University Hosts ‘Abolish the Family’ Book Talk – Progressives are in Error to Be Opposed to the Nuclear Family Just as Much as Conservatives are in Error for “Over” Promoting It

University Hosts ‘Abolish the Family’ Book Talk – Progressives are in Error to Be Opposed to the Nuclear Family Just as Much as Conservatives are in Error for “Over” Promoting It

Both Progressives and Conservatives hold some incorrect attitudes or feelings about or towards The Nuclear Family.

I’m a conservative.

I can see how too many conservatives have put far too much emphasis upon The Nuclear Family (as well as upon parenthood, marriage, and natalism) to an unhealthy degree, to the point they marginalize or shame any adult who remains single (or childless) into their 30s and older, which is wrong.

The Bible does NOT hold The Nuclear Family (or marriage, natalism) up to the insane degree that so many Christians and secular conservatives do. Secular and religious conservatives have turned parenthood, marriagehood, children, and The Nuclear Family into idols.

On the other hand, the Bible is not opposed to parenthood, marriage, or The Nuclear Family.

Bible or not, I myself am not against parenthood, marriage, or The Nuclear Family and don’t see a good reason to be opposed to any of them.

So I don’t take kindly to any progressive person or group who runs around shaming anyone for being married with children, or for wanting to marry and/or have children, or for promoting arguments insisting that The Nuclear Family should be altogether abolished.

I also do not agree with or support Marxism, either. A lot of this anti-Nuclear Family garbage by leftists is usually under-girded by their promotion of Marxism, identity politics, state control, etc.

(Link): University Hosts ‘Abolish the Family’ Book Talk

(also via (Link): Campus Reform)

Dec 9, 2022
By Georgia Lucas

Sophie Lewis, an author and professor, spoke at UMass Boston on November 16 to discuss her book “Abolish the Family: A Manifesto for Care and Liberation.”

Lewis is a faculty member at the Brooklyn Institute for Social Research where she “teaches courses on feminist, trans and queer politics and philosophy.”

“Abolish the Family” suggests that the nuclear family is racist and sexist.

Her scholarship also argues that children should have more say in healthcare choices such as gender transitions.

Ideas from “Abolish the Family: A Manifesto for Care and Liberation” stem from utopian socialist and sex radical Charles Fourier, communist family abolitionist Alexandra Kollontai, feminist Shulamith Firestone, and “queer marxists bringing family abolition to the twenty-first century” according to Verso Books.

Lewis’ book suggests that “Nobody is more likely to harm you than your family.”

Liberal Author Says the Family Unit is ‘A Terrible Way to Satisfy … Love and Care,’ Calls to Abolish It – The Pros and Cons of Her View

Liberal Author Says the Family Unit is ‘A Terrible Way to Satisfy … Love and Care,’ Calls to Abolish It – The Pros and Cons of Her View

Well, I am a conservative, and I am not “anti Nuclear Family,” so I cannot say I agree with the idea of abolishing The Nuclear Family.

On the other hand, as I’ve stated numerous times on this blog, married couples have been shown in studies to be too self-absorbed (they meet all the needs of their spouse and kids while not extending help or care to those outside their nuclear family, and the Bible itself notes in 1 Corinthians 7 that married people are more concerned with meeting the needs of their spouse than in doing God’s work).

Too many conservatives place too much emphasis on the Nuclear Family, especially religious persons. The Bible simply does not command people to marry – sorry, but the one call to widows to re-marry does not establish that marriage for the never-married is a requirement, or that the command is timeless for all people – and the Bible does not say that marriage or The Family Unit will save or rescue a society.

The Bible says the problem with a nation is that each individual is a sinner before God, and the only solution to that is for the individual to put saving faith in Jesus. The Bible does not prescribe marriage and establishing the Nuclear Family as a solution.

An un-due emphasis on the “family” unnecessarily marginalizes single adults, widows, the divorced, the infertile among us – the Bible says the purest religion is to help the widow and the orphan (see James 1:27), not to minister to The Nuclear Family.

There are problems with the Nuclear Family, with conservatives turning it into a deity that they worship and place an unhealthy fixation upon (among other issues), but I also do not support communism, marxism, or eliminating the Nuclear Family.

I do not support abortion – that topic is raised below. The woman discussed below who is arguing against the Nuclear Family supports abortion; I do not.

(Link): Author Sophie Lewis’ forthcoming book is titled ‘Abolish the Family’

In a forthcoming book titled “Abolish the Family,” the author “makes the case for family abolition,” according to a book description that calls author Sophie Lewis a “leading feminist critic.”

I have additional commentary and resources below this link and report:

(Link): Liberal author says the family unit is ‘a terrible way to satisfy… love & care,’ calls to abolish it

Excerpts:

Sophie Lewis previously called for women to embrace abortion as justified killing

Sept 25, 2022
By Lindsay Kornick | Fox News

Feminist theorist and author Sophie Lewis was the subject of an article on Friday in the UK’s The New Statesman website publication following her new book “Abolish the Family.”

Historian Erin Magalaque discussed Lewis’ book which described the family unit as “a terrible way to satisfy all of our desires for love, care, nourishment” and was highly critical of suggestions otherwise.

“The family isn’t actually any good at creating intimacy, Lewis argues; the family creates, in fact, a dearth of care, with shreds and scraps of intimacy fought out between overworked parents and totally dependent kids, hidden behind the locked doors of private property,” Magalaque wrote.

Magalaque complimented Lewis’ efforts to mock what she called “inevitable knee-jerk” reactions to calls to abolish the family unit.

Leftist: We Need to Kill Babies in Abortions So We Can Have “Care-Free Sex Lives”

Leftist: We Need to Kill Babies in Abortions So We Can Have “Care-Free Sex Lives”

Here (first link below) is the original Daily Beast editorial the other author is responding to
(celibacy exists, folks, try it! Earlier feminists said that they were only requesting that abortion be rare and safe, but these days, many of them admit to wanting to use it as birth control, which is immoral and irresponsible):

(Link): I Had a Carefree Sex Life. The Next Generation Will Have Fear.  – The Daily Beast

I had the privilege of coming of age when sex-positive women had more options. That’s why we need to fight the movement that equates “sex” with “shame.”

(Link): Leftist: We Need to Kill Babies in Abortions So We Can Have “Care-Free Sex Lives”

July 26, 2022
by  Tierin-Rose Mandelburg

The overturn of Roe v. Wade is going to impair the next generation’s sex-life according to Sunday’s Daily Beast piece.

Rebecca White, a “culturally white, cis, straight-identifying woman” penned the piece titled “I Had a Carefree Sex Life. The Next Generation Will Have Fear” to talk about how great her sex life is/was without having to worry about limited access to abortion. Ms. White expressed her concern for younger people who will have to “fear” the result of unprotected sex.

Abortion access has supposedly become “a war” and White advocated for women to “manifest on the streets, on the page, and in conversation.” Yes, take to the streets to ensure that you have the “right” to kill your babies after you choose to engage in unprotected sex. That’s the narrative these lunatics want you to buy.

Supreme Court Overturns Roe Vs. Wade, Returns Abortion to the States

Supreme Court Overturns Roe Vs. Wade, Returns Abortion to the States

June 24, 2022

I’ve always been pro-life on abortion, and I’ve never been sexually active (one reason of many: I didn’t want to get pregnant out of wedlock), so I’m not disturbed that Roe V Wade was over-turned.

I’m not sure if abortion pills will still be allowed now, or what the legalities are of that.

Aside from saving the lives of more babies, maybe women will now stop and think more about if, when, and with whom, they have sex.

Too many feminists and liberals went from “abortion should be safe and rare” to some of these scum-buckets BRAGGING on social media about having gotten abortions. Clearly, some women began using abortion as a form of birth control, not as a last resort.

If you’re going to end the human life growing in you because you don’t want it, or you believe it conflicts with your career, you should feel a lot of regret, shame, and humility about it, not go on twitter to scream you’re “proud” of your choice – give me a break.

By the way, only women can become pregnant – not men.

“Transwomen” cannot get pregnant, so this won’t impact those clowns either way.

(Link): Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

June 24, 202

The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on Friday, holding that there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion.

The opinion is the most consequential Supreme Court decision in decades and will transform the landscape of women’s reproductive health in America.

Going forward, abortion rights will be determined by states, unless Congress acts.  Already, nearly half of the states have or will pass laws that ban abortion while others have enacted strict measures regulating the procedure.

… The opinion represents the culmination of a decades-long effort on the part of critics of abortion seeking to return more power to the states.  It was made possible by a solid six-member conservative majority – including three of Donald Trump’s nominees.

Critique of Federalist Editorial “There Is One Pro-Women Camp In American Politics, And It’s The Right by Elle Reynolds” – Do Federalist Magazine Members Realize There Are Single, Childless Conservative Women?

Critique of Federalist Editorial “There Is One Pro-Women Camp In American Politics, And It’s The Right by Elle Reynolds” – Do Federalist Magazine Members Realize There Are Single, Childless Conservative Women?

Way below, I will link to and discuss yet another unfortunate editorial from conservative site The Federalist which again incorrectly conflates “womanhood” with motherhood,  as if there’s an assumption that all conservative women are married with children
(hint: we are not. Some of us conservative women are single and childless. I am no less a woman, or no less a conservative, merely because I am childless and single).

It seems as though The Federalist, like many other conservative sites, pumps out at least one of these
“womanhood = motherhood and wife, and if you disagree with this assumption, you must be an abortion-supporting, man-hating, Democrat feminist”
type editorials about once a month to once every three months. And they are so tiresome.

Just a few months ago, I wrote this post:

(Link): Authors at The Federalist Keep Bashing Singleness in the Service of Promoting Marriage – Which Is Not Okay

And now here I am again, having to address another one of their, “rah rah marriage and motherhood, being conservative as a woman means being a wife and a mother!” type pieces.

Some conservative authors may concede that it’s possible to be a woman and be single and also be childless and also be a conservative, but one would not know it, from their unrelenting association of womanhood with marital or parental status.

I’m a conservative woman who was raised a gender complementarian Southern Baptist. I rejected complementarianism years ago and no longer consider myself to be a Southern Baptist.

I am not a progressive, a liberal, or a feminist.

I don’t agree with all views of feminists, but at times, I’ve found that other conservatives, in attempting to “own the libs,” or in arguing against feminist perspectives (some which conservatives occasionally caricaturize, which results in strawman arguments), go too far in the other, and equally wrong, direction.

I have nothing against the nuclear family, marriage, or motherhood. However, there is nothing wrong with a person being single and childless, whether by choice or by circumstance.

Yes, some conservative (and non-conservative) women are single by circumstance, and somehow such women are never considered in these excessively pro-motherhood, pro-nuclear family, pro-marriage pieces. More about that:

(Link):  Otherhood – An overlooked demographic – the Childless and Childfree Women and Singles Especially Women Who Had Hoped to Marry and Have Kids But Never Met Mr. Right (links)

If you’re a Christian – and I think many of the writers at The Federalist are Christian, or at least supportive of Judeo-Christian values – you cannot plausibly defend a hyper-fixation on marriage, the nuclear family, and motherhood (or fatherhood) from the Bible itself.

The Bible actually teaches that spiritual family is of more import than biological family. Jesus of Nazareth taught in the Gospels that if you follow him, you are to place him above your spouse, any children you have, your siblings, your parents, and other biological family.

(See Matthew 12:46-50 and Matthew 10:37, 38 for more about how Jesus discouraged his followers from prioritizing biological family or spouse above devotion to God or above spiritual family, as today’s American conservatives tend to do.)

The Bible simply does not teach anyone to “focus on their (biological) family,” nor does the Bible teach that marriage, natalism, parenthood, or the nuclear family will fix a culture or that marriage or parenthood will make a person more godly, ethical, or responsible.

The Bible says that the problem with humanity is sin, that each person is a sinner, and the Bible prescribes belief in Jesus as Savior to be the cure – not marriage or having a baby.

In 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle Paul wrote it is better to remain single than to marry:

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do …
(28) …But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided.
An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.
35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

That sure doesn’t sound like a ringing endorsement of marriage, motherhood, and the nuclear family, the kind I regularly hear from secular and Christian conservatives!

However, too many editorials by conservative sites – Federalist is really bad about this, as are BreakPoint and several others – continue to conflate “godly,” “mature,” patriotic, and good with “being a married mother.”

I’m a conservative woman who never did marry. Not because I am “anti marriage,” but because in spite of all the propaganda I was fed by Southern Baptist and evangelical Christians from the time I was a kid and teen (i.e., if I just had faith, attended church, prayed, etc, that God would send me a husband), and although I followed that evangelical and Baptist teaching, I never-the-less was never sent a spouse.

I did not choose to remain single over my entire life; that is just how my life turned out.

By staying single for as long as I have, and I remain right of center politically, I’ve seen that too many other conservatives, in seeking to correct what they see as liberal or feminist mistakes regarding family and marriage, end up going in error by going in the direct, 180 degree opposite direction, by placing an over-emphasis upon marriage and parenthood.

Here’s a link with excerpts to the editorial from The Federalist, and below, I’ll pick apart where I agree or disagree:

The Editorial by E. Reynolds on The Federalist

(Link): There Is One Pro-Women Camp In American Politics, And It’s The Right

Excerpts:

by Elle Reynolds
June 15, 2022

… Even at the height of the feminist movement, the lies that women must become like men to be real women were damaging — but now, all pretenses are up.
— end excerpt —

Women Must Become Like Men To Be Real Women?

When Reynolds writes, “… the lies that women must become like men to be real women were damaging,” what does she mean? What does she mean by women “becoming like men?”

I think I know what Reynolds means, and if I am correct, she is most likely referring to gender stereotypes, that women are, or should be, great at relationships, free to show emotion, nurturing, warm, passive, be risk averse, and docile.

(Note that many of these stereotypes for women are the same as hallmarks of codependency.)

The Bedevilments of Sex: Louise Perry’s “The Case against the Sexual Revolution” by Ralph Leonard

The Bedevilments of Sex: Louise Perry’s “The Case against the Sexual Revolution” by Ralph Leonard

According to the review below – a review of Perry’s book ‘The Case Against the Sexual Revolution,’ she, Perry, to bolster her view, appeals to the concept of ‘evolutionary psychology,’ a discipline or worldview I do not agree with.

(In my understanding of it, evolutionary psychology ends up attributing socially conditioned behaviors to hardwired, in-born traits, and is, and has been used, to practice sexism against women, or to try to explain or justify sexist outcomes against women by men.)

I don’t support the history of, and on-going existence of, sexual double standards, where, for example, women get punished for sexual behaviors that men have routinely engaged in.

However, I also don’t support third wave feminist views or sexual excess, where some portions of society advocate for sexual hedonism.

Sexual hedonism, the “there should be no boundaries on sex” type of attitudes promoted by progressives, comes with its own set of problems which hurt people (especially women and children).

(Link):  The Bedevilments of Sex: Louise Perry’s “The Case against the Sexual Revolution” by Ralph Leonard

Excerpts:

June 3, 2022

[The author begins by explaining what by now should be a familiar refrain: the sexual liberation which was supposed to put women’s sexual behavior and choices on an even playing ground to that of men, has in the decades sense, apparently, resulted not in women’s sexual liberation, but in making a lot of women unhappy and straining relationships between men and women and in introducing a whole new set of problems.
The author says this is some of what the new book “The Case Against the Sexual Revolution” by Louise Perry has set out to tackle.]

… she [Perry] questions the notion that the sexual revolution has been a gain or a liberation for women. Quite the opposite. “Women have been conned,” she declares.

The sexual revolution, Perry emphatically argues, didn’t liberate them. Instead, it liberated the libidos of high-status playboys and lechers such as Hugh Hefner and Harvey Weinstein at the expense of women.

… This isn’t your usual traditional religious moralism.

Perry’s thinking is quite secular. It appeals to science (specifically, evolutionary psychology).

But, like religious moralism, which is based on the idea of man as a fallen being, Perry’s use of evolutionary psychology reveals the supposed limitations of our evolved nature.  …

Perry advertises her book as an attempt to reckon with the immense change the sexual revolution has created throughout society and culture. She proclaims that she does not endorse either “the accounts typically offered by liberals, addicted to a narrative of progress, or conservatives addicted to a narrative of decline.”

Instead, she makes the following arguments.

The Sexual Revolution Has Backfired on Women by S. Moore

The Sexual Revolution Has Backfired on Women by S. Moore

Before I paste in excerpts from the editorial, and though I’m a conservative, I’d like to say that I don’t agree with the usual conservative response to the “sexual revolution.”

First of all, too often, too many conservatives blame “women’s lib,” and the 1960s “sexual revolution” with any and all societal ills – conservatives will blame sexual promiscuity and so on for all that, but sexual promiscuity existed prior to the 1960s, and in other cultures.

Secondly, while I am not opposed to parenthood, the nuclear family, or marriage – or to the notion of waiting until marriage to have sex – too often, most conservatives instruct people that the way out of cultural rot is for everyone to marry, marry by the time they are 23, and have ten children. I disagree – for several reasons.

Marriage and parenthood do not keep people from sin, sexual or otherwise (see examples of what I mean in this post and in this post).

If you’re a Christian conservative, you should be aware that the Bible does not say that a “cure” for the individual or for society is marriage and parenthood – for more on that topic, please see (Link): this post, (Link): this post, and (Link): this post on this blog.

The Bible actually advises that singleness is preferable to marriage (see 1 Corinthians 7), and recall that Jesus of Nazareth never married, never had children, and he actually made some anti-nuclear-family-esque type comments (see posts linked to in the aforementioned paragraph for examples of that).

There are adults – like myself – who are single by circumstance (I had hoped to marry but it never came to pass). Some adults are single by choice, which is fine – nobody should be shamed or guilt tripped for being single by circumstance or for choosing not to marry.

The problem is not one’s martial status.

A person can remain single and celibate over a life time and manage NOT to rob liquor stores, not participate in looting and rioting, not pelt police officers with rocks, and not rape and murder people.

The problems stem from lack of self control and choice – do you choose to be a law abiding citizen or not? Being a law abiding citizen is not contingent on being married or on having children.

Hopefully, the editorial below does not fall back on the usual tropes of, “Oh dear me, if only everyone would marry young, have kids, and form their own nuclear families, society would be crime and sin free” fairy tale.

If women of any age are having difficulties getting a mate, or in staying married, the answer is NOT always or necessarily to return to stifling, sexist, 1950s American “pro marriage and pro nuclear family” positions.

Things are not always mutually exclusive or do not have to be – life for women does not have to consist of only two choices (this is a false dichotomy):

1. be a “sex positive” feminist lady who has sex with any body and every body or 2. be a traditional, stay-at- home wife and mother

You can cook up a third or fourth way of living life.  Life does not have to be lived by only one or the other parameter above. I don’t know why most on the right and some on the left continue to depict life as though only two avenues for women are possible.

I don’t entirely fit into either the left’s or the right’s notions of how women should live, and the older I get, I resent individuals, groups, or organizations (whether right, left, religious, or secular) condescendingly trying to define me or tell me how they think I should live, and at that, based on my biological sex.

There were a few aspects of this I didn’t agree with, but most of it seems okay enough:

(Link): The sexual revolution has backfired on women

Young women today are more sexually liberal than ever, but this could be extremely damaging – as the modern Mary Whitehouse has warned us

by Suzanne Moore
May 31, 2022

Who wants to be thought of as uncool, uptight and no fun? Certainly not young women who have been brought up to be “sex-positive”. This means being open, tolerant and progressive about sex, removing all judgment and shame and believing anything goes as long as those involved consent to it. It’s a beautiful idea: sexual freedom and enjoyment for all and personally I cannot wait for this revolution to happen.

It’s something of a shock, then, to be reminded that we are supposedly living in post-revolutionary times. As feminist author Louise Perry makes plain in her clear-sighted new book, The Case Against the Sexual Revolution: A New Guide to Sex in the 21st Century, what this actually means is a flood of pornography and hook-up culture, where a few swipes lead to casual encounters, “rough sex” is seen as routine, prostitution is viewed as just another career choice and we have the lowest rate of conviction for rape in a decade.

… It certainly is “progressive” for some men, who get to sleep with women who have been taught that all desires are acceptable and transgression is erotic, but the number of young women who tell stories of being choked and spat on or pushed into sexual acts they were not sure of, during what used to be called “one night stands”, is disturbing.

…But there is a case to be made that today’s aggressively sexual culture does not make many women happy; indeed quite the opposite. Some are paying such a high price for our so-called freedom that we might question what it all means.

Norwegian Feminist Faces Three Years in Jail For Claiming ‘Trans’ Males Aren’t Women

Norwegian Feminist Faces Three Years in Jail For Claiming ‘Trans’ Males Aren’t Women

Intersectional Feminism silences women – and I mean honest to god women, not these skirt-wearing monstrosities with penises and autogynephilia who claim to be transgender.

And meanwhile, chuckle-head conservatives on social media (yes, I myself am a conservative who doesn’t identify as feminist) are inaccurately screaming at feminists on Twitter that they do not do anything to fight against transgenderism, but that conservatives Matt Walsh and Chris Rufo are doing all the heavy lifting, supposedly (no, they’ve not – may do a post on that topic later).

Feminists who don’t support the trans movement have been getting physically assaulted by transwomen (biological males) at anti-trans rallies, getting death threats from trans rights activists, and some are getting into legal trouble for fighting trans activism –

So no, not all feminists have been sitting around on their butts doing nothing while conservative men such as Rufo and Walsh have been making anti-trans statements or documentaries only in the last few months. Other conservatives need to walk those accusations back.

(Link): Norwegian feminist questioned by police for saying men can’t be lesbians

by ALEC SCHEMMEL | The National Desk
Thursday, June 2nd 2022

Norwegian law enforcement reportedly questioned a representative of a feminist organization over tweets challenging a trans activist for pushing the idea that biological males can be lesbians.

Christina Ellingsen, a representative of the global feminist organization Women’s Declaration International (WDI), criticized the Norwegian trans activist group Foreningen FRI in October for teaching children that males can be lesbians.

Ellingsen also called out one the group’s advisers, who is a biological male identifying as a lesbian woman.

Pro-Abortion Women Strip to Underwear to Disrupt Joel Osteen Church Services

Pro-Abortion Women Strip to Underwear to Disrupt Joel Osteen Church Services

Interesting that these pro-abortion activists (I am pro-life, not pro-choice) instinctively know who to picket – they go after moderate to conservative Christians, because many (most?) of such will more than likely be pro-life, which is a good thing.

If you’re a woman who doesn’t want to get pregnant, either consistently use birth control, or do what I do: practice sexual abstinence.

(Link): Abortion activists strip down to their underwear in protest at Joel Osteen’s Texas mega church and are escorted out screaming ‘my body, my choice!’

Three abortion activists stormed Joel Osteen’s Texas mega church on Sunday, stripping down to their underwear in protest over Roe v Wade.

(Link):  Abortion activists strip during Joel Osteen church service: ‘Overturn Roe, hell no’

June 6, 2022

The activists were escorted from the church, igniting applause from churchgoers

by Emma Colton

Abortion activists interrupted Pastor Joel Osteen’s church service on Sunday in Houston, Texas, by taking off their clothes and shouting “my body, my choice!”

… The women were escorted out of the church, allowing Osteen to continue preaching, which garnered cheers and applause from churchgoers.

Outside, however, the activists continued their protest and were joined by other supporters, according to the outlet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women Who Disagree With Christian Gender Complementarianism

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

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

Women Who Disagree With Progressives or Any Progressive View or Behavior

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

Trans Craziness Has Ruined the Credibility of Gay Activism, Says Stonewall Founder by Kurt Zindulka

Trans Craziness Has Ruined the Credibility of Gay Activism, Says Stonewall Founder by Kurt Zindulka

(Link):  Trans Craziness Has Ruined the Credibility of Gay Activism, Says Stonewall Founder by Kurt Zindulka

One of the co-founders of the far-left LGBTQ charity Stonewall has accused the group of discrediting equal rights activism by embracing far-left ideology on transgenderism, such as claiming there is no difference between the bodies of men and women.

LGBTQ activists at Stonewall have lost the plot, according to Simon Fanshawe OBE, who was one of the six founders of the group in 1989. Fanshawe, an openly gay man who spent decades campaigning for equal rights in Britain, said that he and others made gains by engaging with others of differing opinions.

In contrast, the Stonewall co-founder accused the current batch of trans activists of treating their ideology as “non-negotiable”.

“All that work is now in danger of being wrecked, Stonewall’s reputation discredited, and its credibility squandered, by trans activists — not all trans people, I hasten to add — who believe they can dictate what everyone is allowed to say and think,” Fanshawe wrote in the Daily Mail.

“A small minority of activists, including those who have taken over Stonewall, do not want to extend that decency and tolerance to the rest of the population,” he said.

Feminist Author: Stay-At-Home Moms Breed ‘Worse, More Sexist’ Men

Feminist Author: Stay-At-Home Moms Breed ‘Worse, More Sexist’ Men By Samantha Ibrahim

From what I recall reading years ago, there is a grain of truth of some of what this feminist woman wrote – I have read studies that men who have daughters tend to be less sexist than men who don’t, and that men brought up with sisters where all household chores were equally divided (the boys weren’t let off the hook for domestic chores) grow up to have more egalitarian gender attitudes than men who grow up in families where they see their parents expect or force the female children to take on more domestic duties.

I’ve also read studies saying that never-married women are happier than married women. There are studies saying people who are parents are not as happy as childless couples. (Some of these studies are linked to below under “Related Posts.”)

Having said that: while I do believe that too many conservatives (I myself am a conservative) have turned marriage and parenthood into idols, and that they do cling to some sexist stereotypes, I do not have an issue with women who knowingly walk into marriage and motherhood.

That is, I do not think that feminists should shame women who want to marry and have children any more than I think that it’s acceptable for conservatives or Christians to pressure women into thinking their only life goal should be marriage and motherhood.

(Link): Feminist author: Stay-at-home moms breed ‘worse, more sexist’ men

By Samantha Ibrahim
April 13, 2022

Controversial feminist author Jill Filipovic is preaching the “overwhelmingly negative consequences” of stay-at-home moms — and social media watchdogs are coming for her.

Filipovic, 38, detailed her stance that these mothers create “worse, more sexist” men — and women who are “psychologically and emotionally worse off” — in a now-viral (Link): Twitter thread published on Tuesday.