Don’t Underestimate Single Women Voters by A. Smith

Don’t Underestimate Single Women Voters by A. Smith

The impetus for Smith’s essay is the book “All the Single Ladies,” by Traister, which I have posted about in several posts already such as (Link): this one or (Link): this one.

Much of what this author, Smith, says about single women in regards to the Republican Party -that Republicans need to start paying attention to and validating single women and their concerns- can also be said of conservative Christians.

Conservative Christians continue to either ignore single women or to attack them for being single, in spite of the fact that Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7 that it is better for a person to remain single.

There is nothing wrong with a person wanting to get married, BUT, conservative Christians need to stop acting as though marriage is a cure for society, or is the norm or the default. By doing so, they marginalize singleness and single adults.

(Link): Don’t Underestimate Single Women Voters by A. Smith

Excerpts:

  • …Writer Rebecca Traister—author of the new book All the Single Ladies—explains that the rise of single women is “a radical upheaval, a national reckoning with massive social and political implications” as single women outnumber married women for the first time in American history. Marriage has shifted from an expectation in a woman’s early 20s to a life goal saved for someday (if ever).

Continue reading “Don’t Underestimate Single Women Voters by A. Smith”

Scary Single Ladies: Rebecca Traister Explains Why Single Women Frighten The Hell Out Of The GOP

Scary Single Ladies: Rebecca Traister Explains Why Single Women Frighten The  Hell Out Of The GOP

Sometimes some of these reviews of Traister’s book, or interviews with her, bring up how so many Republicans often demonize or criticize single motherhood.

I happen to be a Republican myself, someone who was raised in a traditional Christian home.

One thing I don’t get is how so many other Republicans and Christians do in fact constantly bad-mouth single motherhood, but out of the other side of their mouths, they frequently complain that not enough women are having babies.

It ticks these types of Republicans and Christians off that baby-making rates have declined a bit in the last decade or whatever (see this link for example).

So, on the one hand, my fellow Republicans complain about women having babies (women who happen to be single), but then turn around and complain and gripe about women NOT having babies.

Christians and Republicans are somewhat inconsistent on this point. They might argue that women should marry first, and then make a baby with their spouse, but this is part of the problem: plenty of women WANT to marry, but there are no eligible males for them to marry (see this link or this link for more).

And, of course, there are married women who cannot have babies because they are infertile, or some may choose to forgo motherhood – and their choices should be respected, not condemned.

Another thing that bothers me about this conservative demonizing of single motherhood is that I suspect one view that undergirds it is that they believe that marriage or parenthood supposedly makes adults more mature, responsible or godly, which is simply (Link): not true (and see this link and this link).

(There are a lot of conservative Christians who have taught or said that people only become mature or responsible when they marry or have a kid.)

The Bible does not teach that marriage or parenthood are necessary to make a person more godly, loving, responsible, or mature.

And even every day common sense and observation bears that out: we’ve all known, or heard of, married parents who are immature, greedy, or immoral swine.

Disclaimer:

  • I am right wing and have been a Republican for years. However, I don’t always agree with Republicans on everything.
    I do occasionally agree with some of the left wing’s criticism of right wingers, and concerning how dismally right wingers treat singles, I agree with them on that.

The link I give you here is from a left wing site, by Amanda Marcotte, a liberal feminist who is (Link): sometimes hypocritical about women’s sexual issues.

Even though I completely disagree with Marcotte on some topics, I did find myself agreeing with some of the content of this interview she had with this book author:

(Link):  Scary single ladies: Rebecca Traister explains why single women frighten the hell out of the GOP by Amanda Marcotte

Excerpts:

  • Author Rebecca Traister’s new book on single women looks at how this growing population is reshaping America
  • Author Rebecca Traister’s last book, “Big Girls Don’t Cry,” took a comprehensive look at how the 2008 elections changed everything for American women.
  • Now she’s back with a similarly pop music-themed title, “All the Single Ladies: Unmarried Women and the Rise of an Independent Nation,” an examination of the role single women have played in American culture, both in our history and in our current times.
  • (Link): Single women are a potent political force in a way that they never have been before, making up nearly a quarter of the electorate and leaning to the left of both men and their married counterparts.
  • This, along with a whole host of inchoate fears about what happens when women are left to their own devices without male supervision, has led to a rash of conservative pundits and politicians denouncing the ladies who aren’t married. I interviewed Traister about this moral panic over single women and what it means for the culture at large.
  • [Question to the book author]: In your book, you detail how obsessed the conservative media has become with single women, who clearly anger right-wing pundits. The most hilarious quote you pull is Rush Limbaugh whining, “What is it with all these young, single, white women?” What is it with these conservative pundits focusing on single women?
  • It was just a couple of weeks (Link): after his tirade of Sandra Fluke that he made those comments about another woman who had written a book.
  • The fact that he said “white,” well, there are these versions of single womanhood that we are presented and the version that threatens most, is the white, privileged women.
  • Sandra Fluke testifying in front of Congress, women who are writing books, Murphy Brown, and Anita Hill, even though she’s not white, a lawyer appeared for Clarence Thomas.
  • There is a kind of woman who is economically powerful, professionally powerful who threatens a white male grip on power that has a long historic precedent in the country. Independent women living outside of marriage threaten all kinds of things about the way power is supposed to work.
  • What if reproduction is taken outside that version of male control? What if women are competing?

Continue reading “Scary Single Ladies: Rebecca Traister Explains Why Single Women Frighten The Hell Out Of The GOP”

Christian Radio Host Busted for Slapping Woman’s ‘Butt Cheek’ Inside Target Restroom – And How This Conflicts With Preacher Doug Wilson’s Propriety of Rape Commentary

Christian Radio Host Busted for Slapping Woman’s ‘Butt Cheek’ Inside Target Restroom – And How This Conflicts With Preacher Doug Wilson’s Propriety of Rape Commentary

First, here is a link to the news story with some excerpts, followed by some observations by me:

(Link): Christian Radio Host Busted for Slapping Woman’s ‘Butt Cheek’ Inside Target Restroom by B P Markus 

Excerpts:

  • Feb 17, 2016
  • A  customer, (Link): The Blade reports.
  • Mark Wayne Howington, 52, was arrested Thursday and charged with assault after a woman said she entered the restroom in the Ohio Target store and had it pulled open by Howington. As he passed her, he allegedly “slapped her butt cheek really hard,” according to a police report obtained by The Blade.
  • The woman, Debra Piechowski, told ABC13 she was at a Target store with her niece in Toledo looking for a birthday and Valentine’s Day gift for her husband.
  • Howington co-hosts a morning show on (Link): Proclaim FM, a Christian radio station.
  • She went to security but the man who slapped her left really quickly.

Before I tie this in with pastor Doug Wilson (much farther below), I wanted to reiterate a few points I normally make about such stories when I post them.

I don’t know if this Howington guy is married or not, or a father. If he is either one or both, I can tell you this is another example of how being married or a parent are not indicators of maturity or godliness, as many Christians say they are. Nor is being married a guarantee a man is not going to pull sexual shenanigans on people who aren’t his wife.

Married people also sexually sin at times. Sexual sin is not the lone province of single adults.

Not only am I, a never married adult not having sex (I have chosen to stay celibate so far into my life), but I don’t go around doing things like slapping other people on their butts.

Continue reading “Christian Radio Host Busted for Slapping Woman’s ‘Butt Cheek’ Inside Target Restroom – And How This Conflicts With Preacher Doug Wilson’s Propriety of Rape Commentary”

Why “Family Values” Defined Conservative Christianity (and Why “Religious Liberty” has Replaced It) – by E C Miller

Why “Family Values” Defined Conservative Christianity (and Why “Religious Liberty” has Replaced It) – by E C Miller

I am right wing, somewhat Christian, and believe that many Christians and secular conservatives have made the nuclear family and marriage into idols, which is wrong.

I am not opposed out-right to the traditional family, marriage, or to motherhood, and so forth, in and of themselves, but I am in disagreement at how so many right wingers and Christians elevate all those things to the point that they end up marginalizing anyone who does not fit the mould of “married with children.”

Anyone who is infertile, child free, divorced, never married, widowed, and what have you, is excluded or treated shabbily by the majority of “family values” obsessed right wingers and Christians, which again, in my view, is terribly wrong and unfair.

Here is an article explaining how and why the religious right elevated “the family” in their rhetoric:

(Link): Why “Family Values” Defined Conservative Christianity (and Why Religious Liberty has Replaced It) by E C Miller

Excerpts:

  • From about 1970 until about 2000, American politics was largely driven by concern about the nuclear family. As established social hierarchies came under fire from the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, second-wave feminism, and others, conservative advocacy groups and their political allies demanded a return to the idealized family of the past. “Family values” became the rallying cry of a countermovement bent on holding the traditional line.
  • Seth Dowland is Assistant Professor in the Department of Religion at Pacific Lutheran University. His book, Family Values and the Rise of the Christian Right, charts the influence of Christian “family values” advocacy across three decades and a variety of issues.
  • RD’s Eric C. Miller spoke with Dowland about the project, the politics, and the significance of family in the United States.
  • You introduce “family values” as the key term of the Christian Right in the late twentieth-century United States. Why was this term so influential for this group in this place and time? 
  • Many of the political reforms enacted from the 1930s through the 1960s—particularly the expansion of the welfare state and the passage of civil rights legislation—attempted to expand equal rights to all people.
  • Political liberals celebrated these developments, while conservatives looked around the nation at the beginning of the 1970s and saw economic stagnation, riots, sexual revolution, a decline in patriotism, and an increase in crime and drug use. Ministers and political conservatives argued that America was in decline. They believed that decline happened because of the demise of the “traditional family.”

Continue reading “Why “Family Values” Defined Conservative Christianity (and Why “Religious Liberty” has Replaced It) – by E C Miller”

Family Values, Conservative Christian Bill Gothard Accused Of Rape

Family Values, Conservative Christian Bill Gothard Accused Of Rape

I have written about Gothard once before, and I’m reminding you of that post now:

In the days or weeks to come, you can probably expect more of the same. Gothard is currently in his 80s, I believe, and he’s never married, and has indicated before that he is celibate.

Ergo, a lot of people, even some Christians sadly enough, tend to blame Gothard’s alleged sexual assaults of women on him being celibate. They seem to think if you live without sex for so many years, it comes gushing out beyond your control later – you get so horny, they seem to think, they you sexually attack another person.

A lot of people do this sort of odd ball reasoning in the case of  Roman Catholic priests who take a vow of celibacy but who get caught molesting children: people assume that being celibate causes pedophilia and rape.

Celibacy, however, does not cause pedophilia and rape.  Married men who have sex with their wives on a regular basis also rape people or molest kids (I’ve done a post or two about that topic before in the past).

Or, these types of Christians and Non-Christians somehow suspect that any adult who claims to be celibate is secretly a horn dog and must be getting lots of nooky anywhere, but especially salacious nooky, by raping people or fondling kids.

Celibates are not perverts, folks: we celibates are NOT having any sex at all, salacious or consensual. That’s the whole point about celibacy, you ding bats who accuse celibacy of causing rape and pedophilia.

While I myself don’t agree with some views of secular, left wing feminists, I note that they are not the monsters that many “family values” Christians make them out to be.

Right wing, American Christians will often fault the American feminists of the 1960s sexual revolution of causing all manner of problems in society (such as the rise of divorce rates, promiscuity, etc),
and maybe to a degree, secular feminism played some role in those sorts of things,
but how then do these Christians and conservatives explain the other “family values” Christians who are opposed to secular, left wing feminism, such as Gothard, who allegedly rape or molest girls, or who have affairs on their wives (for the men who are married)?

Again, I am not saying I am in total agreement with all opinions of secular, liberal feminists, but am merely saying that you cannot fairly and justly blame secular, liberal feminism for the moral failings and crimes of right wing, Christian men such as Gothard.

Anyway, Gothard is in the news again, this time for supposedly raping people.

Here is a selection of links about that news story, along with a link to a site that specializes in Gothard news coverage, and articles that highlight or refute his damaging teachings:

(Link): Recovering Grace: A Gothard Generation Shines Light on the Teachings of IBLP and ATI 

(This site, Recovering Grace, tends to keep up with the latest Gothard news and information, so you may want to bookmark them and visit them regularly if you are really interested in the latest Gothard- related developments.
I don’t plan on doing regular Gothard updates on my own blog, or not over every little thing concerning him.)

(Link): Bill Gothard, Christian counseling ministry leader with ties to TLC’s Duggar family, target of sexual assault lawsuit by 10 women

  • by Laura Bult
  • January 7, 2016
  • Ten women filed a bombshell lawsuit Wednesday alleging decades of sexual assault and rape by the longtime leader of Christian homeschooling ministry, Bill Gothard, who preaches modesty among women and has ties to Republican politicians and the reality TV Duggar family.
  • The lawsuit is the latest development after numerous women who sought counseling at Gothard’s Institute of Basic Life Principles, a prominent religious homeschooling ministry, came forward accusing the magnetic leader of sexual abuse, some of whom were minors at the time
  • The 81-year-old unmarried former president of the IBLP resigned from the ministry in 2014 after more than 30 women said they had been molested by him, according to the (Link): Washington Post, which first reported the story.
  • The lawsuit filed in an Illinois circuit court includes allegations that range from sexual harassment,  inappropriate touching and hand-holding, molestation and rape, according to the complaint provided to the Daily News by the lawyers representing the women at the Texas Gibbs Law Firm.

Continue reading “Family Values, Conservative Christian Bill Gothard Accused Of Rape”

Victim Blaming, Rape Apologia Piece by H. Ferguson on Christian Post site: “Rethinking Date Rape”

Victim Blaming, Rape Apologia Piece by H. Ferguson on Christian Post: “Rethinking Date Rape”

I am surprised I have not seen more Christians tweet or write in criticism of this page:

(Link): Rethinking Date Rape by Hope Ferguson – on The Christian Post

Here are some excerpts:

  • … Sulkowicz did not deny previously having taken part in consensual relations with the same young man. So was this a case of rape or of miscommunication?
  • According to the latest statistics, one in five women on American campuses has been subject to acquaintance rape. Although the circumstances vary, one common element is that alcohol has usually been consumed by both parties.
  • A young adult woman, lugging a mattress – the supposed scene of a crime – around with her to class, seemed to me to crystalize all that is wrong with the current focus on the “rape culture,” on college campuses and how it subsequently infantilizes adult women. I could only think of a child lugging around her security “blankie.”
  • ….If a woman decides that a consensual encounter is now not to her liking, and she tells the man to stop, but in a frenzy of testosterone and pleasure, he refuses, is that rape? Does her later no cancel out her earlier yes?If a young woman, such as one profiled in the New York Times recently, gets stinking drunk at a frat party with equally drunk young men, and finds herself “taken advantage of,” is that rape?
  • …While the young men, every bit as immature and drunk as the young women, are excoriated and raked across society’s collective coals, the young women are absolved from all liability and responsibility for their behavior.
  • We are not talking about mature adults preying on kids.
  • We are talking about peers and how they think about, negotiate, and act on their sexual desires.The Columbia student who was so outraged about being “raped” by her date, had already had consensual sex with the same young man previously. Rather than dismissing the incident as sexual communication gone wrong, instead, the young man, a student at Columbia as well, is labeled as a rapist on national TV, with no opportunity to defend himself without exposing his identity.
  • …Roiphe points out how smart young women who populate campuses are seemingly embracing the discarded stereotype of a woman who does not own her own actions, who is innocent, easily persuaded and manipulated; an image that women of her mother’s generation sought to dispel.
  • Are women really helpless victims?In the latest controversy over Jackie’s story in Rolling Stone, the writer, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, admittedly began her quest with an agenda to expose acquaintance rape on a prestigious college campus; to show how the charge is not taken seriously by college administrators (who frequently do not report the cases to police, either for fear of sullying their institution’s reputations, or in recognition of the murkiness of many of the charges) and to show how young women are therefore victimized all over again.
  • Now I am not defending rape, acquaintance rape, date rape nor any other kind. I am saying, as Roiphe did in her piece, that cases of heterosexual miscommunication may end up as “rape,” if the woman later regrets what she did; doesn’t remember what she did; can’t recall consenting; or did something under the influence of alcohol that she wouldn’t normally do, with the attendant shame.However, perhaps the young men also did something under the influence of alcohol that they would not normally do.
  • Why are they held to a higher standard of accountability than the young women? Why isn’t there more education on college campuses about the dangers of binge drinking? Nearly 2,000 young people a year die on American campuses of alcohol-related circumstances.
  • …Why aren’t young women taught to protect themselves and to avoid being caught in avoidable situations that could end badly, like being drunk to the point of passing out in a frat house full of horny young men suffering from TMT (too much testosterone).

I personally do not find it victim-blaming to tell women of preventative measures they can take to lessen their chances of being raped; I wrote about it earlier, here:

(Link):  Suggesting Preventive Measures Is Not Necessarily Victim Blaming

So far on that score, I’m in partial agreement with Ferguson, but I am astounded at how much victim blaming is in this article.

Where Ferguson writes,

  • However, perhaps the young men also did something under the influence of alcohol that they would not normally do. Why are they held to a higher standard of accountability than the young women?

Because a woman getting drunk is not the same thing as a man attacking a woman.

It doesn’t matter if the man in question is inebriated or not when he attacks a woman. Rape remains rape, and a crime that one human does against another.

A woman who is getting drunk in a frat house is only doing harm to herself (she may get liver problems if she continues drinking).

And that is one reason of several why society should hold young men “more accountable” in a situation where he rapes a woman, whether he is drunk or sober at the time. This isn’t rocket science, and I’m shocked that Ferguson doesn’t understand any of this.

Men who kill people while drunk driving face legal penalties, why should they not also do so in cases of sexual assault, if they rape a woman while they are drunk?

Ferguson writes,

  • A young adult woman, lugging a mattress – the supposed scene of a crime – around with her to class, seemed to me to crystalize all that is wrong with the current focus on the “rape culture,” on college campuses and how it subsequently infantilizes adult women. I could only think of a child lugging around her security “blankie.”

For those of you not familiar with the story of the rape victim who carried her mattress around campus, here are a few articles about it (all off site links):

I find it very troubling that this author, Ferguson, shows no understanding or concern for the young woman carrying the mattress, but chooses to view this as the woman “infantilizing” herself.

The young woman’s mattress was symbolic of her attack, and of seeking justice.

To compare the mattress of this story to a child’s “security blankie” belies deep ignorance on the part of the author (and I’m betting this is willful ignorance) and a lack of compassion for sexual assault victims.

Ferguson writes,

  • Although the circumstances vary, one common element is that alcohol has usually been consumed by both parties.

While I have no problem educating and cautioning women from drinking too much around men, especially at frat houses and at bars, it is immoral to blame women for being raped because they were drunk at the time of the assault.

Would Ferguson say that children who follow a child molester into his van for a promise of candy are to blame for being raped by the molester in the van?

Would she, Ferguson, shame those child victims and say, “It was their own fault they were assaulted, because they should have known better than to believe a stranger’s promise about candy?”

Probably not, so why blame a grown woman for being raped?

Ferguson writes,

  • Sulkowicz did not deny previously having taken part in consensual relations with the same young man. So was this a case of rape or of miscommunication?

Any time a woman says no or protests, or does not give her consent to have sex (the woman may be drugged or knocked out and incapable of accepting or declining), the situation is rape.

It does not matter if the man who rapes the woman is a man she has had consensual sex with 100 times in the past, only one time, or ten times, or zero times.

Marital rape was legal in the United States even up into the last half of the 20th century or earlier, because cultural and legal views were such that people believed that a husband had a right to have sex any time with his wife, even if the wife said “no” and did not want to have sex.

It looks as though Ferguson subscribes to this view that women have no agency, that they are forever the property of other men, and that their decisions about their own bodies or lives do not matter.

I also find it very odd and sexist that Ferguson acts as though because a woman may have had consensual sex with a man at one point in time that the man is forever entitled to that woman and her body any time he pleases in the future.

To argue in that manner would be to argue also that because I let the plumber into my house once five years ago to un-clog my kitchen pipes, with my consent, now means that same  plumber can just waltz into my house any time he wants to now and touch my pipes.

Just because I consented to let the auto mechanic down the street change the oil in my car six months ago at the local garage does not give that guy the right to get into my car today, change the oil, or drive the car around.

A one time “yes” of two days ago or ten years ago, does not equate to a lifetime “yes.”

Perhaps the most hypocritical part of the essay was this:

  • …Roiphe points out how smart young women who populate campuses are seemingly embracing the discarded stereotype of a woman who does not own her own actions, who is innocent, easily persuaded and manipulated; an image that women of her mother’s generation sought to dispel.

If anything or anyone is guilty of infantilizing women, it’s conservative Christian teachings about gender roles, dating, and marriage.

Under the rubric of “biblical womanhood,” “traditional gender role” or “gender complementarian” teachings, Christians tell Christian women to behave and think like little girls – though advocates of these positions may deny it, this is what their teachings boil down to in practice.

Christian women, in particular from evangelical, Reformed, fundamentalist, and Baptist backgrounds, get the repeated message from parents, churches, Christian material (such as books, blogs, etc) that a woman’s only  acceptable or suitable role in life is to be a wife and mother.

As a wife, they are told, their husband has authority over them, and they are to “graciously submit” to that husband. Christian women in abusive marriages are counseled by preachers to stay with abusive husband and to continually submit to him.

For examples of that, see these off site links:

(Link): Preacher John Piper: Wives should “endure” abuse “for a season”

(Link): Paige Patterson has never retracted his words on wife beating

Those are common views among conservative Christians concerning women in abusive marriages. I said COMMON, those are not rare, those are not exceptions.

Christian women are taught from the time they are young that they are always to put the needs and feelings of other people before their own.

Christian women are taught and pressured from the time they are girls and as adults that they are always to say “yes” to other people’s requests, no matter what.

Christian women are taught by most other Christians and conservative Christian culture that conflict is bad or wrong and to be avoided.

Therefore, many Christian women raised in such families or environments never get any practice at developing assertive life skills, disagreeing with others, standing up to people, defending themselves.

Conservative Christians raise females with the expectation that a good, biblical female is one who is constantly quiet, sweet, un-assertive, doesn’t make choices for herself, doesn’t challenge or disagree with people, especially never men.

Christian women are, in other words, fed a steady diet of Codependency, and they taught that being Codependent is God’s will for every woman’s life.

Women who are raised like this are incapable of making decisions for themselves. They tend to cave in quickly when they are too afraid to stand up to a person who is demanding something of them. The word “no” gets caught in their throat.

This puts Christian women in a dangerous position, from the time she is a kid, teen, and into her adult years, unless and until she visits therapists and reads books by doctors who explain it’s not mean, uh-Christ-like, bitchy, or selfish for a woman to say “no” and to have boundaries.

Here’s an example that happens to a lot of women a lot as they grow up and even into their adulthoods (this happened to me a lot):

If a strange man approaches a woman on the street asking for help, the woman’s instinct or gut tells her this man is possibly a mugger or a rapist, but she don’t want to hurt his feelings, offend the man, or appear as a bitch.

After all, their mothers, Christian pastors, and books about men and dating, raised them that Christian girls are ALWAYS sweet, helpful, and nice, and should not put even their own safety ahead of a stranger in need – so instead of running away or making an otherwise quick exit, which they should do, they let the strange man approach them and talk to them.

And all the while, they have butterflies in their stomach, worried if this man is going to harm them or not.

By the way, a lot of rapists prey on women using this as a tactic and use this to exploit women.

Ted Bundy, the serial killer, used to put a cast on his arm, and approach young women asking them for help, to carry things to his car. He knew they did not want to appear bitchy or mean, so they would help him out. Once they were by his car, he wound knock them out, toss their bodies in his car, drive away, and kill them.

Rapists, muggers, etc, count on women caring more about others than their own safety, they rely on women caring more about appearing nice, sweet, and “Christian” then they do about their own safety, and they exploit these traits to get female victims.

And Christians keep right on teaching women to be easy targets for rapists, con artists, abusive boyfriends, and muggers.

Yes indeed, it’s conservative Christian teaching itself which causes some Christian women to be raped, mugged, or killed.

It’s not always the fault of secular feminism, university campus parties, or alcohol drinking that is to blame for rape, but the cultural and Christian pressure on women from the time they are young, to always be compliant, lack boundaries, and afraid to say No to anyone.

The ideal biblical, Christian woman to most Christians is a passive, wimpy, sweet, subservient, woman who will never stand up for herself, never utter a negative comment.

And it’s precisely those kinds of women abusive men and rapists love to choose as their victims.

Christian gender role teachings set women up to be enticing, easy targets for con artists, rapists, abusive husbands, but then Christians – such as Ferguson – who write those awful articles, blame the women for being raped.

Christians who pressure girls and women to abide by gender complementarian teachings (which is nothing but codependency) set women up to be rape victims, conditions them to act and think like victims, but then they turn around and blame them if they are raped.

It’s demonic, evil, and very deplorable to set women up to be assaulted, and then blame them if or when they are assaulted. The Christian Post really should delete that article.

————————-

Related posts:

(Link):  How Feminists Are Making Women Easier Rape Targets

(Link):  Southern Baptist’s New Sexist “Biblical Woman” Site – Attitudes in Total Face Palm of a Site One Reason Among Many This Unmarried and Childless Woman Is Saying Toodle-Oo to Christianity

(Link): The Irrelevancy To Single or Childless or Childfree Christian Women of Biblical Gender Complementarian Roles / Biblical Womanhood Teachings

(Link): The “Feminization” of the Church by K R Wordgazer

(Link): Population Decline and Bay-bee Obsession – Patriarchy, Quiverfull, Traditional Family, Christian Gender Complementarian Nuts

Mark Driscoll’s Hypocrisy About Single Men – and other Driscoll stuff

Mark Driscoll’s Hypocrisy About Single Men – and other Driscoll stuff

This is sort of a part 2, or a follow up to this post on my blog:
(Link): Adult Singleness and Virginity Ridiculed by Preacher Mark Driscoll from 2000 – and anti Homosexual and Sexist Rhetoric

The WenatcheeTheHatchet blog has been covering Driscoll and Driscoll’s Mars Hill church in depth now for a few years.

He has many posts about Driscoll that are eye opening. The main one I wanted to discuss was the page pertaining to Driscoll’s hypocrisy about single men.

First, the other links – ones demonstrating that Driscoll is freaky, has some issues, hates women, and is obsessed with sex:

(Link): Mark Driscoll on the naked virgin Catholic model Adriana Lima at the Resurgence in 2006

(Link): From Mark Driscoll’s 2008 Spiritual Warfare series, on womens’ ministry, ” … you have to be very careful, it’s like juggling knives. … The wrong women tend to want it.”

(Link): Mark Driscoll in 2008 on the efforts he took to protect his wife

(Link): Mark Driscoll, “If you get the young men you win the war. … You don’t get the young men you get nothing. Nothing.”

(Link): Mark Driscoll’s October 9, 2006 Resurgence post ruminating on Jenna Jameson [the pornography movie actress]

In the “if you get the young men you win” commentary, Driscoll writes:

Most churches are built to cater to 40-something-year-old women and their children and the guys are nowhere to be found.
— end Driscoll quote —

No, let me assure you, as a 40-something woman, most evangelical and Baptist churches most certainly do not cater to me or to women in general, regardless of age.

Most churches either cater to married men (women and singles of either gender are not permitted to serve in meaningful capacities), or churches are built to support married couples who have two or three young children still living at home.

One reason of many I no longer attend church, and may never return, is precisely that churches do nothing for 40 something, single, childless women such as myself. Mark Driscoll is once again spouting off about a bunch of crap he knows nothing about.

Here is the main reason I am making this blog post – these posts:

(Link): a little clarification on the recent posts–a case for keeping Driscoll’s contribution to public discussion within public access (even if Mars Hill would wish otherwise)

(Link): Pussified Nation in the context of Driscollian real estate in 2000

(Link): The historical and social setting for Mark Driscoll’s development of William Wallace II as a pen name, a kind of postlude/preface to “Pussified Nation”

The point of those posts is that Driscoll, particuarly about ten years ago, ranted and railed against young, single men in books, forum posts, and sermons. He accused them of being lazy, homosexual, wussies, and clowns because they were not self-supporting, did not own their own homes and cars, etc.

What the post goes on to explain is that at the height of his single-man bashing, Driscoll himself was strapped for money. He had to take in young single men as roomies to help him make payments on his home.

Here are some excerpts (from WTH blog, the first link):

What problem needs to be fixed? The young men need to be yelled at so that they shape up and fly right. They need to get real jobs, find women, marry them, make babies and do all this for Jesus’ fame.

The possibility that many of those 20-something men won’t find “real jobs” because of changes in the economy in a post-industrial context where “we” exported a lot of our unskilled labor overseas or a lot of unskilled labor is unglamorous drudgery “real Americans” don’t want to do may not be on the Driscoll radar.

That neo-Calvinists lament the median age of first marriage has soared up to the highest levels we’ve seen in the last forty years may need to be offset by the observation that the last time that number got so high was during the Great Depression. Continue reading “Mark Driscoll’s Hypocrisy About Single Men – and other Driscoll stuff”

Adult Singleness and Virginity Ridiculed by Preacher Mark Driscoll from 2000 – and anti Homosexual and Sexist Rhetoric ( Re Driscoll Rant known as Pussified Nation )

Adult Singleness and Virginity Ridiculed by Preacher Mark Driscoll from 2000 – and anti Homosexual and Sexist Rhetoric

More anti-singlness and anti-virginity commentary from perverted, sexist douche bag and pastor Mark Driscoll has come to light. I have blogged about this creep before (see links at the conclusion of this post for more).

I am not a fan of tip toeing around people’s feelings and the extreme political correctness in today’s culture, (as I wrote of in a (Link): previous blog post here), but, I am not a supporter of this other extreme, the one Driscoll presents in the post I excerpt below.

It’s one thing to speak your mind – in a firm but respectful way, even if the majority of popular culture does not like your beliefs – but Driscoll seems to go out of his way to be unnecessarily rude, condescending, and hateful, or as obnoxious as he can be.

In the year 2000, Neo-Calvinist preacher Mark Driscoll, writing under the name “William Wallace II,” I think, wrote a bunch of inflammatory commentary on his church’s forum “Midrash.” In a book he wrote, Driscoll admitted to posting as “William Wallace II” on that forum (some sites linked to below have screen captures taken from online versions of the book that you can view).

In a series of very long posts, Driscoll ranted against women, feminists, homosexuals, men who are not manly-man enough in his view, and all this has drawn the ire and attention of many netizens after this was blogged about recently.

However, the portion of Driscoll’s post that caught my eye seems to subtly mock or ridicule adult singleness, singles ministries, and adult virginity.

Before I get to that, I wanted to mention this:

According to one source ((Link): source) in a Tweet:

    Driscoll through Wallace says women need a man to help them select a husband (p. 78). Eastern culture > Biblical example incl Ruth, then.

As I replied on Twtter in regards to that view by Driscoll:

    I’m a never married lady over 40, would still like to marry some day – Driscoll can eat my shorts

Yes, Driscoll can take his outdated, sexist views about single women and cram them up his butt.

There was also this (Willam Wallace parody account is quoting Driscoll (Link): Source):

Returning once more to the long rant by Driscoll:

(Link): Mark Driscoll’s Pussified Nation… – Matthew Paul Turner’s blog –
If Turner’s blog becomes unavailable for viewing (which it did earlier today apparently due to a stampede of traffic), you can read the Driscoll penned posts here:
(Link): Posts by Driscoll

Here are excerpts of what Driscoll wrote in 2000, under the name “William Wallace II” – with comments by me below this long excerpt (and additional links by other people about this Driscoll rant):

    We live in a completely pussified nation.

    We could get every man, real man as opposed to pussified James Dobson knock-off crying Promise Keeping homoerotic worship loving mama’s boy sensitive emasculated neutered exact male replica evangellyfish, and have a conference in a phone booth.

    It all began with Adam, the first of the pussified nation, who kept his mouth shut and watched everything fall headlong down the slippery slide of hell/feminism when he shut his the slippery slide of hell/feminism when he shut his mouth and listened to his wife who thought Satan was a good theologian when he should have lead her and exercised his delegated authority as king of the planet.

    As a result, he was cursed for listening to his wife and every man since has been his pussified sit quietly by and watch a nation of men be raised by bitter penis envying burned feministed single mothers who make sure that Johnny grows up to be a very nice woman who sits down to pee.

    Continue reading “Adult Singleness and Virginity Ridiculed by Preacher Mark Driscoll from 2000 – and anti Homosexual and Sexist Rhetoric ( Re Driscoll Rant known as Pussified Nation )”

Sexualizing Modesty – Christians Defeating the Purpose

Sexualizing Modesty – Christians Defeating the Purpose

Before I get to the main heart of this post, here is a long introduction.

First of all, I think the modesty debate re-enforces one Christian and secular stereotype: that only men are visually oriented, and women are not. That is, women are thought to hate sex, or not be very interested in sex, and that women prefer “emotional bonding,” knitting tea cozies, and reading poetry, to sex.

The truth is, a lot of women (even Christian ones) are visually oriented and get “turned on” by looking at a good looking man (especially if he’s in great shape and shirtless).

These modesty teachings almost never, ever take into account that women have sex drives, sexual desires, and sexual preferences – and I get so tired of that aspect of it. These modesty teachings only take into account that MEN are sexual and have sex drives and so forth.

I am really not totally on either side of this modesty debate.

Concerning this issue, like several others I regularly discuss on this blog, I’m neither fully on Team (secular or Christian) Feminist, nor am I fully on Team Conservative (or Team Christian).

My views would probably hack off people on either side of the debate, both the anti-modesty types and the pro-modesty ones.

I think both sides make some really good points on some things, but both sides also get a few things wrong.

Where I might agree with the anti-modesty guys on “point X”, I might find that the pro-modesty guys are right about “point Z.”

Where I Agree with the Pro Modesty Side

As far as the pro-modesty side is concerned, I do agree that some teen-aged girls and women dress slutty, and this is not good, right, or cool.

I’m tired of secular feminists shaming pro-modesty types and trying to intimidate them into silence by screaming “slut shamer” at them, or about them, in every other tweet or blog post.

There are some women who do in fact want to use their looks, body, or sexuality to get attention. I saw these sorts of girls and women when I was a teen, in my 20s, and older. We’ve all known them.

They’re not satisfied wearing plain old blue jeans with a normal shirt, no.

They have to wear mini-skirts with fish net stockings and stiletto heels, or daisy duke shorts with their ass cheeks barely hanging out.

There may be a minority of women who dress that way because they genuinely find such fashions cute or flattering on their figure, but you damn well know the majority are wearing such ensembles to look “hot,” and at that, because they want male attention.

Personally, I find that look -the barely dressed, or stilettos with mini skirts types of sexy looks – rather trampy, and I think most women who dress like that are in fact seeking sexual attention from males – and no, I’m not fine with that.

I don’t have to agree with other women’s choices all the time in clothing or how they choose to attract men.

    Side Note:

    (Seriously, this is one odd-ball aspect I’ve seen crop up on secular feminist blogs frequently: by sheer fact that I am a woman, I am expected to always agree with other women and all their choices and political and moral views all. the. time, and to deny my own personal, political, or religious values and opinions in the process.

    Yes, just because I am a woman, and they are a woman. Me supporting all other women all the time on every topic under the sun (and it seems especially true in regards to sexuality, modesty, sex, abortion, and birth control) is considered obligatory, all because I’m a woman too.

    I don’t support all males all the time on every topic, so why would I be expected to support all women all the time, about everything? It makes no sense.)

Some women do in fact make a conscious choice to showcase their sexuality (e.g., by wearing tiny skirts and so forth) because their self esteem and self respect is so low, they don’t think they have anything else to offer a man, or they don’t think they have anything to offer the world but their looks, body, and sexuality.

Or, some women who dress in revealing clothing may assume 99% of men are indeed visually-oriented cave men, sexist swine, who only want “one thing” from women, and if these women are in the market to pick up a boyfriend, yes, they will don the fishnet stockings and mini-skirts.

There is a difference between Taylor Swift and Miley Cyrus. There is a difference between Madonna Ciccone and Whitney Houston.

Some women do in fact choose character, talent, and/or brains to make their place in the world, to gain success, or to get attention, while other women opt to go the sexual and titillation route (which may include dressing in a provocative manner).

And we (women) all know it. We know this is true. But a lot of the anti-modesty squad I see online seems to deny this.

Or, maybe they realize it, and their argument is they feel a Miley Cyrus should be able to act or dress like a harlot in public and nobody should make any negative judgments what-so-ever about it.

I’ve seen secular feminist blogs whose writers get upset with companies who objectify women by portraying women as sexy things in advertisements, or with companies who make too much out of a woman’s looks…

But these same feminists turn around, and quite inconsistently, feel it’s okay for a woman to objectify herself – and nobody is supposed to say anything critical about it (because that would be “slut shaming”).

But to me, that is a double standard.

Where I Agree With the Anti Modesty Side

Too often, as anti-modesty advocates point out, religious “modesty teachings” or modesty propaganda, tell girls and women they ought to dress in a conservative manner so as not to cause men to stumble.

The fact is that men are responsible for their behavior. It does not matter if a woman is fully clothed or wearing a thong bikini in the presence of a man, it is up to a man to control his thoughts and actions.

Continue reading “Sexualizing Modesty – Christians Defeating the Purpose”

Father of Santa Barbara killer: ‘Part of me’ wishes my son was never born (Update)

Father of Santa Barbara killer: ‘Part of me’ wishes my son was never born

But Family Values!11!!! Family is the backbone of society!

Being a parent automatically makes you more godly, loving, and mature! You won’t regret the kid when it’s YOURS. *rolleyes*

All of that according to Christians, pro natalists, and my fellow social conservatives. But it’s not so.

Family is not always a Norman Rockwell painting. Sometimes parents have children then regret having them.

If his son had not made SEX into an idol, his son might be alive today. Sex is a luxury, not a necessity.

What follows is sort of an update to my previous post,
(Link): Bitter, Frustrated 22 Year Old Male Virgin and Member of Men’s Rights / PUA Groups Kills Several Women Because He Couldn’t Get Dates – what an entitled sexist doof

Here’s the update:

(Link) Father of Santa Barbara killer: ‘Part of me’ wishes my son was never born

Are Single Women – and specifically Never Married Women – More Likely To Be Victims of Abuse? Rebuttals to this view which is advocated by W B Wilcox

Are Single Women – and specifically Never Married Women – More Likely To Be Victims of Abuse? Rebuttals to this view

The study mentioned on this page below is familiar. I read about it over a year ago. Someone did a study claiming that women who never marry are more likely to be abuse victims.

I’m not sure if I totally understand the study correctly.

I’m a never-married woman who is over the age of 40, but I fail to see how my single status supposedly makes me more vulnerable to being a crime victim than that of a married woman.

Or, given that some conservatives are using this study with the assumption that it’s single women who are “shacking up” with a man who are more prone to being victims, I guess I understand that, though I do not necessarily agree.

That is, some conservatives are using this study to shame single women from having pre-marital sex, or from not having a live-in lover. They are using this to pressure single women to force their live-in lover to marry them.

I understand the Bible does not condone “shacking up” or pre-marital coitus, but, I am not a fan of my fellow conservatives using such “scare” or “shame” tactics to convince single women from not having pre marital sex or live-in BFs. I think it’s a distasteful, sexist approach.

You can read more about all this stuff using these links:

First, here is the offensive, sexist editorial – I mean, how can they blame WOMEN for being the victims of violence?

They should be calling out the men who are abusing these ladies and/or the children. Also note, on the “One Stop Thread” page of this blog, I have link after link to news stories of married men who were caught sexually or physically abusing their OWN kids or someone else’s!

Again, here is a link to the offensive editorial:
(Link): One way to end violence against women? Married dads.

    by W. BRADFORD WILCOX AND ROBIN FRETWELL WILSON June 10

The data show that #yesallwomen would be safer with fewer boyfriends around their kids.

… The bottom line is this: Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father.

—(end excerpt)—

The Bible no where suggests that a woman needs to marry or is obligated to marry – Jesus and Paul, in the New Testament, actually depict singleness as being preferable to marriage and parenting!

If it were true women were safer being married, I think Jesus and Paul would have taught on the topics of marriage and singlehood differently than they did.

Here are various rebuttals and commentary in response:

(Link): The Washington Post Says Women Get Abused Because They’re Not Married

Excerpts:

The story, which was originally titled “The best way to end violence against women? Stop taking lovers and get married,” got re-named after wise Internet users made a rightful stink over its controversial content. Also noteworthy: the sub-header read “The data show that #yesallwomen would be safer hitched to their baby daddies.”

Now it’s called “One way to end violence against women? Married dads.” But I think the Post should have taken it down completely.

Using legitimate data to back up their claims (nothing says “I’m telling you the truth!” like a graph), authors W. Bradford Wilcox and Robin Fretwell Wilson do the world a great disservice by making it sound like women have the power to avoid being abused — and it apparently comes down to what they should be doing with their bodies, their kids, and their lives.

…. Further, Wilcox and Wilson feign total ignorance of a problem they themselves are perpetuating — institutional sexism and misogyny, which are major factors in the widespread problem of violence against women and children.

By drawing the conclusion that a simple marriage certificate is actually responsible for the stats, they’re doing both genders a huge disservice, and they’re tricking readers into thinking abuse doesn’t have anything to do with misogyny.

As they write, “The bottom line is that married women are less likely to be raped, assaulted, or robbed than their unmarried peers.”

Well, that’s certainly an interesting point. How did they arrive there, and what explains it? Is it true that getting married can protect you from abuse?

Actually, no. Because correlation doesn’t mean causation. While they back up their conclusion with legitimate data points, the statistics say more about healthy relationships than they do about the institution of marriage.

—(end excerpt)—

(Link): Violence Against Women: The Washington Post’s Sad, Sloppy Journalism

    The most serious problem with the Washington Post’s sloppy journalism is that it none-too-subtly suggests that all partner violence against women can be boiled down to a single factor: your relationship status.

Decades worth of research blow that simplistic idea out of the water in two seconds.

Continue reading “Are Single Women – and specifically Never Married Women – More Likely To Be Victims of Abuse? Rebuttals to this view which is advocated by W B Wilcox”

Four myths about sex and women that prop up the new misogyny

Four myths about sex and women that prop up the new misogyny

Some of the the myths the author describes in this are some of the same ones spread by conservative Christians.

(Link): Four myths about sex and women that prop up the new misogyny

    Sorry, would-be pickup artists. There is no such thing as a “friend zone”

    by AMANDA MARCOTTE, ALTERNET

    This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

    Trading in myths and misinformation is the bread and butter of any reactionary movement, as is amply demonstrated by the various myths that prop up everything from gun nuttery to the anti-choice movement.

    Unsurprisingly, then, there’s a great deal of misinformation upholding the troubling trend of new misogyny that festers in everything from “men’s rights” forums to “pick-up artist” communities to the various rape apologists and two-bit woman haters that litter the right wing media landscape

    [Note from this blogger: the left wing also has woman-haters among them. Some of them have done things like made “rape jokes” against conservative, right wing, female politicians, such as Sarah Palin. Funny how liberal writers usually fail to acknowledge the sexism inherent in the LEFT WING].

    The tragic shooting in Isla Vista, which was committed by a young but hardened misogynist named Elliot Rodger, has shown a spotlight on this weird but influential world where ugly myths about gender and sexuality flourish.

    Here are some of those myths, some of which influenced Rodger, and why they are so very, very wrong.

    1. Evoutionary psychology nonsense.
    While the more mainstream conservative movement embraces a religious form of misogyny, the new misogyny often prefers to pretend to have a “scientific” rationale for its negative attitudes towards women.

    Anti-feminist writer James Taranto, who is not a scientist, distilled this theory in the Wall Street Journal, positing that evolution made men and women’s sexual desires complete opposites, with men trying to get away with sex with as many women as possible and women being “hypergamous,” which is the new pseudo-scientific word for “gold digger.”

    His sole evidence for this theory was a long-discredited 1989 study that showed that men were more quick to say yes to sex with a stranger.

    None of them have stopped pushing the belief that women are disinterested in sex itself, (Link): but only use it as a commodity to trade with “high status” men, since pushing this belief allows self-appointed “pick-up artists” to sell dating books and classes to men who want to learn to fake being “high status” to get more sex.

    Nor do they stop pushing the idea that men are more promiscuous than women, a self-serving myth that allows them to demand chastity in female partners while excusing their own sexual dalliance.

    In reality, men and women have roughly the same number of sexual partners over a lifetime.

    Both sexes are interested in casual sex, but men more readily agree because they both feel less likely to be violently assaulted by a stranger and are more likely to expect the encounter to end in orgasm. Nor are women programmed to be gold diggers.

    As women’s ability to make their own money has increased, there has been a decline in women seeking richer husbands. Women aren’t preprogrammed to be gold diggers, because the second they’re freed from having to chase rich men, most are happy to date men more like themselves.

    Continue reading “Four myths about sex and women that prop up the new misogyny”

George Will: Being a victim of sexual assault is a “coveted status that confers privileges” (a rebuttal)

George Will: Being a victim of sexual assault is a “coveted status that confers privileges” (a rebuttal)

I am right wing, a conservative, but sometimes, I realize other conservatives get things wrong, oh so very wrong. This is one of those times.

I do think that, at times, liberals are guilty of hyping certain situations or instilling a ‘victim mentality’ in people, but not in the case of sexual assault, of rape. Will is way off base with his editorial.

The following is from a site that tilts left, but this editorial criticizing Will’s views is right on the money:

(Link): George Will: Being a victim of sexual assault is a “coveted status that confers privileges”

    The Washington Post columnist thinks women are lying about sexual assault in order to get “privileges”

    Washington Post columnist George Will doesn’t believe the statistic that (Link): one in five women is sexually assaulted while in college. Instead he believes that liberals, feminists and other nefarious forces have conspired to turn being a rape survivor into a (Link): “coveted status that confers privileges.”

    As a result of this plot, “victims proliferate,” Will wrote in a weekend editorial that ran in the Washington Post and New York Post.

    Further compounding the crisis of people coming forward about sexual assault to stay de rigueur is the fact that “capacious” definitions of sexual assault include forcible sexual penetration and nonconsensual sexual touching.

    Which is really very outrageous, according to Will. It is really very hard to understand why having your breasts or other parts of your body touched against your will should be frowned upon.

    It’s not very surprising that George Will does not think that sexual assault on campus is a big deal. It’s also not very surprising that he thinks that definitions of sexual violence are somehow overly broad because they factor in forms of sexual contact other than penetration.

    But what is puzzling — about this editorial and the army of nearly identical pieces of rape apologia that find a way into national newspapers with some regularity — is how much one has to ignore in order to argue these points.

    Continue reading “George Will: Being a victim of sexual assault is a “coveted status that confers privileges” (a rebuttal)”

Christian ‘historian’ David Barton: Allowing women to vote ‘hurts the entire culture and society’ and prohibiting the female vote kept the family together

(I just got a notification from Word Press that today is my four year anniversary of registering with them for this blog. Yay, four year anniversary.)
_______________________________________
Christian ‘historian’ David Barton: Allowing women to vote ‘hurts the entire culture and society’ and prohibiting the female vote kept the family together

(Links to pages with Barton’s quotes are farther below)

I am no secular feminist. I’m not left wing or a Democrat or a liberal (“progressive”), but I find some of my fellow right wingers to be odd balls on occasion, and this is one of those occasions.

It’s bad enough that some conservative Christians defend sexism under the guise of it being “biblical” (the terms they slap on church sanctioned sexism is sometimes referred to as ‘gender complementarianism’ or ‘biblical womanhood’) –

But to see a well-known Christian personality such as Barton defend the sexist notion that women should not vote, or it was good that at one time they were not permitted, because it makes for “stronger families” is another indication that some Christians have turned the nuclear family, marriage, and parenthood into idols.

Views such as this also do not take into account that some women never marry and never have children.

Some women who do marry are infertile, or their husband is, so they never have children.

Yet other women are widowed or divorced.

You will notice in Christian gender complementarian views, women who “fall between the cracks,” ones who are unmarried or childless, are not recognized.

This Barton guy has crack pot views about marriage and coffee and PTSD as well (see links at bottom of this post).

I think keeping women from voting on the basis of their gender alone, and supposedly that it’s due to keeping families together, is sexism.

Please, some Christian, try to defend the idea that being sexist is okay with God and oppressing women in this way is justified to “defend the family” or “defend culture.” (This is a rhetorical proposition.)

Although I am socially conservative and a right winger, I think other so cons and right wingers need to keep things in perspective.

Sacrificing equality of women in the name of “the family” – when it comes to this particular case (voting) – is unjust and shows just how much some Christian conservatives have turned “family” into an idol.

(Link): David Barton: Allowing women to vote ‘hurts the entire culture and society’

(Link): David Barton Invents Reasons Founding Fathers Did Not Grant Women the Vote

(Link): Christian ‘historian’: Allowing women to vote ‘hurts the entire culture and society’

Christian ‘historian’: Allowing women to vote ‘hurts the entire culture and society’ by David Edwards

Excerpts:

A so-called “historian” who Glenn Beck hired to teach at his online university insisted this week that women had originally been denied the right to vote “to keep the family together,” and for the good of “the entire culture and society.”

On the Thursday broadcast of Wallbuilders Live, David Barton explained that biblical principles — and not sexism — were behind not allowing women to vote prior to 1920.

“So family government precedes civil government and you watch that as colonists came to America, they voted by families,” he said. “And you have to remember back then, husband and wife, I mean the two were considered one. That is the biblical precept… That is a family, that is voting. And so the head of the family is traditionally considered to be the husband and even biblically still continues to be so.”

Barton argued that in the time since the women’s suffrage movement succeeded in the United States, “we’ve moved into more of a family anarchy kind of thing.”

Continue reading “Christian ‘historian’ David Barton: Allowing women to vote ‘hurts the entire culture and society’ and prohibiting the female vote kept the family together”

Southern Baptists Perpetuate Myths About Genders, Sex, and Adult Singles at 2014 ERLC Summit – All Women Are harlots, men cannot control themselves

Southern Baptists Perpetuate Myths About Genders, Sex, and Adult Singles at 2014 ERLC Summit – All Women Are harlots, men cannot control themselves

Here’s the link with excerpt with observations by me below all this; please pay attention on the portion in bold face type:

(Link): Southern Baptist conference grapples with questions of sexuality for first time by Amanda Holpuch in New York, 22 April 2014

Excerpts:

    … During his talk, he [Russell Moore] spoke about how transgender people, same-sex marriage and pre-marital sex relate to the church.

    … Regnerus spoke about trends in sexuality based on new research he has collected that will be part of a book due for release. He said pornography and the pill have made sex “cheap” because they make it more accessible.

    …. Tuesday is the longest day of the conference, with several breakout sessions scheduled in between keynote addresses, including discussions geared specifically to each gender, such as: “Biblical Womanhood: June Cleaver, Clair Huxtable, or the Proverbs 31 Woman.”

    …. On Monday, speakers on a panel called “The Gospel and the Pastor’s Purity” discussed ways for pastors to be sexually pure.

    “In the business world, people are having lunches and private dinners with the opposite sex,” said Kie Bowman, a pastor in Austin, Texas, according to The Tennessean. “I just would say, forget it. Don’t go to lunch with another woman besides your wife or your daughter unless there’s another dozen people there.”

(Link): Southern Baptist summit has frank talk on sex

There is nothing biblical about telling the genders to stay away from each other, or to always make sure a third party is around if a man and woman meet, because sex might happen.

Notice in the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, recounted in the book of Genesis, that the Bible records Joseph reasoning with the wife several times over a period of days, telling her he will not have sex with her, before using the “flee” method later on in the story, after days of her coming on to him (also note she was married, not single).

Too often, Christians tell believers to “flee first” in those sorts of situations, and some evangelicals and Baptists today jump ahead to say “don’t even meet with a woman alone.”

Why does all this matter?

Instead of teaching Christians that they have sexual self control – which they do, via the Holy Spirit, as the Bible teaches – such teaching which is frequently promoted by preachers, Christian authors, and Christian speakers, effectively tells the genders to stay away from each other, which leads to the isolation of adult singles.

People, married couples in particular, tend to view any and all adult singles, even church going Christian celibate adults, as being potential threats to their marriages. Preachers and Christian talking heads perpetuate their thinking on this topic in their books, sermons, blogs, podcasts and conferences.

Such Christians keep telling married couples that all adult singles, and women in general, but particularly single ones, are sexual temptresses who are eager to bed married men.

This leads to some adult, single Christians leading very lonely lives.

Unmarried, Christian women in particular seem to bear the brunt of such teaching, which is also very sexist, as it assumes all women are “easy.” I am a female and a virgin at age 40.

Yet, many Christians would assume that because of my singleness alone, I am more prone to sleep with a married man. I find this assumption or suspicion extremely sexist and insulting.

The hypocrisy is something else, too: hordes of married Christian men are screwing around on their wives (see this list of some examples), but here I am, a single past age 40, who is still a virgin, yet I get treated like a whore anyway.

This view also increases the amount of fornication and extra-marital affairs in the end scheme of things because it teaches men they are powerless over their sexual desires.

This view paints all males as being hormonal 15 year old boys or rapists. The men are given little reason to reign in and control their desires. They believe they have no choice but to give in and fornicate, so hey, they fornicate. They are not expected to “hold out” and control themselves – Christians set the expectations bar very low, which contributes to sexual sin.

The Bible does not share any of these views, that all men are too hormonal and cannot control their libido.

Teaching the genders to be suspicious of each other means dating does not happen, either, which means singles, even ones who desire marriage, stay single forever or into late middle age or longer.

From another source:

(Link): Southern Baptist summit has frank talk on sex by Heidi Hall, April 2014

    A panel led by Bethancourt offered suggestions to help pastors stay sexually pure, including leaning on Jesus and putting a glass door on the office so others can see in.

    Some watching the conference online criticized the idea that women were sexually misleading their pastors and that few women were represented in the audience or on the panels.

Glass doors to prevent affairs and fornication? Seriously? How about just keeping your freaking pants zipped and on?

I can see that policy being beneficial or necessary to children’s ministries in this day and age of so many pedophiles working in churches, but for adult- on- adult counseling?

Please see my previous posts on these issues:

(Link): Jesus Christ was not afraid to meet alone with known Prostitutes / Steven Furtick and Elevation Church Perpetuating Anti Singles Bias – ie, Single Women are Supposedly Sexual Temptresses, All Males Can’t Control Their Sex Drives – (but this view conflicts with evangelical propaganda that married sex is great and frequent)

(Link): Christian Stereotypes About Female Sexuality : All Unmarried Women Are Supposedly Hyper Sexed Harlots – But All Married Ones are Supposedly Frigid or Totally Uninterested in Sex

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

(Link): When Women Wanted Sex Much More Than Men – and how the stereotype flipped

(Link): Southern Baptists (who don’t TRULY support sexual purity) Announce 2014 Sex Summit

This 2014 ERLC Sex Summit by the Southern Baptists is a failure.
————–
More Related posts this blog:

(Link): Southern Baptists (who don’t TRULY support sexual purity) Announce 2014 Sex Summit

(Link): Christians (Southern Baptists) Who Attack Virginity Celibacy and Sexual Purity – and specifically Russell D. Moore and James M. Kushiner

(Link): How the Sexual Revolution Ruined Friendship – Also: If Christians Truly Believed in Celibacy and Virginity, they would stop adhering to certain sexual and gender stereotypes that work against both

(Link): No, Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity – Christians Attack and Criticize Virginity Sexual Purity Celibacy

(Link): Topics: Friendship is Possible / Sexualization By Culture Of All Relationships

(Link): How Christians Keep Christians Single (part 3) – Restrictive Gender Roles Taught as Biblical

(Link): Christian Gender and Sex Stereotypes Act as Obstacles to Christian Singles Who Want to Get Married (Not All Men Are Obsessed with Sex)

(Link): The Irrelevancy To Single or Childless or Childfree Christian Women of Biblical Gender Complementarian Roles / Biblical Womanhood Teachings

(Link): Married Southern Baptist and Calvinist Preacher and Father of Boy Exposes His Naked Penis to Teen Girl in Store

Sexual Equality, Sexual Decadence: The Emerging Menace of Female Predators – from The Other McCain – Also quotes feminists as saying Virginity Invalidates Lesbianism and is Hence a Terrible Concept

Sexual Equality, Sexual Decadence: The Emerging Menace of Female Predators – from The Other McCain – Also quotes feminists as saying Virginity Invalidates Lesbianism and is Hence a Terrible Concept

If you are a Christian person, please don’t assume other Christians are any better about this subject than secular feminists, because they are not.

I have a collection of links at this blog of Christians – yes, Christians – who “bad mouth” and criticize adult singleness, celibacy, and virginity. It’s not only secular feminists who denounce sexual purity / virginity but some Christians these days as well.

I will include a few links to examples of Christians who have bashed sexual purity and virginity at the bottom of this post, under “related posts.” It’s not just secular feminists who attack sexual purity, it’s Christians too, sadly.

I would say the guy at this Other McCain blog is not a fan of secular feminism, nor am I.

But, I do think secular feminists are right on some topics some of the time.

I am not in full agreement with Christian and conservative “modesty” teachings or always with how they are taught, or that males are excluded from such teachings (see for example these posts on that issue: (Link): Modesty: A Female-Only Virtue? – Christian Double Standards – Hypocrisy and (Link): Beauty Redefined Site Discusses Modesty: Modest Is Hottest?)

The blog page has a quote from some feminist author who thinks virginity is a terrible concept because it invalidates what she calls “queer sex.” So there you go, more virgin and celibate shaming from secular quarters.

I would encourage you to read the entire page below, of which I will only be offering a few excerpts:

(Link): Sexual Equality, Sexual Decadence: The Emerging Menace of Female Predators, by The Other McCain

Excerpts:

    …. The Washington Post offers feminist Jessica Valenti op-ed space to argue that we need to keep talking about “rape culture,” coincidentally providing Valenti a chance to promote her book about “Female Sexual Power.” But what if female sexual power is actually a major contributing factor to rape culture?

    This paradoxical possibility isn’t something anyone at the Washington Post is willing to consider, yet the celebration of aggressive promiscuity in the name of “empowerment” may be implicated in all kinds of unintended consequences:

    [his points here can be summarized in my previous post here: (Link): Can Boys Be ‘Coerced’ Into Sex? (article from Daily Beast) ]

    So, “girls are more aggressive sexually today,” which Jessica Valenti and other feminists would certainly applaud as liberation and equality, an exercise of “female sexual power,” no matter what the parents of young victims might say.

    And in case you haven’t noticed, boys are not the only victims of “more aggressive” women. Careful readers may notice a recurring theme in the following stories:

    [he then notes several examples of adult women who preyed on female students]

    … Parents who invoke lost innocence in expressing disapproval of their teenage daughters having sex with lesbians are “bolstering up a highly heteronormative hierarchy,” as feminist Jess McCabe says, because “this concept of virginity, in a sense, invalidates queer sex,” as feminist Hew Li-Sha says, and as feminist Erin McKelle says: “Heterosexuality is the norm, and virginity just works as reinforcement to this.” The feminist message is consistent: Don’t be misogynistic homophobes, parents!

~ click here to read the rest of his post ~

His blog also contains other posts about sexuality and feminists – here’s the home page:

(Link): The Other McCain
—————————
★ Related posts:

★ Christians who espouse anti-singleness, anti-celibacy, anti-virginity views
(this is only a partial list, I have many more examples on the blog):

(Link): Christian TV Show Host Pat Robertson Disrespects Virginity – Says Pre-Marital Sex Is “Not A Bad Thing”

(Link): Anti Virginity Editorial by Christian Blogger Tim Challies – Do Hurt / Shame Feelings or Sexual Abuse Mean Christians Should Cease Supporting Virginity or Teaching About Sexual Purity

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

(Link): The Christian and Non Christian Phenomenon of Virgin Shaming and Celibate Shaming

(Link): Christians Who Attack Virginity Celibacy and Sexual Purity – and specifically Russell D. Moore and James M. Kushiner
——————-
★ Other Related Posts (secularists who bash sexual purity etc)

(Link): Inconsistency on Feminist Site – Choices Have Consequences

(Link): The Christian and Non Christian Phenomenon of Virgin Shaming and Celibate Shaming

(Link): Celibate Shaming from an Anti- Slut Shaming Secular Feminist Site (Hypocrisy) Feminists Do Not Support All Choices

(Link): Can Boys Be ‘Coerced’ Into Sex? (article from Daily Beast)

(Link): Slut-Shaming Is Bad—But The Overreaction Against It Also Hurts Women by J. Doverspike

(Link): How Feminists Are Making Women Easier Rape Targets

(Link): The Annoying, Weird, Sexist Preoccupation by Christian Males with Female Looks and Sexuality

(Link): Modesty Teachings – When Mormons Sound like Christians and Gender Complementarians

(Link): Funny Satirical Piece: Woman Mocks Demands for Female Modesty By Shaming Males (and their judgy Mothers) For Being Immodest

(Link): Sometimes Shame Guilt and Hurt Feelings Over Sexual Sins Is a Good Thing – but – Emergents, Liberals Who Are Into Virgin and Celibate Shaming

(Link): Slut Shaming and Virgin Shaming and Secular and Christian Culture – Dirty Water / Used Chewing Gum and the CDC’s Warnings – I guess the CDC is a bunch of slut shamers ?

Fifty Shades of Feminine Hypocrisy – editorial by Gresh, discusses slut shaming, rape culture, modesty – has points I agree and disagree with

Fifty Shades of Feminine Hypocrisy – editorial

This editorial had some points I agreed with but some I did not. Under this long excerpt are rebuttals by a reader of this editorial on Christian Post.

(Link): Fifty Shades of Feminine Hypocrisy, by Dannah Gresh

Excerpts:

    April 16, 2014|4:39 pm
    Recently, modesty proponents have been accused of promoting “rape culture” by both faith-based and mainstream bloggers and columnists. The thinking, led by secular third wave feminists, asserts that discussing modesty “sexualizes women” which in turn contributes to rape crimes.

    During the same time period over 100 million readers made E.L. James’ Fifty Shades of Grey the fastest-selling paperback of all time. Barna research reports no statistical difference in the percentage of Christian women versus the general public reading the series, which glamorizes sexual violence against women. The Christian media has been largely silent on this issue.

    As a leader in both the modesty movement and the fight against women being victimized by pornography and erotica, I find the Christian response to reveal a tragic double standard.

    Does teaching modesty promote “rape culture”? A better question to begin with is this: does “rape culture” even exist?

    Last month, a TIME Magazine article declared that it was “Time To End Rape Culture Hysteria.” Writer Caroline Kitchens championed the report of the nation’s leading anti-sexual violence organization, RAINN, which rebuked the overemphasis on the concept of “rape culture” as a means of preventing rape, citing that 90% of rapes on college campuses are committed by 3% of the male population. RAINN argues that rape is the product of individuals who have decided to disregard the overwhelming cultural messages that rape is wrong.

    The fact is rape crime is on the decline.

    …. The RAINN report argues that the trend towards focusing on cultural factors “has the paradoxical effect of making it harder to stop sexual violence, since it removes the focus from the individual at fault, and seemingly mitigates personal responsibility for his or her own actions.”

    … The “rape culture” idea is a feminist dogma implying that ultimately all women are victimized by men. This monolithic generalization paralyzes us from focusing together on how we can continue the good work of reducing the number of victims.

    The reduction would begin by cancelling out the fallacious “victim” label placed on those who’ve been encouraged to dress modestly. Case in point is the current verbal riot occurring over an Evanston, Illinois public school dress code, which showcases well how harmful the “rape culture” vultures can be. Under allegations that the school recently banned leggings and yoga pants, feminists accused the district of “slut shaming” girls.

    …And there’s nothing wrong with teaching Christian girls and women that God wants nothing they wear to distract from the good works they do and the great minds God’s given to them. In fact, from a biblical perspective it’s very right.

    …This same sad dichotomy is seen in the Christian dialogue with bloggers fueling the self-proclaimed “evangelistic” rhetoric of third wave feminists under the guise of Christian socialism, while those on the front lines as activists-teaching girls and women to respect themselves by training them in the biblical concepts of modesty and purity, and binding the wounds of those victimized by porn and erotica-take the blows of their hollow arguments.

    … The Christian media should lead the charge in righting this grave double standard. That is, unless, we are going to continue to take our cues from the feminist culture, which applies “tolerance” to any sexual preference unless it lines up with God’s plan for sexuality.

Responses by readers of the editorial:

    by RoyalCourt

    This is one of those topics where both sides – secular feminists and Christians – get some points right, but get some points wrong. I’ve nothing against parents teaching daughters to dress modestly – however, there are some incorrect assumptions being made by Christians who teach modesty.

    First of all, women are visually stimulated too, not just men, as Christians erroneously teach. There is a double standard, though, where Christians only tell women to dress modestly, but never advise young, hot sexy men with nice bods to keep their t-shirts on.

    Secondly, modesty should not be taught to females in such a way to suggest that they are responsible for the male gaze or male sexual sins.

    In the end scheme of things, it matters not if a buxom, nuible young thing parades naked in front of a Christian man: he is still responsible for his thought life and his actions, regardless of how a woman is dressed.

    Lastly, what one man considers modest another would still consider immodest, sexy, or a “turn on.” There is no universally-agreed upon definition or dress code for what constitutes “modest,” unless Christians want to start forcing all women to wear Islamic burkas.

    Continue reading “Fifty Shades of Feminine Hypocrisy – editorial by Gresh, discusses slut shaming, rape culture, modesty – has points I agree and disagree with”

Women Hating Sites / Men’s Rights Sites Such as Moronic “Save The Males”

Women Hating Sites / Men’s Rights Sites Such as Moronic “Save The Males”

In a previous post, a reader asked me to check out and comment on the site “Save the Males.”

Here is in part how she described that site and some of the views on the site:

    [Writers on the Save the Males site are] …. always talking down to women about how their position is at home with a husband and baby and specially the last article telling women to snatch a husband while in college.

    This women is pushing the one sided idea that if a women wants to get married all she needs to do is snap her fingers and the guy will instantly agree to tie the knot, when the truth is far from this.

    I will say it again most college guys will laugh at your face say if are thinking about marriage. They are focused on their career and or partying and see women as casual hooks or someone to avoid.

Here was my response to the reader that I was going to leave as a reply but decided to put into a post of its own:

Nothing has changed. I was a college student in the 1990s, and it was the same in the 1990s as it is now with the 20 something males.

By the way, you are not going to be in your 20s forever. You will turn 30, then eventually 40, and you will grow to deeply resent how the culture and churches fawn all over 20 somethings and cater to their every concern while ignoring yours.

If you are a single woman past age 35, you rarely will get any articles, editorials, or advice about being single.

Most preachers (and many secular authors) tailor all their singleness sermons, blogs, and books, and articles to a 20 something audience. People are very ageist in this regard.

If you think being single is bad now, just wait until you reach age 35, 40, and older and are still single – it gets 100 times worse, in several regards. (In some ways, it gets a little better, but that is another topic for another time.)

Also, it’s not just men in their 20s who are like what you were describing in your comments.

A lot of older men, men ages 30, 40, and up, are also reluctant to marry.

Continue reading “Women Hating Sites / Men’s Rights Sites Such as Moronic “Save The Males””

Christian Gender Complementarian Group (CBMW) Anti Virginity and Anti Sexual Purity Stance (At Least Watered Down) – and their Anti Homosexual Marriage Position

Christian Gender Complementarian Group (CBMW) Anti Virginity and Anti Sexual Purity Stance – and their Anti Homosexual Marriage Position

This is one of those pieces that seems to seek, at least on some level, to affirm virginity, celibacy, and sexual purity, but in the end scheme of things, somewhat undermines all of it to say Christians need to soften their stance on all these issues, because, gosh durn it, don’t you know that some women (who have engaged in consensual pre-marital sex) get really hurt feelings when they hear that the Bible condemns sexual sin, and such teachings makes them doubt their self-worth?

Sexual abuse victims are also tossed into the mix, which is one of my huge pet peeves in these discussions about sexual purity and virginity.

Folks need to keep these issues separate.

Bringing up rape and sexual abuse in conversations about the Bible’s standards on consensual sexual activities unnecessarily muddies the waters, and has the effect of Christians saying,

    “These purity and virginity discussions make abuse and rape victims feel just awful, so let’s just water the Bible’s sexual standards down, and even pretend like the Bible does not demand that all people remain virgins until marriage. This will spare the feelings of so many sexual abuse victims.”

The Bible’s teachings on sexual ethics in regards to consensual sex become negated, in other words.

It’s really kind-hearted, nice, and considerate to care about people’s feelings, but to the point where one’s sense of compassion and kindness over-rides definite standards of right and wrong as laid out in the Bible, and to say, “Aw shucks, let’s just explain away or ignore the Bible’s teachings on ‘Topic X!’,” to spare that person’s feelings, no. At that stage, I think you have tip-toed over into heresy.

Notice, too, that even in the headline that the notion of even defending the Bible’s view on sexuality is termed in a derogatory manner: if you are someone who defends the Bible’s position on sex, you are referred to as a “purity pusher.”

Continue reading “Christian Gender Complementarian Group (CBMW) Anti Virginity and Anti Sexual Purity Stance (At Least Watered Down) – and their Anti Homosexual Marriage Position”

The “Feminization” of the Church by K R Wordgazer

The “Feminization” of the Church by K R Wordgazer

Followers of Christ are called to model all of his behaviors: if you are a man, that means emulating Jesus not only when he displayed what we consider manly traits such as assertiveness and daring, but also the feminine ones: gentleness and humbleness. If you are a woman, you are called not only to emulate the sweet and tender side of Jesus, but his tough side, as well.

Why more Christians do not understand this and embrace it, I do not understand. But your gender complementarian Christians promote the very opposite: they instruct men to follow only the rough, tough side of Jesus and instruct women to follow the meek- and- mild side of the Savior.

Here is the blog link under consideration in this post:

(Link): The “Feminization” of the Church

I abhor it when Christians complain about church being too girly. The link you see above? Its author is also tired and upset about this as well.

My view on this has changed a little bit. I used to be a little more understanding about men who feel out of place at church, but considering the staggering amount of sexism against women in churches, especially against never married and childless women, I’m no longer quite as sympathetic.

And I abhor even more than that that they go and mess things up by trying to make Christianity or church more “manly,” or, they try to recast Jesus Christ as being a beer-drinking, belching, farting, quasi stoner – tough guy who sits around in a recliner in his boxers all day watching NFL games. A sort of Seth Rogen or Andrew Dice Clay, if you will.

I don’t think Jesus Christ was girly girl, but nor do I think he was a cage-fight watching, beer- can- crushing neanderthal who made sexist jokes about what poor drivers women are, and how ‘chicks’ are ‘too emotional.’

You would think as a person who was single, a female, who was Christian for many years, who desired marriage, who has noticed in frustration that churches suffer a great lack of single adult males for me to choose from, that I would be thrilled, just totally THRILLED, with churches trying to butch things up to attract more males, but no, I’m not.

I don’t think the solution to getting more dudes to attend church is to make church more of a pub, bar brawling, NASCAR, NFL, frat boy experience.

I resent churches pinning the blame on low male church attendance on the female gender for several reasons.

One of which is that by saying stereotypical female qualities are horrible for a church to have is to somehow say women themselves are terrible. It’s a round-about way of being sexist and slamming women themselves, though I’m not sure how to articulate this thought.

Next up is the fact that it further marginalizes someone like myself even more than I already am by most churches.

I have never fully been the picture of “biblical womanhood” that gender complementarians preach and harp about, and these are usually the ones pushing for Christians to make Jesus or the church “more masculine.”

Not only am I still not married in my 40s and without children – and gender complementarians put wifehood and motherhood on pedestals and say that a woman’s only calling in life by God is to be both – but I’ve always been a tom boy, to a degree.

Yes, I have some traits that gender complementarians would consider feminine and girly, but I am not, nor have I ever been, a 100% girly girl, pink-wearing, Barbie-doll-playing, type of female.

Yes, I wear eye liner, lip stick, mascara, and sometimes dresses and high heels and look feminine.

However, I have some hobbies, interests, and attitudes gender complementarians would consider masculine.

So, I do not appreciate femininity being boiled down to a very narrow set of roles or ideas, such as, one who is always passive, wears pink, is quiet, sweet, loving, and obsessed about baking, fashion, and nail polish.

I would encourage you to read this following blog page by KR WordGazer. The whole post is so good, I can’t pick just a bit to excerpt here. It’s hard to choose just two or three paragraphs.

(Link): The “Feminization” of the Church

Even though it’s very hard to excerpt this because all of it is excellent, here are a few of my favorite parts:

    The article also quotes David Murrow, author of Why Men Hate Going to Church (Thomas Nelson, 2004):
    “[W]omen believe the purpose of Christianity is to find “a happy relationship with a wonderful man”—Jesus—whereas men recognize God’s call to “save the world against impossible odds.” . . . While the church was masculine, it fulfilled its purpose. But in the 19th century, women “began remaking the church in their image” (and they continue to do so), which moved the church off course.

Needless to say, this line of thinking isn’t exactly complimentary to women! It implies that whatever is “feminine” encapsulates everything that’s gone wrong with the church.

A popular book on the subject even goes so far as to take the title The Church Impotent – because apparently a majority of women in the church means the church is emasculated, and therefore powerless and ineffectual.

Even though men still hold the vast majority of the leadership positions.

She has a subheading called “Why are there more women than men in most churches?,” and farther under that heading are these thoughts:

    This Forbes article defines”gender contamination” as the idea that when something is perceived as being a women’s thing, men want nothing to do with it. It’s the reason why men won’t drink “diet” soda and have had to have differently-named low-calorie versions marketed specially to them.

It’s the reason why men resist using lotions and moisturizers even if they have neutral, non-flowery scents, and why some companies advertise their products by denigrating competitors with such words as “precious” and “princess.”

In short, in our “male mystique” focused society, boys who believe girls have cooties still believe deep-down, when they grow into men, that women have cooties too.

There are still some very deep-rooted misogynistic elements in modern Western culture– and this, I think, has a lot to do with why evangelicals like Mark Driscoll and the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood are so distressed at the idea that churches are “feminized.”

If churches have more women in them, then churches themselves have cooties, and it’s up to the biblical manhood movement to remove the stigma by masculinizing the church.

She goes on to quote an editorial from Christianity Today which I found interesting:

    Christian Copyright Licensing International (CCLI) lists the 100 most frequently used songs in its database.

If contemporary praise music is problematically feminine in both lyrics and tone, as the Driscoll-Murrow crowd avers, we should expect the top 100 list to be dominated—or at least infiltrated—by women.

In fact, however, the list includes 145 male and 16 female composers. Thus more than 90 percent of the composers writing today’s most popular praise songs are male!

Continue reading “The “Feminization” of the Church by K R Wordgazer”