The Gross, Shaming Natalism Propaganda on Gab Platform by Its Rude Members, Including By Roman Catholics and Other Conservatives

The Gross, Shaming Natalism Propaganda on Gab Platform by Its Rude Members, Including By Roman Catholics and Other Conservatives

A few days ago, someone I follow on Gab – I was automatically signed up to follow that person when I joined the site, I did not choose to follow them on my own – (with Gab being a social media platform that is similar to Twitter) shared a meme by someone else called “Disco.”

You can view that meme (Link): here on Gab.

I will also provide a screen shot below.

By the way, I am not as familiar with Gab’s functions and commenting as I am with Twitter’s, so I am not quite sure how to reply to people on Gab or how to link to specific comments by myself or others.

I am a pro-life conservative.

I am not opposed to equal rights for women, but I don’t identify as a feminist.

I don’t really fit in totally over on Gab, a platform which unfortunately attracts a lot of extreme right wing kooks (but some of the users seem okay),
but I don’t really fit in over on Twitter, either (where I was suspended for months previously before I got posting ability again),
because Twitter is over-run with far left “nut jobs,” most of whose views I normally do not agree with.

I have found that both conservatives and liberals / progressives are about equally annoying and wrong on the parenthood, marriage, or nuclear family topics.

Not all progressives or liberals are opposed to women having children; they just believe (and I agree with this concept, though I am a conservative) that women (and men) should be permitted to decide for themselves if they truly want to be a parent or not.

People should not be guilt tripped or pressured into having children.

There are some very fringe, far-out there leftists who are “anti nuclear family” and who are opposed to people having children, and they call themselves “anti natalists.”

I don’t agree with progressives who try to propagandize women (or men) from having children.

I don’t think it’s the progressives’ place to try to brainwash, scold, shame, or guilt trip people from having children.

But then I see the reverse dynamic from a lot of secular and Christian conservatives.

I see people who identify as conservative or Roman Catholic on sites such as GAB who keep pumping out these stupid, horrid, “Have ten kids by the time you’re 30” type memes or comments.

And these views are not even “biblical.”

Emma the Ex Friend, Part 2 (I Won’t Play the Codependent or Rescuer Anymore)

Emma the Ex Friend, Part 2 (I Won’t Play the Codependent or Rescuer Anymore – Some Life Lessons Learned)

January 27, 2022

All names have been changed below.
I have also omitted or changed identifying details as much as possible so as to keep people’s identities anonymous.

---

Point 1 (Intro)

This post will stand to correct some of the false comments made to or about me by the crackpot, who calls herself “Donna Hazel,” (🤡) that visited this blog about two months ago, who has no understanding of what transpired between myself and my ex friend “Emma” (not her real name) over a several year period
((Link): Re the Crackpot Part 1 and (Link): Re the Crackpot Part 2),
and also to correct some of what Emma told me – some of which I briefly covered in this previous post, (Link): “Emma Responds“

Emma did not want “emotional support” from me, though she framed it that way to me. As time went by, it became apparent to me that she was seeking pity and validation for her victim mentality.

“Emotional support” is not the same thing as pity. Enabling someone in their victimhood mentality is not healthy for that person.

I cannot save someone who does not want to be saved, nor is it my job to save someone else; each person has to take action to get help for himself or herself.

This lady approached me for friendship after she found my blog and my social media; I did not approach her.

This “Emma” person didn’t want a normal or healthy friendship, but rather, a relationship based on bonding over negativity, and further, one has to support her in her belief that she is a helpless victim in life. If you’re not willing to do that, she has no use for you.

The relationship I had with her felt transactional in nature at times – so long as I supported her self pity and agreed with her in some fashion that she’s a helpless victim and that life is always terrible…..
She was fine with things, and she found me useful – but once I began gently asking her to take more responsibility in her life, or ask her to consider if maybe doing so would help (something I did for myself, which helped me quite a bit), she quickly became angry and wanted me to defriend her on social media.

That is not normal behavior, nor the behavior of someone who wanted to have a normal friendship. She didn’t value me for me, but rather, what I had previously been doing for her – which was, feeling sorry for her. She was looking to have her negative and self pitying attitude validated by me – that was my value and my role.

Preface.

Years ago, when I was still very codependent (because my mother raised me to be codependent), I had a boss at a full time job who was a bully, and this woman boss, Lilly (not her real name), used to make my work life hell.

For the first year to year and a half of Lilly’s workplace abuse of me, I did not defend myself from her abuse in any way.

I did not so much as even politely verbally hold Lilly the boss accountable for her abuse of me, because I was raised by my mother and the evangelical, Southern Baptist culture I was raised in, never to be assertive.

Speaking up and having boundaries was considered by my mother, and the faith I was raised in, to be inappropriate, unloving, unfeminine, and selfish.

I also had extreme anxiety about confrontations for years.  I usually would not stand up to bullies because I was afraid of retaliation from them.

So I endured my supervisor’s workplace harassment for about a year, or a bit over a year, in silence. No push-back from me.

In the second year of the workplace abuse, when my anger finally out-weighed my fear of the boss, fear of confrontation, and whatever codependent brainwashing from my mother and the Christian faith, I began standing up to Lilly the abusive boss.

I was never mean-spirited, cruel, or unprofessional when confronting Lilly, but I did begin firmly yet politely pushing back and letting Lilly the abusive boss know I did not approve of her mistreatment of me.

Lilly did not like me finally standing up for myself, and she began depicting me as though I were the problematic one.

Lilly began acting as though I was in the wrong and she was the innocent victim – all because I merely finally began practicing normal, healthy boundaries with her, rather than sitting there quietly and enduring her bullying behavior towards me.

Once I began standing up to her, Lilly began speaking about me in front of others in the office as though I were a “trouble maker” who “has problems with authority figures.”

The truth is, I stopped being a doormat with Lilly – I had not become a “trouble maker” or a “problem employee” and so on, but she deceitfully began spinning my new-found boundaries and courage to confront her as me being a bad worker or a bad person.

I found myself in the same situation as that one a couple of months ago, when I did a blog post about how clinically depressed people can make decisions for themselves, and they can make choices.

I mentioned ex-friend “Emma” (not her real name) as one example of that situation in that post.

I was then torn apart by a visitor to this blog calling herself “Donna Hazel” (🤡) in the comments under that blog post (and in other replies that I did not allow to be published to this blog),
where Donna Hazel acted as though Emma is a poor, innocent, widdle lamb of a victim, and I was the villain and the “great big meanie” who was just being so heartless to Emma, and I was taking advantage of poor, poor, put-upon Emma.

Not only was that all untrue and a very weird mischaracterization of the post I had written, but the actual situation was flipped around.
(I will explain what I mean by that as this post progresses.)

Emma Responds – My Comments

Emma Responds – My Comments

-post updated below, June / August 2022… post has been edited after publication to add more links and commentary –

The individual I wrote about previously, who decided, a week or so ago, she no longer wanted to be friends with me (after having first contacted me years ago online), contacted me again this evening via a private chat app.

I referred to her as “Emma” in (Link): the last blog post or two, but “Emma” is not her real name.

I have no idea how “Emma” was able to message me again on this other app, as I unfriended her on there, but a message popped up in my in box there.

I will again be keeping “Emma” anonymous and changing any identifying details.

I may be sharing some of her comments to me so I can respond.

Emma wrote to me:

“You’re free to reply, but I will not be responding”
— end —

Okay, so I will be replying here.

The Incredibly Condescending and Presumptive Singles-Shaming Posts of Gladys Wisener

The Incredibly Condescending and Presumptive Singles-Shaming Posts of Gladys Wisener

In my few years of writing on this blog, I am still sometimes amazed at the comments I get, especially the remarks I get from the most innocuous of posts.

Never would I have imagined that linking to some article about a 105 year old woman who says she is happy and still alive at 105 because she has never bothered with men would induce someone to come on to my blog to leave me nasty and presumptive comments, but that is what happened.

This married woman named Gladys Wisener stopped by this blog recently, and she engaged in some singles-shaming under (Link): that post about a 105 year old single woman.

When Gladys began saying or assuming some weird, offensive, negative, or insulting things about me, and I understandably got irate and offended in response to her attitude and comments, and I let her know, she replies by telling me I sound “bitter.”

Because that’s what entitled married cows such as her do – they assume if you have a legitimate complaint against their obnoxious- married- people- attitudes and- presumptive- assumptions about you, they assume it can only come from a place of… wait for it… yes, that’s right, it must be due to bitterness.

And the unspoken assumption is that you, you single woman, must be bitter because you’re single and don’t have a husband.

In their thinking, bitterness could be the only possible reason you are correcting a married woman on your blog about singleness for being obnoxious.

Your anger cannot possibly be due to the married person’s hideous, insulting comments to you or about you or about singleness, no, it must be because you are not married!

If only you were married or in a steady relationship, you would not take umbrage at the married person’s condescending comments about you or your blog – married or engaged people would love to be on the receiving end of your lousy assumptions and comments and take them so well.

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.

Response to Various Cranky Critics Who Have Left Nasty Posts At This Blog From June to August 2014

Response to Various Cranky Critics Who Have Left Nasty Posts At This Blog From Around June to August 2014

If you have even bothered to glance at the heading on this blog, it says,

• this is a blog for me to vent; I seldom permit dissenting views. I don’t debate dissenters.

This disclaimer doesn’t stop cranky people, the occasional troll, or idiot from leaving nasty, vulgar, or negative remarks.

I do not usually read the negative posts that closely. I generally scan the first few lines of a new post, and if I ascertain quickly it’s a troll post, that it contains vitriol, snark, or a rant, I send it to the trash.

In the past two months, I’ve gotten a handful of nasty grams. I sent those posts to the trash can.

Here are summaries of the various nasty grams I have received, and my responses.

In this post, I will be discussing,

• 1. The Bitter Lady
• 2. The Grouchy Be Equally Yoked Lady
• 3. The You’re An Intolerant Homophobe Guy
• 4. The Immature I Am a 40 Year Old Man Who Likes to Pork 20 Year Old Women Lying Creepster Troll

-among others

I Blog For Me, Myself, And I – Not For You. Not to get your approval.

I Blog For Me, Myself, And I – not for you. Not to get your approval.

✭ Pertinent links:

-This blog’s “About Me” page
-This blog’s “Policy on Dissent” page

—- I BLOG FOR ME, NOT YOU —–

I’ve already made note of this in other blog pages, but here it is again:
I use this blog for me.

I blog predominantly for me, not you.

I’m not interested in pleasing other people. I’m not looking to get a large, regular audience with this blog. If I do, okay. But that is not my goal.

I use this blog to vent publicly. I use it as a journal of sorts.

I’m not here to get other people’s approval.

I am not here to get other people’s input on how they think I should blog or express my views about anything.

This is why I don’t appreciate these condescending morons

(note: I don’t mind so much the folks who express concern and sympathy for me who are polite. I am talking about the ones who chew me out and who are condescending)

, who stop by this blog and lecture me on how I may “come across” to other people, or,
(and these are some of the sorts of comments I get in the blog posts by visitors that I delete, and they later leave new posts complaining about being deleted, which I only skim the first sentence, then delete, and block them)…
I don’t appreciate these condescending morons …

who say they think I should change my approach on the blog;

that they will stop following this blog unless I change quality “X” about the blog or my behavior; e.g.,

they object to the language I use on the blog lately (ie, cuss words); or,

they make repeated nutty, crazy, unreasonable, rude demands and threats, such as they will un-follow the blog unless they get my real name (see (Link): this post for more on that); or,

that they are not happy with my “attitude”

If you go back to the blog archives, for the first year or two I had this blog, I was “Little Miss Sunshine and Sweetness.”

If you don’t like the newer version of me and how I blog in 2013 / 2014, go back and read the blog posts from 2010, 2011.

My 2010 – 2011 posts are very genteel, G-rated, and relatively snark-free.

I’ve noticed since becoming more agnostic – oh hell, even when I was a full blown Christian – that many Christians are uncomfortable with snark, sarcasm, brashness, assertiveness, and people (especially WOMEN) who say it like it is (and I’ve admitted many a time to being a woman on this blog, so you know my gender).

Many Christians seem to be more comfortable with Christians (especially females) who never utter a cross, negative word about anything or anyone, and who are sweetness and light all the time about everything.

I didn’t understand that view, or like it, even when I was a complete Christian.

I’ve always had a biting sense of humor and a negative bent to my nature but had to hide it while a Christian because other Christians frown on it, or act uncomfortable about it.

Most Christians are codependent, by the way – that is why many of you Christians are ill at ease with sarcasm, bluntness, directness, assertiveness, and confrontation.

Some of my views on some topics have changed since I first started blogging with this blog in 2010.

People have a tendency to only read newer posts (from 2013 / 2014), or to react to only the ones that they find most offensive.

Once more, let this fact sink in:
I am not blogging for YOU.

I am primarily blogging FOR ME.

I figure if preachers get wind of some of the blog posts here and change their habits from being marriage-centric as a result of seeing my views, that’s great.

If marriage obsessed preachers don’t see the blog at all, or do and yet remain unchanged, oh well, c’est la vie.

But again, I blog primarily FOR ME.

You are only getting a SLICE of my life, views, and my personality on THIS PARTICULAR blog.

Sola Fide – Salvation By Faith Alone – Does Not Necessarily Lead to Sexual Sin or Immorality (re post – and rude guy banned)

Sola Fide – Salvation By Faith Alone – Does Not Necessarily Lead to Sexual Sin or Immorality (re post)

The blog visitor I wrote of earlier, who was wanting to argue with me over salvation by faith alone (I support it, he does not), despite the fact I told him in several posts I would not entertain debate, came back to my blog this evening and left me two or three posts, at least one was quite snotty.

I have banned him from the blog. His original posts still stand, but I trashed the ones from this evening.

I can’t get the idiot to understand that I believe in “Faith Alone” but am still a virgin at age 40+, so obviously, his perspective that “Faith Alone” turns people into sexual sinners is a bunch of crap.

Here’s a copy of the post….

Sola Fide – Salvation By Faith Alone – Does Not Necessarily Lead to Sexual Sin or Immorality

A commentator at this blog left several comments under other threads (such as (Link): here and (Link): here – note: I may be deleting or heavily editing his anti faith alone posts in the future) where he seemingly feels, unless I misunderstood him, that the belief of “salvation by faith alone” leads to, or excuses sexual sin.

The Apostle Paul touched on this topic in the book of Romans:

(Link): Romans 6: 1,2:

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?

This is the same Paul who taught that one is saved by grace through faith alone, not via works or by “right living” ((Link): Galatians 3):

I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?
3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?
4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain?
5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?
6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Here is a copy of my reply to the blog commentator:

You seem to think believing in “salvation by faith alone” is what leads people (Christians specifically?) into sexual sin. I believe in salvation being by faith alone, and I am still a virgin over the age of 40, so it’s obviously not true that “faith alone-ism” necessarily leads to sexual sin.

I find your view on this very insulting. It is usually held by Roman Catholics.

I don’t know if you’re a Catholic or not (perhaps you are a Protestant who believes in “Conditional Security”), but I’ve had in-laws before who are Catholic who hold this same view as yours.

One of them [a Roman Catholic] believes that ‘faith alone’ means that Baptists (of which I am one, or was one) live sleazy, sinful lives because we believe Jesus paid for all our sins [once for all].

Meanwhile, this same Roman Catholic woman thinks that because Catholics reject that view, they are more “holy,” or live “godlier lives,” but her own sons (raised in Catholicism and anti faith alone views) were having sex outside of marriage.

One of these sons of hers used to work in a sex toy store around X-rated material. So don’t tell me that rejecting “faith alone” means “being more godly, pure, and moral,” because it does not.

Follow up: BITTER GUY Replies to ‘It’s Okay To Call A Guy Creepy (article) / Little Sympathy for Ugly Single Guys’

Follow up: Bitter Guy Replies to ‘It’s Okay To Call A Guy Creepy (article) / Little Sympathy for Ugly Single Guys’

Someone calling himself “OffTheCuff” left a comment on my previous post, (Link): “It’s Okay To Call A Guy Creepy (article) / Little Sympathy for Ugly Single Guys.” I only skimmed it so far as to see the “you sound so bitter” phrase in his post and then deleted it. (I did not read the whole remark.)

The funny thing is, I’m not bitter and did not feel bitter when writing that post. I was pointing out in (Link): the last post that the ugly- to- average looking guys who complain on the internet that they can’t get dates, because they assume all women want Brad Pitt look-alikes, sound bitter themselves.

My main point was, though, that such men are hypocritical.

1. The majority of ugly, dweeby, scrawny, nerdy, socially inept, or obese males who complain that they can’t get dates often feel entitled to women who look like movie star Angelia Jolie. They chase after Angelina Jolie clones and get angry when such women expect them to be at Brad-Pitt-level-good-looks.

2. Women have been judged, and rejected, based on their looks for years and years in American culture, so why do men feel they should be immune for being judged by women for their physical appearance?

I also explained in my previous post that I went through the awkward-looking phase in my early teens and was cruelly picked on by males in school, but by my late teens, I lost weight, was wearing make-up and males were flirting with me by that time.

Men of all ages still respond to me on dating sites now, where I have several recent photos of myself on my dating profile.

But, men on dating sites generally only care about my photos, they care only about what I look like and not about my profile, where I list information about myself.

Why? Because all most men care about are a woman’s looks. They care not about my dreams in life, my educational background or anything else.

I’ve heard similar stories from other women on blogs who discuss their experiences on dating sites.

Men judge women for their physical appearance all the time, yet expect women, including very attractive ones, to give them a break in the ‘looks department’ and date them, even if they find the male physically unappealing (or socially clueless, or some combination thereof). It’s pure hypocrisy.

I’m not the one who’s bitter about this.

I signed off on my last post explaining I accepted many years ago that most men are shallow putz wads about physical appearance, so I learned to diet, jog, and look my best – and it worked. Guys began asking me out.

However, the whiny guys I see on the internet will not simply accept the fact that women do want to date good-looking guys.

Instead of going to the gym and working out to develop a nice physique, so they can begin getting dates with these ladies, they complain online about female dating preferences.

They find blog posts like mine and choose to call me names and put me down for relating my personal experiences.
—————–
Related posts this blog:

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

(Link):  Nice Guys Aren’t So Nice After All: Men in the “Friend Zone” Often Have A Hidden Agenda, Say Psychologists (Daily Mail article)

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

(Link):  Dudes, Stop Putting Women in the Girlfriendzone

(Link): Nice Guys – the bitter single men who complain women don’t like nice men

(Link): Atlantic: “The case for abandoning the myth that ‘women aren’t visual.’”

(Link): Women Are Visually Oriented Too – Reminder 1

(Link): Superman, Man Candy -and- Christian Women Are Visual And Enjoy Looking At Built, Hot, Sexy Men

(Link): Women Are Visual And Like Hot Looking Men (Part 1) Joseph in Genesis Was A Stud Muffin

(Link): The Annoying, Weird, Sexist Preoccupation by Christian Males with Female Looks and Sexuality

(Link): Article: Scientists: Why penis size does matter [to women]

(Link): Married Women Engage in Sexual Sin – and most men in denial particularly Christian conservatives

(Link): More ‘Men Are Visual’ Baloney, Discussed at Another Blog

(Link):Conservative Christian Sexist Immature Imbecilic Pressure on Women to Look Pretty and Skinny and to Put Out Sexually

Misogynistic Christian Single Guy Blog – Keeping Singles Single Re Frank Swift of Geek in the Wilderness

Misogynistic Christian Single Guy Blog – Keeping Singles Single | Re: Frank Swift of Geek in the Wilderness Blog

The individual who heads the blog “A Geek in the Wilderness,” who writes under the name “Frank Swift,” laments the situation of singles in the church, but his views on marriage, singleness, and genders are not only contributing to his own lasting singleness, but his are some of the same mindsets the church at large has as well, and which are making marriage for Christians more difficult.

In other words, Mr. Swift is himself supporting the very marriage and prolonged singleness problems he is so upset about.

Before I continue further, the blog in question is located here:

(Link): A Geek in the Wilderness ( http://geeksjourney.com/ ), and again, the guy’s screen name is “Frank Swift.”

The tagline of his blog is

“One geek/nerd hybrid journeys through history and the world in an epic search for truth, justice… and great pizza.”

I like pizza, but I can tell you after exchanging a few posts with this guy, he is not very interested in truth.

Swift does not seem open to having his views about gender roles and women questioned. A guy who is in search of truth would be open to re-examining his views, I would think.

Swift keeps parroting the same unproven, unfounded, unbiblical assumptions about women over and over in his replies to me.

I’ve directed him a few times to the (Link): Christians For Biblical Equality site (see Resources > Free Articles) and a few others, such as (Link): Under Much Grace.

I do credit Swift with initially allowing a few of my posts to stand on his blog (I myself don’t do that too much with this blog, since I use it to vent, not to debate).

I was polite in my initial batch of posts, despite Swift’s insufferable, obnoxious sexism on display. He has since replied to a few of those posts and has injected ad hominem into the replies (more about that below).

Mr. Swift’s blog first caught my attention when I was searching for material about Christian singles.

One of his pages turned up in the results, and it was this one:

(Link): How churches today abandoned the Christian single

Aspects of that page were interesting, but some of his views were troubling, such as this (Link): (Source):

A marriage and family successfully functioning as one cohesive unit provides the skillset needed to run a church as one cohesive unit.

One does not have to be married to have have the skills or competence to “run a church” as “one cohesive unit.”

Some churches have in fact hired un-married men who are in their 30s who successfully ran the churches, though an un-married serving as pastor is very rare, as most churches are heavily biased against unmarried people. But it has happened on occasion, and the un-married were successful in their position.

The Bible does contain commentary along the lines that if a man is married, that he ought to have but one wife and other such qualifications(*), but the Bible does not exclude singles from leadership positions, as Swift believes.
*((Link): What does the “husband of one wife” phrase in 1 Timothy 3:2 mean? Can a divorced man serve as a pastor, elder, or deacon?)

The Bible places singleness on the same level of acceptance to God, and the same level of importance of singleness, as it does marriage, and at some points, the Apostle Paul writes singleness may be preferable to marriage because an unmarried person has more undivided attention than a married person.

None of that is to say that a single who wants to get married is sinning.

There is nothing sinful or selfish about wanting to get married, and other Christians need to stop discouraging and shaming Christians for wanting to get married, by saying things such as, “stop making marriage an idol,” “Jesus is all you need,” and so on, and by refusing to pray for singles, and such.

I explained to this Swift guy in one of my posts on his “Geek in the Wilderness” blog that the church has turned marriage and the nuclear family into an idol (with the “nuclear family” being an invention of 1950s American television programming; it is not quite a “biblical” presentation of family).

I gave Swift Bible verses on his blog where Jesus Christ said that Christians are not to put flesh and blood family before spiritual brothers and sisters in Christ.
(I have many blog pages about this topic, such as these two: (Link): The Bible Does Not Teach Christians to “Focus On The Family” – The Idolization of Family by American Christians (article), and (Link): If the Family Is Central, Christ Isn’t)

This all seems to fall on deaf ears with this guy.

He, like a lot of conservative Christians, continue to make secular feminism into the “boogey man” and the root of all ills in American culture, which it is not.

I am only surprised that Swift did not drag up the other favorite scapegoat and punching bag of evangelicals and conservative Christians: homosexuals, or the legalization of homosexual marriage.

To recap for anyone who is new to this blog: I myself am right wing, vote Republican, am a social conservative (and so I do not support homosexuality). For many years, I was a devout Christian. (I am by no means a left winger who embraces all views of secular feminism or the Democratic Party.) You can read more about my background and views on this blog’s “About Me” page.

Where Mr. Swift got rude, sexist, and very obnoxious with me was in this thread (I have not yet checked to see if he left me comments in the other thread):

(Link): Single ladies, I’m ready to provide, are you ready to cook?

In that thread, and a few others I glanced over, he continually makes all manner of unfounded assumptions about about women in general, such as this quote:

Women likewise are more effective caretakers and nurturers because of the experience of raising their own children…

The Bible simply does not rigidly define gender roles or say that God designed women to be “nurturers” and males “leaders.”

Women have been socialized by secular society, parents, and churches, to be passive, sweet, submissive, cookie bakers; it’s not they these qualities are necessarily intrinsic to women.

I am a woman, but I was always a tom boy growing up. I preferred climbing trees, wearing converse sneakers, and watching Bat Man.

I hated pink clothing, wearing dresses, playing with Barbie dolls, and sitting around quietly as a kid. I wanted to go on adventures and have fun.

I had little interest in taking on Biblical or stereotypical “feminine” roles – which equated to being quiet, passive, sitting still, and playing with Barbie dolls.

People do not neatly fall into gender-defined boxes and patterns, no matter how badly you want them to.

I cited, for Swift, examples from the Bible of women who were ordained by God to lead men and women, to teach men (such as Apostle Junia, Deborah in the Old Testament, etc).

I at first was going to link to Mr. Swift’s page about singleness with a recommendation for it.

However, Swift, who makes himself out to be a Christian single, he is very sexist, Misogynistic, anti-singlehood, rude, condescending, and bitter (really, he is – I know a lot of married Christians try to shut down singles who want to air legitimate grievances by calling them “bitter,” but if you read through this guy’s blog, particularly his comments to me, he comes off as quite bitter).

I’m not sure of Swift’s age, but he seems to be in his early or mid 20s, very little life experience is evidenced, very narrow views of how life and relationships ‘should’ be, or how he thinks women “should” be permeate his thoughts.

Here is the first thread of Swift’s blog where I left several comments last night – initially, all my blog posts on his blog went through instantly, but now he has them set to moderation:

(Link) Single ladies, I’m ready to provide, are you ready to cook?

As I explained in a post on Swift’s page (“Single ladies, I’m ready to provide, are you ready to cook?”), I suppose there is nothing wrong with a man having a personal preference for a more demure, passive type partner…

Nor is it necessarily wrong, I guess, if both a man and a woman fully consent to enter a marriage based on a 1950s “Ward and June Cleaver” model, where the husband works all day and the wife stays at home all day baking bread.

However, these days, that sort of lifestyle is not achievable for most people; it takes two incomes, the man and women working, to pay the bills.

Anyway, my problem with this guy is mostly his tone. He demands that all women every where, or any women who enters his life, live by his very rigid gender roles.

He comes off as being very controlling.

I tried to explain to this guy that if he does not re-evaluate and re-consider his attitudes towards women, he will either

1. remain single a very long time (or forever), or

2. will attract only emotionally damaged women

And usually, in scenario 2, such women may develop severe depression and anxiety, and a divorce by either spouse may be a result.

Women who have depression (and / or anxiety) often cannot function. They cannot perform daily chores or tasks, or so much as get out of bed daily and brush their teeth, let alone dust the furniture, cook, do laundry, etc., because their mental health problems prohibit it.

As people grow older, they change over time: their personality, or desires in life, or goals. This is a FACT of life this guy denied, if I remember right.

The person you are when you are at 40 years old is not the same person you are when you were 20. (I’m not even the same now as I was just three years ago.) This ‘changing with age’ business is especially true FOR WOMEN.

That is, you can start out a marriage when you are 25 years of age to a submissive, passive wife, but as she grows older and gains more life experience, she may change her mind about various things – including you.

She may tire of playing the submissive role and demand a change, or she may just decide to divorce.

In a comment to another woman on his blog, Swift said he is advocating submission for any woman he marries, not slavery or being a doormat.

I told Swift that his views on “submission” read the same to me as sexism or slavery. I honestly did not see much of a difference and still do not.

This guy is so incredibly condescending towards me and other females who visit his blog, he will never get a girlfriend, much less get married.

Christian ‘Married People’ Privilege – Marrieds Think Single Life = Easy / Marrieds and Parents Turn All Topics Into Them And Their Needs / Problems

Christian ‘Married People’ Privilege – Most Marrieds Remain Amazingly Blinded to Christian Discrimination Against Singles Or Write Unmarrieds’ Concerns Off, As Though They Are Nothing Compared to Marriage/ Parenting.

Marrieds and Parents also turn every thing into them, about them, about marriage and their needs/ problems

I sometimes hear left wing people talk about “white privilege” or “male privilege,” and how it blinds white people or males to the true struggles that people of color or females face in American culture.

I’m not left wing myself, but I do kind of see what they’re saying, to a point.

I think there is something similar at work in marriage vs singleness, which I will call “Marriage Privilege.”

Married people, including Christian couples, don’t often notice the discrimination churches and Christian organizations dish out against Christian unmarried people. If they do happen to notice, they don’t care and take no action to rectify it.

I am going to change some details in the following story so as not to expose exactly who was involved and where, but you should get the idea of what went down.

I was at a discussion board where the moderator began a thread discussing how dismally and terribly churches treat unmarried Christians.

The moderator asked for singles to share their woes and tales.

Lo and behold if not even a third of the way or so into the thread when a MARRIED MAN who HAS A KID jumped in to complain how tough marriage and parenting is, and how his single friends just don’t get it.

I shall call him “Oblivious Doofus Guy.”

ODG (Oblivious Doofus Guy) mentioned he totally understands how tough un-married Christians have things, because he did not marry until he was 34 years old.

Even though much of American church culture is aimed at married people and parents, this married guy still shows up to complain about married life and parenting – in a thread for un-married people to discuss their situations.

Leave it to a married person (and parent to boot) to commandeer a thread FOR SINGLES to bitch and moan about how hard married life and parenting is.

Then, on top of that, to complain that his single buddies just don’t get it, and how the single pals don’t want to hang out with him at 7 A.M. when he takes his kid to soccer practice.

(Please click the “read more” link to read the rest of the post)

Liberal Christian Gal Throws Fit Over My Post About Celibacy / Dissent

Dissent on the Christian Pundit Blog

Before I specifically address a message I received from a self-identified liberal Christian woman who was ticked off about my one of my previous posts about sexuality and virginity, I wanted to mention my policy of handling dissent on this blog.

To anyone who visits this blog: I sometimes delete posts by visitors who disagree with me, or who are argumentative or rude.

This is not a blog for debate; that is not its purpose (though I have allowed 2 or 3 posts whose authors disagreed with me to be published in the past, and I replied to them). I use this blog to ‘think aloud’ about things. I am not here to argue with people on this blog.

I have several discussion forums and groups where I work as a moderator, where I regularly allow people who disagree with me to post. I have my hands full with several of those forums and a few other blogs, where I do permit dissent and respond to critics.

I am spread too thin by having to bicker and enforce rules on other blogs, social groups, and sites to want to have to spread myself even thinner by putting in that kind of effort here.

Honestly, when I created this blog about 2 years ago (or three?) I never felt I’d get any followers or many readers. I kind of view this blog as an online journal of mine – not a debate forum.

I want at least one or two blogs where I can post my views without having to debate back and forth and not have to engage with the rude idiots or malcontents one comes across on the internet.

The Message from the Irate, Self- Identified Liberal Christian Female Who Reads The Bible As A Great Big
Allegory And Who Thinks It’s Peachy and Fine For Single Women To Have Sex Outside of Marriage

A few days ago, I received an e-mail notification that I got a new reply to a post on this blog (I think it was a response to the post about how the Church Undervalues Celibacy and Virginity, or it was a reply to a similar post on my blog).

The post was by a self-identified liberal Christian woman, who appeared to be in her 20s or 30s, based on her profile photo.

This liberal woman left a somewhat rude, or at least argumentative, post where she disagreed with my views, and based on her comments, I could tell she has no idea what I believe, because she assumed I hold opinions I do not. She attributed opinions to me that I do not hold.

She clearly had not read my other posts on this blog about my views pertaining to conservative Christianity, sex, marriage, dating, and singleness, and how the church treats people who are hurting and having problems.

I only skimmed her post in part and did not read it in detail, but based on what I remember, here were some of her points (please click the “more” link to read the rest of this post):