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)”

Follow Up Part 2 – Reactions by Other Writers to Sexist, Condescending 50 Something Men Who Think They Are Final Arbiters of If Women Are Attractive Past Age of 40 (Re: Esquire Editorial by Junod)

Follow Up Part 2 – Reactions by Other Writers to Sexist, Condescending 50 Something Men Who Think They Are Final Arbiters of If Women Are Attractive Past Age of 40 (Re: Esquire Editorial by Junod)

Original Post:

Follow Up 1:

More backlash:

Note: as to this link below, at the LA Times, the section on the page entitled “It misleads women into thinking they have time” was actually quite sexist. I have chosen to not paste that part of the page in.

That part was written by a Charlotte Allen who argues that all men will always favor 22 year old women over 42 year old women, mostly because most men want to have babies.

I don’t know what rock that woman writer is living under, but women in their 40s still get their periods every month and conceive ((Link): read this page for starters – that is one but several pages I have on this blog noting that lots and lots more women are getting pregnant, some for the first time, over age 40).

I personally never really cared if I had a baby or not, but I think it’s sexist to say that women over 40 are basically unvaluable (to men) because, in the writer’s opinion, they’re all barren (they are not, by the way. A lot of “oops” pregnancies happen to women over 40, because they go off birth control under the mistaken notion “I can no longer get pregnant, or not easily.”)

(Link): What’s so offensive about Esquire’s praise of 42-year-old women?

Excerpts:

    By ALEXANDRA LE TELLIER

    Women don’t need a writer dressed in feminist clothing to define her worth by his own narrow definitions

    Tom Junod set the social web aflame with his article praising 42-year-old women. Never did one think that Esquire, a men’s magazine that’s stayed above the lad mag fray, could enrage so many people. But that it did, with people accusing Junod of sexism.

    “Let’s face it: There used to be something tragic about even the most beautiful forty-two-year-old woman,” Junod begins. Now, he writes, “it may be said that the best thing that forty-two-year-old American men have going for them is forty-two-year-old American women.”

    It might sound like a compliment, but women aren’t buying it.

    … I asked some of our female writers for their thoughts, and here’s what they had to say.

    Where has Junod been?

    … And, men, you now have Esquire’s permission to objectify women in their 40s without being creepy to other men. (But, again, only if the women do Pilates and yoga.) This expands your potential ogling to hundreds, even thousands more women each year.

    Kidding aside, I find the whole premise of the piece to be completely outdated, if it was ever true to begin with. It’s as though Esquire and Junod have been cryogenically frozen for the last 20 to 30 years and woke up to discover this new creature in mass media called the Modern Woman. She’s independent! She’s empowered! She’s still sexy at 40!

    But my biggest complaint is that Junod and Esquire reinforce the sexualization of women in general — the idea that the value of a woman is how much she arouses a man.

    Continue reading “Follow Up Part 2 – Reactions by Other Writers to Sexist, Condescending 50 Something Men Who Think They Are Final Arbiters of If Women Are Attractive Past Age of 40 (Re: Esquire Editorial by Junod)”

Posts By A. Marcotte Re Various Topics E.G.: Pre-Marital Sex, Virginity, Modesty Teachings, Marriage, Divorce, Childfree, Birth Control, Early Marriage, Gender Roles, Female Libido, etc

Posts By A. Marcotte Re Various Topics E.G.: Pre-Marital Sex, Virginity, Modesty Teachings, Marriage, Divorce, Childfree, Birth Control, Early Marriage, Gender Roles, Sexual Harassment, Female Libido, etc

Please remember that I am right wing and respect people remaining virgins until marriage, but this woman, Marcotte, is left wing, and in at least one of her posts, she slightly mocked the concept of virginity (see, left wing feminists will defend any and all sexual choices to the hilt except for voluntary virginity / celibacy), but, I do agree with her in part in some other areas.

Posts by By Amanda Marcotte:

(Link): Where Are the Men in Child-Free Trend Pieces?

(Link): The Case Against Marrying Young

(Link): “Slut Pills” Would Work Best for Women Who Don’t Have Lots of Sex

(Link): Family-Friendly Workplaces Are Great, Unless You Don’t Have Kids

(Link): Where Are the Men in Trend Stories About Women?

(Link): Men Are From Mars and Women Are From … Mars [Men and Women Are Not That Different]

Continue reading “Posts By A. Marcotte Re Various Topics E.G.: Pre-Marital Sex, Virginity, Modesty Teachings, Marriage, Divorce, Childfree, Birth Control, Early Marriage, Gender Roles, Female Libido, etc”

Gender Complementarian book by David Murrow that upholds most every gender stereotype I rail against on this blog

Gender Complementarian book that upholds most every gender stereotype I rail against on this blog
——————————————
Reminder: there is coming a time I will not be blogging here at all, or not nearly as often. Please read more about that situation here: [Blog Break]
——————————————
This other blog discusses Christian gender complementarianism and covers some of the same topics I discuss on this blog. Here is a review the blogger did about a gender comp book by Murrow:

(Link): “What Your Husband Isn’t Telling You”: Is this book telling women the truth about men?

Excerpts:

    In his book entitled, “What Your Husband Isn’t Telling You,” David Murrow makes a number generalizations about men. He seems to believe that his view of what it means to be a man is normative, healthy and Christian. He writes as if men are simply “wired this way” by God.

    Here are some of his assertions, followed by my responses:

    Murrow (makes a number of comments about sex):

    … “Men actually get a cocaine-like shot of pleasure from looking at a beautiful woman. So here’s your assignment: Give your husband as many cocaine shots as possible. Satisfy his addiction by looking your best” (pp. 163-164).

    “And why are looks so important to men?” “Men compare. Men compete. Men size each other up by their spouses” (p. 164). “Having a knockout wife raises your social standing at work, among your relatives, and even a bit at church” (p. 165).

    Response:

    Women are not responsible for their husbands’ behaviour.

    … If he has married his wife because he believes her beauty enhances his social standing at church (or anywhere else), he should seek to understand his worth as a loved child of God and friend of Jesus Christ.

I would encourage you to visit that blog and read the ENTIRE post, click here.

This Murrow guy expends a lot of time and effort blaming women for why their husbands cheat. He puts all responsibility on the woman to stay physically attractive and hot-looking to keep their husbands from looking at porn or from having affairs. First of all, it’s not a woman’s responsibility to keep her man from straying – it’s his own duty.

Secondly, a woman being hot, attractive, sexy, and babelicious does not keep a man from straying, witness all the famous movie star men, sports stars, and male rock singers who get married to stunning model beauties but who have affairs on those wives anyway (see: golfer Tiger Woods).

If you find yourself married to a partner who has let him or herself go, and she/he refuses to get in shape or make an effort at his appearance after you’ve talked to them about it, consider divorce… don’t have an affair or wank off to porn all day.

If a man is that terribly hung up about what his wife looks like, that indicates he is very immature. This disproves the Christian notion, believed and taught by some Christians, that God only grants a spouse to people who are fully deserving of one (e.g., godly, humble, self-less, etc).

Other good posts at that other blog include:

From EQUALITY FOR WOMEN AND MEN IN THE CHRISTIAN FAITH Blog:

(Link): Why Complementarians “See” Male Leadership as God’s Design: The Psychology of Perception (Seeing What We Already Believe)

I like the title of this blog post, because it gets to the heart of the matter – Christians who are into gender complementarianism claim that women are equal to men, but their views and teachings on women totally belie that claim, because they spend their time rationalizing their sexist views (e.g., women cannot or should not lead or teach men, or husbands have authority over wives, etc):
(Link): Rationalizing Inequality

(Link): Is Mutual Submission Really a Myth?
—————————-
Related posts this blog:

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

(Link): Gender Complementarian Product for Females: Don’t Base Your Value on Your Looks, but Wait, Yes, You Should

(Link): How Christians Have Failed on Teaching Maturity and Morality Vis A Vis Marriage / Parenthood – Used as Markers of Maturity Or Assumed to be Sanctifiers – Also: More Hypocrisy – Christians Teach You Need A Spouse to Be Purified, But Also Teach God Won’t Send You a Spouse Until You Become Purified

(Link): Atlantic: “The case for abandoning the myth that ‘women aren’t visual.’”

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

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

(Link): Following the Usual Advice Won’t Get You Dates or Married – Even Celebrities Have A Hard Time (Good Looks and Lots of Money are NOT guarantees you can get a spouse or even dates) (part 1)

(Link): Part 2 – Following the Usual Advice Won’t Get You Dates or Married – Even CHRISTIAN Celebrities Have A Hard Time

(Link): Modesty: A Female-Only Virtue? – Christian Double Standards – Hypocrisy

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

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

(Link): Pat Robertson to married woman: All men are cheaters and sex crazed horn dogs, but that’s okay because they’re men

(Link): Pat Robertson raises the old canard about females dressing modestly and males supposedly being visually oriented

(Link): Advocate of Family Values Doesn’t Uphold Family Values | Stop Asking Pat Robertson for Advice America!

(Link): Do men really have higher sex drives than women? (article/study)

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

(Link): Some Christian Women Use Pornography – No Duh. I’ve been saying this all along.

(Link): The Secret Women’s Porn Problem (article about Christian women who use porn)

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

(Link): Letter to Advice Columnist: Husband Upset That Wife Masturbates – Marriage Doesn’t Guarantee Hot Regular Sex For Both or Either Partner, Contra Usual Christian Claims

(Link): Yes, Some Women Use and Look at Pornography

(Link): New Study Released: Cheaters: More American Married Women Admit to Adultery (links)

(Link): Superman, Man Candy -and- Christian Women Are Visual And Enjoy Looking At Built, Hot, Sexy Men

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    by W. BRADFORD WILCOX AND ROBIN FRETWELL WILSON June 10

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

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

—(end excerpt)—

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

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

Here are various rebuttals and commentary in response:

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

Excerpts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—(end excerpt)—

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

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

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

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

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

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): Are Marriage and Family A Woman’s Highest Calling?

Excerpt:

    by Marcia Wolf

Does every woman in the church need to be married with children in order to lead a happy, fulfilling life?

Certainly not.

But many single women may feel pressure to comply with what the church often upholds as an ideal state of womanhood.

Kate Wallace is a single woman with a budding career as cofounder of the Junia Project, an organization that advocates for women in leadership at all levels of the church.

A devout Christian, Wallace believes the church tends to overlook single women in favor of married women with kids.

Continue reading “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”

Why I Cheated On My Husband – Various Women Explain Why They Had Affairs

Why I Cheated On My Husband – Various Women Explain Why They Had Affairs

Some evangelical, Reformed, fundamentalist, or Baptist Christians likes to live in the land of fantasy, where they often teach and believe that marriage and being a parent makes a person more godly, mature, holy and responsible.

And often, those same groups adhere to and spread false hoods about adult singles and the childfree and childless, that we are selfish, weird, losers, or are not fulfilling God’s roles for our lives.

They also erroneously teach that marriage makes people immune from sexual sin, but it does no such thing. Here are some more examples.

(Link) Why I Cheated On My Husband

    By Colleen Oakley

    The first question that comes to mind when a spouse cheats is: Why?

    A recent study by the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, attempted to answer that question and found that the reasons behind infidelity differ greatly between the sexes. For men, it’s typically about the sex-the more sexually excitable they are, the more likely they are to cheat.

    For women, it’s more about the level of satisfaction in her relationship; if a woman is unhappy in her marriage, she’s 2.6 times more likely to cheat.

    Regardless of the reason, there’s one thing that’s certain: infidelity is devastating. But there can be a silver lining.

    “In many cases, it forces issues to the surface of a relationship that would have never otherwise been dealt with,” says Kevin Hansen, author of Secret Regrets: What if You Had a Second Chance?

    Read on to discover what life lessons these five women gained through their personal experiences with infidelity-and what you can learn from their stories.

    “My husband was abusive.”
    “From the day I married my husband, I knew it was a mistake,” says 50-year-old Elizabeth Smith.* “He was abusive, controlling and expected me to quit my job to make a home for him.”

    A little over a year into the marriage, she began having an affair with a man that she worked with.

    “I had no illusions that I was in love, but it was eye-opening to be with someone that made me feel good about myself, made me laugh and respected me for who I was-not who he wanted me to be,” she says.

    “The affair helped me find myself and proved to me that I could live a life independent of my husband. It also gave me the courage to ask for a divorce. Twenty-five years later, I’m married to a wonderful man. We love making each other happy, and never try to change who the other person is,” she says.

    “We began to resent each other.”
    When Vanessa Myers*, 28, married her husband six years ago, they both couldn’t wait to have children, but after their wedding day something changed for her.

    “I started to really love my job, and kids didn’t seem to fit into the picture,” she says. Her husband was hurt by her change of heart, and began to resent her.

    Continue reading “Why I Cheated On My Husband – Various Women Explain Why They Had Affairs”

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

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

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

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

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

    by AMANDA MARCOTTE, ALTERNET

    This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Study (2014) Says Women More Stressed By Home Than Work

New Study (2014) Says Women More Stressed By Home Than Work

But so many Christians portray stay at home wife and motherhood as being bliss for women. Come to find out, women don’t always enjoy being SAHMs.

(Link): Why You’re More Stressed by Home Than Work

Excerpt:

    by Belinda Luscombe
    May 22, 2014

    A new study out from the Council on Contemporary Families suggests that contrary to most surveys, people are actually more stressed at home than at work.

    Three Penn State researchers measured people’s cortisol, which is a stress marker, while they were at work and while they were at home and found it higher at what is supposed to be a place of refuge.

    “Further contradicting conventional wisdom, we found that women as well as men have lower levels of stress at work than at home” writes one of the authors, Sarah Damaske, assistant professor of labor and employment relations, sociology and women’s studies at Penn State (the italics are hers).

    In fact women even say they feel better at work, she notes. “It is men, not women, who report being happier at home than at work.”

    Another surprise is that the findings hold true, says Damaske, for both those with children and without, but more so for nonparents. This is why, the authors conclude, people who work outside the home have better health.

    What the study doesn’t measure is whether people are still doing work when they’re at home, whether it’s household work or work brought home from the office. For many men, the end of the workday is a time to kick back. For women who stay home, they never get to leave the office.

    And for women who work outside the home, they often are playing catch up with household tasks.

    With the blurring of roles, and the fact that the home front lags well behind the workplace in making adjustments for working women, it’s not surprising that women are more stressed at home.

    But it’s not just a gender thing. At work, people pretty much know what they’re supposed to be doing: working, earning money, doing the tasks they have to do in order to draw an income.

    The bargain is very pure: employee puts in hours of physical or mental labor and employee draws out life-sustaining moola.

———————–
Related posts:

(Link): The Changing American Family (article)

(Link): The Jetson Fallacy – Much longer lifespans could explode the nuclear family (article)

(Link): Widows and Childless and Childfree Have Better Well Being Than Married Couples and Parents says new study

(Link): 5 Scientifically Proven Reasons It’s Better To Be Single

(Link): More single dads than ever head US households

(Link): Remarriage rates plunge as divorced Americans have doubts – and about Christian culture and divorce and remarriage vs singleness

(Link): (Articles) Marriage Rate At All Time Low

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

(Link) Family Is Not a Norman Rockwell Painting, Christians: Man kept dead mom in freezer for 3 years, cashed her Social Security checks: cops

Mother Entitlement – Selfish, Self-Centered Mothers Complain that They Are Not Getting ENOUGH Mother Worship from Culture, Church, or Family on Mother’s Day and Some Moms Complain About Churches Showing Compassion to Childless Women

Mother Entitlement – Selfish, Self-Centered Mothers Complain that They Are Not Getting ENOUGH Mother Worship from Culture, Church, or Family on Mother’s Day and Some Moms Complain About Churches Showing Compassion to Childless Women

I remember seeing posts like this (see link below) last year at Mother’s Day – there are actually mothers out there, including Christian and Mormon ones, who feel that their churches do not do ENOUGH to honor them on Mommy’s Day.

Some mothers I’ve seen go further than that and insult or mock childless (or childfree) women in the comments of blogs that ask people to be more sensitive to the feelings of non mothers.

These bitter, hate-filled mothers spit out, on such blogs, comments such as, “Screw the childless women, what about me, I work hard as a mom all year and DESERVE some recognition.”

Yep, they are that blunt and nasty about it in their comments. (I have a real sample below, with a link to said blog, but it’s by a guy, not a lady, but it’s representative of the type of crap angry mothers who whine about being under-appreciated leave on blogs).

No, I am not exaggerating, I have indeed seen a smattering of such vitriolic comments by mothers on various blogs the last two years, even on Christian blogs by women who claim they are Christian!

Even though churches WORSHIP motherhood 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and hype it up on Mother’s Day itself even more so, these selfish mommy dolts think churches should worship mommy-hood EVEN MORE than they already do.

Meanwhile, never-married, childless, divorced, widowed, and childfree adult women get absolutely NO HOLIDAYS in THEIR honor, so why should I care if mommies don’t feel honored enough on Mother’s Day?

Some mothers are the most selfish, hateful people on the face of the planet.

Some mothers expect and demand everyone around them in their families and at church to make a big fuss over them.

I thought motherhood was supposed to be its own reward?

If motherhood is so lofty, so noble, so high and mighty, and it supposedly makes a woman totally content, and you buy into Christian swill about mom-hood being a woman’s only, or most, godly role in life, why do you, little Ms. Entitled Mommy, need or want others to validate the position for you, by throwing you parties and handing you carnations in church services?

I thought Christians said parenthood automatically makes a person more godly and giving than being single and child-free, or it works out that way over a period of years?

That is not so, because I see many mothers online whining like little children that they don’t get enough attention and presents from their spouses or preachers on the holiday.

I cannot believe how self absorbed and self centered some mothers are.

Here is a link to a blog page by a Mormon woman –
Note that while this woman is a Mormon but her points sound about identical to the average Baptist, Reformed, or Evangelical women I see online; just swap out “Mormon” with the word “Christian” and it reads the same:

(Link): Taking Mom Out of Mother’s Day – Have We Gone Too Far?

Excerpts:

    In a desire to be sensitive toward women who are unable to have children I’m concerned that, perhaps, on Mother’s Day, we may be going a bit too far. Not that we can ever be too compassionate in acknowledging the pain that surely accompanies the inability to have children, but at the same time we shouldn’t need to pull back in giving the much needed praise, encouragement and recognition of Moms’, who are actually raising, or have raised, children — and all that that entails.

  • …In order to be politically sensitive, in all circumstances, where the issue of how women fulfill their role as mothers comes into play, it is my observation that we are becoming increasingly comfortable with relegating actual Moms’ to the back of the bus — even on Mother’s Day. And frankly, that kind of bothers me.

Here was the comment I left on her page (but it did not show up last I checked):

    Never-married and childless women such as myself get ZERO holidays for us. None. There are no cards for us. No cakes, no brunches.

  • Churches never have a “recognize and celebrate mature, celibate, never married, childless women” type of service, so I have a very hard time feeling sorry for mothers who feel their churches or communities are not doing enough to honor motherhood.

Continue reading “Mother Entitlement – Selfish, Self-Centered Mothers Complain that They Are Not Getting ENOUGH Mother Worship from Culture, Church, or Family on Mother’s Day and Some Moms Complain About Churches Showing Compassion to Childless Women”

Being Childfree, Childless, Infertile, or Dealing With the Death of a Mother on Mother’s Day, Or Dealing With An Abusive or Insensitive Mother, Mothers Who Lost Adult or Young Children to Murder, Abortion, Miscarriages, or Sickness (links)

Being Childfree, Childless, Infertile, or Dealing With the Death of a Mother on Mother’s Day, An Abusive or Insensitive Mother, Mothers Who Lost Adult Children to Murder or Sickness (links)

Disclaimer: I am not anti-motherhood, nor necessarily against people taking their mothers out to brunch on Mother’s Day, or buying dear old Mom some flowers to mark the occasion.

I am, however, against the excessive focus on motherhood, the failure to acknowledge and celebrate childless and childfree women, the onslaught of syrupy Mother’s Day hoopla, on and before the day, and the church services that honor mothers because:

  • Some people (women included) were abused by their mothers and so find the holiday awkward or painful,
  • some people had or have mothers who are/were cruel or overly-critical,
  • some people’s mothers are dead and they miss them terribly,
  • some women desire to be a mother but cannot because they are infertile, their spouse is infertile, or they are single and cannot find “Mr. Right” (and don’t believe in getting pregnant outside of marriage, or don’t feel they could support a baby alone)
  • some women choose to be child free, but feel excluded or shamed by church and secular staggering emphasis on motherhood on the holiday

Some Christians have turned motherhood (as well as fatherhood and marriage) into idols, which they should repent of.

That is one reason why churches are losing visitors and members: despite the fact that 44% of American adults are single (edit: as of 2014 studies, (Link): that figure is now 51% or greater) and a big chunk are childless, most churches either…

– IGNORE adult singles/ childless adults,
or,
-preachers and Christian talking heads insult adult singleness and adult virginity from their blogs, pod casts, books, organizations, and pulpits, by implying or forth rightly saying, that adult singleness (or being childless) makes a person stunted, or makes a person not as “godly” as being married with kids.

Now, why the hell does anyone suppose I, a never-married celibate woman, would want to attend a church where I am insulted before I ever step foot in it?

Most churches spend mountains of money on “family” ministries, family dinners, programs for youth and married couples.

Most churches and denominations do not budget time or money for adult singles anything – not classes, social functions, dinners. The big message from that is, “At our church, we don’t care about adult singles or those without children. You have to be married with a kid to count here.”

If you are a church that has a “Mother’s Day” celebration or ceremony of some sort, even if it’s very brief, you should also have one the following Sunday for all the childless, never-married women, the child free women, and infertile- but- married women too, or women who have not been able to carry a baby to term (ie, miscarry) – it’s only fair.

If you are unwilling to honor ALL women in ALL situations, ages, and life stages, at one time or another during the year in your church, nobody should get a holiday or party, none, nope, nuh-uh.

This post discusses being single and childless or childfree on Mother’s day, or other circumstances that make Mother’s Day painful for some women.

—–THE LINKS—–

(Link): For the childless this Mother’s Day (and those who love them) by S. Burden

(Link): When Mother’s Day isn’t so rosy: 6 recommended ways to cope

Excerpt

    Happy Not-A-Mother’s Day to every woman who might be reading this and does not have children. This coming Sunday, it will be Mother’s Day yet again.

  • More than likely the author of this article will attend church services with her husband and quite a few children will be passing out flowers for each of the mothers in attendance. When one of them reaches her and starts to place a beautiful blossom in her hand, she will gently refuse but thank him or her anyway.
  • The child may become confused but that will just have to be.
  • He or she does need to learn that not all the adult women that are in attendance for church are mothers.
  • The author is in her very early 40’s, an adult, and a wife but she is not anyone’s mother. For as long as the Earth has existed, the persistent ticking of most women’s biological clocks have equated their lives with one purpose only and that has been to have children.
  • However in today’s society, great numbers of married women have decided not to have them.
  • Happily the writer of this article was lucky enough to have been born at a time in history where such a choice was accepted with women, and also to luck out and find a husband who felt the same way she did about children.

(Link): ‘Childless’ or ‘Childfree’: The Difference Matters

Excerpts

    Here’s the problem: While “childless” means the condition of being without children, it implies that everyone who does not have children would like to have them. However, being “childfree,” like Mirren—and like me—means that one does not want to have children at all.
  • ….The taboo that surrounds women without children, childless or childfree, is potent.
  • We spend a lot of time explaining ourselves (or avoiding explaining ourselves) and looking for people who understand us, who don’t ask us to or expect us to explain. But at the same time, the difference between childless and childfree folks is important to take note of and apply correctly, because we are not, in fact, the same.
  • As a woman who’s childfree, I’m not experiencing reproductive challenges.
  • I’m not waiting for the right partner, or enough money, or the perfect geographic location.
  • I don’t feel like something is missing from my life because I don’t have children. I don’t want to have kids. There is no yet.
  • … That might be hard to swallow, for some—childfree folks constantly hear things like, “You’ll change your mind” and “You’ll regret it.”
  • Perhaps, because it’s still so unfathomable to the world that a woman wouldn’t want a baby, the term is deliberately misunderstood. If we keep confusing the language, the thinking may go, we can deny that childfree women exist.
  • The experience of not wanting children in a world where women are defined by their reproductive desire and potential—where women are expected to structure their lives around babies—is very different than being a woman who would like a baby or would like to be a parent some day. That difference has to do with desire.
  • If you’re a cisgender, heterosexual woman—especially a white woman—who doesn’t have a kid but wants one, you’re still in line with expectations about how a woman should behave.
  • You’re not threatening, you’re adhering.
  • A cisgender, straight woman who doesn’t want a baby is transgressive, subversive, pathological, a perpetual mystery to be solved.
  • Things may be different, of course, if you’re queer, trans, single, poor, or a person of color; as a society, we’re pretty clear on who we want to be having babies.

(Link): Mother’s Day After Abortion

    Mother’s Day is a wonderful celebration – a time when mothers are honored for their constant love and daily sacrifice, and when life itself is recognized and treasured as the gift that it is.
  • But for many women who have had abortions, Mother’s Day is one of the biggest triggers of painful memories, regrets, and remorse over what “might have been.”
  • My heart breaks for these women.
  • Even though they accepted and believed the messages our society esteems so highly – messages about a woman’s right to choose and the importance of “family planning” – these women have learned, through bitter experience, the truth that abortion is tragic for women.

(Link): Why You Should Watch What You Say on Mother’s Day

Excerpts:

      • by Lori Holden, May 2014
      • ——————–
      • An open letter to ministers, yoga teachers, rabbis, spin instructors, pastors, professors, priests, Zumba leaders, imams, motivational speakers, reverends and anyone addressing mothers and fathers in mid-May or mid-June.
      • ——————

Dear Person at the Front of the Room,

  • I know you worked really hard on that homily about Mother’s Day/Father’s Day. It’s a time of joy and appreciation and community for almost everyone you address. Thank you for your special sentiments to soothe those in your audience who don’t have their mothers or fathers accessible to them. It’s a nice touch to bring in that compassion.
  • You may not know this, but there are likely other outliers receiving your message. That 30-something lady who pulled tissues out of her purse and filled up three of them with tears and snot? That man who had to excuse himself awkwardly? That woman who tried to hide the fact that she was sobbing on her yoga mat?
  • These are people who desperately want to be a mother or father, to join the parenting club at long last. To have the cards and commercials and 30% off sales apply to them. To bring into their lives what others are able to effortlessly.
  • These are the outliers in your audience.
  • Let me tell you about some of them.
  • Could be a woman who found out this morning that her third IVF attempt didn’t work — no line on the pee stick. To make matters worse, she turns 35 next week and her medical chart will be marked AMA — advanced maternal age. Her prospects for success with future treatments looks unbearably bleak.
  • Could be a couple who has been waiting in an adoption pool for 28 months. Each period she has — each turn of the calendar page — marks another month their prayers have gone unanswered.
  • Could be a couple who thought they were finally going to be admitted to the Mother’s Day/Father’s Day club, but whose hopes ended in a miscarriage, stillbirth, or neonatal death.
  • Could be a couple whose planned surrogate is suddenly unavailable to them.
  • Could be a man who wore the title of Dad for a few months — until his baby died.
  • Could be a woman who experienced an unexpected pregnancy and took the course to place her baby in the arms of another mother.
  • Could be a couple who has exhausted their options and who has resigned themselves to living a child-free life. Not so much by choice as by circumstance.

Written by a Child Free, lesbian Woman (you do not have to be a lesbian or agree with or endorse lesbianism to relate to what this woman says):

(Link): On Not Being a Parent by Julie R. Enszer

    As the United States moves into the frenzied celebrations of female parenthood, I want to register an alternate voice and declare my autonomy from children. I am not a parent, and I am happy to not be a parent.
  • I am a child-free woman. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2008, about 17 percent of women between the age of 40 and 44 had not had a child. This is a significant number of women without children in the United States today.
  • Child-free women do not speak out enough. We are not necessarily women who wanted children but could not have them; we are not necessarily women who forgot to have children; we are not necessarily women who missed a crucial life milestone. Being child-free is not necessarily a source of shame or regret.
  • I want to say plainly: I am blessed to not have children. I have more time and energy to devote to creative pursuits and projects that fuel my passions in the world.

(Link): A Bittersweet Mother’s Day

    Mother’s Day can be such a bittersweet time. It is a special day to celebrate our mothers, but for those of us who have lost our mothers, did not have a caring mother or have not been able to experience the joys of motherhood despite trying, it can be a painful reminder.

Continue reading “Being Childfree, Childless, Infertile, or Dealing With the Death of a Mother on Mother’s Day, Or Dealing With An Abusive or Insensitive Mother, Mothers Who Lost Adult or Young Children to Murder, Abortion, Miscarriages, or Sickness (links)”

Biblical Womanhood Does Not Hinge Upon Marital Status or Parenthood – also: Christians who portray all women as sexual temptresses – by S. Burden

Biblical Womanhood Does Not Hinge Upon Marital Status or Parenthood – also: Christians who portray all women as sexual temptresses – by S. Burden

(Link): What we talk about when we talk about women in church: part one

(Link): What we talk about when we talk about women in church: part two

Excerpts (from part 2):

    by S. Burden

    No female can be excluded from this grand vision by her circumstances or lack of opportunities; it is a wildly inclusive plan. And through Jesus’ words in the gospels, a woman’s calling is defined even further. We see it in this quote from Reclaiming Eve:

      Let me be clear: the highest calling on any woman’s life is to love the Lord her God with all of her heart, to love her neighbor as she loves herself, and to take the good news of Jesus to the world.

    … So what is a biblical woman?

    She is not primarily a homemaker or a breadwinner, a mother or a childless woman, a person who “has” worldly possessions or “has not.”

(Link): What we talk about when we talk about women in church: part one

Excerpts from Part 1:

    … Our theology, history-wise, comes from men who were often openly sexist, men who viewed women disdainfully, from a place of superiority. And, I am sorry to say, I believe we are still buying some of what they are selling, even if we can’t back it up biblically.

    I attended a class once on Church Leadership. At one point, the instructor told a sad story of a pastor who was ensnared in adultery and sex with a minor.

    The instructor extolled the dangers of pastors meeting alone with a female and told of the vast damage done to his ministry and his family. He talked about the need for extremely tight boundaries around interactions with women. I knew the boundaries he suggested would limit women in a myriad of ways.

    But what was so confusing about the story is this: the pastor had intentionally invited a young women repeatedly to his office, after hours, when the secretary was gone, to counsel her. So was the young woman inherently dangerous? Or did the pastor put himself in a situation ripe for compromise?

—————–
Related:

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

(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): Un-Married Woman Pushes Back Against Stereotype Held By Married Woman That Single Females are Sexual Temptresses

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

(Link): Atlantic: “The case for abandoning the myth that ‘women aren’t visual.’”

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

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

(Link): Is The Church Failing Childless Women? by Diane Paddison

(Link): Married Men, Please Stop Hitting on Me by K. Ezie

(Link): New Study Released: Cheaters: More American Married Women Admit to Adultery (links)

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

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

Confusing Sexual Assault and Sexual Abuse with Consensual Sex and Then Condemning Sexual Purity Teachings – and other, related topics

Confusing Sexual Assault and Sexual Abuse with Consensual Sex and Then Condemning Sexual Purity Teachings – and other, related topics

SUMMARY:

    A lot of Christians (usually theologically and politically liberal or moderate) and Non-Christians think that because Christian sexual purity teachings (which includes the teaching that having pre-marital sex is sinful) causes victims of sexual abuse to feel sad, ashamed, or bad, that Christians should drop biblical sexual teachings altogether, or stop insisting that pre martial sex is sinful. I disagree.

While I am sympathetic to victims of sexual abuse, the Bible none – the – less still teaches that CONSENSUAL sexual activity outside of marriage remains immoral.

I was skimming over the “Stuff Christian Culture Likes” facebook group today, where I saw a link there to this discussion on Reddit:

    (Link):

How Christian Purity Culture Enabled My Father’s Abuse, submitted by J__P (aka King Coupons?)

Here are some excerpts from that page:

    [by JP / King Coupons]

So, as the daughters [of the self professing Christian men] were kept inside, while the sons worked, the fathers pushed the men with the motivation that one day they’d get to have their daughters, as if that was the only proper motivation.

I later learned, in college, after I’d already abandoned my faith in God, that this man had regularly abused his daughters, both physically and sexually.

They were still virgins, though, of course, by the technical standards of the Southern Baptist church.

Even though he abused them, he’d never “taken their virtue.”

I even found out that, on the few occasions I had been to their house, I had managed to visit both just after he’d abused them, and just before. That was the man I was supposed to look up to. He was the godly, masculine influence in my life.

This comes up repeatedly on liberal, emergent, and ex-Christian forums and blogs: throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

That is, because some self-professing Christians do not, have not, or will not live out biblical ethics that they parrot the rest of the week, this is taken to mean by the liberal Christians, ex Christians, and emergents (and amazingly, even some conservatives these days), that those biblical ethics can, or should, be ignored by everyone all the time.

I just recently left a post addressing this topic at Sarah Moon’s blog,

    (Link):

The Answer To Sexual Shame is Not MORE Sexual Shame, Carson T. Clark

In that post, sexual abuse was discussed and mixed in with sexual purity.

Here are some excerpts from the page by Clark at Sarah Moon’s blog, with some of Moon’s comments in the mix:

    [Content Note: Sexual and Spiritual Abuse]

[My understanding is that these are comments by Moon:]

When I was 16, I dated an abuser who was constantly coercing me into having sex with him.

I had been raised in fundamentalist purity culture, so I thought of sex as something gross and scary.

My boyfriend at the time tried to combat those feelings by sending me on guilt trips and by holding me to his manipulative, subjective standards of “responsibility.”

…Yes, I had a lot of hang-ups about sex because the the culture I’d grown up in, and it was liberating and healthy for me to learn later in life that my sexuality could be a good thing.

But the fact that purity culture hindered my acceptance of my sexuality does not excuse the way this person treated me for over a year.

Being in a relationship like this was a horrible process. I constantly felt guilty for not having sex, and then guilty for having sex.

Even when I consented to sexual activity, I felt violated.

I never felt like I really had a choice in the matter. I thought it was my responsibility to have sex with him, or I felt afraid of what might happen if I didn’t. I felt trapped, like I didn’t belong to myself and was no longer a person.

… If you don’t think it is okay to coerce a woman into sex before marriage, but feel that people have the right to coerce married women into having sex with their spouses, I want you to stop and think about why.

…Clark states that “[f]or the longest time…a marital rape culture existed. Just awful.”

I’m sorry to say, that marital rape culture still exists, and Clark’s words serve to reinforce it.

That this person’s boyfriend was an abusive jerk who wrapped his jerk-holery up in “purity” talk does not mean sexual purity teachings themselves are bogus.

This is part and parcel of the (Link): Genetic Fallacy, by the way.

If serial killer Ted Bundy were alive today, and if he were to tell you that murder is morally wrong, would you disagree with him and claim the opposite because of the source?

Would you say, “Nah, murdering people is fine! I’m not going to listen to you, because you have murdered people before, you hypocrite.”

I doubt that this person’s boyfriend was even a Christian to start with.

Before you trot out the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, bear this in mind:

Jesus Christ and Apostle Paul warn in the Bible that not all who claim Christ are actual followers, but are in fact, wolves in sheeps’ clothing who you need to either steer clear of or rebuke

    (see for example

this link (Matthew 7:21)

    ,

this link (John 14:15)

    ,

this link (John 14:23)

    ,

this link (1 Corinthians 5:11)

    ,

this link (1 Corinthians 5:1-5)

    ,

this link (Matthew 7:15)

    ,

this link (Matthew 7:15-18)

    – I could list several other verses, but you get the idea).

Quoting Christ (from Matthew 7:21-23):

    “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’

And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

I am semi-agnostic these days myself, after having been a Christian since my childhood, which makes it a little easier for me to stand apart from Christianity now and assess some of its flaws, or rather, how self-professing Christians are mishandling the faith.

But then, I can also call Christian-critics on the carpet a bit easier, too.

Sometimes the people who criticize particular Christians, or how certain teachings are presented by Christians, are absolutely “right on the money,” but sometimes, their criticisms are a huge crock or are inaccurate.

And in this group I include all of them; full blown agnostics, hard core atheists, luke warm atheists, feminist Christians, liberal Christians, and emergents.

When you’re not in any one, particular camp any longer, it becomes ten times easier to spot all the fallacies and biases from all sides.

Returning to Moon’s view that a rape culture exists – I guess she means in Christian marriages, and she mentions this because Clark raised this point first?

I am unaware of mainstream, every day, Baptist or other conservative Christians, who believe a man has the right to rape his wife or that he should. The Bible certainly does not contain such a teaching, that’s for sure.

Continue reading “Confusing Sexual Assault and Sexual Abuse with Consensual Sex and Then Condemning Sexual Purity Teachings – and other, related topics”

Just How Family-Centered Is the Bible? by J. Starke – An Essay that Hits and Misses

Just How Family-Centered Is the Bible? by J. Starke

I offer this link with a caveat or four.

Before I get to the link itself, here are a few of my problems with it (with additional critique below the link and excerpts from it).

This essay comes from a site sponsored by a bunch of people, “The Gospel Coalition,” a phrase which sounds so darn “biblical,” but I sharply disagree with them (not all their views are ‘biblical’).

The Gospel Coalition is comprised, for example, of Neo Calvinists (or they support Neo Cal preachers and doctrine; I am not sure if every last writer at their site is a Neo Cal).

Further, they are gender complementarian (also known as “biblical womanhood and biblical manhood.” As taught by these people, their views of gender roles are not biblical.

If you’d like to see a contrary conservative, biblical Christian view about gender and gender roles, please read the material at (Link): Christians For Biblical Equality.)

There are some aspects of this writing that seem to be an even-handed essay telling Christians to be careful about not making too much out of “family” and “marriage” to the point either or both become idols, but there are still one or two aspects of this that I still disagree with and will comment on that below the long excerpt.

(Link): Just How Family-Centered Is the Bible? by J. Starke

Starke begins his editorial discussing how marriage today is in trouble, divorce is on the rise, and so on.

Excerpts:

    by J Starke

    …. But with every response [by Christians to issues in secular culture such as rising divorce rates], there’s always the danger of over-correction.

    It’s not that I think some evangelicals have become too conservative or too traditional. I worry that they’ve simply adopted traditional cultural and societal norms, instead of biblical norms.

    Zechariah

    … The two birth announcements in the Gospel of Luke to Zechariah and Mary reveal how a society’s “traditional” family values may not line up with God’s.

    Zechariah, the priest married to a barren woman, and Mary both heard miraculous announcements about impending childbirth.

    Yet while Zechariah responded with skepticism and doubt, Mary responded with faith and wonder.

    So why would Zechariah, a priest, doubt an angel of the Lord? He knew the story of Abraham and Sarah, so the idea of an older, barren woman giving birth wouldn’t be ridiculous to him.

    But consider Zechariah and Elizabeth’s situation. Some of you may know the pain of not being able to have children.

    It’s the feeling of 10, 20, even 30 years deeply desiring children with hopes unfulfilled.

    Zechariah and Elizabeth also suffered shame. Luke 1:24-25 reveals Elizabeth’s heart. She said, “Thus the Lord has done for me in the days when he looked on me, to take away my reproach among people.”

    By reproach she meant the shame that comes from known barrenness. Maybe some of you have experienced this reproach from more conservative societies, where family is held in such a high regard.

    If you’re nearing your 40s with no children and maybe not even married, you start to receive questions like, “When are you going to get yourself a husband?” “When are we going to start seeing some little ones around here?” You hear the whispers. Every baby shower brings guilt and shame.

    Zechariah and Elizabeth also dealt with questions about whether they did something wrong to deserve barrenness.

    Was there some hidden sin? Worse, Zechariah was a religious leader, a priest!

    Can you imagine how this public shame undermined his position, his authority?

    So for Zechariah, pain and sorrow turned to shame and disgrace. He held on tightly to the cultural idol of family. This idol filled his heart so that there was no room for the truth of God’s promise, even if he heard it from an angel. The good news of a coming son did not inspire joy but unbelief. It’s too late. We’re too old.

    … But there’s another wrong view. A society can make the family the most important thing. It can become an idol, something that fundamentally defines us. We regard anyone who never marries or cannot have children as somehow subhuman. They must have done something wrong to upset God.

    …By contrast, the Bible actually teaches a radically subversive message about the family. God, we often discover, is the cause of barrenness in women.

    Stories of family dynamics rarely flatter. You’ll never find a Leave it to Beaver household in the Bible. Rather, we see constant distress, rivalry, and jealousy.

    Usually this dynamic doesn’t result from undervaluing children. No, we see it when children become the most important thing! Not only that, Jesus also has some deeply alarming things to say about the family, sounding almost cold and uncaring—see Mark 3:31-35 and Luke 14:26.

    And finally, it’s difficult to make family the most central thing for Christians when the two most prominent figures in the New Testament, Jesus and the apostle Paul, were both single. Actually, Christianity made singleness a legitimate way of life for the first time in any culture or religion.

    Christ and the Church

    Before you thumb your noses at traditional values on marriage and family, remember this: When God wanted to paint a picture of his great love for he church and cost of his death, he cited marriage between a husband and wife. God in Jesus Christ is the faithful and sacrificial husband for his bride, the church.

    ….While the family cannot be so important that it invades the space in our heart that only God should occupy, we see that even from Creation, God designed marriage and family to result in a maturing society. Zechariah, however, warns us not to make family the ultimate thing. He turned it into a false god, leaving no room for the truth of the real God.

    … But their [Christians’] convictions should come from the Bible, not simply the norms of traditional societies.

I commend this author for pointing out that some Christians have turned marriage and family into idols, but I feel he gets a few things wrong and makes a few comments that are insensitive to certain types of people.

Here are some additional problems I have with this paper, as outlined below.

Starke starts out sounding sympathetic to barren or single adults who desire marriage and/or children. Starke writes,

    ..Zechariah and Elizabeth also dealt with questions about whether they did something wrong to deserve barrenness.

    Was there some hidden sin? Worse, Zechariah was a religious leader, a priest! Can you imagine how this public shame undermined his position, his authority?

I don’t recall the Bible explicitly saying that this couple was shamed and blamed for being without children, but Starke assumes this was so.

If we grant Starke that point:

When I first read this essay, I assumed Starke “felt” for Zack and Liz (Zechariah and Elizabeth) and how terrible it must have been for this couple to have supposedly been shamed or insulted over their childlessness.

Instead of rebuking the judgmental pro-family types for shaming “Zack and Liz” for being without children, which is what Starke should be doing, Starke instead shames and blames Zack and Liz themselves for supposedly having had made “the family” into an idol (though the biblical text does not say this).

I have more to say about this below this next excerpt.

Starke wrote:

    So for Zechariah, pain and sorrow turned to shame and disgrace. He held on tightly to the cultural idol of family. This idol filled his heart so that there was no room for the truth of God’s promise, even if he heard it from an angel.

There is nothing wrong with Zechariah, or with anyone, wanting to have a spouse or a child.

Simply wanting or desiring something that the Bible does not condemn does not mean one is idolizing it, yet Christians constantly make this leap.

I find this attitude by Stark fairly insensitive.

I have observed for many years now that among Christians who idolize marriage and family, it is made an idol by those who are already married, who are already parents, who tell the never-married and the infertile they are not as good, godly, mature, and worthy as marrieds and parents (hence my one stop threads on (Link): marriage and (Link): parenthood).

It’s the already married and those who are already parents who have turned marriage and parenthood into idols, not the childless and not the singles.

How cruel it is when the majority of Christian culture sets both things up -marriage and parenthood- as idols to be prized and then shames, rebukes, or blames an unmarried person for wanting a spouse, for seeking a spouse, or for an infertile couple to seek medical care to become pregnant.

Christian singles are told by Christians that they are not as mature, godly, or responsible as married couples are, but if they still desire marriage or attempt to get married – by using dating sites, for example – they are told they are “idolizing” marriage.

It’s a highly hypocritical move that Christians foist on other Christians, but they do it constantly.

I’ve written of it before in pages such as:

When Starke advises Christians not to turn marriage and family into idols, who exactly is he warning?

Because it sounds to me as though Starke is, in this essay, further shaming and blaming singles or infertiles who hanker after spouse and children, when he should be solely directing his criticisms at the overall Christian culture, which is maintained and controlled by people who are, 99% of the time, married with children.

Most churches will not even consider permitting un-married adults into positions of leadership, teaching, or preaching. Churches are heavily biased against singles and childless individuals or couples.

Singles should not be shamed for wanting or seeking marriage, and childless people should not be shamed for seeking to have children, especially not in a culture, Christian culture, that keeps cramming the idea down everyone’s throats that marriage and parenthood are more “godly” than singlehood or the state of childlessness, and how marriage and family is so important and fundamental for American society.

Wanting to be married is not “idolatry.” I have discussed that in a few posts before, such as in one by Mark Driscoll (I believe it was this post, (Link): More Singles Commentary by Mark Driscoll (“Two Mistakes Singles Make”), or, it may have been in this post: (Link): Mark Driscoll on Single Christian Women Who Desire Marriage – the positives and negatives of his piece ), and this one:

It also seems to me that the author dances around the stereotype that singles who hate being single and long for marriage are “bitter” which in turn is a component of “singles shaming.”

I’d say most of us older singles are not “bitter” about it, but have either come to terms with it, or feel sad about it at times, or both.

You can largely come to accept your single status but occasionally feel sad about it.

You can also point out how wrong Christians are to idolize marriage and treat adult singles like trash, but that does not make one “bitter” – it’s offering a much needed critique of Christian culture.

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

    While the family cannot be so important that it invades the space in our heart that only God should occupy, we see that even from Creation, God designed marriage and family to result in a maturing society”

“God designed marriage and family to result in a maturing society?” He did? Really? Please provide book, chapter, and verse for that, because I don’t see anywhere in the Bible that declares this.

That belief that God intends “family” to be for the “maturing” of society, or to act as its backbone, is not even mentioned in the book of Genesis, which describes God creating the first married couple, Adam and Eve, and Adam and Eve having their first son.

That God allegedly uses marriage for anything (beyond anything other than for continuation of the human species and as one illustration of Jesus’ relationship to the church) -as a building block of culture, to sanctify people, to mature people and such- are merely assumptions Christians make repeatedly, with no biblical basis.

I’ve written about this issue before, like in this post:

Starke says,

    Before you thumb your noses at traditional values on marriage and family, remember this: When God wanted to paint a picture of his great love for he church and cost of his death, he cited marriage between a husband and wife. God in Jesus Christ is the faithful and sacrificial husband for his bride, the church.

I also wonder who these comments are aimed at. Who does he think may be “thumbing her nose at” marriage?

I am over 40 years of age and still would like to be married. I am not “anti marriage.”

I am very disturbed and angered at how highly other Christians elevate marriage, to the point marriage, and the 1950s nuclear family unit, is turned into a “golden calf” they worship.

Continue reading “Just How Family-Centered Is the Bible? by J. Starke – An Essay that Hits and Misses”

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

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

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

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

Excerpts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why does all this matter?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From another source:

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

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

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

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

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

Please see my previous posts on these issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fifty Shades of Feminine Hypocrisy – editorial

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

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

Excerpts:

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

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

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

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

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

    The fact is rape crime is on the decline.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responses by readers of the editorial:

    by RoyalCourt

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected

No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected

✹ What follows is actually the heart of my “No Man’s Land” view. This is what prompted me to write it: ✹

✹ TAKING THE OPPOSITE POSITION OF WHAT YOU USED TO BELIEVE BUT NOW HATE – DUE TO EMOTIONAL REASONS OR A KNEE JERK RESPONSE OR FROM SPITE – IS JUST AS WRONG AND MISTAKEN ✹

As to the forums and blogs by ex Christians, liberal Christians, self identifying post-evangelicals, or those still Christian who expose spiritual abuse…

I notice a number of the regular visitors to these sites – the ones who left an abusive or legalistic church or denomination – simply now operate in the reverse in their thinking, which is, IMO, just as bad or wrong as the thinking they are leaving.

There are different types of ex-Christians one must take into consideration when discussing this topic, so I shall present some sketches of them first.

IFBs (Independent Fundamentalist Baptists)

For example, there are ex IFBs (Independent Fundamentalist Baptists).

IFB preachers and churches are ridiculously legalistic. They make up rules that are not in the Bible, or twist or exaggerate the rules already there to the point those rules then become unbiblical.

IFBs are the contemporary, American versions of the Bible’s Pharisees: nit picky, anal retentive, legalists who make up man-made rules but insist they are “biblical” and thus binding on all believers.

IFBs concoct man-made traditions they expect all IFB members to adhere to, just like the Roman Catholic hierarchy does towards Roman Catholic members.

For example, IFB churches are legalistic about secular entertainment and clothing and physical appearance.

IFB churches teach their congregations that women should not wear pants but only skirts. And the skirts should be only so many inches above or below the knee.

According to IFBs, men should not have hair that touches the back shirt collar – not a mullet to be found in IFB, which may be a good thing. Secular music and television is sinful and should always be avoided.

IFBs have other legalistic rules for just about every aspect of life.

IFBs are vehemently anti-Roman Catholicism as well as anti-Calvinism.

Continue reading “No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are several reasons I am closer and closer to saying bye-bye to Christianity, but the continued insistence upon Southern Baptists, Neo Calvinists, and other Christian groups, on pushing sexism and codependency for women – under the headings of “gender complementarianism” or “biblical womanhood” – is just one more reason.

I am now blogging about a new site by Southern Baptists about “Biblical womanhood.” (Link to that site, with screen captures from it, is farther below.)

First, a preface: IT’S NOT JUST A WOMAN’S ISSUE

If you are a male, an unmarried male, you need to be concerned about this pushing of gender complementarianism to women. It impacts you as well, oh yes it does.

If you are a male, do not make the deadly mistake of thinking, “Aw, this is just about ladies, it is of no import for me, I am a dude!”

No, no, you couldn’t be more wrong because 1. (Link): this page and 2. they equally oppress, pressure, shame, and hound males who do not live up to their narrowly defined list of rules of what constitutes “biblical manhood.”

Just as gender complementarians limit and enslave women to following a very narrow set of 1950s- American- culturally influenced, un-biblical rules of what constitutes a godly woman (which often includes being married, submitting to a husband, and cranking out children), they do the same to men.

For example, and depending on what type of breed of gender complementarian we are discussing, they usually define “biblical manhood” to mean ‘MAN WHO IS MARRIED TO A WOMAN AND FATHER TO BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN.’

Some Christian biblical manhood advocates further tack on additional qualifiers of what constitutes “biblical manhood,” such as, “spiritual leader of wife,” “steadily employed with a big paycheck, so the wife can stay home all day,” and “manly man who drinks beer, belches loudly and often, and who watches cage fighting with great enthusiasm.”

Yeah.

So, if you are a single male, or you have never been a daddy, and if you do not care for American stereotypical manly man pursuits (e.g., football, NASCAR, copious amounts of beer drinking) and you even prefer artistic pursuits, such as painting and opera, and…

If you find yourself unable to support more than yourself on your pay check alone, you will be treated like a second-class citizen in most Baptist and Neo Calvinist churches.

You will be deemed a failure for not being biblically mannish enough by a host of gender complementarians.

I do find it telling that the Southern Baptists and other gender complementarians seem to expend more effort and time at talking about women’s roles, though.

They seem to crank out more books, sites, and so on, to convince women that being submitted doormats is really honest- to- gosh biblical and not the least demeaning, than they do in cranking out as much material convincing men to be Biblical Tough Guys.

Occasionally, they do, however – about a year ago, preacher Mark Driscoll and other preachers hosted an “Act Like Men” conference (link to that) which emphasized the idea that Christian men should be manly leader men, but it is my impression that conservative Christians are far more obsessed at keeping women in line more so than the males.

Even so, if you are a single, childless, un- or under- employed, or non- football obsessed male, you have a stake in this topic as well.

THE BIBLICAL WOMANHOOD SITE

The Southern Baptist “biblical womanhood” site, as of this writing (Apr. 2014) is a white and pink combination.

Yes, the web pages have a white background, but there is liberal usage of pink-colored fonts and headings all over the place.

Even their “biblical womanhood” logo contains pink. Screen capture of their site’s mast head:

Biblical Womanhood mast head screen shot
Biblical Womanhood mast head screen shot

Enough with pink already. I am a woman, but I have never liked pink.

Historically, by the way, pink was for boys and blue was for girls. Read (Link): this and (Link): this for more on that.

I am a woman. I have never liked pink. Even as a child, I did not find pink attractive, and it annoyed the piss out of me that companies and manufacturers went default pink on any product made for girls (and they would toss in rainbows and unicorns on the packaging, too. I’ve nothing against rainbows or unicorns, but I was never a horse or unicorn crazy girly girl, and I resented the notion, even at age ten, that I am SUPPOSED to like both just because I’m a girl.)

Anyway, leave it to a Southern Baptist site that is pushing “gender complementarian” roles to use pink as one of the site’s main colors. They couldn’t break the stereotypes and go with muted teals, greys, or dark red with gold, or other unexpected colors for a woman’s site, oh no, gotta stick with pink because PINK = GIRLY FEMININE! *Sigh.*

Where in the Bible does it say God defines the color pink as a biblical color for expressing womanhood? If that verse is in there, it must have escaped my attention, and yes, I have read the Bible all the way through.

Leave it to a Christian biblical womanhood, or gender complementarian, site that is intending to dispel the notion that gender complementarianism is sexist by… are you ready for this? by… upholding sexist stereotypes! – they do, right there on their site, examples to follow in this post.

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