views and thoughts on topics, especially ones pertaining to christianity – with an emphasis on how most christians either ignore or discriminate against unmarried christians – and how christians have turned marriage and parenting into IDOLS and how there is no true support for sexual purity, virginity, or celibacy among christians – this is a blog for me to vent; I seldom permit dissenting views. I don't debate dissenters ————-
“Jesus Didn’t Die to Save My Hymen” Declares An Anti-Sexual Purity Advocate – My Response
I have addressed topics similar to this before on my blog, so instead of re-hashing all my previous points and arguments, I may just link you to a few of my older posts farther below.
(I should perhaps mention that I’ve had a long day today, am very tired, and currently have a bad headache, so I am not in top form to compose a post right now.)
Here’s the impetus behind this post:
I was reading through my Twitter feed today and saw a post where Janet Mefferd, Christian radio host, shared a comment about how an anti-Sexual Purity article Tweeted by Christian site ‘Relevant’ was Gnostic in nature, in that it talked about ‘sexual soul purity’ vs. ‘sexual bodily purity.’
You can read Mrs. Mefferd’s Tweet (Link): here, with some responses by me below it.
Where-upon an anti-Sexual Purity advocate I follow on Twitter by the name of April, shared Ms. Mefferd’s Tweet or another related Tweet by Mefferd with the comment above it, “Jesus didn’t die to save my hymen.”
This editorial by Bryan, which was originally published on The Washington Post, did not sit well with writer Aimée Lutkin over at left wing feminist site Jezebel. Lutkin spends much of her post summarizing Bryan’s editorial.
Being happy and fulfilled and a woman at the same time does not automatically make one a feminist.
….Considering Bryan’s scholarly pursuits and her immersion in purity culture, it seems likely that her choices are influenced more by her Catholicism than the fight for equality between the sexes.
But hey, if Bryan feels free to disregard the needs of men to pursue goals like learning to scull on the Potomac and working a job she says is the best she’s had in her life, perhaps she has achieved her idea of equality through sexual abstinence.
In a world that frequently feels like it specifically wants to make women miserable, feeling some measure of happiness as an independent woman is a triumph. But although equality is a kind of triumph, triumph is not necessarily equality. Bryan says:
…Personally, my feminist dream definitely includes lots of consensual, joyful, sexual congress outside of marriage, without shame or religious condemnation, but we’re all dreaming a different dream.
Regarding this comment by Lutkin:
But hey, if Bryan feels free to disregard the needs of men…
I’m sorry, but what? Since when is sex a “need,” and who of the female sex cares if men are going without sex? Women are not obligated to give men sex to meet their supposed “need for sex.”
I thought feminists fought against men objectifying women to be used as sex objects? I thought feminists at Jezebel like to say, “Men, we don’t care about your boners.” Now, here we have a feminist writer at Jezebel telling women that they really need to care about men’s boners.
I note that left wing feminists are arrogant enough to think they alone get to determine and define for other women what feminism is.
When Jerome, the Catholic priest and scholar, arrived in Rome in the middle of the fourth century, he discovered a circle of noblewomen living in elaborate homes on the Aventine Hill who were nothing like their neighbors.
They’d given up their silk clothes and pearl earrings, the hairstyles and rouge and musk, even bathing, as signs of vanity, and were now wearing coarse robes made of goat’s hair. They stayed almost entirely in their houses, fasting and praying, discussing Scripture; in secret, they might visit a nearby basilica or martyr’s tomb.
They never allowed themselves to rest on couches or cushions of any kind, and at night they slept on thin mats on the floor— though they hardly slept, spending those hours, instead, crying and praying.
Most importantly, these women—some of them widows, some only recently of marrying age, all converts to Christianity—had each taken a vow of chastity.
…Many of the female leaders of Christianity—in the Catholic Church in particular, with its 1.25 billion followers around the world—are barred from being fully ordained and are closely overseen by men. But this was not always the case. Scores of early Christian women—like Marcella, the desert-dwelling Susan, or the scholars Melania and Paula— embraced radical lives, helping the young religion fan out across the Roman Empire and beyond.
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
The following editorial comes from left wing site Salon, known for publishing pieces by left wing feminist Marcotte, who likes to insist everyone respect women’s sexual choices except for virginity and celibacy – she thinks it’s okay to mock those (see this link and this link for more on that).
Most of the time, liberals are loathe to admit that it’s okay for adults (or kids) to be virgins or celibates. They often portray the state of being abstinent as being sexually repressed or weird. They get all judgey-judgemental about it, but at the same time ask us not to “slut shame” the people, especially women, who boink around like dogs in heat.
So, I was quite surprised to see this liberal editorial defending the idea that it’s okay for people to be chaste, and that people need to stop pressuring everyone to have sex. This sort of editorial from a left wing site is very, very rare.
Everyone calm down and stop judging young adults for “missing out on a good time”
….While the study’s findings are of cultural interest about changing sexual practices, an unfortunate side effect is the concurrent media sex panic. To wit: a Washington Post headline asked if this means “(Link): the end of sex?” while (Link): The Cuttouted “Millennials Confirm That Sex Is No Longer Cool.”
How Do We Solve a Problem Like the Singles? by Rachel Kilgore
Before I get to the link to the essay by Kilgore, which is hosted at MOS (Mortificiation of Spin / specifically, Aimee Byrd’s blog, ‘Housewife Theologian’):
For years and years on this blog, here on “Christian Pundit” blog, I have been explaining over and over again that most evangelical, Baptist, Reformed, and Fundamentalist Christian denominations, churches, and groups IGNORE adults singles – the older a single you are, the worse it is – the more ignored you are.
I have also commented on other people’s blogs under the Christian Pundit blog name, and under other names, alerting Christians to how horribly American Christians treat adult singles. I have Tweeted about it.
When Christians aren’t ignoring us older singles, and they do manage to notice our existence, many Christians shame us for being single. They insult us. They try to make us feel like we are losers (seriously, see (Link): this post, (Link): this post, (Link): this post), (Link): this post – I could cite many more examples from my blog of anti-Singles bias by Christians, but that should suffice.)
I used to be what is called a gender complementarian. I am not interested in spending a lot of time explaining what that means.
I am no longer a gender complementarian.
I am linking you here to a post about adult singleness at a blog (the one by A. Byrd) owned by what I would term “soft gender complementarians.”
WashPost Columnist: ‘Ghostbusters’ Haters Are ‘Virgin Losers’ – (via NewsBusters Site); Both the Right and Left Wing Get Some things Wrong About This
This story comes from NewsBusters, which is discussing a column written for Washington Post newspaper by columnist Kristen Page-Kirby about the new Ghostbusters movie.
The original Ghostbusters movie, released in the 1980s, contained four male leads. The reboot version of the movie, which was released July 15, 2016, contains four women leads instead.
Unfortunately, over a year or more ago, when news came out that there would be four women leads in the film, some of the sexist jerkwads who inhabit the internet started lambasting the movie all over You Tube, Twitter, and where ever else – not because the move was bad (it wasn’t even released yet), but because they were incensed that Hollywood was cramming some form of feminism down their throats.
Interestingly, I didn’t see as much backlash over the main character of the new Star Wars film, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” being a woman – Rey.
At any rate, I will be discussing two or three different topics in this post that are related to this new film, or mentioned by the conservative essayist at the NewsBusters site.
This is another story where I am in the middle. I can’t say as though I’m completely on one side or another in regards to some aspects of this story, depending on what is under discussion.
I am currently a moderate right-winger (I used to be more to the right than I am currently. In the last few years, I’ve been reconsidering if some of my former political and Christian beliefs are wrong.)
I’ve been more open the last few years to hearing the criticisms and views of liberals and Non-Christians – which is not to say I agree with everything I see left wingers and Non-Christians espousing or arguing in favor of.
I sometimes think secular, liberal feminists have good points on some topics, but I normally disagree with them.
As far as the Ghostbusters film reboot is concerned, I do think some of the backlash against the movie does in fact stem from sexism. But then, I do think some people may honestly feel that the movie is genuinely bad due to having a poor story line, or what have you.
I have not seen the movie yet. I don’t go to movie theaters that much anymore.
I usually wait until movies air on cable television; I’m willing to bet that this Ghostbusters reboot will probably be shown on F/X channel, or SyFy, or some other cable network in the next two years, and I have cable television, so I don’t know if I want to invest my time and cash into driving down to a theater to see this, since it will eventually be on television.
I saw the original Ghostbusters in a movie theater when it was in theaters in the 1980s. I was a kid at the time.
The original was okay, it was quite enjoyable and plenty of fun, but it was no movie masterpiece, so to all the men online who were griping about the reboot featuring all women leads: get the hell over it already.
And yes, you were, or are, being sexist douche bags about it. I don’t buy for a moment that ALL male griping about the film is based on non-sexist reasons, like shoddy trailers, or supposed poor CG work.
The vast majority of the professional reviews (and I have read a ton of them) for the new Ghostbusters film have deemed it “okay.” -Not terrible. Not great. But just “meh.” It’s so-so, most reviews have said.
What I don’t appreciate is that the columnist for WaPo who was discussing male backlash about the movie is using virginity as an insult.
Abstinence advocacy groups say a new (Link):study criticizing virginity pledges misses the point of abstinence education.
The study, “Broken Promises: Abstinence Pledging and Sexual and Reproductive Health,” published on the website of the Journal for Marriage and Family, reports that the vast majority of virginity pledgers break their promise to save sex for marriage.
Men Aren’t Entitled to Sex: Crybaby Guy Throws Racist Fit at Woman Who Politely Refuses to Hook up by R K Bussel
It sure does seem that a lot of guys think they are owed sex.
A lot of Christian men not only feel that they are entitled sex (once married), but both before and after marriage, they feel entitled to everything from women: they expect to have their egos stroked all the time, for instance.
Do you Christian men who arrogantly expect women to uplift you and tell you how great you are, ever consider encouraging women in your lives, whether they are single or married?
Women sometimes need or want some external validation, yet whiny men (including Christian ones) seldom consider giving any to women. They rudely assume God put women here only to meet men’s needs. Nope: it goes both ways.
Women have needs too. Women have days or phases in their lives when they get tired, discouraged, worn down and could use a kind word or a helping hand.
Even if he buys her dinner, even if she asks him out, even if she flirts—there’s no excuse for this behavior
…That he turned on a dime to insult her should tell us that he only saw her as an object he wanted available for his pleasure, whether to stroke his ego or stroke other body parts. The moment she rejects him, even though she doesn’t say a single negative thing toward him, he interprets that as pretty much the worst thing a woman could do to him. Her not wanting sex automatically means, in his mind, she’s basically an evil bitch who’s wasted his time.
Another obvious statement: her not wanting to have sex with him doesn’t automatically mean she didn’t like him, or didn’t have a good date. Maybe she did, maybe she didn’t, but by treating sex as the one and only arbiter of success, he turned what could have been a fun night into a nightmare.
James Dobson’s Flawed Take on Population Decline (no.1: We’re Not in Decline) by T. Grant
As this report notes (link is much farther down this blog page), more pressure is placed on WOMEN to marry and have children than is placed on MEN.
I know that culture and Christians can treat single / celibate / childless men like trash, but they are TEN TIMES worse on Christian WOMEN in these regards.
Women get far more pressured to marry and have kids than men do or ever will.
Women get more shamed and insulted by Christians (and at times, secular culture) for staying single, celibate, and childless than males ever are.
Just because most women are capable of carrying a baby inside them, society and churches think it’s their DUTY to have a baby (as though women serve no other purpose in life), and if they choose to opt out (or cannot have a kid), they are still marginalized or insulted for it.
Men don’t face nearly as much insult or pressure to have kids as women do.
I am right of center – but I agree with this left wing (liberal) guy that other right wingers such as Dobson’s real goal is to be against what he perceives as liberal threats to the church or culture. That is one very real motivator some right wingers have, in why they do things like harass women to have children.
I also want to say how utterly moronic I find this approach by Dobson.
Christian Blogger About Divorce, Pastor Andrew Webb, Thinks All To Most Mid-Life Never – Married or Single – Again Adults Are Mal-Adjusted, Ugly Losers Who Have Too Much Baggage
Holy guacamole did I ever find a post by a Christian guy who really knows how to slam never-married or “single again” adults.
I was astounded by parts of this guy’s post.
I almost re-tweeted a link to his blog post about divorce from my Twitter page (I saw someone else share it on Twitter), thinking someone may find it helpful (judging from the title alone, it sounded like it might be a good page) but thankfully, I skimmed it first.
I left a reply under the guy’s post, and his blog says my post is awaiting moderation. Who knows if he will approve it to appear or not.
(August 2016 update: my comment on his blog, that I made in April 2016, is STILL tagged with the “awaiting moderation” comment on his blog. Unreal.)
I have copied in my reply farther below. I tried to be civil in my reply.
I’m going to try to be charitable here on my own blog: maybe this guy does not realize how deeply insulting his blog post is – the parts where he talks about divorced people or the never-married.
This guy should realize that upholding marriage or discouraging divorce does not necessitate INSULTING SINGLE PEOPLE.
You do not have to scare married people out of divorce by suggesting that all “single again” or never-married adults out there are great big, scary losers who have a lot of baggage, so if married people divorce, they won’t be able to find a great partner.
“It wasn’t perfect but it was wonderful, intimate and adorably awkward.”
by Kelsey Borresen
Though we’re living in a time where (Link): pre-marital sex is widely accepted, there are still many men and women who choose to stay virgins until the wedding night.Some consider waiting one of the best decisions they’ve made, while others look back on the choice as a major source of regret. On (Link): Whisper, an app that allows users to share their secrets anonymously, people reflect on the experience of (Link): saving yourself for marriage.
See what they had to say below:
[Text on one screen cap reads]
“I waited until my wedding night to have sex. My husband is terrible in bed and can’t please me at all.”
“I was a virgin until my wedding night. My husband wasn’t. Turns out, I was better at sex than he was!”
[Text on one screen cap reads]
“I lost my virginity on my wedding night. Honestly I feel like it’s been healthy for my marriage. I can’t keep my hands off my wife.”
[Text on one screen cap reads]
“I lost my virginity to my husband the morning after our wedding. It wasn’t perfect, but it was wonderful, intimate and adorably awkward, and we finished together”
[Text on one screen cap reads]
“I waited to have sex until I was married. I deeply regret that decision because on the extremely rare occasions we actually have sex, it isn’t enjoyable.”
[Text on one screen cap reads]
“I waited until marriage, so did my husband. Wasn’t a religious choice. And yes, it was totally worth it
I don’t understand people who toss in the qualifier “but it wasn’t a religious choice” when discussing things like this. I take it to mean they are trying to appeal to an increasingly secular society that scoffs at anyone being motivated by theism, religion, or spirituality at all.
Virginity is a Sacred Choice, Not a Shameful Status by C. Martin / Giving Sex to a Man is Not A Guarantee for a Lasting Relationship – Contra Comic Chelsea Handler
The following blog post contains strong profanity in places and some frank sexual talk. —————————————–
Not that I object to this editorial per se, but it’s being carried by the same site (a pro-life site) that (Link): usually denigrates female virginity – because they put too high a premium on people pro-creating, and if a woman is remaining chaste, she is, in their opinion, in sin, or error or some sort, for not having sex and making babies, because supposedly, a woman’s only purpose in life is to make babies (even though the Bible no where teaches this concept).
But here is a guest editorial they are featuring where the author is defending a person’s right to sexually abstain, and it’ okay.
Our society is obsessed with talking about sex, regardless if you’re having it or not. Take for instance the recent March (Link): cover of People magazine, which featured the title, “Bachelor’s Sean & Catherine, Waiting for Our Wedding night.”
To make things a bit clearer, they added below the title, “No sex until ‘I do.’” The cover may intrigue those who scratch their heads, wondering in earnest why anyone would (gasp) wait to have sex.
An Example of Mocking Adult Virginity Via Twitter (Virginity Used As Insult)
I follow different types of accounts on Twitter (I’m on Twitter (Link): here), some of the accounts I follow are right wing, some left wing, mostly religious based, but I do follow a small number of political accounts.
While scrolling through my feed today, I saw an exchange between a right wing guy, Cloyd Rivers, and a guy who is a socialist, Feel The Bernie.
You can view a screen shot of their tweets (Link): here.
Here is what they tweeted at one another:
Feel the Bernie to Cloyd Rivers:
I imagine whoever is running this account has never had sex let alone touched a woman
Cloyd Rivers reply to Feel the Bernie:
I imagine whomever is running a Bernie Sanders account has never had a real job, let alone paid taxes.
I’m not terribly interested in the political wrangling going on there.
I just wanted to note that in the course of debating a political subject, someone out there felt it acceptable to make fun of another guy based on his supposed lack of sexual experience or sexual activity. As though being celibate or a virgin is a shameful, horrible thing.
Viral Virgin Brelyn Bowman Talks Purity Backlash From Christians, New Book ‘No Ring, No Ting’ (Interview)
I agree that those Christians (or ex Christians) who are opposed to sexual purity (virginity) lifestyles or teachings have gone overboard with it – as have some secular liberals.
Women (or men) who, of their own freewill, choose to abstain sexually are mocked or ridiculed for abstaining. (I have links with examples to this under the “Related Posts” section at the end of this post).
I think it’s very hypocritical for people to champion all sexual behaviors or choices of women EXCEPT FOR staying a virgin until marriage. Celebrity women can yak all day long about their sexual conquests on Twitter or in interviews, and nobody raises a fuss – but the moment a woman makes public that she’s waiting until marriage (or a serious relationship) to have sex, she will be faced with a lot of ridicule and criticism. Even by so-called feminists, who claim to respect all sexual choices of women.
I have blogged about this woman previously (Link): here.
Brelyn Bowman says she wasn’t surprised that people in the secular world disapproved of her posting a gynecologist’s purity certificate on social media after her wedding day last year. But she was shocked by the backlash that came from Christians.
The 23-year-old wife of gospel singer Tim Bowman Jr. says she made the decision to honor God by abstaining from sex until her wedding day. Soon after she proudly announced to the world on Instagram that she had remained a virgin until her wedding day by showing the certificate she presented to her father, a number of Christians responded in anger.
Bowman told The Christian Post that she was mostly surprised that many of those who left negative comments about her decision to show her father the results of her gynocological exam that revealed she was still a virgin before her wedding day identified as Christians.
“That’s what I couldn’t understand. So it was kind of like, why do we, as Christians, bash one another instead of protect one another and spread the message of God to those who may not understand?” she questioned.
“It’s OK for a girl who gets pregnant out of wedlock to say ‘OK, I’m pregnant’ and we celebrate the baby. But it’s not OK to say ‘Hey, I’m a virgin.'” she asserted. “Maybe the certificate wasn’t right, but neither was her getting pregnant. We still celebrate the baby.”
…. It seems that being single in the church is a difficult situation these days. Many churches have made marriage and family somewhat of an idol. There have probably been millions of sermons delivered on dating, courting, marriage, waiting for marriage, etc.
But it is not often that our pastors preach to the adult singles in the pews, or encourage people to embrace their singleness.
Non-Romantic Nearness, The Billy Graham Rule, and Pope John Paul’s Friendship With a Married Woman
Apparently, Pope John Paul II had a long term, platonic friendship with a married woman named Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka.
First, I will list an assortment of news articles summarizing the former Pope’s relationship with this woman –
And then I will link to (much farther down this page) a really good blog post by a Christian, Dan J. Brennan, who criticizes other Christians who sexualize all male-female relationships or who discourage male-female friendship. He is against the BGR (Billy Graham Rule), which teaches Christian men to sexually objectify ALL women, even celibate Christian women and keep single women at arm’s length.
Letters shown to the BBC by the National Library of Poland have revealed an intense 30-year relationship between former Pope, John Paul II, and philosopher, Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka. There is no suggestion the late pontiff broke his vow of celibacy with Tymieniecka, a married woman.
A Book Called “Prude” That Uses the Term “Neo Virgin”
An author by the name of Carrie Lloyd was on Christian TV program The 700 Club today. She wrote a book called “Prude” about her choice to remain celibate after having been very sexually active while in her 20s. I think she also used the term “Neo Virgin” on the show and maybe in her book.
I have not read her book, I only saw her interview on the show today.
She was raised in a Christian household, but later drifted away from the Christian faith and then came back to the faith later.
I support her choice to remain celibate until marriage. I don’t have a problem there. However, I have to admit to not being fond of terms such as “Neo Virgin.”
Either you are a virgin or you are not one. I’m over 40 years of age and have never had sexual intercourse, not even with my ex fiance, because I was wanting to wait until marriage to have sex.
I find terms such as “Neo Virgin” or other Christian phrases such as “Born Again Virgin” or “Spiritual Virgin” to be a little demeaning to actual, honest to God virgins such as myself. Such terms dilute the real meaning of, or state of being, a virgin.
I also find it ironic that Christian culture continues to uphold fornicators as experts in how to resist sexual temptation or how to go about sexual purity and celibacy, rather than publish books by honest- to- God virgins who are past the age of 30 or older who are still maintaining their virginity.
Here is a link to a page that discusses Ms. Lloyd’s story and book:
….Growing up, Carrie was teased about her stance on abstinence. By the time she entered high school, she was infamous with the boys at the neighboring school as one of the last remaining virgins. Once her photo was pinned to the school notice board. She was the target to see which boy could get her to lose her virginity. Her peers didn’t feel the same way she did. “No one wanted to save it for one person,” says Carrie. “This subtle prejudice toward my choices made me more determined to hold out.”
…. Meanwhile, women were fighting for someone to love them. “I call this the curse of Eve,” says Carrie. The curse says, “Everything will be redeemed once I have found my husband,” and that a woman will be happier having found her purpose.
THE DECADENT DAYS
Carrie was 18 when her father underwent a serious heart operation so severe it almost killed him and left him with some brain damage. In his effort to deal with his pain, Carrie’s dad began to drink. “Seeing my preacher papa enter into substance abuse caused me to question everything he taught,” says Carrie. “What happened to relying on God?”
When she was 23, Carrie’s dad passed away. One night Carried decided to walk away from God. She was mad at God and men and started on the path of hurting others. Several years later, Carrie had several physical relationships and reached the lowest point of her life since her father died. She prayed to God and heard an inaudible voice that said, I’ve been here all along. Carrie realized that God had never left her.
According to the rest of the article, and from what I remember from the TV interview, when she decided at some stage in her late 20s (or her 30s?) to remain abstinent, some of the men she dated broke up with her. One guy did stay with her for two years and respected her “no sex until I marry” belief, but the relationship ended, though not due to the celibate aspect.
“SEX. LOVE. VIRGINITY? In the dating game, the V-word has become as strange and complicated as the L-word, with purity as outdated as pay phones.
What is an ex-athiest, post-porn addict, unorthodox Christian girl to do these days?
How can she create boundaries without scaring off every available guy? Is purity even possible without being puritanical? In this candid, humorous account of the true-life trials of Christian dating, the author shares the wisdom she’s gleaned in her quest for love in a modern world.
She guides with grace and honesty through the often hush-hush topics of sex, porn, shame, female competition, misconceptions about purity, and those dreaded “waiting till marriage: conversations.
…The whole concept of the show is mind boggling in and of itself; 28 girls are competing for one bachelor.
…It saddens us to listen to how these girls talk about themselves. They are putting all their hopes, dreams, and futures into one man. With that being said, here are the five things we wish we could say to the girls on The Bachelor and to the girls reading this who may have been rejected.
… ONE. Rejection.
You are lovable. Rejection is simply redirection. Just because Ben rejected you, it does not mean you will never find a good guy. He just isn’t the guy for you, and that’s OK.
Actually, that is better than OK! He is dating a dozen women at once, so be thankful that you don’t have to be in the emotional game anymore. You deserve better!
You will find a man who will love you! You don’t want to be second place in any man’s eyes. It is the most amazing feeling to me (Alyssa) that my husband has eyes only for me.
Being a virgin should not make you the black sheep of the house. Becca is known as the virgin on the show, and good for her! Go Becca! Our culture often considers virgin as a bad word as if something is wrong, dirty, or even unhealthy about you if you haven’t had sex yet.
Waiting is beautiful, and it is something you should be proud of.
As someone (Alyssa) who was a virgin on my wedding night, I am sitting here 10 years later and am still so thankful that I saved myself for my husband.
At the same time, being a virgin should not be the only thing that defines who you are as a person. So much is said on social media and on the show about how Becca is the virgin of the house, but there is so much more to Becca than that!
Facebook’s motherhood challenge makes me want to punch my computer screen by F. Everett
I am friends with people on Facebook who have told me in private that their mother friends – one lady is Facebook friends with a sister of hers who has three kids – are actually terrible parents in real life.
Yet, these same terrible mothers who blather on about how wonderful their children are when they are on Facebook, who post scads of posts of their smiling kids, yell and scream at the kids in real life – or neglect them.
Remember that every time you see posts by parents on Facebook, with their sweet family snaps, who are bragging about their children. They are often times selectively editing their social media to present a glossy, happy version of their life that may not be real most of the time.
Of course it’s meant to be a bit of fun, but this smug club fetishises motherhood, and creates a new way to measure women and find them wanting
There are certain phrases that make my heart sink. After “Can I be really honest?” and “Mind if I join you, ladies?” the latest to engender a sense of creeping misery must surely be (Link):“Facebook motherhood challenge”.Of uncertain origin, this viral “challenge” demands that mothers post a series of pictures that make them “proud to be a mum” and then tag other women who they think are “great mothers”.
Many of my friends have done this, bouncily posting shots of themselves with interchangeable babies, all of whom look like glow-worms in padded snowsuits, and tagging whole lists of other “awesome mums” inviting them to do the same.
And while I fully understand that they have no intention of hurting anyone, that they are simply happy to have their wonderful children, #blessed, #lovinglife and so on, I still want to punch the screen of my computer in whenever a new one pops up.
The most offensive aspect of this is the idea that it’s a “challenge” at all.
A challenge is coping with grief when you wish you were dead, or pushing your mind and body to the limit in a feat of superhuman endurance. It’s not posting a few snaps of your toddler and waiting for your friends to type “aw gorgeous hun xxx” underneath. And it’s unclear whether the challenge in question is to prove what a great mother you are, or merely to challenge your friends to prove that they are too.
This insidious idea of (Link): motherhood as a beatific vocational calling began with the Virgin Mary, and reached its peak with the Victorian notion of “the angel of the hearth”, when mothers who didn’t have to work, and had nannies and housekeepers and nursery maids rushing about looking after their children, were depicted as celestial beings radiating goodness, their sole purpose on Earth to gather little children to their rustling taffeta bosoms and gently instruct them.
I would never have thought the church would be a place where people were compelled to be married, but I found out the hard way that it is.
…Despite my yieldedness and commitment to the LORD and His people, I was somewhat marginalized and often treated badly (disrespected and short-changed whenever possible) by God’s people.
When I complained about and challenged this behavior in one of the pastors I highly regarded and who was my mentor at the time, he informed me the problem with giving me full leadership support and integrating me into the life of the church was due to unmarried state. He said to me “If you were married, it would be different.”
After about another year of this very painful treatment and believing that the only reason for it was because I was unmarried, one day I went before the LORD and said “If marriage is what it will take for me to be properly treated in the church, then send me somebody and I will marry him.”