American Conservatives, Including Men, are Celebrating the First Female Prime Minister of Italy, But Some of These Same Guys Complain about American Women Having the Right to Vote

American Conservatives, Including Men, are Celebrating the First Female Prime Minister of Italy, But Some of These Same Guys Complain about American Women Having the Right to Vote

Today, I’ve seen headlines go through my Twitter about a woman, Giorgia Meloni, who will be Italy’s first woman Prime Minister – liberal media the world over are disturbed, because Meloni is a conservative.

The reaction of conservative, American men on Twitter has been to take joy in pointing out the hypocrisy of progressive and liberal media or persons for either expressing horror at Meloni’s position or for them not publicizing it or celebrating it at all.

While I agree that yes, liberals and progressives are complete hypocrites about sexism – they will not support conservative women at all – I can’t help but notice the male (and sometimes female) conservative hypocrisy and double standard at play too.

To this day, both conservatives AND progressives lambast (white) women for how they vote in American politics and I’ve see male conservatives even imply they do not believe American women should have the right to vote.

Continue reading “American Conservatives, Including Men, are Celebrating the First Female Prime Minister of Italy, But Some of These Same Guys Complain about American Women Having the Right to Vote”

Woman Says Why She’s Rejecting These ‘Lonely, Single Men’ – also: Male Entitlement In and Out of the Church, Men Who Won’t Take Personal Responsibility for Their Singleness

Woman Says Why She’s Rejecting These ‘Lonely, Single Men’ – also: Male Entitlement In and Out of the Church, Men Who Won’t Take Personal Responsibility for Their Singleness

Below this article, I have a lot of comments, before I resume with providing another link related to this first one:

(Link): Woman says why she’s rejecting these ‘lonely, single men’

Aug 18, 2022
By Jana Hocking, News.com.au

Unless you were hiding under a rock this week, you would have read about an article published on Psychology Today titled “The Rise of Lonely, Single Men.”

It was written by psychologist, Greg Matos, and revealed that dating opportunities for heterosexual men are diminishing as relationship standards rise.

The psychologist explained that women are now only dating men who share the same values, have great communication skills and are emotionally available. Praise the lord!

Toxic men are out, respectful studs are in.

Now first of all, may we get out our violins and play a sad melody for the men who have treated women like absolute rubbish and then realized that they’re now single and alone. How unfair for these poor creatures.

You see, while they were bed-hopping, ghosting, breadcrumbing and doing all sort of mind f–kery to us women folk, we were quietly, and subtly embracing this ‘self love’ culture that started to emerge in TED Talks, TikTok videos, YouTube channels, and various other online forms.

Oprah preached: “If you feel like he is stringing you along, then he probably is. Don’t stay because you think ‘it will get better’. You’ll be mad at yourself a year later for staying when things are not better.”

Continue reading “Woman Says Why She’s Rejecting These ‘Lonely, Single Men’ – also: Male Entitlement In and Out of the Church, Men Who Won’t Take Personal Responsibility for Their Singleness”

Tucker Carlson Has the Audacity to Blame All Women for the Actions of a Male Mass Shooter – Which is not “Based”

Tucker Carlson Has the Audacity to Blame All Women for the Actions of a Male Mass Shooter – Which is not “Based”

Robert Crimo III, the Highland Park (July 4th) mass shooter, is to blame for Robert Crimo III’s actions.

One can possibly argue Crimo’s parents played a role in matters, as they helped him obtain one or  more of his weapons. But in the end scheme of things, Crimo is responsible for Crimo’s choices and Crimo’s actions.

The fact remains that women are not to blame for Robert Crimo III’s shooting spree, where he killed seven individuals at a July 4th (Independence Day holiday, 2022) parade in Illinois.

Contrary to what some liberals have been saying, who’ve been claiming that Crimo was a “MAGA supporter,”
it is not clear at this time what Crimo’s political beliefs are (he was photographed at a Trump rally, but some were saying he mocked Trump supporters, that he was not showing up to the rally to support Trump),
nor is it clear if any political views motivated his shooting spree.

Others found that Crimo followed a lot of Democrats on his social media and voiced some support for Democrat or progressive views. sexismNotBased_Removed

I will include either tweets with videos of the Tucker Carlson segment under discussion and/or embed much farther below, videos from You Tube, where you can see and hear for yourself Carlson blaming not only women for Crimo’s actions, but also, weirdly, video games and several other factors.

Please note that some of the videos or tweets I embed in this post may not necessarily be from sources I agree with on every point. It’s usually left-leaning content providers who will hold guys like Carlson accountable for his unhinged, unfounded sexist comments against women.

I’m a conservative, but I rarely see other conservatives calling out sexism when it’s bandied about by other conservatives.

I have never identified as a feminist, but I do not blame all feminists or feminism for the July 4th shooting.

Story Background / Summaries

Here’s some background and/or descriptions about the situation:

(Link): Tucker Carlson pins Highland Park shooting on ‘lectures from women on male privilege’ while furious Bill O’Reilly attributes atrocity to ‘minority gangs which, like drug gangs and drug crime, you’ll never stop’

(Link): Tucker Carlson Points Finger At Women And Weed For Latest Mass Shooting

(Link): Tucker Finds a Way to Blame Women for Young Male Mass Shootings

July 5, 2022
by William Vaillancourt

On the heels of yet another mass shooting, Tucker Carlson identified what he believes to be one contributing factor in young men using firearms on innocent bystanders: women “lecturing” them about “their so-called privilege.”

Carlson opened his Tuesday show discussing the shooting at a Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, Illinois, allegedly by 21-year-old Robert “Bobby” Crimo.

The Fox News host mentioned how authorities said Crimo had appeared on their radar twice before: in April 2019 after a suicide attempt and a few months later after he threatened to “kill everyone” in his immediate family.

After the second incident, police confiscated knives, a dagger, and a sword from his home. No complaint was filed, and no arrest was made.

[Carlson said:]
“And yet the authorities in their [the male mass shooters] lives—mostly women—never stop lecturing them about their so-called privilege. ‘You’re male, you’re privileged.’” Carlson imitated. “Imagine that. Try to imagine an unhealthier, unhappier life than that. So a lot of young men in America are going nuts. Are you surprised?”
— end excerpts —

No Motive Given As of July 12, But Tucker, Without Evidence, Listed Motives on July 5

It’s dishonest and inaccurate for Tucker Carlson or any other conservative to blame women as a group or feminism or feminists for the shooting.

As to the date of me composing this post – July 12, 2022 – I have not yet seen a motive for the shooting.

Crimo did not mention that “women in authority” drove him to shoot a group of people.

As far as motive, what we do have is this (from July 6, 2022):

Authorities would not go into Crimo’s possible motive but did acknowledge he “had an affinity for the numbers 4 and 7” — which, when reversed, point to the date he carried out the massacre. (Source)

Even if Crimo were to issue a statement to police tomorrow that he hates women and believes that “women in authority” drove him to shoot and kill several people, that still does not mean that he would be correct, that women are culpable, or that police would magically say,

“Why, you’re right! Women are such nags! It’s totally fine that you felt so nagged by women that you murdered seven people. We will set you free instantly, with no charges pressed, you poor, dear victim  you!”

A lot of liberal women have said for years that conservatives or Republicans are waging a “war against women,” and while I think that rhetoric is fairly untrue (though some conservatives and Republicans do, regrettably, adhere to sexist beliefs),
it sure does not help to dispel liberal paranoia about the extent of conservative (or Republican) sexism when a conservative talk host like Tucker Carlson unjustly accuses women as a group (and without citing any evidence) as being to blame for the actions of a male mass shooter.

Continue reading “Tucker Carlson Has the Audacity to Blame All Women for the Actions of a Male Mass Shooter – Which is not “Based””

Men Are Actually Blaming All Women for The Misogynic Progressive ‘Transwoman’ Lunacy – and not crediting feminists who’ve been speaking out on the issue for years – Men Like Rufo and Walsh Don’t Seem to Want to Share the Credit with Women

Men Are Actually Blaming All Women for The Misogynic Progressive ‘Transwoman’ Lunacy – and not crediting feminists who’ve been speaking out on the issue for years – Men Like Rufo and Walsh Don’t Seem to Want to Share the Credit with Women

I am a conservative. I am not a feminist.

I do not support the “woke” agenda, which would include things like denying the biological reality that there are two biological sexes, male and female.

I do not support men who “identify as women” (usually referred to as “transwomen”), especially if they have not undergone “bottom surgery,” being allowed into women’s only spaces, such as women’s prisons, bathrooms, and so forth.

Regardless if some of the wacko gender ideology we see today can be traced back to individual women writers of the 1990s or earlier (who were feminists), not all women can or should be blamed for that in particular, or for today’s out-of-control trans-activism.

Today’s trans activism insanity is, by and large, being carried along by MEN.

There are biological men with autogynephilia (a sexual fetish) and a large, first class case of Narcissism, who are hiding under the fig leaf of Gender Dysphoria to claim, “I’m a woman!,” and to also claim victim status and demand special rights.

That position is being helped along by male and female progressives.

But there are also biological women – of whatever political beliefs – who are opposed to biological men being allowed access into women’s only spaces, and some of them having been speaking out against trans activism going back years now.

And I have no idea what it matters if the numbers are more or less -ie, if there are more woman promoting trans activism or less.

No Studies, Polls, or Stats

One doofus or two who were arguing with me on Twitter earlier today (June 12) were blaming all women, women as a class, with no distinction, and saying the “numbers of women support trans activism outnumber those who speak out against it,” but neither individual cited me or linked me to any studies or polls (reputable or otherwise) to back up these assertions.

Based upon my anecdotal experience, I’ve seen a lot of biological women, and a few men, speaking out against progressive trans activism quite a bit the last few years – on twitter, on blogs, and in online magazine articles.

I’ve personally encountered very few biological women defending trans-insanity, and most of the women I’ve seen are opposed to progressive transgenderism, so I just tweeted back at one of those clowns,
“No, the women who are opposed to it outnumber those who support it.”

I’m sure some women who support leftist trans-activism may exist (there are progressive women (and men) crack pots who also support the quackery that is “anti racism” and “BLM,” after all), but I’ve seen far more speaking out against than in favor.

Some women have been speaking out against trans ideology for years, some for decades.

Ultimately, I’m not sure what difference it makes to argue that there may be more women supporting Trans Lunacy than oppose it… because it’s still unfair and inaccurate to blurt out, to suggest, that “women support it.” No, women are not a monolith on this subject.

As to the women who do oppose Trans Lunacy, some of them have been fighting it for years, before conservative men like Rufo and Walsh jumped on the band wagon.

Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier

One well known speaker and author against trans-insanity is a woman author, Abigail Shrier, who wrote a book about this issue, Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, in 2020, and it was banned from a Irreversible Damage Book Coverfew online book stores for awhile, if I recall correctly.

From a review of Shrier’s book on Psychology Today:

The book posits that a sudden surge in the number of teen girls identifying as trans boys is due not to gender dysphoria or transgenderism but rather to girls with other mental conditions who are mistakenly self-identifying as trans because there is social capital built into marginalized identities.
— end excerpts —

Carlson gave Shrier credit for being among the first to discuss this in the United States (show date; June 14, 2022), see the video in the tweet below:

Men Helped Usher In Trans Activism, Too!

In the United States, we have male Presidents (Obama and Biden), and Governors, (and likely some male Congressmen and Senators) who are pushing for bills or laws to allow biological males who identify as women to be allowed into women’s prisons, locker rooms, and so on.

A small sampling:

(Link):  California Dishing Out Condoms To Female Inmates After Democrat Newsom [who is a man] Forces Them To Live With Men By Gabe Kaminsky

(Link): 20 States Sue Biden Administration For Corrupting Title IX With ‘Gender Identity’ Mumbo Jumbo

(Link): Biden’s [Joe Biden, a man] Title IX Rewrite Could End Women’s Sports, Let Men In Locker Rooms 

(There are also a few male (Republican) governors, such as Stitt and De Santis who are pushing against trans ideology.
But we also have male Democrats, such as Joe Biden and others, futzing around on the definition of “woman” so as to make permissible biological males being legally permitted into women’s bathrooms, sports teams, etc.)

Post Modernism and Gender Ideology

Gender ideology is also part of post-modernism and today’s progressive love of neo-Marxism, which biological men helped to usher in.

Karl Marx, who got this bus rolling, was a man. Marx’s belief in group identity and putting everyone into oppressed classes undergirds a lot of today’s far left’s gender ideology and “woke” politics.

Do I then blame all men of today for the lunacy of progressivism, of the neo-Marxist group identity politics, or say, “men are to blame for Marxism”? No, I don’t. Because that wouldn’t be fair or accurate.

In the past 60 or so years, in the United States, there have been both male AND female authors, intellectuals, and pundits who have helped craft ideas that led to CRT, queer theory, and so on.

So I don’t appreciate the clowns I run into on Twitter blaming all women (women as a group) for the actions or views of SOME women, and for causes that are neither wholly attributed to one sex or the other, such as leftist trans-activism.

All Men: Michael Foucault, Pat Califia, Gayle Rubin, Alfred Kinsey, John Money, Erwin Gohrbandt

Feminist women who dabbled in Gender Ideology over 20 years ago were joined by progressive men who love Marxism, who were opposed to the idea of objective truth, who support group identity politics, and Queer Theory (which men (and some women) had a large hand in, such as Michel Foucault, Pat Califia, and Gayle Rubin – again, those are men).

Even Matt Walsh, in some of his videos and commentary about wacko, leftist Gender Ideology advocates, occasionally name drops MEN who have aided and abetted this queer theory, pro-trans-agenda world view, such as Alfred Kinsey and John Money.

According to the person(s) at this Twitter Account, a man is behind the design of the Transgender “pride” flag, and that man (biological man) is named flagTransPride - CopyRobert Hogge but goes by “Monica Helms.”

Then we have John Money. I believe Walsh has mentioned Dr. John Money a time or two.

(Link): Dr. John Money, Father Of Gender Theory, Was A Pedophilia Apologist

Excerpts:

Would it surprise you to know that the normalization of gender fluidity is rooted in the same ideology as Critical Race Theory? You won’t be surprised once you understand the whole story.
— end —

(Link): John Money: The Pro-Pedophile Pervert Who Invented “Gender”

(Link): John Money

Excerpts:

John William Money (8 July 1921 – 7 July 2006) was a New Zealand psychologist, sexologist and author known for his research into sexual identity and biology of gender.
He was controversial for his conduct towards vulnerable patients, including sexual abuse and endorsing conversion therapy aimed at young children.
He was one of the first researchers to publish theories on the influence of societal constructs of gender on individual formation of gender identity. Money introduced the terms gender identity, gender role and sexual orientation and popularised the term paraphilia.
He spent a considerable amount of his career in the United States.

Recent academic studies have criticized Money’s work in many respects, particularly in regard to his perpetration of the involuntary sex-reassignment of the child David Reimer,[3] his abuse of Reimer and his twin brother (also a child) by forcing them to simulate sex acts that Money photographed,[4] and the adult suicides of both brothers.[4]
— end excerpts —

So, some of the key influential figures leading us down the path to today’s current Trans Insanity are all men:
Michel Foucault, Pat Califia, Gayle Rubin, and John Money.

Continue reading “Men Are Actually Blaming All Women for The Misogynic Progressive ‘Transwoman’ Lunacy – and not crediting feminists who’ve been speaking out on the issue for years – Men Like Rufo and Walsh Don’t Seem to Want to Share the Credit with Women”

Problems With the Article ‘Tony Evans warns Satan attacking biblical manhood; society on ‘precipice’ of disaster’

Problems With the Article ‘Tony Evans warns Satan attacking biblical manhood; society on ‘precipice’ of disaster’

The article I will be addressing in this post:

(Link): Tony Evans warns Satan attacking biblical manhood; society on ‘precipice’ of disaster

Excerpt:

Evans told CP that until manhood is properly defined, culture cannot be saved.
—///—

I am a (Link): former gender complementarian, so I understand the outlook of a Tony Evans and guys like him, and many of the assumptions that are made about culture and gender roles, but these are views that I no longer share.

Gender Role malarky aside, one of my biggest problems with the views of Tony Evans brought forth in this article is that he is of the mindset -like many Christians are- that culture can or should be saved.

He further thinks that teaching Christian gender roles is the way to go about it.

As I’ve stated many times previously in other posts, the Bible says that Jesus Christ alone saves, and he saves on the individual level.

He doesn’t save groups or cultures.

Continue reading “Problems With the Article ‘Tony Evans warns Satan attacking biblical manhood; society on ‘precipice’ of disaster’”

Conservatives Are Rather Inconsistent About Morals and Women’s Sexuality – Regarding: The College That Considers Valentine’s Day Cards A Form of Sexual Harassment

Conservatives Are Rather Inconsistent About Morals and Women’s Sexuality – Regarding: The College That Considers Valentine’s Day Cards A Form of Sexual Harassment

This post contains one or two “adult” words, towards the bottom.


I am conservative. I’ve never been a liberal.

I do sometimes spot troubling contradictions or inconsistencies with other conservatives, however. This is one of those times.

So, I’m glancing at this editorial on a right wing site about liberals at some college campus possibly banning the handing out of Valentine’s Day cards, because they could be considered a form of sexual harassment by some students.

Here’s a link:

(Link): Valentine’s Day cards face ban as ‘sex harassment’

Here are excerpts from that page – I will address the problems I have with this below:

Students at the University of New Orleans should think twice about sending out any Valentine’s Day cards if they don’t want to risk being expelled for sexual harassment, according to a free-speech advocacy group.

Continue reading “Conservatives Are Rather Inconsistent About Morals and Women’s Sexuality – Regarding: The College That Considers Valentine’s Day Cards A Form of Sexual Harassment”

Thoughts on the NRO Essay “Advice For Incels” by Kevin D. Williamson

Thoughts on the NRO Essay “Advice For Incels” by Kevin D. Williamson

About me and this blog:

If you are new to my blog: I have been a conservative my entire life. I’ve never voted Democrat. I was a Republican until a few years ago. I am no longer in any political party.

I sometimes critique secular, left wing feminists on my blog (such as but not limited to (Link): this post and (Link): this one), but there are times when I believe other conservatives get feminists wrong, and feminists are actually correct on some issues.

I was brought up in a traditional values, conservative, Christian family where my parents brought me to Southern Baptist churches as I was growing up, where I was taught to believe in gender complementarianism, which I did for many years, until I finally realized how (Link): wrong and sexist complementarianism is.

Because I grew up as a complementarian, I am quite familiar with what they think and why they think as they do.

My current religious beliefs are somewhat “up in the air,” as I am waffling between being agnostic, (or a deist), and the Christian faith. (Note: I am not an atheist.)

I am by no means anti- Nuclear Family, anti- motherhood, or anti- marriage, though I do posit that many to most conservatives – especially the religious ones – have gone to un-biblical lengths and have turned the Nuclear Family, marriage, natalism, and motherhood and fatherhood into idols which is wrong of them.

— end introduction to me and this blog —

I saw a link to this essay go through my Twitter feed today:

(Link): Advice for Incels by Kevin D. Williamson

On one level, this essay – “Advice for Incels” was okay.

However, I think that while the guy who wrote it has his heart in the right place, I think he gets a lot of things wrong and is naive about how Baptist and conservative Protestant and evangelical churches are for adult singles.

I’ve spent the last several years on this blog covering these topics – I’d encourage Williamson and anyone who read his NRO piece to read the books  (Link): “Singled Out” by Field and Colon and  “Quitting Church” by Christian author Julia Duin for even more information.

Continue reading “Thoughts on the NRO Essay “Advice For Incels” by Kevin D. Williamson”

A Response to the Editorial “America Needs a New Sexual Revolution” by Melissa Mackenzie

A Response to the Editorial “America Needs a New Sexual Revolution” by Melissa Mackenzie

I guess Ms. Mackenzie drank from the Gender Complementarian Kool-Aid, or something like it.

The complementarian world is a world in which one is taught there are only two options concerning women (I know this because (Link): I used to be one myself for many years):

-either be and live as a traditional values person who believes all women are, or should be, passive, dainty, and delicate and should marry young and have children,
or,
-be and live as a bra-burning, man-hating, liberal feminist.

I present a third option, which is hated by some liberals (when I bring it to their attention), and it’s an option that is never even considered by other conservatives, which is as follows:
I am a right wing woman who rejects sexism, and finds fault in both the left and right wing on some women’s issues, but who also sees some merit to some arguments on either side, depending on the topic.

In this blog post, I am commenting upon this editorial on The American Spectator:

 (Link): America Needs a New Sexual Revolution by Melissa Mackenzie

A foundation of the opening of this editorial rests upon a presupposition that, and to paraphrase my understanding of the author’s perspective:

“Everything that is wrong today in regards to culture, sex, marriage, dating, and women, is liberal, secular, FEMINISM, and feminism is EVIL! One can directly trace the downfall of American sexual morality to the feminism of the 1960s!!”

Such thinking is a common trope in about every right wing publication I’ve ever read on these subjects.

To that point, about feminism supposedly being to blame for all of society’s marital or sexual problems, I would ask you to read this off-site post, which is by a Christian (not by a left wing, secular feminist):

(Link): Perhaps Feminism Is Not The Enemy

What I will do here is provide excerpts by MacKenzie then, under her comments, offer my thoughts.

MacKenzie writes (source again):

There’s a coarsening of relationships between men and women, parents and children, and people with each other.

// end MacKenzie quotes ///

I don’t think secular, left wing feminism was the start of the “coarsening of relationships between men and women” but is a response to it.

One can read the Old Testament of the Bible, which dates back several thousand years, to see men raping their own sisters, owning harems of women (in some cases, women having no choice but to be in a harem, or to be a concubine), and men committing adultery. There was no 1960s, American- style feminism around in Biblical days.

Continue reading “A Response to the Editorial “America Needs a New Sexual Revolution” by Melissa Mackenzie”

Author Claims Andrea Tantaros’ Book About How Feminism ‘Made Women Miserable’ Was Ghostwritten by a Man

Author Claims Andrea Tantaros’ Book About How Feminism ‘Made Women Miserable’ Was Ghostwritten by a Man

Judge Won’t Let Andrea Tantaros Keep Secret Her Feminism Book Was Ghostwritten By Man

I wrote a review (or critique) of this book a few months ago. In my review, I noted it was a variation on the old conservative saw to blame feminism for why single women are having a difficult time getting dates or getting married.

I disagree. I lived life as a June Cleaver house-wife type (meaning, though I was single, I very docile, passive, sweet, ladylike) for decades, and I never got married.

Being a conservative ideal of a woman is not a guarantee you’re going to get dates or get married, so my fellow conservatives can kindly stop promoting that view.

So, as it turns out, a man – yes, a man – wrote the “anti feminist” book with Tantaros’ name on it, telling women if they want to get a man and keep one, to ditch their independence, their agency, and behave like doormats.

(Link):  Judge Will Not Allow Former Fox News Host to Conceal Identity of Her Feminism-Bashing Book’s Male Ghostwriter

(Link): Author Claims Andrea Tantaros’ Book About How Feminism ‘Made Women Miserable” Was Ghostwritten by a Man

Excerpts

Former Fox News starlet Andrea Tantaros made a name of herself in the conservative echelons of cable news punditry by (Link): blaming feminists for everything from the decline of marriage to statutory rape.

So when her book Tied Up in Knots: How Getting What We Wanted Made Women Miserable was released last year it seemed par for the course that she would dedicate hundreds of pages to how she— a capable, self-sufficient, feminine anti-feminist— was so much better off than her feminist counterparts.

Continue reading “Author Claims Andrea Tantaros’ Book About How Feminism ‘Made Women Miserable’ Was Ghostwritten by a Man”

Alpha Females Part 4 – From Psychiatrists and Counselors: How and Why Being a Beta Female is Harmful and Damaging to Women

Alpha Females Part 4 – From Psychiatrists and Counselors: How and Why Being a Beta Female is Harmful and Damaging to Women

This commentary will be divided up among a few posts. Here is part 4.

(This post may be edited in the future to re-word things, polish things, add new thoughts or links / For Twitter: #TheAlphaFemalesGuide )

From this series:

Visit Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Part 3B: Response to Venker: Re: Personal Experience

Introduction.

For those new to my blog:

I am a right winger. I was a Republican until recently. I am now a conservative Independent.

I was a conservative Christian for many years (I am no longer sure about what my religious views are), and I (Link): Am A Former Gender Complementarian (someone who believed in and lived out traditional gender roles (what Venker would describe as “feminine” or “beta”), views which are based in large measure on incorrect interpretations and applications about gender in the Bible).

I sometimes agree with secular left wing feminists on some topics, but not always. At times, I disagree with secular and religious left wing feminists and have written several blog posts critiquing some of their views.

This series of blog posts is addressing the dating and relationship advice of author Suzanne Venker, who wrote a book called “The Alpha Female’s Guide to Men & Marriage” which she has lately been marketing online and on TV news shows.

Here is one article by Venker about her relationship views:

(Link, off site):  Society is creating a new crop of alpha women who are unable to love by S. Venker


As many books and articles on the subjects of boundaries, codependency, and even domestic violence explain, when or if a woman exhibits codependent behaviors or attitudes (such as being passive, having an unwillingness to say no to others, doesn’t put her own needs first), she will tend to attract abusive, selfish, or exploitative individuals.

Unfortunately, many of these same codependent traits are considered “feminine” by many conservatives and by Christians (under the teaching of gender complementarianism). Author Venker touts such traits under the heading of “Beta” or “being nice” or as “being feminine” or “being soft.”

While I myself do not agree with every last facet of secular (or even Christian) feminism, they are at least correct in fighting against expecting such behavior from girls and women, because they realize it leaves females open to being exploited, or treated unfairly at jobs or in relationships.

As this Christian-authored piece explains, feminism (not even secular feminism) is entirely bad, wrong, or off-base:

(Link): Perhaps Feminism is Not The Enemy

I also explained in (Link): Part 2 how many conservatives (and Venker herself) misunderstand, wrongly explain, or misunderstand feminism.

As I explained in (Link): Part 3 of this series, I was a “Beta” myself for many years (as was my mother), which is what Venker says women should be, if they hope to marry or have a happy, stress-free, marriage once they marry.

However, being “Beta” does not guarantee that a woman will attract more men, get more dates, or have a happy marriage – again, as I already explained in Part 3.

WHAT THE EXPERTS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT WOMEN BEING BETA

Psychiatrists and therapists have written books and articles explaining how and why taking advice such as Venker’s can lead to problems for women, including in the area of dating and marriage.

Below, I will excerpt content from the books The Disease to Please by psychiatrists Harriet B. Braiker, PhD, and counselor Beverly Engel from the book The Nice Girl Syndrome.

First, here are the relevant portions from Venker’s article on Fox News:

(Link):  Society is creating a new crop of alpha women who are unable to love by S. Venker – on the Fox News site

Today they abound. There are several reasons why, but it’s in large part due to women having been groomed to be leaders rather than to be wives. Simply put, women have become too much like men. They’re too competitive. Too masculine. Too alpha.

That may get them ahead at work. But when it comes to love, it will land them in a ditch.

Every relationship requires a masculine and a feminine energy to thrive. If women want to find peace with men, they must find their feminine…

In essence, being feminine means being nice. It means being soft instead of hard…

…What men want most of all is respect, companionship and sex. If you supply these basics, your husband will do anything for you…

—(end excerpt)—

There, Venker is telling women to deny who they truly are and downplay their personalities, desires, and so on (don’t come on “too strong”), because if they stay as-is, they will repel men, but if they change themselves to make a man happy, they can attract men, or the man they have won’t want to divorce them.

Let’s see what Dr. Braiker has to say about that type of reasoning (spoiler alert: Braiker totally disagrees with Venker).

From the book The Disease to Please:

Page 95:

…If you are the people-pleaser [people-pleaser = Venker’s Beta, Nice, or Feminine] in an unbalanced relationship… you will be forced to deny or suppress your own needs. Inevitably, even the nicest people will become frustrated and angry when their emotional and sexual needs are denied indefinitely.

Healthy relationships that endure are balanced and interdependent. Balanced interdependence means that both partners are aware of and sensitive and responsive to the needs of the other.

—(end excerpt)—

From pages 93-94:

Many people-pleasers [people-pleaser = Beta, Codependent, Nice, or Feminine women] who have used this approach [making a man dependent upon them by doing nice things for him all the time, stifling your own needs, etc., and  using other approaches Venker recommends] sadly discover that manipulating a man into an excessively dependent position – no matter how nice and well-intended your motives – may actually push him into doing the thing you most fear: abandoning you.

—(end excerpt)—

From pages 94 to 95, Braiker gives a case study of a patient of hers named Jennifer who utilized Venker-type methods to hold on to her husband [she always was available to him sexually, she sacrificed her needs to meet his at all times, and sought to “spoil” him].

The result? Jennifer’s husband Ron began having an affair on her with another woman, and later, Jennifer came home one day to find a note of good-bye from her husband, Ron, where he said he was divorcing her for the other woman.

A little later in this same chapter, starting on page 95, Braiker discusses how many career women are what Venker would refer to as ‘Alpha’ in the workplace (confident, competent, assertive, and so forth) but think that to attract or retain a man in their romantic life, that they must behave in what Venker would refer to as a “Beta.”

Braiker explains in this book that this is not so – that acting “Beta” (or “nice” or “feminine” – all which amounts to the same thing, regardless of the terminology used: being a codependent with bad boundaries in practice), causes such women to attract abusive or selfish men. Braiker then spends the rest of the chapter cautioning women from being passive in their romantic life to avoid users, abusers, and narcissists.

Here are a few excerpts, by Braiker (pages 95, 96):

… I have treated many highly successful career women who have entrapped themselves in bad relationships with men by their self-imposed people-pleasing [people-pleasing = being Beta, Nice, Feminine, Codependent] subservience.

A large number of these women who are now at the pinnacle of their professions grew up in the 1950s and 1960s, in an era when femininity and sexual attractiveness still carried with them certain gender stereotypes such as submissiveness, dependency, passivity, and sensitivity.

Today, many of these women, and even a significant number of younger women too, fear that the very traits that account for their success in the workplace – assertiveness, mental toughness, aggressiveness, competitive-ness – become liabilities in their romantic relationships with men.

[Here Braiker inserts the case study of one woman patient who is a CEO]

Many women like my [C.E.O.] patient, harbor misgivings about whether their achievements might boomerang when it comes to relationships with men and come back to haunt them.

…. As a consequence of this dangerous combination [fear of success combined with people-pleasing], they may engage in a range of self-defeating behaviors that can sabotage either their careers or their personal relationships, and often both.

… Some people-pleasing women attempt to resolve the dilemma by splitting their personality traits into two discrete “sides.” They may display their competitive, assertive, and aggressive side at work.

In their personal relationships with men, they may adopt an exaggerated “femininity,” displaying passivity, submissiveness, and compliance. This masquerade, of course, is no solution at all. Rather, it is a recipe for inner conflict, anxiety, identity confusion, and lowered self-esteem.

—(end excerpt)—

Braiker then next, on pages 96-97, offers up the case study of one of her women patients, Helene, who was a successful business woman who was living out what Venker suggests in her book for women to do: be assertive at the job, but be the passive, sweet, sex kitten at home with her mate.

The result of this for Helene? Lots of abuse.

…behind closed doors when they are alone, Bob [Helene’s boyfriend] treats Helene abusively. [Helene has a far more successful career than Bob does, which Bob is aware of.]

Helene defends Bob’s behavior by “understanding” how difficult it is for a man to stand in her shadow.

…Helene realized [via therapy] that she needed to correct some of her own gender stereotypes. Helene believed that by demonstrating her people-pleasing [Beta, nice, feminine] behavior in her personal relationships with men, she was being more feminine and, therefore, more sexually attractive.

[At her place of employment, where she was CEO, Helene tolerated no sexual harassment for herself or for any woman]. However, because of her Disease to Please [being codependent, Beta, nice, and feminine], Helene was actually rewarding a man for treating her abusively behind close doors.

—(end excerpt)—

From page 97:

It is imperative that you recognize how dangerous and self-sabotaging your people-pleasing tendencies with men can become so that you can change the unhealthy dynamic of your relationships. Otherwise, the Disease to Please [being codependent, Beta, nice, and feminine] will serve as a veritable mating call to men who have a perverse need and desire to control nearly every aspect of your behavior. Worse yet, you will allow them to do so.

—(end excerpt)—

Page 98:

Unless you repair the damage by curing the Disease to Please [being codependent, Beta, nice, and feminine]  that produced it, you will limp away from the relationship with the brand of “damaged goods” on your ego. [Then the cycle will repeat itself as you attract yet another abusive, selfish, or jerk boyfriend who mistreats you all over again.]

—(end excerpt)—

As you can see from those excerpts (and there are plenty more in the book), Dr. Braiker strongly warns and advises women against the very traits and attitudes that Venker is telling women in articles, books, and TV appearances that she thinks they should have!

While there are plenty of selfish or abusive men who would enjoy being able to thoroughly control a woman, and a woman who, per Venker’s teaching, willingly goes along with it, a lot of men soon tire of this extreme “feminine” type of woman and dump her.

In her book, starting on page 100, Dr. Braiker discusses a male patient she had once who admitted that he loved to date the sort of women Venker advises women to be, because they were so easy to control. But, the guy soon got tired of dating these passive, wimpy, Beta women.

Here’s what he said:

“…One day, I realized I’m sitting in the boat [of life] all alone. I don’t want the kind of woman who will do anything to please me anymore. It’s boring and lonely. I want a partner who can sit on the boat next to me and keep me company. I want us to please each other without losing all boundaries or identity.”

Another male patient said (page 101):

“I do like to be in control, but I really want someone who will push back. I like steak because it gives me something to chew on. I don’t want to eat pre-chewed baby food. That’s how I wind up feeling about a woman who will give up her own substance just because she’s trying to please me. There’s nothing to chew on; there’s no challenge there at all. I just get bored.”

As Dr. Braiker so succinctly puts it (from page 106):

-There’s nothing wrong with wanting to make a man you love happy or wanting to please him. Just be sure that you’re not pleasing him by hurting yourself in the process.

-Any man who is threatened or feels diminished by your intelligence, achievements, success, or talent is NOT someone with whom you are likely to have a gratifying relationship with anyway. Look elsewhere.

—(end excerpt)—

Earlier in the book starting around page 49, Dr. Braiker discusses a single woman patient she had named Miranda who wants badly to get married. Miranda cannot figure out why she can’t seem to hold on to a man.

Miranda wrongly assumes the way to “catch” a man is to take the sort of advice Venker gives in her relationship book – she tries to be very pleasing and agreeable with every man she dates, she molds herself into whatever type of woman she assumes her current boyfriend of the month likes, and so on.

The result is that all these men eventually become bored with Miranda – and break up with her.

As Braiker describes it in the book (page 50), Miranda puts on the “beta” routine that Venker advises:

So, as soon as Miranda finds herself attracted and interested in a man, she puts herself in a subservient, submissive, position. She lavishes men with attention, adoration, and praise. Miranda believes that to be worthy of a man’s love, she must prove she will always put his needs first.

…The truth is that she [Miranda] cannot offer the one thing a healthy man wants and needs the most: the ability to truly share herself because she knows and values who she is.

—(end excerpt)—

Notice that Miranda’s assumptions on how to attract a man are similar to the tactics Venker puts forward in her Fox news article. And, as Braiker goes on to explain, Miranda was her patient because her “beta” femininity was driving men away, and she could not figure out that it was her very beta-femininity-ness that was at fault.

EXCHANGING AGENCY AND INDEPENDENCE FOR BEING OVER-RELIANT ON A MAN

Continuing with my critique of Venker’s views; more from her article at Fox news:

(Link):  Society is creating a new crop of alpha women who are unable to love by S. Venker – on the Fox News site:

And because I had zero interest in my husband adopting a more feminine role, I set about to become the feminine creature our culture insists women not be.

And here’s what I learned: It’s liberating to be a beta!

I’m an alpha all day long, and it gets tiresome. I concede that I thrive on it; but at the end of the day, I’m spent. Self-reliance is exhausting. Making all the decisions is exhausting. Driving the car, literally or figuratively, is exhausting.

—(end excerpt)—

So, Venker is apparently fine ceding normal adult and personal responsibility to her husband because it makes her life easier. What she’s also sacrificing is her independence, dignity, and agency by doing so.

I take it that Venker is a right winger or conservative: right wingers and conservatives support personal responsibility; they don’t recommend that adults neglect it.

As I explain in an older post, I am a FORMER gender complementarian. Sometimes people on other sites have asked me, “Why do you suppose so many Christian women willingly endure the sexism known as complementarianism?”

One of several reasons so many Christian women remain “stuck” in complementarianism and go along with it is precisely to ride the coat-tails of a husband, because it’s easier going through life with someone taking care of you than it is for you to take care of yourself, by getting a job, taking care of your own car, and so forth.

Christian women are willing to trade off their autonomy, dreams, goals in life, and independence in exchange for male-provided financial stability and having a husband who is like a “father figure” who they can rely on.

In the book of Genesis of the Bible, God, by the way, actually predicted this would happen as a result of sin, when He told Adam and Eve that the woman would desire her husband and turn to the husband – rather than to God.

Ever since, yes, many women have indeed traded off God-reliance (or self-reliance) to depend on a husband for emotional and financial stability. And women like Venker (along with hordes of Christian gender complementarians) are prodding women to keep this up. It’s so sick, and rather tragic.

Women depending on men to this degree – and giving up their identity, needs, and self-hood in the process – is a RESULT of the Fall, a RESULT of sin entering humanity – but Venker and complementarians and other conservatives think this is awesome, healthy, or great for marriages and dating. Sick, sick, sick.

Secular feminism seeks to correct this type of sin that impacts women so strongly (and so this is one aspect of feminism that is good!), ironically.

Secular feminists are trying to free women from this very sin God predicted back in Genesis (and secular feminists – and a smaller number of Christian gender egalitarians – see how damaging it is), but many Christians and conservatives keep trying to cram women back into this same “sin box” and tell them it is “good” for them and for their relationships.

So, Venker finds being responsible and making decisions all day tiring. Well, yes, most people do. But the solution is not to hand over all or most of your personal responsibility to another adult.

Counselor Beverly Engels warns women against this very temptation in her book (Link): The Nice Girl Syndrome.

Engel discusses in the book (pages 212 – 214) that during her early 30s, on a month long trip to Europe, she met a European guy named Jacob. By the time she met this guy, she had been in Europe for a few weeks, was exhausted.

She ends up going to his place, they had sex a time or two, though the second time she didn’t really want to. The guy wasn’t exactly overtly abusive, but she felt she “owed” him sex to be nice to him, since he was now taking care of her. He was making her breakfasts, letting her stay at his home, etc.

For a period of time, due to exhaustion, Engel says she let this Jacob man control her, she was tired of making decisions for herself, she was tired of all the responsibility on this trip, so she was willing to turn the steering wheel over to Jacob – as Venker is asking women to do in their own relationships.

Engel says that is a bad move, and she has regret over her interactions with Jacob to this day. Even though she kept turning the guy down sexually, so long as she stayed at his home, he kept repeatedly bugging her for sex and for more sex. He was super persistent.

Venker’s advice to women boils down to that they infantilize themselves to be more attractive to men. This is bad and dangerous advice.

From page 131 by Engel:

You can’t expect anyone else to take responsibility for your welfare. You are the only one who can take care of you.

The price you pay for looking to someone else to take care of you is dependency, the loss of self, and, ultimately, the inability to control your life.

YOU DON’T WANT TO DATE OR MARRY THE SORT OF MEN VENKER’S ADVICE WILL ATTRACT

From page 45 of Engel’s book:

It used to be that the payoff for being sweet and nice was that one was taken care of and protected by the men and authority figures in one’s life.

Girls and women were perceived as weaker and in need of protection from the “big, bad world,” and boys and men took on the responsibility of making sure that nothing bad happened to them. But those days are gone, along with chivalry and manners.

Most boys and men today do not feel responsible for protecting girls; in fact, many view girls and women as objects to be exploited.

…This doesn’t mean that there aren’t men who like taking on the role of provider and protector. But these men are not necessarily throwbacks to an earlier time – unfortunately, they often take on this role as a way of dominating women. In fact, these men often look for women who are passive, who appear naive and innocent, because such women are easier to control.

–(end excerpt)–

Yes, as you can see, Venker’s advice, if followed, will open you up to appearing very attractive to abusive, selfish, cruel, or self-absorbed men who only want to use you, not care for you or about your needs.

The sorts of men you will attract if you follow Venker’s advice are not the sorts of men you want to date or marry. You want to avoid these guys, not marry them.

I also find this, from Engel’s book, highly pertinent (from page 126), where Engle is discussing a patient she had named Nina:

Nina was painting a picture of a storybook family life – the dutiful wife, the hardworking husband, the kids who were seen but not heard. Or was it? Nina was a young woman who was raised in the 1980s – not the fifties. Something just wasn’t adding up.

After several more sessions and some gentle prodding on my part, Nina finally opened up more about how it really was in her family. As it turned out, it wasn’t so perfect after all.

Yes, her mother was a dutiful wife, but her father was quite demanding. He expected his wife to wait on him hand and foot when he was home, and he was extremely hard to please.

There were many nights when he refused to eat what she [his wife, who was Nina’s mother] had cooked and insisted that she cook something else entirely. He complained if the house wasn’t immaculate and the kids weren’t bathed and dressed up when he got home.

As we continued to explore Nina’s childhood, Nina admitted that it really wasn’t by choice that her mother didn’t have any friends or didn’t go out much. It was at her father’s insistence that Nina’s mother not associate with anyone outside the family.

–(end excerpt)–

If you go by Venker’s marital advice, you may find yourself with a similar dynamic in your marriage that Nina’s mother was in. How many of you married women out there want that sort of loveless, emotionally abusive marriage?

Exchanging your decision-making abilities or duties for a life of ease and simplicity, all so more stress and responsibility falls on your husband, is a lazy, stupid, immature, potentially dangerous thing to do, and it’s actually unfair to your husband. I am dumb-founded that a conservative author any where would recommend that other women do this, or that she does this herself.

I hope this post of mine, with excerpts from books by a psychiatrist and a counselor, both of whom have treated many patients over the years (and hence have way more insight and experience in relationship dynamics than Venker does) clarifies just how terrible, sexist, and harmful relationship advice such as Venker’s is.

If you didn’t want to take my word for it, as (Link): based upon my experience and my mother’s, with how awful it was to utilize Venker-like advice in our own relationships, I hope the insights by professionals (one with a PhD) lends more credence.


I intend on writing a Part 5, if or when I get the time and/or inclination. And then, I think I may finally be done with this series. – Thankfully. This was not something I enjoyed writing all too much.


Related Posts:

(Link):  Alpha Females Part 1 – Nothing New Under the Sun. Conservative Women Keep Issuing Same Sexist, Unhelpful Dating And Marital Advice to Women

(Link):  Alpha Females Part 2 – Defining the Terms – How Anti-Feminists and Complementarians Misrepresent Concepts or Terms

(Link): A Response to Venker: Re: Personal Experience

(Link): Author Claims Andrea Tantaros’ Book About How Feminism ‘Made Women Miserable’ Was Ghostwritten by a Man

(Link): Help! I Think I Made a Terrible Mistake When Helping My Elderly Neighbor (The Codependency, People Pleasing Trap)

(Link): Graduate Man Who Was Unhappy Being Single, Frustrated He Couldn’t Get a Girlfriend, Hooked on Violent Porn, Terrified Women With Instagram ‘Rape List’ In Stalking Campaign

Alpha Females Part 3 – Being a Beta Female Does Not Work, It Won’t Get You Dates, Or Keep Your Marriage in Good Shape

Alpha Females Part 3 – Being a Beta Female Does Not Work, It Won’t Get You Dates Or Keep Your Marriage in Good Shape

This commentary will be divided up among a few posts. Here is part 3.

(This post may be edited in the future to re-word things, polish things, add new thoughts or links)

Visit Part 1. | Part 2 | A Response to Venker: Re: Personal Experience

Part 4

Introduction.

For those new to my blog:

I am a right winger. I was a Republican until recently. I am now a conservative Independent.

I was a conservative Christian for many years (I am no longer sure about what my religious views are), and I (Link): Am A Former Gender Complementarian (someone who believed in and lived out traditional gender roles, views which are based in large measure on incorrect interpretations and applications about gender in the Bible).

I sometimes agree with secular left wing feminists on some topics, but not always. At times, I disagree with secular and religious left wing feminists and have written several blog posts critiquing some of their views.

This series of blog posts is addressing the dating and relationship advice of author Suzanne Venker, who wrote a book called “The Alpha Female’s Guide to Men & Marriage” which she has lately been marketing online and on TV news shows.

Here is one article by Venker about her relationship views:

(Link, off site):  Society is creating a new crop of alpha women who are unable to love by S. Venker


Venker, the author of “Society is creating a new crop of alpha women who are unable to love,” relies on a lot of anecdotal commentary to bolster her arguments in her article on “Fox News” site – I can only assume her book is filled with much of the same nonsense…

BEING A TRADITIONAL FEMALE, WHICH VENKER AND OTHERS BASICALLY EQUATE WITH BEING A DOORMAT, DOES NOT WORK FOR RELATIONSHIPS

I have anecdotal commentary in the other direction based on my own life, that of my mother’s and that of other women, to counter Venker’s arguments.

(Update: Please see (Link): my response to Venker here: she is fine with using her personal life experience in articles or books to sell other women on the notion they should be “Beta.”

However, when I produce examples in this post on MY experience – of how being Beta did not make my relationships better – she dismissed this approach on Twitter. Her using her personal experience to back up her view is acceptable to her, but not when others do the same thing to back up their views.

That is inconsistent. If she can appeal to her personal experience to make a point, so can I).

Here is an excerpt from the page by Venker:

….Indeed, my mother was the quintessential alpha wife. An alpha wife micromanages, delegates and makes most or even all of the decisions. She is, quite simply, the Boss.

— end excerpt–

Yes, I grew up quite the opposite from Venker. My mother was the total opposite of Venker’s.

MY MOTHER

My mother was the very sort of woman Venker advises other women to be. My mother in turn raised me to be like herself, which I was, up until my late 30s or early 40s.

My mother was the sweet, docile, doormat who catered to my father’s every need. My mother was definitely the opposite of “The Boss.”

My mother made home-cooked meals for my father most nights. She did not have a job outside the home.

My mother was the stereotypical womanly woman, passive, non-confrontational, soft-spoken woman that conservatives are forever applauding and pressuring other women to be like.

Continue reading “Alpha Females Part 3 – Being a Beta Female Does Not Work, It Won’t Get You Dates, Or Keep Your Marriage in Good Shape”

Alpha Females Part 2 – Defining the Terms – How Anti-Feminists and Complementarians Misrepresent Concepts or Terms

Alpha Females Part 2 – Defining the Terms – How Anti-Feminists and Complementarians Misrepresent Concepts or Terms

This commentary will be divided up among a few posts. Here is part 2.

(This post may be edited in the future to re-word things, polish things, add new thoughts or links)

More pages in this series:

Visit Part 1. | Part 3 |  A Response to Venker: Re: Personal Experience

Part 4

Introduction.

For those new to my blog:

I am a right winger. I was a Republican until recently. I am now a conservative Independent.

I was a conservative Christian for many years (I am no longer sure about what my religious views are), and I (Link): Am A Former Gender Complementarian (someone who believed in and lived out traditional gender roles, views which are based in large measure on incorrect interpretations and applications about gender in the Bible).

I sometimes agree with secular left wing feminists on some topics, but not always. At times, I disagree with secular and religious left wing feminists and have written several blog posts critiquing some of their views.

This series of blog posts is addressing the dating and relationship advice of author Suzanne Venker, who wrote a book called “The Alpha Female’s Guide to Men & Marriage” which she has lately been marketing online and on TV news shows.

Here is one article by Venker about her relationship views:

(Link, off site):  Society is creating a new crop of alpha women who are unable to love by S. Venker


Venker, like many conservative authors, conflate the word or concept of “feminine” (and “nice“) with terms, behaviors, or concepts, such as, but not limited to, being passive, quiet, demure, agreeable, docile, and “being a doormat.”

I have no doubt that Venker, and women like her, would likely reject that she is asking women to be doormats – but that is precisely what she is doing when she asks women, as she does in the articles I have read, to give up certain behaviors, especially if those behaviors are part and parcel of a normal, healthy adult’s boundaries and identity.

And Venker is insisting women do these very damaging things, insisting that they inflict damage on themselves, change themselves, make themselves smaller, all for the goal of capturing a man while single, or to keeping one happy while married. This is most definitely a throw back to 1950s America and earlier.

We’re in 2017, Venker, please join us here.

By the way, the type of man who needs a woman to repress her fierce nature, true views, or her voice and needs, to “be happy” in a relationship, and not feel like he’s being bossed around, are usually highly insecure or selfish men. Such men are not worth dating or marrying or trying to cajole or placate in the first place.

Many Conservatives further conflate the term “feminine” with women refusing to get their own needs met, and with always putting a man’s needs before their own (or the needs of children or other women ahead of their own).

Being feminine is defined as, or thought of, or confused by many conservatives and with most complementarians, with being a 1950s television show June Cleaver housewife, as though that is the one and only appropriate way for a woman to be.

In a nutshell, conservatives (this would include Christian gender complementarians) confuse “being feminine,” or mistake “being feminine,” with Being Codependent.

Codependency is not healthy for girls, women, or for their relationships.

However, codependent behaviors and attitudes are applauded and expected in girls and women by much of culture (certainly by most conservatives), and complementarian Christians often mistakenly assume that God designed girls and women to be codependents. This is so, even though the Bible through-out warns against anyone, male or female, being codependent.

The word “nice” is also often confused by a lot of people, certainly by complementarians and by some conservatives, with codependency.

When someone is “nice,” this generally means she will exhibit codependent traits.

She will not be assertive and stand up for herself or insist on getting her own needs met, but will go through life doing such things as quietly enduring suffering as boyfriends cheat on her repeatedly, co-workers take advantage of her on the job, or a husband strikes her with his fist.

Continue reading “Alpha Females Part 2 – Defining the Terms – How Anti-Feminists and Complementarians Misrepresent Concepts or Terms”