When Narcissists Fake Being Sick to Manipulate You – Re: Boundaries, etc

When Narcissists Fake Being Sick to Manipulate You – Re: Boundaries, etc

I just blogged about this very topic just yesterday, June 25 (today is June 26) when I saw this video on You Tube today! Talk about coincidental timing!

So this psychologist, Dr. Ramani, made this 11.54 video (I’ll embed it below, you can also watch it on You Tube here) who discusses a letter by a woman married to a guy who uses (fake) illness as an excuse to leave social functions early.

The woman said her husband has a habit of faking sickness to get out of social obligations or to depart them early.

Well, the woman’s kid sister was turning 18, the family was throwing a birthday party / dinner for the young lady, and this married woman had her husband go with her.

The husband said he didn’t want to go, but the wife wouldn’t take No for an answer on this one – the husband never wanted to go to parties, and she seemed to feel like the husband would or could make an exception for this, since it was for her kid sister.

So they go to the party, the husband vomits on purpose while at the party but makes it look as though he’s sick – all so he can leave the party early and force his wife to go with him.

The psychologist who is discussing this story (she’s reading from a letter the woman wrote asking for advice) points out that so many people are quick to tell people like the woman who wrote this letter “to have boundaries,” which the woman tried on her (probably narcissistic) husband, but he didn’t heed her boundaries and instead actually doubled down on his obnoxious behavior.

I’ve seen several of Dr. Ramani’s videos before, she’s quite good, and I like her, but I always cringe a little when I hear mental health professionals who specialize in narcissism (as she does) sort of denigrate the concept of having boundaries, which she sort of does in the video embedded below.

Boundaries Usually Work And Are A Good Thing To Have

I spent 35 or so years (Link): as a severe codependent.

I believe boundaries are very important and can be life-saving and can improve one’s mental health.

Boundaries may not work in all situations or with all people, true enough, but by and large, boundaries DO work with most people and most situations and can save your self esteem, energy, mental health, and possibly your bank account in the long run.

Man Divorces Wife For Cooking Instant Noodles Every Day for Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner – Nothing But Sexist Stereotypes Was Stopping Him from Cooking for Himself.

Man Divorces Wife For Cooking Instant Noodles Every Day for Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner – Nothing But Sexist Stereotypes Was Stopping Him from Cooking for Himself.

Marriage doesn’t make people more mature… marriage seems to make some people very petty.

(Link): A guy in India divorced his wife because she kept feeding him instant noodles for every single meal, every single day

(Link): Man divorces wife for cooking instant noodles every day for breakfast, lunch and dinner

by KHALID LAWS | The National Desk
Tuesday, June 7th 2022

MYSURU, India (TND) — A judge said that a man divorced his wife for cooking him instant noodles every day for every meal.

During a news conference, ML Raghunath, a principal district and sessions court judge in India, presented what he called a “Maggi Case,” according to Insider.

“The husband said his wife did not know how to prepare any food other than Maggi noodles. It was noodles for breakfast, lunch and dinner,” Raghunath said. “He complained that his wife went to the provision store and brought only instant noodles.”

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 sounding 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.)

Graduate Man Who Was Unhappy Being Single, Frustrated He Couldn’t Get a Girlfriend, Hooked on Violent Porn, Terrified Women With Instagram ‘Rape List’ In Stalking Campaign

Graduate Man Who Was Unhappy Being Single, Frustrated He Couldn’t Get a Girlfriend, Hooked on Violent Porn, Terrified Women With Instagram ‘Rape List’ In Stalking Campaign

It’s been my observation in over five decades of life that it’s usually men who engage in behavior like this – creating rape lists; feeling entitled to the opposite sex; exploding in rage or willing to harm those of the opposite sex when they have trouble getting dates.

And yet, if a woman points any of this out, a lot of men (and some idiot conservative women) will say, “You’re a misandrist; how dare you.”

No. It’s not “misandrist” to notice that as a group, men do tend to hold some sexist views or engage in sexist behavior, and this is something we don’t usually see from most women.

(Link): Stalker drew up ‘rape list’ of women he looked up on ancestry website

by Sian Elvin
15 Jun 2022

A man jailed for stalking 121 women and tried justifying raping them may have more victims, police fear.

Vishaal Vijapura, 28, took his victims’ pictures from their social media profiles then published them with captions encouraging serious sexual violence against them.

His obsession became so much that he paid hundreds of pounds for online services to find their personal details, including home addresses, and added them to his posts.

He even wrote one post titled ‘why rape is better than sex’.

…He messaged many of his victims directly and struck up conversations – particularly of a sexual nature – making many of them feel uncomfortable.

He told one victim he would rape her at home address and film the assault so it would go viral. He told another woman he would leave her ‘completely unconscious’.

When he was blocked on one account, he would make a new identity and start messaging his target on another.

His behaviour came to light in January 2021 when he published a list of women’s names from all over England, along with an essay that tried to justify why they should be raped.

Vijapura has now been jailed for nearly three years and subject to a court order for five years.

(Link): Graduate hooked on violent porn terrified women with Instagram ‘rape list’ in stalking campaign

Excerpts:

Vishaal Vijapura pleaded guilty to seven counts of stalking and was sentenced on Tuesday to 32 months in prison

June 14, 2022
By Tristan Kirk

A porn-obsessed maths graduate posted a ‘rape list’ featuring more than 150 women on social media in a stalking campaign after he failed to find a girlfriend, a court heard.

Vishaal Vijapura, 28, sent unsolicited messages to a string of women on Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat, using graphic depictions of violent pornography from movies in the warped hope of finding love.

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.

Men Are Actually Blaming All Women for The Misogynic Progressive ‘Transwoman’ Lunacy – and not crediting feminists who’ve been speaking out on the issue for years – Men Like Rufo and Walsh Don’t Seem to Want to Share the Credit with Women

Men Are Actually Blaming All Women for The Misogynic Progressive ‘Transwoman’ Lunacy – and not crediting feminists who’ve been speaking out on the issue for years – Men Like Rufo and Walsh Don’t Seem to Want to Share the Credit with Women

I am a conservative. I am not a feminist.

I do not support the “woke” agenda, which would include things like denying the biological reality that there are two biological sexes, male and female.

I do not support men who “identify as women” (usually referred to as “transwomen”), especially if they have not undergone “bottom surgery,” being allowed into women’s only spaces, such as women’s prisons, bathrooms, and so forth.

Regardless if some of the wacko gender ideology we see today can be traced back to individual women writers of the 1990s or earlier (who were feminists), not all women can or should be blamed for that in particular, or for today’s out-of-control trans-activism.

Today’s trans activism insanity is, by and large, being carried along by MEN.

There are biological men with autogynephilia (a sexual fetish) and a large, first class case of Narcissism, who are hiding under the fig leaf of Gender Dysphoria to claim, “I’m a woman!,” and to also claim victim status and demand special rights.

That position is being helped along by male and female progressives.

But there are also biological women – of whatever political beliefs – who are opposed to biological men being allowed access into women’s only spaces, and some of them having been speaking out against trans activism going back years now.

And I have no idea what it matters if the numbers are more or less -ie, if there are more woman promoting trans activism or less.

No Studies, Polls, or Stats

One doofus or two who were arguing with me on Twitter earlier today (June 12) were blaming all women, women as a class, with no distinction, and saying the “numbers of women support trans activism outnumber those who speak out against it,” but neither individual cited me or linked me to any studies or polls (reputable or otherwise) to back up these assertions.

Based upon my anecdotal experience, I’ve seen a lot of biological women, and a few men, speaking out against progressive trans activism quite a bit the last few years – on twitter, on blogs, and in online magazine articles.

I’ve personally encountered very few biological women defending trans-insanity, and most of the women I’ve seen are opposed to progressive transgenderism, so I just tweeted back at one of those clowns,
“No, the women who are opposed to it outnumber those who support it.”

I’m sure some women who support leftist trans-activism may exist (there are progressive women (and men) crack pots who also support the quackery that is “anti racism” and “BLM,” after all), but I’ve seen far more speaking out against than in favor.

Some women have been speaking out against trans ideology for years, some for decades.

Ultimately, I’m not sure what difference it makes to argue that there may be more women supporting Trans Lunacy than oppose it… because it’s still unfair and inaccurate to blurt out, to suggest, that “women support it.” No, women are not a monolith on this subject.

As to the women who do oppose Trans Lunacy, some of them have been fighting it for years, before conservative men like Rufo and Walsh jumped on the band wagon.

Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier

One well known speaker and author against trans-insanity is a woman author, Abigail Shrier, who wrote a book about this issue, Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, in 2020, and it was banned from a few online book stores for awhile, if I recall correctly.

From a review of Shrier’s book on Psychology Today:

The book posits that a sudden surge in the number of teen girls identifying as trans boys is due not to gender dysphoria or transgenderism but rather to girls with other mental conditions who are mistakenly self-identifying as trans because there is social capital built into marginalized identities.
— end excerpts —

Carlson gave Shrier credit for being among the first to discuss this in the United States (show date; June 14, 2022), see the video in the tweet below:

.@AbigailShrier comments on a report which shows that the number of young people who identify as transgender has recently doubled, and is higher in blue states:

"If this were organic, we would expect to see it evenly distributed across the population." pic.twitter.com/Gm3bzxdD2i

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) June 14, 2022

Men Helped Usher In Trans Activism, Too!

In the United States, we have male Presidents (Obama and Biden), and Governors, (and likely some male Congressmen and Senators) who are pushing for bills or laws to allow biological males who identify as women to be allowed into women’s prisons, locker rooms, and so on.

A small sampling:

(Link):  California Dishing Out Condoms To Female Inmates After Democrat Newsom [who is a man] Forces Them To Live With Men By Gabe Kaminsky

(Link): 20 States Sue Biden Administration For Corrupting Title IX With ‘Gender Identity’ Mumbo Jumbo

(Link): Biden’s [Joe Biden, a man] Title IX Rewrite Could End Women’s Sports, Let Men In Locker Rooms 

(There are also a few male (Republican) governors, such as Stitt and De Santis who are pushing against trans ideology.
But we also have male Democrats, such as Joe Biden and others, futzing around on the definition of “woman” so as to make permissible biological males being legally permitted into women’s bathrooms, sports teams, etc.)

Post Modernism and Gender Ideology

Gender ideology is also part of post-modernism and today’s progressive love of neo-Marxism, which biological men helped to usher in.

Karl Marx, who got this bus rolling, was a man. Marx’s belief in group identity and putting everyone into oppressed classes undergirds a lot of today’s far left’s gender ideology and “woke” politics.

Do I then blame all men of today for the lunacy of progressivism, of the neo-Marxist group identity politics, or say, “men are to blame for Marxism”? No, I don’t. Because that wouldn’t be fair or accurate.

In the past 60 or so years, in the United States, there have been both male AND female authors, intellectuals, and pundits who have helped craft ideas that led to CRT, queer theory, and so on.

So I don’t appreciate the clowns I run into on Twitter blaming all women (women as a group) for the actions or views of SOME women, and for causes that are neither wholly attributed to one sex or the other, such as leftist trans-activism.

All Men: Michael Foucault, Pat Califia, Gayle Rubin, Alfred Kinsey, John Money, Erwin Gohrbandt

Feminist women who dabbled in Gender Ideology over 20 years ago were joined by progressive men who love Marxism, who were opposed to the idea of objective truth, who support group identity politics, and Queer Theory (which men (and some women) had a large hand in, such as Michel Foucault, Pat Califia, and Gayle Rubin – again, those are men).

Even Matt Walsh, in some of his videos and commentary about wacko, leftist Gender Ideology advocates, occasionally name drops MEN who have aided and abetted this queer theory, pro-trans-agenda world view, such as Alfred Kinsey and John Money.

According to the person(s) at this Twitter Account, a man is behind the design of the Transgender “pride” flag, and that man (biological man) is named Robert Hogge but goes by “Monica Helms.”

Then we have John Money. I believe Walsh has mentioned Dr. John Money a time or two.

(Link): Dr. John Money, Father Of Gender Theory, Was A Pedophilia Apologist

Excerpts:

Would it surprise you to know that the normalization of gender fluidity is rooted in the same ideology as Critical Race Theory? You won’t be surprised once you understand the whole story.
— end —

(Link): John Money: The Pro-Pedophile Pervert Who Invented “Gender”

(Link): John Money

Excerpts:

John William Money (8 July 1921 – 7 July 2006) was a New Zealand psychologist, sexologist and author known for his research into sexual identity and biology of gender.
He was controversial for his conduct towards vulnerable patients, including sexual abuse and endorsing conversion therapy aimed at young children.
He was one of the first researchers to publish theories on the influence of societal constructs of gender on individual formation of gender identity. Money introduced the terms gender identity, gender role and sexual orientation and popularised the term paraphilia.
He spent a considerable amount of his career in the United States.

Recent academic studies have criticized Money’s work in many respects, particularly in regard to his perpetration of the involuntary sex-reassignment of the child David Reimer,[3] his abuse of Reimer and his twin brother (also a child) by forcing them to simulate sex acts that Money photographed,[4] and the adult suicides of both brothers.[4]
— end excerpts —

So, some of the key influential figures leading us down the path to today’s current Trans Insanity are all men:
Michel Foucault, Pat Califia, Gayle Rubin, and John Money.

Report on Southern Baptist Churches: the SBC Covered Up Cases of Abuse and Mistreated Abuse Victims for Years

Report on Southern Baptist Churches: the SBC Covered Up Cases of Abuse and Mistreated Abuse Victims for Years

This report about sex abuse cover up by the Southern Baptists was actually released around May of 2022, but I’m not blogging about it until now.

I was brought up in the Southern Baptist Church. My parents took me to different SB churches when I was a kid – we moved often.

I think I kind of stopped considering myself as being a Southern Baptist a few years ago, long before the abuse blow-ups and other scandals started to be revealed more and more a few years ago.

Southern Baptists used a secular group called Guidepost Solutions to investigate how the SBC has dealt with abuse, and lately, (Link):  some Baptists are very unhappy with Guidepost Solutions.

I’m sorry for all the people who were abused in the church or by church staff and that the SBC covered it up.

On another level, as I grow older and periodically reflect back on my life, this is another one of those regrets.

I wasted so many years on things, like belief in the Christian faith, being a Southern Baptist, and believing in Southern Baptist, evangelical precepts.

I was told when I was a kid and older – by my Baptist parents, in Sunday morning sermons, or in Sunday school classes, and in books by Christian authors my Mom brought home back then – that if I just trusted in God, lived a clean life, had faith in God, that God would protect and provide – but that turned out not to be true.

I was told by Southern Baptists (and other types of Christians) that if I stayed sexually abstinent, went to church, lived a clean life (as defined by Baptists), etc, not to worry about finding a spouse by my own efforts, that God would provide .

I was also told by Christians on TV, Christians at church, in Christian books, etc not to date outside the faith (the “equally yoked” rule). I was assured if I was a good Christian girl that God would bless me with a Christian “Mr. Right,” which turned out to also be a bunch of garbage.

What a waste of time it was for me to be a Christian for all those years!

My parents taught me, that as I was a single woman, that Southern Baptist Churches would be a preferable place to meet single men as opposed to night clubs or bars.

As I’ve been saying for years now, considering all the Christian perverts found in churches, I don’t see how churches are any safer to use as a place to meet potential dates than your average bar or dating site.

Looks like a bunch of sexist, abusive men love to attend Southern Baptist churches. If not all the Southern Baptist men are abusing women, the other ones are busy denying it’s taking place or making excuses for the men who are abusive.

This means that Southern Baptist churches are not a good or safe place for single women to meet men (then there’s the gender imbalance problem, with more women than men in attendance).

I don’t necessarily regret in its entirety living a clean life, though, because that kept me from dabbling in drugs, alcohol, sleeping around and getting diseases and so on.

But the rest of the Christian faith, as it was taught to me, and as I lived it, was not effective in many areas. And quite a bit of what was taught to me was in a Southern Baptist context.

(Link): Report: Top Southern Baptists Stonewalled Sex Abuse Victims

May 23, 2022

Leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention, America’s largest Protestant denomination, stonewalled and denigrated survivors of clergy sex abuse over almost two decades while seeking to protect their own reputations, according to a scathing 288-page investigative report issued Sunday.

(Link): Southern Baptist leaders mistreated abuse survivors for decades, report says

Excerpts:

A blockbuster report found that SBC lawyers worked for years to protect the institution and demonized abuse survivors and accused a prominent pastor of abusing a colleague’s wife.

May 22, 2022

(RNS) — For decades, a handful of leaders in the nation’s largest Protestant denomination treated sexual abuse survivors as enemies of the church, denied responsibility for the actions of local churches and downplayed the number of sexual abuse cases in those churches, all in the name of protecting the institution, according to a report released Sunday (May 22).

The report, conducted by a third-party investigations firm, Guidepost Solutions, and made public by the Southern Baptist Convention’s sex abuse task force, reveals a callous disregard for abuse survivors and a relentless commitment to protecting the denomination from liability.

Guidepost Solutions found that SBC leaders were well aware of abuse cases in the church and even compiled a list of offenders but took no steps to find out if alleged abusers remained in ministry, instead focusing on protecting the SBC from liability.

(Link): SBC Leaders to Release Secret List of Pastors, Church Leaders Accused of Sex Abuse

(Link): SBC leaders ‘grieved’ over report finding sexual abuse claims ignored for years to avoid liability

Excerpts:

by Leonardo Blair
May 23, 2022

Leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention have said they are “grieved” after an independent investigation found the denomination’s leadership mishandled sexual abuse allegations, mistreated victims and advocates, engaged in an abusive pattern of intimidation and repeatedly resisted reforms aimed at making their churches safer largely to avoid liability.

The report from Guidepost Solutions was promised to be delivered ahead of the denomination’s annual meeting set for Anaheim, California, in June. Released on Sunday, the report alleges that for the last 20 years, the SBC sought to protect the interests of the denomination above alleged sexual abuse victims even as they fielded credible claims of abuse.

These claims include one made against former SBC President Johnny Hunt, who was accused of sexually assaulting another pastor’s wife while on a beach vacation in Panama City, Florida.

Drag Queen Pastor Declares ‘God is Nothing’ in Blasphemous Profanity – Laced Video (Hey, Complementarians: The Real Problem is Progressives of Either Sex, and Not Equality For Biological Women in Church, Culture, or Marriage)

Drag Queen Pastor Declares ‘God is Nothing’ in Blasphemous Profanity – Laced Video (Hey, Complementarians: The Real Problem is Progressives of Either Sex, and Not Equality For Biological Women in Church, Culture, or Marriage)

Laughably, Christian gender complementarians continue to depict allowing women – actual, biological women – into preacher roles in the church, via cherry picked, time-sensitive (ie, not- for- us- today) Bible verses as wrong, bad, or unbiblical, when the reality is the actual danger are progressives of ANY sex being in leadership or influential positions.
(Example below – a biological man wearing a flaming hot pink wig and mascara who works as a preacher who spouts off obviously unbiblical nonsense.)

This is a biological man playing dress-up as a woman.

It’s a man wearing mascara, eye shadow and lip stick – and he’s sitting around in a church saying things like, “God is nothing.”

And yet, your average Southern Baptist, or complementarian or patriarchalist of whatever denomination, continues to bray and bleat about women getting into leadership roles, or women gaining equality in marriages and elsewhere in society or the church.

Complementarians and Christian Patriarchalists are aiming at the wrong target.

Caveat: I am not a full supporter of Jordan Peterson, who one of the articles below favorably quotes. (Peterson, like Matt Walsh, is like a broken clock – maybe correct twice a day, but usually wrong quite often on other subjects.)

With its over-emphasis on sex, the far left, when it mentions God, or tries to worm its way into churches, ends up alienating celibates such as myself.

I am not having sex, and I know who I am (I am not under an identity crisis), so far left hobby-horses don’t interest me and are not applicable.

I don’t need these leftist idiots trying to brain wash me into thinking being a “cis” (biological) woman isn’t good enough, or that because I don’t fully fit sexist, complementarian (or secular) tick boxes for the category of “woman,” (nor am I interested in filling them), I must be a “trans-man.”

As I am sexually abstinent and opposed to sexism and am an ex-complementarian, the far left liberal obsession with sex, sexuality, and stereotypical gender roles doesn’t speak to me, doesn’t speak for me, it doesn’t help me, and it’s the flip side of the coin from the conservative Christian complementarian obsession with sex (sex acts) and traditional gender roles.

The Bible teaches that God – God the Father of the Trinity – does not have a physical body, and while God chooses to refer to himself with male pronouns, or as “Father,” and he and/or God the Son sometimes uses female analogies or metaphors to refer to himself (such as, “…as a mother hen gathers chicks to her…” etc),  he doesn’t have a male body.

Jesus incarnate took on a physical male body, but he did refer to himself using female terms at times (again, see Matthew 23:37-39).

However, I believe it is in gross error and very inaccurate for progressives to view such things through a progressive lens of “queering” or “queer theory.”  I don’t think the Bible is teaching that Jesus, God, or the Holy Spirit are advocating for “queering” or supporting that garbage.

(Link): Methodist Church’s First Drag Queen Pastor [Isaac Simmons]:  ‘God Is Nothing’

Excerpts:

by John Knox
June 8, 2022

… Simmons has published a new video of himself performing slam poetry in what may be his most provocative repudiation of traditional Christianity and embrace of queer spirituality.

“God is nothing,” the self-described “dragavangelist” repeats throughout the poem, adding, “the Bible is nothing” and “religion is nothing.” In the end, he concludes God and the Bible are nothing “unless we wield it into something.”

(Link): Drag queen pastor declares ‘God is nothing’ in blasphemous profanity-laced video

by Phil Shiver
June 1, 2022

Isaac Simmons, a United Methodist Church candidate for ordination and associate pastor at Hope UMC in Bloomington, Illinois, recently spewed blasphemy in a new slam poem ode to the LGBTQ+ movement.

The drag queen pastor and self-styled “drag-evangelist” who goes by the stage name, Ms. Penny Cost, declared over and over again that “God is nothing,” “the Bible is nothing,” and “religion is nothing” in the profanity-laced video posted on his website.

Yet while the God of historic Christianity is but a farce, according to Simmons — who repeatedly refers to the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as female — queer spirituality and LGBTQ+ identity are, in fact, the true expression of divinity.

Working Millennial Moms Complain Their Husbands Treat Them Like Housewives

Working Millennial Moms Complain Their Husbands Treat Them Like Housewives

Another news piece pointing out that motherhood is not fun, relaxing, or rewarding – certainly not consistently. Nor is marriage.

(Link): Working millennial moms complain their husbands treat them like housewives

May 19, 2022
By Jeanette Settembre

… Millennial moms are opening up about how motherhood strikes a blow to their equitable marriages, where babies seem to transform their supposedly feminist husbands into old-school, hands-off, 1950’s-style dads.

Despite remaining outwardly supportive of their wives’ careers, these secret traditionalists want partners who do all the childcare, cooking and cleaning, the women say, expecting them to kick off from work and turn into June Cleaver from “Leave it to Beaver.”

An Assessment of the Article “Why the Religion of Self-Care is Really Sanctified Selfishness” – Christian Author is Indirectly Promoting Codependency, Which is Harmful

An Assessment of the Article “Why the Religion of Self-Care is Really Sanctified Selfishness” – Christian Author is Indirectly Promoting Codependency, Which is Harmful

A link to this article, from a site and Twitter account called “Truth Over Tribe,” came through my Twitter feed today.

I don’t think I am following these guys; this was a suggestion by Twitter that appeared in my timeline. The “Truth Over Tribe” site says on their site that they are “too liberal for conservatives and too conservative for liberals.”

Okay… I’m somewhat in the same place. I’m a conservative who occasionally disagrees with other conservatives, but I sure don’t agree with many positions of progressives.

After having skimmed over some articles on this site – the site owner and author seems to be a Patrick Miller – he seems to lean left of center.

I can tell he’s left of center from some of the commentary and language he’s used – for one, in the article below, he puts his Intersectional Feminism (a left wing concept) on full display by talking about how “self care” was really started by black people, white women love it, and these days, only white woman can (financially) afford it. (Though I didn’t quote those portions of his article below, but they are over on his site.)

(Does Miller realize that left wing darling BLM (Black Lives Matter) is misleading people financially or that they spend more on transgenderism than on race related issues?)

At any rate, let’s get on to the article on this site that alarmed me, and I will provide a few excerpts, and then I will comment on them to explain why I feel this piece goes horribly wrong:

(Link):  Why the Religion of Self-Care is Really Sanctified Selfishness

Excerpts:

by Patrick Miller

“To be happy, you need to leave toxic people behind.” The preaching Peloton instructor continued, “I’m talking about people who take more than they give. People who don’t care about your dreams. People whose selfishness impedes your ability to do what you want to do.”

 Oh crap. She just described my two-year-old. I guess it’s time to cut him off.

This is the gospel of self-care. The notion that the most important person in my life is me, and anyone who impedes my happiness is an existential threat to my emotional and physical well-being. …

… What’s the Religion of Self Care?

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.)