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 ————-
….These films are also objectively bad. They hinge on undefined traditional values, and imply that there’s a literal magic that spurs improbable behavior around Christian holidays.
The characters—particularly the women—are completely one-dimensional. The plots are improbable at best and completely far-fetched at worst. And yet, they’ve never been more popular.
While there’s surely some aspect of escapism in these films, there’s also something darker at play: These movies don’t just depict a world that’s brighter and cheerier than our own; they depict one drastically different, where being a woman who Has It All is as simple as embracing the holiday spirit.
At the end of another year where the news cycle highlighted the inequalities, hurdles, and abuse that women around the world still face, one reason these movies are still so appealing is that they can be watched with both envy and outrage.
We can laugh at them because they’re so far from the truth of modern women’s experience.
Entertainment glorifying or excusing predatory male behavior is everywhere—from songs about “blurred lines” to TV shows where rapists marry their victims.
Edward Cullen. Chuck Bass. Lloyd Dobler. Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. That guy from Love Actually with the sign. The lead singers of emo bands with their brooding lyrics.
Many of the romantic heroes that made me swoon in my youth followed a pattern and, like a Magic Eye picture, only with a little distance did the shape of it pop out to me. All of these characters in some way crossed, or at least blurred, the lines of consent, aggressively pursuing women with little or no regard for their desires.
But these characters’ actions, and those of countless other leading men across the pop-culture landscape, were more likely to be portrayed as charming than scary.
The Dating Project: A Documentary Movie About Singleness and Dating
I saw one of the movie-makers for The Dating Project interviewed, and she says that this movie is promoting the idea that people start dating again.
The focus is on younger people, but I see this problem among folks over the age of 30 as well. If you are 30 or older now (as of April 2018) and grew up in a conservative Christian family or church, you were probably taught (and still taught) a bunch of dating concepts and ideas that have actually kept you single (see this post as an example).
I am over the age of 40 and have never married. I was engaged in my late 20s to my early 30s but broke up with my fiance. I have always wanted to be married, but I never found the right person.
As far as I could tell in seeing the interview with the woman film-maker of this dating movie, the assumption seems to be that being single is “second best” or weird.
Let me just say, as I’ve said many times on this blog, that on the one hand, while there is nothing wrong with being married or wanting to get married, that there is also nothing wrong with being single, and it is wrong to (Link):to denigrate singleness to promote marriage.
I’d like my desire for marriage to be respected, but at the same time, so long as I remain single, (Link): I’d also like myself and my singlehood status to be respected, not jeered, mocked, or put down by conservatives, who frequently shake their index fingers in the faces of singles like myself, and who write fear-mongering articles about how supposedly single life is so much more horrible than married life (see anything written by (Link): Bradford Wilcox or (Link): Mark Regnerus), all because they are worried about declining marriage rates.
I want to be married one day, and I don’t appreciate Christians telling me that my desire for marriage is “an idol” (for it is not), but I also do not appreciate Christians or secular talking heads on television news stations shaming singles for being single and for making singleness sound as though it’s a disease one should be ashamed of having.
Many times, conservatives (of which I am one) assume, quite wrongly, that any one who is single past the age of 30 is single deliberately. Especially if one is a single female past age 30, Christian talking heads will write blog posts or opine on television news programs that such women must have put career over marriage, or they are harpies who hate men – but this is usually not the case.
As a right wing (conservative) woman who always desired marriage, I find myself single by circumstance, not due to choice. I did not put career above dating or marriage, and so on and so forth. I find such assumptions, which are often held by other conservatives and by many Christians, deeply insulting and ask my fellow conservatives to stop making such assumptions.
The Dating Project Movie
Here are some links to articles about The Dating Project movie (a movie which I’ve only read a little bit about, I have not seen it yet):
The shock of reading Laura Sessions Stepp’s 2007 book, “Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love and Lose at Both,” hadn’t worn off when I was offered the opportunity to view an advanced screening of “The Dating Project,” a film about modern relationships that will be released nationwide—for one night only—on April 17. Both are a wake-up call for Americans, many of whom are in the dark about how dramatically dating has changed.
So dramatically, in fact, that it no longer exists. Dating is officially dead.
Hollywood Movies: Affirming that Friendship or Platonic Love is Just As Good As Marriage
Certainly Hollywood – like Christianity – has been guilty for years of promoting marriage as being better than singleness, in that they often teach you are nothing and nobody until someone else loves you (romantically), and that you need someone else to “complete” you (and again, it has to be a romantic partner).
However, I’ve seen Hollywood knock out a handful of movies in the last decade that affirm singleness and friendship above marriage.
A new match notification or getting asked out by that hot-but-definitely-a-fuckboy guy you’ve exchanged a stream of witty messages with is not a reward
…Dating in the Tinder-age is particularly triggering for anyone struggling with their mental health. When the next better thing is a mere right swipe away rejection is expected, to be blocked out by seeking more matches, more dates, more distractions from the niggling sense of being not quite good enough.
Speaking to my dating-app-active friends confirms that this issue isn’t just for the perpetually anxious.
Actor Supposedly Too Self-Absorbed to Get or Keep a Girlfriend
I’m not sure if this is true or not – it comes via a celebrity site.
While some women can be very self-absorbed, I think this is more of a male tendency, because it is culturally supported.
Most of us American women are taught while still in childhood that it is selfish for us to get our own needs met, that we should only cater to the needs of those around us, and we should be really nurturing and supportive to those around us. Boys do not usually get this same sort of conditioning.
So, these boys grow into men who are accustomed to females catering to them and listening to them chatter away about themselves endlessly.
Love Does Not Have to Be Romantic or Erotic: Maleficent Movie
Usually, secular culture (including Hollywood) and Christian culture prioritize romantic (or erotic) love.
Jesus Christ taught in the New Testament that his followers are supposed to place him at the center of their lives, with spiritual brothers and sisters taking priority, or at least equal to, their family of origin (read more about that (Link): here).
Christians, however, continue to prioritize biological family or spouse over spiritual family, which alienates the widows, the divorced, and other Christians who are single or who don’t have nuclear families.
Every once in awhile, I come across a movie or television show that “gets it,” which gets that sometimes, friends or friendship means more than “family,” or more than a spouse. Sometimes, you’ll end up alone if you don’t have friends.
Or, sometimes the message presented in entertainment is that family is what you make it – meaning, the friends you choose to associate with, not the family you’re born into.
I’m not opposed to marriage. Part of me would still like to marry eventually, but, I so tire of the culture making the message out to be that the only true, valid form of love is romantic love (i.e., dating or marriage).
I watched the movie “Maleficent” on cable television the other day, and was pleased to see that this story acknowledges that sometimes, “true love” does not come from a Prince Charming, but from one person caring about another one in a platonic way.
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.
Yorgos Lanthimos’s allegorical rumination on finding a mate is witty, cruel, and deeply unsettling.
…Thus opens The Lobster, the stunning English-language debut of the Greek director Yorgos Lanthimos. A black comedy laced with moments of shocking cruelty, the film is a dystopian allegory about the human need to find a mate—a brilliant, if morbid, meditation on relationships in the age of the dating app.
The Rise of Delayed Marriage and Female Friendship – article from The Atlantic
Speaking of friendship: there is an account on Twitter whose owner sticks up for friendship and sometimes blogs against the Christian obsession with marriage or the stupid Billy Graham Rule. That account is (Link): Forbidden Friendships (@MenWomenFriends)
The Atlantic has a very long article about societal shifts concerning the delay or demise of marriage and the rise of female friendships, as they discuss it in the context of some television show called “Broads” that is about two lady friends. I’ve never seen the show.
The show’s new season asks what its heroines, Abbi and Ilana, are to each other: friends? Partners? More?
….Abbi and Ilana share, basically, what a lot of young women—and young men—share in this age of delayed marriage and emergent adulthood and platonic roommates and geographic peripateticism and economic prosperity and economic uncertainty: a friendship that occupies the psychic space that used to be devoted to spouses and children.
While the (Link): marriage plot may still, dissolved and distended, drive many of Hollywood’s cultural products, Broad City reflects friendship’s age-old, but also new, reality: The show is suggesting that its heroines are already, effectively, married. To each other.
…The women’s partnership [which is platonic; they don’t have sex with each other], crucially, is not merely a matter of social circumstance; they aren’t simply keeping each other company until their respective dudes carry them along to their Happily Ever After. They are each other’s Happily Ever After. The pair, as Ann Friedman (Link): put it, are “more obsessed with each other than they are with men.” They are very probably the loves of each other’s lives.
Which makes Broad City, on the one hand, yet more evidence that we are living, as TheWashington Post’s Alyssa Rosenberg (Link): put it, in “a golden age of female friendship.”
Russell Wilson, Ciara, and Who Else Is Not Having Sex
You know what most of these writers and most of the media never report on or comment on? People who are still virgins over the age of 30.
They marvel at these celebrities who are around 27 or 34 years old (which the following page I link you to discusses), ones who were previously fornicating, but who become engaged, and then stay celibate until their wedding day six months later.
I’m over 40 and haven’t had sex at all… the Christian media is not celebrating adults such as myself. (And I have a sex drive.)
This also points out one minor point I mentioned once or twice before on my own blog- not everyone is having sex. But you wouldn’t know this from our hyper sexualized cutlure.
This page below also links to a few articles I’ve linked to here on my blog a year or more ago.
….But the public face of abstinence is changing. It’s no longer just teens from super-Christian homes or the ones we fear will ditch their promise rings any day now. Take the case of Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson and hip-hop singer Ciara.
Wilson, 26 years old and a practicing Christian, ended his marriage to his high school sweetheart two years ago. Ciara—known for songs such as “Goodies,” “1-2 Step,” and, most recently, “Dance Like We’re Making Love”—has dated a string of rappers and has a young son. Because both of them are attractive, famous adults who have been in sexual relationships in the past, many would assume they’d inevitably sleep together. It’s the 21st century, and that’s what hot people do. But at Wilson’s request, they chose not to.
….Evangelicals constantly point out elements of today’s hyper-sexualized culture: the rise of sexting, widespread porn use, the normalization of cohabitation, and the prevalence of revealing images of women in the media. These things remain significant issues as the church promotes a Christian sexual ethic. But for all the concerns about the place of sex in our society, this counter-trend—singles opting out of sex by choice or by circumstance—rarely comes up.
Rom Com Movie on Women Allowing Themselves To Be Used By Men – And A Leading Man Disappointment
(This post has been edited farther below, over August 8 – 10, with more observations based on some new interviews or links I saw.
This post covers several topics, including but not limited to: how feminist characters are depicted in movies, the impact of sexism on dating, to actors who publicly express their religious and political views in an obnoxious manner.)
I am normally not a fan of “Rom Com” (romantic comedy) movies.
But I heard some good things about this particular one.
I don’t know if I want to say what it is, if I want to say what its title is.
I’ll call it “Rom Com X.”
(If you have seen this movie you may be able to guess what it is, even from my vague description below.)
One reason I don’t want to just come right out and say the title of this movie is because farther in this post I have some mild criticisms of one of its actors, and I do not want any of his fans coming here and leaving me hostile posts. I am not going to name the name of the actor I discuss below.
Rom Com X has been on cable TV a few times. I’ve seen it about twice so far, maybe three times.
I find the MC (main character) sympathetic. Well, usually. There are a few scenes in the movie where she did or said things I never would have, where she unnecessarily was hostile to a person or two.
But of course, to balance that out, she was going through a very difficult time in her life, so to a degree, you do understand she is lashing out on occasion at others and being cranky because her life is in a tail spin.
This movie was interesting on several levels to me.
I related to some of the plights of the MC (main character) in a very big way.
She and I do differ on a few points, but I have some things in common with her, if not in the details, but in the overall scheme of things.
There is an actor who plays MC’s (Main Character’s) eventual love interest in the movie. I’m going to call this guy “Actor X.” I will refer to his character’s name as “Roger.”
It’s funny to me how on one hand, Hollywood can make movies that disparage or poke fun of celibates or adult virgins, but then, every so often, some of them make a movie that shows more respect and insight for monogamy, celibacy, and adult virginity than most churches do.
I’ve not yet seen this “Trainwreck” movie. If it ever comes on cable, I may watch it. It sounds like at the core it’s teaching that empty sex, or casual sex, can make a person miserable.
She’s [the movie’s main character, Amy (played by Amy Schumer)] no fan of monogamy, she is baffled when her boyfriend talks about marriage and she’s all about the one-night stand.
You’d think she’d be the heroine in a Hollywood movie. Instead, she’s…well, a “Trainwreck.”
(And “Trainweck” is not some new slang for “super cool,” in case you’re wondering.)
Director Judd Apatow’s latest movie follows the formula he’s become known for: excessive raunch paired with family values. “Trainwreck” begins with a dad telling his two young daughters that monogamy’s unrealistic, asking them if they’d want to commit to playing with just one doll for the rest of their lives.
Then he explains that that’s why their mom and dad are getting divorced.
The sexual revolution and feminism
Twenty-three years later, Amy (played by Amy Schumer) is a loyal daddy’s girl, playing the field aggressively. She, also like her dad, uses drugs (one memorable scene involves her smoking weed out the window of a hotel during a professional luncheon) and drinks copiously.
But instead of coming off as a strong, sexually “liberated” woman who’s being true to herself, Amy only appears deeply troubled.
The more men she touches, the more closed off she becomes: when she does sleep with a man she feels connection to, she requires him, post-sex, to place a pillow between them and stay completely on his side, just because she can’t bear a non-sexual touch. At the funeral of their dad, her sister Kim snaps at Amy in some variation of “Stop pushing me away!”
Because that’s what Amy does, and it’s never more poignant than at the funeral of their dad. If there is one person Amy loves, it’s her dad—a man she herself describes in her eulogy as an “a–hole.”
Her father’s daughter
Pairing a romantic comedy storyline with a daughter’s struggle to cope with her father’s multiple sclerosis, nursing home experience and eventual death may seem like a surprising script move.
But it’s an inspired one—“Trainwreck” is the first Hollywood film I can recall that truly considers what it’s like to grow up as a child of the sexual revolution, what it’s like when your own parents have rejected the ideal of lifelong, monogamous marriage.
…Amy and Kim have responded in very different ways to their parents’ choices. Kim takes their mom’s side, while Amy is loyal to their dad. Kim has married and is devoted to her stepson and husband. Amy doesn’t seem to give marriage a second thought.
Yet, after her dad’s death, Amy slowly begins to show signs of change.
…. Promiscuity and Intimacy
But as we see, Amy’s paying a high price for that. Her relationship with sports doctor Aaron Conners (played by Bill Hader) is her uneasy foray into monogamy. It’s a genuine struggle for her: she is suspicious when he calls her after they sleep together, and she is confused by Conners’s willingness to help her with her dad.
Child-free adults are everywhere, but movies like “While We’re Young” still make babies a condition of growing up
Noah Baumbach’s latest film is a missed opportunity. I watched it with delight and glee and then, finally, dismay, as it faded into a tired cliché: You can’t grow up until you have kids of your own. “While We’re Young” tells the story of a childless couple in their 40s, Josh and Cornelia (played by Ben Stiller and Naomi Watts),
who befriend a hipsterish couple in their 20s, Jamie and Darby (played by Adam Driver and Amanda Seyfried).
Throughout the movie, Josh and Cornelia are pressured by their friends Marina and Fletcher, who just had a baby of their own, to procreate. They aren’t childless because of a lack of trying. Cornelia had a couple of miscarriages, and they decided not to have kids.
They struggle to fit in with their friends who are new parents. Cornelia attends a music class for babies and is so horrified that she runs out of the room. Josh and Cornelia show up to Marina and Fletcher’s apartment, intending to surprise them, only to discover them throwing a party they weren’t invited to.
There’s a division between the couple who have grown up (Marina and Fletcher) and the couple who are still having fun (Josh and Cornelia). By the end of the film, the message is clear: Being an adult means finally settling down and having kids, whether you give birth to one or adopt one.
What could have been a forward-thinking film that shows it’s OK to not change your mind about having kids instead dissolves into an age-old stereotype.
This is incredibly frustrating—particularly in a cultural moment in which writers are giving voice to nontraditional narratives, and people are noticing and making it part of the conversation.
Meghan Daum’s “Selfish, Shallow, & Self-Absorbed” is a new essay anthology featuring many prominent authors on why they don’t and won’t have kids. Kate Bolick’s “Spinster” is a nuanced look at one woman’s independence, and a welcome reminder that one doesn’t need to be married (or have kids) to have a fulfilling life.
…The condescending conversations childless women endure are an exercise in patience.
…We live in a society where people are judged for everything, but especially parenting. My friends who are moms are just as criticized, if not more so, than the childless ones. Nothing is ever good enough. So why do we care what other people think?
I’ve known since I was a child that I didn’t want to have kids—and that feeling grows stronger as I get older. Family members who used to say, “You just haven’t met the right person yet,” have learned to not bring the subject up with me.
…I have no issue with moms or motherhood.
What I do feel incredibly frustrated by is the reminder, again and again, that by not having kids there’s something wrong with me.
And I worry that right now, there are teenagers going out with their friends to see “While We’re Young” and getting brainwashed by the same message I was brainwashed with again and again in the movies and TV shows I consumed while I was growing up.
Where are the fictional role models who are living fulfilling lives without kids? One can argue that there are plenty of these characters in pop culture, but my point is that there aren’t that many narratives that are centered around the active decision not to have kids. It’s almost inevitable that when the issue comes up, by the end of the story the person will make the “right” decision and choose to procreate.
…There are pressures for men and women, but it’s still particularly bad for females. As Marisa Tomei said: “I don’t know why women need to have children to be seen as complete human beings.” That’s the part that really gets to me. And that’s what rubs me the wrong way with Baumbach’s movie. The idea that we’re all (but especially females) just frivolous people who are wasting our lives away until we add to the world’s population isn’t just wrong—it’s offensive.
50 Shades of Grey and Patriarchy: What Else Did We Expect? From CBE
I came across this the other day via Twitter.
I started a very long post about Christian reactions to the Fifty Shades of Grey (50 SOG) movie – I don’t know if I will get around to finishing it and post it – but one point in my editorial I brought out (or wanted to in a Part 2) is I cannot comprehend why so many conservative Christians are upset by 50SOG.
The 50 Shades of Grey movie and book series echo and support what conservative, Christian gender complementarians teach about women, men, dating, marriage, and sex. The following essay (from CBE, linked to below) explains those parallels a bit more.
A lot of assumptions about sex, dating, women, and marriage that undergird 50 Shades of Grey are also taught as being “biblical” by gender complementarian Christians, so it’s beyond me why so many of them are critical of 50SOG.
Christian gender complementarians teach things such as, women are more easily deceived than men, all women need a “male covering,” a woman is nothing without a man (unmarried and childless women do not matter in complementarian teachings), a man should “call all the shots” in a relationship, the woman should always defer to the man, etc.
Some conservative Christians (including preachers) even teach Christian women that they “owe” their husbands sex, no matter what, and even including performing debased sex acts they may not want to perform if the husband wants those sex acts.
So please, explain to me how Christian teaching on sex, women, control, men, and dating is really that much different from what one finds in 50SOG? As far as I can tell, most Christian teaching about women, sex, dating, etc, is almost identical to aspects of 50SOG.
It is fascinating to read the numerous articles circulating about the just-released film, 50 Shades of Grey, which is based on a wildly popular book trilogy.I am not sure there has ever been an event in which feminists, the BDSM community, and conservative Christian organizations like Focus on the Family have united their voices in mutual disgust.
The concerns of most are that:
The film is “soft porn” and should not be marketed for mainstream consumption
The story glamorizes what psychologists have asserted to be “consistent with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s official definition of intimate partner violence — and… perpetuates dangerous abuse patterns.”
There are many articles written by Christians trying to pick apart why it is that so many women, both in and out of the church, are flocking to see this film, after buying 70 million copies of the book (sales divided equally among professing Christians and the American adult population ).
Secular and religious experts are discussing the repercussions of rape culture, feminism, the innate need for love, and the search for the divine as explanations for the popularity of the books and movie.As I look across American culture in general, and American Christian culture in particular, I am left wondering, “What else did we expect?”50 Shades of Grey is simply a mirror to the experiences of women. Regardless of what side of the church walls they grew up on, women both in secular society and in Christian subculture are consuming the books and film because the underlying ideology of the story is what so many are familiar with, only it has been exaggerated and sexualized in form.
Both in and out of the church, women are regularly fed the message that we are not complete without a man by our side. From the time we start ingesting Disney films, we know that life revolves around finding our prince.
Tabloids and self-help books are filled with titles about how to get a man and how to manipulate him into staying.
The vast majority of secular material on sexuality written for women is about how to make a man want you and how to please him in bed.
Throw in the statistics about how frequently women experience assault (1 out of 5 American women have been sexually assaulted), the discrepancy in income earning (78 cents to the dollar), and the lack of women in leadership (10-20% in most fields) and you end up with a pretty clear case of misbalanced power between men and women. 
In conservative Christianity, the experience is hardly any better.Women living under complementarian Christianity are told regularly that God’s intention for humanity is that men should hold exclusive power in the home and in church. They are the decision makers and the ones responsible for the well-being of the women and children under them.
A Christian woman in the complementarian world is left hoping for a man like Jesus because that is exactly what it takes to guarantee gender hierarchy NOT be abusive.
Please do not understand me to be saying that all complementarians are abusive.
… The Christian complementarian viewpoint is, at its essence, an attempt to redeem the fallen-ness of male authority/female submission.
Complementarians would say, rightly, that 50 Shades of Grey is a satanic twisting of how God intends men and women to relate to one another. The difference is that they would continue to define God’s intended relationship between men and women in terms of authority and submission. As one complementarian writer explained, “Domination is, in essence, Satan’s counterfeit ofhealthy submission.” 
The problem is that the basic ideology itself is exactly the same. In the very worst of scenarios, a culture of male-dominated authority leads to horrors like what is depicted in 50 Shades of Grey (and worse). The most perfect possibility that complementarianism can offer is a safe, life-giving relationship resting in the capable and loving authority of a man who is at all times just like Jesus.
Except even the most godly man simply is not Jesus, and does not have the unwavering selfless love or the omniscience required to lead perfectly.
A woman on a solitary journey used to be seen as pitiful, vulnerable or scary. Not any more.
….It [the movie scene] lasts only a moment, but that first shot contains everything you need to know about why Wild is so important. It’s a story of a woman who hikes the Pacific Crest Trail for 94 days in the wake of her mother’s death, but more than that, it’s a story of a woman who is no longer anything to anybody.
We’re so used to seeing women entangled with other people (with parents, with men, with children, in neurotic friendships with other women), that it’s surprising, almost shocking, to see a woman who is gloriously, intentionally, radically alone.When it comes to women onscreen, the lone frontier is the last frontier. It’s no big deal to see women play presidents, villains, baseball players, psychopaths, superheroes, math geniuses, or emotionally stunted losers. We’ve even had a female Bob Dylan. But a woman, alone, in the wilderness, for an entire movie? Not until now.Which is unfair, considering all the books and movies dedicated to the often-tedious excursions of solitary men, from Henry David Thoreau to Jack Kerouac to Christopher McCandless. Audiences have sat through hours of solo-dude time in critically acclaimed movies like Castaway, Into the Wild, Life of Pi, 127 Hours, and All is Lost. America loves a Lone Ranger so much, even Superman worked alone.
…In fact, the only thing more central to the American canon than a solitary guy hanging out in the woods is a guy on a quest (thinkHuckleberry Finn or Moby Dick). The road narrative may be the most fundamental American legend, grown from our history of pilgrimage and Western expansion.
But adventure stories are almost always no-girls-allowed, partly because the male adventurer is usually fleeing from a smothering domesticity represented by women. In our collective imaginations, women don’t set out on a journey unless they’re fleeing from something, usually violence.
As Vanessa Veselka writes in her excellent essay on female road narratives in The American Reader: “A man on the road is caught in the act of a becoming. A woman on the road has something seriously wrong with her. She has not ‘struck out on her own.’ She has been shunned.”
Kirk Cameron – Like Some Other Shallow Christians – Is Selling Christian Family Values To Make A Buck – Cameron’s Christmas Movie Ranked Worst Movie Ever on IMDB
Yes, actor Kirk Cameron released a movie a few weeks ago called “Saving Christmas.” He went on his Facebook page to implore his fans or followers to inflate the scores of the movie at the Rotten Tomatoes site. Here is an article about it:
Congratulations, Kirk Cameron. You’ve officially made a terrible movie. The former Growing Pain star’s latest movie, Saving Christmas, is now ranked at the top (bottom?) of (Link): IMDB’s 100 worst movies.
IMDB users clearly didn’t like Kirk Cameron’s new movie and either did the people at Rotten Tomatoes. The movie is currently sitting at a solid 0% at the movie review site.
Kirk Cameron is hoping to change some of those negative reviews. He took to Facebook this week to beg his fans for more positive reviews.
I disagree with Christians who have made marriage, the nuclear family, and natalism into idols. And they have indeed made those things into idols.
Even worse, in a way, are the self-professing believers who claim to be in support of mom, apple pie and the family, but who are apparently using this stuff to make a buck.
I suspect this is true of Kirk Cameron.
I’ve seen screen captures of his Facebook posts, and they read like marketing shill pieces, not heartfelt pleas to save the family (see one example above).
Inconsistency Strikes Secular Feminist Site Jezebel Again: Comic Characters, Marriage, and Sex Shaming
Every so often, I agree with some of the views at Jezebel (secular, left wing, feminist site), though I myself am right wing, still have pretty traditional values, and am pro-life. This is not one of those times I agree with them.
Apparently, secular, leftist feminists want comic book characters to marry… except when they do not want them to.
Conclusion: It’s probably not going to work out with Batman. It’s not going to work out with any other superheroes, either.
Look, superheroes are terrific fun, but they are mostly sprung from the minds of men free to imagine and create characters who are above the law, above morality, above physics, and often suspended above the ground, looking down at us.
These very traits make them great at saving people and making out while upside-down, they are not so great at saving themselves or hanging out when you get your period or need to go to the DMV. They are not even capable of being available for annual vacations…
As a result, and thanks to their [super hero character] origin stories, they are also pretty much all emotionally damaged, tortured weirdos who would not make good partners over the long haul.
Oh. I see. Or maybe it’s more accurate to say I do NOT see. So, Jezebel’s previous article on this topic, saying that DC Comics should allow Bat Girl to marry her female partner, is now moot?
See this post (which is a post from my blog, commenting on a Jezebel story whose Jez writer was offended that DC Comics would not allow Bat Girl to get married):
I can’t track this. According to Jezebel writers, I’m supposed to root for a super hero, lesbian character to marry her partner, but I’m supposed to be opposed to hetero women wanting to marry a super hero such as Bat Man or Captain America?
In other Jezebel- holding- to- double- standards, or being-inconsistent- related news.
It looks to me as though a liberal writer at Jezebel criticized an editorial by a conservative woman by insulting that conservative woman’s sex life. I may be getting this wrong, because this is not a story I followed that closely.
Several bloggers picked up on this Jezebel hypocrisy, that a “no slut shaming site,” which claims to respect all women, that is opposed to “slut shaming”, was never- the- less producing an editorial saying one right wing woman’s views were terrible because, supposedly, her sex life must be lacking.
You can read more about that here (these are off site links)~