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.

The Weird, Sexist World of Gary Thomas and His Weird Sex and Marital Advice Books to Christians

The Weird, Sexist World of Gary Thomas and His Weird Sex and Marital Advice Books to Christians

Several months ago, a lot of people on Twitter and Facebook – mainly married or divorced Christian women – were really angry with Christian author Gary Thomas, I think mainly for some new book he released last year about marriage that contained some really gross, sexist, or disturbing marital and sex advice.

To be honest, I was busy with other things in fall of 2021 when this stuff went down. I should’ve blogged about it then but didn’t have the time.

I wasn’t able to totally follow the controversy, so I am not sure how to write up a summary, but from what I could tell, Gary Thomas wrote a bunch of strange, bizarre, sexist stuff about women, wives, sex, and marriage – some of it involving advising married women to tickle their spouse’s testicles with their make-up brushes – ???? 🤨😯🤮

From what I do recall, after people online began posting screen shots of Thomas’ weird marital advice book around October of 2021, a lot of women then began taking Thomas to task for the book’s objectional contents by contacting him at his Twitter or Facebook accounts and letting him know how troubling his book is.

Along with screen shots or quotes from Gary Thomas’ new marriage book, some of the women may have also included screen shots of his previous, troubling work.

Below you will find a smorgasbord of material about Gary Thomas’ weird or sexist marital and sex advice, most of which will probably be from his recent marriage advice book, but some may be from other sources he’s written (I’m unsure about that).

I began putting this post together prior to reading the Sheila Wray Gregoire review of said book (which I have excerpted below), and wowza, this book is cringe. So cringe. It’s awkward.

I’m not even done reading the entire Gregoire review yet. I’ve only read down the first several sentences (where she summarizes from the book), and my eye brows are already raised in shock, when my facial expression is not registering horror.

Cringey Christian Advice (Link): @cringeyxtian on Twitter was once source of Gary Thomas material you may want to visit.

Apparently, Thomas is rather fixated on women’s breasts or breast size, as he discussed this topic in his marital advice books.

I’ve not read his books, does he tell any male readers of his book that huge penis size matters to a lot of women? Because according to studies, it does:

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

Also pertinent:

(Link):  Bride Discovers New Husband Has Micropenis On Honeymoon After He Refused to Have Sex Before Marriage

The more cringey, sexist, awful martial and sex advice I see from Christian writers such as Doug Wilson, John MacArthur, Mark Driscoll, Gary Thomas, and guys like them, and the more exposes I see about churches who harass their abused, married women members to stay married to child abusers and stay married to pedophiles, the more I am happy I remained single and celibate into middle-age. It looks like I dodged a bullet. Marriage is not worth this misery.

This is a review about Gary Thomas’ marital advice book:

(Link): The Fragile Male Ego That Can’t Function Without Constant Sexual Validation by S. Ashley

By that same author, but hosted on Medium:

(Link): “But Have You Tried Sleeping Naked?”

by Shannon Ashley
Oct 2021

Writers like Gary Thomas keep banking on men’s sexual satisfaction to save evangelical marriages.

…For decades, most mainstream Christian self-help books have taught sex in a way that harms the end goal of healthy marriages. Instead, authors have relied on faulty principles and pseudoscience like pink and blue brains or good Christian men cheat when their frigid, dowdy wives drive them to it.

…To make matters worse, Gary convolutes the messages he’s plagiarized. Although he uses ideas and phrasing from The Great Sex Rescue, he also undercuts them by utilizing the same old faulty Christian teachings in question

The Fragile Male Ego That Can’t Function Without Constant Sexual Validation by S. Ashley

The Fragile Male Ego That Can’t Function Without Constant Sexual Validation by S. Ashley

The following pertains to Christian author Gary Thomas and his weird, sexist marital advice book, Married Sex, that got savaged by Christian women on social media in 2021.

I will provide an excerpt or two below, but really, this author’s entire review of Thomas’ book is quite good, so I would ask that you please click the link below to visit her review – which is hosted on Medium – to read the entire piece.

(Link): The Fragile Male Ego That Can’t Function Without Constant Sexual Validation by S. Ashley

Excerpts:

[Thomas earlier book, When to Walk Away, was well-received by many Christian women.]

Unfortunately, his latest book (co-authored by Debra K. Fileta and published by Zondervan Books), Married Sex, comes across more like a sex-obsessed man desperately trying to convince himself and the rest of us that his fixations were “designed by God.”

[The author of the piece then goes on to discuss certain parts of the book by Thomas that concerned her.]

[Excerpt from the Gary Thomas book, by Thomas]:

“Now she asks us to put a coaster under our drink or pick up our socks from the floor, and we act like she’s requesting twelve hours of hard labor. God isn’t unaware of this tendency, so he has given us men a physiological compulsion to keep our wives near and dear in our affections.
If it has been a while since we’ve had sex, those hormones start to boil, and the “drive” slowly begins to captivate our minds. If we grow in love and understanding, we’ll learn that for our wives to be sexually available to us, they need to be relationally and even spiritually connected with us.

When I saw this as God’s creational design, I realized that my sex drive was God’s way of keeping me aware of my wife’s relational needs. The fact that our brains have so much more space devoted to sex drive motivates us men to pursue our wives on all levels—with loyalty, empathy, and love. God’s design is for men to be so sexually vulnerable to their wives that they don’t neglect them in other aspects of the relationship.”
— end Thomas book excerpt —

This is so, so, so… gross. So gross! I (and so many other women) have zero interest in being with a man who requires constant sexual incentive just to be a decent human being.

A Table For One: A Critical Reading of Singlehood, Gender and Time (podcast and free book on singleness from author Kinneret Lahad)

A Table For One: Critical Reading of Singlehood, Gender and Time (podcast and free book on singleness from author Kinneret Lahad)

The author was also offering a free (yes, free – and it’s totally legal) download or copy of her book about singleness (a book which I have not read; I may do so later).

I did listen to the interview she gave for the podcast linked to here:

(Link): A Critical Reading of Singlehood, Gender and Time
^ Podcast on that Page

Why are you still single?

This question is often asked of single women, especially those who are deemed by loved ones or friends to be too old to be single.

In her newest book, A Table for One: A Critical Reading of Singlehood, Gender and Time(Manchester University Press, 2017), Kinneret Lahad analyzes this undertheorized aspect of the gendered experience.

Singlehood is inextricably linked to a post-structural analysis of time: not only are single women judged on their single status based on how old they are, but Lahad argues that being single often ages women at a faster rate in the eyes of others.

What Christians Really Think About the Church’s Relationship Advice by Anna Broadway

What Christians Really Think About the Church’s Relationship Advice by Anna Broadway

The following article (book review) from Christianity Today covers several topics about singleness and the church I’ve been pointing out on this blog for literally years now.

One big point it brings up that I have: there are more single Christian women in the church than there are single Christian men. This means if a Christian single female insists upon following the “equally yoked” rule (that states a Christian may only marry another Christian), she will remain single.

If you are a single Christian woman who desires marriage, it is imperative you ditch the ‘equally yoked’ rule. You must learn to judge men based on their character, not what their stated religious beliefs are.

(Link): What Christians Really Think About the Church’s Relationship Advice by Anna Broadway

Excerpts:

New survey research sheds light on how believers navigate the stickier matters of dating and marriage.

July 10, 2019

Over the years, Christians have produced and read far more books on how relationships and singleness should work than on how these things actuallydo pan out. Vicky Walker’s new book Relatable: Exploring God, Love, & Connection in the Age of Choice, based on a survey of more than 1,400 people, aims to change that.

Walker writes from a more-or-less Protestant British perspective, but American Christians will find much they recognize.

Over the course of 12 chapters and several appendices, Relatable covers everything from the history of marriage to typical teachings on gender roles to, of course, sex. But she also gets into stickier matters like the role of technology and the church’s significant sex-ratio gap—the latter a topic that raises questions of dating outside the faith.

Nadia Bolz-Weber’s Gospel of Shame-Free Sexuality by W. Hill

Nadia Bolz-Weber’s Gospel of Shame-Free Sexuality by W. Hill

I recognize there are flaws with Christian “Purity Culture,” but the response to those flaws (usually by liberal Christians) is just as bad.

The liberal Christians, or others who are opposed to Christian sexual purity teachings, want to reject about any and all sexual boundaries, in the process of rebelling against Christian purity teaching.

However, not all of Christian purity teaching is bad – something the anti-Purity Culture advocates don’t want to admit or discuss.

As I’ve pointed out in older posts, the anti-Purity Culture movement ends up alienating and marginalizing any adults who do choose to remain celibate or virgins until marriage.

We’re living in an age and culture where a lot of us are demanded to respect any and all sexual behaviors, except for virginity and celibacy; those are mocked, as are those who practice them. The tolerance goes only one-way with many Anti-Purity Culture adherents.

(Link): Nadia Bolz-Weber’s Gospel of Shame-Free Sexuality 

By W. Hill, Feb 2019

Excerpts:

We can’t defeat shame by whittling down God’s law to fit our behavior. We need the good news of God’s forgiveness instead

….Doing Away with Absolution

Unfortunately, the pastor who talked up the liberation that comes from admitting you’re in the wrong now seems more interested in helping people understand why they don’t need to.

In her new book, Shameless: A Sexual Reformation, Bolz-Weber is out to set Christians free from the angst and humiliation churches have often foisted on them because of their sexual proclivities and behaviors.

But the way the book goes about doing so is by rejecting wholesale the idea of “sexual purity” and, with it, the need to confess sexual transgression.

Unmarried and Undaunted by G. Dalfonzo

Unmarried and Undaunted by G. Dalfonzo

I am not a member of this site, so I cannot access the full article.

My one criticism of this, from what I’ve seen of this little portion, is that it seems to spiritualize singleness.

Spiritualizing it in this manner might possibly bring more respect to adult singles from a Christian marriage-worshipping, Christian marriage-obsessed culture, but for those Christians over the age of 40 who had hoped to marry, this spiritualizing of singleness, to make it sound spiritually noble, is white-washing things.

(Link): Unmarried and Undaunted

Excerpt, from their free article preview:

How singleness can inspire faithful service and hope for the Resurrection.

Christina Hitchcock always assumed she would get married one day. But as years went by and it didn’t happen, she found herself trying to piece together a vision of life without marriage.

Even though she’s now married, Hitchcock, who teaches theology at the University of Sioux Falls in South Dakota, wrote The Significance of Singleness: A Theological Vision for the Future of the Church to show how singleness is a valuable way of life that points us to true fulfillment in Christ.

CT features editor Gina Dalfonzo spoke with Hitchcock about cultivating a renewed understanding of singleness for the whole church.

Why is the vision provided by singleness so important for the church?

Paul’s endorsement of singleness in 1 Corinthians 7 isn’t merely about having more missionaries, more martyrs, or more people with more time for the church. Singleness has theological significance because it tells us something important about who God is and what God is doing.

Single People Aren’t Problems to Be Fixed or Threats to Be Neutralized By Ella Hickey

Single People Aren’t Problems to Be Fixed or Threats to Be Neutralized By Ella Hickey

I’ve noted in older posts how terrible Christian advice on the subjects of dating, marriage, and relationships are – if you’d like to see my posts on those subjects, some of them are linked to below, at the bottom of this post under the “Related Posts” section.

By the way, I would ask you to click on this link below to go to the page and read it, but, be sure to scroll to the bottom of the page to read any posts by single adults who leave comments, including one comment by a 60 year old lady with the screen name “janep75_2173,” who has been divorced for 20+ years, on how badly her local church treats her for being single.

(Link): Single People Aren’t Problems to Be Fixed or Threats to Be Neutralized

What’s missing from Christian books on dating, singleness, and purity

Excerpts:

…. [The author discusses having read numerous Christian books about dating, marriage, and relationships when she was a teen-ager]

….Our theology of singleness and the “not-yet-married” has gone unmonitored, unchanged, and unimpressive for too long. Much of it is built on outdated gender roles and unhelpful clichés that don’t apply easily to today’s dating world.

For example, many of these books assume that sexual attraction is the “burden” of men and not something women struggle with.

Or, many of these books assume that men will lead a dating relationship and women will follow. Others encourage men and women to avoid and fear each other to avoid “stumbling.”

My Thoughts Regarding the Article The Hard Truth About Mr. Right by Joy Beth Smith

My Thoughts Regarding the Article The Hard Truth About Mr. Right by Joy Beth Smith

This was an article or a series of excerpts by some up and coming book about singleness. Here are some of my thoughts about it.

(Link):  The Hard Truth About Mr. Right by Joy Beth Smith

A few points where I agree with the article: yes, as one gets older (assuming one wants marriage), one feels more and more pressure, and it gets stressful or sad to see one’s peers getting married off while one is still single. Yes, dating can be horrible and exhausting.

I get the feeling that Ms. Smith is in her 20s or 30s, and her article (or book) is perhaps aimed at younger singles.

I’m in between the ages of 45 and 50  myself presently, so maybe I’m older than her target demographic.  I was engaged to a guy from my late 20s into my early 30s and broke things off with him, but I have never been married.

I’m not sure if my age matters or not, but my age might mean that I’m able to spot wonky thinking in this article that a younger single may be blind to.

Dating Is A Cess Pool and Other Lessons I’m Learning by Joy Beth Smith

Dating Is A Cess Pool and Other Lessons I’m Learning by Joy Beth Smith

(Link): Dating Is A Cess Pool and Other Lessons I’m Learning by Joy Beth Smith

Jan 17, 2018

by Joy Beth Smith

There is nothing wrong with you!

Dear Single Ladies,

There is nothing wrong with you!

Every Wednesday leading up to that Holiday- Beginning- With- A- V- That- Shall- Not- Be- Named — inspirational, hilarious, and ridiculously-relatable Christian Post contributor Joy Beth Smith is offering a fresh perspective on flying solo, in a 5-part series, based on her upcoming book Party of One: Truth, Longing, and the Subtle Art of Singleness (available for pre-order now, and wherever books are sold on Feb. 6).
This week… Dating Is a Cesspool, and Other Lessons I’m Learning.

---

“The purpose of dating is marriage.” I remember sitting at a conference and hearing the youth pastor, with thickly gelled hair and fervor in his eyes, say this. Heads nodded along, offering up their own silent amens.

These affirmations only spurred him on:

“And I don’t understand why our young people are dating folks that they can’t see themselves marrying. If you know that you want to head to the altar, you don’t take a detour. You take the most direct route, and that means pursuing godly girls and godly guys who you can picture the rest of your life with.”

I was hanging onto every word he said.

After all, it sounds good, right? If there’s a shortcut, you take it. If the purpose of dating is marriage, you only date people you can see yourself marrying.

There’s a lot that makes sense here, but the practical application of this philosophy has left me (and other wonderful, beautiful women like me) painfully single for the last two decades.

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.

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.