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

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

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

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

From this series:

Visit Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

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

Introduction.

For those new to my blog:

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

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

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

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

Here is one article by Venker about her relationship views:

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


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

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

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

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

(Link): Perhaps Feminism is Not The Enemy

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

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

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

WHAT THE EXPERTS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT WOMEN BEING BETA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—(end excerpt)—

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

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

From the book The Disease to Please:

Page 95:

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

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

—(end excerpt)—

From pages 93-94:

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

—(end excerpt)—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—(end excerpt)—

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

The result of this for Helene? Lots of abuse.

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

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

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

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

—(end excerpt)—

From page 97:

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

—(end excerpt)—

Page 98:

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

—(end excerpt)—

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

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

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

Here’s what he said:

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

Another male patient said (page 101):

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

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

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

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

—(end excerpt)—

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

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

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

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

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

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

—(end excerpt)—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—(end excerpt)—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From page 131 by Engel:

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

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

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

From page 45 of Engel’s book:

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

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

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

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

–(end excerpt)–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–(end excerpt)–

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

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

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

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


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


Related Posts:

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

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

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

(Link): Author Claims Andrea Tantaros’ Book About How Feminism ‘Made Women Miserable’ Was Ghostwritten by a Man

Advertisements

Christian Egalitarian Singles Blog – A Blog Worth Bookmarking

You may want to visit and bookmark this blog – I think this blog is worth checking out and re-visiting (so you may want to book mark it):

(Link): Christian Egalitarian Singles

It’s a blog that sometimes addresses the same topics I cover here. But it’s much nicer in tone with no profanity.

Here are a few samples of topics from their blog:

(Link):   Singles are Marginalized in the Church Because the Church is Focused on Marriage and the Family

(Link):   Singles are Marginalized in the Church Because Marriage is Seen as a Cure for Sexual Temptation

(Link): Singles are Marginalized in the Church Because the Church has Placed Too Much Emphasis on Sex

(Link):  Singles are Marginalized in the Church Because Single Women Have No Husband to Submit to.

(Link):  The Church Marginalizes Singles Because Singles are Forced to Develop Skills and Traits Traditionally Associated With the Opposite Gender and Become Independent

(Link):  Singles are Marginalized in the Church Because of the Doctrine of Male Headship

There are other posts on their blog. That is just to give you an idea.

Gender Complementarianism – A General Response – from a Former Gender Complementarian Who Is Still A Conservative

Gender Complementarianism – A General Response – from a Former Gender Complementarian Who Is Still A Conservative

I was once a gender complementarian. ‘Tis true.

My old-fashioned Christian parents were gender complementarians and brought me up to assume that comp (gender complementarianism) is true.

The churches we went to were complementarian; the man was supposed to be “head of the household,” the wife was supposed to be passive and submissive; women were not supposed to hold “authoritative” or leadership positions within a church.

The Christian books and articles we had around the house were written from a comp perspective.

I was thoroughly indoctrinated in complementarianism from the time I was a kid.

I know complementarianism very well. I understand complementarianism.

I do not intend for this post to be an in-depth response, biblical or otherwise, to gender complementarianism. This is just a general response.

If you are a gender complementarian – as I once was – you are likely a conservative who takes the Bible literally, and you want to please God.

Furthermore, you have probably been told or taught…

-in or by complementarian materials, churches, preachers, or family members, that any other way of interpreting the Bible concerning passages about gender, gender roles, headship, submission, and marriage, are all “liberal” or are “playing loose with the Scripture.”

-There is only one “right” way to interpret the Bible, and by golly, it is the gender complementarian way, which is the only true “conservative” method, and hence, it’s the more “godly,” or “God Honoring,” method, and which takes the Scripture at “face value”

-Further, this reasoning goes, if you reject the comp hermeneutical method of the Bible, you will slide into secular, left wing, feminism and begin doing things that would make most any conservative recoil, such as start supporting abortion on demand and stop shaving your armpits; you will burn your bras.
You will join a liberal denomination that ordains openly lesbian lady preachers. You will want to grow a mustache because you want to be “just like a man.”
You may even start punching helpless, weak, defenseless kittens for fun.

Now, as a woman who is more than likely right wing, conservative, and adheres to traditional values, you are horrified or in deep disagreement with left wingers, the Democratic Party, and liberal social values (such as support of LGBT causes, abortion being legal, etc).

I get all that because I used to be just like you. In some ways, I still am very much like you, only minus a belief in complementarianism.

Continue reading “Gender Complementarianism – A General Response – from a Former Gender Complementarian Who Is Still A Conservative”

Benevolent Sexism in the Christian Bedroom (Christian Stereotypes About Female Sexuality) by J. Kamps

Benevolent Sexism in the Christian Bedroom (Christian Stereotypes About Female Sexuality) by J. Kamps

Some parts of these posts tackle subjects I’ve mentioned before on my blog in the past.

(Link):  It’s my orgasm, not his [part 1] by J. Kamps

(Link): It’s my orgasm, not his [part 2] by J. Kamps

Excerpts from (Link):  It’s my orgasm, not his [part 1] by J. Kamps

Jasmine’s story is an example of Benevolent Sexism. Hostile Sexism is fairly easy to recognise. Benevolent Sexism is sneaky and far more socially pervasive. It parades around wearing a facade of chivalry, making out women to be weaker, lesser, diminished, objectified, by using what are perceived as good manners, male consideration, and role definition.

Benevolent Sexism operates on the fundamental belief that, whether observed in practice or not, there IS a gender hierarchy.

….Benevolent Sexism even uses compliments and praise to disarm and disempower women. “Women are kinder, gentler, naturally more loving. Women are not as strong as men, so they require protection. Women are not as naturally competitive.”

Continue reading “Benevolent Sexism in the Christian Bedroom (Christian Stereotypes About Female Sexuality) by J. Kamps”

How Do We Solve a Problem Like the Singles? by R. Kilgore

How Do We Solve a Problem Like the Singles?  by Rachel Kilgore

Before I get to the link to the essay by Kilgore, which is hosted at MOS (Mortificiation of Spin / specifically, Aimee Byrd’s blog, ‘Housewife Theologian’):

For years and years on this blog, here on “Christian Pundit” blog, I have been explaining over and over again that most evangelical, Baptist, Reformed, and Fundamentalist Christian denominations, churches, and groups IGNORE adults singles – the older a single you are, the worse it is – the more ignored you are.

I have also commented on other people’s blogs under the Christian Pundit blog name, and under other names, alerting Christians to how horribly American Christians treat adult singles. I have Tweeted about it.

When Christians aren’t ignoring us older singles, and they do manage to notice our existence, many Christians shame us for being single. They insult us. They try to make us feel like we are losers (seriously, see (Link): this post, (Link): this post, (Link): this post), (Link): this post – I could cite many more examples from my blog of anti-Singles bias by Christians, but that should suffice.)

I used to be what is called a gender complementarian.  I am not interested in spending a lot of time explaining what that means.

I am no longer a gender complementarian.

I am linking you here to a post about adult singleness at a blog (the one by A. Byrd) owned by what I would term “soft gender complementarians.”

Continue reading “How Do We Solve a Problem Like the Singles? by R. Kilgore”

The Conservative, Christian Case for Working Women by J. Merritt

The Conservative, Christian Case for Working Women by J. Merritt 

Some of the few complementarian Christians I follow on social media did not like this article at all. They seem to find any criticism of their position, or any suggestion of other options for women, to be a great affront to complementarianism itself, or to God or the Bible. Why do they feel their movement is so fragile?

Christian women who reject complementarianism – some of them may go by various labels, such as “Jesus feminists,” or “egalitarians,” or “mutualists,” don’t seek to limit women the way complementarians do. Non-complementarian men and women do not mind if a woman chooses to be a stay at home wife and mother.

However, complementarians do not truly afford all women, and especially not non-complementarian, women this same courtesy.

Much complementarian content will pay “lip service” to respect a woman’s right to choose to work outside the home and so on, but often times, from what I’ve seen, that very same site, or authors on some other complementarian site, will cry and clutch their pearls in sorrow or grief that more and more Christian women are choosing to stay single, not have children, and/or to work outside the home.

Notice that in this article, at one point, complementarian Owen Strachan, who is a spokes-head for complementarian group CBMW, comes right out and says egalitarianism, or any departure from complementarianism, is supposedly a sin.

Egalitarians are all about giving women more choices, telling them to go after their dreams, and doing whatever they feel God has led them to do.

Complementarians really chaff at that. Complementarians want women in boxes. I wrote a much older post saying that (Link): this is one reason of several I really have been struggling with holding on to the Christian faith. I was raised in a Christian family that bought into many of these complementarian ideas, and it’s not something that worked out well for me in my life.

(Link): The Conservative, Christian Case for Working Women by J. Merritt

Excerpts:

An evangelical Christian and avowed feminist argues that God intends every woman to work.

The final episode of Leave it To Beaver aired in June of 1963, but many conservative Christians still promote a vision of womanhood reminiscent of June Cleaver.  When Tobin Grant, political-science professor at Southern Illinois University, analyzed General Social Survey data from 2006, he found that nearly half of evangelical Christians agreed with this statement: “It is much better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family.”

Forty-one percent agreed that “a preschool child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works.” For these evangelicals, a woman’s place in the world is to get married, bear children, and support her breadwinning husband.

Katelyn Beaty—the managing editor of Christianity Today,America’s largest evangelical Christian publication—has set out to change this notion of gender. Her new book, A Woman’s Place, claims to reveal “the surprising truth about why God intends every woman to work.”

This declaration may surprise many of her magazine’s 80,000 print subscribers and 5 million monthly website visitors. And it may also rouse many of her fellow evangelicals who believe her ideas defy the Bible’s clear teaching, if not qualifying as outright heresy. While Beaty knows criticism may be coming her way, she is making a conservative Christian case for working women.

Continue reading “The Conservative, Christian Case for Working Women by J. Merritt”

‘Marriage Changes When You Don’t Just Need A Warm Body and a Paycheck’: A Talk With Rebecca Traister

‘Marriage Changes When You Don’t Just Need A Warm Body and a Paycheck’: A Talk With Rebecca Traister

(Link): ‘Marriage Changes When You Don’t Just Need A Warm Body and a Paycheck’: A Talk With Rebecca Traister  by Jia Tolentino

Excerpts:

  • After two months, my [Jia Tolentino’s] copy of Rebecca Traister’s new book is already dog-eared, wine-stained, and train-battered. All the Single Ladies is essential, careful, bold, and rigorous; it’s a warning and a celebration, and I loved it. Traister and I talked on the phone last week.
  • [Rebecca Traister said]… I always hated it when my heroines [book characters] got married.
  • … but I took in the message that Laura learned, and then taught us: that marriage was the end of fun.
  • …one of the interesting things that’s happened coterminously with the decline in marriage rate is the rise of the wedding industrial complex and the fetishization of marriage as the signal achievement of female life.
  • That’s happened even as women have been marrying less and less, and for a couple of reasons.
  • One, the economic strata of women who still most consistently marry are the wealthiest women: you have a whole industry that’s built up around selling them very expensive weddings, and this industry now crosses classes. There’s a diffuse but very strong pressure to correct women’s move away from marriage by fetishizing it.
  • This, in turn, is possible in part because marriage is no longer the thing that kicks off a woman’s adult life.
  • As sociologists put it, marriage is now a capstone event instead. It’s the thing you do when your life is in shape, when you have the right amount of money —and particularly in middle and lower-income communities, when you know you have the right partner, and in many cases, when you already have a kid. Marriage is popularly a sign that your life is in order, which contributes to this renewed positioning of marriage as aspirational.
  • [Jia Tolentino said] Right. It’s the fairytale narrative run through a late-capitalist filter. You make your money, you formalize your ambitions, and then you still get rewarded with the kiss and the ring.
  • [Rebecca Traister said] Despite all this, women are still not marrying at the same rate they were. You can bombard women with messages that they should be aiming for this; that they should be doing that. But you know what? They’re still not doing it. You might be able to make them feel bad about it—but this mass behavior no longer applies.

Continue reading “‘Marriage Changes When You Don’t Just Need A Warm Body and a Paycheck’: A Talk With Rebecca Traister”

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

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

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

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

Excerpts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excerpts:

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

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

Baptizing “Masculinity”: The Real Reason Men are Leaving the Church by Luke T. Harrington

Baptizing “Masculinity”: The Real Reason Men are Leaving the Church

The link to the page by Luke T. Harrington is farther down the page.

Churches sure do invest a lot of time investigating why men are supposedly fed up with church and churches then bend themselves into pretzels trying to cater to men to retain them.

If churches cared as much about women and appealing to them, perhaps more and more women would not be abandoning churches or the faith (I’ve seen studies come out the last few years saying more and more Christian women are either leaving churches, or leaving the faith itself, because they are not being welcomed due to their gender).

Churches need to be just as concerned they may be offending or excluding women as they are men, but they don’t. Most of them remain stubbornly fixated on soothing the egos of injured males, but don’t care how they are hurting or alienating women.

Hyping “masculinity” to appeal to men alienates a lot of women.

One way in which this occurs is that churches think the way to build up the masculine is to mock anything and everything feminine, so by extension, Christian women, who are taught to express so-called (stereotypical) feminine traits in the extreme (be nurturing, passive, quiet, sweet, etc) end up feeling even more like trash.

The very characteristics Christian women are told by pastors to possess (such as be passive, gentle, meek) are the very same ones that the churches denigrate week in and week out, and that they try to stamp out in churches, and at that, in order to attract men.

This is not a winning strategy for keeping women active and involved in a church.

It also turns off “normal” men, the ones who are maybe Non-Christian, secure in their manhood, who find the super “cave man,” manly man antics of some churches totally bizarre and irrelevant.

(Link): Baptizing “Masculinity”: The Real Reason Men are Leaving the Church by Luke T. Harrington

Excerpts:

  • …The dominant narrative at the moment is that, while church attendance is down across the board, men in particular are staying home on Sunday mornings ( (Link): some stats here). And while there has been much hand-wringing over this reality, there has, to my knowledge, been very little serious introspection over it.

Continue reading “Baptizing “Masculinity”: The Real Reason Men are Leaving the Church by Luke T. Harrington”

The Islamic Billy Graham Rule – Unmarried Muslim People Are Punished For Being Alone Together

The Islamic Billy Graham Rule – Unmarried Muslim People Are Punished For Being Alone Together

Just when I think I’m done blogging on this blog for the day (and I do have other stuff to do off-line), I keep seeing pertinent stuff show up all over the internet.

This turned up on my Twitter feed:

(Link): Indonesia: Police Beat Couple with Canes for Sharia Crime of Being Alone Together

  • Islamic sharia law was enforced with canes once again in Indonesia this week, including the cane beatings of a man and woman whose “crime” was being alone together in a guest room.
  • This was no crazed mob action, either, as (Link): CNN reports the sentence was handed down by a judge, and imposed by a special police unit “charged with finding people who violate sharia law.”
  • “The form of Islamic law is enforced in a very strict way in the area, including prohibiting unmarried people of different genders from being alone together,” CNN observes.

This totally reminds me of the insipid, sexist, ineffective, stupid, anti-singles Christian “Billy Graham Rule,” which I have blogged about before here (this view seems to turn up more in Christian gender complementarianism than it does Christian gender egalitarianism):

Except under the Christian BGR (Billy Graham Rule), you will get isolated, “tsk tsked,” or suspected of being a slut, rather than get whipped with a cane.

Also, and this is kind of funny in a sad way, Christians are stricter on this rule than the Muslims, in that they also look askance at single women who are alone with MARRIED men.

Single Christian women are doomed to live and die alone, because Christians who are inappropriately applying the “avoid even the appearance of evil” verse are ostracizing single women from every one, from other singles and from the marrieds. Similar the Islamic sharia rule that prohibits singles from being together.

Another dumb, oblivious, and naive thing about the BGR is that often times, married Christians end up having affairs with other married Christians.

Yet, I don’t usually see the same level of paranoia from Christians about married Christian women hanging out with married Christian men as I do the warnings about men being around un-married (single) women.

Here are some more links about the story (off site):

(Link):  The whipping girl: Screaming in agony, a woman collapses as she and a man are caned under Sharia law in Indonesia merely for being ‘seen in close proximity’ to each other without being married

  • The woman was accused of getting too close to a fellow university student
  • As the pair are unmarried, she had committed an offence under Sharia law
  • She was brought to a mosque where she was caned in front of a crowd
  • The woman received five lashes and at end had to be taken to hospital

(Link):  Crowd cheers as woman is brutally caned for being seen near man who wasn’t her husband

  • Dec 29, 2015
  • by Ruth Halkon
  • Nur Elita, 20, had to be taken away in an ambulance after being beaten in public outside her mosque under Sharia law
  • A crowd cheered as a young woman screamed in agony as she was repeatedly caned in punishment for being in ‘close proximity’ to a man she wasn’t married to.Nur Elita, 20, had to be removed from Baiturrahumim Mosque in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, in an ambulance after she was brutally punished for allegedly showing affection towards another university student.Under Sharia law, men and women who are unmarried and unrelated are not allowed to get too close.
  • Dec 31 2015
  • Officials in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, held a public caning Monday. At the end of the punishment, she collapsed on the floor and was carried off the stage into an ambulance and rushed to hospital. Indonesia enforce strict Islamic laws including prohibiting unmarried people from having sex.
  • Cheers went up as a masked man caned the woman, as a punishment for being “seen in close proximity” to a man she wasn’t married to, under Sharia law.
  • The young Acehnese woman is caned in public, a punishment under the Islamic sharia law.
  • Banda Aceh’s Deputy Mayor Zainal Arifin, who stood among the crowd, explained to bystanders that the punishments were meant to be a lesson for all and not simply entertainment.
  • After her ordeal, 23-year-old Wahyudi Saputra, the man whom she was alleged to have been in close proximity with breached was also striked. “And also, those who have been convicted are reminded not to repeat the same mistakes”, he added.

(Link):  Woman accused of ‘affectionate contact’ with man caned in Indonesia

—————————–

Related Posts:

(Link): Similar Views of Women Between Christian Gender Complmentarians and Islamic Group ISIS

(Link): Extremist Muslims Like Family Values Too – Muslims are joining ISIS / ISIL (extremist Islamic group) because they believe it supports “Family Values” – When Christianity and Islam sound alike

(Link):  Evangelicals are Rethinking Friendship and Sexuality 

(Link):  Non-Romantic Nearness, The Billy Graham Rule, and Pope John Paul’s Friendship With a Married Woman

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

(Link):  Patriarchy tends to sexualize all male / female relationships (article via Junia Project blog)

Link):  Southern Baptists Pushing Early Marriage, Baby Making – Iranians Pushing Mandatory Motherhood – When Christians Sound Like Muslims

(Link): Why Christians Need To Stress Spiritual Family Over the Nuclear Family – People with no flesh and blood relations including Muslims who Convert to Christianity – Also: First World, White, Rich People Problems

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

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

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

(Link):  Relationships Of Welcome, Not Fear (Re: How Sexist Christian Views Marginalize and Isolate Adult, Single Women and Maintain Other Stereotypes About Adult Singles)

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

(Link):  Hey Ed Stetzer: Opposite Gender Friendships Are Not Sinful – Ed Stetzer’s Advice: “Avoid Any Hint” – More Like: Re Enforce UnBiblical Stereotypes About Men, Women, Sex, and Singles

(Link):  Why So Much Fornication – Because Christians Have No Expectation of Sexual

(Link):  Pervy Preacher from Seattle who teaches men “to objectify women, by his over emphasis of sexualization of women and subservience” (Re Driscoll) Purity

(Link):  Brotherly Love: Christians and Male-Female Friendships

 

48 Things Men / Women Hear in a Lifetime (That Are Bad For Everyone)

48 Things Men / Women Hear in a Lifetime (That Are Bad For Everyone)

(Link): 48 Things Men Hear In A Lifetime (That Are Bad For Everyone) 

  • Watch 70 years of “be a real man” in under two minutes.

(Link):  48 Things Women Hear In A Lifetime (That Men Just Don’t)

  • Watch 80 years of subtle sexism in under two minutes.
  • Don’t be a slut, but definitely don’t be too prude. Don’t be so emotional, but don’t be a cold-hearted bitch. Prioritize your family over your career, but are you sure you want to be a stay-at-home mom?

Continue reading “48 Things Men / Women Hear in a Lifetime (That Are Bad For Everyone)”

Our Bodies Were Not Made for Sex by T. Swann

Our Bodies Were Not Made for Sex by T. Swann

Very interesting editorial.

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

Excerpts:

  • The Genesis account of creation reveals that God created only one species of human. He said, “Let us make human,” and not “Let us make humans.” What essentially makes one a human then, is being created in God’s image, in God’s “likeness” (Gen.1:26-27). What defines us then is the ruah (Hebrew word for spirit) of God in our bodies (Gen.2:7).
  • God is a spirit. Therefore, when he said, “Let us make man in our own image,” he wasn’t speaking of bodies, but of essence.
  • God created the human body out of dust, a decomposable substance, but what is really human—the soul—is indecomposable. This is the God-like property that dwells in humans. The body is really the “house” or “clothing” of the soul.
  • So if we are the same underneath the “clothing” of our bodies, in our souls, why are so many arguments for gender hierarchy based on that outer covering?

Continue reading “Our Bodies Were Not Made for Sex by T. Swann”

The Negative Consequences of Male Privilege by Steven Farough

This is a PDF file, unfortunately.

(Link) The Negative Consequences of Male Privilege by S. Farough

Excerpts:

  • In this case, dominant masculinity in the United States embodies the following characteristics.
  • -Men are expected to be physically powerful
  • -Men are obliged to hide their emotions
  • -Men are supposed to excel at competition
  • -Men are to be in control of their lives and the situations they inhabit
  • -Men are expected to earn income to support their families comfortably.
  • -Men are not to act feminine
  • -Men should not be gay
  • What is particular striking about dominant masculinity is that is is defined by what it is not.

Within American Christianity, especially in branches such as Baptist churches and evangelicalism, I’d also expect that “real manhood” is defined as “man who is married to a woman and who has children.”

Though I feel that women are pressured ten times more than men are to marry and pro-create.

Nevertheless, there are some segments of the Christian faith that do define “real manhood” to mean “married with children.”

I would also add that a corollary to this understanding of manhood is sexual activity. Both in and out of the church – that is, even among secular people – only people who are having sex are true adults.

If you are still a virgin past the age of 25 or 30, you are thought odd, stunted, immature, or repressed. Again, this is an attitude I see among Christians too, not just Non Christians, which I would expect. I would expect Non Christians to ridicule or mock virginity, but it crops up among Christians. Many churches and preachers today are over-sexed. They never shut up about sex (or marriage). 

More excerpts:

  • Negative Consequences of Dominant Masculinity
  • Given the above-mentioned advantages of masculinity, some men might ask themselves why on earth they would want to give up such a wide range of advantages. These structural benefits are no doubt seductive to many men. High status jobs, respect and deference from others, disproportionate influence, and accumulating wealth are but a few of the advantages of dominant masculinity and the infrastructure of privilege that supports it. Why give this up?
  • Accompanying these advantages comes a range of negative consequences for men who invest in dominant masculinity. Public health data clearly show some of the noticeable disadvantages. The average life span for men is 71.3 years, but for women it is 78.3 years (Sabo, 2004). 
  • Men are more likely to develop heart disease, have accidents, and be a victim of a violent crime and homicide than women (Sabo, 2004). There are multiple reasons for this, but one key factor is the investment of dominant masculinity. 
  • Men who buy into it must engage in elaborate techniques of withholding their feelings and engage in behavior that puts them at greater physical risk (Sabo, 2004). To be a “man” is to deny physical pain, which can result in a failure to notify doctors of potentially life-threatening ailments. If one desires to be a “real man,” one should be prepared for an early death.
  • Men who withhold their feelings also suffer psychologically. They experience higher rates of depression and suicide than women (Sabo, 2004). They also have emotionally shallow relationships with families and friends.
  • Men that cannot fit into dominant masculinity also suffer. Often denied access to living wages or control over their environment, working-class men, men of color, and gay men often cannot fit fully into dominant masculinity, leaving them subject to critiques of their self-worth.
  • Dominant masculinity works as the underlying rationale for men bullying other men that do not conform to this norm.
  • This results in significant numbers of men marginalized from and and scarred by dominant masculinity, one that is often white, middle class, and straight.
  • Dominant masculinity makes it more difficult to have a variety of legitimate masculinities in our society. 
  • Because dominant masculinity is defined as being superior to femininity (Connell 1995), men that invest in it suffer from being unable to have more egalitarian and emotionally open relationships with women.
  • Dominant masculinity can even undermine meritocracy. Because men receive unearned advantages for being men in the workforce and political life, this makes it more difficult for equally qualified women and people of color to be rewarded for their hard work.

(( click here to read the rest – PDF page ))

———————-

Related posts:

 (Link): Why Un-married / Single Christians Should Be Concerned about the Gender Role Controversy (i.e., Male Headship, Female Submission, Should Women Be Allowed to Lead/Teach Men, etc)

(Link): study on Male, Christian Sexual Abstinence Reveals Many Christians Still Clinging to Gendered Sexual Stereotypes

(Link):  Preacher Mark Driscoll’s Hypocrisy About Single Men – and other Driscoll stuff

(Link):  Americans Idolize Fatherhood – Enough with the Pro Fatherhood Editorials or Claiming Anti Father Persecution, says writer

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

(Link): “You’re not a real man until you have children” – childless, childfree women should be able to relate to this too

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

(Link):  Why men are boycotting marriage, fatherhood and the American Dream (article by Matt K. Lewis)

(Link): Why Men Don’t Go To Church

(Link): Christian Patriarchy Group: God Demands You Marry and Have Babies to Defeat Paganism and Satan. Singles and the Childless Worthless (in this worldview).

(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):  Conservatives and Christians Fretting About U.S. Population Decline – We Must “Out-breed” Opponents Christian Host Says

 

Study on Male, Christian Sexual Abstinence Reveals Many Christians Still Clinging to Gendered Sexual Stereotypes

Study on Male, Christian Sexual Abstinence Reveals Many Christians Still Clinging to Gendered Sexual Stereotypes – Churches do not provide accountability classes for single women, for instance, because they don’t perceive women as wanting or needing sex


(Link): Blogger Guy, John H. Morgan, Who Accused Me Of Being Untrustworthy Apparently Finds My Blog Trustworthy Enough to Use As A Resource


I blogged about this story a few days ago, please see this link:

But a new article I saw about this same study today made me want to point out something else about it. Here’s an except with comments by me below the excerpts:

(Link):  What Happens When Evangelical Virgin Men Get Married? This Secular Female Sociologist Found Out. by Alice Robb

Excerpts (emphasis added by me):

  • AR: Are there similar support groups for abstinent women in the church?
  • SD: Not that I found. The church, and the men that I interviewed, don’t believe that women would need a space to talk through these issues.

  • They believe that men are highly sexual beings and they have “natural urges” that need to be controlled, but they don’t believe that women have that natural desire to be sexually active. Women are the providers of sexual activity for their husbands.

    One of the men shared a revealing story. He was dating a woman from outside the church and she wanted to have sex with him. I asked him why they broke up, and he said that was the main reason. Not only did having premarital sex go against his beliefsfor him, it also indicated that she was in love with him, and he wasn’t yet in love with her. It couldn’t be that she just wanted to have sex with her boyfriend.

As I’ve said before on this blog, conservative Christians, every one from the Southern Baptists to the Reformed to Fundamentalists and Evangelicals – have some very mistaken ideas about women and sex.

Many women like sex every bit as much as many men do, and women can be prone to engaging in casual sex, having affairs, using porn, etc, as men do.

I’ve blogged on this issue before, such as (I have several blog pages about it, these are just two):

I also just posted this story the other day that shows that there are a lot of Christian women who admit to using pornography on a regular basis.

The story is mainly about men, but it also discusses porn use among women:

I feel that a lot of the church is so opposed to things such as homosexuality and transgenderism, that they think the “cure” for what they perceive to be these rampant sexual sins in culture is to make up ever more tighter, and stricter gender roles, where they insist “men are from Mars, women are from Venus, and God designed it that way” type of thinking. And it’s not biblical.

As a result of socially conservative Christians thinking one avenue of winning the sexual culture wars is to enact very strict gender roles, you will see Christians doing things like maintaining the assumption that all women want to marry and want to have children, or that all women should want those things. Christians will assume and teach and promote the idea that God designed all women to like the color pink, enjoy sewing tea pot cozies, be quiet and submissive, and sighing at pretty rainbows.

And if you are a woman who does not like pink, you tend to be outspoken, you do not marry, you do not have children, or do not meet their other criteria, they don’t believe you are filling your God given gender role.

Note again, this is their opinion only; God does not set up, in the Bible, requirements for men and women to fill in regards to gender roles that are to be true of all women for all time, or for all men for all time.

These sorts of Christians will teach that ALL men are, or should be, tough, stoic he-men who should want to watch football and NASCAR, and any man who does not do these things and other random criteria they come up with, is failing his role of “biblical manhood.”

The Bible does not teach such strict gender roles, nor does it have a bullet list of what a woman must or must not do to be a “biblical woman.”

Continue reading “Study on Male, Christian Sexual Abstinence Reveals Many Christians Still Clinging to Gendered Sexual Stereotypes”

Four Lies the Church Taught Me About Sex (from Relevant)

Four Lies the Church Taught Me About Sex (from Relevant)

This woman’s page is basically a re-hash of points I have already blogged about here on my blog several times over.

I left a few comments in the reader section of the page at the bottom. I also see that the unhinged person John Morgan ((Link): who stalked and pestered me for over a year left a wrong headed comment at the page as well. He was actually disputing points of her post, but what she said was true.)

Here’s the link to the page (with more commentary by me below this excerpt):

(Link): Four Lies the Church Taught Me About Sex (from Relevant) BY LILY DUNN

Excerpts.

    I’ve heard people say that growing up as an evangelical meant they never talked about sex. This wasn’t my experience. I grew up in the thick of evangelical purity culture and we talked about sex A LOT. We just spent all of that time talking about how and why NOT to have it.

As someone who waited until I was married to have sex, I was assured that I would be guaranteed an easy and rewarding sex life. When reality turned out to be different, I was disappointed and disillusioned. Only through gradual conversations with other married friends did I realize I wasn’t alone.

…. Here are four of the biggest lies about sex I believed before marriage

1. Any and all physical contact is like a gateway drug to sex.

[snip commentary under this point of hers – use link above to visit the page to read the entire page]

2. If you wait until you are married to have sex, God will reward you with mind-blowing sex and a magical wedding night. 


[snip]

3. Girls don’t care about sex.

As a teenager and young adult I cannot count the times I heard something to this effect: “Boys are very visual and sexual, so even though you aren’t thinking about sex, you need to be careful because you are responsible for not making them stumble.”

Let’s disregard for now how degrading this is toward men and focus on the underlying assumption that boys are sexual and girls aren’t. For years I was told that “girls don’t care about sex.” Well, as it turns out, I do. This has been a deep source of shame for me. For a long time I felt like a freak, until I started to realize that I wasn’t the only one, not by a longshot. But I never knew it because no one would admit it.

Many girls (yes, even Christian girls) think about sex. Many girls (yes, even Christian girls) like sex. This doesn’t make you a freak. It doesn’t make you unfeminine or unnatural. God created us, both men AND women, as sexual beings. Enjoying sex makes you a human being created by God, in the image of God, with the capacity and desire to love—physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually and sexually.

Here is the comment by my stalker John Morgan, that he left in the reader comment section below the woman’s post at the Relevant site ((Link): Source):

      1. Hand holding leading to sex being taught by most parents, teachers, church leaders and books? That’s hard to believe.
      2. Discussing your body being locked up on your wedding night was the responsibility of your church?
      I think that would fall to your OB-GYN doctor.
      3. Girls don’t care about sex?
      That sounds like something your culture taught you, not your church.
    4. “Many of us have programmed guilt into ourselves.” That’s not the church’s fault. It’s your fault.

How are churches presenting saving sex until marriage in a “distorted way.” It sounds like what you experienced was due to your own unrealistic expectations, not due to anything the church taught. It’s sort of like running up to a firefighter that just pulled a woman from a burning house and saying: “Excuse me, but you did that all wrong. Could you take her back in the house and do it again?”

My reply to this unglued son of a gun ((Link): Source)

@ John Morgan.

John Morgan said,
“1. Hand holding leading to sex being taught by most parents, teachers, church leaders and books? That’s hard to believe.”

No, dude, it’s really not hard to believe. How dare you feign ignorance of this point, when I’ve been blogging about that topic and the others she mentions on this page on my Word Press Christian Pundit blog for two or three years now, which you know, because you’ve been to that blog and have read It – and even though I had to ban you from that blog, I know you still came by and read it.

Christians sexualize almost everything.

Baptists, fundamentalists, the Reformed, and evangelicals are so paranoid that any and all male-female enter-action will lead to sex, they warn single adults to stay away from each other, or they sternly caution singles not to so much as go out to coffee dates with each other for platonic chit chat, for the fear it will TURN TO SEX.

(Examples of this, with book titles and page numbers can be found in the book “Singled Out” by Field and Colon, if anyone needs documentation. I also have examples, with links, on my Word Press blog.)

Christians do not believe that men and women can be platonic friends.

Christians are especially paranoid that all un-married women are randy little harlots who set their sights on married Christian men, so in their sermons, blogs, and books, they frequently tell married Christian men above all never to meet alone with an un-married woman, don’t give her a lift in a car, keep the office door open if a woman meets you in your office, etc.

I have blogged examples of married Christian saying that kind of trash at my blog, such as…

“Southern Baptists Perpetuate Myths About Genders, Sex, and Adult Singles at 2014 ERLC Summit – All Women Are harlots, men cannot control themselves”
https://christianpundit.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/southern-baptists-perpetuate-myths-about-genders-sex-and-adult-singles-at-2014-erlc-summit/

A quote from one article I linked to on that page:
“A panel led by Bethancourt offered suggestions to help pastors stay sexually pure, including leaning on Jesus and putting a glass door on the office so others can see in.”

John Morgan said,
“2. Discussing your body being locked up on your wedding night was the responsibility of your church? I think that would fall to your OB-GYN doctor.”

She’s saying that the church’s slanted, warped views about sex and sexuality created psychological problems, which manifested themselves as physical issues for her. And that is her church’s responsibility.

Also, given that we are living in a church culture where

1. every other sermon has a title such as, “Ten Tips For Great Married Sex” and where
2. Rev Mark Driscoll tells Christian married couples in his “Real Marriage” book that they should have anal sex, and he advises, even during church services, that women are commanded by the Bible to perform oral sex on their spouses, and where
3. Pastor Ed Young Jr had a “Sexperiment” at church, where he and his wife got into a bed on the church’s roof…

I don’t see it as a stretch for a church to go ahead and discuss her particular problem in this area. They might as well, they are discussing every other sexual topic under the sun already.

John Morgan said,

“3. Girls don’t care about sex? That sounds like something your culture taught you, not your church.”

No, that is in fact something churches, preachers, and Christians do in fact teach – that only men are visually stimulated and enjoy sex, while women (especially married ones) supposedly prefer “emotional bonding” and have to be cajoled into having sex.

(Conversely, un-married Christian women are assumed by most churches to be randy harlots who bed hundreds of men per week.)

I have blogged about that nasty gender stereotype repeatedly at my blog the last two years, which I know you have read, so you cannot feign ignorance.

Many Christians support something called “gender complementarianism” which buys into secular American gender stereotypes, including ones pertaining to sex.

These attitudes and stereotypes are promoted in churches and Christian culture via Christian groups such as CBMW (Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood), for example. They publish magazine articles promoting these views, hold conferences, tweet about these views, etc.

The Christian guys who are into full blown patriarchy, such as Doug Phillips and the Vision Forum, and the Home schooling Christian groups, are ten times worse than the run- of- the- mill Christian gender complementarians about these gender stereotypes and sexuality – and they too promote their views in their magazines, conferences, books, etc., which do influence people, especially teenagers, 20 somethings and naïve or insecure adult women (and some men).

Preachers, and other Christian personalities, such as Ed Young Sr., Mark Driscoll, Jimmy Evans, Christian marriage guru M. Gungor and others, teach the belief that “women and girls don’t like sex, don’t want sex, and don’t think about sex” constantly in their books, blogs, and sermons.

Here are some of my posts about these topics:

Christian stereotypes about female sexuality:
https://christianpundit.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/christian-stereotypes-about-female-sexuality-all-unmarried-women-are-supposedly-hyper-sexed-harlots-but-all-married-ones-are-supposedly-frigid-or-totally-uninterested-in-sex/

When Women Wanted Sex Much More Than Men – and how the stereotype flipped:
https://christianpundit.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/when-women-wanted-sex-much-more-than-men-and-how-the-stereotype-flipped/

The reverse to that Christian stereotype about women is that all Christian men are horny horn dogs who are so sexually uncontrolled they are practically raping every woman they meet. I have blogged about that before too.

John Morgan said,
“How are churches presenting saving sex until marriage in a “distorted way.” It sounds like what you experienced was due to your own unrealistic expectations, not due to anything the church taught. “

Wow. You pretend on your own blog as though Christians get singles and celibacy all wrong, but then you come on to this blog and say the exact opposite, which makes it sound as though you are just trolling this lady’s blog post.

Yes, churches are in fact teaching virginity-until-marriage in a distorted way.

I have example after example at my blog of how they are doing so. Churches constantly re-enforce unrealistic expectations, such as telling young Christians if they just wait until their wedding night to have sex, that the sex will be great and wonderful – which is often not the case at all (I have examples at my blog).

Most churches these days are not supporting virginity, but for the ones who bother to do so, they are adding a lot of un-biblical baggage on to the concept that messes people up, or giving men sexist ideas about women and female sexuality.

Here are some examples of how Christians make dating overly sexualized and instill a fear that a kiss on the cheek, meeting for a cup of coffee, or hand holding can lead to sex…

Also, some Christian para-church groups teach a bogus thing called “emotional virginity” where they warn the genders not to talk too much to each other, because that equals fornication, or will lead to it. See these examples:

Independent Fundamentalist Baptist College Kid Friendship Permission Form – Christians lowering marriage rates due to their own stupid teachings about sex, dating, marriage, etc

https://christianpundit.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/independent-fundamentalist-baptist-college-kid-friendship-permission-form-christians-lowering-marriage-rates-due-to-their-own-stupid-teachings-about-sex-dating-marriage-etc/

Sterling Example of How Christians are Keeping Single Christians Single Forever (Re Very Long Courtship List)
https://christianpundit.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/sterling-example-of-how-christians-are-keeping-single-christians-single-forever/

How Christians Keep Christians Single (part 4) – and Emotional Virginity Teaching
https://christianpundit.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/how-christians-keep-christians-single-part-4-and-emotional-virginity-teaching/

Another person, named R.S., left him this comment ((Link): Source)

    The tone of your response is really troubling to me because you seem to distilling her points into the most extreme conclusions and then dismissing them. I don’t think she was trying to say this is EVERYONE’S experience with “The Church” but that this sort of warped view of sex has been damaging to those raised with it, and yet it is still being taught in some churches.

1. Believe it. Some strains of fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity, especially those that subscribe to the purity/courtship movement, DO preach that kissing, holding hands, etc can be a ‘slippery slope’. Some churches are more explicit and strict than others about the boundaries of physical contact between sexes, but it is definitely seen in many Christian circles as being suspect. An example: “‎True love isn’t expressed in passionately whispered words, an intimate kiss, or a embrace; before two people are married, love is expressed in self-control, patience, even words left unsaid.” (Joshua Harris) And this: http://www.amazon.com/Princess-Kiss-Story-Gods-Purity/dp/0871628686 (PS When can we expect the publication of ‘The Price and the Kiss’ or is ‘purity’ only for girls?)

2. No, it’s not. But some churches set up false expectations when they overemphasized the rewards of staying a virgin until marriage and failed to mention the challenges that come with it once married. Like implying that it would be possible to repress all sexual thoughts and actions through puberty and young adulthood, and then suddenly flip the switch and be able to have mind-blowing martial sex that was “worth the wait”. Or the frequent promise that sex or marriage would be ‘blessed’ because you did it “God’s way”. So when those things don’t turn out to be true, it can be devastating to one’s identity (something must be wrong with ME), or one’s faith (God didn’t keep his promises).

3. Um no. This train of thought is alive and well in many churches. Men are from Mars and only want sex sex sex. Women are from Venus and want emotional intimacy. Men are sexual animals, women are frigid prudes. Pick up almost any Christian dating/marriage advice book and it couldn’t be clearer on how narrowly the genders are defined by these sexual stereotypes. This type of thinking is so prevalent in so many churches that I actually wonder if Christians are the ones who propagated these beliefs in our culture at large and not the other way around. Christian purity culture is no different except for the massive double standard it espouses: that “all guys think about and want is sex” (and therefore should be treated with suspicion), that women should dress modestly to “keep their brother from stumbling” (as if they are responsible for controlling their brother’s actions), that women must set the boundaries and hold the reigns on how physical things get because guys just can’t control themselves. But there’s not a word on WOMEN being obsessed with sex, turned on by guy’s bodies, or having trouble controlling sexual urges… in fact it is often implied that young women who desire purity must control themselves AND their ‘brothers’.

4. Churches who overemphasize purity/virginity as being the most valuable thing a young woman can possess and sexual sin as being the worst thing she can possibly do programs a lot of guilt, shame, repression, and confusion into impressionable young minds regarding pretty much any form of sexual expression, and that doesn’t necessarily go away once married. I think churches that preach that are deeply responsible for the twisted sexuality they have promoted and the damaging effects it has had.

Since it sounds like you might be unfamiliar with this ‘purity culture’ strain of teaching that has infested so many churches, here are some blog posts from other women who have lived through it:
http://www.elizabethesther.com/2013/01/virginity-new-improved.html

In which I am damaged goods

http://darcysheartstirrings.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-teachings-of-emotio…
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/permissiontolive/2011/04/courtship-is-not-t…
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/09/elizabeth-smart-pur…

Yes, I have been blogging about those very points on this blog the last couple of years, in posts such as:

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

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

(Link): Groundbreaking News: Women Like Sex (part 1, 2) (articles)

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

(Link): Relationships Of Welcome, Not Fear (Re: How Sexist Christian Views Marginalize and Isolate Adult, Single Women and Maintain Other Stereotypes About Adult Singles)

(Link): Hey Ed Stetzer: Opposite Gender Friendships Are Not Sinful – Ed Stetzer’s Advice: “Avoid Any Hint” – More Like: Re Enforce UnBiblical Stereotypes About Men, Women, Sex, and Singles

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

(Link): Jason the Christian’s Sexless Marriage – Christians promise hot regular steamy married sex but it isn’t true

(Link): Marriage Doesn’t Necessarily Guarantee Great Sex or Any At All

(Link): Problems Created by Conservative Christian Teachings About Virginity, Sex, and Marriage: Christian Couple Who Were Virgins At Marriage Are Experiencing Sexual Problems – Re: UnVeiled Wife (Marriage does not guarantee great sex)

(Link): Getting Married Does Not Necessarily Guarantee Frequent Hot Satisfying Sexy Sex / (also discussed): Gender and Sex Stereotypes (article)

Sexualizing Modesty – Christians Defeating the Purpose

Sexualizing Modesty – Christians Defeating the Purpose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where I Agree with the Pro Modesty Side

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Side Note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But to me, that is a double standard.

Where I Agree With the Anti Modesty Side

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

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

Continue reading “Sexualizing Modesty – Christians Defeating the Purpose”

Childless and happy: The new tribe of women?

Childless and happy: The new tribe of women?

(Link): Childless and happy: The new tribe of women?

Excerpts:

    More parties, more sleep, less stress. Childlessness is not a negative for growing numbers of women.

    … Being “child-free” is not the great tragedy in my life. I travel a lot. I have fantastic friends. In my spare time I’ve written a couple of books. I live with three unruly cats.

    Yet I’m also part of a growing trend. One in five Irish women over 45 is now childless. A new OECD study revealed that women in Ireland have the fourth highest rate of childlessness in the developed world (after Italy, Austria and Britain).

    The child-free are no longer a strange aberration, pitied by society. In fact, 43pc of university-educated women from Generation X (born from the early 1960s to the early 1980s) remain childless.

    Sometimes, it surprises me. How did I manage to avoid the template that is laid out so clearly for women? Maybe it’s that time has a habit of slipping away while the drama is going on elsewhere.

    Looking back, in my relationships I was drawn to creative, depressive men. My father suffered anxiety attacks throughout my childhood so it was something I knew quite a lot about.

    …The OECD study highlights issues that make it harder for couples to begin family life: it takes a long time to get on the housing ladder even with a professional job; there’s a lack of affordable childcare.

    Many women delay having children until they feel more secure to take maternity leave; others haven’t met a significant other likely to make a good co-parent (dubbed “social infertility”).

    … A study of families in the US found that no group of parents, whether married, single, step or empty-nesters, reported significantly greater emotional wellbeing than adults with no children. In contrast, other factors such as not having a job or friends did have a major impact.

    In essence, a child brings huge joy, but it also brings anxiety about the future, which pretty much cancels out the joy. Pets, on the other hand, are truly emotionally rewarding.

    It helped that I never felt that gnawing baby hunger.

((read the rest here))
——————-
Related:

(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

The Christian, Liberal, and Feminist Tendency to Intellectualize Away the Meaningfulness of Female Virginity; Also: Are Engagement Rings Sexist? Liberal Vs Conservatives Sound Off

The Christian, Liberal, and Feminist Tendency to Intellectualize Away the Meaningfulness of Female Virginity; Also: Are Engagement Rings Sexist? Liberal Vs Conservatives Sound Off

✮ From the liberal corner:
(Link): Engagement rings are barbaric

✮ The conservative reaction:
(Link): Engagement rings are barbaric because men are awful or something

✮ My reaction:
This is another time the secular, left wing feminists are off their rockers (I sometimes agree with them, usually do not and this is one of those times, no, I don’t agree). I see no harm or inherent sexism in a freaking engagement ring.

Here are excerpts from the Salon page, with commentary about it, by me, below it:

(Link): Engagement rings are barbaric

    Sparkly rocks remind us of an age when women were considered a form of chattel
    by SHANNON RUPP, THE TYEE

    Unsavoury custom

    … The engagement ring is not, as diamond advertisers of the last 80 years or so have insisted, a symbol of love: it’s a sort of down payment on a virgin vagina.

    I’ve always thought giving engagement rings was a slightly unsavoury custom, given that it began in an era when women were chattel, more or less. It’s hardly romantic. The rings remind me of a time when women couldn’t own property because they were property. Well, except for widows. There’s a reason that Merry Widow of opera fame was so merry.

    As Scott Fitzgerald noticed in the 1920s, the rich are different from you and me, and the custom of laying down an engagement ring was something rich people did in an era when marriage was recognized for what it really is: a business contract. It was done to secure property (and political alliances among royalty and the aristocracy) and to ensure there would be an heir and a spare to inherit it all.

    That’s why female virginity was such a big deal. It had financial value because it was connected to property. Pre-DNA testing, no one could be sure who the father was unless the bride was irreproachably chaste. And no one wants to see property going to bastards. Post-delivery of the requisite sons, everyone was free to go about discreet amusements, and the country weekend at the manor house came into vogue.

    … Then, engagement rings functioned as a sort of retainer — a lease-a-womb scheme, if you will. The unspoken part of the deal was that an engagement often allowed for a sampling of the goods.

    … Frances Gerety (who incidentally was a spinster) cleverly connected romantic love to diamond engagement rings, forever. She obscured their creepy origins as down payments on chattel, and diamond purveyors are still profiting from her sharp thinking.

    …That’s not a coincidence, and it’s not just the wedding industry ramping up. Apparently about half of couples were having premarital sex in the 1940s, and researchers believe that women were looking for some sign of commitment from a man before doing the wild thing. In an era of unreliable birth control, a ring was still seen as a down payment and a sort of insurance policy in the event the man bolted and left her holding the baby.

Since when is a woman having a “virgin vagina” or entering into marriage with one, an “unsavory custom?”

Is this another sign that secularists, left wingers, and others, are biased against adult virgins, or biased against the idea of a woman choosing to remain a virgin until marriage? Because it kind of sounds like it.

As to this:

    That’s why female virginity was such a big deal. It had financial value because it was connected to property. (etc)

This is another dismissal of virginity, another tactic I have seen used not just by secularists and left wingers, but one I’ve seen used a time or two on Christian, or ex-Christian sites, especially by women who are red hot infuriated over “modesty” and “purity” teachings.

Women who are opposed to virginity try to argue that the only reason any woman at any time in history has remained a virgin until marriage is due to patriarchal concerns about tracing the family tree, and at that, with monetary inheritance concerns.

Continue reading “The Christian, Liberal, and Feminist Tendency to Intellectualize Away the Meaningfulness of Female Virginity; Also: Are Engagement Rings Sexist? Liberal Vs Conservatives Sound Off”

Pervy Preacher from Seattle who teaches men “to objectify women, by his over emphasis of sexualization of women and subservience” (Re Driscoll)

Pervy Preacher from Seattle who teaches men “to objectify women, by his over emphasis of sexualization of women and subservience” (Re Driscoll)

I have blogged on this cretin before. Driscoll is sexist, and anti-singles, both anti male singles and anti female singles.

Driscoll, oddly, out of one side of his mouth, will condemn pornography in some of his sermons or books, but then tell his male church members on other occasions, whether in sermons or in books, that their wives are nothing more than sex blow up dolls, there to do their every sexual bidding, even indulging in sex acts most women do not want or enjoy, such as anal sex, or performing a blow job on their husband.

(That’s right men, most women do not like giving blow jobs, which is one of your seemingly biggest fantasies. Over the span of my entire life, all women I’ve met in person, or have read their musings online, only one or two have said they enjoy performing oral sex on a man. Most women get no pleasure out of it, it grosses them out, and many say it makes them feel like a five dollar crack whore.

I also notice that when writing about marital sex, or sermonizing on it, many conservative male preachers never, ever advise the husbands to perform oral sex on their wives, or perform whatever other sex act… it’s always very selfishly framed in how the woman can meet the man’s sexual needs.)

Mark Driscoll is a married father, and he is a sexual pervert… and yet, Christians insist on portraying or thinking of all older (as in over age 30) never-married, childless men as being homosexuals, over sexed Don Juans, or some other type of sexual deviant.

That Driscoll is on record (in his book on marriage, if I am not mistaken, or was it a sermon?) as saying he and his wife’s marriage was sexless for a few years (or unsatisfactory sexually in some other manner) also does not speak well of the conservative Christian propaganda that married sex is super great, so, if you just wait until you’re married to have sex, there will be fire works in the bedroom all the time.

A long excerpt from
(Link): Inside Mars Hill’s massive meltdown

    by By Stacey Solie
    July 2014

    SEX

    It was also around the mid-2000s that members noticed Driscoll’s growing preoccupation with sex.

    Driscoll also started to preach more about male privilege and sexual entitlement. This had a damaging impact on many marriages, said Rob Thain Smith, who, with Merle, was acting as an informal marriage counselor to many young couples.

    “He created enormous abuse of wives,” Smith said. “He helped young men objectify women, by his over emphasis of sexualization of women and subservience.”

    “The way Driscoll talked, you thought that he was getting it every night. All these men are seeing his hot wife, and are thinking he’s got it made.”

    In Real Marriage, Driscoll bitterly describes a largely sexless marriage, and seems to imply that he’s been acting out all these years because he was sexually frustrated at home.

    Continue reading “Pervy Preacher from Seattle who teaches men “to objectify women, by his over emphasis of sexualization of women and subservience” (Re Driscoll)”