The Chelsea Handler Childless Woman Upset: Other Conservatives Wrongly Conflating Married Motherhood with Womanhood or Happiness, Meaning, Purpose

The Chelsea Handler Childless Woman Upset: Other Conservatives Wrongly Conflating Married Motherhood with Womanhood or with Happiness, Meaning, or Purpose

After entertainer Chelsea Handler uploaded (Link): a Tweet with a video of herself listing the numerous ways she enjoys life due to being childless – I didn’t see anything in the video mentioning abortion – a lot of other conservatives jumped to shame and scold Handler for being happy about being childless and publicly expressing that happiness.

Others have said that Handler had two or three abortions in the past. The fact that Handler previously had abortions does not change the substance of my problems with conservative reaction to Handler’s video.

I am pro-life, not pro-choice, so I don’t agree with Handler’s actions to terminate her pregnancies.

However, again, I don’t recall Handler’s “happy to be childless” video advocating abortion or mentioning anything about abortion.

I don’t think her video criticized or shamed women for being mothers or for wanting to be mothers.

The only possible, even remotely “anti motherhood” take away one can get from her video is that mothers – assuming they are good, non-abusive mothers – invest a lot of time in child-rearing, but Handler doesn’t frame it in an anti-motherhood way.

It’s Okay For Women to Be Childless at Any Age and to be Happy About Being Childless, Just Like It’s Okay For Mothers to Be Happy About Being Mothers

Handler was just showing ways she has more free time because she doesn’t have to participate in childcare – which is not the same thing as being “anti-motherhood,” or telling other women they are wrong to be mothers.

It’s perfectly fine for a woman to be single and childless and to be happy about it.

Women can and should find meaning and purpose apart from marriage and motherhood. It’s unhealthy for any person to wrap up all their happiness, meaning, or purpose into one identity, station of life, or role.

If you are a married mother, your children will grow up, move out, and seldom visit you once they’re gone. Your husband may develop dementia, abuse you, or cheat on you, so that you will be without emotional support or you will have to divorce him.
In all these situations, you will be left with yourself, by yourself, and god help you if you never forged purpose, identity, happiness, or meaning apart from a spouse and children.

There’s no reason to criticize or shame an adult, man or woman, for being single and childless and for being happy about it and posting about it.

My fellow conservatives often push motherhood (via podcasts, tweets, magazine articles, church sermons, blog posts, etc) to a loopy, creepy, fevered pitch, about how super awesome, fulfilling, and wonderful motherhood supposedly is – but goodness forbid a childless woman lists or publicizes the ways she’s happy with being childless – and do so without criticizing motherhood or mothers. That’s a huge double standard.

I also didn’t agree with Handler’s mockery of single women who choose to remain virgins until marriage or to remain chaste (I blogged about that (Link): here a few years ago).

Unfortunately, in the midst of criticizing Handler, a lot of conservatives today were conflating “womanhood” to married motherhood. 

However, a woman remains a woman regardless if she has a child or is infertile, childless, or childfree, or whether she wants to have children or not.

The Unfortunate Anti-Virginity Fall-Out from Christian Misogynist Lori Alexander’s Wacky “Debt Free Virgins Without Tattoos” Post – The Problem is Not Supporting Virginity, It’s Complementarianism

The Unfortunate Anti-Virginity Fall-Out from Christian Misogynist Lori Alexander’s  Wacky “Debt Free Virgins Without Tattoos” Post – The Problem is Not Supporting Virginity, It’s Complementarianism

Updated:

Lori Alexander has posted this (unhelpful) clarification of her post (about “Debt Free Virgins with Tattoos”) on an ultra-conservative political forum:

(Link): Godly Men Prefer Debt Free Virgins Without Tattoos – by Lori Alexander, on Free Republic

Her new aspect is to add the word “Godly” prior to the word “Men,” as if that makes it less obnoxious or wrong, but it does not.

I used to lurk at the Free Republic site, back in my more conservative days, but I’m not surprised to see most of the posters under Alexander’s post on that site actually agreeing with it.

Of course they do.

I’m still a conservative, but I’m no longer off the reservation about it, as the Freepers are on some things, like on this topic.

---

The Unfortunate Anti- Virginity Fall Out Due to Lori Alexander’s “Debt Free Virgin” Post

If you’d like more background to this post, and an explanation for who Lori Alexander is, please see my previous post about it here:

(Link): Reflections On Lori Alexander’s Debt Free Virgins Without Tattoos

If you are new to my blog, a recap:

I am over 45 years of age and still a virgin.

I was reserving sexual activity for marriage. I’ve never had sexual intercourse. I was expecting to be married but never found Mr. Right.

I do have a libido.

Contrary to what Christians ASSUME about older virgins, Celibacy, being sexually abstinent for as long as I’ve been, is not “a gift” where God granted it to me and supernaturally removed my libido and makes it easy-breezy to cope with.

For many years, I was dedicated to remaining a virgin until marriage, due to Christian ethics, (these days I’m semi-agnostic), but also due to other reasons as well, which I shall not get into here but have explained in older posts on the blog.

In the last ten or so years, I’ve seen a disturbing trend where secular, liberal feminist views about sex have trickled into liberal Christian corners, where there is much railing against “slut shaming” and there is strong opposition to judging any woman for her sexual behavior or choices.

This trend became so common that these same views, disturbingly, began appearing on liberal Christian blogs and sites, whose progressive, feminist, Christian authors began writing editorials saying virginity is of no import, God only cares about your heart and spiritual purity, and God does not care so much anyone’s sexual behavior, (Link): intact hymen, or sexual past.

This anti- sexual purity thinking (which includes the down-playing, condemning, or mocking of physical virginity and adult celibacy) has even crept into mainstream moderate- to- conservative churches and Christian writing and thinking, unfortunately.

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

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

About me and this blog:

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

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

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

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

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

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

— end introduction to me and this blog —

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Link): Perhaps Feminism Is Not The Enemy

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

MacKenzie writes (source again):

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

// end MacKenzie quotes ///

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

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

Christian Abstinence Speaker Forces Girl Students to Hear Mandatory Sexual Purity Message While Boys Excused

Christian Abstinence Speaker Forces Girl Students to Hear Mandatory Sexual Purity Message While Boys Excused

I am not opposed to Christians teaching their kids about the benefits or moral basis of remaining a virgin until marriage. I do believe the Bible teaches that position, actually.

However, I do take issue with the fact that Christians almost always emphasize staying a virgin for girls but not for boys. That seems to be the case here.

That the boys were excused for a sexual abstinence message is, in my view, incredibly sexist and sends the wrong message – both to boys and girls. This sort of thing also makes Christians look like backwards, sexist rednecks to the Non-Christians who blogged about this to mock it or criticize it – which they have.

I do think there is at least one possible positive: at least the teen girls are hearing that staying a virgin is a viable option.

Where-as many secular feminists and liberals are always mocking virginity and celibacy, so that they make young girls (and even older women) feel as though they MUST have sex or there is something wrong with them if they are not having sex, or if they don’t want to have sex.

Contrary to what ths Henning guy says, it’s not true that men have higher sex drives than women or are more visually stimulated than women, so Henning can drop that from his materials. God did not “wire men to be more sexual” than women. (I’ve done other blog posts on those topics before, so I’m not going to get into that here.)

It’s not a girl or woman’s responsibility to dress in such a way that a boy or man does not feel aroused, as Henning claims. Each boy and man is capable of controlling himself, regardless of how a girl or woman is dressed. Christians: stop making females responsible for the sexual sins and failings of males – even the Bible does not do this.

(Link):  School Makes Girls Attend Christian’s Abstinence Lecture

Oct 20, 2016

by Mike Allen

Payson High School in Arizona recently required girls to attend an assembly about sexual abstinence, while the boys were given the option to attend, or not attend, an assembly on dating.

Editorialist Argues That Single Christian Adults Can Have Sex So Long As They are Chaste About It – Also Speculates that Jesus Was “Probably” Celibate – Re: Good Christian Sex Book by Bromleigh McCleneghan

Editorialist at WaPo Argues That Single Christian Adults Can Have Sex So Long As They are Chaste About It – Also Speculates that Jesus Was “Probably” Celibate

Edit: I originally assumed when first writing this post that McCleneghan is a dude, but it appears that McCleneghan is a woman(?).

---

I’ve said this before on my blog, but I will say it again: if you want to fornicate (have sex outside of marriage), go right ahead, but stop trying to justify it by saying God, Jesus, or the Bible is fine with it.

I’m over 40, still a virgin, I did not have sex with my ex fiance while we were a couple. I have a libido.

I’m still celibate. By this stage in my life, I’m now okay with the idea of having sex prior to marriage if I am in a stable, committed relationship, but should that happen, I will freely admit that it is a sin as far as God or the Bible is concerned.

I’m not going to sit here and argue that my fornication (should it occur) is peachy keen with God because I’m being faithful to the one guy and only boinking the one guy.

I have more comments below this long excerpt:

(Link): Sex and the single Christian: Why celibacy isn’t the only option

Excerpts:

By Bromleigh McCleneghan

August 22 at 6:00 AM

…I’m compelled by the idea that Jesus was probably celibate, but that it would have been for a purpose, and that it might have been hard to bear sometimes.

…Jesus was fully in relationship with many. He had intimate friendships, and he was dedicated to his work. If his celibacy was hard, he was not overly anxious about it; he leaned into the other parts of his life.

Jesus was different and his path was likely puzzling to those around him, even as it puzzles us still today.

.. One of the most unfair things the Christian tradition has foisted on singles is the expectation that they would remain celibate — that is, refraining from sexual relationships.

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

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.

(Link):   Millennial Sex Panic! Why are we so worried they aren’t getting enough action? by R K Bussel

Excerpts:

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 Cut touted “Millennials Confirm That Sex Is No Longer Cool.”

How Do We Solve a Problem Like the Singles? by R. Kilgore

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.”

“My boyfriend was intimidated by my sexual history. So I dumped him.” by T. Hornung

“My boyfriend was intimidated by my sexual history. So I dumped him.” by T. Hornung

I’m not going to take the usual, secular, left wing feminist standard here (for one thing, I’m right wing and don’t always agree with secular feminists), where I’m supposed to say a woman’s sexual history is not a boyfriend’s business, or the boyfriend should not be upset by his girlfriend’s sexual past, and say, “Rah rah, women’s sexual freedom.”

I am forever amazed that “sex positive” feminists, whether they are men or women, assume that their previous sexual choices should not, or will not, have any consequences upon them or the people around them.

Some of us are more “serious” about sex than other people – sex actually means something to us, so yes, we find it troubling, and I suppose this is doubly so, if we are virgins over 35 years of age, and have to grapple with the fact that our current partner has had sex with other people in the past.

“‘I Kissed Dating Goodbye’ [Book] Told Me to Stay Pure Until Marriage. I Still Have a Stain on My Heart” – Regarding: Dating Book by Author Josh Harris (with other related links about the IKDG book) and Criticizing “Purity Culture”

“‘I Kissed Dating Goodbye’ [Book] Told Me to Stay Pure Until Marriage. I Still Have a Stain on My Heart” – Regarding: Dating Book by Author Josh Harris (with other related links about the IKDG book) and Criticizing “Purity Culture”

August 24, 2016 update: I added a new link at the bottom of this post: people continue to attack the idea of sexual purity by publicizing backlash against the Harris IKDG book.

---

I myself have never read the IKDB book, which was written by Harris. I have read about the book on other sites in the past, and it is my understanding the book discussed how to date, and other such topics, and is not strictly about sex or virginity.

The author uses this review of the IKDG book to bash “purity culture,” and in so doing, touches on the topic or staying chaste until marriage.

I am in the middle of this debate. I cannot completely agree with all the critics of “purity culture,” depending on what they are criticizing about it and why.

I believe that the Bible teaches both male and females are to sexually abstain until marriage, so I don’t believe in tossing out this teaching all because some young women feel they have been hurt or oppressed by it.

On the other hand, how some Christians have taught about sexual purity has been lop-sided – males are typically not addressed, only females – and Christians could do a better, or more sensitive job, in how they present the concept of remaining a virgin until marriage.

With that introduction, here is the link, with some excerpts (and note, I am not in complete agreement with all views in this piece; however, I’m not a supporter of a lot of Christian dating advice. Christian dating advice tends to act as an obstacle to singles who want to someday marry):

(Link): “‘I Kissed Dating Goodbye’ told me to stay pure until marriage. I still have a stain on my heart“

Excerpts:

By Liz Lenz

July 27, 2016

In 1997, Joshua Harris published “I Kissed Dating Goodbye,” a book that was in part a warning about the harm that relationships before marriage could cause. Harris evoked images of men at the altar bringing all their past partners with them into the marriage to reinforce the point that love and sex before marriage took pieces of your heart and made you less.

At the time, Harris was just 21, but he was already a rising star.

…He [Harris] was what we, as young evangelicals, wanted to be. And so we strove passionately to attain the ideal of premarital purity he laid out for us. Now, almost 20 years later, even Harris appears to be questioning whether his advice did more harm than good.

…But Harris’s book was hugely influential.

…On the surface, I am a purity-culture success story: I am a heterosexual woman, a virgin until marriage, now with two small children and a husband I deeply love. We attend church. We believe in God. And yet, for me, the legacy of purity culture is not one of freedom but one of fear.

Purity culture taught me that I ought to be passed down from father to husband, more an inheritance than a human.

 I was taught that men are my cover and my shield, when for the most part they have been the ones causing damage through molestation, rape and abuse.

I was taught that my holy calling was to open my legs for one and only one and bear him children. Barring that, I was to keep them closed and never express desire or lust or fear or longing.

So many women in my life cracked under the untenable pressure, often giving up on God all together. Others were forced into marriages with men who hit them and hid their abuse behind another message of the church borne from purity culture, that God hates divorce.

WashPost Columnist: ‘Ghostbusters’ Haters Are ‘Virgin Losers’ – (via NewsBusters Site); Both the Right and Left Wing Get Some things Wrong About This

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.

Ghostbusters Logo

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.

How to Date When You’re Almost Middle-Aged by A. Broadway

How to Date When You’re Almost Middle-Aged by A. Broadway

I skimmed this article over the other day (the link to it is much farther below; I wanted to say a few words first).

I’m over 40, the author was like 38 around the time of writing.

I don’t wish to re-read it, so I’m gong on memory. From what I remember, she seems to tilt to the belief that the older you get, the fewer decent men you have to choose from (I sometimes see this idea in regards to older women: that single women over the age of 35, 40 or 45 are somehow “flawed,” which is why they are still single, or single again).

The author therefore assumes if she does land a man at age 38 / 40, he is likely to be a loser or weirdo.

Look, I am not on board with that sort of negative, defeatist thinking. I’m over 40 and have never married (but yes, I was engaged to a guy for a few years. I have done the “serious relationship” thing).

Like all humans, yes, I have made mistakes in life and have a few odd-ball habits: but who does not. Still, for the most part, I am pretty normal. I’d make a great wife.

Therefore, any time I see married people or adult singles argue that singles over 35, 40, or older, are somehow losers or odd balls, I resent it – because, by default, you’re lumping me into that generalization. I am not a loser or a weirdo.

Over my time on the internet, especially since starting this blog, I’ve met other never-married or single again persons who are over the age of 35, and they’ve not been able to find a life partner. Not because they are losers, weirdos, or failures, but just for the simple fact that finding a compatible partner is not all that easy.

There are more never-married adults over 35 and 40 now (and “single again” adults) than at any time in our nation’s history, according to various news report I’ve seen the last 2 or 3 years. I find it hard to believe that all of the many thousands of over-40 singles are weirdos or too mal-adjusted to marry.

God knows I’m not as effed up as the (Link): married people I routinely blog about: the married, Christian men who rape their wives, abuse girlfriends, or who (Link): murder mistresses or who are arrested for fondling kids.