Sexism from the Right (complementarian, traditional gender role Christians), Sexism from the Left (queer theory, trans activism) – Author Discusses Christian Women Who Rail Against Complementarianism, Yet Who Won’t Combat Sexism in Progressive Gender Ideology

Sexism from the Right (complementarian, traditional gender role Christians), Sexism from the Left (queer theory, trans activism) – Author Discusses Christian Women Who Rail Against Complementarianism, Yet Who Won’t Combat Sexism in Progressive Gender Ideology

I think the title of this piece at the Christian Post was unfortunate.

When I first saw the headline go through my Twitter feed, I assumed (prior to clicking it) that it was the usual hyper-pro-male headship, complementarian type essay lambasting any woman who dares critique the obvious sexism in Christian complementarianism or patriarchy, which is not what it’s about.

My only other possible misgiving is that the author doesn’t call liberal, squishy conservative, or progressive Christian men out on this, or hold them accountable.

It’s not just the ladies who stay silent (or who ever give vocal support) to progressive gender ideology, but Christian men as well. I see them on Twitter on a somewhat regular basis doing so, both men and women.

I have much more to say below this link with excerpts, so please keep reading, even to the portion below the excerpts here:

(Link): Apostasy and the Jezebel spirit

Excerpts:

By Kaeley Harms
March 16, 2023

Can we talk about the term ”the Jezebel spirit” for a minute?

….The fact of the matter is that the abusive placement of this label on women who do not deserve it is so commonplace that it’s become something of a dog whistle signaling misogyny – a hot-button term like “patriarchy” or “feminism” or “racist” that puts people so immediately on the defensive that it renders necessary conversation about the topic almost impossible. We’re almost better off using different terms entirely.

BUT…

The grey area surfaces for me when we contend with the reality that (whatever term you want to give it), there are, in fact, a number of influential women claiming to speak for God who are guilty of everything implied by the Jezebel label. …

… Here’s the tough part, and I say this with all fear and trembling, but it needs to be said; actual Jezebeling is still happening. There are still women claiming to speak for God while championing the bondage He hates.

… Church, if you’re following faith leaders who endorse rainbow-colored oppression, if you’re following faith leaders who pretend like the ritual child sacrifice known as abortion is sanctioned by God, I hate to tell you this, but you’ve ventured over into Jezebel territory.

We cannot afford to reject the patriarchal oppression of one camp in favor of the patriarchal oppression of another.

The Chelsea Handler Childless Woman Upset: Other Conservatives Wrongly Conflating Married Motherhood with Womanhood or Happiness, Meaning, Purpose

The Chelsea Handler Childless Woman Upset: Other Conservatives Wrongly Conflating Married Motherhood with Womanhood or with Happiness, Meaning, or Purpose

After entertainer Chelsea Handler uploaded (Link): a Tweet with a video of herself listing the numerous ways she enjoys life due to being childless – I didn’t see anything in the video mentioning abortion – a lot of other conservatives jumped to shame and scold Handler for being happy about being childless and publicly expressing that happiness.

Others have said that Handler had two or three abortions in the past. The fact that Handler previously had abortions does not change the substance of my problems with conservative reaction to Handler’s video.

I am pro-life, not pro-choice, so I don’t agree with Handler’s actions to terminate her pregnancies.

However, again, I don’t recall Handler’s “happy to be childless” video advocating abortion or mentioning anything about abortion.

I don’t think her video criticized or shamed women for being mothers or for wanting to be mothers.

The only possible, even remotely “anti motherhood” take away one can get from her video is that mothers – assuming they are good, non-abusive mothers – invest a lot of time in child-rearing, but Handler doesn’t frame it in an anti-motherhood way.

It’s Okay For Women to Be Childless at Any Age and to be Happy About Being Childless, Just Like It’s Okay For Mothers to Be Happy About Being Mothers

Handler was just showing ways she has more free time because she doesn’t have to participate in childcare – which is not the same thing as being “anti-motherhood,” or telling other women they are wrong to be mothers.

It’s perfectly fine for a woman to be single and childless and to be happy about it.

Women can and should find meaning and purpose apart from marriage and motherhood. It’s unhealthy for any person to wrap up all their happiness, meaning, or purpose into one identity, station of life, or role.

If you are a married mother, your children will grow up, move out, and seldom visit you once they’re gone. Your husband may develop dementia, abuse you, or cheat on you, so that you will be without emotional support or you will have to divorce him.
In all these situations, you will be left with yourself, by yourself, and god help you if you never forged purpose, identity, happiness, or meaning apart from a spouse and children.

There’s no reason to criticize or shame an adult, man or woman, for being single and childless and for being happy about it and posting about it.

My fellow conservatives often push motherhood (via podcasts, tweets, magazine articles, church sermons, blog posts, etc) to a loopy, creepy, fevered pitch, about how super awesome, fulfilling, and wonderful motherhood supposedly is – but goodness forbid a childless woman lists or publicizes the ways she’s happy with being childless – and do so without criticizing motherhood or mothers. That’s a huge double standard.

I also didn’t agree with Handler’s mockery of single women who choose to remain virgins until marriage or to remain chaste (I blogged about that (Link): here a few years ago).

Unfortunately, in the midst of criticizing Handler, a lot of conservatives today were conflating “womanhood” to married motherhood. 

However, a woman remains a woman regardless if she has a child or is infertile, childless, or childfree, or whether she wants to have children or not.

The Bizarre, Misguided Shaming of Single and Childless or Childfree Women by Pro-Lifer Abby Johnson – (Not All Single, Childless Women are Liberal, Pro-Choice Feminists)

The Bizarre, Misguided Shaming of Single and Childless or Childfree Women by Pro-Lifer Abby Johnson – (Not All Single, Childless Women are Liberal, Pro-Choice Feminists)

When I was on Twitter the other day, someone who I follow on Twitter commented on a Tweet by a lady calling herself Abby Johnson.

A reminder: I sometimes follow people on social media who I don’t fully agree with on all topics. I’m a conservative, but I follow some liberals and progressives, including women who call themselves “radical feminists.” A lot of those radical feminists are pro-choice; they support abortion, I do not.

Like me, most of those radical feminists do not support “sex work” (strip clubs, prostitution, etc), and they do not support transgender activism.

Here is how Abby Johnson is currently describing herself on her Twitter bio (@AbbyJohnson):

Planned Parenthood Director turned Pro-Life Advocate! CEO of @ATTWNministry
. Global Ambassador for @COL1972official
. Best selling author & speaker. Mama/Wife
— end Twitter bio —

I am sincerely glad to hear that Johnson flipped her opinion on abortion, that she went from being pro-choice to pro-life.

Johnson seems a bit familiar. I think I may have seen her interviewed on Christian television program “The 700 Club,” in one of their CBN news segments, or perhaps I saw her on Fox News at some point?

At any rate, I am dismayed by her Twitter feed. Unfortunately, she, like many of my other fellow conservatives, falsely equates motherhood and wifehood with womanhood. I corrected her on that under a few of her other tweets.

(I’m not sure if Johnson is a Christian or not, but from her tweets, I can see that she leans right – as I do – and she also is pro-life, does not support transgenderism. I too am pro-life, and I sure as heck do not support progressive transgenderism, ie, allowing biological men who say they are women into women’s prisons, women’s locker rooms and so forth).

Also like a lot of other conservatives, Johnson holds a lot of false stereotypes about secular, liberal feminists. Not all feminists support trans activism, are anti-men, anti-nuclear family, and so on. There are actually women feminists who are married mothers.

If you’ve followed my blog, you will already know that I am middle-aged, I am single by circumstance (not by choice – not that men or women who choose to be single should be criticized for that, either), I am a conservative, I am anti-progressive trans agenda, and I am pro-life.

I am not opposed to The Nuclear Family, parenthood, and marriage, but I am opposed to the deification of such by other conservatives.

(Yes, most conservatives have unfortunately turned “the family,” motherhood, fatherhood, and marriage into idols, and they frequently love to make negative assumptions about, and insult anyone, who isn’t married or who doesn’t have children).

Let’s look at some of Johnson’s tweets – here’s the first one that I saw the other day, because someone I followed on Twitter commented below it (link to her tweet):

So, what does Johnson do with conservative, pro-life, anti- leftist transgender activism, middle-aged never married women such as myself, who was a devout Christian for decades, who had expected to get married, never met the right guy, remained faithful to biblical sexual ethics – no sex outside of marriage, hence no pregnancies?

Why is Johnson lumping pro-life, conservative, single, childless women, such as myself, into the same group with progressive, pro-choice, pro-progressive- gender- ideology women? Which is what she’s doing, because she’s equating being a woman, and/or a decent, happy woman, with being married and a mother.

Johnson is unnecessarily insulting other pro-life, conservative women who never did marry, who may never marry, and who do not have children, and she’s doing this to score a few points against what she terms “radical feminists,” who she (like many of my other fellow conservatives) wrongly assume, are all man-hating, baby-hating, single women who are lonely, miserable Cat Ladies.

(The Cat Lady trope is very sexist and needs to die off already. I usually see men tossing this at women. It feels a little more gross to see a woman tossing this sexist stand-by at other women to insult them with.)

In trying to score points against radical feminists, many of whom are actually married with children (and possibly cats) of their own, Johnson creates collateral damage.

Meaning…
Not all conservative, anti-trans agenda, pro-life women are married, can get married, or want to get married. Not all conservative, anti-trans agenda, pro-life women have children, can have children, or want to have children.

Why is Abby Johnson throwing such conservative women under the bus? To get some cheap shots in at liberal, feminist, pro-choice women?

I’m a conservative, and while I do not agree with feminists (radical or otherwise) on every issue, I am not okay with Johnson (or other conservatives) shaming or insulting liberal or pro-choice women over their marital or parenting status, or that of mine or that of other conservative women.

I cannot imagine how Johnson hopes to change any pro-choice minds by carrying on like she is?

Sex Dolls, Robots, and Woman Hating – a Conversation with Author Caitlin Roper (video and other, related material – similar to what Christian Gender Complementarians Teach About Women and Sex)

Sex Dolls, Robots, and Woman Hating – a Conversation with Author Caitlin Roper (video and other, related material – similar to what Christian Gender Complementarians Teach About Women and Sex)

The interview (in the video below) also discusses “pedophile activists” and pedophiles who want “sex dolls” that look like little girls.

There is something terribly, horribly wrong going on with men … and women and feminism are not to blame. And patriarchy and enforced traditional gender roles is not the solution, either (I say this as a conservative).

A lot of what Roper mentions about sex in some of the pieces below (especially this one on ABC) sounds very much like the usual attitude by many complementarian Christian men, such as Doug Wilson
– a lot of complementarian and pro-patriarchal “Christian” men –
continue to falsely teach in their books, blogs, sermons, videos, and pod casts that all men have a need for sex, men are incapable of sexual self control (in distinct contradiction to Galatians 5:22-23, 2 Timothy 1:7, etc), that women are obligated to have sex with men whenever men want sex (especially married women).

On Barnes and Noble:

(Link):  Sex Dolls, Robots and Woman Hating: The Case for Resistance

(Link): Pleasure machines: What sex robots tell us about men and sex

Excerpts:

by Caitlin Roper
December 2017

… The growing popularity of sex robots raises many ethical issues, but it also forces us to ask questions about the very nature of sex.

What is sex? What is it for? Is it merely the “acquisition of pleasure” as Robert Jensen put it, a mechanism for orgasm, or is it something one experiences with another person?

While it’s true that sex does not necessarily involve intimacy or meaningful connection, and it’s certainly not always mutually beneficial – mutuality is a key factor. Sexual relations without mutuality might be more appropriately described as sexual exploitation.

… Some men express their preferences for sex robots over relationships, which require catering to someone else’s needs and “needless drama.” Others, despite being married or in committed relationships, prefer their dolls to their living female partners, who unlike dolls are complex human beings with their own interests, feelings and lives.

Dolls, on the other hand, have no expectation of an equal or mutually beneficial partnership, have no needs to be met and no free will to be exercised.

It is precisely the dolls’ complete lack of autonomy that is the key attraction for many men. “You ALWAYS have their full attention,” said one. “It’s just nice to know that there is someone home waiting on me without the bitching … She can’t talk [but] at least she looks good sitting there watching TV.”

One owner described the bliss of gaming for hours with his devoted sex doll by his side, something his ex-wife “would only do … for a few mins, then find things to be upset about.”

…But what is it female bodied sex robots are providing? What is the appeal?

Rather than simply “better” sex, sex dolls provide men with the means for more selfish sex – sex that is totally one-sided. It is sex predicated on men’s absolute sexual freedom to dominate and use a woman without limitations.

There is no pressure to perform well, no need to reciprocate, no need to consider the other party’s feelings, enjoyment, discomfort, humiliation or pain.

It is sex with a compliant woman that is all about the user’s sexual fantasies – with a woman who never refuses, who can be used over and over again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excerpts:

June 3, 2022

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

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

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

… This isn’t your usual traditional religious moralism.

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

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

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

Instead, she makes the following arguments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women Who Disagree With Christian Gender Complementarianism

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

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

Women Who Disagree With Progressives or Any Progressive View or Behavior

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

Woman Refuses To Help Devout Christian Parents Going Through Financial Crisis Because She Was Disowned By Them 9 Years Ago for Working as a Stripper

Woman Refuses To Help Devout Christian Parents Going Through Financial Crisis Because She Was Disowned By Them 9 Years Ago for Working as a Stripper

This site reproduced a lot of this woman’s story via screen captures, so I won’t be sharing those here, nor do I plan on typing up the text in all those .jpg or .gif images of her text.

If you want to see the full story, you’ll have to use the link below to visit their site to view their screen caps of her typing.

(Link): Woman Refuses To Help Parents Going Through Financial Crisis Because She Was Disowned By Them 9 Years Ago

Excerpts:

…However, is it okay to expect support from someone whom you turned down when they were in need? Is it okay to expect support from a daughter you disowned many years ago for not being religious?

While most daughters would love to help their parents in need, Redditor u/Born-Problem-8280 refused to do so because she was disowned by them 9 years ago. OP (Original Poster) was feeling slightly guilty for not helping her parents who have medical conditions and are going through a bankruptcy phase. So, she turned to this popular subreddit and asked other users to know if she was right or wrong.

This woman got disowned by her religious parents because she became a stripper

[omit screen caps of the woman’s story – I don’t want to place them on my site or type them]

She wanted to go to a normal college but her parents insisted her to go to a Christian college

The OP revealed that her parents were religious and wanted her to pursue education in a Christian college instead of a regular one. When she refused their idea and went to a normal college, her parents stopped paying her college tuition.

The Gross, Shaming Natalism Propaganda on Gab Platform by Its Rude Members, Including By Roman Catholics and Other Conservatives

The Gross, Shaming Natalism Propaganda on Gab Platform by Its Rude Members, Including By Roman Catholics and Other Conservatives

A few days ago, someone I follow on Gab – I was automatically signed up to follow that person when I joined the site, I did not choose to follow them on my own – (with Gab being a social media platform that is similar to Twitter) shared a meme by someone else called “Disco.”

You can view that meme (Link): here on Gab.

I will also provide a screen shot below.

By the way, I am not as familiar with Gab’s functions and commenting as I am with Twitter’s, so I am not quite sure how to reply to people on Gab or how to link to specific comments by myself or others.

I am a pro-life conservative.

I am not opposed to equal rights for women, but I don’t identify as a feminist.

I don’t really fit in totally over on Gab, a platform which unfortunately attracts a lot of extreme right wing kooks (but some of the users seem okay),
but I don’t really fit in over on Twitter, either (where I was suspended for months previously before I got posting ability again),
because Twitter is over-run with far left “nut jobs,” most of whose views I normally do not agree with.

I have found that both conservatives and liberals / progressives are about equally annoying and wrong on the parenthood, marriage, or nuclear family topics.

Not all progressives or liberals are opposed to women having children; they just believe (and I agree with this concept, though I am a conservative) that women (and men) should be permitted to decide for themselves if they truly want to be a parent or not.

People should not be guilt tripped or pressured into having children.

There are some very fringe, far-out there leftists who are “anti nuclear family” and who are opposed to people having children, and they call themselves “anti natalists.”

I don’t agree with progressives who try to propagandize women (or men) from having children.

I don’t think it’s the progressives’ place to try to brainwash, scold, shame, or guilt trip people from having children.

But then I see the reverse dynamic from a lot of secular and Christian conservatives.

I see people who identify as conservative or Roman Catholic on sites such as GAB who keep pumping out these stupid, horrid, “Have ten kids by the time you’re 30” type memes or comments.

And these views are not even “biblical.”

Secret Service Warns of Domestic Terror Threat from Incels (Involuntary Celibates)

Secret Service Warns of  Domestic Terror Threat from Incels (Involuntary Celibates)

(Link): Report: ‘Involuntary Celibates’ Emerge as Growing Terrorism Threat

The U.S. Secret Service has released a study detailing the growing terrorism threat by so-called involuntary celibate men.

Attacks inspired by the “incel movement” have left dozens dead in the U.S. and Canada since 2014, according to CBS News.

The report said the term “‘incel’ is often used to describe men who feel unable to obtain romantic or sexual relationships with women, to which they feel entitled,” CNN reported.

(Link): US Secret Service says ‘involuntary celebate’ men are a rising threat

March 16, 2022

US Secret Service has released a report which says that men who identify as ‘involuntary celibates’ or ‘incels’ due to inability to form meaningful relationships with women constitute a rising threat to society.

The report, prepared by National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) was released on Tuesday. It also dwells on some common themes found in the history of men who resorted to violence against women.

…The report by US secret service said that though Beierle did not resort to any extremist ideology, his behaviour resembled those who identified as ‘incels’ or ‘anti-feminist’.

(Link): Secret Service Warns of  Domestic Terror Threat from Incels (Involuntary Celibates)

by AP
March 15, 2022

The U.S. Secret Service has warned the public of the growing domestic threat posed by misogynistic extremist or incels – involuntary celibates, reporting that many recent mass shooters have displayed the alarming trait.

Often times, well-documented hatred toward women and warning signs are dismissed because relatives, friends and law enforcement ‘don’t look at the big picture,’ officials said.

Christian Complementarian Owen Strachan Pushing “the Nuclear Family” Narrative – Unfortunately. (The Bible Does Not Prescribe The Family or Marriage as Cures for Individual or Societal Sin)

Christian Complementarian Owen Strachan Pushing “the Nuclear Family” Narrative – Unfortunately. (The Bible Does Not Prescribe The Family or Marriage as Cures for Individual or Societal Sin)

Allow me to summarize some of my views, if you are new to this blog:

I am a conservative independent.
I was a lifelong, devout Christian until several years ago, when I began questioning the Christian faith (however, I am not an atheist, and I am not hostile against all Christians or the Christian faith, while recognizing that Christianity has some problems);
I detest sexism, and I recognize sexism exists among all groups (not just among Christians, or Republicans, or Democrats, or atheists, or Muslims, etc, but among all groups or all sorts of belief sets).
I am an ex-gender complementarian (but I do not identify as a “feminist,” for several reasons which I don’t want to get into here and now).
I am not “anti Nuclear Family,” nor am I opposed to marriage or parenthood, but, I also do not support the over-emphasis upon marriage/ family/ parenthood that many other conservatives place upon those entities.

---

Owen Strachan used to be a leader in the Christian complementarian group CBWM. He still promotes complementarian views on his social media from time to time.

I don’t actually follow Strachan’s Twitter at this time, but periodically, when I log in, Twitter shows his tweets to me as “you may be interested in this,” or other people I follow do follow him, and they share his tweets, or they comment on them, so they show up in my feed.

I do at times agree with conservative Christians and/or complementarian / patriarchal Christians on some topics – for example, I do not support CRT or critical theories.

I do not hate the United States, nor do I regard the USA as being hopelessly, intrinsically racist or sexist – certainly not to the degree or in the same way that liberals, progressives, and neo-Marxists do.

I do not support Marxism, neo-Marxism, socialism. I don’t hate the U.S. Constitution, nor do I want to get rid of it.

I see the dangers within this far left ideology (such as Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, Trans Rights Activism, etc), so where Strachan and other conservative Christians, whether they are patriarchal and complementarian or not, critique those leftist movements and views where legitimate, I agree with them.

Unfortunately, Strachan still apparently maintains some incorrect, sexist, backwards ideas about women, marriage, and the Nuclear Family.

Strachan recently had this to say on his Twitter (source link):

Pretty sure I am as conservative as a human being can be, politically. Politics involves alliances. But if we aren’t conserving the natural family, the very first institution God made on the earth, the institution that funds all the others, then we have nothing else to conserve.
— end tweet —

The Bible says that Adam was created first – not a married couple.

The Bible does not command, ask, or expect anyone to “conserve the nuclear family.” To think that God does is an interpretation or assumption of the person speaking.

To those who say, well, God said it’s not good for Adam to be alone, so God created a companion, Eve, I say yes, but as the Bible moves forward, certainly by the New Testament, we can see that Jesus of Nazareth, and Paul the Apostle, de-emphasized the nuclear family unit to promote spiritual family and spiritual unity, not biological, and not marriage (more on this below).

Why Men Have More Orgasms Than Women by David Ludden (Hint: Male Entitlement is Involved. Notify Every Christian Gender Complementarian, Christian Patriarchalist, MRA, and Incel Ever)

Why Men Have More Orgasms Than Women by David Ludden (Hint: Male Entitlement is Involved. Notify Every Christian Gender Complementarian, Christian Patriarchalist, MRA, and Incel Ever)

The essay below, which references studies, mentions that male entitlement plays a role in why hetero men orgasm more in sex with women than women do.

This should be an eye-opener to every sexist, hetero man ever, including the sex-obsessed, marriage-obsessed, Christian gender complementarian and Christian Patriarchy rat bastards who already hold a lot of false beliefs about women and sex, such as,
“Only men want sex; women hate sex, women are not visually oriented and just want emotional connection, therefore, husbands unfortunately have to always nag their wives into having sex!”

(Link): Why Men Have More Orgasms Than Women – Real Clear Science

Full article on…

(Link): Why Men Have More Orgasms Than Women – Psychology Today

Some portions below in bold face added by me for emphasis:

by David Ludden –  Psychology Today
February 13, 2022

Key Points:

• • It’s commonly thought that men orgasm more easily than women due to biology, but research doesn’t support this contention.
  • Men are enculturated with a sense of entitlement, and this may play out in the bedroom as well.
  • Research shows that both men and women believe men are more entitled to have orgasms.

---

It’s common knowledge that men are more likely than women to orgasm during a sexual encounter. This is true in both casual affairs and long-term relationships. But why this is the case is not clear.

…It’s Not About Biology
As University of Michigan psychologists Verena Klein and Terri Conley point out in an article they recently published (Link): in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, this argument doesn’t hold water. First, there’s nothing about the clitoris to suggest that it’s less likely to produce orgasms than the penis since both have the same concentration of nerve endings.

Furthermore, women are capable of having multiple orgasms in short secession. In contrast, men are limited in the number of orgasms they can have within a given time period.

For reasons that are still unknown but highly debated, men experience a refractory period after each ejaculation, so multiple orgasms are out of the question. Given these facts, it seems that women should be having way more orgasms than men, not the other way around.

Since they ruled out biological reasons, Klein and Conley considered whether the gendered sexual pleasure gap could be explained by social attitudes about sex. They note that in Western society, men are taught to feel more entitled, whereas women are trained to act more deferential.

Inconsistent, Disappointing, and Cavalier Attitude Towards Sexism by Some Conservatives – Re: Woman Says A Man Groped Her Avatar in a Simulation

Inconsistent, Disappointing, and Cavalier Attitude Towards Sexism by Some Conservatives – Re: Woman Says A Man Groped Her Avatar in a Simulation

Most conservatives don’t support biological men being allowed into women’s only spaces, even if those men “identify as women.”  Most conservatives recognize how that is bad news for biological girls and biological women. (As a conservative myself, I agree!)

I often see male conservatives infuriated, alarmed, or incredulous over things like Democrats wanting to pass legislation to get women drafted into the military, or with biological men who identify as women (transwomen) getting spaces on women’s teams.

But so many conservative men, and a smattering of conservative women, often act dismissive of other forms of sexism.

Earlier today, I was on Twitter, I saw (Link): this Tweet by (Link): Seth Dillon, who I believe is a conservative (and possibly a Christian?).

Dillon was “quote Tweeting” a headline by the New York Post which reads, “Woman Claims She Was Virtually ‘Groped’ in Meta VR Platform.” Here is the link to the article itself on the Post.

Here is how part of that article, by Hannah Sparks, reads:

A beta tester has claimed she was virtually “groped” in the metaverse VR platform Horizon Worlds from Meta, the company formerly known as Facebook.

Meta revealed the incident on Dec. 1, saying it occurred on Nov. 26. The woman had reported the assault on the Horizon Worlds beta testing Facebook group.

“Sexual harassment is no joke on the regular internet, but being in VR adds another layer that makes the event more intense,” she wrote, according to the Verge. “Not only was I groped last night, but there were other people there who supported this behavior, which made me feel isolated in the Plaza,” the virtual environment’s central gathering space.

“Severe” encounters of online harassment — including physical threats, stalking and “repeated” harassment — are on the rise, according to a 2020 Pew Research poll, with the percentage of users reporting such incidents jumping from 15% in 2014 to 25% today. While much of it takes place on social media, VR is still nascent and already an apparent venue for harassment.

…Sexual harassment in virtual reality is sexual harassment in real life, full stop, experts have said.

“At the end of the day, the nature of virtual-reality spaces is such that it is designed to trick the user into thinking they are physically in a certain space, that their every bodily action is occurring in a 3-D environment,” Katherine Cross, a Ph.D. student researcher of online harassment at the University of Washington, told Technology Review.

“It’s part of the reason why emotional reactions can be stronger in that space, and why VR triggers the same internal nervous-system and psychological responses,” she added.
— end excerpt —

I am a conservative, not a woke-ster far leftist.

I don’t know how it is that so many conservatives are fine opposing sexism in some forms – such as biological men who claim to be women wanting entrance to women’s only bathrooms and so forth – but then turn around and mock a woman who discusses being sexually harassed in a virtual arena.