
I think that covers everything I wanted to say for now.
I can see in another browser window that I have open as I compose this blog post that I have several notifications over on Twitter.
I can only guess that Stollar and several other arrogant, condescending “abuse survivor advocates” have left me lovely messages (and by lovely, I mean snotty, sanctimonious commentary where they tell me to STFU).
Update or two…
I checked several notifications I received today (on twitter).
I put most of those people on block.
One lady told me this – while either she or another Stollar commentator (I don’t recall who) claiming that “this is beyond politics” or “it’s not about politics” or something – while this person was mentioning or suggesting that Roys should be criticized or should not speak out on abuse in the church because of Roy’s political views:
You are making some big mistakes here. While this article criticizing JMACS witch hunters IS partially on point, you have now lost the plot not knowing RL Stollar’s work. As an abuse survivor, Roys should not perpetuate Xtian right rhetoric that keeps women&children in harm’s way
— end —-
Roy’s “right” rhetoric? As opposed to left wing rhetoric? Yes, as I said above, a lot of these folks conflate progressive, liberal, or Democratic views with Christianity, goodness, and holiness.
I didn’t catch that lady’s name before I blocked her. She may have blocked me back, so I am unable to get the link to that tweet or her name.
(I’m blocking most people who are “liking” or replying to me on that thread or via that thread. I’m not interested in on-going debate on social media or even here on this blog.)
But that quote showed up in my notifications area because a few people “liked” it.
That same person also said this to me:
(2 others liked a Tweet you were mentioned in)
Stollar is passionate about abuse victims, especially children. Keeping women&children at home and in insular communites as fundies do, is a situation ripe and rife for abuse. This is very, very legitimate criticism of Roys and her non-answer is telling.
— end —
If Stollar is passionate about abuse victims, that is all fine and good.
I do not support Christian patriarchy or gender complementarianism (I have no idea if Roys does or not).
Even if Roys does, it’s okay for people of differing views to express them.
Some “abuse advocates,” such as Ashley Easter blame women brought up complementarian or in patriarchal circumstances for staying married to a guy like Josh Duggar (which I may blog about later; there’s already one post by someone else that addresses this). I got into a back and forth exchange with Easter a few months ago about this topic.
I don’t see any nuance or understanding by a lot of people who participate in these “abusive advocate circles,” and god help you if you do not have or agree with progressive views.
After publishing this post, I may want to edit it later to add more material.
(Link): The Ex Christian, Ex-Exvangelical, Now-Atheist Hits the Nail on the Head About Exvangelicals (Edit: A Left Leaning Person is Actually Saying This Post Commenting on the Frequent Hypocritical, Hateful Behavior by Leftists is Itself “Hateful” – Totally Mind-Boggling)
(Link): The Federalist (conservative site) Writers Continue to Disregard That Some of Their Readers Are Conservative, Single, and Childless – Re: “Childless Chris Evans’ Inspiring Condemnation Of Anti-LGBT Bigots: ‘Those People Die Off Like Dinosaurs’”
(Link): Drag Queen Pastor Declares ‘God is Nothing’ in Blasphemous Profanity – Laced Video (Hey, Complementarians: The Real Problem is Progressives of Either Sex, and Not Equality For Biological Women in Church, Culture, or Marriage)
(Link): Democrats, Never Trump Republicans, Progressive and Apolitical Christians – A Double Standard – “You Can’t Vote For X And Be A ‘Real’ Christian and be in the ‘Cult of X’” – The Left Have Turned Politics Into a Religious Cult