Obnoxious, Below- Average- Looking Dude Explains Why He Won’t Date “Hot Women” Any More

Obnoxious, Below- Average- Looking Dude Explains Why He Won’t Date “Hot Women” Any More

I almost forgot to post about this. I saw this story go through my Twitter feed a few days ago, and from there, a lot of people on other sites mocked this guy for his arrogant demeanor.

In all seriousness, the guy quoted is not that good-looking. In my opinion, he’s a little on the homely-looking side, but he seems to feel he’s a real hottie and that hot women find him hot.

I find it amusing that some of the people in this article (men and women) describe themselves as “nines or tens” but they look like “fives” to me (there are photos of some of the people interviewed on the page).

(Link): Obnoxious, Below- Average- Looking Dude Explains Why He Won’t Date “Hot Women” Any More

Excerpts:

When it came to dating in New York as a 30-something executive in private equity, Dan Rochkind had no problem snagging the city’s most beautiful women.

“I could have [anyone] I wanted,” says Rochkind, now 40 and an Upper East Sider with a muscular build and a full head of hair. “I met some nice people, but realistically I went for the hottest girl you could find.”

He spent the better part of his 30s going on up to three dates a week, courting 20-something blond models, but eventually realized that dating the prettiest young things had its drawbacks — he found them flighty, selfish and vapid.

Continue reading “Obnoxious, Below- Average- Looking Dude Explains Why He Won’t Date “Hot Women” Any More”

Too Cool for School: The Ex, Quasi, or Liberal Christians (and Atheists) Who Think Their Snarkiness Against Christians Makes Them Clever (But It Doesn’t)

Too Cool for School: The Ex, Quasi, or Liberal Christians (and Atheists) Who Think Their Snarkiness Against Christians Makes Them Clever (But It Doesn’t)

This post contains some vulgar language.

edited to add: I’ve already been told by two different people that this post is too long. Sorry, being concise has never been a talent of mine.

Someone also informed me that this blog post of mine has been linked to at a sub thread on Reddit (Link): here / on (Link): Reason and Faith on Reddit

Someone in that Reddit thread thinks my title of this post is “an atrocity,” but I feel it pretty much accurately sums up what I’ve seen online the last decade or more


In my faith crisis of the last few years, I’ve visited more sites, blogs, groups, and forums that are critical of Christians or Christianity. I sometimes find myself agreeing with some of their criticisms of evangelical, Protestant Christianity (sometimes not).

One of the recurrent tendencies that crops up in such blogs, forums, and groups that disturbs or annoys me  (or has me doing a lot of eye rolls) are that many of the people who post to these types of groups act as though they are Too Cool for School.

Continue reading “Too Cool for School: The Ex, Quasi, or Liberal Christians (and Atheists) Who Think Their Snarkiness Against Christians Makes Them Clever (But It Doesn’t)”

Love-Sick Teenager Who Won’t Take No For an Answer is Finally Shut Down by his Ex-Girlfriend’s FATHER in an Epic Text Exchange – Men of All Ages Need To Learn to Handle Rejection and to Respect Other People’s Boundaries in Dating

Love-Sick Teenager Who Won’t Take No For an Answer is Finally Shut Down by his Ex-Girlfriend’s FATHER in an Epic Text Exchange – Men of All Ages Need To Learn to Handle Rejection and to Respect Other People’s Boundaries in Dating

If there are any MEN reading this – especially men over the age of 21 – you need to realize that some of you are just as bad in your online behavior, especially on dating sites and apps, as this 15 year old kid is.

See how obnoxiously persistent this teen kid is, how he keeps dragging this exchange on and on with the teen girl’s father? This is how 90% of you men over the age of 21 behave towards grown women online, especially on dating sites.

You men refuse to take “no” from women for an answer, or to choose to view a woman turning you down as the ultimate insult.

You men take rejection by women far too personally, and send negative, nasty, insulting comments to some women, all for merely politely turning you down on a site, for refusing to give you their number, or going on a date with you.

Women you don’t know (single women) don’t owe you squat in life – women don’t owe you a smile, flirtation, chit chat, their phone numbers, sex, emotional support, or dates.

You will be turned down as you go through life by various women you flirt with or ask on dates – it’s a reality. Get over it. Learn to let go, accept defeat graciously, and stop taking it so damn personally.

Learn to respect other people’s boundaries. If a woman or girl tells you “no” or “not interested,” just let it go. Don’t send the girl or woman nasty, insulting messages if or when she turns you down. Just move along.

Continue reading “Love-Sick Teenager Who Won’t Take No For an Answer is Finally Shut Down by his Ex-Girlfriend’s FATHER in an Epic Text Exchange – Men of All Ages Need To Learn to Handle Rejection and to Respect Other People’s Boundaries in Dating”

Article on Christian Site Gives Advice to Christian Landlords on How to Discriminate Against Single Adult Renters

Article on Christian Site Gives Advice to Christian Landlords on How to Discriminate Against Single Adult Renters

This page reads like one big, long “how to” on how Christian landlords can get around laws to discriminate against unmarried adults. I am not so sure I am in agreement with this.

I realize that the Bible does not support hetero pre-marital sex, but I don’t know if I can support the idea of Christians wanting to bar adult singles from renting from them, on the off chance they may fornicate while renting – the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 7 it is better to stay single than to marry. It would seem to me that it would therefore be unbiblical for a Christian landlord to refuse to rent to a single adult based on his or her single status.

By the way, I have a collection of links on (Link): one page of this blog of married Christian couples who engaged in sexual sin, in some cases arrested for it (e.g., pedophilia, raping people, etc).

(Link):  Renting to Unmarried Couples: What Christian Property Owners Need to Know by Lara Sen

Excerpts:

  • As both a devout Christian and a property owner, working within the confines of the law can sometimes mean going against your personal religious beliefs. Where can we draw the line?
  • Here’s what Christian landlords need to know:
  • Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
  • Under the Federal Fair Housing Act, which was passedin 1968, landlords (Link):  cannot refuse to discriminate based on certain identity markers – including race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The law would be further amended in 1989 to prohibit discrimination based on disability or familial status.
  • In this case, familial status refers specifically to pregnant women and/or the presence of children under the age of 18 – including single parents with children.
  • An example of the Fair Housing Act in action is one, somewhat bizarre, case from 2011, in which a Wisconsin landlord  (Link): refused to rent a property to a single mother because there was no man “to shovel the snow.” The landlord was subsequently sued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  • But What About Unmarried Couples?

The Worst Things a Man Can Say in His Online Dating Profile by S. Farris

The Worst Things a Man Can Say in His Online Dating Profile by S. Farris

I would also add to the list on the page I am linking to:

Hetero Men who are seeking women on dating sites and apps: do not send women unsolicited penis photos; do not have anything mentioning sex on your profile, and do not mention (or joke about) sex in any of your “must have” lists on dating sites or any part of your profile.

I don’t care if you are totally into sex and think sex is mucho importante in a relationship, any mention of sex (even if you think it’s funny to put vulgar jokes on your profile) is a turn-off (and / or creepy) to most women.

You wait until you have been dating a person for awhile to bring sex up, and even then, you should be TASTEFUL about it, not crass or perverted or weird.

(Link): The Worst Things a Man Can Say in His Online Dating Profile

Excerpts:

  • They show up for dates looking nothing like their pictures. They tell long, rambling stories about their “psycho exes” or spend the entirety of the evening talking about their material possessions.
  • Men who date online never fail to surprise the women they meet, but they seem to be blissfully ignorant of the fact that they’re scaring people off.
  • With men now (Link): drastically outnumbering women on many dating apps, can guys afford to offend the few female users they might attract?
  •  

    Working with April Masini, a New York City-based relationship expert and psychotherapist, we analyzed responses from women who are currently active on the online dating scene.

  • Masini regularly offers dating advice to people of both genders through her website (Link): AskApril.com. She reviewed the lines women hate to see most on online dating profiles and gave her advice on how men can better phrase them.
  • 1. “No drama.”
  • By the time people join online dating sites, they’ve often had a wealth of experiences that include breakups, job transitions, and possibly even parenthood.

Continue reading “The Worst Things a Man Can Say in His Online Dating Profile by S. Farris”

Men Aren’t Entitled to Sex: Crybaby Guy Throws Racist Fit at Woman Who Politely Refuses to Hook up by R K Bussel

Men Aren’t Entitled to Sex: Crybaby Guy Throws Racist Fit at Woman Who Politely Refuses to Hook up by R K Bussel

It sure does seem that a lot of guys think they are owed sex.

A lot of Christian men not only feel that they are entitled sex (once married), but both before and after marriage, they feel entitled to everything from women: they expect to have their egos stroked all the time, for instance.

Do you Christian men who arrogantly expect women to uplift you and tell you how great you are, ever consider encouraging women in your lives, whether they are single or married?

Women sometimes need or want some external validation, yet whiny men (including Christian ones) seldom consider giving any to women. They rudely assume God put women here only to meet men’s needs. Nope: it goes both ways.

Women have needs too. Women have days or phases in their lives when they get tired, discouraged, worn down and could use a kind word or a helping hand.

(Link):  Men Aren’t Etitled to Sex: Crybaby Guy Throws Racist fit at woman who Politely Refuses to Hook up by R K Bussel

Excerpts:

  • Even if he buys her dinner, even if she asks him out, even if she flirts—there’s no excuse for this behavior
  • …That he turned on a dime to insult her should tell us that he only saw her as an object he wanted available for his pleasure, whether to stroke his ego or stroke other body parts. The moment she rejects him, even though she doesn’t say a single negative thing toward him, he interprets that as pretty much the worst thing a woman could do to him. Her not wanting sex automatically means, in his mind, she’s basically an evil bitch who’s wasted his time.
  • Another obvious statement: her not wanting to have sex with him doesn’t automatically mean she didn’t like him, or didn’t have a good date. Maybe she did, maybe she didn’t, but by treating sex as the one and only arbiter of success, he turned what could have been a fun night into a nightmare.

Continue reading “Men Aren’t Entitled to Sex: Crybaby Guy Throws Racist Fit at Woman Who Politely Refuses to Hook up by R K Bussel”

Christian Blogger About Divorce, Pastor Andrew Webb, Thinks All To Most Mid-Life Never – Married or Single – Again Adults Are Mal-Adjusted, Ugly Losers Who Have Too Much Baggage

Christian Blogger About Divorce, Pastor Andrew Webb, Thinks All To Most Mid-Life Never – Married or Single – Again Adults Are Mal-Adjusted, Ugly Losers Who Have Too Much Baggage

Holy guacamole did I ever find a post by a Christian guy who really knows how to slam never-married or “single again” adults.

I was astounded by parts of this guy’s post.

I almost re-tweeted a link to his blog post about divorce from my Twitter page (I saw someone else share it on Twitter), thinking someone may find it helpful (judging from the title alone, it sounded like it might be a good page) but thankfully, I skimmed it first.

I left a reply under the guy’s post, and his blog says my post is awaiting moderation. Who knows if he will approve it to appear or not.

(August 2016 update: my comment on his blog, that I made in April 2016, is STILL tagged with the “awaiting moderation” comment on his blog. Unreal.)

I have copied in my reply farther below. I tried to be civil in my reply.

I’m going to try to be charitable here on my own blog: maybe this guy does not realize how deeply insulting his blog post is – the parts where he talks about divorced people or the never-married.

This guy should realize that upholding marriage or discouraging divorce does not necessitate INSULTING SINGLE PEOPLE.

You do not have to scare married people out of divorce by suggesting that all “single again” or never-married adults out there are great big, scary losers who have a lot of baggage, so if married people divorce, they won’t be able to find a great partner.

Continue reading “Christian Blogger About Divorce, Pastor Andrew Webb, Thinks All To Most Mid-Life Never – Married or Single – Again Adults Are Mal-Adjusted, Ugly Losers Who Have Too Much Baggage”

Stuff Christian Culture Likes Facebook Group Yukking It Up By Mocking Todd Burpo’s Book

Mocking Todd Burpo’s Book

Sometimes I agree with the posters at SCCL Facebook group, sometimes not. This evening, the lady who runs the group published a graphic someone made, changing Burpo’s book cover to ridicule the kid and/or the concept of faith or Heaven. So far, all the responders below the doctored image are yukking it up, declaring it’s the hee haw damn funniest thing they’ve seen all week.

Me? 1. Who knows, maybe the kid did die, go to Heaven, and is telling the truth about it all
2. I think making that graphic and laughing at it is a shitty thing to do.

You can view the image I’m talking about here, (Link): (Stuff Christian Culture Likes Facebook Group) Doctored Todd Burpo Book “Heaven Is For Real”

Even me, in my half Christian, half agnostic stage of faith right now thinks that is a mean-spirited thing to do. Not funny, not even remotely. At least one or two juveniles in the thread were also making fun of the kid’s last name, “Burpo.” Real mature.

SCCL is usually a group where I can agree on some of their views or enjoy some of their pot shots at evangelicalism, but they occasionally pull nonsense like this that is disappointing.

Related Content (off site):

(Link): There is Life After Death Scientists Reveal Shock Findings From Groundbreaking Study
———————-
Related posts:

(Link):  Too Cool for School: The Ex, Quasi, or Liberal Christians (and Atheists) Who Think Their Snarkiness Against Christians Makes Them Clever (But It Doesn’t)

(Link): Contemporary American Christianity’s Fascination with NDE Stories

(Link): General Observations Or Concerns About Stuff Christian Culture Likes Group and Blog

(Link): Christians Are Not Called to Have Amazing Sex by R Pietka – via Relevant Magazine, and the SCCL Push-Back

(Link): Apparent Inconsistency at SCCL Group – They’re Repulsed by Sexualization of Some Relationships But Not All

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

Follow Up Part 2 – 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 Part 2 – 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)

Original Post:

Follow Up 1:

More backlash:

Note: as to this link below, at the LA Times, the section on the page entitled “It misleads women into thinking they have time” was actually quite sexist. I have chosen to not paste that part of the page in.

That part was written by a Charlotte Allen who argues that all men will always favor 22 year old women over 42 year old women, mostly because most men want to have babies.

I don’t know what rock that woman writer is living under, but women in their 40s still get their periods every month and conceive ((Link): read this page for starters – that is one but several pages I have on this blog noting that lots and lots more women are getting pregnant, some for the first time, over age 40).

I personally never really cared if I had a baby or not, but I think it’s sexist to say that women over 40 are basically unvaluable (to men) because, in the writer’s opinion, they’re all barren (they are not, by the way. A lot of “oops” pregnancies happen to women over 40, because they go off birth control under the mistaken notion “I can no longer get pregnant, or not easily.”)

(Link): What’s so offensive about Esquire’s praise of 42-year-old women?

Excerpts:

    By ALEXANDRA LE TELLIER

    Women don’t need a writer dressed in feminist clothing to define her worth by his own narrow definitions

    Tom Junod set the social web aflame with his article praising 42-year-old women. Never did one think that Esquire, a men’s magazine that’s stayed above the lad mag fray, could enrage so many people. But that it did, with people accusing Junod of sexism.

    “Let’s face it: There used to be something tragic about even the most beautiful forty-two-year-old woman,” Junod begins. Now, he writes, “it may be said that the best thing that forty-two-year-old American men have going for them is forty-two-year-old American women.”

    It might sound like a compliment, but women aren’t buying it.

    … I asked some of our female writers for their thoughts, and here’s what they had to say.

    Where has Junod been?

    … And, men, you now have Esquire’s permission to objectify women in their 40s without being creepy to other men. (But, again, only if the women do Pilates and yoga.) This expands your potential ogling to hundreds, even thousands more women each year.

    Kidding aside, I find the whole premise of the piece to be completely outdated, if it was ever true to begin with. It’s as though Esquire and Junod have been cryogenically frozen for the last 20 to 30 years and woke up to discover this new creature in mass media called the Modern Woman. She’s independent! She’s empowered! She’s still sexy at 40!

    But my biggest complaint is that Junod and Esquire reinforce the sexualization of women in general — the idea that the value of a woman is how much she arouses a man.

    Continue reading “Follow Up Part 2 – 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)

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 “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)”

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 “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”

Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or Rhetoric

Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or “Not All” Rhetoric
——————————-
REMINDER

If you are new to this blog, I possibly need to remind you that I am socially conservative, right wing, and a Republican.

(Edit, Sept 2016. My views have shifted somewhat in the last couple of years, since I last wrote this post. I am still right wing but more moderate now.)

Although I do criticize my fellow right wingers, as well as Christians, time and again on this site over some subjects, I am not liberal, progressive, Democratic, left wing, nor am I pro-choice or pro-homosexuality.

I do not despise the notions of, belief in, or practice of, moral absolutes, Christianity, the nuclear family, traditional marriage, sexual purity, Christians, the Bible, or a literal biblical hermeneutic.

(However, I do not always agree with other conservatives about topics, or how to handle those topics.)

If you’re feeling very confused or duped at this point, as in, “Hey, I’ve been visiting this blog for months now, or I followed you on Twitter, and I thought you are liberal, and that you hate conservatives and Christianity like I do?!”

No, you have misunderstood me or my positions.

Just because I am sometimes critical of Christians, or how Christians and conservatives sometimes pontificate about certain matters, does not mean I am against either one or that I am automatically a liberal who supports abortion, Democrats, Obama, or homosexuality.

You might want to see this blog’s “About” page for more about my views. I tend to criticize other right wingers more so than left wingers on this blog, but this is one of those posts where I have to criticize the left.
——————————-
Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or “Not All” Rhetoric

Secular feminists hate men who interject into feminist conversations online – or in real life – about sexism and rape apologia to say, “But not all men are like that; I am not.”

Feminists are annoyed over this common behavior to the point they started using the “#NotAllMen” hash tag on Twitter and blogs.

If you’re not familiar with the history of, or the bruhaha over, the “Not All Men” phenomenon, you can read more about it on Time magazine’s site here:
(Link): Not All Men: A Brief History of Every Dude’s Favorite Argument, by Jess Zimmerman.

(Edit. Since I wrote this post, I read one source that says that it was men who started use of the “#NotAllMen” hash to counter balance the feminist “#YesAllWomen” hash, but by the time I started seeing “#NotAllMen” it was being used by feminists against sexist men.)

Not too long ago, in a conversation in the comments on a left wing site under an article criticizing a famous conservative journalist’s position about something related to sexism, I pointed out that not all conservatives and Republicans see eye- to- eye on every issue, so please don’t assume that one journalist’s views on that one issue are indicative of all conservatives – as the author of the article I was commenting on seemed to imply.

I also pointed out in that same post that I myself, who am a conservative Republican, did not totally support conservatives on the particular topic under discussion, and some rude, liberal, Democratic jackass at that site gave me a sarcastic comment and dismissed my view by sarcastically using the “#Not All Conservatives” hash.

(Among other snarky commentary from that person. This person was truly being an assh-le for no good reason.

I said nothing to that point to provoke snarky, condescending remarks from anyone.

After that person was rude to me, and only afterwards, did I tell her she was rude and could kiss my ass, but prior to that, before her rudeness, I was being polite.)

On the one hand, I can certainly understand why, for example, women may find it rude or annoying when their feminist conversation about male privilege or sexism gets interrupted by some man interjecting to say, “But I am a man, and I respect women” because that can seem to diminish the experiences of sexism by women who are discussing the topic.

On the other hand, nobody likes seeing a group they are a member of, or sympathetic to, being generalized unfairly, or painted with a broad-brush.

Liberals are often hypocritical on this point. And they are also terribly blinded to their hypocrisy.

#NOT ALL MUSLIMS

For example, any time a conservative points out that quite a number of Muslims are terribly sexist against women (e.g., honor killings of female rape victims, extreme modesty teaching which blames women for male sexual crimes or male misbehavior, the practice of female genital mutilation, forced marriages of young girls to old men – are all common beliefs or practices in Islamic communities)-

Or, when conservatives make the true observation that most terrorism in the world today is carried out by Muslims (enjoy this site, or this one (*and see a few more links at the bottom of this post)), your left wingers will quickly exclaim,
“But not all Muslims are like that! I’ve even known some Muslims personally, and they are very nice people.”

Hence, we see #Not All Muslims at play by left wingers in conversations about terrorism. Often.

#NOT ALL ATHEISTS

When I have visited theologically liberal or ex- Christian sites, which are sometimes populated by self-professing atheists (who usually claim to be former Christians), they get angry when Christians point to news stories of atheists who get arrested for murder, or rape, or what have you.

Immediately, the atheists, or theologically liberal Christians, start saying (this one seems to comes up on Stuff Christian Culture Likes Facebook group about once a week it seems, eg. in (Link): this discussion),
“How long until conservative Christians point to this news story of this atheist murdering this child as proof that all atheists are unethical, murdering slugs? Don’t they know that not all atheists are killers or child molesters?”

Yes, I sometimes see anti-Christian atheists bring out the “#NotAllAtheist” commentary.

However, many times, these same atheists like to bring up the Christian “#Not All Christian” habit of saying, “Maybe the preacher arrested for child rape was not a ‘real’ Christian,” by mentioning the “No True Scotsman” fallacy (you can read more about that here or here).

You can see examples of Non-Christians complaining about the alleged Christian use of “No True Scotsman” (Link): here (link is to SCCL Facebook group page, a group which runs from theologically liberal to atheistic).

Let us review.

Some atheists get angry at Christians who assume all, or most atheists, are immoral scum balls, but atheists do not mind assuming these things are true of all Christians.

Atheists detest the #NotAllChristians tactic by Christians, vis a vis the “No True Scotsman” stance, but atheists don’t hesitate to scream #NotAllAtheists in similar contexts.

Oh, I see. We want to make exceptions for our side but not the other side; how convenient.

We want to be angry atheists snarking on Christians all day long and pointing out Christian flaws, but Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid if Christians mention crimes or misbehavior by atheists! Talk about a double standard.

NO TRUE SCOTSMAN

I hate to disappoint the die-hard, irrational, frothing- at- the mouth variety of atheists out there (and many of you are indeed irrational – your hatred for God and Christians is based on emotion or personal dislike of Christians, not due to intellect or dispassionate reason as is often claimed), the “No Scotsman Fallacy” does not totally apply to Christianity to start with.

Jesus Christ himself taught that not all who consider themselves Christians are in fact actual, real, genuine followers of his, even if they do claim to be so.

See for example, (Link): this biblical passage or (Link): this one or (Link): this one.

#NOT ALL HOMOSEXUALS

I’ve noticed that any time crimes or bigotry by homosexuals against heterosexuals, other homosexuals, or other groups, are brought up on blogs or news sites, especially on forums or blogs that tend to have a large segment of left wingers, most of the left wingers are quick to jump in with the “not all homosexuals” argumentation.

One case in point was a recent letter to the “Ask Amy” advice columnist.

Here is a link to the letter:
(Link): Mom worries about gym teacher in locker room

Here is the letter:

DEAR AMY:

    My seventh-grade daughter’s female gym teacher is openly gay. None of the parents or kids has a problem with this.

The issue is that she observes the girls changing into and out of their gym clothes, and my daughter and many of her peers feel very uncomfortable having a lesbian watch them walk around in their underwear.

I’m afraid to say anything because I worry that my daughter will be given a “special area” to change, and it will make her feel awkward.

I understand that seventh-graders need supervision in the locker room, but it seems to me the school should know that it may not be appropriate to have a lesbian in the locker room with young girls!

By the way, the teacher has never behaved unprofessionally — nor is anyone worried that she might — it is simply an issue of discomfort.

What’s the right answer that respects everyone involved? — Concerned Mom

Here is part of Amy’s reply:

DEAR CONCERNED:

    …You might start this conversation by letting your daughter know that there is a likelihood some of her fellow students at school or on sports teams are also lesbians, and that in this environment, along with trusting her instincts, she also has to trust other people (gay and straight) to have integrity.

You seem to think that because this teacher is a lesbian, she may also be attracted to — or be an unhealthy presence — for girls.

Judging by the preponderance of recent alarming news reports of improper sexual relationships between teachers and students, a student is much more likely to be hit on by a heterosexual teacher than a gay one.

— (end Amy letter)—

First of all, notice that Amy’s tact here is pretty much a “Not All Homosexuals” argument. She even goes further to use a “Most All Heteros” argument.

Amy is telling the mother who wrote the letter not to assume that just because a female gym teacher is lesbian that this necessarily means that the teacher is viewing the students in a sexual manner or will “hit” on them.

That may very well be true, but note the “Not All Lesbians” rhetoric is being employed in the first place.

When I visited sites that published copies of this letter and had a comment section, I noted that many of the commentators left statements to the effect of “the gym teacher’s sexual preference should not be an issue, as not all homosexuals prey on children.”

It was remarkable how often the “Not All Homosexuals” cliche’ kept popping up under this particular “Ask Amy” letter and previous ones like it, that mentioned homosexual people.

Secondly, per Amy’s comment that

    “Judging by the preponderance of recent alarming news reports of improper sexual relationships between teachers and students, a student is much more likely to be hit on by a heterosexual teacher than a gay one”

there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals in American culture, so it would mathematically figure that there are more hetero predators than homosexual ones, based on “counting noses” of sexual offenders alone.

However, based on various studies I have seen over the past ten or more years, there is a HIGHER PERCENTAGE of pedophiles among homosexuals than heteros.

Continue reading “Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or Rhetoric”

Mother Entitlement – Selfish, Self-Centered Mothers Complain that They Are Not Getting ENOUGH Mother Worship from Culture, Church, or Family on Mother’s Day and Some Moms Complain About Churches Showing Compassion to Childless Women

Mother Entitlement – Selfish, Self-Centered Mothers Complain that They Are Not Getting ENOUGH Mother Worship from Culture, Church, or Family on Mother’s Day and Some Moms Complain About Churches Showing Compassion to Childless Women

I remember seeing posts like this (see link below) last year at Mother’s Day – there are actually mothers out there, including Christian and Mormon ones, who feel that their churches do not do ENOUGH to honor them on Mommy’s Day.

Some mothers I’ve seen go further than that and insult or mock childless (or childfree) women in the comments of blogs that ask people to be more sensitive to the feelings of non mothers.

These bitter, hate-filled mothers spit out, on such blogs, comments such as, “Screw the childless women, what about me, I work hard as a mom all year and DESERVE some recognition.”

Yep, they are that blunt and nasty about it in their comments. (I have a real sample below, with a link to said blog, but it’s by a guy, not a lady, but it’s representative of the type of crap angry mothers who whine about being under-appreciated leave on blogs).

No, I am not exaggerating, I have indeed seen a smattering of such vitriolic comments by mothers on various blogs the last two years, even on Christian blogs by women who claim they are Christian!

Even though churches WORSHIP motherhood 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and hype it up on Mother’s Day itself even more so, these selfish mommy dolts think churches should worship mommy-hood EVEN MORE than they already do.

Meanwhile, never-married, childless, divorced, widowed, and childfree adult women get absolutely NO HOLIDAYS in THEIR honor, so why should I care if mommies don’t feel honored enough on Mother’s Day?

Some mothers are the most selfish, hateful people on the face of the planet.

Some mothers expect and demand everyone around them in their families and at church to make a big fuss over them.

I thought motherhood was supposed to be its own reward?

If motherhood is so lofty, so noble, so high and mighty, and it supposedly makes a woman totally content, and you buy into Christian swill about mom-hood being a woman’s only, or most, godly role in life, why do you, little Ms. Entitled Mommy, need or want others to validate the position for you, by throwing you parties and handing you carnations in church services?

I thought Christians said parenthood automatically makes a person more godly and giving than being single and child-free, or it works out that way over a period of years?

That is not so, because I see many mothers online whining like little children that they don’t get enough attention and presents from their spouses or preachers on the holiday.

I cannot believe how self absorbed and self centered some mothers are.

Here is a link to a blog page by a Mormon woman –
Note that while this woman is a Mormon but her points sound about identical to the average Baptist, Reformed, or Evangelical women I see online; just swap out “Mormon” with the word “Christian” and it reads the same:

(Link): Taking Mom Out of Mother’s Day – Have We Gone Too Far?

Excerpts:

    In a desire to be sensitive toward women who are unable to have children I’m concerned that, perhaps, on Mother’s Day, we may be going a bit too far. Not that we can ever be too compassionate in acknowledging the pain that surely accompanies the inability to have children, but at the same time we shouldn’t need to pull back in giving the much needed praise, encouragement and recognition of Moms’, who are actually raising, or have raised, children — and all that that entails.

  • …In order to be politically sensitive, in all circumstances, where the issue of how women fulfill their role as mothers comes into play, it is my observation that we are becoming increasingly comfortable with relegating actual Moms’ to the back of the bus — even on Mother’s Day. And frankly, that kind of bothers me.

Here was the comment I left on her page (but it did not show up last I checked):

    Never-married and childless women such as myself get ZERO holidays for us. None. There are no cards for us. No cakes, no brunches.

  • Churches never have a “recognize and celebrate mature, celibate, never married, childless women” type of service, so I have a very hard time feeling sorry for mothers who feel their churches or communities are not doing enough to honor motherhood.

Continue reading “Mother Entitlement – Selfish, Self-Centered Mothers Complain that They Are Not Getting ENOUGH Mother Worship from Culture, Church, or Family on Mother’s Day and Some Moms Complain About Churches Showing Compassion to Childless Women”

Editorial at Christianity Today Actually Suggests that It Takes Motherhood To Make A Woman Become Mature / Also: Homeless Mother Stays In Hotel Room and Makes Her Toddlers Sleep on the Street

Editorial at Christianity Today ActuallySuggests that It Takes Motherhood To Make A Woman Become Mature / Also: Homeless Mother Stays In Hotel Room and Makes Her Toddlers Sleep on the Street

My standard disclaimer (for any newbies of this blog):

    I am NOT anti-motherhood, nor am I “anti traditional family.” If women choose to have children, that’s fine, that’s their right.
    I am, however, opposed to the situation where Christians elevate parenthood (and marriage) to the point they have turned it into an IDOL, a biblical command, or imperative for all women, and exclude or shame women who are child free or infertile (and/or not married).

———————-
A lot of Christians like to harbor stereotypes that childless or child free women are cold, heartless, not as godly and mature as mothers.

Yes, there was recently an editorial at Christianity Today by a mother who went on about how she wasn’t truly grown up until she had a child.

As one commentator on the editorial noted, that view flat out contradicts another editorial on the same site (which I wrote of (Link): here).

But I present to you another news story that shows a mother who neglected or mistreated her own children (link to that farther below).

I have, over my childless, never-married life, shown more compassion to homeless and/or injured animals I’ve come across on the streets than this woman did to her own children-

Yet Christians have the nerve to suggest that women like me who never have children are not as “mature” or “loving” or compassionate as this woman who merely had sex and used her vagina.

Big, hairy, freaking deal. Any woman can reproduce (excluding ladies with health problems, which leaves them infertile, obviously). It takes another sort of woman entirely to be responsible for someone smaller and weaker than herself.

First, here is the editorial which I found nauseating, as it is once again in the Christian ethos suggesting that maturity is impossible unless one marries and has a child:

(Link): I Didn’t Grow Up Until I Became a Mom

Excerpts:

    by Amy Julia Becker

    I thought I was a mature adult, and then I had a baby

    …But in our late twenties, my husband Peter and I started inching towards pregnancy. Three kids later, it turns out I was right to be worried. Becoming a mother has made my life harder. It has unraveled me. And it has started to grow me up.

    …I used to sometimes choose to be “selfless.” I would bring meals to people who were sick.

    …Then I had a baby. And I had no choice but to give of myself to her. She offered very little, other than more needs, in return. Even eight years later, with kids who are out of diapers and rarely wake up in the middle of the night, I still have no choice but to help them a lot.

    …I don’t serve my kids because I’m making some beneficent choice to do so. I serve them because I have to. Because they need me. Because I’m their mom. And those acts of involuntary service have helped me let go of my self-importance, at least a little bit.

Next, by comparison, we have this story:

(Link): Homeless Woman Leaves Her Toddlers in Bushes While She Sleeps in Motel

(Link): Homeless mom Chardenea left her toddlers to sleep in bushes for a week while she slept in nearby motel

    By DAVID MCCORMACK
    PUBLISHED: 09:53 EST, 7 May 2014

    -Chardenea VanRooyen, 27, faces child endangerment charges after admitting to leaving her two young children to sleep in bushes

    -The mother said she stayed in hotel rooms in Modesto, California, for almost a week while the children stayed with their father in the bushes

    -She told police that she came to meet her family for dinner but that her boyfriend had then left

    -Her 3-year-old daughter and 1-year-old son have been placed in the custody of child protective services

(Link): Modesto woman arrested after children found sleeping in bushes

Christian Host Pat Robertson Tells Christian Woman Who Married Christian Man Who Turned Out to Be Totally Unethical That She has Discernment of a Slug – Single Women: toss Be Equally Yoked teaching in the trash can

Christian Host Pat Robertson Tells Christian Woman Who Married Christian Man Who Turned Out to Be Totally Unethical That She has Discernment of a Slug – Single Women: toss Be Equally Yoked teaching in the trash can

One fallacy about marriage that sometimes pops up by Christians is that you have to obtain sinless perfection before God will gift you with a spouse.

However, the man below managed to get married, even though he says he is a Christian and he steals from people. He obviously is not godly or perfect, yet he still managed to get a spouse.

A woman wrote a question to the show The 700 Club asking Christian host Pat Robertson if she is morally bound to stay married to a man who “presented himself as a Christian” but who has had four DUIs (driving while intoxicated), went on to swindle a church out of $10,000 and who did a bunch of other bad things.

I usually embed the video or link to the video of Robertson responding to these questions but this particular video has not been uploaded to the 700 Club’s Bring It On page yet. ((Link): Bring It On page below.)

(Edit. This might be the video:
(Link): Bring It On – Pat Robertson Answers Questions – also, it’s embedded )

In his reply, Robertson talks about “fraud of inducement” but opened his comments by insulting the woman and telling her she has the “discernment of a slug.” He also calls her “crazy” and “blind.”

As I’ve said time and before on this blog, a lot of Christians unnecessarily limit a Christian single woman’s dating pool, and hence chances of marriage, by quoting “be not yoked” at her, as if to say they think this verse teaches that a Christian may only marry another Christian.

As I’ve also said, I see no point in a Christian woman limiting herself to dating only Christian males, when I have example after example on this blog of news stories or reports of Christian men who turn out to use prostitutes, they turn out to be pedophiles, serial rapists, and killers (such as at this link)

On top of that, there are online communities, support groups, for Christian women who explain they had to divorce their Christian husband because he was physically or verbally abusive, or, he was a serial cheater (adulterer).

I have said before an unmarried Christian woman needs to cast off the “be not yoked, only marry another Christian” mantra to judge a man based on his character.

A man claiming to be a Christian, a man going to church every week, a man reading his Bible daily, and so on, is not a guarantee that he will treat a woman well.

A man can be a professing Christian, daily Bible reader, and faithful church attendee, and still be an abusive jerk or dirt ball.

You need to look past what claims a man makes about his religious beliefs and judge him based on his character.

In addition, you need to look at behavior, not what the guy says about himself.

What gets my goat about this woman’s letter to the Christian 700 Club show, which is hosted by Robertson, is that despite following the Christian propaganda to marry only another Christian – someone who claims to be Christian – she gets insulted and mocked by another Christian, in this case, Robertson, for it.

Robertson tells this woman she must “have the discernment of a slug” for marrying this guy.

This Christian woman follows the common Christian idea that a Christian should only marry another Christian, and when she does, and the guy turns out to be a lying thief scum bag, she gets raked over the coals by a Christian who ridicules her mate selection criteria, which was, I remind you, based on the “be not yoked to a Non-Christian” philosophy.

By the way, this is common. In my reading over the years about relationships, dating, and marriage, I have seen too many testimonies about how women married a guy who seemed caring and compassionate at first only to turn into an abusive rat after marriage.

Some abusive men are very crafty and cunning at hiding their controlling, abusive natures when dating a woman.

I don’t have the time to get into it here, but in books and blogs by counselors who are experts on abusive men, they explain that it is entirely possible for a woman to be blindsided by a man, not knowing he’s abusive until she’s deeper into the relationship, because a lot of abusive men do not become overly controlling and mean spirited until certain thresh holds have been reached in a relationship, and it differs from man to man. For some abusive men, that thresh hold is marriage.

They keep their loving mask on until marriage, where they toss it aside to reveal their true nature.

Go look at forums for Christian women who divorced their husbands.

Many of these ladies swear up and down that their husband was a born again believer who loved Jesus, read his Bible, “knew” his Bible well, and some of these men even worked as preachers. Yet, these men were still abusive towards their wives.

It’s just remarkable to me and another kind of fraud that in a day and age that so many adult, single Christian women who want marriage but find themselves single, that other Christians artificially limit their chances at marriage by telling them to cross all Non Christian males off the list, which can keep these ladies single indefinitely, but, if they do marry a self professing Christian, and he turns out to be an abusive, loser of a cad, they get shamed for it by Christian personalities.

Christian women are damned if they do by Christian culture and damned if they do not.

Edit.
Pat Robertson telling woman with troubled marriage she has discernment of a slug, embedded from You Tube (aired May 5, 2014)
The woman’s question is the second or third topic discussed by Roberston, after discussion of Islam, and a question about being married in a court vs being married in church:

Edit 2.
A couple days after I made this blog post, this other site ran this story:

(Link): Pat Robertson berates woman for ungodly husband: You have ‘the discernment of a slug’

    Televangelist Pat Robertson on Monday castigated a woman for marrying a man who later turned out not to be a “born again” Christian.

In a letter to The 700 Club, a viewer named Patty explained that she had “married a man who presented himself as a born again believer.”

But she later found out that he was not what he seemed.

“In the 7 years we have been together he has had 4 DUIs, been convicted of receiving stolen property, and recently deceived a ministry out of $15,000,” Patty wrote. “Am I morally bound to this marriage?”

“You must have been crazy or you must have been blinded to get into [that] relationship,” Robertson told the viewer. “He — quote — presented himself [as a born again Christian]. I mean, give me a break. You got about the discernment of a slug.”

—————————-
Related links:

(Link): Post with numerous examples of links to news stories about Christian married men who raped people, abused their wives, were drug addicts, etc

(Link): On Christians Marrying Non Christians -and- Unrealistic, Too Rigid Spouse Selection Lists by Christians

(Link):  Prayer and The 700 Club  – Some Observations and Suggestions

(Link):  Women: Stop Asking Pat Robertson For Romantic Relationship Advice – Whether You Are Divorced or Single  – Pat Robertson Replies to Letter from Four Time Divorced Woman Who Wants to Know If God Will Send Her a Non-Abusive Husband

(Link):  Christian TV Show Pat Robertson Says Wives Who Want Emotional Support from a Husband Are Immature and Should Not Expect Emotional Support

(Link): Forget About Being ‘Equally Yoked’ – Article: ‘My Abusive ‘Christian’ Marriage’

(Link): Gender Complementarian Advice to Single Women Who Desire Marriage Will Keep Them Single Forever / Re: Choosing A Spiritual Leader

(Link): Married Female Christian Blogger Whose Mate Hunting Criteria is Guaranteed to Keep Marriage Minded Single Christian Men Single Perpetually

(Link): Being Equally Yoked: Christian Columnist Dan Delzell Striving to Keep Christian Singles Single Forever

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

(Link): Pastor charged in wife’s murder was headed to Europe to marry boyfriend, prosecutor says – Single Christian Ladies: Kick that Be Equally Yoked Teaching to the Curb!

(Link): Another Example of Why the Equally Yoked Teaching is A Joke for Single Christian Women : Baptist Preacher Arrested for Allegedly Fire Bombing Ex Girlfriend’s House While She Was In It

(Link): Obnoxious and Sexist Preacher Mark Driscoll Wants Christian Singles to Stay Single Indefinitely – And Even Though Unwanted, Prolonged Singleness has Been a Huge Issue For Christian Singles for A Couple Decades Now – Driscoll: ‘Christians should not marry pro choicers’

Christian ‘historian’ David Barton: Allowing women to vote ‘hurts the entire culture and society’ and prohibiting the female vote kept the family together

(I just got a notification from Word Press that today is my four year anniversary of registering with them for this blog. Yay, four year anniversary.)
_______________________________________
Christian ‘historian’ David Barton: Allowing women to vote ‘hurts the entire culture and society’ and prohibiting the female vote kept the family together

(Links to pages with Barton’s quotes are farther below)

I am no secular feminist. I’m not left wing or a Democrat or a liberal (“progressive”), but I find some of my fellow right wingers to be odd balls on occasion, and this is one of those occasions.

It’s bad enough that some conservative Christians defend sexism under the guise of it being “biblical” (the terms they slap on church sanctioned sexism is sometimes referred to as ‘gender complementarianism’ or ‘biblical womanhood’) –

But to see a well-known Christian personality such as Barton defend the sexist notion that women should not vote, or it was good that at one time they were not permitted, because it makes for “stronger families” is another indication that some Christians have turned the nuclear family, marriage, and parenthood into idols.

Views such as this also do not take into account that some women never marry and never have children.

Some women who do marry are infertile, or their husband is, so they never have children.

Yet other women are widowed or divorced.

You will notice in Christian gender complementarian views, women who “fall between the cracks,” ones who are unmarried or childless, are not recognized.

This Barton guy has crack pot views about marriage and coffee and PTSD as well (see links at bottom of this post).

I think keeping women from voting on the basis of their gender alone, and supposedly that it’s due to keeping families together, is sexism.

Please, some Christian, try to defend the idea that being sexist is okay with God and oppressing women in this way is justified to “defend the family” or “defend culture.” (This is a rhetorical proposition.)

Although I am socially conservative and a right winger, I think other so cons and right wingers need to keep things in perspective.

Sacrificing equality of women in the name of “the family” – when it comes to this particular case (voting) – is unjust and shows just how much some Christian conservatives have turned “family” into an idol.

(Link): David Barton: Allowing women to vote ‘hurts the entire culture and society’

(Link): David Barton Invents Reasons Founding Fathers Did Not Grant Women the Vote

(Link): Christian ‘historian’: Allowing women to vote ‘hurts the entire culture and society’

Christian ‘historian’: Allowing women to vote ‘hurts the entire culture and society’ by David Edwards

Excerpts:

A so-called “historian” who Glenn Beck hired to teach at his online university insisted this week that women had originally been denied the right to vote “to keep the family together,” and for the good of “the entire culture and society.”

On the Thursday broadcast of Wallbuilders Live, David Barton explained that biblical principles — and not sexism — were behind not allowing women to vote prior to 1920.

“So family government precedes civil government and you watch that as colonists came to America, they voted by families,” he said. “And you have to remember back then, husband and wife, I mean the two were considered one. That is the biblical precept… That is a family, that is voting. And so the head of the family is traditionally considered to be the husband and even biblically still continues to be so.”

Barton argued that in the time since the women’s suffrage movement succeeded in the United States, “we’ve moved into more of a family anarchy kind of thing.”

Continue reading “Christian ‘historian’ David Barton: Allowing women to vote ‘hurts the entire culture and society’ and prohibiting the female vote kept the family together”

Condescending Remarks About Single and Childless Women on Christian Gender Complementarian Site: ‘Motherhood or Singleness: Which Is More Sanctifying?’

Condescending Remarks About Single and Childless Women on Christian Gender Complementarian Site: ‘Motherhood or Singleness: Which Is More Sanctifying?’

h/t Stuff Christian Culture Likes group (I would encourage you to visit (Link): that group’s comment thread about the link farther below).

The link comes from True Woman, which I think is a Southern Baptist, gender complementarian hosted site

There are married women who are infertile, or who keep having miscarriages. Apparently the author of the page, Colleen Chao, is unaware of that.

Here is the link:

(Link): Motherhood or Singleness: Which Is More Sanctifying?

Anyway. Excerpt:

    by Colleen Chao

    [Because the author is now married with a kid] But I no longer have to sacrifice in the way my single friends do either: I won’t go to bed alone tonight, cry over unfulfilled passions, work a demanding full-time job to support myself, solitarily juggle all the details and demands of daily life, or feel like an anomaly at a table of all couples.

I’m over 40, would like to be married, never have been. Never cared too much if I had a kid or not (kids are annoying).

Yes, there are times I’m sad or angry about being single, but I also have many days where I’m okay with it.

I do not appreciate this lady making my life sounds like it’s a total pathetic suck fest because I’m single and childless. Her post is just so very insulting to single, adult, childless women.

It is remarkable to me how Christians will sometimes write these books or blog pages trying to re-assure single adults they are fine the way they are, and that God loves them even un-married and childless- but the tone of their whole piece, or certain comments, are so incredibly condescending, their piece has the exact opposite effect.

And I don’t need someone patting me on the head telling me God loves me just as I am, that I’m okay as a single and childless woman… I already know.

I don’t need your validation. How dare you assume that I do.

People who do this are so arrogant and insensitive, but they think they are being supportive and loving.

By the way, sanctification is an inward work of the Holy Spirit, not the work of singleness, parenting, or marriage.

Anyway, it’s amazing how deeply insensitive these Christian writers can be. The woman who wrote that page probably thinks she is cheering on unmarried, childless women, when in reality, she is insulting their lives.

Her editorial is hinting at, or implying, the somewhat common Christian false idea that singles and the childless are only “one half” a person, are not and cannot be fulfilled as a married parent, and not as worthy to God or culture.
————————-
Related posts:

(Link): The Holy Spirit Sanctifies a Person Not A Spouse – Weekly Christian Marriage Advice Column Pokes Holes in Christian Stereotype that Marriage Automatically Sanctifies People

(Link): I’m Childless, Not Child-Incompetent (editorial by G. Dalfonzo) – The Christian Tendency to Worship Family, Motherhood, and Children

(Link): Is The Church Failing Childless Women? by Diane Paddison

(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

(Link): Salvation By Marriage Alone – The Over Emphasis Upon Marriage by Conservative Christians Evangelicals Southern Baptists

(Link): Astonishing: Evangelical Baptist Marriage Idolater David E. Prince Wants to Know Why Evangelical Baptists Are Not Worshipping Marriage More