Biblical Gender Complementarianism, Unacknolwedged Sexism on Right Wing / Republican Sites, and Rare Admissions by A Christian Republican Politician that Women Have Sexual Drives – Re: Mike Huckabee’s Controversial Comments on Women’s Libido and Birth Control – Unlike Most on the Right and Left Huckabee Believes Sexual Self Control is Possible

Biblical Gender Complementarianism, Unacknolwedged Sexism on Right Wing Sites, and Rare Admissions by A Christian Republican Politician that Women Have Sexual Drives – Re: Mike Huckabee’s Controversial Comments on Women’s Libido and Birth Control

Note: If I find editorials, pro or con, on Huckabee’s views that I find interesting, I will edit this post to add them later, probably at the bottom of this post.
———————–
Before I copy in comments from an article or two I’ve seen about this, here’s a reminder:
I am a Republican (GOP) and a social conservative. I don’t consider myself a feminist and disagree with secular feminists on many topics. So don’t get teed off about this post if you are right wing or a Republican.

Me being right wing and a social conservative does not, however, mean I always agree with how other Republicans or social conservatives handle situations, or with how they feel that U.S. Government, should handle things. Nor do I always agree with their premises or assumptions.

Some Republicans – such as ones of the Christian, biblical gender complementarian variety, yes, can be sexist.

(Some Democrats, atheists, and left wingers can be sexist too, but that would be a topic for another post on another day.)

Here’s an example (both links are from left wing sites):

(Link): Congressman: ‘The Wife Is To Voluntarily Submit’ To Her Husband

(Link): GOP Congressman: Wives Should ‘Voluntarily Submit’ To Their Husbands

    By Laura Bassett
    Posted: 01/22/2014

    A Republican congressman published a memoir last month in which he expresses his belief that “the wife is to submit to the husband,” The Washington Post reported on Wednesday.

    Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.), a Vietnam veteran, explains in his book that families, like the military command, need a leadership structure in which every person has a role. He says the wife’s role, according to the Bible, is to be obedient to her husband.

    “The wife is to voluntarily submit, just as the husband is to lovingly lead and sacrifice,” he writes. “The husband’s part is to show up during the times of deep stress, take the leadership role and be accountable for the outcome, blaming no one else.”

    Pearce goes on to write that the wife should have a say in important family decisions and that her submission does mean the husband should have “authoritarian control” or be considered superior.

    “The wife’s submission is not a matter of superior versus inferior; rather, it is self-imposed as a matter of obedience to the Lord and of love for her husband,” he writes.

— BIBLICAL GENDER COMPLMENTARIANISM: CHRISTIAN- ENDORSED AND CHRISTIAN- SUPPORTED SEXISM —

Biblical gender complementarians (GCs, or gender comps, also known as “biblical womanhood and biblical manhood”) like to maintain this fairy tale, one that lacks biblical support, that women are equal in being but not in function (or role), which is really not a lot different from the Southern states’ “Blacks are equal but separate” philosophy of decades past.

The biblical gender complementarian expression that “women are equal in being but not in role to men” is merely a rhetorical device (and a shoddy one at that) to keep women from using and expressing all their God-given talents and skills, so that men can remain in charge, and not share power and influence.

If you truly think someone your equal, you don’t seek to maintain or limit their roles in life based on an inborn, immutable trait, or 2 or 3 Bible verses horribly plucked from context and twisted, and hide behind a flimsy rationalization that while you totally believe women are equal to men, you only think that is so in terms of their “value” (whatever that means), but that same inner value does not confer upon them the ability or right to use their skills or talents along side, or in addition to, men.

Using the authoritarian structure in military as an analogy to gender roles, or a boss to employee analogy, as gender comps are wont to do in these discussions, only further re-enforces and exposes their views as being what they really are: sexist – and not “women are equal but different.”

That is, if you truly believe women are equal to men, you are not going to seek to put a limit on what women may or may not do by using asinine analogies, such as comparing women to privates in the army and men to generals, and say, “See there, women are not lesser than men; we just don’t let them serve as army generals!”

If a woman is qualified to act as a general; if she has the traits, education, and talent to serve as a general – then yes, she should be permitted to act in the role of army general.

Your gender comps, though, say no, even should that woman have the set of skills needed for that particular role, she should be barred from holding it, based on her gender alone.

That is not equality in any way, shape, or form, no matter how much one blathers on about “being equal in worth and value but not in role.”

There is nothing in the Bible that says God the Holy Spirit grants “army general talents” (or ‘preaching to men,’ or ‘leadership ability,’ or ‘boss over employees’ talents) to men only.

If you want to read more on that topic and related ones, please see:

The end result in such thinking is the same from the gender complementarian, no matter how much they wish to couch it or soften it: you are basing who may do what, or be in power, based on an in-born, immutable trait.

It does not matter if you use the boss/employee analogy or the private/general analogy, the end result is limiting women based on their gender and not their education, talents, skill, or experience.

A woman can teach, preach, or lead as well as any man; the Bible says the Holy Spirit gives gifts to all believers, not just males, and the Bible even has positive examples of women, such as Junia and Deborah, leading and preaching to men, with God’s permission.

— SEXISM ON RIGHT WING SITES AND BLOGS —

I, a right winger, have personally encountered rudeness, hatred, and vitriol by conservatives and Republicans on right wing forums, sites, and blogs, on topics pertaining to sex, marriage, divorce, gender roles, and family, with this hatred being based on sexism and very narrow views of what these types of right wingers feel is acceptable lifestyle choices for American women.

Many conservatives tend to assume, knee jerk fashion, that if one disagrees with them on gender roles or marriage, that one must be a feminist who hates marriage or traditional values.

They cannot seem to wrap their heads around the idea that a person can be a fellow right winger but one who realizes that women are not limited to only marriage and motherhood, nor should they be.

Even though I am usually careful to preface my remarks on right wing sites by reminding readers I am also a social conservative, sympathetic and respectful to a lot of Judeo-Christian beliefs, and that I vote Republican, the other conservatives – males in particular – will keep assuming or trying to paint me as a liberal, atheistic, feminist – or they treat me as such.

It’s also fascinating to watch how male conservatives will read things into my comments that I never said – even if I express the opposite belief!

For instance, even should I write, “I respect marriage and would like to be married some day myself,” and then mention that right wingers and Christians have made too much of marriage, some of the right wingers will act as though I said, “Hello, I am a man-hating feminist, a flaming lesbian, and I despise traditional marriage.”

They do this typically in discussions where I agree I support marriage, but I think many times, social conservatives and Christians have idolized marriage and pro-creation, to a point that not even the Bible supports.

I sometimes even provide quotes directly from the Bible to remind them of the words of Jesus and Paul about God’s valuing of singleness. The male conservatives (and sometimes females, though it’s usually males) really chaff at this reminder, though.

Many right wingers do not want to acknowledge that the Bible does not esteem traditional marriage and parenthood as much as they ASSUME it does.

Republicans, Christians, and social conservatives on political sites bristle and act upset when confronted with clear quotes from the New Testament that Paul wrote it is better to stay single than to marry.

Some right wing males behave as anything less than full nuclear family worship is tantamount to rejection there-of, or is an acceptance of homosexuality, or they assume I must be a liar who is really a lesbian, Democrat, feminist who hates right wingers, the family, and marriage.

In the process of hurling their many incorrect assumptions at me, and responding to points I never made, they tend to make very rude, sexist comments about all women in general.

I recently ran into one such right wing asshole on a political site who referred to any and all women as “sluts,” and he did this repeatedly in his posts. He was also very condescending to me, though I was polite to him through our exchange. I suspect that the guy might be a troll, but it’s hard to tell.

I have also noticed that many conservatives and Republicans, in discussions about sex, birth control, family, marriage, or divorce on political sites, also misquote and twist the comment from the Bible in Genesis about being fruitful and multiplying.

Just as atheists and liberals – some of whom can be terribly biblically illiterate who seem to know only ONE verse from the Bible (and that only when it suits them, and they tend to mis-use it), and that one verse being the one containing the comment of Jesus of, “judge not lest ye be judged” – your usual right wing, socially conservative Christians on political sites are only acquainted with the verse from Genesis about “being fruitful.”

(For more on this, see:
(Link): Misapplication of Biblical Verses About Fertility (also mentions early marriage) – a paper by J. McKeown)

Some Conservatives have blinders on about all the passages (which tend to be in the New Testament) which negate marriage and pro-creation being divine commandments or preferences, but which make each activity optional for believers.

Despite the fact I point out to right wingers on political sites that things changed under the teachings of Jesus Christ and Paul (e.g., (Link): Matthew 10:37), where-in pro-creating is no longer a mandate, not for believers, they remain incredulous about it. It’s in the Bible, particularly in the New Testament, that marriage and making babies is not mandated, but some right wingers continue to act as though it were.

I was only able to shut some of them up about it in one thread months ago when I quoted straight from Scriptures, from the New Testament, about these issues.

It’s as though some conservatives minds go totally blank about the New Testament passages that talk in positive terms about singleness and celibacy. They tend to forget such passages are in the Bible, and some lapse into the incorrect, wrong, unbiblical view that only “some are chosen for singleness.”

The Bible does not teach that marriage and making babies is the norm for any one in any culture. Americans may assume that getting married is the norm for Americans, but the Bible does NOT contain a teaching saying, “God wants or demands most people to marry and make babies.”

As 44% of American adults are single these days, being married is not even the cultural norm in the United States any longer, not that it once was.

For more on this topic, please see: (Link): False Christian Teaching: “Only A Few Are Called to Singleness and Celibacy” or (also false): God’s gifting of singleness is rare – More Accurate: God calls only a few to marriage and God gifts only the rare with the gift of Marriage

Many Republicans and conservatives only hone in one “be fruitful and multiply” verse from the Old Testament and harbor the assumption that being married and having children is the only God-sanctioned manner of living life.

Continue reading “Biblical Gender Complementarianism, Unacknolwedged Sexism on Right Wing / Republican Sites, and Rare Admissions by A Christian Republican Politician that Women Have Sexual Drives – Re: Mike Huckabee’s Controversial Comments on Women’s Libido and Birth Control – Unlike Most on the Right and Left Huckabee Believes Sexual Self Control is Possible”

Joshua Rogers of Boundless / Focus on the Family Attacks Biblical Teaching of Virginity Until Marriage

Joshua Rogers of Boundless / Focus on the Family Attacks Biblical Teaching of Virginity Until Marriage

As I’ve said on prior occasions, far from Christians idolizing virginity, as some liberal, emergent, and even some conservative Christian bloggers and magazine writers claim, the biblical standards of celibacy and virginity have been under unrelenting attack by Christians over the past few years.

Most Christians these days no longer respect or value virginity but are seeking to diminish it if not do away with it altogether.

You can tell Christian thinking on the topic has gone downhill when we go from the 1980s message that says virginity is important and to strive for it, to the 2010 and onwards attack – by Christians – that says virginity is no big deal, so don’t beat yourself up when you have pre-marital sex.

Sometimes, Christians re-examining a view, teaching, or how they present it, can be a good thing, but I wonder about things when they start trying to downplay a standard that is taught in the Bible (ie, virginity and celibacy).

Christian culture has disturbingly gone from “Hooray for virginity!,” when I was a teen, to “boo, hiss, virginity, and everyone fornicate if you feel like it, because you are justified by Jesus, not your sexual choices, don’t feel any shame!” now.

It is now trendy in Christian culture to question virginity, and to shame adult Christians who are still virgins.

It is now standard by some Christians to say that virgins are either being “prideful” about their virginity, or are “worshipping” it, or to remind them they are not perfect, or to condescendingly remind them that it is Jesus who saves, not one’s “external sexual behavior.”

Case in point, this latest Virgin- and Celibate- Shaming editorial by Joshua Rogers at the Focus on the Family blog for 20 something singles, “Boundless” (yes, you will note that Focus on the Family ignores that there are many singles over the age of 30, 40, 50):

(Link): Stop Worshiping Your Virginity by Joshua Rogers

Excerpt 1:

    … The problem with female non-virgins going public with their sexual sins was that they ran the risk of being seen as damaged goods — I mean, if true love really did wait, then it was impossible for them to truly love the man who would be their husband.
    Apparently, they had already given away the truest expression of their love.
    So the best they could hope for was an understanding non-virgin or a “sexually pure” man who was very, very forgiving. For these women, the message was clear: God can forgive you, but you will be sexually disfigured for the rest of your life. Too bad. You shouldn’t have had sex with someone who wasn’t your husband.

    Now on the other hand, the male non-virgins didn’t seem to be quite as ashamed of themselves. They often talked quite frankly and openly about their sexual histories when giving their “testimonies” — especially if they were talking with other guys.
    In fact, if you didn’t know better, you might get the impression that they were even bragging about what they had done. But for some reason, these guys weren’t disqualified as marriage material — no way. It was actually endearing that these worldly men had made such a brave decision to walk away from the lusts of their flesh. You. Go. Boys.

    …If you’re a Christian virgin, you are no more righteous than anyone else (regardless of how long you’ve been wearing that promise ring). And if you’re not a virgin, you are no less righteous than anyone else — the only thing that makes you righteous is faith in the perfect blood of Jesus.
    Whatever you did (or didn’t do) in the past simply isn’t part of the Christian equation when it comes to your worth, so you can go ahead and stop obsessing over your virginity now.

    … People of Planet Evangelicalism, I have good news: This is not the Gospel.

    … Remember, Jesus “saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5, ESV).

Call me kooky here, but I have never once heard any Christian imply that one is saved via being a virgin.

There might be some fringe, barely Christian group somewhere that teaches this perspective, but it’s not a view I’ve seen in my many years of reading about Christian teachings on sex. So I call “straw man” argument on that.

I’ve never once heard a Christian claim that one is made righteous and right before God by being a virgin, or that virginity was a component in the Gospel message.

Continue reading “Joshua Rogers of Boundless / Focus on the Family Attacks Biblical Teaching of Virginity Until Marriage”

The American Economy, Not Feminism, Is What’s ‘Ruining’ Masculinity (editorial)

The American Economy, Not Feminism, Is What’s ‘Ruining’ Masculinity

I don’t agree with 95% of secular feminism 99% of the time, but they are sometimes right about some things. I detest how Christians try to pin blame on feminists for just about every ill in society.

Instead of examining what may be wrong in how Christians treat and limit women (and yes, they do both, under “gender complementarianism,” -Christians discriminate against women), they would rather sit about casting stones at secular feminists.

(Link): The American Economy, Not Feminism, Is What’s ‘Ruining’ Masculinity

Excerpts:

    By Rachel Burger

    There has been a growing chorus warning about the end of men for some time now. Camille Paglia (Link): recently exclaimed, “educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood,” joining the host of women concerned about the future of America’s boys (consider Hanna Rosin,Kay S. Hymowitz, and (Link): Christina Hoff Sommers, to name only a few in the brigade). Feminists, they cry, are to blame for men’s inability to achieve at school, lack of interest in pursuing a career in their 20s, and overall disinterest in traditional forms of masculinity.

    The reality is that the economy–that men themselves created–is far more to blame for the sorry state of American men. The Internet Age, along with global trade and the mass outsourcing of low-skill labor has brought forth in the West a people-based and knowledge-based economywhich emphasizes social intelligence.

    Young women are now outpacing men across the board, from education to employment, and men should take a hint. If men want to pursue their roles as providers and achievers, they’re going to have to woman up.

    The United States is different today than it was thirty years ago. Hymowitz accurately notes that traditionally “manly” jobs, like construction and manufacturing, have been disappearing for years,most visibly during the Great Recession. Meanwhile, the service-based, words-based, and knowledge-based economy has held steady. Traditional jobs for men, jobs that require heavy manual labor, are being replaced with outsourced labor and sophisticated machines.

    But feminists aren’t to blame for this economic shift. After all, it was men who invented the Internet, who created and sold mass-produced computers, who shipped jobs overseas and who even fashioned social media. To blame women for the change in the male labor market is to feign ignorance of the realities of history. And in the West’s new creative economy, physical labor is, quite simply, less valuable.

    Continue reading “The American Economy, Not Feminism, Is What’s ‘Ruining’ Masculinity (editorial)”

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

Funny Satirical Piece: Woman Mocks Demands for Female Modesty By Shaming Males For Being Immodest

This was written in response to a woman, who, several months ago, threatened to ban a couple of teen girls from her son’s Facebook pages because they sometimes posted photos of themselves in bikinis or shorts or whatever.

Satire:
(Link): FYI (If You’re a Teenage Boy)

    by Marisa McPeck-Stringham

    Dear boys,

    I have some information that might interest you. Last night, as we sometimes do, our family sat around the dining room table and looked through your social media photos. Because we’re creepy like that.

    We have a teenage daughter, and so naturally, there are quite a few pictures of you handsome boys to wade through. Wow — you sure took a bunch of selfies in your pajamas this summer! Your bedrooms are so dirty! Don’t you know how to clean your rooms? Our 9-year-old son brought this to our attention, because with one older sister who has a room that smells like an old, dead hamster, he notices boyish details like that.

    I think the girls notice other things. For one, it appears that you are not wearing a shirt.

    Cowboy
    Cowboy

    I get it — you’re in your room, so you’re heading to bed, right? But then I can’t help but notice the big muscles pose, the extra-arched back to show off your rock-hard abs and the smirky grin. What’s up? None of these positions is one I naturally assume before sleep, this I know. Because I’m a woman. And rock-hard abs left me four children ago. And I like to judge others based on my own standard behavior.

    So, here’s the bit that I think is important for you to realize. If you are friends with a daughter of mine on Facebook or Instagram or Twitter, then you are friends with the whole fam-dam-ly.

    Please understand this, also: we genuinely like keeping up with you. We enjoy seeing life through your unique and colorful lens — which is what makes your latest self-portrait so extremely unfortunate. You just aren’t good enough. We’re the Joneses. Now keep up with us.

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

Interesting Thoughts About Christian Views on Sex and Gender Roles at Sunshine Mary blog – also some obnoxious, totally wrong views

Interesting Thoughts About Christian Views on Sex and Gender Roles at Sunshine Mary blog – also some obnoxious, totally wrong views

Please understand that I do not always completely agree with all views of every blog or site I link to, and that would be the case here.

I do not have an irrational hatred or suspicion of secular feminism, for example, and that this Sunshine Mary person links to the Vox Popli blog, suggests that she might – but she has a few points in some posts I related to.

I am not a secular feminist, btw, and disagree with some of their views, eg,

As I’ve discussed before on this blog, Christians claim to be alarmed at the deficit of marriage among Christians.

Conservative Christians claim to support sexual purity and virginity, but in reality, they do not (see my prior blog post: (Link): No, Christians Do NOT Support or Idolize Virginity and Celibacy, they attack both)

I, like “Sunshine Mary,” do not understand why so many Christians keep maintaining stereotypes and views that are either untrue, stupid, or counter-productive to values Christians say they support (such as marriage and procreation).

Here are thoughts on this by Sunshine Mary:

✱ (Link): Why do Christian women perpetuate myths about attraction?

In that post, Sunshine Mary discusses attending class at her church where the people in the class gave the usual Christian stereotypes about sex and marriage:

    This past week was rough because the topic was sex. I just could not believe that all the things we joke about Christians saying were actually said.

    For example, one young woman actually used the women-are-like-a-crockpot crock of crap.

    This is not true, in case anyone has not figured it out yet.

    It does not take a woman, Christian or otherwise, eight hours to become sexually aroused.

    The idea that a man needs to spend eight hours giving her tender kisses, helping with the laundry, telling her how much he loves her, and bringing her flowers just to turn her on is wrong. She may like all those things very much, they may be nice things to do, but they will not make her sexually aroused.

    Why do Christian women keep telling men this? It’s like we’ve all succumbed to mass delusion.

I don’t support Sunshine Mary’s implication that because some survey or another she read says that males who do more housework get less sex than males who do not, that one should conclude from this that this necessarily means males should be permitted to abdicate from housework, or that it makes such males more desirable: sorry, Sunshine Mary, not in my universe.

Sunshine Mary goes on to say,

    Why do Christian women perpetuate these myths about attraction, thereby assuring themselves and their husbands a frustrating sex life? It’s certainly not Biblical.

    We could be really jaded and say they are just lying, but I don’t think that is the reason.

    It’s more that we hear this over and over again – that we want men who are always tender, gentle, and sensitive, that we need a deep emotional connection, lots of intimate conversation, and plenty of sweet romance before we can feel sexual attraction.

    This advice is pervasive: it’s on every Christian website, in our movies, magazines, sermons, and books, and thus we just come to believe it.

Given that Sunshine Mary talks about swallowing red pills (and that she links to Vox’s blog), I take it that she is supportive of the sexist “men’s rights” groups. She writes,

    I seem to have picked up a lot of new readers as of late, and if you are new around this corner of the web, you may have seen the phrase “the blue pill”. What this means is believing lies and choosing to ignore the truth because society has deemed the truth inconvenient or unacceptable for some reason.

Visit (Link): THE BLUE PILL on Reddit for an anti-dote to the men’s rights bull shit; they satire the Red Pill, ‘wah wah, society is so unfair to men, and feminism is at the root of all evil in the world, waaah!!!!’ groups.

Sunshine Mary writes,

    We are attracted to men who are leading and who quash challenges to their leadership.

It depends on what she means by that.

I personally would not want to be in a relationship with a man who falls on too far either side of the spectrum:

I don’t want a doormat (which is what she seems to be describing, but I don’t want to date a stoic, only cares about himself and what he wants never considers my feelings and needs Marlboro Man, either.

Sunshine Mary writes,

    Donalgraeme explains what women are attracted to: Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power, and Status – in other words, women respond with sexual attraction to men who demonstrate some degree of physical and social dominance.

Who the fuck is Donalgraeme and why should I care what he thinks?

Sunshine Mary writes,

    Just as teaching the lie of mutual submission in the marital hierarchy does not help us, so too teaching lies about what generates attraction between spouses does not help us.

Oh, Sunshine Mary wants to be dominated by her man, kinky – but that’s what SHE wants. I don’t want that.

Sunshine Mary must totally be into Doug Wilson, who wrote (in a criticism, or shall we surmise, bubbling- under- the- surface- frustration- and- jealousy, of Christian wives’ fandom of the Fifty Shades of Grey erotica novel):

    (by Doug Wilson):
    When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants.
    A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.

By the way, that is the same idiotic Doug Wilson who believes people, including Christians, cannot go without sex for three minutes:
(Link): Douglas Wilson and Christian Response FAIL to Sexual Sin – No Body Can Resist Sex – supposedly – Re Celibacy

See also:

From Sunshine Mary’s page,
✱ (Link): Feminism and the Progressive Principle: Christian edition

According to Sunshine Mary’s comments on that page, the Bible forbids women from teaching or preaching, as in all women, for all time – no, it does not.

Anyway, what I did find interesting on that page were these comments (I’m not saying I necessarily agree with all these views, only that I find some of them interesting):

    (by Sunshine Mary):

    Now let’s consider the elite covert Christian feminists.

    Men:
    Alpha male pastors, usually of mega-churches, like Mark Driscoll, who aren’t intentionally feminist but who enable feminism by training a legion of Christian White Knights to save women from suffering any temporal consequences for their terrible life choices.

    Also, some alpha male pastors, though it may not have been their original plan to do so, end up cultivating a nice little harem for themselves within their churches, if the number of pastors who eventually get caught in sex scandals is any indication.

    Women:
    These women are truly wolves in sheep’s clothing. They are often pro-life themselves, usually married mothers, but they are eager to remove from women all stigma associated with sexual sin.

    I’ve noticed many of these women are professors at Christian colleges (example: Karen Swallow Prior, a Christian professor, explains that God’s purity standard is impossible to meet and calls for a more “realistic” (i.e. slutty) definition of purity than virginity).

    They masquerade as conservative or traditional women, but they are not. Additionally, some mega-pastors’ wives who like their cushy lifestyle and high status might fit here.

The Driscoll commentary was just interesting, to suggest that a Cave Man such as Driscoll is aiding feminists in some manner.

Where Sunshine Mary does get things (partially) correct is under the second section, where she opines that even conservative Christians today don’t really support sexual purity.

Sunshine Mary also has a long section farther down that page pointing out how churches support unmarried women who are fornicating and having multiple children out of wedlock, while the single women who are remaining chaste are being hosed by the whole system -that is most certainly true and a point I’ve raised on my own blog in months past.

Continue reading “Interesting Thoughts About Christian Views on Sex and Gender Roles at Sunshine Mary blog – also some obnoxious, totally wrong views”

Virginity Lost, Experience Gained (article with information from study about virginity)

Virginity Lost, Experience Gained (article with information from study about virginity)

One thing this article discusses (link is farther below) is that men and women are actually very similar in regards to sexuality.

Note that this view is in opposition to Christian biblical gender complementarians, who have profits to make off of promoting biblical gender role books and conferences, who are also driven in part to uphold rigid, out-dated gender roles that they deem biblical, but which are actually based upon American secular ideals, in response to fear of, or anger against, secular feminism, high divorce rates, the rise of the acceptance of homosexuality, and other changes in American culture.

Christian men in many churches also want to remain in power, in control, and in authority, and fear if they concede ground to Christian egalitarians at all, that the worship of the male gender, and the grasp of male power, will be lost. (Yes, they are motivated by power and greed, not by concern of biblical fidelity.)

Previous posts in this blog have discussed that women are “visually oriented” too, not just males, contrary to the stereotype that conservative Christian relationship authors and preachers like to repeatedly spread.

There is some Virgin- and- Celibate shaming in this article, under one section, but the rest of the article is worth reading.

(Link): Virginity Lost, Experience Gained

Excerpts

    Your expectations may determine how losing your virginity will affect you down the line.

    Losing virginity is one of the most profound experiences of growing up. While it gets a lot of play in books and movies, it’s rarely been the subject of serious study.

    A Vanderbilt University sociologist has sought to make sense of our widely varying experiences. She proposes that how you lost your virginity, who it was with, and how it has affected later sexual relationships might be best understood in terms of the expectations you brought to the event and how the experience fit your expectations.

    Laura M. Carpenter, PhD, interviewed 33 women and 28 men, aged 18 to 35, about losing virginity.

    The predominantly heterosexual group also included gays, lesbians, bisexuals, virgins, and born-again virgins. They represented diverse racial and ethnic groups, social class backgrounds, and religious traditions. Five were still virgins.

    From her research came the book, Virginity Lost: An Intimate Portrait of First Sexual Experiences, in which she describes a framework for understanding what virginity loss means to people.

    A group not represented in Carpenter’s interviews is young people who take virginity pledges. They’re the subject of a study funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of sexual activity among teens who pledged of abstinence until marriage compared with teens who had not taken such a pledge.

    Defining Virginity Loss

    While it’s been traditionally held that virginity loss occurred with first-time vaginal sex, that definition doesn’t necessarily hold for gays and lesbians nor for some heterosexuals. Carpenter heard various personal definitions from the people she interviewed.

    Some considered first orgasm or first oral or anal sex to be virginity loss. A lesbian who never had sex with a man might consider herself a virgin. Then there’s the category of “born-again” or “secondary” virgins — people who lost their virginity but later pledge to be celibate until marriage.

    Regardless of how they defined the experience, Carpenter says its significance and impact derive from which one of three metaphors they attached to the experience: as a gift, as a stigma, or as a rite of passage.

    The ‘Gifters’ Seek Romance

    The people Carpenter calls ‘gifters’ anticipate virginity loss in romantic terms with a significant partner. Their virginity is a gift to be given only to someone special. Often they’ve been reared with strong religious convictions and believe it’s a sin to have sex before marriage.

    Gifters typically want the experience to be perfect. How satisfying it is depends on reciprocity from their partner and a sense that the relationship has been strengthened. If the experience doesn’t meet their expectations, they can be disappointed or even devastated. Some seek to become “born-again virgins.”

    “A lot of people want it to be special, and I respect that,” says Carpenter, who is assistant professor of sociology at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “But you can get past the idea that because something went wrong you’re doomed forever.”

    She advises thinking of the experience as a chapter in your sexual education. Consider what you can do differently the next time with the same partner or with a different partner or what can make this better for you. “People who can think about it in those terms ended up being a lot happier.”

    The ‘Stigmatized’ See Virginity as a Burden

    The stereotype portrayed in the movie The 40-Year-Old Virgin is often true. By a certain age it may be embarrassing to be a virgin, especially if you’re a male. Carpenter says the ‘stigmatized’ care little about romance and relationships. They want to shed the burden of virginity, and they engage in sex for physical pleasure.

    Continue reading “Virginity Lost, Experience Gained (article with information from study about virginity)”

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

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

❗ (Note: Remember, the author of what you see below (me), is NOT a left winger, atheist, Democrat, or secular feminist.
I am right wing, a Republican [update: as of 2017, I am unaffiliated with any political party], social conservative, but this does not mean I always agree with those groups on every topic,
or,
I may agree with them in principle but disagree in how to carry out a goal, or with how much emphasis to put on a topic.
I am only partially Christian now but am more of an agnostic but remain sympathetic to Judeo Christian views and morality.
Again, I am not an atheistic, secular feminist, Christian-hating left winger.) ❗


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

Consumed as they are by marriage and motherhood (or fatherhood), Biblical Gender Complementarians have nothing to say for and about never married, divorced, widowed, or childless or childfree adult Christians.

Those who teach gender complementarianism also divest some time into explaining why they believe women cannot preach or teach, but a lot of their commentary focuses almost extensively about motherhood and marriage.

Gender complementarians are fixated on delineating exactly what they believe the Bible says a wife can and cannot do, or should or should not do.

The fact that gender complementarianism cannot be, or is not, equally applicable to single women (or single males) and to the childless or childfree is, I think, one indication that it is not biblical.

That those who believe in it do not usually bother to talk about those who do not fall into the roles of spouse or parent, nor do they explain how the unmarried or the childless or child-free may live up to supposed “biblical gender roles,” speaks volumes about how weak a doctrine it is, and how there is an agenda going on behind it.

It seems to me that the real motives of gender complementarians is not to truly serve or help men and women find out what their unique calling or purpose is in life, but that “biblical womanhood and manhood” teachings function largely to
1. foster the propaganda that a woman’s only or greatest calling in life is to marry and produce children (concepts which are not taught in the Bible);
2. to use as a tool against the perceived threats of secular feminism, homosexuality, liberalism, trans-genderism, and abortion and whatever other issues or political groups and causes that conservative Christians are opposed to.

I suspect that many gender complementarians hold to the position not so much because they are truly concerned with women (or men), but out of loathing or hatred for liberalism, secular feminism, and homosexuality.

You can read more about how gender complementarianism is non-applicable to all women (e.g., women who are unmarried or childless) here:

(Link): The Incomplete Gospel of Biblical Womanhood

Here are a few excerpts:

    [The blogger was having a conversation with a male gender complementarian]:

“I have a question for you,” I said honestly. “This idea of ‘biblical womanhood’ seems to apply only to married women with children, who have the financial ability to stay home with their kids. I am a single Christian woman who is working to support myself. What does the biblical womanhood message say to someone like me?”

Now this was a question I had been wondering about for a long time, so I was actually very excited to be able to hear an honest answer. He thought about it for a little while and replied, “Well, it says that the best plan for your life is to find a good Christian man who will lead your family and provide enough that you can stay home.”

So the “biblical womanhood” message says that a single woman is not living the best Christian life because she is not married.

… I pushed a little farther. “And what about married women who cannot have children?” [she asked the male gender complementarian]

This thought caught him a bit off guard. “I’m not sure,” he said, “I guess they don’t really fit the mold.”

So, the “biblical womanhood” message tells women who are not able to have children, that they do not fully fit into what it means to be a Christian woman.

… Being single in the Church is hard enough.

Many in the Church have elevated the nuclear family so much that singles hardly have a space in Christian community anymore. Add on the fact that, if you are a single woman you aren’t considered to be a true “biblical woman,” and walking into a church without a husband feels like walking into a country club wearing jeans:

You shouldn’t be here looking like that.

“Gospel” or “American Dream” ?

As I learn more and more about the “biblical manhood and womanhood” movement, I can’t help but think that it sounds more like the American dream than the upside-down Kingdom that Jesus taught about.

Please (link): click here to read the rest of the blog page from the Junia Project Blog.
———————–
Related posts this blog:

(Link): Are Marriage and Family A Woman’s Highest Calling? by Marcia Wolf – and other links that address the Christian fallacy that a woman’s most godly or only proper role is as wife and mother

(Link): The Nuclear Family Was A Mistake – by David Brooks – and Related Links

(Link): Southern Baptist Al Mohler Intimates That Childless And Childfree Adults Are  Not Human (2019) – and He Thinks This is a Good and Biblical Worldview

(Link):  “Who is my mother and who are my brothers?” – one of the most excellent Christian rebuttals I have seen against the Christian idolatry of marriage and natalism, and in support of adult singleness and celibacy – from CBE’s site

(Link):   Pastor Actually Questions, in the Year 2017, If It’s Acceptable for Mothers to Work Outside of the Home

(Link): Young Single Women Try to Appear Less Ambitious To Attract A Mate – via WSJ

(Link):  Sexism, Protecting Women, Family Values, and Christians Placing Biological Family Above Everyone Else

(Link):  Our Bodies Were Not Made for Sex by T. Swann

(Link):  Seven Truths About Marriage You Won’t Hear in Church by F. Powell

(Link):  The Rise of the Lone She-Wolf by Charlotte Alter

(Link): How Christian Teaching on Gender Roles and Sex Can Mess People Up in Adulthood (from Wine and Marble blog, post by a former Christian guy)

(Link):  Facebook’s motherhood challenge makes me want to punch my computer screen by F. Everett

(Link): Hypocrisy: Conservative Christians / Catholics Pressure Women To Feel Their Only Worth is in Becoming Mothers, But If Women Try to Use Medical Technology to Get Pregnant, the Women Are Condemned by The Same Groups

(Link): Southern Baptist’s New Sexist “Biblical Womanhood” 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): Gender Complementarian Advice to Single Women Who Desire Marriage Will Keep Them Single Forever / Re: Choosing A Spiritual Leader

(Link): Interesting Links Re Christianity and Gender Roles (A.K.A. Church and Christian Approved Sexism)

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

————————————
Related material on other sites:

(Link): Driscoll: Single men “cannot fully reflect God”

The Bible Calls Christians to Make Individual Disciples, Not to “Change Culture” Nor to Save, Redeem Culture Nor to Save or Promote Marriage or Manufacture Christianized Entertainment

The Bible Calls Christians to Make Individual Disciples, Not to “Change Culture” Nor to Save, Redeem Culture Nor to Save or Promote Marriage or Manufacture Christianized Entertainment

I remember there being Bible passages where Christ asked followers to make disciples. I recall Apostle Paul telling believers to police each other rather than sit about in judgment of Non Christians.

And yet, my fellow social conservatives (many of whom are Christian) keep telling other Christians to engage in a culture war, fight against abortion, fight against homosexual marriage, promote marriage, and save, redeem, or change the culture.

The Bible nowhere asks Christians to save marriage or culture.

Jesus Christ died on the cross to make amends between individual sinners and God. He did not die to clean up culture or save marriage.

I am not in favor of abortion or homosexual marriage.

I am not saying it is wrong for Christians to “fight” against those things via voting for politicians who promise to vote against such things. I am opposed to the amount of emphasis evangelicals place on these things.

I see headlines such as this and shake my head at the misplaced energy:

(Link): Engaging the ‘Seven Mountains of Culture’ – Christians Urged to Transform Culture Outside of Church Walls

BY STOYAN ZAIMOV, CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER

December 11, 2013|10:45 am

A Christian initiative seeking to build a network of leaders committed to centering the “Seven Mountains of Culture” to the values of Jesus Christ, is urging Christians to be active in engaging and transforming culture outside of church walls.

Pinnacle Forum, which was inspired by Dr. Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ International, has made it its vision to “see God at the center of our culture,” and since 1996 has spread from a local ministry in Phoenix, Ariz., to a global movement.

With a strategy to gather Christian leaders in confidential forums and equip them with the tools to impact society with Christian ideals, the Forum seeks to engage the “seven mountains of culture,” which it identifies as Arts and Entertainment, Business, Education, Family, Government/Military, Media, and Religion.

The Christian Post sat down on Monday with Steve Fedyski, president – CEO of Pinnacle Forum, who talked about some of those “mountains of culture,” the vision and mission of the network initiative and some of the projects its members are involved in which are sparking a real positive change in culture.

Below is an edited version of the interview:

CP: How is God missing from the ‘cultural mountains’ of today?

Fedyski: Let’s look at the education mountain. Back in the 60s, we took our prayer from the schools. So what has happened since? We can’t even proclaim or pray at our schools. So right there, the education mountain has taken God right out of the school system. You can’t even have the Bible as a devotional at our own schools.

The other things, like media – is our media advocating God? Is it advocating Christianity, or a culture that will please God? I’d say not. If you look at our film industry, what kind of films are coming out? What kind of television is coming out?

Continue reading “The Bible Calls Christians to Make Individual Disciples, Not to “Change Culture” Nor to Save, Redeem Culture Nor to Save or Promote Marriage or Manufacture Christianized Entertainment”

How American Christians Were Influenced by 1950s American Secular Propaganda to Idolize Marriage and Children and Against Singles and the Childless -and how over-emphasis on “family” and lack of respect for singleness started a backlash against both – [both = marriage, having kids] (excerpts from ‘Pornland’ book)

How American Christians Were Influenced by 1950s American Secular Propaganda to Idolize Marriage and Children and Against Singles and the Childless -and how over-emphasis on “family” and lack of respect for singleness started a backlash against both (excerpts from ‘Pornland’ book)

Excerpts from Pages 2- 5 of Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality by Gail Dines – read it for free on “Google Books.”

(Below this long excerpt are a few observations by me):

    For a magazine [Playboy] to clearly state that it was not “a family magazine” in the 1950s was close to heresy.

    According to social historian Stephanie Coontz, it was during this period that there was an unprecendented rise in the marriage rate, the age for marriage and motherhood fell, fertility increased, and divorce rates declined.

    From family restaurants to the family car, “the family was everywhere hailed as the most basic institution in society.”

    The mass media played a pivotal role in legitimizing and celebrating this “pro-family” ideology by selling idealized images of family life in sitcoms and women’s magazines, while demonizing those who chose to stay single as either homosexual or pathological.

    The most celebrated sitcoms of the period were Leave It To Beaver, Father Knows Best, and The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet. The ideal family was white and upper middle class, with a male breadwinner whose salary supported a wife and children as well as a large home in the suburbs.

    The primary roles for men and women were seen as spouses and as parents, and the result was a well-run household populated by smart, well-adjusted kids.

    The print media also got in on the act, carrying stories about the supposed awfulness of being single. Reader’s Digest ran a story entitled “You Don’t Know How Lucky You Are to Be Marred,” which focused on the “harrowing situation of single life.”

    One writer went so far as to suggest that “except for the sick, the badly crippled, the deformed, the emotionally warped and the mentally defective, almost everyone has an opportunity to marry.”

    In the 1950s, “emotionally warped” was a coded way of saying homosexual, and indeed many single people were investigated as potential homosexuals and by extension Communists, since the two were often linked during the McCarthy years.

    This pressure on men to conform not only to the dictates of domestic life but also to the growing demands of corporate America had its critics in the popular media. Some writers pointed to the conformist male as a “mechanized, robotized caricature of humanity… a slave in mind and body.”

    According to Barbara Ehrenreich, magazines like Life, Look, and Reader’s Digest carried stories suggesting that “Gary Gray” (the conformist in the gray flannel suit) was robbing men of their masculinity, freedom, and sense of individuality.

    While pop psychologists criticized the corporate world for reducing American males to “little men,” it was women in their roles of wives and mothers who were essentially singled out as the cripplers of American masculinity. As Ehrenreich has argued, “the corporate captains were out of the bounds of legitimate criticism in Cold War America,” women were the more acceptable and accessible villains.

    Described as greedy, manipulative, and lazy, American women were accused of emasculating men by overdomesticating them.

    Continue reading “How American Christians Were Influenced by 1950s American Secular Propaganda to Idolize Marriage and Children and Against Singles and the Childless -and how over-emphasis on “family” and lack of respect for singleness started a backlash against both – [both = marriage, having kids] (excerpts from ‘Pornland’ book)”

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

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

Many evangelical, neo Calvinist, and Baptist preachers, as well as secular right wing persons, think tanks and personalities are continuing to operate under the false illusion that the reason so many Christian adult singles are not getting married into their late 20s, their 30s, and 40s and beyond is because they hate marriage or are intentionally choosing not to marry.

So, we see a spate of articles, blog posts, or hear podcasts where the likes of Al Mohlers, Mark Driscolls, and others, try to shame or guilt singles into getting married (some of these Christian personalities are harsher on male singles than they are female singles, while some distribute the harshness pretty much equally between the genders).

Some of these famous Christians enjoy citing dubious research to scare us singles into getting married, that supposedly, married people live longer and healthier lives ((Link): debunked here), and so forth.

While there may certainly be some adult (Christian) singles who have deliberately chosen to not marry, there are many, many Christian adults singles over the age of 25, 30, 40 and 50, who still desire marriage, but despite praying and hoping for a spouse, they are still single.

And some adult singles find this situation, and the incredibly obnoxious, resultant “blame game” played against them by pro-marriage Christians and the Christian pro-traditional marriage culture, very, very painful and frustrating.

I am one of them. I was a Christian for many years, and I had fully expected to marry by age 35 at the latest but am early 40s now and still unmarried.

I was told from a young age by preachers, my Christian parents, and Christian culture (Christian books about dating, etc), that if I prayed, had faith, waited on God’s timing, and stayed a virgin, that God would bless me with a spouse.

I did all that: stayed a virgin, prayed, had faith, trusted God for a spouse, but the wonderful Christian husband I was told would be mine never did manifest. I am still single after all this time.

And yet, some Christian preachers will ignorantly and presumptuously lecture me, and singles like me, in their blogs, podcasts, books, or sermons that I am still single because I must obviously, according to them, be

      a career driven, feminist, man-hating shrew;
      I must despise marriage and am choosing to avoid it;
      I must love singledom freedom too much to give it up;
    or, I must have committed fornication, so God is withholding a spouse

– all manner of false assumptions are made.

These types of Christians have no clue why I am still single, but it sure does not bother them from making malicious, insulting, rude assumptions and unfounded speculations.

I do not hate marriage. I am over 40 and have never had sex. I did not place career first. I am not a man-hating, secular feminist.

Yet, Christians continue to assume if you are single past age 25 or so, it must be due to a reason such as that, or else, they feel, you are intentionally avoiding marriage.

None of these ignorant Christians want to notice, consider, or opine on, the contributing factors undergirding unwanted, protracted adult singleness that are beyond the control of singles, such as…

The job landscape has changed, which prevents a lot of young men from being able to marry (it takes a lot of money to support a wife and child, which happens to be the stereotypical preferred Christian family structure (Link): Male Employment Trends May Not Bode Well For Marriage).

And no, pushing people to marry at age 18 or 21, and instructing the church to fund and finance young married couples to make the whole thing easier, is not the answer, either.

In addition, this nauseating push by Christian leaders to marry “teeny boppers” off by the time they are 18 or 21 years old still does nothing for me, age 40ish and still single, and there are many, many singles such as me, who are never married past age 30 who desire marriage: what church, will you do to help me and those like me get a partner?

Telling me I, a 40-something woman, should marry at age 18 is an anachronism. I’m past age 18 now. So what now? How will you help me achieve my goal of having my own traditional marriage?

There are other single men and women my age who are asking the same thing on other blogs out there; I am far from alone.

Another factor ignored by the Christians who try to shame and blame adult singles into getting married:

Christian teachings on gender roles and dating/ sex/ and marriage have themselves contributed to prolonged, unwanted singleness among Christian singles, which I shall not get into here, because I have explained it before in other posts (such as (Link): here, (Link): here, (Link): here).

To the preachers and Christian media personalities out there:

Stop assuming all adult singles do NOT want marriage.

Start addressing those of us who DO WANT marriage, but it has, for whatever reason that is not our fault, been DENIED us.

Stop fretting that marriage is not happening among younger generations and using that as an excuse to blame and rail against the phantoms of liberalism and secular feminism.

Start addressing specific steps churches and Christian culture can take to help marry off over-age 30 singles who desire marriage.

Consider re-examining, re-tooling, or scrapping altogether your teachings on sex, gender roles, dating, and marriage, because those are some of the very things which have inhibited Christian singles from dating and getting married.

For instance:

There are entire blogs and sites dedicated to how the Christian dating book “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” kept an entire generation of Christians single into their 30s and beyond, with its faulty, naive assumptions about sex, dating, and gender roles and so on.

And these still-single Christians (who have been damaged by books such as “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” and similar Christian material) are people who were desiring marriage, not trying to avoid it! (Example: (Link): (Blog): I Kissed Dating Goodbye: Wisdom or Foolishness?)

Stop assuming all never-married adults past the age of 30 are single by choice, or that God has called them to be single. by the way, the phrase “Gift of Singleness” and “Gift of Celibacy” are NOT in the Bible. Here are a few instructive links about that:

      (Link):

The Myth of the Gift – Regarding Christian Teachings on Gift of Singleness and Gift of Celibacy

    )

(Link): The Gift of Singleness – A Mistranslation and a Poorly Used Cliche’

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

Many of us singles over the age of 30 desired marriage and do NOT understand why God never sent us a spouse, as preachers say God will do if we just pray and wait.

Stop preaching that singles are “less than.”

What I mean is that fringe kook groups, as well as more “mainstream” preachers and speakers, have been teaching the last several years, that it takes one man married to one women to reflect God, or to fully express God, etc., when the Bible not only does not teach this dreck, but the Bible already says that an unmarried woman alone fully reflects God, as does an unmarried man alone.

Seriously, some preachers, or some Christian fertility cultic groups, teach that singles are not as fully Christian, or as fully human, as married couples are, and some of these nasty assumptions also spill over to married couples who are infertile (ie, you are not fully Christian or human unless you are married AND producing children). I have several posts like this one on this blog:

      (Link):

According to Pastor – Jimmy Evans – It Takes One Man and Woman Married To Equal A Whole – so where does that leave Christian singles ? / Too Much Sex Talk | Making Marriage into an Idol Marriage Idolatry Anti Singles Singlehood Singleness Unmarried Bias Prejudice

Here’s another:

      (Link):

Why Unmarried – Single Christians Should Be Concerned about the Gender Role Controversy – because some Christians are teachng that unmarried people are not fully human or not “whole” – preachers who teach that single people are not fully in God’s image unless they get married

Jesus Christ never married and never had children, does that mean Jesus was not fully human, not fully Christian, and not fully reflecting God?

Putting aside for a moment that many of us older singles WANT TO BE MARRIED and find it puzzling, infuriating, or frustrating that we are not married…

Also, for those singles who do decide to remain single and/or never have children, and who are happy remaining single and childfree: respect those choices.

The Bible does NOT condemn singlehood, the Bible does not mandate marriage or procreation (both are presented as being OPTIONAL in the New Testament), the Bible does not teach that marriage is better or more holy or godly than singlehood.

Nor does the Bible teach that God “calls” anyone to singleness, or that singleness is only for “a few.”

Up to 44% (or more) of America’s population is single now, including a huge chunk of conservative Christians, so obviously, if one believes in that nonsense about God “calling” any one to singlehood, God is calling many, many to singlehood these days in the United States not “just a few.”

The Bible presents lifelong celibacy and singleness as being completely fine, valid options for the adult believers, and there may be a number of Christians who are truly happy and fine being single, but many Christians – the ones who have turned traditional marriage and having children into idols – completely ignore the Bible’s teachings on singleness to present it as being the option or last resort of only “the few” or only “those who are gifted with it,” or to make marriage sound superior to singleness.

It is especially troubling when the pro traditional marriage types, such as Al Mohler, quote the “singles die sooner than married” type studies with such glee, not only because such studies are usually flawed, but because they are denying or disrespecting God’s very own teaching on singleness: that God is totally fine with people choosing to remain single, and that the Apostle Paul and Jesus Christ were themselves single.

At any rate, there is a boat load of adult Christian singles out there who very much would like to get married, and we are being neglected. Or, Christian spokespersons keep wrongly assuming we are deliberately choosing to avoid marriage for any number of reasons.

Christians need to help us older singles get married, if we desire marriage, and they need to respect us as singles for so long as we do remain unmarried, even if that remains a lifetime.

I’ve yet to see any preacher discuss the following: why is God (that is, assuming the God of the Bible exists, and that He cares about people and actually listens to or replies to prayer) permitting so many adult Christians to remain single for so long, despite the fact they do, contrary to much Christian spin one reads, desire marriage, and have been praying to God for a spouse for decades?

The majority of Christians do not want to touch this topic at all.

I wonder why that is? Are they happier sitting back complaining about society and griping about liberals and feminists than they are in actually taking constructive steps at rectifying the situation (ie, helping older singles who want marriage to get married)?

See also:

(Link): Conservative Christians Are Now Blaming Homosexual Marriage on Heterosexual Single Adults
—————————–
Related posts this blog:

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

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

(Link): If the Family Is Central, Christ Isn’t

(Link): Article: 30 And Single? It’s Your Own Fault (say some Christians – book review of Debbie Maken marriage book)

(Link): Never Married Christians Over Age 35 who are childless Are More Ignored Than Divorced or Infertile People or Single Parents

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

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

(Link): Singleness is Not A Gift

(Link): Christian Males Blaming their Unwanted Protracted Singleness on Feminism – They have the wrong target

(Link): Secular Media Also Pushing Early Marriage

(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): Asexuality and Asexuals (people who are not interested in having sex, dating, or getting married)

(Link): Young Mothers Describe Marriage’s Fading Allure

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

(Link): The Nauseating Push by Evangelicals for Early Marriage

(Link): Parenting (being a parent / procreating) Does Not Necessarily Make People More Godly or Mature: News headline: Tennessee couple rented daughters for pornographic videos: police

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

(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): Why all the articles about being Child Free? On Being Childfree or Childless – as a Conservative / Right Wing / Christian

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

(Link): Conservatives and Christians Fretting About U.S. Population Decline – We Must “Out-breed” Opponents Christian Host Says (and why the Bible does NOT support this strategy)

(Link): Fatherhood Not Quite the Producer of Manly, Mature, Godly Men Some Conservative Christians Make It Out To Be

(Link): Motherhood Does Not Necessarily Make Women More Mature, Selfless, Responsible, Or Spiritual

(Link): Motherhood Does Not Make Women More Godly or Mature (Mother Suffocates New Born and Shoves It In Toilet)

(Link): Douglas Wilson and Christian Response FAIL to Sexual Sin – No Body Can Resist Sex – supposedly – Re Celibacy

(Link): Christian TV Personality ( Jimmy Evans ) Says You Cannot Meet God’s Destiny For Your Life Without A Spouse = Anti Singleness Singlehood Singles Bias Prejudice Making Idol out of Marriage

(Link): Post by Sarah Bessey Re: Churches Ignore Never Married Older and/or Childless Christian Women, Discriminate Against Them

(Link): On Vulgar Language at This Blog

Focus on the Family Members Practice Infidelity or Homosexuality and Get Divorced and Remarry – links to exposes

Focus on the Family Members Practice Infidelity or Homosexuality and Get Divorced and Remarry – links to exposes

(Some of these stories date from the year 2000.)

Edit. April 2016. Preface and Clarification.

  • I am right wing myself and do not hate “the family,” nor am I opposed to traditional values or marriage.
  • Since I have started this blog, I have collected newer examples, ones that date up to March and April 2016, of other pro-family, Christian, or right wing persons or groups that have been caught in extra-marital affairs, or sexually abusing children – including, but not limited to, the Duggar family, whose son Josh was in the media for having sexually molested his sisters and a babysitter.
  • Here’s one example:
  • (Link): Pro Family Values Republican Hastert in Trouble Over Sexually Abusing Children (story date: April 2016) – I even criticize certain liberal views about sexuality in the midst of criticizing right wingers in that post.
  • You can look further examples up on my blog using the “search” box on the right hand side of the page to find newer examples; some of them might be linked to at the bottom of this post under “Related Posts”.
  • I was told in a Tweet by a reader that sharing “older” stories (some of the news items in this post date from the year 2,000) is not “helpful”.
  • I am absolutely dumbfounded by this. This is a person who usually seems to understand how the extreme focus on stereotypical, pro-family values that Christian gender complementarians champion are very alienating to women who never marry, who cannot have children, or who are divorced.
  • One reason of several I feature such stories on my blog – news stories of pro-family Christians who are caught having affairs and so on – is to show how hypocritical these groups are – the same group who marginalize anyone who is not married by the time they are 25 years old with three children.
  • These pro-family Christians make more out of the “nuclear family” than the God of the Bible ever did, which harms women who never marry, women who divorce, women who are infertile – women who do not or cannot meet the “gender complementarian” or “traditional family values” rules and roles some Christians heavily promote.
  • Understand I’ve had traditional values my entire life, and I am still pretty right wing on most subjects. But I’m not going to excuse the hypocrisy of other right wingers on any of this.
  • The age of these stories is irrelevant to a degree.
  • It doesn’t matter if some of the pro-family values men (or women) mentioned in this blog post were caught in adultery last week, ten years ago, or 50 years ago.
  • If anything, it shows that these pro-family types have been full of bunk consistently for a long time, all the more reason to question their views on some issues.
  • Christians who promote “Family” and “Family Values” often do so at the expense of women (and men) who cannot or do not meet such standards, and it’s been an on-going pattern for decades now, so it’s actually helpful to see older material that reveals this (see also (Link): Americans Are Nostalgic for a Family Life That Never Existed by S. Coontz) .
  • A lot of the organizations promoting “Family Values” revere the 1950s, American decade. They are stuck in the past. So there again, I don’t think the age of the articles below are entirely pertinent, or is a mark against what I’m trying to demonstrate: Christians usually make an idol out of marriage and family, which excludes single adults, the divorced, widows, and the infertile.

What hypocrites. And they continue to aid in the marginalization of adult singles and adult childfree, and they keep on worshipping parenthood and the nuclear family.

By the way, if Christian groups spent more time doing what the Bible says they are to do – such as, policing their own rather than those outside the church ((Link): 1 Corinthians 5:12), AND spent their time pointing outsiders to Jesus (who was never, ever a hypocrite), instead of complaining and griping about homosexuality, abortion, and feminism, and other social issues, then when one of their own is caught in an extra-martial affair, or whatever other kind of sin, there would not be as much damage done to Christianity.

You can also see in posts such as this, which contain numerous examples of married Christian men screwing teen girls or having affairs with grown women, that they run around claiming to support sexual purity but in practice actually do not.

This also goes to show, once more, that being married, contrary to what most Christians believe, does not make a person more ethical, sexually pure, or responsible than being un-married.

Christian fable: if you stay a virgin until you marry, the sex will be great. -If that is true, we would not see so many middle aged married Christian men screwing their 25 year old secretaries or visiting prostitutes, now would we?

This link is from Democratic Underground, a site whose members I am usually not in agreement with (I am right wing):

(Link): “Focus on the Family,” glass houses, a Philanderer and an “Ex-Gay” Gay – Democratic Underground

  • Focus on Family shows ‘repentance’
  • Trout, who has been married for 31 years, declined to discuss details of the extramarital relationship, but said that the woman was not a Focus on the Family employee and that the relationship was over.
  • The ministry has declined to discuss the factors behind Trout’s resignation, citing legal and privacy concerns.
  • Trout, 53, is best known as the on-air partner of the founder and leader of the ministry, James Dobson. Dobson is a key figure in the conservative Christian movement and earlier this year criticized George W. Bush, claiming the Republican presidential candidate was sacrificing conservative values to appeal to a broader base.
  • Mike Trout abruptly quit last week. In an interview Monday with The Gazette, he admitted to an “inappropriate relationship with a woman other than his wife and had no choice but to resign from a ministry that stresses the sanctity of marriage.”
  • COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) — A top official and radio announcer for Focus on the Family said he has resigned from the conservative Christian group because he had an extramarital affair.

Focus on the Family official resigns, admits extramarital affair

    • October 17, 2000
      Web posted at: 4:05 PM EDT (2005 GMT)

A Philanderer:

  • Associated Press
  • COLORADO SPRINGS — Focus on the Family’s 1,350 employees prayed, joined hands and circled the ministry’s offices to show “corporate repentance and confession” after recent embarrassing revelations about two of its leaders.
  • “Satan has thrown just about everything in his arsenal at us in the last several weeks as you know,” Focus on the Family President James Dobson told the staff in a recorded message Friday. “I am certain those who hate our cause are doing everything they can to undermine and to discredit it.”
  • The $116 million Colorado Springs Christian ministry is going through tough times. Mike Trout, a senior vice president and well-known radio show co-host, resigned Oct. 11 after admitting to an extramarital relationship.
  • A Focus division chief, John Paulk, was allowed to keep his job after visiting a gay bar in September and lying about it. Paulk, an avowed former homosexual, has been pulled from the speaker list of Saturday’s “Love Won Out” conference, which teaches that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that can be overcome through prayer and therapy.
  • As a result of the Trout and Paulk incidents, the ministry has become the target of jokes on The Tonight Show With Jay Leno and Politically Incorrect.

[original story source]:
http://www.rockypreps.com/news/1105focu5.shtml

(Link): Here We Go Again

    Issue: “Here we go again,” Nov. 11, 2000

  • Posted Nov. 11, 2000, 12:00 a.m. by Lynn Vincent
  • The recent revelation of Focus on the Family radio host Mike Trout’s marital infidelity has pundits pelting conservatives-and Christianity-again. Have two decades of clay-footed “celebrity conservatives” shattered the credibility of the “family values” movement? And can tough-minded actions restore some of it?
  • Bill Maher, talk-television’s answer to Nero, recently fed another Christian to his panelist-lions.
  • On Oct. 24, an aging Boy George, minor starlet Karen Duffy, and others batted the Mike Trout story around the studio-coliseum on Mr. Maher’s late-night show Politically Incorrect. Mr. Trout, longtime co-host of Focus on the Family’s flagship radio broadcast, last month resigned from the Colorado Springs-based ministry.
  • A few days later he admitted to an “inappropriate relationship” with a woman not his wife.
  • “How come so many of these people who are supposedly the ‘family people’ get caught?” Mr. Maher carped as a knowing titter rippled through the studio audience. “I mean, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Henry Hyde, Strom Thurmond … they get caught. Why? Why?”
  • PromiseVision vice president Bill Horn, the panel’s token conservative that evening, gamely offered a defense: “Because people make mistakes and people are human … [Mike Trout] made a mistake and he was man enough to resign….”
  • Mr. Maher abruptly cut him off: “It’s because they’re ‘pervs’ to begin with and they try to cover it up by becoming Christians [and] Republicans. Those are 12-step programs for these people!”
  • Ugly, yes. But though he arrived at wrong conclusions, Mr. Maher was grappling in his own caustically comic way with a serious problem: the chain of hypocrisy among those who publicly preach family values, but privately poach in other people’s families.
  • The chain hamstrings innocent clergy, damages trusting laity, and, worst of all, tarnishes the image of Christ in the eyes of nonbelievers.
  • In a media-saturated culture that emphasizes sins among Christians and conservatives, incidents of saying one thing and doing another overwhelm for many Americans any good impressions that might be created.
  • …How big is the problem among church ministers? According to a national study of 4,000 active pastors over a 10-year period conducted by counselors at First Evangelical Free Church of Fullerton, Calif., and completed in 1998, one in five pastors admits to indulging in “sexually inappropriate” behavior with someone who was not his wife since the time he first became involved with some local ministry.
  • That period may span many decades and many definitions of “inappropriate,” but ministers such as Chuck Smith, senior pastor of Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa, Calif., say they have seen an increase in moral failure among Christians in public ministry. Mr. Smith’s own ministry exploded during the late 1960s Jesus movement, eventually spinning off 800 affiliated churches, dozens of parachurch groups, and numerous radio outreaches.
  • …Charles Ballard, president and founder of the Initiative for Responsible Fatherhood, remembers leading an abstinence workshop with a group of inner-city fathers who were struggling to walk a straight moral path: “Questions were raised in the group, which was mostly teenagers. The questions were along the lines of ‘How about this guy Swaggart? He has a wife, he has a family and here he’s out here [having sex with other women].'” Mr. Ballard concludes, “It’s the believer who preaches one thing and lives another that most hurts the cause of Christ.”
  • San Diego youth pastor and Bethel Seminary graduate Rich West, 29, says he labors under the yoke of an increasing public cynicism toward Christianity. “I think the culture has been inoculated by us and our moral failures,” he said. “I believe that people now expect that pastors and clergy will fall morally … it’s just so common that it’s expected.”

Though I totally disagree with this comment, that appeared in the above article:

    Part of that wall is built by prayer: “Lead me not into temptation” should be on the lips of every leader with admiring followers. Part should consist of basic precautions: the Billy Graham rule for leaders-don’t be behind closed, windowless doors with a member of the opposite sex-needs faithful following.

  • Part should be accountability procedures, preferably within a local church, where men report to each other the early stages of restlessness and thus corral it in time.

That excerpt above assumes that people are incapable of sexual self control, so married people avoid singles, and singles become isolated as a result. This is sometimes referred to as the Billy Graham Rule, which I have blogged about several times over on my blog, such as (Link): here and (Link): here – and many others (search for the term “Billy Graham Rule” on my blog to find more posts about it.)

(Link): Mike Trout Says Emotional Affair Forced His Resignation from Focus on the Family

    Ted Olsen [ posted 10/1/2000 12:00AM ]
  • Mike Trout says he resigned from focus because of extramarital relationship
  • Mike Trout, co-host of “Focus on the Family” with Dr. James Dobson for the last 15 years, says the reason he abruptly resigned from the organization was because of an “emotional” relationship with another married woman. “I’m greatly saddened,” Trout told The (Colorado Springs)Gazette. “I didn’t work at Focus on the Family for 19 years because of the paycheck or the benefits or the positive environment. I worked at Focus on the Family because I believed in what we were doing. I know that might sound strange, because I violated it.” The relationship, he says, is over, was “not a long-term thing,” and was not with another Focus employee. Trout told Dobson, and is now telling others, about the relationship and resigned immediately, he says, because “If I hadn’t shared the truth, it would have eventually come out.”

(Link): Subject: Tom Papania and Focus on the Family

Excerpts

    5) FYI – Ryan Dobson information – Dr. Dobson obviously has his own reason for not wanted to talk about Ryan’s divorce.
  • It is a very sensitive subject for the whole family. Again, the staff on the phones do not have any information about this, probably most don’t even know that he has been previously married.
  • You can write to Focus if you have a question and they will pass it on to the Correspondence department. I will save you the time and give you the answer. Ryan Dobson was divorced from Cezanne in 2001. Ryan was totally opposed to the dissolution of the marriage and there were no biblical grounds to justify it (No adultery involved.) Ryan has just recently remarried.
  • By the way, just because I work at Focus on the Family doesn’t mean that I agree with everything that goes on here (probably no employee agrees 100%). Nevertheless, I have a very high regard for Dr. Dobson and this ministry.
  • God Bless You
  • Andy
  • Hope this clears a few things up for you.
  • [reply]
  • If Ryan Dobson wants to be a public leader at a FAMILY ministry why is he allowed to keep issues like his marriage, divorce, and re-marriage a secret? Clearly, he has learned much from his father (about secrecy).
  • There is much more I could write. But I think this covers the main points. Please write again.
  • Sincerely,
    Brian Karjala
  • [concluding thoughts]
  • As for Mike Trout, former co-host of Jim Dobson’s radio program… he gives the introduction and closing remarks on the Focus on the Family “From Mafia To Ministry” Tom Papania tape originally broadcasted over radio stations in Dec. of ’96. Some years later Trout resigned from his VP position at Focus after he was lured and swallowed up by an extra-marital affair which he publicly confessed to.
  • Expect more scandals to come…

(Link): Testimony of Former Focus on the Family Employees and the Public

  • The Corruption of Focus on the Family
  • “What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate!” (Cool Hand Luke)
  • Update: In response to webpages like this one Focus on the Family has been forced to address the Ryan Dobson divorce:
  • “You’ll be interested to know that the Dobsons have addressed this situation openly in response to any inquiries that are made. That said, it might be helpful to explain that Ryan and his former wife, Cezanne, divorced in the summer of 2001. Obviously, we must not invade the young people’s privacy except to say that Ryan was completely opposed to the dissolution of the marriage and that the biblical grounds that have permitted him to remarry are consistent with the scriptural understanding of abandonment.”
  • Many people coming to this website think the Dobson divorce is the big story. It does highlight the secrecy of the Dobsons and raises questions about Ryan’s behavior but it’s actually a minor issue compared with the Tom Papania story.
  • (Some have speculated that Cezanne may be a black woman and wonder why there was never a public photo posted of her. Ryan has posted photos of his second wife, Laura.)
  • The bigger story is that Focus on the Family’s most popular selling radio broadcast in its history is fraudulent along with the subsequent ongoing cover-up.
  • Papania continues to exploit people and harass those who expose his fraud.
  • And if Focus on the Family is responsible for recruiting the lawyer now representing Papania in an attempt to silence me then we are dealing with a callous evil that the public needs to know about. (In the past Papania has stated in his newsletters that the lawyer, a Dobson supporter, sought him out to freely represent him for the purpose of trying to eliminate websites like this one.)

(Link): Focus on Family exec admits affair, resigns

  • This has a long list of sexual sins by Mike Trout, Jimmy Swaggert, and other conservative, hetero Christians who worship family, who were caught having affairs, using porn or prostitutes, etc, then mentions a long list of public Christian personalities who claimed to be against homosexuality but were themselves having homosexual affairs:

(Link): Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth (book excerpt on Google Books)

Another book excerpt on Google Books mentioning the sexual sins and affairs of married Christian men who publicly bray about the importance of “family values” and marriage (though I assume this book was published ten or more years ago, because today’s social conservatives have LOST the culture war):

(Link): The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America Are Winning the Culture War

(Link): Focus on the Family Official Resigned Over Affair

    Mike Trout, an on-air personality for the evangelical radio ministry, has admitted to an ‘inappropriate relationship’
  • Mike Trout abruptly quit last week. In an interview Monday with The Gazette, he admitted to an “inappropriate relationship with a woman other than his wife and had no choice but to resign from a ministry that stresses the sanctity of marriage.”
  • Trout, 53, is best known as the on-air partner of the founder and leader of the ministry, James Dobson. Dobson is a key figure in the conservative Christian movement and earlier this year criticized George W. Bush, claiming the Republican presidential candidate was sacrificing conservative values to appeal to a broader base.

—————–
Related on this blog:

(Link): Focus on the Family Defends IRS Classification as a ‘Church,’ Says It’s Meant to Protect Donors

(Link): Family Values Republican Politician Hastert in Trouble for Sexual Assault of Kids / On Liberals and Not Having Sexual Standards

(Link):  Ashley Madison Site Hack Update / Family Values Activist Josh Duggar Had a Paid Ashley Madison Account

(Link):  News sites: Josh Duggar Joked About Molesting His Sisters, Has No Remorse for Extra-Marital Affairs (September 2015)

(Link):  Christian, Family Values Vlogger – Austin Null – Caught Sexting (story dates from January 2016)

(Link):  Family Values Republican Politician Hastert in Trouble for Sexual Assault of Kids / On Liberals and Not Having Sexual Standards

(Link): Another Christian Pro-Nuclear Family Marriage Idolator Married Father (Sam Rader) Caught By Ashley Madison Hack

(Link): Why Not Focus On How Churches Can Help Adult Singles?

(Link): Leader of Hyper Family Focused, Fertility Cult (Vision Forum Ministries) Steps Down After Admitting to Having an “Emotional Affair”

(Link):  ‘Decent guy’ Married youth pastor charged with sexually abusing 5-year-old girl at his home (March 2016) 

(Link): Conservative Christianity Stuck in 1950s Leave it To Beaver-ville

(Link): Focusing on the Family Causes Church Decline

(Link): The Bible Does Not Teach Christians to “Focus On The Family” – The Idolization of Family by American Christians (article)

(Link): Good Grief! Five Million Dollar Family Idoltary on Display: Focus on the Family Launches $5 Million Project Targeting Family Breakdown, Social Ills – Please, when you say you support marriage, be honest about what you REALLY mean

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

(Link): Focus on Family spokesperson, Stanton, actually says [contrary to what the Bible teaches about church growth] the reason people should marry is for ‘church growth’

(Link): Focus on the Family having financial problems – aw, too bad (not!)

(Link): Focus on the Family advice columnist perpetuates stereotypes about single women

(Link): Janet Mefferd Concedes In One Radio Show that Christians “Lose Jesus” in all the “Family Values” Talk and Emphasis / Also FIC and Youth Worship

(Link): Republicans Ditch Family Values As Strategy (article)

(Link): Do You Rate Your Family Too High? (Christians Who Idolize the Family) (article)

(Link): Family Research Center (Christian group) thinks people (including the Nuclear Family) should be cut off food stamps

Interesting Links Re Christianity and Gender Roles (A.K.A. Church and Christian Approved Sexism)

Interesting Links Re Christianity and Gender Roles (AKA Church and Christian Approved Sexism)

This is a very good editorial:
(Link): Feminism vs Egalitarianism

(Link): Friday Challenge: Guess The Year [‘How Feminine Am I’ sexist and out-dated check list used by Baptist churches] – Stuff Fundies Like blog

Next link. Regarding the nutso Quiverfull-ish, Doug Phillips, Vision Forusm-ish sexist beliefs of treating women like unthinking chattel and keeping them at home with their fathers, even if they don’t marry into adulthood:

(Link): Sleeping Beauty and the Five Questions, Part 1: Blurring the Lines (TBB) – from Scarlet Letters blog

Excerpts

    My main concern, however, with the vision of SAHD [Stay At Home Daughters] laid out in [Phillips’ version of] Sleeping Beauty is that it seems to progressively break down healthy boundaries in father-daughter relationships.

    … In Sleeping Beauty, however, it becomes clear that “helpmeet” is only one example of a more extensive terminology shift. Fathers are said to “court” and “woo” their daughters and ultimately “win their hearts.”

(Link): Dan Kirby Kopp, 45, was found guilty of beating his wife with a spoon [for not addressing him as “sir” and other stupid crap]

    The video shows Kopp showing her [his wife] the spoon and giving her a ‘count of three to comply’ with his demand of addressing him with a ‘yes, sir’ in front of the couple’s children.

    He is also heard threatening to ‘cast the demons out of her’ next time she disobeyed him.

(Link): “A Year of Biblical Womanhood” Genre Cheat Sheet Rachel Held Evans’ blog

I don’t agree with what appears to be that blog’s rejection of biblical sexual ethics, or disregard for people who have remained virgins into adulthood, in favor of sugarcoating biblical sexual teachings so as to soothe the consciences of women who say they feel shamed or get hurt hearing that pre-marital sex is sinful according to the Bible, but I do agree with the blog’s disdain for biblical gender complementarianism.

Guest comments at that page (and I agree with these comments):

    My favourite is their “committee” page [the writer may be referring to the gender complementarian group CBMW] where each women’s career is labelled “homemaker” and then proceeds to list all the conferences she will be attending for the next 12 months – I added up one of the women’s ‘away’ dates and figured the only way she could be a ‘homemaker’ was if she lived in a motor home.

And:

    Christina Steve Dawson • 7 hours ago −

    I suspect this is true. Otherwise they would have noticed years ago the irony of women building careers in which they travel, write, and speak, all for the purpose of convincing other women not to have careers.

And

    Rachel Held Evans Mod Christina • 7 hours ago −

    Oh my gosh! This DRIVES ME CRAZY! I went to this “biblical womanhood” conference a couple years ago where many of the attendees were professional women with careers. And the speaker – a professional woman herself – proceeded to dis on feminism as an anti-biblical worldview…starting with second wave feminism and using Mary Tyler Moore as an example of a first step away from biblical womanhood. It was so confusing

——————-
Related posts this blog

(Link): Christian Culture and Daddy Daughter Dates

Real Every Day, Average Men Ain’t All That Attractive – and yes, male looks matter to Christian women / Ageism and Desirablity

Real Men Ain’t All That Attractive – and yes, male looks matter to Christian women

I love how sexist pig men, including Christian ones, assume that lookism (and even ageism) is one-sided.

That is, men believe it’s okay or normal for men to choose or reject women based on that woman’s age or looks alone, or they assume that a woman’s looks fade as soon as she hits 35, or 40, which is not the case.

What many of them continue to overlook is that a lot of women also engage in lookism (and ageism) against men.

By the way, age 40 women do NOT want to date “older men,” yet I see women ages 25 and up, but in particular the 40 somethings, often complaining on sites how only dudes age 60 and older contact them on dating sites.

Same thing has happened to me, though I also get contacted by 20s, 30s aged males on dating sites.

Hell, even when I was mid 30s, I still had old, white haired grandpas hitting on me on dating sites, and it’s gross.

Women do not want to date older men. There might be a few who do, if the woman in question is an air-headed 23 year old who is a gold digger, or the 50+ year old male in question is movie actor Johnny Depp, but as to the rest of the female gender: no, just no, we don’t want to date older guys.

I have no idea why older men assume women ten, fifteen, twenty years their junior would even consider it. Most of us find the romantic attention of a much older guy ICKY. Not a turn on, but ICKY and GROSS.

I’ve been meaning on doing a related post or two on these subjects for some time now. Here’s the first one. I don’t know when I will be cranking out part 2.

The sexist doofus(*) at another site commented to me that in my 40s, that my looks have lost their allure (I forget the exact nauseating, odd phrase he used, but something like, “the flower is off the youth of your looks”), so I can no longer depend on my looks to get a man, he said.

As I told him, I never depended on my looks to start with.

He has no idea what I look like, by the way, but just assumes I must resemble an old crone (I do not).

(*The doofus to which I refer:
Frank Swift / Geek in the Wilderness post (‘How churches today abandoned the Christian single’))

He’s not the only male who feels this way. I’ve seen other ones like him before.

The larger point I’d like to make, though, is that Hollywood and Madison Avenue keep portraying women over age 35 as being unattractive or sexless, and your idiot Christian “Average Joes” have bought into this thinking.

Males generally get a pass in American culture for having slobby looks, for looking old, or being fat, and are not considered un-sexy, ugly, haggard, undesirable, or old-looking until they get to their 50s, or a few, such as movie star Sean Connery, escape this ageism until their 60s or 70s.

I am now in my early 40s. I don’t look too different now than I did in my early or mid 30s. I don’t have wrinkles or grey hair, and I jog several times a week. I am not fat.

Yet, weenies like the guy on the other site – Swift – seem to assume once a woman hits 40, that she automatically morphs into a stereotypical, grey- hair- in- a- bun, wrinkled 95- year- old grandma. (Think “Granny” on “The Beverly Hillbillies” show.).

However, that is not what 40 looks like.

Even secular people pick up on these things – some of them do pick apart male appearance and note that most guys are not as hot and attractive as they think they are, and some of them are catching on that looks do matter to women.

Some women, such as me, put more value on a man’s looks than how much money he makes.

I’ve always cared more about ‘the Cute’ than ‘the Bank Account’ or the sort of car the guy drives.

Guys like the sexist Swift assumes he can be chubby, fat, wrinkled, flabby and bald, and yet still attract an attractive woman, if only he has a steady job – and this assumption is flat wrong.

Someone put photos of average guys in underwear beside photos of famous male athletes and movies stars in underwear:

(Link): Real Men Underwear Ads

Here are a couple examples from that page – the regular guys are on the left, the male models / professional soccer players are on the right – the regular Joes are NO WHERE NEAR AS sexy, hot, and attractive as the guys on the right:

Rergular Guy Compared to Male Model
Rergular Guy Compared to Male Model
Rergular Guy Compared to Male Model
Regular Guy Compared to Male Model

Men You’re Less Attractive Than You Think (video)


————————–
Related posts this blog:

(Link): New study: Average American man is ugly and fat – And yes, men, you should panic because American women DO judge you based on your looks

(Link): Women Are Visual And Like Hot Looking Men (Part 1) Joseph in Genesis Was A Stud Muffin

(Link): Creepy, wrong, immature and pathetic: older men chasing after much younger women

(Link): Misogynistic Christian Single Guy Blog – Keeping Singles Single Re Frank Swift of Geek in the Wilderness

(Link): Rise of the trophy HUSBAND: The high-flying women paying for their partners to get surgery – so that they will look better on their arm (article)

(Link): Christian Males Blaming their Unwanted Protracted Singleness on Feminism – They have the wrong target

(Link): Example of How Christian Teaching About Sex, Marriage, and Gender Creates Hang Ups and Entitlements Among Christians

(Link): Conflicting Message to Christian Women by Christians About Physical Appearance

(Link): Ryan Gosling and Shirtless, Buff Cowboy Photos on Social Media – Yes, Women Are Visually Stimulated and Visually Oriented (Part 2)

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

(Link): Follow up: BITTER GUY Replies to ‘It’s Okay To Call A Guy Creepy (article) / Little Sympathy for Ugly Single Guys’

(Link): And They Like to Caution Single Women About Being “Too Picky” – Check this nauseatingly too picky list by a single 39 year old who will die single

(Link): How Not to Help All the Single Ladies (excellent article)

(Link): Some Advertisers Have Caught on that Women are Visually Oriented

(Link): Conservative Christian Sexist Immature Imbecilic Pressure on Women to Look Pretty and Skinny and to Put Out Sexually

(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): Boy Bands, Rock Singers, and Other High School Crushes – Yes, Women Are Visually Stimulated and Visually Oriented

Good Grief! Five Million Dollar Family Idoltary on Display: Focus on the Family Launches $5 Million Project Targeting Family Breakdown, Social Ills – Please, when you say you support marriage, be honest about what you REALLY mean

Focus on the Family Launches $5 Million Project Targeting Family Breakdown, Social Ills – Please, when you say you support marriage, be honest about it

MORE OF THE SAME

Definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.

News headline:
“Focus on the Family Launches $5 Million Project Targeting Family Breakdown, Social Ills”

LOL! Yes, because NOT “targeting the family” and NOT ranting against social ills has led to all the fornication, divorce, and porn use among Christians today! LOL! Are these people from Mars or what?

The ONLY thing most right wing Christians (and I am right wing too) have done the past several decades is complain, bitch, and moan about biblical ethics going down the crapper.

They are forever complaining, bitching, sermonizing and blogging against the rise of single mommy households, the supposed evils of feminism, the delay of marriage, climbing divorce rates, their supposed (note: it’s supposed; they don’t really care) horror at fornication, but all this lambasting of the evils of culture has done nada, zero, zippo to halt any of it.

Why do they think more of the same, and in the form of a multi- million dollar movie, will change anything?

WHEN YOU (you = conservative Christians, preachers, Focus on the Family, etc) SAY YOU ‘SUPPORT MARRIAGE,’ PLEASE, LET’S GET HONEST ABOUT WHAT YOU -REALLY- MEAN BY “YOU SUPPORT MARRIAGE”

Then you have these thousands of Christian single women ages 30, 40, and older who would simply adore having a spouse, they can’t find one, and the church and these para- church, or concern groups such as “Focus on the Family,” do jack squat to help them get married.

Apparently, when these conservative Christians say they care deeply about marriage, these “Focus on the Family” sorts really mean they only care about getting 20 somethings married.

Anyone past age 30 can go take a long walk off a short pier in these marriage discussions.

Please be honest about it, Focus on the Family leaders and preachers of America, by what you really mean about ‘caring about marriage.’ You mean you care about 20-somethings getting married. You don’t give a rat’s ass about anyone past the age of 29.

As a never married 40 something, yes, I really need a five million dollar movie about societal ills like I need a hole in the head! That will surely bring Mr. Right my way, good going, para church group! 🙄

Some guy in this interview, John Shepherd, says that family is the “building block of society.” The guy did not provide a Bible citation to back this assertion.

In what sermon did Jesus say that the nuclear family was the building block of society?

Where did Peter, Luke, Paul or other New Testament writers make that claim? The Bible made the opposite claim: the Bible teaches that the spiritual family, that is, anyone who believes in Jesus, was to take precedence over blood ties (the nuclear family).

(Link): Focus on the Family Launches $5 Million Project Targeting Family Breakdown, Social Ills

    BY TYLER O’NEIL, CP CONTRIBUTOR
    September 6, 2013|5:27 pm

    Focus on the Family is launching a new $5 million documentary film and curriculum project to bolster families across the world and address social ills like homelessness, gang violence and assault.

    “In America, there is one divorce every 13 seconds,” according to a video released by Focus on the Family (FOTF) announcing the organization’s new initiative, aptly named “The Family Project.”

    The promotional video flashes through news headlines that report on increasing rates of divorce and the effect fatherlessness has on children – higher risk of suicide, teen pregnancy and gang membership.

    On the video, the FOTF president announces that The Family Project is set to include a feature film, “a documentary that lifts up God’s design for the family” and presents the biblical view as the best family structure – a goal to aspire toward.

    “When you watch the news and read the headlines, it’s easy to despair,” explained Jim Daly, president of FOTF. Nevertheless, he calls for hope to stem from the Christian community. Daly summarized John 16:33, where Jesus says there will be trouble in this world, but adds: “I have overcome the world.”

    John Shepherd, president of Mpower Pictures, the company that will produce the film along with FOTF, explained that family is the “basic building block of society.” Shepherd said the project aims to “empower not only the artists, but also the audience to make positive change in the culture.”

    One of the news reports at the beginning of the video lists robbery, sexual abuse and assault as being on the rise, and includes a woman explaining the gang mentality. “If you want to be a man, this is what you do. You kill other people, you join a gang, you get somebody pregnant.”

    These social problems, the film suggests, tie back to the lack of fathers.

    Only God’s plan for the family can answer the mindset of gang culture, Daly argued.

    “We want to recast a vision for family,” he said, noting that the the project, expected to cost $5 million, includes the cost for the film and for a multimedia curriculum to “guide people through the understanding of why God designed family the way that he did.”

    Tim Sisarich, the host of The Family Project, also affirms his belief that God’s grace and truth, no matter what a family’s circumstances might be, can inspire hope again. “We know an architect who can bring us back to the original design for family,” he said. “If we have to go to the ends of the earth to bring this truth to light, then let’s do it.”

    The project was announced Thursday and is expected to take more than a year to complete. Filming for the documentary began in March and will finish this month, with a release coming to theaters in late spring 2014. The multimedia curriculum will release in mid-summer, and an online training program will launch next winter.

    According to its website, FOTF plans to partner with churches in order to achieve three goals: “Truly understand the significance of God’s great plan for humanity through families, Live with purpose and an eternal perspective, and Model God’s redemptive design for family to their neighbors, peers, coworkers, and ultimately, their culture.”

Do the people who make up Focus on the Family not have Matthew Chapter Ten in their Bibles?

Matthew Chapter Ten

Jesus Christ, one of the main founders of Christianity, speaking:

    34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

    35 For I have come to turn

    “‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
    a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
    36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

    37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

Hmm. Where in any of that did Jesus say His big priority was on protecting the American traditional family unit? Where did Jesus say His big plan for fighting gang culture or divorce, homosexuality, war, or whatever else, was focusing on the nuclear family?

And where do singles fit into any of this? Why do these Focus on the Family weenies not feel that society cannot be healed or helped via the un-married? Do families play the role of the Holy Spirit?

Can the Holy Spirit not work through singles? Does the Holy Spirit not gift singles for ministry, only married couples? Where is that heresy taught in Scripture?

‘Focus on the Family’ members need to take the traditional family off the altar they have placed it on. God says you are to have no other gods before Him, but they have put “family” before God.

If you visit the Focus on the Family site right now, there is a big green donation button where they are asking for donations, I believe for this movie/project.

The link leads (Link): to this page at their site. Excerpt from that page:

    (From Focus on the Family web site)

    Why does the world need families?

    This won’t be news to you.

    Our culture today is a confusing mix of wildly differing views on family . . . what a family is and why — or even if — it matters.

    Family is a revelation of God.

    God’s Word tells us that family does matter, of course. But we haven’t fully appreciated or understood why it matters. He designed the family. It’s His gift to us. And He intends it to be a platform for transformation in our world.

And singles do not matter? God cannot or will not “transform” the world through singles or the childless? Where does the Bible teach any of that (hint: no where; it’s not biblical).

Again (Link): from that page:

    (From Focus on the Family Web Site, on page asking for five million dollars in donation for film project, a film to promote families)

    How can you be involved?

    As a trusted partner in this family ministry, you’ve already demonstrated how deeply you care about the future of traditional marriage . . . about equipping moms and dads to raise kids who serve the Lord . . . and about keeping homes centered on His Son, Jesus Christ.

    That’s why today we’re asking you to support The Family Project financially. We’re seeking $5 million to underwrite development, distribution and marketing costs.

    Why do families work? Because God himself designed them. Thriving families will lead to thriving communities. And thriving communities will transform the world. People will find purpose, joy and redemption. And generation after generation will create a positive legacy.

God designed singles and singlehood, too.
————————————————
Related posts this blog

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

(Link): Conservative Christianity Stuck in 1950s Leave it To Beaver-ville

(Link): The Way We Never Were (book – Family Idol)

(Link): Focus on Family spokesperson, Stanton, actually says reason people should marry is for ‘church growth’

(Link): (Link): The Deification of Family and Marriage (re: Kyle Idleman book)

(Link): Do You Rate Your Family Too High? (Christians Who Idolize the Family) (article)

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

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

(Link): Christians and Churches Discriminate Against Unmarried People / Singles

(Link): A Critique of the Family-Integrated Church Movement by Brian Borgman – Christians turning the family into an idol

(Link): If the Family Is Central, Christ Isn’t

(Link): Mormons and Christians Make Family, Marriage, Having Children Into Idols

The Way We Never Were (book – Family Idol)

The Way We Never Were: American Families And The Nostalgia Trap by Stephanie Coontz (Author)

Someone on the Jesus Creed blog mentioned the book “The Way We Never Were.”

(Link): BOOK REVIEW : Skewering Myths About the Family : THE WAY WE NEVER WERE: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap by Stephanie Coontz

Review is from 1992, by CONSTANCE CASEY. Excerpts:

    American families have changed in the last 20 years–nearly half of all families with children have both parents working–and our anxiety about change is no delusion.

    There has certainly been some decay in values recently. As Coontz tartly observes, “Twenty-five percent of the people polled in a recent national inquiry into American morality said that for $10 million they would abandon their entire family; a large number of people are evidently willing to do the same thing for free.”

    Coontz believes that what we’re experiencing now, however, is not so much the family’s dissolution as “an erosion of commitment to social obligations in general, and to children in particular.” Furthermore, things weren’t all that great before.

    Chapter by chapter, Coontz takes on the myths. Divorce may end many marriages now, but largely because of high mortality rates, the average length of marriage in Colonial times was less than 12 years.

    The “Life With Father” Victorian family–in which men were the breadwinners and women the domestic angels–owed its existence to the fact that other families were poor. Middle-class women had time to spend with their children because they employed laundresses and maids and cooks. Often these German or Welsh or Irish immigrant servant “girls” really were girls, as young as 11.

    While 20% of American children today are poor, she writes, “At the turn of the century the same proportion lived in orphanages, not because they actually lacked both parents, but because one or both parents simply could not afford their keep.”

    Coontz’s take on the Golden Age of the family–Ward and June, Ozzie and Harriet–is not brand new, but worth restating. “The apparently stable families of the 1950s were the result of an economic boom–the gross national product grew by nearly 250% and per capita income by 35%.” Most important, there was steady employment for the Ward Cleavers of America.

    Ozzie never came home with a pink slip and never applied for welfare. But the Nelsons and the Cleavers were generously underwritten by the federal government. Because of the extraordinary boom, the feds could afford to be generous with everything from education money to housing loans and highway construction.

    Part of the mythology of the Golden Age was that only morally deficient families required government help. As refutation, Coontz provides a wonderfully specific example–Phil Gramm, senator from Texas and staunch opponent of government handouts: “Born in Georgia in 1942, to a father who was living on a federal veterans disability pension, Gramm attended a publicly funded university on a grant paid for by the federal War Orphans Act. His graduate work was financed by a National Defense Education Act fellowship, and his first job was at Texas A & M University, a federal land-grant institution.”

    Coontz makes it hard for us to blame the usual suspects for family decay–those negligent working mothers and those immoral teen-age girls. She demonstrates that most of the family problems associated with working women rise from “the inadequate and incomplete integration of women into productive work.” And she charges that, “The image of teen-age girls having babies to receive welfare checks is an emotion-laden but fraudulent cliche.” If welfare benefits cause teen pregnancy, “why is it that other industrial countries, with far more generous support policies for women and children, have far lower rates of teen pregnancy?” (Incidentally, the highest rate of teen-age childbearing in 20th-Century America was in 1957.)

    “Children do best,” Coontz concludes, “in societies where child-rearing is considered too important to be left entirely to parents.” In order to be elected these days, candidates have to demonstrate that they care deeply about their own children. We should demand that they also care about other people’s children.

Info on the book:

    The Way We Never Were examines two centuries of American family life and shatters a series of myths and half-truths that burden modern families. Placing current family dilemmas in the context of far-reaching economic, political, and demographic changes, Coontz sheds new light on such contemporary concerns as parenting, privacy, love, the division of labor along gender lines, the black family, feminism, and sexual practice.

And:

    Did you ever wonder about the historical accuracy of those “traditional family values” touted in the heated arguments that insist our cultural ills can be remedied by their return?

    Of course, myth is rooted in fact, and certain phenomena of the 1950s generated the Ozzie and Harriet icon. The decade proved profamily–the birthrate rose dramatically; social problems that nag–gangs, drugs, violence–weren’t even on the horizon.

    Affluence had become almost a right; the middle class was growing. “In fact,” writes Coontz, “the ‘traditional’ family of the 1950s was a qualitatively new phenomenon. At the end of the 1940s, all the trends characterizing the rest of the twentieth century suddenly reversed themselves.”

    This clear-eyed, bracing, and exhaustively researched study of American families and the nostalgia trap proves–beyond the shadow of a doubt–that Leave It to Beaver was not a documentary.

    Gender, too, is always on Coontz’s mind. In the third chapter (“My Mother Was a Saint”), she offers an analysis of the contradictions and chasms inherent in the “traditional” division of labor.

    She reveals, next, how rarely the family exhibited economic and emotional self-reliance, suggesting that the shift from community to nuclear family was not healthy.

    Coontz combines a clear prose style with bold assertions, backed up by an astonishing fleet of researched, myth-skewing facts.

    The 88 pages of endnotes dramatize both her commitment to and deep knowledge of the subject. Brilliant, beautifully organized, iconoclastic, and (relentlessly) informative The Way We Never Were breathes fresh air into a too often suffocatingly “hot” and agenda-sullied subject.

    In the penultimate chapter, for example, a crisp reframing of the myth of black-family collapse leads to a reinterpretation of the “family crisis” in general, putting it in the larger context of social, economic, and political ills.

    The book began in response to the urgent questions about the family crisis posed her by nonacademic audiences. Attempting neither to defend “tradition” in the era of family collapse, nor to liberate society from its constraints, Coontz instead cuts through the kind of sentimental, ahistorical thinking that has created unrealistic expectations of the ideal family.

    “I show how these myths distort the diverse experiences of other groups in America,” Coontz writes, “and argue that they don’t even describe most white, middle-class families accurately.” The bold truth of history after all is that “there is no one family form that has ever protected people from poverty or social disruption, and no traditional arrangement that provides a workable model for how we might organize family relations in the modern world.”

    Some of America’s most precious myths are not only precarious, but down right perverted, and we would be fools to ignore Stephanie Coontz’s clarion call. –Hollis Giammatteo

    From Publishers Weekly

    The golden age of the American family never existed, asserts Coontz ( The Social Origns of Private Life ) in a wonderfully perceptive, myth-debunking report. The “Leave It to Beaver” ideal of breadwinner father, full-time homemaker mother and dependent children was a fiction of the 1950s, she shows.

    Real families of that period were rife with conflict, repression and anxiety, frequently poor and much less idyllic than many assume; teen pregnancy rates in the ’50s were higher than today.

    Further, Coontz contends, the nuclear family was elevated to a central source of personal satisfaction only in the late 19th century, thereby weakening people’s community ties and sense of civic obligation.

    Coontz disputes the idea that children can be raised properly only in traditional families. Viewing modern domestic problems as symptoms of a much larger socioeconomic crisis, she demonstrates that no single type of household has ever protected Americans from social disruption or poverty.

    An important contribution to the current debate on family values.

The Myth of Male Decline (editorial by S. Coontz)

The Myth of Male Decline (editorial by S. Coontz)

(Link): The Myth of Male Decline

    By STEPHANIE COONTZ
    Published: September 29, 2012

    SCROLL through the titles and subtitles of recent books, and you will read that women have become “The Richer Sex,” that “The Rise of Women Has Turned Men Into Boys,” and that we may even be seeing “The End of Men.” Several of the authors of these books posit that we are on the verge of a “new majority of female breadwinners,” where middle-class wives lord over their husbands while demoralized single men take refuge in perpetual adolescence.

    How is it, then, that men still control the most important industries, especially technology, occupy most of the positions on the lists of the richest Americans, and continue to make more money than women who have similar skills and education? And why do women make up only 17 percent of Congress?

    These books and the cultural anxiety they represent reflect, but exaggerate, a transformation in the distribution of power over the past half-century. Fifty years ago, every male American was entitled to what the sociologist R. W. Connell called a “patriarchal dividend” — a lifelong affirmative-action program for men.

    The size of that dividend varied according to race and class, but all men could count on women’s being excluded from the most desirable jobs and promotions in their line of work, so the average male high school graduate earned more than the average female college graduate working the same hours. At home, the patriarchal dividend gave husbands the right to decide where the family would live and to make unilateral financial decisions. Male privilege even trumped female consent to sex, so marital rape was not a crime.

    The curtailment of such male entitlements and the expansion of women’s legal and economic rights have transformed American life, but they have hardly produced a matriarchy. Indeed, in many arenas the progress of women has actually stalled over the past 15 years.

    Let’s begin by determining which is “the richer sex.”

    Women’s real wages have been rising for decades, while the real wages of most men have stagnated or fallen. But women’s wages started from a much lower base, artificially held down by discrimination. Despite their relative improvement, women’s average earnings are still lower than men’s and women remain more likely to be poor.

    Today women make up almost 40 percent of full-time workers in management. But the median wages of female managers are just 73 percent of what male managers earn. And although women have significantly increased their representation among high earners in America over the past half-century, only 4 percent of the C.E.O.’s in Fortune’s top 1,000 companies are female.

    What we are seeing is a convergence in economic fortunes, not female ascendance. Between 2010 and 2011, men and women working full time year-round both experienced a 2.5 percent decline in income. Men suffered roughly 80 percent of the job losses at the beginning of the 2007 recession. But the ripple effect of the recession then led to cutbacks in government jobs that hit women disproportionately. As of June 2012, men had regained 46.2 percent of the jobs they lost in the recession, while women had regained 38.7 percent of their lost jobs.

    [omit some comments]

    … Proponents of the “women as the richer sex” scenario often note that in several metropolitan areas, never-married childless women in their 20s now earn more, on average, than their male age-mates.

    But this is because of the demographic anomaly that such areas have exceptionally large percentages of highly educated single white women and young, poorly educated, low-wage Latino men. Earning more than a man with less education is not the same as earning as much as an equally educated man.

    Among never-married, childless 22- to 30-year-old metropolitan-area workers with the same educational credentials, males out-earn females in every category, according to a reanalysis of census data to be presented next month at Boston University by Philip Cohen, a sociologist at the University of Maryland. Similarly, a 2010 Catalyst survey found that female M.B.A.’s were paid an average of $4,600 less than men in starting salaries and continue to be outpaced by men in rank and salary growth throughout their careers, even if they remain childless.

    Continue reading “The Myth of Male Decline (editorial by S. Coontz)”

The Society of Phineas blog on Singleness

The Society of Phineas blog on singleness

(Link): Manufacturing Singleness Part 2, from The Society of Phineas blog

There are aspects of the above blog page I agree with, and ones I do not.

I will here-after refer to this blogger as “Phineas,” though he also uses the screen name of “ballista74.”

The blogger of the above classifies Al Mohler, DeYoung and Mark Driscoll as “feminist preachers.” There is nothing feminist about Mohler or Driscoll. I don’t know DeYoung well enough to comment on him.

Mohler and Driscoll are actually anti-feminist. They are gender complementarians. They believe in strict gender roles, that women should be sweet, pretty, and passive, while males should be tough, assertive, decisive, and active.

I would not be interested in marrying a Christian man who agrees with Mohler’s or Driscoll’s views on marriage and women.

Most women, Christian and Non, find Driscoll to be a sexist pig, not a feminist who champions their causes. Saying that Driscoll is feminist would be like saying that the Coyote loves and esteems the Road Runner; it does not compute. Driscoll says things that both genders find offensive.

Christian gender complementarians such as Driscoll and Mohler are known for blaming feminism for the lack of marriages among Christians; see this post: (Link): Christian Males Blaming their Unwanted Protracted Singleness on Feminism – They have the wrong target

That Mohler and Driscoll hold young males partially responsible for the drought of marriages among Christians today is not a party line of feminism (feminists are usually anti-marriage, believing it traps women and only benefits men), and more a throw back to their incorrect interpretations of how they think the Bible discusses and defines gender roles.

I do agree with Phineas that many Christians remain blind to the fact that Christian women on occasion commit sexual sins – I would say this is due in part to inherent sexism of their complementarian gender role views.

Christian males don’t like to admit to themselves that Christian women (or Non Christian women) want sex or enjoy sex.

Male Christians like to think of married Christian women as being frigid, uninterested in sex, and reluctant sex partners who have to be cajoled or guilt-tripped into having sex with their husbands.

Witness the numerous sermons by preachers on marriage where the male preacher will usually pound it into the heads of married women in the congregation that men really like sex, so, married ladies, they are told, be sure to sexually service your husband regularly, because men really, really, really like sex!

Sex is viewed as a male activity. Women are told repeatedly that men are “visual,” so that women are pressured to stay very skinny, diet all the time, and look like fashion models day in and day out, so that their spouses will continue to find them sexually and visually appealing.

Men, especially Christian ones, are not under the same kind of pressure so far as physical appearance is concerned.

Christian men get the notion they can let themselves go and be physically repulsive looking and Christian women, they are told by pastors, will still want them sexually, so long as they are a “strong spiritual leader,” or attend church weekly, or some other ridiculous, poppycock, sentimental or churchy sounding reason.

Regarding this part of Phineas’ post:

    So I perhaps shouldn’t be too offended by all the man-up rants [directed at single Christian males], since they are in response to the women complaining about how the 10-15% of the men they do see don’t want anything to do with them.

    They don’t address how the women generally find it repulsive and disgusting to be addressed by the 85-90% that doesn’t meet their hypergamous standards. After all, if they want the Alpha Experience, they should know too that the Alpha just won’t settle down and marry, or follow after Scripture in any way.

-reeks a bit of sexism to me, in part because there are too many assumptions and generalizations about women.

Women are allowed to be attracted to whom they wish to be attracted to. It always sounds like sour grapes to me any time I see a male complaining that women are not as keen to date the less-attractive males.

From (Link): It’s Okay To Call A Guy Creepy (and a partial copy of this is (Link): located here on this blog)

    Women have a right to express that they don’t appreciate a man’s advances.

    by HUGO SCHWYZERJUN

    What SNL played for laughs, many men (and some women) took – and still take – seriously: Some men can’t win with women, these people believe, no matter what they do or say.

    This attitude is best observed in the recent backlash against calling men “creepy.” “Creep is the worst thing you can call a man,” wrote Jeremy Gordon for the Hairpin, pointing out it’s an impossible charge for a guy to disprove. As Gordon writes, “creepy is a vibe you can’t define… you just know it.”

    Others argue that “creepiness” connotes something specific: male homeliness. Men’s rights activist Robert Lindsay titled a post “Creepy” is Woman Speak for “An Unattractive Man Who Shows Interest In Me,” while Thought Catalog’s Johanna de Silentio wrote that “there are also a lot of guys who are labeled ‘creepy’ just because they happen to be really unattractive.”

    I often hear something similar in my gender studies classes. (It was in a “Men and Masculinity” course years ago where an anguished young man first drew my attention to the Brady skit.)

    Whenever the subject of sexual harassment or “creep-shaming” comes up in class, someone–almost always a man–makes the case that SNL was right: the only way for straight men to safely express sexual interest in women is to do so while following the skit’s three rules.

    With almost invariable bitterness, these young men complain that unless a guy has won striking good looks in the genetic lottery, he’s doomed to be rejected and seen as overstepping his boundaries, no matter what he does.

    …… Men’s rage about sexual harassment regulations and “creep-shaming” may well be rooted in an unwillingness to accept these cultural changes that have given women unprecedented power to say “no” to the lecherous and the predatory.

    Complaints that unattractive, socially awkward men are unfairly labeled “creepy” miss the point. “Creepy” describes having “the creeps;” it’s a word that centers on women’s own feelings.

    It’s no more “unfair” for Ashley the hypothetical barista to be “creeped out” by the advances of an older, unappealing co-worker than it is for her to be excited by the same approach from the man to whom she’s attracted.

    In that sense, the SNL sketch got to an important truth: Women’s subjective experiences and instincts matter.

I also recoil any time I see a male use the terms “alpha” or “beta” when discussing other males as on Phineas’ blog, because these terms are usually employed by embittered, women-hating males who blame feminism and women themselves for their singleness.

They are typically the guys who declare they are “nice guys” and that all women really want to date “bad boys” or perfect, really good- looking guys with a lot of money and won’t even give the “nice guy” a chance.

I’ve blogged about “nice guys” before, so I will not belabor that issue here. See these posts at my blog:
(Link): Nice Guys: Scourge of the Single Woman
(Link): Nice Guys – the bitter single men who complain women don’t like nice men

Where Phineas writes,

    There are many more things that could be pointed out. In conclusion, the feminist preachers such as Mark Driscoll, Kevin DeYoung, and Albert Mohler need to look into the mirror and see what they are doing to precipitate the results that they are noticing.

    When you do certain things within a system you create, these things always create very specific results.

    Insanity is to expect different results out of doubling down and doing the same things. The man-up rants that they write come off as complaining that what they have set up and supported is not working as they desire.

I can agree with that in- so- far as most Christian teaching on dating, sex, marriage and gender roles has contributed to keeping both genders perpetually single.

It is not that Driscoll and Mohler support misandry and “blame the males” at every turn that is solely to blame for protracted singleness among Christians, but that Christians, at the root of it, are

1. afraid of fornication (pre-marital sex)

and some Christians are

2. beholden to traditional gender roles (they fear or hate feminism)

I see in another post at Phineas’ site ((Link): Some Problems in Christian Dating) that he does acknowledge that Christian fear of pre-marital sex drives a lot of the absurd teaching on dating that singles receive.

Points 1 and 2 above drive a lot of the ridiculous dating advice that Christian singles receive, an issue I have covered on this blog before, in posts such as (and I’m tossing in a few related topics here)…

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

(Link): Christian Males Blaming their Unwanted Protracted Singleness on Feminism – They have the wrong target

(Link): Being Equally Yoked: Christian Columnist Dan Delzell Striving to Keep Christian Singles Single Forever

This is hosted on another blog:
(Link): Feminism, Singleness, And The Idol Of The Nuclear Family

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

(Link): Magical Christian Thinking: If you have pre-marital sex you won’t get a decent spouse

As for Phineas’ part 1 (Link:) Manufacturing Singleness Part 1, I think he blames single women too much and unfortunately plays into some stereotypes about singles that marrieds possess (I’m not sure if Phineas is single or married).

Notice Phineas refers to older single women as being “bitter.”

Phineas also errs in assuming that older singles “have baggage,” which is another stereotype of singles. The truth is that all people of all ages, both married and single, have “baggage.”

Ironically, some of us, as we age, lose whatever “baggage” we had at one time; particularly is this true for females, most of whom learn to accept themselves by the time they reach age 40.

I spent childhood to my late 30s not knowing who I was and being deeply insecure. I now know who I am and what I want in life and am not afraid to go after it anymore. I lost baggage. I would actually make a healthier martial partner now than when I was in my 20s or 30s.

Quoting Phineas:

    This is nothing different that hasn’t been seen in the culture. Women go off and do their own thing, usually career, but other ministry things, too. They do these things with the expectation that they can find marriage at any time they would like in their lives.

    It is well known that the available pool of candidates for marriage decreases considerably as one ages. Marriage is just not a priority for these women, but when it comes time that they find that there just aren’t candidates out there.

    Or they are so set in their ways and their own desires, that they just can’t find anyone to go along with them and get bitter and angry because they couldn’t have their own perfect romance like all the other women around them.

    Then they always have more chance to get baggage that would keep them from getting married.

It is simply the nature of American culture (and likely British, Canadian, and Aussie culture) that people no longer marry fresh out of high school or early college years, like they used to do. Women should not be blamed for this situation, but they are, as you can see in Phineas’ quotes above.

It’s not so much that women deliberately chose to remain single in their late 20s, mid 30s and older.

Honestly, a woman today has no choice but to go out and live life and hold a job down to be able to pay rent.

What do bloggers such as Phineas expect a woman to do, marry at age 18? I was too insecure and in some ways, too immature, to be married so young. I’m not the same person I am in my early 40s that I was in my early twenties. Had I married back at age 18, I seriously doubt such a marriage would have survived to my mid 30s.

If the woman cannot find a partner at age 18, is she to curl up in a ball in her closet and hope that God magically sends her a spouse?

What do you want a woman who is still un-married at ages 23, 27, 35, to do, just sit at home all day? Should a single woman (or man) not be living life in the meantime, while waiting and hoping for a spouse?

I did not get my first boyfriend until around age 27. I had fully expected to be married by my late 20s to mid 30s. Up until I got my first boyfriend at age 27, what would Phinease suggest I have done, sit about all day doing nothing?

Phineas writes,

    Given this trend, it seems the proper course is for “woman-up” rants from the evangelical feminist preachers, not man-up rants. It seems women are just expecting marriage to be there when they are ready for it, after running after being an “empowered woman”, and then are rushing the offices of these people when they aren’t finding it, complaining how men aren’t there to marry them. Then you get the man-up rants out of them because it could never ever be the chaste sinless women’s faults.

Phineas needs to realize that many of these women, the single Christian ones who are upset they arrive at age 30 to 40 still single, are not feminists who bought into “girl power” or “empowerment” messages.

Concerning marriage, Christian women are conditioned by Christian culture and preacheres to be passive and wait on a husband to appear. These Christian women are simply doing as they were taught by church, family, and preacher; they did not opt for feminism or career over husband.

I have seen population statistics which indicate that for about every unmarried Christian man at age 40, there are three or four unmarried Christian females.

In other words, there is only one male to go around for every three or four women.

Complaining and bitching about feminism and so on does nothing to change the numbers. Even had all those age 40 women been willing, able, and ready to marry a man when they were at age 21, there were NO MEN IN EXISTENCE FOR THEM TO MARRY.

I was raised to be a “gender complementarian” from the time I was a girl. I honestly tried to buy into the traditional gender role nonsense, but rejected it by the time I was in my late 30s or so.

In my teens and twenties, I knew if I married, I’d do my best to be the stereotypical June Cleaver, Christian submissive wife that the anti-feminist Christians constantly lecture at women they ought to be.

So, even though I was a sweet, submissive, nice, lady-like Christian girl – who was a virgin and still am a virgin – I did not get a husband.

Most churches I went to did not have single Christian men my age.

I was never on a feminist power trip, and neither are many of the other Christian women who find themselves mid- thirties or older and still not married.

The entire Christian, female gender should not be blamed for an entire cultural shift, much of which took place before we were born or while we were children.

Further, we Christian ladies are raised from girl-hood to believe in ‘Magical Marriage,’ this is, that if you are good, pray to Jesus, and have faith in God, that God will simply send you your Christian husband in a timely fashion.

I was told that nice Christian girls wait on God’s timing for a spouse, that Christian women do not pursue men, that we are to wait passively (though I did go to singles events at churches and so on).

Christian women are told to pray and wait for God to provide a spouse. But then, no husband ever arrives. This is painful for a lot of Christian women who were sincerely trusting God for a spouse – but here Phineas is lashing out at such women on his blog, as though they are at fault, when they are not.

If Phineas is angry at man-bashing preachers, such as Mark Driscoll, he needs to save his vitriol for Driscoll, instead of blaming, shaming, or complaining about single Christian women.

Phineas wrote,

    2. Unrealistic expectations from women for the perfect man for them are not challenged by the feminist preachers.

    …So given this, it seems women are rejecting men that are “good enough” in the sight of God to be her husband for the absolute perfect man, who does not exist.

And that could just as easily read,

    2. Unrealistic expectations from men for the perfect woman for them are not challenged by the gender complementarian preachers.

    …So given this, it seems men are rejecting women that are “good enough” in the sight of God to be his wife for the absolute perfect woman, who does not exist.

I’ve said it before, but a lot of single Christian men, despite being ugly, dweeby, dorky, poor, weird, stupid, socially awkward, fat, or bald, all expect to marry a skinny pretty movie star look-alike, and Christian preachers uphold this unrealistic entitlement attitude by telling women in their congregations things such as, “men are visually wired and like sex, so ladies, be sure to stay thin and pretty and act like a minx in the bed room!”

One never hears preachers saying, “Remember men, women like buff, hot, muscular men with a full head of hair, so attend the gym weekly, get a “six pack,” and use some Rogaine.”

Preachers refuse to acknowledge that women have sexual desire, which I find insulting… well, they will acknowledge on occasion that un-married women have a libido, as they assume (insultingly and incorrectly) that all single women are harlots who fornicate regularly and who are just dying at the chance to bed married men.

Preachers assume that married women, though, are as pure as the freshly drive snow, or are totally un-interested in sex, because, they feel, married women only want “emotional intimacy.”

The bottom line is that both genders face insulting stereotypes from each other, from preachers, from Christians, and in society. Both genders face hurdles in the world of dating. Neither men nor women have it easy in getting dates or spouses, and it is neither wholly the fault of women, men, or feminism.
—————
Related post this blog

(Link): Trends in male employment may not bode well for marriage (article)

It’s Okay To Call A Guy Creepy (article) / Little Sympathy for Ugly Single Guys

It’s Okay To Call A Guy Creepy (article) / Little Sympathy for Ugly Single Guys

Before I get to the “It’s Okay To Call A Guy Creepy” article, I wanted to comment on all the guys out there who perceive themselves as being ugly- to- average looking who are angry at women who they feel only want to date really good-looking guys.

I have little sympathy for most of these men, because women in American culture have been heavily judged on their looks alone for many, many decades, and they still are.

There are times I will defend un-married males on this blog where I feel they are genuinely under attack from whomever, but other times, I feel their complaints are unfounded, whiny, or grossly exaggerated, and this is one of those times.

When I was growing up, I (and I am a female) went through a “tubby” phase around junior high school age (ages 11 – 13), where I also had acne, wore thick glasses, and had frizzy hair. Both genders let me know at that time of life I was ugly. But the males in particular were very cruel to me about it.

I never got dates in my teen years. Boys did not flirt with me or ask me out. They would spit on me, pull my hair, gather in circles around me on the bus ride home to tease me with cruel put- downs until I cried, and then make fun of me for crying.

Men are total unreasonable, unrealistic jerks when it comes to judging women on their looks. They really are – from the time they are teen-agers to grown men, males will dismiss women on their looks alone.

All men, Christian and Non, from the scrawny, un-muscular, geeky, dorky guy, to the sloppy, fat, obese, 956 pound bald male, all feel entitled to a thin, gorgeous, movie star Megan Fox look-alike.

When on dating sites, the only criteria men care about – even the so-called “Christian” ones – are what women look like.

Men look at a woman’s profile photos on dating sites but never read the damn profiles, where you, the woman, mention what your favorite band is, what your hobbies are, and so forth. All the men care about is your damn physical appearance.

Female politicians get hammered for their weight, hair styles, and wrinkles in the media and from everyday commentators on sites, but the male politicians seldom get scrutinized or criticized for their fat bellies or balding heads or wrinkles.

Teen-aged girls and women are judged harshly by men in the area of looks.

I was just told by a sexist Christian idiot on another site about a week ago that now that I’m in my early 40s that the “bloom is off your youthful beauty,” so no man will want me now, according to this guy. I’ve seen that same view by Christian men (and on occasion by married women) on other sites or in books about singles.

Most dating advice books and blogs aimed at women, even the Christian ones, wrongly assume that the reason women remain single is that they must be ugly or fat, so women (or teen-aged girls) are told in such material to lose weight, diet, have long hair, wear lip stick all the time, and look pretty.

I have never really seen males get instructed by other males in dating advice sites to stay thin, work out at the gym, use Rogaine (if they are balding), etc. I suppose you could cite an example or two, but by and large, I have not seen men advised to shed extra pounds, get in shape, or get a toupee.

Historically in American culture, males have had no where near the pressure to look beautiful that females have.

But it is true that women love good-looking, built men. This is a fact that is over-looked by conservative Christians.

I’ve blogged about this subject many times before, such as (Link): Superman, Man Candy -and- Christian Women Are Visual And Enjoy Looking At Built, Hot, Sexy Men, (Link): Atlantic: “The case for abandoning the myth that ‘women aren’t visual.’” and (Link): Women Are Visual And Like Hot Looking Men (Part 1) Joseph in Genesis Was A Stud Muffin.

We women get the message from preachers and Christian dating blogs that we’re not supposed to be too picky when selecting a Christian mate. We single ladies are not supposed to care about the guy’s money, the guy’s looks – but, rather, that he reads his Bible daily and hands out rice on yearly missionary trips to Africa, and so on.

You Christian men (and the Non Christian men) are let off the “stay in shape, exercise, and diet” responsibility hook, but women are still expected to be youthful, pretty, and thin if they hope to get a spouse.

Even though most women are visual, some of them are willing to date an ugly- to- average looking guy, if he has some other feature they find compelling, such as he’s very funny, sweet, wealthy, attentive, interesting, or romantic.

I seldom see hot- looking (or even ugly or average looking) men willing to date ‘ugly- but- sweet,’ or ‘average-looking but funny’ women. Many women are more willing more often to bend their criteria in the ‘physical appearance department’ when it comes to who they date, than men are.

Women have a right to be attracted to whomever they are attracted to; they are under no obligation to date men they do not consider physically attractive or men they find odd or dorky. Men have had this right for ages and ages, but women are expected by most Christians -and all ugly men themselves- to date ugly or average-looking men.

(Link): It’s Okay To Call A Guy Creepy

Excerpts:

    by HUGO SCHWYZERJUN
    June 27 2013

    What SNL [television show Saturday Night Live] played [the situation of good looking men scoring with women while the ugly men are regarded as creepy by women] for laughs, many men (and some women) took – and still take – seriously: Some men can’t win with women, these people believe, no matter what they do or say.

    This attitude is best observed in the recent backlash against calling men “creepy.”

    “Creep is the worst thing you can call a man,” wrote Jeremy Gordon for the Hairpin, pointing out it’s an impossible charge for a guy to disprove.

    As Gordon writes, “creepy is a vibe you can’t define… you just know it.”

    Others argue that “creepiness” connotes something specific: male homeliness.

    Men’s rights activist Robert Lindsay titled a post “Creepy” is Woman Speak for “An Unattractive Man Who Shows Interest In Me,” while Thought Catalog’s Johanna de Silentio wrote that “there are also a lot of guys who are labeled ‘creepy’ just because they happen to be really unattractive.”

    I often hear something similar in my gender studies classes. (It was in a “Men and Masculinity” course years ago where an anguished young man first drew my attention to the Brady skit.)

    Whenever the subject of sexual harassment or “creep-shaming” comes up in class, someone– almost always a man– makes the case that SNL was right: the only way for straight men to safely express sexual interest in women is to do so while following the skit’s three rules.

    With almost invariable bitterness, these young men complain that unless a guy has won striking good looks in the genetic lottery, he’s doomed to be rejected and seen as overstepping his boundaries, no matter what he does.

    …A society where people are judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, he [a male student of Schwyzerjun’s] declared, should also be a society where men are judged “creepy” solely on the basis of their words and actions rather than their looks. He got cheers from several other guys in the classroom.

    … My student’s mistake is an obvious one: Enjoyment can’t be coerced. Congress can’t pass a law requiring people to be delighted by the advances of others they find unattractive.

    I can get my children to eat broccoli by alternating promises of rewards and punishments, but I cannot do anything to make my daughter love vegetables as much as she loves ice cream.

    Similarly, no law can compel “Ashley,” a barista at the local coffee shop, to feel the same way about the advances of an older co-worker whom she finds repellant as she does about those of the young hottie who joins her on the opening shift.

    Until recently, however, few women could make sexual choices based primarily on physical desire and emotional attraction.

    In a world where few women had the opportunity to prosper without a man’s protection, marriage was about survival. The more educational and economic opportunities women acquire, the more opportunity they have to choose based on what they want rather than what they need for survival.

    As Daniel Bergner’s bestselling What Do Women Want? argues, once you level the economic playing field, women are just as likely as men to make sexual decisions based on desire alone.

    … Men’s rage about sexual harassment regulations and “creep-shaming” may well be rooted in an unwillingness to accept these cultural changes that have given women unprecedented power to say “no” to the lecherous and the predatory.

    Complaints that unattractive, socially awkward men are unfairly labeled “creepy” miss the point. “Creepy” describes having “the creeps;” it’s a word that centers on women’s own feelings.

    It’s no more “unfair” for Ashley the hypothetical barista to be “creeped out” by the advances of an older, unappealing co-worker than it is for her to be excited by the same approach from the man to whom she’s attracted. In that sense, the SNL sketch got to an important truth: Women’s subjective experiences and instincts matter.

    The freedom to act on those instincts doesn’t just lead to romantic fulfillment. In his indispensable 1997 bestseller The Gift of Fear, Gavin de Becker encourages women to rely on their own intuition to keep themselves safe from violence.

    There are few things more risky, de Becker argues, than overriding one’s own sense of real danger (“the creeps”) for the sake of preserving a relationship – or simply being “nice” to a stranger.

    Crucially, de Becker points out that people-pleasing and the urge to avoid causing offense put more women in danger than acting on sexual attraction.

    Women are more likely to be assaulted because they were too polite to someone whom they sensed was creepy than because they were too responsive to the charms of someone who turned them on.

    When men complain about being “creep-shamed,” or insist that the Tom Brady sketch accurately reflects reality, what they’re really lamenting is a culture that is increasingly willing to honor women’s right to be sexual — and women’s right to be safe.

Goodness knows I was judged harshly by males as a teen girl, then, when I lost the weight and the acne cleared up, I was lusted after in my 20s and 30s in person by men who I found to be CREEPY, dorky, ugly or weird, or, in a few cases, by guys that were attractive and okay, but I was just not interested in them romantically.

I’m on dating sites now, and I am still getting judged on my appearance by men of all ages, from their 20s, 30s, and some in their 60s and 70s, who want to date me.

Women are routinely judged on their looks alone by males, all through their life, from their girlhood to their senior years, so no, I can’t feel sorry for the dorky, scrawny, ugly, or fat guys who are upset that some women turn them down for not looking like Brad Pitt.

I used to get turned down for not looking like Megan Fox or Angelina Jolie, but I don’t quite hate the entire male gender for it. I accepted it and worked on my looks – which worked, because guys began asking me out. I do think males need to consider other qualities in a woman other than her looks, however.
—————–
Some guy left a post replying to this one; I did not approve it to appear, but wrote about it here:
(Link): Follow up: Bitter Guy Replies to ‘It’s Okay To Call A Guy Creepy (article) / Little Sympathy for Ugly Single Guys’
—————–
Related posts this blog:

(Link): Nice Guys: Scourge of the Single Woman

(Link): Nice Guys – the bitter single men who complain women don’t like nice men

(Link): Testosterone-Deficient Gamma Male Whines About the ‘Friend Zone’ (post from The Other McCain) – AKA, Ugly, Fat, Weird, Awkward, or Poor Nice Guys Who Unrealistically Expect to Attract Rich, Pretty, Thin, Socially Normal Women

Christian Males Blaming their Unwanted Protracted Singleness on Feminism – They have the wrong target

Christian Males Blaming their Unwanted Protracted Singleness on Feminism – They have the wrong target
——————–
EDIT. From another author, who is a Christian man:
(Link): Feminism, Singleness, And The Idol Of The Nuclear Family

I just now discovered the Spiritual Sounding Board blog made a post about a similar topic back in May of this year that you may want to read (as well as comments by the readers at the bottom of the page):
(Link): What is the Big Deal About Feminism and Christianity?

(Link): Trends in male employment may not bode well for marriage (article)
—————————-

Christian Males Blaming their Unwanted Protracted Singleness on Feminism – They have the wrong target

Blaming feminism for protracted, unwanted singleness among males is an attitude that I’ve seen among “average Joe” Christians around the internet the last few years, on their blogs and in forums.

Certainly, conservative Christian groups and think tanks, such as “Focus on the Family,” are probably the most responsible for fostering these views among the unmarried, rank and file Christian males.

These conservative Christian groups blame feminism only, or first and foremost, for everything, for all change in society, or what they perceive as being negative change – for delayed age of first marriage; lower birth rates; women outperforming males in classrooms and on jobs, the rise of divorce, and on and on it goes.

I suppose a feminist was behind the grassy knoll, too. Oswald did not act alone.

If you need a reminder about me (most of this can be found on this blog’s “About” page), and I feel this is pertinent to state up front, because often, male, Christian, gender complementarians (traditional gender role advocates) wrongly assume from the get-go that a (quasi former) Christian woman such as myself, who does not agree with their traditional gender role perspective any longer, must be a bra-burning, Bible-hating, liberal feminist, when the truth is:

  • -I am a social conservative
  • -I am a Republican
  • -I was a Christian since childhood
    (but have been slowly walking away from the faith the last year to two years)
  • -I grew up with a Christian mother who defined herself as being a “traditional wife”
    (in today’s Christian lingo, my Mom was a “biblical gender complementarian”)
  • – I was a “biblical literalist”
    (and still am, to what degree I still identify as Christian)
  • -I tried my hardest to be a “biblical gender complementarian” myself
    … but the older I got, by my mid to late 30s, I saw that the Scripture does not support the view

What I am not, and what I do not believe:

  • -I am not a secular feminist, nor do I agree with all their views
  • -I do not hate men
  • -I am not “anti” family or “anti” marriage

I have on occasion defended unmarried Christian males on this blog.

I think that often, many Christians adhere to offensive stereotypes of Christian men who are over 30 years of age but who have not married.

One common stereotype is that such men are homosexual. Another is that older single Christian males are pedophiles. That they are not as mature as their married counterparts.
Another is that they are not fully in God’s image, that they need to be married (and preferably with kids) to be considered wholly in God’s image. I have written a few blog posts criticizing some of those views.

I do not blame all men every where for the widespread problem of unwanted, protracted singleness among Christians these days.

I also don’t blame feminism. (So it makes me wonder why some of the Christian single men are so vehemently insistent that male singleness is the full responsibility of Christian women. Or of feminism.)

Continue reading “Christian Males Blaming their Unwanted Protracted Singleness on Feminism – They have the wrong target”

Conservative Christian Think Tank Says: “Preach the Gospel of Marriage”

Conservative Christian Think Tank Says: “Preach the Gospel of Marriage”

This is stunning. You would think conservative Christians would at least pretend to care about Jesus, or to pretend that the Gospel is about Jesus, but look at this headline:

(Link) Female Policy Experts: To Help the Poor, Preach the Gospel of Marriage

Also, that headline reminds me of this Barna survey:
(Link): Creepy: ‘Barna: [Christian] Women Value Family Over Faith’

The “Gospel of Marriage?” I can’t say that I’m surprised. I just posted this a couple days ago:
(Link): (Articles) Marriage Rate At All Time Low

As soon as I saw those news stories a couple days ago saying that marriage rates are at an all-time low, I was wondering how long it would be before the Pat Robertsons and Heritage Foundations and Focus on the Families Christian groups would start issuing statements about how horrible it is, along with the requisite “blame the feminists, 1960s culture, and homosexuals” for hetero marriage declining. I am guessing this is just the first of more similar editorials to appear in the days and weeks to come.

Here are some excerpts – and I’ve just now skimmed down the page to see that yes, these people are blaming feminism (with a few additional comments by me below this, down this page):

Female Policy Experts: To Help the Poor, Preach the Gospel of Marriage

    By Tyler O’Neil , CP Contributor
    July 23, 2013|5:40 pm

    Female policy experts discussed the finding that women are breadwinners in four of ten American households but how that doesn’t necessarily mean their children are well supported financially or emotionally in a two-parent family, at the conservative Heritage Foundation on Tuesday.

    “Any conversation that we’re having about poverty has got to take into account marriage and the relationship between marriage and poverty,” said Jennifer Marshall, director of Domestic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation. She argued that, far from liberating women from oppressive marriages, the feminist movement has restricted many of them to a poorer social class.

    A Pew Research report from late May sparked the debate. Entitled “Breadwinner Moms,” the survey “really capitalized on this ‘You Go Girl,’ sentiment that is so prevalent in our culture today,” Marshall said. Despite the positive headline, the analyst broke down the report’s ugly details.

    While women do bring home the largest income in four of ten American households with kids under 18, only 15 percent of those households have a father. In the other 25 percent, a single mother brings home the bacon.

    Worse, Marshall argued, the median annual income of those single mothers only hits $23,000. Forty four percent of these mothers have never been married, and a third are not even working, but rely on welfare.

    “In the wake of the sexual revolution and the feminist movement, the path to marriage and to married family life is much more challenging,” said Marshall. She encouraged society and the church to focus on each individual woman’s flourishing in her own way, as opposed to a one-size-fits-all push for careers that boils down to “you go, girl!” [i.e, feminism]

    Churches are uniquely suited to address this issue, since they have “relational capital,” the Heritage scholar explained.

    Since marriage reduces the chance that a child will be poor by 80 percent, training for marriage should be a key part of a church’s outreach to the poor. “We need to be helping cultivate the skills for marriage in communities that are in need.”

    But preaching on this issue is far from easy, warned Kay Hymowitz, senior fellow at the Manahattan Institute, contributing editor of City Journal, and author of Marriage and Caste in America: Separate and Unequal Families in a Post-Marital Age. “The churches are often in a very difficult position because many of the parishioners are single parents,” she explained.

    … The major story “is less the rise of women and more the fall of low-income, less-educated men,” said blogger Cathy Reisenwitz. With the decline of manufacturing, more men struggle to make a living and provide for their families. “Women are taking the lead in their own lives because they have to.”

    …Mona Charen, a columnist at National Review and moderator of the panel, noted that strong marriages persist among more religious Americans. “To the degree that secularism replaced piety as the norm, we are seeing a collapse of this marriage culture which I think is so damaging to the country.”

About this:

    Churches are uniquely suited to address this issue, since they have “relational capital,” the Heritage scholar explained.

Surely you jest. And I apologize for calling you Shirely.

Churches cannot even get adult celibacy and adult singleness right – they shun and ostracize adult singles (and sometimes the divorced); so what in the hell makes these commentators think churches will be able to reach or to help convince teen-age or young 20-something single mothers to marry?

About this comment from the article:

    In the other 25 percent, a single mother brings home the bacon. Worse, Marshall argued, the median annual income…

Note the use of the word “worse,” as if to suggest the previous fact – mothers “bringing home the bacon” is wrong or bad – folks, this ain’t 1954 anymore.

Women do not have to stay at home and only be a wife and mother if they do not choose to do so. This is the reality we are in today. If a woman genuinely wants to be a stay at home wifey and mommy, I don’t oppose that. But some women don’t find either role appealing, or due to economic pressure, cannot afford to stay at home and getting a job becomes a necessity.

The Bible does not say women are limited only to wife and mommy roles, even though back when the Bible was written, those were the only roles pretty much available to women, outside of home business owners, or being a prostitute.

A lot of Christians assume that because all the Bible usually mentions are wives and mommies (there are exceptions mentioned in the Bible, such as warrior women, female Apostles – research ‘Junia,’ etc), but by and large, because society was patriarchal, women did not have too many options available other than wife and motherhood… so, the Christian gender complementarians wrongly assume that those must be the only roles God considers acceptable for women.

Today, a woman can become a police officer, computer programmer, brain surgeon, auto mechanic, lawyer, and other sorts of occupations that did not even exist 2,000 – 5,000 years ago.

About this:

    Mona Charen, a columnist at National Review and moderator of the panel, noted that strong marriages persist among more religious Americans. “To the degree that secularism replaced piety as the norm, we are seeing a collapse of this marriage culture which I think is so damaging to the country.”

It is constantly assumed that Christian women are choosing to remain single, which is how I take her comment that “the marriage culture has collapsed,” as though women are intentionally setting out to do this. Plenty of Christian women want to get married, but there exists no single male Christians to marry.

Marriage has not “collapsed,” not among Christians, but is simply not taking place. These articles and editorials seem to assume that Christians these days hate marriage, do not wish to be married, and are thrilled to remain single, when none of that is the case.

The problem is not that Christian singles don’t want to get married but that they cannot find someone to marry.

Anyway, I am troubled by the turn of phrase “Preach the Gospel of Marriage.” There is no “Gospel of Marriage” taught in the Bible, only the “Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

If you are a Christian, don’t you think it’s more important for a young, Non Married single mother to find Christ as savior, than to lecture her on how supposedly oh so badly she needs a husband?
———————————-
Related posts this blog:

(Link): If the Family Is Central, Christ Isn’t

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

(Link): Focus on Family spokesperson, Stanton, actually says reason people should marry is for ‘church growth’

(Link): Christian TV Personality / Preacher ( Jimmy Evans ) Says You Cannot Meet God’s Destiny For Your Life Without A Spouse = Anti Singleness Singlehood Singles Bias Prejudice Making Idol out of Marriage

(Link): Singles in the Church by Dave Faulkner / Also: Isolated: single Christians feel unsupported by family-focused churches (article / survey)

(Link): Response to the Hemingway Editorial ‘Fecundophobia’ – conservatives and Christians continue to idolize children, marriage – which is unbiblical

(Link): According to Pastor ( Jimmy Evans ) It Takes One Man and Woman Married To Equal A Whole – so where does that leave Christian singles ? / Too Much Sex Talk

(Link): Good Grief! Five Million Dollar Family Idoltary on Display: Focus on the Family Launches $5 Million Project Targeting Family Breakdown, Social Ills – Please, when you say you support marriage, be honest about what you REALLY mean