Pathologies of Victimhood by R. Gunderman – The Danger of Victimhood Mentality

Pathologies of Victimhood by R. Gunderman – The Dangers of Victimhood Mentality

I wanted to explain a few things before I paste in excerpts from the article about victimhood by Gunderman, so nobody will misunderstand my views upfront.

I do think there are actual victims out there in life, including in the Christian church context. I am not denying that.

I recognize that sometimes painful or unfair things happen to all of us in life, and sometimes those painful things are due to other people’s cruelty, incompetence, negligence, or sins against us, and not due to any personal moral failings or choices we make.

Sometimes bad things happen to good people through no fault of those people. One can be more sinned against than sinner.

A few years ago, there was a guy on Twitter with several accounts (he seemed to be a Christian), all of which were disgustingly used to mock victims of church abuse or of sexual abuse whose churches tried to cover up the abuse.

I think he later deleted these accounts, or his accounts received so many complaints from others that Twitter deleted them all.

One of his Twitter accounts used the name “Victim Princess,” as if to suggest that any and all women who spoke out against abuse they received by their churches or by Christians was nothing but entitled, petty whining with no merit. I was appalled by his account.

This guy would do things like actually tweet rude or nasty comments at Christian women on Twitter who discussed how their church covered up their abuse by other church members.

Politically, I am a conservative, and I do not agree with the vast majority of liberal or progressive “woke,” intersectional identity politics, which is largely based on victimhood mentality.

In progressive identity politics, different identity groups end up competing for “who is the most oppressed and biggest victim in life,” which creates (not solves) all sorts of problems.

However, while I do think that the “woke” go over-board with their grievance culture mentality, that does not mean that people who complain about having been hurt in life are always lying, exaggerating, or trying to get special accommodations.

Out of Knee Jerk Dislike of Wokeness, Among Other Factors, Sadly, Too Often, Too Many Conservatives Minimize Actual Abuse

While some progressives over-play the “victim card” to exploit and manipulate others, it is still wrong for conservatives to deny, minimize, or to reject altogether that churches do usually cover up sexual abuse in their midst or by their members.

It is wrong for conservatives to fail to acknowledge the reality that most pastors and churches do in fact fail domestic abuse victims and constantly enable abusers.

I do think that most churches are insensitive and incompetent at handling abuse among their members, and that should change.

There is such a thing as a victim. People can be exploited, hurt, and abused by other people – that is not something that “woke” liberals and progressives are making up.

I’m a conservative who has been taken advantage of and bullied through my life by school mates, my ex fiance, siblings, co-workers on jobs, etc., and this through no fault of my own.

Victims do actually exist.

Conservatives can and have been abused and mistreated on an individual and group level, whether by liberal and progressive persons and policies, or by their spouses or bosses on jobs.

At one time or another, we’ve all been bullied, abused, harassed, exploited, or on the receiving end of rude or cutting comments, regardless of our identity or political beliefs.

It is therefore unrealistic and cruel for conservatives to act like any and every person who claims victim status is a sensitive snowflake or is lying about it.

Flip Side of Coin: People Who Choose to Stay in Victimhood Status (yes, it’s ultimately a choice), Refuse to Move Forward

However, I have seen people, and groups of people, who – whether they are actual victims or not – wallow in victimhood status and victimhood mentality, and this is not acceptable, either.

Some of those still participating in the “exvangelical” (ex-evangelical) tag over on Twitter in 2022, which has been going on for several years now, are one example of this.

I’ve seen so many people, under that “exvangelical” tag,  as well as non-ex-evangelical people I once befriended online,
or people (including family members I’ve had, real life friends and co-workers) who may have been honestly victimized and wounded in childhood or adulthood, but they remain “stuck” in their rage, anger, and hurt – they still think of themselves as victims, and they want to be viewed as victims.

They want to be endlessly coddled and validated.

These are people who are very resistant to, or who refuse to take, the only avenue out of the pain, regret, anger, and disappointment and into joy, peace, and happiness – which includes, after a period of grieving and anger (that comes to an end and does not go on indefinitely),

  • accepting, once for all, what happened to them,
    realizing that remaining focused on external causes and other people (ie, their abuser or abusive church) is keeping them “stuck,”
  • to make a deliberate decision at some point to move forward, whether they “feel like it” or not
    (i.e., to no longer stew in anger, to ruminate, stew in past wrongs done against them, to dwell on how life is unfair, to dwell upon the idea they are a good person who didn’t deserve the abuse, etc),
  • to realize in order to change their life for the better, they will have to look inwards,
    which will allow them to get to the next healing point…
  • take personal responsibility for their life, healing,
    and realize if you want your life to change,
    you will have to get active and make changes yourself
    – sitting around all day doing things like watching TV or complaining to people on social media about how life, your former church, God, or your abuser, treated you so unfairly
    (even if any and all those things are in fact true, ie, you WERE treated horribly and unfairly)
    – won’t ultimately help you in the long run, it won’t make the necessary changes;
    complaining frequently, and receiving validation that, yes, what happened to you was horrible and wrong, and yes, you were a victim who didn’t deserve abuse, will only offer temporary emotional relief but will not produce long lasting inner peace and happiness

Stewing in anger, hurt, and regret and enjoying or wanting to receive validation that one did not deserve to be abused, is all but a step in the overall journey of healing.
It is the first step… but too many victims want to stay in Step One forever and ever, rather than moving through the rest of the steps.

Yes, there should be time limits on how long you are angry, ruminating, and upset and wanting to receive validation – a lot of therapists and victims (and former victims) get upset when this view point is stated, but it’s true.

Maybe that time limit is different for each victim and should not be rushed – which is fine.

HOWEVER, I do not support any person staying mired in “victimhood land” perpetually.

Staying in step one – never getting over or past the anger and hurt, refusing to let go or from even considering to do so, being addicted to external validation like it’s a drug one craves and needs – is one huge component of what keeps people trapped in depression, anger, pain, and from enjoying the rest of their life.

If you feel perpetually wounded, hurt, or angry, as long as you keep shifting blame towards those outside you (even if yes, those others deserve that blame), as long as you continue to dwell on being angry at your abuser, at God, life circumstances, or former churches that treated you like trash, you’ll never be able to move on and enjoy life again.

You have to look inwards in order to move forward, and that is a choice one has to make, because it won’t instantaneously happen.

Furthermore, your emotions will never magically change on their own; you will never “feel” like getting up, making changes, and moving forward. It’s a matter or choice and self discipline.

So if your mindset is, “I will make changes and move on when I feel like it, when my emotions change,” that is never going to happen.

Moving on is more a matter of will.

While I do think there are actual victims out there (and anti-woke conservatives need to be sensitive to these persons),
I’m also aware of legitimate victims who cannot or who refuse to move on,

-and there are persons with Covert or Vulnerable Narcissism (a personality disorder – more about that on this blog (Link): here and (Link): here), a hallmark of which is holding a life-long self-pitying, victimhood mentality – these people, of their own accord, are mired in depression and misery of their own making, because they refuse to look inwards and take personal responsibility.

Covert Narcissists, for one, prefer to point the finger of blame for their misery at their family of origin, God, and / or their former church, ex-spouses, and so on. They never want to look at how their attitudes or actions keep them in a limited, unhappy situation.

Sorry for that very long intro, but I didn’t want anyone to get to the following link and excerpts and think by posting it that I am in denial that yes, at times in life, sometimes people have legitimate pain and grievances and can be honest to goodness victims.

I do believe there are honest- to- goodness victims out there and that these victims deserve compassion, empathy, and justice,
but – however –
I am also aware that, unfortunately, some people, whether legitimate victim or not, will milk and exploit a “victim” label to lash out at others, to demand special treatment (at the expense of others), and that  clinging to a “victim” identity and view of themselves will cause them to remain stuck in unhappiness.

I have more commentary below this link with excerpts:

Pathologies of Victimhood – the Essay

(Link): Pathologies of Victimhood by R. Gunderman – Victimhood Mentality

Excerpts:

by Richard Gunderman
November 13, 2022

[Piece opens by discussing the late Sacheen Littlefeather, who claimed to be a Native American but who was actually of Mexican descent. She wanted to be viewed as a Native American to depict herself as an undertrodden member of a victim class.
As someone who actually is part Native American, I don’t view myself as a victim, so I find her ploy strange]

…Everyone has experienced genuine victimization at some point in their lives. Some have been the victims of political persecution and violent assault, while others have suffered lesser slights, such as bullying, verbal insults, and interruptions when speaking.

Most of us have also experienced situations where presumed victimhood stemmed from a mistaken assumption—for example, a driver who “cut off” a fellow motorist by abruptly changing lanes might appear to harbor malicious intent, but it might turn out that he was merely attempting to get to the hospital as quickly as possible to be with an ailing loved one.

Some among us, however, have a habit of adopting a posture of victimhood too easily and too often, a tendency that can damage communities, interpersonal relationships, and supposed victims themselves.

Continue reading “Pathologies of Victimhood by R. Gunderman – The Danger of Victimhood Mentality”

Experts Can Sometimes Be Wrong On Their Topics of Expertise, and Experts Sometimes Disagree with Other Experts in the Same Field – It’s Okay To Disagree with Experts

Experts Can Sometimes Be Wrong On Their Topics of Expertise, and Experts Sometimes Disagree with Other Experts in the Same Field – It’s Okay To Disagree with Experts

People or organizations who are regarded as being experts in one field or another can be incorrect at times; therefore, one should not uncritically accept anything and everything “experts” have to say.

Sometimes, experts disagree with other experts in their field on the same topic.

When such situations arise, which expert should I believe, Expert 1 or Expert 2? And who is to say?

If you say I should listen to Expert 2 on topic Z and ignore Expert 1, why should I take your word for it?

What makes you the final arbiter on who is right or wrong on an issue, and why should I automatically bow the knee to what Group X says on Topic Z, just because you believe that Group X are experts or that Group X are even generally regarded by others as being experts?

One has to use critical thinking as one goes through life.

I do respect giving some amount of credence to people who have higher education and/or life experience regarding a topic, so I am by no means an advocate for applauding ignorance or for totally ignoring and disregarding what “experts” have to say on whatever subject matter they have chosen to specialize in.

Experts Sometimes Have Political (or other) Agendas and Will Use Their Platform and “Expert” Credentials to Lie About, Distort, or Omit Facts

I am not opposed to taking into consideration what so-called “experts” on a topic have to say, but I’m old enough, with a college degree and enough life experience accumulated, to know that sometimes experts are wrong – and sometimes, experts have agendas.

An example or two here:

Covid-19 Virus

Progressives and liberals often slant scientific news and findings to bend to the will of the Democrats and progressive values and causes: Covid is a good example of this.

Progressives have politicized science and medicine to determine how and who should wear masks, should schools be closed and for how long, who should be vaccinated (they press even those who are not likely to get or die from Covid to get vaccinated).

Continue reading “Experts Can Sometimes Be Wrong On Their Topics of Expertise, and Experts Sometimes Disagree with Other Experts in the Same Field – It’s Okay To Disagree with Experts”

The Obnoxious Abuse Survivor Community Is Targeting Julie Roys Again – this time begun by R L Stollar

The Obnoxious Abuse Survivor Community Is Targeting Julie Roys Again – this time the witch hunt was begun by R L Stollar

The “abuse survivor community” has taken their pitchforks out again, and again their pitchforks and torches are for journalist Julie Roys.

This time, the bullying is being carried out by a R L Stollar, a name I’ve seen on twitter off and on in the last few years.

I believe he originally began speaking out against harms caused by Christian homeschooling? Good on him for that (I mean that, that was not snark).

Beyond that, though, I’m not familiar with Stollar. He may have even tweeted a few things in the past I saw shared by others I follow on Twitter that I agreed with.

To Julie Anne (“Defend the Sheep” on twitter) – why are you  participating in this continued pile on?

(Edit: I believe Julie Anne “Liked” some of the comments in that thread, or I saw her share it on her Twitter account, which is how I became aware of it in the first place)

Why are you, Julie Anne, continuing to associate with people who behave this way?
I’m sorry if you feel that Roys did not credit you or friends of yours or whatever on older reportage she did (which she tried to discuss with you), but what is the deal with cozying up to the people singling her out every few weeks?

Anyway. Roys is being bullied online again, and this time it was started by Stollar.

Yes, I said “again” – see (Link): my previous post about this weird, disturbing anti-Roys obsession from the Amy Smiths, Ashley Easters, and other so-called abuse survivor advocates.

If you take note of this obnoxious behavior, as I did, (that is, noting their bullying and mob mentality where they target someone), some of them will erroneously misconstrue you as being a “Julie Roys Stan,” or use that as an ad hominem against you (see embedded tweets below for more on that).

Birth Control Movie

Now, the “abuse survivor community” is targeting Roys for having once appeared in a several years old (conservative created, I believe) movie about birth control and the sexual revolution.

I’ve not seen the movie they are referring to, but I did watch and listen to a clip of Roys presumably from the film (that clip located in a tweet by someone else here), and the comments Roys made were pretty conventional.

There was  nothing “far out” there by Roys in that clip, not unless, I suppose, you’re operating from a faulty, far left liberal paradigm, in which case pointing out that sexual behaviors with little- to- no boundaries can result in things like disease or other harmful ramifications will sound judgmental, fuddy duddy, and stodgy.

Speaking of which:

(Link): Monkeypox virus could become entrenched as new STD in the US – via ABC News (warning: auto-playing video file with audio on that page)

Excerpts:

The spread of monkeypox in the U.S. could represent the dawn of a new sexually transmitted disease, though some health officials say the virus that causes pimple-like bumps might yet be contained before it gets firmly established

By Mike Stobbe AP Medical Writer
July 22, 2022

… So far, more than 2,800 U.S. cases have been reported as part of an international outbreak that emerged two months ago. About 99% have been men who reported having sex with other men, health officials say.
— end excerpts —

Secular Criticisms of Birth Control and the Sexual Revolution

In the past year, a few secular books criticizing the consequences of the sexual revolution (including the role of the advent of birth control pills) have been published
(which I’ve blogged about here (Where the Sexual Revolution Went Wrong by Maria Albano) and here (The Sexual Revolution Has Backfired on Women by S. Moore),
so it’s not only those evangelicals all you hipster “Exvangelicals” despise pointing out the flaws and dangers with no-holds-barred sexual behavior.

In the past few years, more and more liberals and feminists have been speaking out about the excesses and harms of loose sexual behavior; these are just a couple of examples on my blog:

(Link): Why Sex-Positive Feminism is Falling Out of Fashion by S. Greenberg – excerpts via New York Times

(Link): Did Hell Freeze Over?: Liberal Rag Promotes Idea that Celibacy is Acceptable, and a Valid Life Choice / Re: 2016 Study Says Millennials Aren’t Having Much Sex

Progressives / Abuse Advocates Define Christianity to = Democrat Party, Progressive Values and Views

Many of the abuse advocates under consideration in this blog post I am discussing are politically driven (or some have left-leaning sympathies).

They conflate Christianity with leftism, progressive views, causes, and the Democratic Party, and reject anyone who doesn’t agree with all their socio-political views.

Here is my reaction to what got the ball rolling (tweet link – my comment – and here is a link to the original R L Stollar comment I was replying to):

Link to Tweet embedded below.

So this Stollar guy initially did a tweet with a link to this page (also linked to below, with excerpt) at Right Wing Watch – of course he did.

Does Stollar ever follow sites with names like “Left Wing Watch” (i.e., any accounts that are critical of progressive ideology?) – probably not.

Continue reading “The Obnoxious Abuse Survivor Community Is Targeting Julie Roys Again – this time begun by R L Stollar”

Mischaracterizing or Misunderstanding Codependency (Re: Sexual Betrayal, and Julie Roys Book) – Christian Abuse Survivor Community On A Witch Hunt – Introduction

Mischaracterizing or Misunderstanding Codependency (Re: Sexual Betrayal, and Julie Roys Book) – Christian Abuse Survivor Community On A Witch Hunt – Introduction


Work on this post first began in April 2022, or maybe early May 2022. As I wrap this up, today’s date is May 24, 2022.


Introduction

Ever since Christian journalist Julie Roys began publishing reportage of domestic abuse cover ups, or child sex abuse cover ups, by John MacArthur and his church (such as this one), various JMac (John MacArthur) defenders have come out of the wood-work to dig up any dirt on Julie Roys that they can (these people are supposed to be Christians but behave as though they’re in a JMac cult, where JMac is their cult leader).

As for me, JMac is one of those Christian guys whose opinions I occasionally agree with, but I sometimes disagree with him, depending on the topic.

Based on a few of the tweets I’ve seen by Roys over the past couple of years, I don’t think she and I share the same political views – well, I suspect that is so, at least. I’m not 100% sure.

When I politely tweeted minor disagreements with Roys in the past on political related topics, Roys did not block or mute me.

It does look to me as though JMac (John MacArthur) and his church have grossly mishandled or covered up abuse in the church going back decades, which is wrong – his Fan Boys need to recognize that, own up to it, and stop defending JMac on these points and stop harassing Julie Roys, or whomever else, for merely reporting on these things.

At any rate, Julie Roys has a site where she sometimes publishes articles about church- or Christian- related topics. Some of them involve coverage of church sex abuse scandals and so forth, and I’ve followed her Twitter account for months to keep up with church related news stories.

Beyond that, I am not familiar with Roys, I’ve never met her in real life or spoken to her by DM or by phone.(*)

The fact that Roys reports on church scandals gets some Christians very upset and angry with her, and they harass her online.

It looks like Roys wrote a book, with another woman named Kay Arthur, entitled “Redeeming the Feminine Soul: God’s Surprising Vision for Womanhood,” and it was published in 2017. 

Digging Up Dirt

People who are upset with Roys for exposing JMac’s disgusting sexism and incompetence at dealing with abusers at his church caused these wacked-out, enraged, JMac Fan Boys (and maybe some James MacDonald fan boys) to dig up any perceived dirt on Roys that they could to try to demonize or discount her so the public will disregard anything she publishes about MacArthur.

(The JMac Fans are too dumb to realize pointing out any flaws with Roys still doesn’t invalidate her reports of JMac – her reporting on JMac can remain true even if one can discover something supposedly unsavory about her or her past behavior).

So the JMac Fan Club came across this “Redeeming the Feminine Soul”  book Roys wrote years ago, and they began sharing excerpts of it on Twitter about a month ago.

At the time, I read excepts from that Roys book that some of these Fan Boys had scanned and posted to Twitter.

How creepy is it, by the way, that these church boys are such ass-kissers of a pastor that they felt the urge to go combing through anything Julie Roys has ever said, published, or done, all so they could find something – anything – to pounce on her with – and the abuse survivor community ate it up, too. Also weird and disturbing.

(This is also what the woke left usually does, goes digging around for ten or twenty year old tweets or articles to use to harass someone today.)

So desperate are the fan boys of some of the churches or pastors that the Roys site has published exposes on, one of them seems to have fabricated some more accusations against Roys, posted it to You Tube, where it was then picked up and shared by Roys haters and over-zealous “abuse survivor advocates” (but then, I repeat myself) on Twitter.

Roys later released a rebuttal to the video, which you can read here:

(Link): Opinion: Former Harvest Volunteer Publishes Falsehoods; People Quick to Retweet

From that page:
(and this is the first time I’ve read past the first fourth of the page when I first glanced it over weeks ago, so… wow – Amy Smith’s, Ashley Easter’s, and their ‘abuse victim advocates’ pals’ obsession with, and vendetta against, Roys is worse than I first realized – I have more to say about this below):

Survivor advocates spread unsubstantiated rumors
(by Julie Roys – excerpts)

… But what’s most disheartening about Engleman’s video isn’t the video itself. Engleman has been producing angry, misleading videos for some time. Most people familiar with what happened at Harvest know to disregard them.

What’s disheartening is how a new audience is eagerly spreading Engleman’s rumors without verifying what he says. And people you’d expect to be wary of deceptive troll accounts are instead retweeting them.

For example, Amy Smith, an abuse survivor advocate, on Wednesday retweeted a tweet from an account titled “NOT Julie Roys.” The retweet advertised a “bombshell torching of Julie Roys” and linked to Engleman’s video.

[Roys includes screen shots on the page]

This is the same troll account that attacked me relentlessly for reporting child abuse coverup by John MacArthur and Grace Community Church.

 [More embedded tweets on the page by Roys haters]

The account also has labeled the survivor community “#VictimhoodCulture” and attacked Lori Anne Thompson with names I won’t repeat. This seems a strange bedfellow for an abuse survivor advocate.

Yet Smith has also been retweeting Protestia and David Morrill tweets, which is bizarre given those accounts’ track record for misogyny, sensationalism, and half-truths.
Morrill has similarly ridiculed the survivor community with the “VictimhoodCulture” hashtag, and does disgusting things like mock a racial trauma counselor for his lisp.

Smith’s embrace of these fringe and hateful voices is concerning.

Smith also published a blog Friday with Engleman’s video and leading questions.

Similarly, Ashley Easter, another victim advocate, retweeted Engleman’s allegations Wednesday night.

In response to Easter’s tweet, I tweeted information showing that Engleman’s allegations had been debunked by Rob Williams and Ryan Mahoney. I also offered to provide Easter with Williams’ email so she could talk to him herself.

Easter never asked for Williams’ email, but instead defended her right to “post opinions I think are interesting.”
— end excerpts from Roy’s page —

Some of the scanned material from Roy’s book that JMac fans posted involved Roys’ discussion of how, when she was in her early 30s and was a youth ministry leader at her church, she attempted to help a 17 or 18 year old troubled teen in her church class whom she calls “Sarah” in the book.

(I assume that “Sarah” is a fabricated name. Roys does not list a last name in the excerpts I saw. In other words, and I could be mistaken – but it looks like Roys kept “Sarah” anonymous,
so why some of Roys critics online said it was wrong for Roys to divulge some of Sarah’s personal details in this book was strange to me.
Nobody outside of Roys and Sarah herself, (if Sarah even reads the book), and possibly Sarah’s mother, will ever know who “Sarah” really is, so what huge difference does it make if Roys shared some personal details about Sarah in this book?
I personally have no idea who Sarah is, as the author did not give out Sarah’s last name, and I don’t think “Sarah” is even her true first name but is a pseudonym.)

So, this all begins with outraged Fan Boys of preacher JMac (John MacArthur) bringing this book up to attack Roys over, to attack Roys with, since they are angry with her for exposing JMac for the (Link): sexist, (Link): abuser-coddling hack he is.

And soon enough, if my understanding of events is correct and in proper chronological order, the usual “abuse survivor advocates” I have seen on Twitter for years (among these, I would include Ashley Easter and Amy Smith of the “Watchkeep” blog) – and others  – jumped in to the fray to essentially start hinting or depicting Roys as a groomer who (sexually, or spiritually) intentionally, maliciously, preys on 17 year old teen girls.

I think that is a very, very uncharitable and inaccurate way of filtering the whole thing.

Let me pause here to say that while I have generally supported and agreed with a lot of the work the abuse survivor advocates have done in years past, I at times, on occasion, do disagree with them on some topics.

Furthermore, I think they sometimes have over-reacted and have gone over-board – in regards to things and persons such as, but not limited to, Anna Duggar (married to pedophile Josh), ex-Christian Joshua Harris, and others – in how they react to or treat people they suspect of protecting or enabling abusers.

I’ve never been comfortable with their behavior in those areas, at times, and I think in regards to Julie Roys, they’re doing the same thing to Roys.

Continue reading “Mischaracterizing or Misunderstanding Codependency (Re: Sexual Betrayal, and Julie Roys Book) – Christian Abuse Survivor Community On A Witch Hunt – Introduction”

Christian Gender Complementarians and Far Left Woke Progressives and Transactivists – What They Have in Common

Christian Gender Complementarians and Far Left Woke Progressives and Transactivists – What They Have in Common

There are a few things Christian gender complementarians have in common with the following: the woke; progressives; social justice warriors; anti-Trumpers; exvangelicals (ex evangelicals); transactivists; critical theory advocates; BLM; Antifa, and anti-racists.

I don’t want to get into all the similarities I see among these seemingly- at- first- glance- totally- in- opposition groups, but one or two I did want to mention for now:

Both the Christian complementarians and the Progressives participate in “identity politics.” You’re not allowed to be an individual.

Complementarians divide people into the groups of “men” and “women,” and then ascribe gender stereotypes to both groups. They believe that all women are, or should be, passive, non-confrontational, and docile and enjoy crocheting tea cozies, for example.

If you’re a woman who is not passive, docile, or who does not enjoy knitting tea cozies and has no desire to do so, they either ignore you, or other types of complementarians may insult you or question your fealty to Jesus, the Bible, and the nuclear family.

The progressives, of course, put everybody into groups and then in sub-groups; the progressives will not only divide people up by biological sex, for instance, but if you are a “person of color” AND a woman, you’re now in a sub-group.

The progressives will then try to determine, via “intersectionality,” which group or sub-group is the “most” oppressed, and which ever group is deemed most victimized gets all the cookies (devotion, protection, attention, energy).

Members of these groups, who are declared to be most marginalized, are given carte blanche permission by woke liberals to treat other groups terribly, and to stomp all over other groups’ needs, rights, and concerns (one example of this on my blog).

Women Are Not Allowed to Have Their Own Opinions On Either Side, Christian Complementarian OR Progressive

Christian gender complementarians and woke, far left liberals (including transactivists, BLM supporters, and even a lot of progressive Exvangelical, anti-Trump persons, and some abuse survivor advocates) all have the distasteful, unfortunate habit of pressuring women to think a certain way.

All those groups also tend to guilt trip women or shame them when they won’t cave in to the pressure, and they also advise – more like command and dictate! – women to “let this group do your thinking for you. You are not allowed to question the group or its assumptions or opinions. You are not allowed to have or hold a dissenting view from that of the group.”

Women Who Disagree With Christian Gender Complementarianism

If you’re a woman who doesn’t agree with Christian gender complementarianism (or Christian patriarchy, which is essentially the same thing as complementarianism, but usually more severe),
complementarian men (and some of the women) in those belief sets will accuse you of being a liberal, a feminist, and/or a Democrat and will sometimes also accuse you of hating babies, men, meritocracy, due process, or the nuclear family.

The more crude, overtly sexist ones will also suggest on occasion you are “trying to be like a man,” you are “too old, past your expiration date,” you own 47 pet cats, and you never shave your legs.

Women Who Disagree With Progressives or Any Progressive View or Behavior

If you’re a woman who doesn’t agree with progressives on, well, any of their socio-political views (CRT, pro-choice, BLM, transactivism, etc), they will accuse you of being bigoted, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or of possessing “Internalized Misogyny,” and they’re rarely civil in how they express those views.
(This is, laughably and remarkably, after they stress repeatedly, especially in their online communities, how, unlike Trump voters and evangelical Christians, how tolerant and loving they are.)

Continue reading “Christian Gender Complementarians and Far Left Woke Progressives and Transactivists – What They Have in Common”

Tracy Smith’s – @mythreesonsb – Public Squabbling Involves Misrepresenting Anyone Who Knows Julie Anne (of SSB Blog) Online

Tracy Smith’s – @mythreesonsb – Public Squabbling Involves Misrepresenting Anyone Who Knows Julie Anne (of SSB Blog) Online

Okay, so Julie Anne, of SSB Blog publicly let people know she and her husband divorced months ago. She wrote a few blog posts about it, if I recall correctly.

I don’t remember all the ins and outs of it.

A few weeks ago, I saw a tweet by a guy debating about domestic violence in regards to emotional abuse, and some lady I never heard of before was saying some pretty unfounded, very ignorant comments about emotional / verbal abuse, so I left her two politely-worded tweets in response, where I explained to her what emotional abuse is.

(This lady I replied to at that time, Tracy Smith, seemed to be saying that some married women, or women in any abusive relationships, lie or exaggerate about the issue.)

I just found out that this Tracy Smith person blocked me on Twitter at some point in the last few weeks, even though I previously had no idea who she is, and I only sent her two civil tweets (and those tweets were sent before I knew she was in some kind of feud in Julie Anne, or even who she is).blockedTracySmith2021

I was verbally abused by family members growing up, so I’m educated on the topic – not just by way of first hand experience, but I’ve done a lot of reading about the topic the last few years.

I at first assumed that Tracy Smith was another Lori Alexander (“The Transformed Wife” blogger), one of those “wife and mommy bloggers,” who just sits around defending Christian patriarchy on social media.

Continue reading “Tracy Smith’s – @mythreesonsb – Public Squabbling Involves Misrepresenting Anyone Who Knows Julie Anne (of SSB Blog) Online”

Stuff that Stuff Christian Culture Likes Facebook Group Likes

Stuff that Stuff Christian Culture Likes Facebook Group Likes

Stephanie Drury, owner of SCCL Facebook group, doesn’t care about victims.

Drury may thinks she cares about victims, and she may even want you to think she cares about victims, and you may even mistakenly think she cares about victims or other wounded people, but-

From what I’ve witnessed on her Facebook group and Twitter behavior, what Drury really cares about is pushing a liberal agenda. (I will discuss this a little more below the list.)

In the past, owner of SCCL Facebook group, Stephanie Drury, linked to a few of my posts on this blog, with the motive of having her group of Flying Monkeys mock and ridicule my posts or me.

I used to be a regular visitor to Drury’s SCCL group, for a period spanning approximately four years. I always lurked, never posted, because I spotted several red flags with her group.

Over the last 2 or 3 years, I at times tweeted Drury with stories I thought she would find interesting, and sure enough, she would share some of those links on her SCCL Facebook group.

I tried to be on friendly terms with her on Twitter, but I guess that doesn’t matter to her.

Around the first week of June 2017, Drury once again shared a link to one of my blog posts with her SCCL Facebook group. In the past, I said nothing when she did this with other posts of mine.

This time, however, I tweeted her to let her know I saw her post a link to my blog post on her group.

After that, she tweeted me a few times, but so too did some of her fans on Twitter, and none of it was nice.

Continue reading “Stuff that Stuff Christian Culture Likes Facebook Group Likes”

A Response To J D Hall’s Vomit-tastic Post about Village Church’s Handling of Certain Members, Covenants, and Marriages

A Response To J D Hall’s Vomit-tastic Post about Village Church’s Handling of Certain Members, Covenants, and Marriages 

Before we get to the post by J D Hall:

Background:

  • The Village Church (TVC) of Texas has placed Karen, who was once a member of theirs, under church discipline because she did not, according to them, abide by the church covenant she signed.
  • Instead of conferring with the church on what to do, Karen, on her own, sought an annulment from the state of Texas, once she discovered her then-spouse, Jordan, was a pedophile.
  • Karen said she spent about 50 days conferring with other Christians (not from the TVC), and in prayer, mulling over what to do, before seeking the annulment.
  • This action of hers has ticked off TVC leadership, because Karen did not get their permission to get the annulment.
  • Matt Chandler is the lead preacher of TVC.

You can read additional reporting of this situation here (additional material is at the bottom of this post):

Here is the page I am responding to:

(Link, off site): A Rational Response to the Criticism of Village Church  by  J D Hall, Pulpit and Pen blog

The covenant that Hall is so rigorously defending – TVC’s membership covenant – here does not even mention annulments.

As Karen explains (off site Link, Source):

  • …it is worth noting here that although The Village Church claims [in their e-mail] that “We see an annulment as a subcategory of what Scripture defines as a divorce in Mark 10:9” …, this cannot be found anywhere in their Membership Covenant or Bylaws.
  • In signing their Membership Covenant shortly after my 24th birthday, I had agreed to nothing in regards to the possibility of annulment should I come to realize that my marriage had been a complete sham from the beginning.
  • There is a vast difference between a divorce and a marriage that is voided on the grounds of fraud, and I had no way of knowing that the leadership of The Village Church would respond to it in this fashion.

Continue reading “A Response To J D Hall’s Vomit-tastic Post about Village Church’s Handling of Certain Members, Covenants, and Marriages”

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

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

Taking the Opposite Position from Neo Calvinists Just Because It’s the Opposite of Neo Calvinists

Taking the Opposite Position from Neo Calvinists Just Because It’s the Opposite of Neo Calvinists

I touched on this in an earlier post or two, such as this one: (Link): No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected.

But this time, I wanted to discuss Neo Calvinism and spiritual abuse blogs and advocates in particular.

I do not support Neo Calvinism, or even old school Calvinism. I think Calvinism is a crock of crap.

Many of the NC’s (Neo Calvinists, aka YRRs), are arrogant, narrow minded jerks.

My problem with seeing NC guys, their churches, or their positions discussed and picked apart by some bloggers is that the anti NCs go into reactionary mode.

Their positions often time seem not so much well thought out in and of themselves, but that they will take a position opposite of that held by most NCs just because it’s the opposite of that held by NCs.

I do know a little bit about NCs and their theological beliefs, but not as much as their frequent critics.

According to their frequent critics, NCs believe in a literal six day creation, not an old age of the earth.

(As for me, I am NOT an NC, and I believe in a literal six day creation.)

My issue when I visit blogs or Twitter accounts by people who are vehemently anti NC is that they will, it appears to me, automatically take the opposite position on anything John Piper, The Gospel Coaltion, and other NC guys say just to be contrary.

Continue reading “Taking the Opposite Position from Neo Calvinists Just Because It’s the Opposite of Neo Calvinists”