Dating, Marriage, Male Entitlement, and ‘My 600 LB Life’ TV Show

Dating, Marriage, Male Entitlement, and ‘My 600 LB Life’ TV Show

This is going to be one of those posts that meanders all over the place.

I’m not really sure where to start.

I’ve been watching a cable TV show called “My 600 LB Life” for over a year now. Aspects of content I see on this show remind me of some of the subjects I blog about on here.

I’m not sure exactly why I watch this show, but I find it riveting, and sometimes horrifying. It’s a reality program. Each show features a real-life person who is 600 or more pounds over-weight.

I do not watch the show to make fun of or laugh at the obese people.

I watch, I suppose, because I am interested in their life stories and what drove them to cope with life’s problems by over-eating to the point they become morbidly obese.

I also tune in to learn medical information about what happens to a body once it gets up to 600 pounds.

I learned from this show that not only does the body get a lot of fat on it (obviously), and the heart has a harder time pumping, but obese people can and do develop all sorts of secondary issues, such as painful bumps, scales, and swelling on their legs (which are referred to as, or the result of, things such as (Link): Cellulitis and (Link): Lymphedema).

The majority of the time, I feel empathy for the obese people on this show.

I am wishing them all the best and hoping they lose the weight and recover and get over whatever childhood horror and pain led them to over-eat (most cases of this show consist of someone who turned to food as comfort after they were neglected, molested, or abused in childhood).

There have been a few cases on this show, such as Steve Assanti, Chuck, and James K., where I have little to no empathy at all, because the person is whiny, ungrateful, abusive, rude, or incredibly self-absorbed.

Continue reading “Dating, Marriage, Male Entitlement, and ‘My 600 LB Life’ TV Show”

Single, Virgin Women Do Not Have Another Standard by Which to Be Saved, Contra Complementarian Group CBMW

Single, Virgin Women Do Not Have Another Standard by Which to Be Saved, Contra Complementarian Group CBMW

The Bible does teach that people should remain virgins until marriage, but oddly, some Christians do things like omit men from this teaching (as though virginity applies only to women).

In this case, they seem to be conflating being single, and a virgin, with receiving salvation, as though there’s some other standard by which others are saved. Christians also frequently make much too much out of the marriage analogy, in which they pretty much seem to suggest that a person has to be married (and having sex) to truly know God or be in relationship with God.

Via the Biblical Personhood blog:

(Link): Is “Biblical” manhood and womanhood compatible with the gospel of Christ?

The Biblical Personhood blog reproduces this quote from a Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood resource:

[from complementarian, CBMW, material:]

48. How can a Christian single woman enter into the mystery of Christ and the Church if she never experiences marriage?
[Their answer promotes offering your virginity to God. Nothing about becoming a Christian.] – CBMW, “Fifty Crucial Questions, Question 48

… The mystery of Christ and the church, likewise, is not about marriage or celibacy. Jesus loved you – male or female, single or married or divorced or widowed – first. Know you are loved by God, love God back, experience God’s love, and see how it never ends, and how it changes you to live for Him.

Continue reading “Single, Virgin Women Do Not Have Another Standard by Which to Be Saved, Contra Complementarian Group CBMW”

Being ‘Selfish’ in My Dating Was the Best Decision I Could Have Made by Zachary Zane

Being ‘Selfish’ in My Dating Was the Best Decision I Could Have Made by Z. Zane

Here is the link:

(Link): Being ‘Selfish’ in My Dating Was the Best Decision I Could Have Made by Zachary Zane (excerpts farther below)

This piece was written by a man, and he might be a homosexual, based on the stock photo illustrating it, which shows a man walking down the street and laughing with another man – after skimming more of the article, yes, he appears to be homosexual (he talks about dating men).

If this guy is homosexual, I can say as a hetero woman, I related to most of what he wrote.

I am a recovering codependent – and it sounds to me as though the guy who wrote this page, Zane, is also a codependent, or was one at one time.

Codependency usually seems to affect women, but some men can be codependent also.

A lot of stereotypes women are expected to live out and uphold by churches, Christians (under “gender complementarian” or “biblical womanhood” teachings), and secular culture, are actually facets of codependency, and some examples of that are: being passive, compliant, thinking it’s selfish to put yourself first and get your own needs met, and so forth.

If you continually put the needs of another person ahead of your own, you will grow resentful of it eventually, and either explode in anger at the other person or break things off (such as seeking a divorce).

Continue reading “Being ‘Selfish’ in My Dating Was the Best Decision I Could Have Made by Zachary Zane”

Women Who Stay Single or Get Divorced Are Healthiest by B DePaulo

Women Who Stay Single or Get Divorced Are Healthiest

I can tell you that my fellow conservatives won’t like this news at all. Neither will the Christians who are into complementarianism and who like to shame singles for being single, who like to promote the studies that say that staying single will cause a person to be miserable or die younger.

(Southern Baptist Al Mohler loves to push those views (Link): on his blog. It’s sickening.)

Anyway, here is this from B. DePaulo:

(Link): Women Who Stay Single or Get Divorced Are Healthiest by B. DePaulo

Excerpts:

A (Link): new study, soon to be published in the Journal of Women’s (Link): Health, provides fresh evidence that people who stay single instead of getting married, or who get divorced instead of staying married, are especially likely to be healthy.

….Here’s what changed when unmarried women (whether divorced, separated, or always single) got married:

  • After they got married, their BMI (body mass index) increased.
  • After they got married, they drank more.
  • After they got married, their systolic blood pressure increased.
  • Diastolic blood pressure decreased over the three-year period for those who stayed single and those who married, but it decreased less in those who got married.

Here’s what changed when married women got divorced or separated, compared to the women who stayed married:

  • BMI (body mass index) decreased for the women who got divorced.
  • Waist size decreased for the women who got divorced.

(( click here to read the rest ))


Related Posts:

(Link):  More Anti-Singleness Bias From Southern Baptist Al Mohler – Despite the Bible Says It Is Better Not To Marry 

(Link):   Please Stop Shaming Me for Being Single by J. Vadnal

(Link):   Preacher Says in Sermon that Single Men Who Play Video Games Are Losers Who Have Retarded Spirits and This Creates Dating Problems for Women

(Link): Conservative Christians Are Now Blaming Homosexual Marriage on Heterosexual Single Adults

(Link): There is No Such Thing as a Gift of Singleness or Gift of Celibacy or A Calling To Either One

(Link): Family as “The” Backbone of Society? – It’s Not In The Bible

(Link): The Myth of the Gift – Regarding Christian Teachings on Gift of Singleness and Gift of Celibacy

(Link): The Netherworld of Singleness for Some Singles – You Want Marriage But Don’t Want to Be Disrespected or Ignored for Being Single While You’re Single

(Link): Preachers and Christian Media Personalities: Re: Marriage – You’re missing the point stop trying to argue or shame singles into getting married

(Link): Christian Teachings on Relationships: One Reason Singles Are Remaining Single (even if they want to get married)

(Link): Salvation By Marriage Alone – The Over Emphasis Upon Marriage by Conservative Christians Evangelicals Southern Baptists

(Link): Want To But Can’t – The One Christian Demographic Being Continually Ignored by Christians Re: Marriage

(Link): Theme Park Bans Single Adults For Fear They Are All Pedophiles

(Link):  Stigmas and Stereotypes of Single Unmarried Men Over 25 or 30 Years of Age – They’re Supposedly All Homosexual or Pedophiles

(Link):  Christian Blogger About Divorce, Pastor Andrew Webb, Thinks All To Most Mid-Life Never – Married or Single – Again Adults Are Mal-Adjusted, Ugly Losers Who Have Too Much Baggage

(Link): Church Allows Pedophile To Lead Bible Studies, Hails Pedo as a “Hero” – Meanwhile, Many Churches  Refuse to Allow Celibate, Single Adults to Hold Any Sort of Leadership Positions

Male Author Slams Woman Author’s Editorial Slamming Working Mothers as Being Insulting Against Women AND Men

Male Author Slams Woman Author’s Editorial Slamming Working Mothers as Being Insulting Against Women AND Men

(Link): ‘Not only are you calling women selfish, you’re calling men incapable’: Father slams columnist who said motherhood is ‘under threat’ because women are prioritising their careers

Controversial columnist Miranda Devine made headlines in early February after writing a piece about working mothers.

In her column, titled ‘Don’t let your career make you a bad mother,’ Ms Devine said ‘motherhood is under threat’ and that ‘young women are coerced into prioritising careers and becoming feminist warriors against the so-called pay gap.’

Since, the column has been slammed by a number of women and furious mothers, including radio host Em Rusciano, who have labelled the piece both ‘offensive and ignorant.’

And now, Australian father-of-two and daddy blogger, Brad Kearns, has lashed out at the piece in defence of both himself and his wife.

‘Hey Miranda Devine, as a dad, I’ve never felt pressure to justify my career decisions to complete strangers,’ he  (Link): began.

‘Nobody has ever asked me how having children was going to impact my study or work. To be honest, I barely even entertained the thought that it could hold me back professionally.

‘Do you want to know why? Because I’m a f*****g man and society just assumes it wouldn’t change anything.’

Continue reading “Male Author Slams Woman Author’s Editorial Slamming Working Mothers as Being Insulting Against Women AND Men”

Complementarian and Pro Family Values Christians Claim to be Pro Woman and Pro Family But By Their Actions Show They Are Not

Complementarian and Pro Family Values Christians Claim to be Pro Woman and Pro Family But By Their Actions Show They Are Not

Complementarians claim to be respectful of women, but their theological views help to enable mistreatment of women and bar women from taking positions and roles that should go to them, if they have the skills, talents, and education.

Many Christians claim to be pro “Family Values” but in reality treat children and women (you know, who tend to be parts of families) like dirt.

Here are some posts explaining in detail or giving examples:

First post:

(Link):  When I Became a Single Mother, Patriarchy Let Me Down by Bridget Jack Jeffries (excerpts from this first link farther below)

Second post:

And by way of WW – that is (Link): Wartburg Watch – (from a February 2017 post entitled, “Ignite: Remove Alleged Rapist, Ben Roethlisberger, and Joe White, Who Is Being Sued for Child Sex Abuse Cover Up, From the Speaker Lineup!”)

Christian Liberty University is holding something called “Ignite,” which pertains to advocating godly manhood or family values, or some such. One of Ignite’s scheduled speakers is a guy named Ben Roethlisberger, who is accused of rape by at least three different women. The guy is, or was, a football player.

A sub-heading on the WW page reads: “The troubling history of rape allegations against Ben Roethlisberger”

The WW blog owners in turn link to this page in  their post about this guy here:

(Link):   Without Consequence: When Professional Athletes Are Violent Off the Field

So, a Christian university is allowing an accused rapist to speak at an event that is purportedly about encouraging men to lead godly lives.

Continue reading “Complementarian and Pro Family Values Christians Claim to be Pro Woman and Pro Family But By Their Actions Show They Are Not”

Alpha Females Part 4 – From Psychiatrists and Counselors: How and Why Being a Beta Female is Harmful and Damaging to Women

Alpha Females Part 4 – From Psychiatrists and Counselors: How and Why Being a Beta Female is Harmful and Damaging to Women

This commentary will be divided up among a few posts. Here is part 4.

(This post may be edited in the future to re-word things, polish things, add new thoughts or links / For Twitter: #TheAlphaFemalesGuide )

From this series:

Visit Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Part 3B: Response to Venker: Re: Personal Experience

Introduction.

For those new to my blog:

I am a right winger. I was a Republican until recently. I am now a conservative Independent.

I was a conservative Christian for many years (I am no longer sure about what my religious views are), and I (Link): Am A Former Gender Complementarian (someone who believed in and lived out traditional gender roles (what Venker would describe as “feminine” or “beta”), views which are based in large measure on incorrect interpretations and applications about gender in the Bible).

I sometimes agree with secular left wing feminists on some topics, but not always. At times, I disagree with secular and religious left wing feminists and have written several blog posts critiquing some of their views.

This series of blog posts is addressing the dating and relationship advice of author Suzanne Venker, who wrote a book called “The Alpha Female’s Guide to Men & Marriage” which she has lately been marketing online and on TV news shows.

Here is one article by Venker about her relationship views:

(Link, off site):  Society is creating a new crop of alpha women who are unable to love by S. Venker


As many books and articles on the subjects of boundaries, codependency, and even domestic violence explain, when or if a woman exhibits codependent behaviors or attitudes (such as being passive, having an unwillingness to say no to others, doesn’t put her own needs first), she will tend to attract abusive, selfish, or exploitative individuals.

Unfortunately, many of these same codependent traits are considered “feminine” by many conservatives and by Christians (under the teaching of gender complementarianism). Author Venker touts such traits under the heading of “Beta” or “being nice” or as “being feminine” or “being soft.”

While I myself do not agree with every last facet of secular (or even Christian) feminism, they are at least correct in fighting against expecting such behavior from girls and women, because they realize it leaves females open to being exploited, or treated unfairly at jobs or in relationships.

As this Christian-authored piece explains, feminism (not even secular feminism) is entirely bad, wrong, or off-base:

(Link): Perhaps Feminism is Not The Enemy

I also explained in (Link): Part 2 how many conservatives (and Venker herself) misunderstand, wrongly explain, or misunderstand feminism.

As I explained in (Link): Part 3 of this series, I was a “Beta” myself for many years (as was my mother), which is what Venker says women should be, if they hope to marry or have a happy, stress-free, marriage once they marry.

However, being “Beta” does not guarantee that a woman will attract more men, get more dates, or have a happy marriage – again, as I already explained in Part 3.

WHAT THE EXPERTS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT WOMEN BEING BETA

Psychiatrists and therapists have written books and articles explaining how and why taking advice such as Venker’s can lead to problems for women, including in the area of dating and marriage.

Below, I will excerpt content from the books The Disease to Please by psychiatrists Harriet B. Braiker, PhD, and counselor Beverly Engel from the book The Nice Girl Syndrome.

First, here are the relevant portions from Venker’s article on Fox News:

(Link):  Society is creating a new crop of alpha women who are unable to love by S. Venker – on the Fox News site

Today they abound. There are several reasons why, but it’s in large part due to women having been groomed to be leaders rather than to be wives. Simply put, women have become too much like men. They’re too competitive. Too masculine. Too alpha.

That may get them ahead at work. But when it comes to love, it will land them in a ditch.

Every relationship requires a masculine and a feminine energy to thrive. If women want to find peace with men, they must find their feminine…

In essence, being feminine means being nice. It means being soft instead of hard…

…What men want most of all is respect, companionship and sex. If you supply these basics, your husband will do anything for you…

—(end excerpt)—

There, Venker is telling women to deny who they truly are and downplay their personalities, desires, and so on (don’t come on “too strong”), because if they stay as-is, they will repel men, but if they change themselves to make a man happy, they can attract men, or the man they have won’t want to divorce them.

Let’s see what Dr. Braiker has to say about that type of reasoning (spoiler alert: Braiker totally disagrees with Venker).

From the book The Disease to Please:

Page 95:

…If you are the people-pleaser [people-pleaser = Venker’s Beta, Nice, or Feminine] in an unbalanced relationship… you will be forced to deny or suppress your own needs. Inevitably, even the nicest people will become frustrated and angry when their emotional and sexual needs are denied indefinitely.

Healthy relationships that endure are balanced and interdependent. Balanced interdependence means that both partners are aware of and sensitive and responsive to the needs of the other.

—(end excerpt)—

From pages 93-94:

Many people-pleasers [people-pleaser = Beta, Codependent, Nice, or Feminine women] who have used this approach [making a man dependent upon them by doing nice things for him all the time, stifling your own needs, etc., and  using other approaches Venker recommends] sadly discover that manipulating a man into an excessively dependent position – no matter how nice and well-intended your motives – may actually push him into doing the thing you most fear: abandoning you.

—(end excerpt)—

From pages 94 to 95, Braiker gives a case study of a patient of hers named Jennifer who utilized Venker-type methods to hold on to her husband [she always was available to him sexually, she sacrificed her needs to meet his at all times, and sought to “spoil” him].

The result? Jennifer’s husband Ron began having an affair on her with another woman, and later, Jennifer came home one day to find a note of good-bye from her husband, Ron, where he said he was divorcing her for the other woman.

A little later in this same chapter, starting on page 95, Braiker discusses how many career women are what Venker would refer to as ‘Alpha’ in the workplace (confident, competent, assertive, and so forth) but think that to attract or retain a man in their romantic life, that they must behave in what Venker would refer to as a “Beta.”

Braiker explains in this book that this is not so – that acting “Beta” (or “nice” or “feminine” – all which amounts to the same thing, regardless of the terminology used: being a codependent with bad boundaries in practice), causes such women to attract abusive or selfish men. Braiker then spends the rest of the chapter cautioning women from being passive in their romantic life to avoid users, abusers, and narcissists.

Here are a few excerpts, by Braiker (pages 95, 96):

… I have treated many highly successful career women who have entrapped themselves in bad relationships with men by their self-imposed people-pleasing [people-pleasing = being Beta, Nice, Feminine, Codependent] subservience.

A large number of these women who are now at the pinnacle of their professions grew up in the 1950s and 1960s, in an era when femininity and sexual attractiveness still carried with them certain gender stereotypes such as submissiveness, dependency, passivity, and sensitivity.

Today, many of these women, and even a significant number of younger women too, fear that the very traits that account for their success in the workplace – assertiveness, mental toughness, aggressiveness, competitive-ness – become liabilities in their romantic relationships with men.

[Here Braiker inserts the case study of one woman patient who is a CEO]

Many women like my [C.E.O.] patient, harbor misgivings about whether their achievements might boomerang when it comes to relationships with men and come back to haunt them.

…. As a consequence of this dangerous combination [fear of success combined with people-pleasing], they may engage in a range of self-defeating behaviors that can sabotage either their careers or their personal relationships, and often both.

… Some people-pleasing women attempt to resolve the dilemma by splitting their personality traits into two discrete “sides.” They may display their competitive, assertive, and aggressive side at work.

In their personal relationships with men, they may adopt an exaggerated “femininity,” displaying passivity, submissiveness, and compliance. This masquerade, of course, is no solution at all. Rather, it is a recipe for inner conflict, anxiety, identity confusion, and lowered self-esteem.

—(end excerpt)—

Braiker then next, on pages 96-97, offers up the case study of one of her women patients, Helene, who was a successful business woman who was living out what Venker suggests in her book for women to do: be assertive at the job, but be the passive, sweet, sex kitten at home with her mate.

The result of this for Helene? Lots of abuse.

…behind closed doors when they are alone, Bob [Helene’s boyfriend] treats Helene abusively. [Helene has a far more successful career than Bob does, which Bob is aware of.]

Helene defends Bob’s behavior by “understanding” how difficult it is for a man to stand in her shadow.

…Helene realized [via therapy] that she needed to correct some of her own gender stereotypes. Helene believed that by demonstrating her people-pleasing [Beta, nice, feminine] behavior in her personal relationships with men, she was being more feminine and, therefore, more sexually attractive.

[At her place of employment, where she was CEO, Helene tolerated no sexual harassment for herself or for any woman]. However, because of her Disease to Please [being codependent, Beta, nice, and feminine], Helene was actually rewarding a man for treating her abusively behind close doors.

—(end excerpt)—

From page 97:

It is imperative that you recognize how dangerous and self-sabotaging your people-pleasing tendencies with men can become so that you can change the unhealthy dynamic of your relationships. Otherwise, the Disease to Please [being codependent, Beta, nice, and feminine] will serve as a veritable mating call to men who have a perverse need and desire to control nearly every aspect of your behavior. Worse yet, you will allow them to do so.

—(end excerpt)—

Page 98:

Unless you repair the damage by curing the Disease to Please [being codependent, Beta, nice, and feminine]  that produced it, you will limp away from the relationship with the brand of “damaged goods” on your ego. [Then the cycle will repeat itself as you attract yet another abusive, selfish, or jerk boyfriend who mistreats you all over again.]

—(end excerpt)—

As you can see from those excerpts (and there are plenty more in the book), Dr. Braiker strongly warns and advises women against the very traits and attitudes that Venker is telling women in articles, books, and TV appearances that she thinks they should have!

While there are plenty of selfish or abusive men who would enjoy being able to thoroughly control a woman, and a woman who, per Venker’s teaching, willingly goes along with it, a lot of men soon tire of this extreme “feminine” type of woman and dump her.

In her book, starting on page 100, Dr. Braiker discusses a male patient she had once who admitted that he loved to date the sort of women Venker advises women to be, because they were so easy to control. But, the guy soon got tired of dating these passive, wimpy, Beta women.

Here’s what he said:

“…One day, I realized I’m sitting in the boat [of life] all alone. I don’t want the kind of woman who will do anything to please me anymore. It’s boring and lonely. I want a partner who can sit on the boat next to me and keep me company. I want us to please each other without losing all boundaries or identity.”

Another male patient said (page 101):

“I do like to be in control, but I really want someone who will push back. I like steak because it gives me something to chew on. I don’t want to eat pre-chewed baby food. That’s how I wind up feeling about a woman who will give up her own substance just because she’s trying to please me. There’s nothing to chew on; there’s no challenge there at all. I just get bored.”

As Dr. Braiker so succinctly puts it (from page 106):

-There’s nothing wrong with wanting to make a man you love happy or wanting to please him. Just be sure that you’re not pleasing him by hurting yourself in the process.

-Any man who is threatened or feels diminished by your intelligence, achievements, success, or talent is NOT someone with whom you are likely to have a gratifying relationship with anyway. Look elsewhere.

—(end excerpt)—

Earlier in the book starting around page 49, Dr. Braiker discusses a single woman patient she had named Miranda who wants badly to get married. Miranda cannot figure out why she can’t seem to hold on to a man.

Miranda wrongly assumes the way to “catch” a man is to take the sort of advice Venker gives in her relationship book – she tries to be very pleasing and agreeable with every man she dates, she molds herself into whatever type of woman she assumes her current boyfriend of the month likes, and so on.

The result is that all these men eventually become bored with Miranda – and break up with her.

As Braiker describes it in the book (page 50), Miranda puts on the “beta” routine that Venker advises:

So, as soon as Miranda finds herself attracted and interested in a man, she puts herself in a subservient, submissive, position. She lavishes men with attention, adoration, and praise. Miranda believes that to be worthy of a man’s love, she must prove she will always put his needs first.

…The truth is that she [Miranda] cannot offer the one thing a healthy man wants and needs the most: the ability to truly share herself because she knows and values who she is.

—(end excerpt)—

Notice that Miranda’s assumptions on how to attract a man are similar to the tactics Venker puts forward in her Fox news article. And, as Braiker goes on to explain, Miranda was her patient because her “beta” femininity was driving men away, and she could not figure out that it was her very beta-femininity-ness that was at fault.

EXCHANGING AGENCY AND INDEPENDENCE FOR BEING OVER-RELIANT ON A MAN

Continuing with my critique of Venker’s views; more from her article at Fox news:

(Link):  Society is creating a new crop of alpha women who are unable to love by S. Venker – on the Fox News site:

And because I had zero interest in my husband adopting a more feminine role, I set about to become the feminine creature our culture insists women not be.

And here’s what I learned: It’s liberating to be a beta!

I’m an alpha all day long, and it gets tiresome. I concede that I thrive on it; but at the end of the day, I’m spent. Self-reliance is exhausting. Making all the decisions is exhausting. Driving the car, literally or figuratively, is exhausting.

—(end excerpt)—

So, Venker is apparently fine ceding normal adult and personal responsibility to her husband because it makes her life easier. What she’s also sacrificing is her independence, dignity, and agency by doing so.

I take it that Venker is a right winger or conservative: right wingers and conservatives support personal responsibility; they don’t recommend that adults neglect it.

As I explain in an older post, I am a FORMER gender complementarian. Sometimes people on other sites have asked me, “Why do you suppose so many Christian women willingly endure the sexism known as complementarianism?”

One of several reasons so many Christian women remain “stuck” in complementarianism and go along with it is precisely to ride the coat-tails of a husband, because it’s easier going through life with someone taking care of you than it is for you to take care of yourself, by getting a job, taking care of your own car, and so forth.

Christian women are willing to trade off their autonomy, dreams, goals in life, and independence in exchange for male-provided financial stability and having a husband who is like a “father figure” who they can rely on.

In the book of Genesis of the Bible, God, by the way, actually predicted this would happen as a result of sin, when He told Adam and Eve that the woman would desire her husband and turn to the husband – rather than to God.

Ever since, yes, many women have indeed traded off God-reliance (or self-reliance) to depend on a husband for emotional and financial stability. And women like Venker (along with hordes of Christian gender complementarians) are prodding women to keep this up. It’s so sick, and rather tragic.

Women depending on men to this degree – and giving up their identity, needs, and self-hood in the process – is a RESULT of the Fall, a RESULT of sin entering humanity – but Venker and complementarians and other conservatives think this is awesome, healthy, or great for marriages and dating. Sick, sick, sick.

Secular feminism seeks to correct this type of sin that impacts women so strongly (and so this is one aspect of feminism that is good!), ironically.

Secular feminists are trying to free women from this very sin God predicted back in Genesis (and secular feminists – and a smaller number of Christian gender egalitarians – see how damaging it is), but many Christians and conservatives keep trying to cram women back into this same “sin box” and tell them it is “good” for them and for their relationships.

So, Venker finds being responsible and making decisions all day tiring. Well, yes, most people do. But the solution is not to hand over all or most of your personal responsibility to another adult.

Counselor Beverly Engels warns women against this very temptation in her book (Link): The Nice Girl Syndrome.

Engel discusses in the book (pages 212 – 214) that during her early 30s, on a month long trip to Europe, she met a European guy named Jacob. By the time she met this guy, she had been in Europe for a few weeks, was exhausted.

She ends up going to his place, they had sex a time or two, though the second time she didn’t really want to. The guy wasn’t exactly overtly abusive, but she felt she “owed” him sex to be nice to him, since he was now taking care of her. He was making her breakfasts, letting her stay at his home, etc.

For a period of time, due to exhaustion, Engel says she let this Jacob man control her, she was tired of making decisions for herself, she was tired of all the responsibility on this trip, so she was willing to turn the steering wheel over to Jacob – as Venker is asking women to do in their own relationships.

Engel says that is a bad move, and she has regret over her interactions with Jacob to this day. Even though she kept turning the guy down sexually, so long as she stayed at his home, he kept repeatedly bugging her for sex and for more sex. He was super persistent.

Venker’s advice to women boils down to that they infantilize themselves to be more attractive to men. This is bad and dangerous advice.

From page 131 by Engel:

You can’t expect anyone else to take responsibility for your welfare. You are the only one who can take care of you.

The price you pay for looking to someone else to take care of you is dependency, the loss of self, and, ultimately, the inability to control your life.

YOU DON’T WANT TO DATE OR MARRY THE SORT OF MEN VENKER’S ADVICE WILL ATTRACT

From page 45 of Engel’s book:

It used to be that the payoff for being sweet and nice was that one was taken care of and protected by the men and authority figures in one’s life.

Girls and women were perceived as weaker and in need of protection from the “big, bad world,” and boys and men took on the responsibility of making sure that nothing bad happened to them. But those days are gone, along with chivalry and manners.

Most boys and men today do not feel responsible for protecting girls; in fact, many view girls and women as objects to be exploited.

…This doesn’t mean that there aren’t men who like taking on the role of provider and protector. But these men are not necessarily throwbacks to an earlier time – unfortunately, they often take on this role as a way of dominating women. In fact, these men often look for women who are passive, who appear naive and innocent, because such women are easier to control.

–(end excerpt)–

Yes, as you can see, Venker’s advice, if followed, will open you up to appearing very attractive to abusive, selfish, cruel, or self-absorbed men who only want to use you, not care for you or about your needs.

The sorts of men you will attract if you follow Venker’s advice are not the sorts of men you want to date or marry. You want to avoid these guys, not marry them.

I also find this, from Engel’s book, highly pertinent (from page 126), where Engle is discussing a patient she had named Nina:

Nina was painting a picture of a storybook family life – the dutiful wife, the hardworking husband, the kids who were seen but not heard. Or was it? Nina was a young woman who was raised in the 1980s – not the fifties. Something just wasn’t adding up.

After several more sessions and some gentle prodding on my part, Nina finally opened up more about how it really was in her family. As it turned out, it wasn’t so perfect after all.

Yes, her mother was a dutiful wife, but her father was quite demanding. He expected his wife to wait on him hand and foot when he was home, and he was extremely hard to please.

There were many nights when he refused to eat what she [his wife, who was Nina’s mother] had cooked and insisted that she cook something else entirely. He complained if the house wasn’t immaculate and the kids weren’t bathed and dressed up when he got home.

As we continued to explore Nina’s childhood, Nina admitted that it really wasn’t by choice that her mother didn’t have any friends or didn’t go out much. It was at her father’s insistence that Nina’s mother not associate with anyone outside the family.

–(end excerpt)–

If you go by Venker’s marital advice, you may find yourself with a similar dynamic in your marriage that Nina’s mother was in. How many of you married women out there want that sort of loveless, emotionally abusive marriage?

Exchanging your decision-making abilities or duties for a life of ease and simplicity, all so more stress and responsibility falls on your husband, is a lazy, stupid, immature, potentially dangerous thing to do, and it’s actually unfair to your husband. I am dumb-founded that a conservative author any where would recommend that other women do this, or that she does this herself.

I hope this post of mine, with excerpts from books by a psychiatrist and a counselor, both of whom have treated many patients over the years (and hence have way more insight and experience in relationship dynamics than Venker does) clarifies just how terrible, sexist, and harmful relationship advice such as Venker’s is.

If you didn’t want to take my word for it, as (Link): based upon my experience and my mother’s, with how awful it was to utilize Venker-like advice in our own relationships, I hope the insights by professionals (one with a PhD) lends more credence.


I intend on writing a Part 5, if or when I get the time and/or inclination. And then, I think I may finally be done with this series. – Thankfully. This was not something I enjoyed writing all too much.


Related Posts:

(Link):  Alpha Females Part 1 – Nothing New Under the Sun. Conservative Women Keep Issuing Same Sexist, Unhelpful Dating And Marital Advice to Women

(Link):  Alpha Females Part 2 – Defining the Terms – How Anti-Feminists and Complementarians Misrepresent Concepts or Terms

(Link): A Response to Venker: Re: Personal Experience

Alpha Females Part 3 – Being a Beta Female Does Not Work, It Won’t Get You Dates, Or Keep Your Marriage in Good Shape

Alpha Females Part 3 – Being a Beta Female Does Not Work, It Won’t Get You Dates Or Keep Your Marriage in Good Shape

This commentary will be divided up among a few posts. Here is part 3.

(This post may be edited in the future to re-word things, polish things, add new thoughts or links)

Visit Part 1. | Part 2 | A Response to Venker: Re: Personal Experience

Part 4

Introduction.

For those new to my blog:

I am a right winger. I was a Republican until recently. I am now a conservative Independent.

I was a conservative Christian for many years (I am no longer sure about what my religious views are), and I (Link): Am A Former Gender Complementarian (someone who believed in and lived out traditional gender roles, views which are based in large measure on incorrect interpretations and applications about gender in the Bible).

I sometimes agree with secular left wing feminists on some topics, but not always. At times, I disagree with secular and religious left wing feminists and have written several blog posts critiquing some of their views.

This series of blog posts is addressing the dating and relationship advice of author Suzanne Venker, who wrote a book called “The Alpha Female’s Guide to Men & Marriage” which she has lately been marketing online and on TV news shows.

Here is one article by Venker about her relationship views:

(Link, off site):  Society is creating a new crop of alpha women who are unable to love by S. Venker


Venker, the author of “Society is creating a new crop of alpha women who are unable to love,” relies on a lot of anecdotal commentary to bolster her arguments in her article on “Fox News” site – I can only assume her book is filled with much of the same nonsense…

BEING A TRADITIONAL FEMALE, WHICH VENKER AND OTHERS BASICALLY EQUATE WITH BEING A DOORMAT, DOES NOT WORK FOR RELATIONSHIPS

I have anecdotal commentary in the other direction based on my own life, that of my mother’s and that of other women, to counter Venker’s arguments.

(Update: Please see (Link): my response to Venker here: she is fine with using her personal life experience in articles or books to sell other women on the notion they should be “Beta.”

However, when I produce examples in this post on MY experience – of how being Beta did not make my relationships better – she dismissed this approach on Twitter. Her using her personal experience to back up her view is acceptable to her, but not when others do the same thing to back up their views.

That is inconsistent. If she can appeal to her personal experience to make a point, so can I).

Here is an excerpt from the page by Venker:

….Indeed, my mother was the quintessential alpha wife. An alpha wife micromanages, delegates and makes most or even all of the decisions. She is, quite simply, the Boss.

— end excerpt–

Yes, I grew up quite the opposite from Venker. My mother was the total opposite of Venker’s.

MY MOTHER

My mother was the very sort of woman Venker advises other women to be. My mother in turn raised me to be like herself, which I was, up until my late 30s or early 40s.

My mother was the sweet, docile, doormat who catered to my father’s every need. My mother was definitely the opposite of “The Boss.”

My mother made home-cooked meals for my father most nights. She did not have a job outside the home.

My mother was the stereotypical womanly woman, passive, non-confrontational, soft-spoken woman that conservatives are forever applauding and pressuring other women to be like.

Continue reading “Alpha Females Part 3 – Being a Beta Female Does Not Work, It Won’t Get You Dates, Or Keep Your Marriage in Good Shape”

Alpha Females Part 2 – Defining the Terms – How Anti-Feminists and Complementarians Misrepresent Concepts or Terms

Alpha Females Part 2 – Defining the Terms – How Anti-Feminists and Complementarians Misrepresent Concepts or Terms

This commentary will be divided up among a few posts. Here is part 2.

(This post may be edited in the future to re-word things, polish things, add new thoughts or links)

More pages in this series:

Visit Part 1. | Part 3 |  A Response to Venker: Re: Personal Experience

Part 4

Introduction.

For those new to my blog:

I am a right winger. I was a Republican until recently. I am now a conservative Independent.

I was a conservative Christian for many years (I am no longer sure about what my religious views are), and I (Link): Am A Former Gender Complementarian (someone who believed in and lived out traditional gender roles, views which are based in large measure on incorrect interpretations and applications about gender in the Bible).

I sometimes agree with secular left wing feminists on some topics, but not always. At times, I disagree with secular and religious left wing feminists and have written several blog posts critiquing some of their views.

This series of blog posts is addressing the dating and relationship advice of author Suzanne Venker, who wrote a book called “The Alpha Female’s Guide to Men & Marriage” which she has lately been marketing online and on TV news shows.

Here is one article by Venker about her relationship views:

(Link, off site):  Society is creating a new crop of alpha women who are unable to love by S. Venker


Venker, like many conservative authors, conflate the word or concept of “feminine” (and “nice“) with terms, behaviors, or concepts, such as, but not limited to, being passive, quiet, demure, agreeable, docile, and “being a doormat.”

I have no doubt that Venker, and women like her, would likely reject that she is asking women to be doormats – but that is precisely what she is doing when she asks women, as she does in the articles I have read, to give up certain behaviors, especially if those behaviors are part and parcel of a normal, healthy adult’s boundaries and identity.

And Venker is insisting women do these very damaging things, insisting that they inflict damage on themselves, change themselves, make themselves smaller, all for the goal of capturing a man while single, or to keeping one happy while married. This is most definitely a throw back to 1950s America and earlier.

We’re in 2017, Venker, please join us here.

By the way, the type of man who needs a woman to repress her fierce nature, true views, or her voice and needs, to “be happy” in a relationship, and not feel like he’s being bossed around, are usually highly insecure or selfish men. Such men are not worth dating or marrying or trying to cajole or placate in the first place.

Many Conservatives further conflate the term “feminine” with women refusing to get their own needs met, and with always putting a man’s needs before their own (or the needs of children or other women ahead of their own).

Being feminine is defined as, or thought of, or confused by many conservatives and with most complementarians, with being a 1950s television show June Cleaver housewife, as though that is the one and only appropriate way for a woman to be.

In a nutshell, conservatives (this would include Christian gender complementarians) confuse “being feminine,” or mistake “being feminine,” with Being Codependent.

Codependency is not healthy for girls, women, or for their relationships.

However, codependent behaviors and attitudes are applauded and expected in girls and women by much of culture (certainly by most conservatives), and complementarian Christians often mistakenly assume that God designed girls and women to be codependents. This is so, even though the Bible through-out warns against anyone, male or female, being codependent.

The word “nice” is also often confused by a lot of people, certainly by complementarians and by some conservatives, with codependency.

When someone is “nice,” this generally means she will exhibit codependent traits.

She will not be assertive and stand up for herself or insist on getting her own needs met, but will go through life doing such things as quietly enduring suffering as boyfriends cheat on her repeatedly, co-workers take advantage of her on the job, or a husband strikes her with his fist.

Continue reading “Alpha Females Part 2 – Defining the Terms – How Anti-Feminists and Complementarians Misrepresent Concepts or Terms”

Alpha Females Part 1 – Nothing New Under the Sun. Conservative Women Keep Issuing Same Sexist, Unhelpful Dating And Marital Advice to Women

Alpha Females Part 1 – Nothing New Under the Sun. Conservative Women Keep Issuing Same Sexist, Unhelpful Dating And Marital Advice to Women

This commentary will be divided up among a few posts. Here is part 1.

Visit Part 2 | Part 3 |  A Response to Venker: Re: Personal Experience

Part 4

Introduction.

For those new to my blog:

I am a right winger. I was a Republican until recently. I am now a conservative Independent.

I was a conservative Christian for many years (I am no longer sure about what my religious views are), and I (Link): Am A Former Gender Complementarian (someone who believed in and lived out traditional gender roles, views which are based in large measure on incorrect interpretations and applications about gender in the Bible).

I sometimes agree with secular left wing feminists on some topics, but not always. At times, I disagree with secular and religious left wing feminists and have written several blog posts critiquing some of their views.


This series of posts is addressing author Suzanne Venker’s relationship advice, as I have seen her advocate for, in behalf of her book “The Alpha Female’s Guide to Men and Marriage.”

I myself am not, nor have I ever been, what she terms an “Alpha Female.”

I have always been what she refers to as a “Beta,” and guess what?

Being a Beta did not land me a spouse, dates, or make my life easier, more peaceful, less stressful, or rewarding, as Venker tries to reassure her female readers that it will. More on that in a future post.

As a conservative who is in her 40s and still single (though engaged at one time), I have been seeing these sorts of attitudes about gender and marriage that are discussed below in an article by Venker advanced by secular and religious conservatives since I was a teen in the 1980s.

There is an annoying, recurrent, and yes, sexist, motiff by conservatives to say the reason society has problems with marriage, dating irregularity, high divorce rates, and other relationship problems – is that women are at fault.

Women are always blamed for relationship trends and problems – and at that, usually by other women – and at that, by women who tend to be conservative and who publish books or articles about dating and marriage.

Continue reading “Alpha Females Part 1 – Nothing New Under the Sun. Conservative Women Keep Issuing Same Sexist, Unhelpful Dating And Marital Advice to Women”

Half of Americans Think Women Should Be Required by Law to Take Husband’s Name

Half of Americans Think Women Should Be Required by Law to Take Husband’s Name

Talk about sexist and backwards.

When I was engaged to be married in my early 30s, I told my then-fiance when this topic came up that I was keeping my last name after we married, which out-raged him or greatly annoyed him. He became very argumentative and insisted I take on his last name (which was a tacky and stupid sounding surname).

And for some reason, my then-fiance told his family about this a few days later, and they laughed at him.

I don’t have a problem with women who willingly change their last name to their husband’s surname of their own free will and accord, but I do not agree with women doing this based on social convention, sexism, or pressure from their husband- to- be.

I find it sexist.  For every reason such men (or women who support it) reel off, it comes down to control. People today still think a man should be able to control the women he is married to.

For me, I am in my mid 40s. I’ve had this same last name my whole life – I’m not going to change it to placate some insecure man’s ego. He can get bent.

(Link):  Half of Americans Think Women Should Be Required by Law to Take Husband’s Name by K. Lawson,  Jan 2017

A new study published this month in “Gender Issues” seeks to understand why 70 percent of US adults reported in previous research that they believe a married woman should change her name and half said it should be required by law.


 … Shafer was interested in understanding how people perceived women based on their last name choice, and whether keeping one’s maiden name could cause backlash.

Continue reading “Half of Americans Think Women Should Be Required by Law to Take Husband’s Name”

Cheating Christian Man Tells Wife He is Not Built for Marriage – Take Carrie’s Advice On Cheating Jerks – Equally Yoked Is A Stupid Teaching

Cheating Christian Man Tells Wife He is Not Built for Marriage – Take Carrie’s Advice On Cheating Jerks – Equally Yoked Is A Stupid Teaching

A Christian woman wrote to Pat Robertson, host of the Christian show ‘The 700 Club,’ with the following letter (you can view the video segment with this letter, as well as listen to Pat Roberson’s reply to her (Link): here (You Tube)):

[Dear Pat Robertson]

I married a man who I thought was a Christian … even though I knew he cheated on me a year before I married him.

He is addicted to porn and I just recently found out he was talking to another woman.

They both said they did not have sex, but I am crushed.

Is this adultery? What should I do? He says he wasn’t made for marriage,

[Signed] Caroline.

Robertson basically tells her she does not have grounds to divorce the guy (I disagree with him. More on that farther below).

Continue reading “Cheating Christian Man Tells Wife He is Not Built for Marriage – Take Carrie’s Advice On Cheating Jerks – Equally Yoked Is A Stupid Teaching”

Young Single Women Try to Appear Less Ambitious To Attract A Mate – via WSJ

Young Single Women Try to Appear Less Ambitious To Attract A Mate – via WSJ

Link to the article:

(Link): Young single women try to appear to appear less ambitious to attract a mate

My comments about this article from the Wall Street Jounal (excerpts from said article are much farther below):

Single ladies who want to be married:

The kind of man you will attract if you minimize yourself, play yourself off as vapid, helpless, or ditzy, is NOT the sort of man you should want to be dating or marrying in the first place.

Further, if anything, the problem is the reverse.

If you are a woman with money in your savings account, or are employed and earning a pay check, you must be aware of men who are out to use your for your money – it happens. Our culture often paints women as being the gold-digger, but I have often seen the reverse situation.

Since I’ve been a little girl, most of the couples I have seen (cohabitating, dating, or married), including my ex fiance, have consisted of men who prey on ambitious women for the woman’s money. A lot of men seem to like and be attracted to ambitious women.

There are a lot of lazy men out there who are male gold-diggers: they leech financially off their wife or girlfriend.

I have an Aunt who works full time to pay all the bills, while her husband sits around in dirty overalls in a recliner watching football on TV all day, when he’s not down at the corner bar drinking beer with buddies. I have other examples I could cite, but that should be sufficient.

Single women: you need to be true to yourself, as the old saying goes.

If you get to my age (mid-40s), you will have a sh*tload of regrets if you played down your true skills, talents, and quirks over your life- all because you thought you had to do so in order to get dates or get married.

Never, ever downplay your true life goals, hobbies, interests, or intelligence to lure men to you. It won’t end up how you think it will – you will end up attracting a user, abuser, creep, or a self-absorbed sexist who doesn’t care about you, your life, or your goals.

If you end up single, it’s not the end of the world. You will get by just fine. You will find other things in life to preoccupy your interests and time other than romance, if you never get a husband.

Continue reading “Young Single Women Try to Appear Less Ambitious To Attract A Mate – via WSJ”

Emotional Labor and Female- On- Female Emotional Exploitation

Emotional Labor and Female- On- Female Emotional Exploitation

I was thinking about possibly writing a post or two more about the concept of Emotional Labor in the future.

First, here is a primer from another site explaining a little bit about what this issue is about, with a few comments by me farther (way farther) below it:

(Link):  50 Ways People Expect Constant Emotional Labor from Women and Femmes

Excerpt:

Emotional labor is the exertion of energy for the purpose of addressing people’s feelings, making people comfortable, or living up to social expectations. It’s called “emotional labor” because it ends up using – and often draining – our emotional resources.

Now, don’t get me wrong: Asking friends for advice, reaching out to people in your line of work, and other actions I’m about to mention can be part of a healthy relationship. The issue arises when it’s not reciprocal.

Many marginalized people can tell you that people frequently make demands of them that cross the line from participation in a mutual relationship to work – and unpaid work, at that.

Because we’re assumed to be naturally emotionally intelligent and nurturing, people don’t always understand that this is work for us. And because we’re expected to put others before ourselves, a lot of people don’t even care.

Here are just a few of the many ways that women and femmes, in particular, are expected to perform emotional labor without compensation or acknowledgement throughout their lives:

2. Friends offload their problems – sometimes serious problems that we’re not equipped to handle – onto us before we have agreed to talk about them, often expecting an immediate response.

3. Casual acquaintances and sometimes complete strangers do the same, often over the Internet and often sharing triggering details

6. When we have relatives or friends with physical or mental illnesses, they and their loved ones are more likely to reach out to us than men to take care of them.

Continue reading “Emotional Labor and Female- On- Female Emotional Exploitation”

Continue Being a Butthole Wife: Death is Not a Justification for Husbands To Be Entitled, Selfish, or Abusive Buttholes

Continue Being a Butthole Wife: Death is Not a Justification for Husbands To Be Entitled, Selfish, or Abusive Buttholes

I first saw this blog post featured on a Christian gender egalitarian site. It was later picked up by (Link): Stuff Christian Culture Likes group, here.

The blog post under question is this one:

(Link): Stop Being a Butthole Wife by Debbie Wilkins Baisden

Yes, that is the actual title. She apparently felt too shy to write “Asshole,” so it came out “Butthole.”

To the woman who wrote it: every one of us eventually dies. That does not give any of us an excuse to be mean, rude, selfish, entitled, irresponsible, or abusive while we’re alive.

Death does not absolve someone of whatever bad thing they did while alive.

I loved my mother more than any one in the world. She died several years ago. I still sometimes miss her terribly.

But her being gone does not change the fact that there was some flaws in her parenting. It’s not wrong for me to recognize her shortcomings or be angry or upset about them. Her being gone and dead does not mean I have to sit around excusing other people’s – living people’s – flaws, either.

I just finished writing a very long post about a week ago explaining to any dense men out there why their wives divorce them. Here is a link to that – and it sounds to me as though the author of the “Butthole Wife” post should read it too:

(Link):   The Selfish, Lazy Husband Who Kept Blowing Off His Stressed Wife to Go on World War 2 Reenactments – Male Entitlement in Relationships: Why Women Divorce Men – and Churches and Culture Support This Male Entitlement

Baisden mentions in her blog post about “playing possum” (pretending to be asleep) so as to avoid having sex with her spouse.

It’s not necessary for a woman to play-act, or be passive aggressive to avoid sex: all you have to do is communicate directly and tell him, should he make any sexual overtures: “I don’t want to.” End of story.

Continue reading “Continue Being a Butthole Wife: Death is Not a Justification for Husbands To Be Entitled, Selfish, or Abusive Buttholes”

It Doesn’t Take the Combination of Male and Female to Image God by S. O’Connor

It Doesn’t Take the Combination of Male and Female to Image God by S. O’Connor

I used to be a Christian gender complementarian. One unfortunate by-product of complementarianism is this notion that it takes a man married to a woman to equal a full human being.

I am a woman over age 40. I have never married. I find it deeply sexist and insulting any time I see Christians insisting in their sermons, books, blog posts, and where ever else, that it takes a man married to a woman to fully image God, because this view implies that a never-married woman such as myself is not “fully” human.

Nowhere does the Bible say it takes a man and a woman together to “equal” God’s image but this idea seems fairly common in Protestant, evangelical Christian circles.

I do not need a man as a husband or otherwise to fully represent God or to be a “full” human being.

The following blog post picks this “it takes two” view apart nicely:

(Link): It Doesn’t Take the Combination of Male and Female to Image God by S. O’Connor

Excerpts:

Practically everywhere I go I hear that it takes the combination of male and female to image God. God is not a man or a woman, it is argued, so it’s only logical that neither gender can fully image God by itself.

Continue reading “It Doesn’t Take the Combination of Male and Female to Image God by S. O’Connor”

The Selfish, Lazy Husband Who Kept Blowing Off His Stressed Wife to Go on World War 2 Reenactments – Male Entitlement in Relationships: Why Women Divorce Men – and Churches and Culture Support This Male Entitlement

The Selfish, Lazy Husband Who Kept Blowing Off His Stressed Wife to Go on World War 2 Reenactments – Male Entitlement in Relationships: Why Women Divorce Men – and Churches and Culture Support This Male Entitlement

This may be the start of a series. I may do more posts like this as I come across more examples. I kind of already did a part one a couple of years ago (Part 1). This post was not the Part 2 I had in mind, not really.

The things this post covers pertains to one of my big pet peeves as related to men, dating, marriage, culture, church, and relationships.

First, here is the story, (and then below, I’ll analyze or comment why this bothers the hell out of me).

Over a year ago, I watched an episode of the TV show “Restaurant Impossible,” hosted by Chef Robert Irvine on Food Network.

This married couple owned a restaurant that was failing financially, so they had Chef Irvine come in to rescue their business.

I don’t remember all the details of the show, the couple, or their restaurant. I don’t remember their names or where they were located. I cannot recall if both the husband and wife wanted the business, or just the wife did, or what.

Regardless.

The wife was having a nervous breakdown from all the stress of being a restaurant owner. She was running all aspects of the restaurant by herself (with a small staff who helped cook), but the vast majority of the responsibility for the restaurant was on her shoulders.

Although the wife kept begging her spouse to help her, because she was at a breaking point, he would not help her. He would sort of promise or act like he agreed to coming in more often to help, but he would bail on her.

If I am not mistaken, the husband did not hold down a regular job at this time. I think he had quit his regular “9 to 5” job to be in the food business with the wife.

However, the idiot (the husband) spent all his free time chasing down his passions and hobbies, which included stuff like parachuting out of planes on weekends with other men as part of a World War 2 para-trooper re-enactment group, and I think the guy was also part of a barber shop singing quartet the rest of the time, or something.

Continue reading “The Selfish, Lazy Husband Who Kept Blowing Off His Stressed Wife to Go on World War 2 Reenactments – Male Entitlement in Relationships: Why Women Divorce Men – and Churches and Culture Support This Male Entitlement”

Not Wanting Kids Is Entirely Normal – Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy by J. Valenti

Not Wanting Kids Is Entirely Normal – Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy by J. Valenti

(Link): Not Wanting Kids Is Entirely Normal – Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy by J. Valenti

Excerpts:

In 2008, Nebraska decriminalized child abandonment. The move was part of a “safe haven” law designed to address increased rates of infanticide in the state. Like other safe-haven laws, parents in Nebraska who felt unprepared to care for their babies could drop them off in a designated location without fear of arrest and prosecution.

But legislators made a major logistical error: They failed to implement an age limitation for dropped-off children.

Within just weeks of the law passing, parents started dropping off their kids. But here’s the rub: None of them were infants. A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations.

Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy.

One father dropped off his entire family — nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

The Nebraska state government, realizing the tremendous mistake it had made, held a special session of the legislature to rewrite the law in order to add an age limitation.

….What happened in Nebraska raises the question: If there were no consequences, how many of us would give up our kids?

…..Whether it’s because of hardship or not, many Americans are giving up on parenthood.

Continue reading “Not Wanting Kids Is Entirely Normal – Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy by J. Valenti”

Married Couple is Drifting Apart (Ask Amy Letter)

Married Couple is Drifting Apart (Ask Amy Letter)

This guy who wrote the Ask Amy advice columnist has been married for about ten or more years and says he and his wife are drifting apart. (I have pasted a copy of the letter much farther below in this post.)

He essentially says his wife is bored by him and his company and spends a lot of time away from him, out at night, with friends, or else, she’s on the phone a lot with her friends.

I was engaged to a guy for a few years – I ended up dumping the guy. While we were a couple, I could sit in the same room as him and yet still feel all alone.

The guy I was engaged to was terribly self-absorbed. My ex-fiance never took an interest in me, my opinions, my job, my life. He never paid me compliments, never gave me encouragement. I felt single and alone, even though I was in a relationship with him.

I so often see this assumption by Christians, in Hollywood movies, TV shows, and relationship advice books and articles, that you’ll never, ever be lonely if only you could just find a romantic partner. This notion is a bunch of nonsense. The truth is you can be in a relationship with someone and still feel lonely and unfulfilled.

Your partner might be a self-absorbed twit like my ex was, or your partner may be so emotionally troubled (or have an alcohol or drug addiction problem), which will leave you so busy catering to your partner’s needs, that he or she will be unable to meet yours (because your partner is too drunk, high on drugs, or psychologically damaged to be able to do so).

Continue reading “Married Couple is Drifting Apart (Ask Amy Letter)”

Report: Sleazy Christian Celebrity Evangelist Clayton Jennings Uses Youth Ministry to Groom Young Women Into Casual Sex Then Offers Them Morning After Pill

Report: Sleazy Christian Celebrity Evangelist Uses Youth Ministry to Groom Young Women Into Casual Sex Then Offers Them Morning After Pill

This report comes by way of J. D. Hall, who I am not a fan of (I’ve blogged about him before). My Twitter acquaintance, DefendTheSheep, first tweeted the link to this page, which was written by Hall; she felt it was worth a look.

Even though I do not much care for Hall and consider him somewhat of a bully, I do think it’s good he’s shedding light on this instance of sexual abuse.

(Link): Celebrity Preacher Clayton Jennings: Sex, Alcohol, and the Morning After Pill

Updates:

(Link): Clayton Jennings: His Admission, New Victims and FAQ

(Link): Disgraced Evangelist Clayton Jennings Enlists “Mentor” Tony Nolan for Dramatic Apology Video

(Link): Clayton Jennings: His Victim Speaks Up

(Link): Revoked: Clayton Jennings Loses Ministry Endorsement of Home Church

(Link): Celebrity Preacher Loses ‘License’ After Wooed Women Come Forward Citing Sex, Booze & Morning-After Pill

(Link):  Evangelist Clayton Jennings Steps Away From Ministry After Multiple Sex Partners Come Forward (Dec 2016)

According to Hall’s report, this evangelist guy, Jennings, uses his ministry to groom young women into one-night stands.

According to Hall, Jennings targeted one young woman who he saw on Facebook – he contacted her first and began flirting with her (my understanding is that she was following his Facebook ministry page). He started messaging her, asking her to send him nude photos of herself.

She attempted to rebuff him, but Jennings was quite persistent. He told her he felt as though God wanted him to marry her, etc, and so on – lots of sweet talk.

It appears to me, based on Hall’s writing, as though this Jennings guy is using his ministry to exploit naive, young women who have terrible boundaries.

His pastor father stepped in to defend him, too. The whole family sounds like a family of dirt bags.

This is yet another example of why I encourage single, Christian women to drop the “equally yoked” teaching.

Continue reading “Report: Sleazy Christian Celebrity Evangelist Clayton Jennings Uses Youth Ministry to Groom Young Women Into Casual Sex Then Offers Them Morning After Pill”