Anti-Porn Activist: ‘Ethically Sourced’ Porn ‘Sounds Like an Oxymoron’

Anti-Porn Activist: ‘Ethically Sourced’ Porn ‘Sounds Like an Oxymoron’

The following is a response to this article (Link): Lutheran Pastor Defends ‘Ethically Sourced Porn,’ Wants to Remove ‘Shame’ From Industry

I have a comment or two to make below these excerpts….

(Link): Anti-Porn Activist: ‘Ethically Sourced’ Porn ‘Sounds Like an Oxymoron’

By Michael Gryboski , Christian Post Reporter | Nov 13, 2018 7:42 AM

An anti-pornography activist has taken issue with an Evangelical Lutheran Church in America pastor’s support for “ethically sourced porn” and the removal of shame from the sex entertainment industry.

“What she is saying about shame sounds to me like a condemnation of shame in general, that there is nothing good about it,” Peggy Cairns, Education chairperson with the Maryland Coalition Against Pornography, told The Christian Post. “I would contend that there is a place for shame in life, it’s part of how our consciences work, and we need more of it rather than less in today’s compass-less world.”

Lutheran pastor and author Nadia Bolz-Weber recently argued that there should be no shame in consuming pornography, especially if it is “ethically sourced.”

Continue reading “Anti-Porn Activist: ‘Ethically Sourced’ Porn ‘Sounds Like an Oxymoron’”

The Creepy Crusade Against White Women By Liberals and Trump Haters

The Creepy Crusade Against White Women By Liberals and Trump Haters

This whole post is another big case study in why I can never, ever be a liberal.

I was saying in a post or two in months past on this blog that liberals have thrown women under the bus, especially white women.

Liberals (Link): really dislike white people, but they dislike white women most of all, especially white women who are hetero, cis, and who are conservative and/or who vote Republican.

Over a year ago, I meant to do a blog post on the topic of “intersectionality” but never got around to it – I should have done it, because sometimes, hatred of caucasian women is done under the auspices of this feminist concept.

If you would like, you can read Wikipedia’s page that offers an explanation on (Link): what Intersectionality is.

On the one hand, a lot of liberals claim to stand for equality, they say they are opposed to sexism, but, they have a “pecking order” of victim groups, where some groups are more worthy of their protection than others – and white, cis, hetero women (especially who vote Republican) are at the very bottom.

That is to say, as I’ve (Link): explained before, if the concerns or needs of one favored liberal pet group clashes with that of white/ cis/ hetero women, the liberals will always, always, throw the women (especially if white / cis) “under the bus.” It’s creepy as hell.

Not only are white women subjected to sexism by all men, but they’ve been attacked or marginalized by all these other factions (which are usually liberal).

Continue reading “The Creepy Crusade Against White Women By Liberals and Trump Haters”

Liberal and Democrat Incivility, Harassment, Or Violence Against Conservatives or Republicans, 2006 – 2018 (examples, with links to news sites)

Liberal and Democrat Incivility, Harassment, Or Violence Against Conservatives or Republicans, 2006 – 2018

In light of the fact that a kook who appears to be a Trump supporter and liberal hater, (Link): Cesar Sayoc was arrested today for using the United States postal service to send pipe bombs to various Democrats (including former presidents Bill Clinton and Obama), liberals and Democrats have been playing the blame game, and saying that Trump’s rhetoric is to blame.

Here are a few more links about Sayoc:

(Link):  Pipe bomb suspect Cesar Sayoc is a registered Republican and a Trump fan with a criminal record

(Link):  Cesar Sayoc Identified As Mail Bomb Suspect

(Link):  From tweets to bombs, suspect’s rage at Trump foes escalated

So, liberals – especially those in left wing media – have been saying Trump is responsible for Sayoc’s behavior, and they are demanding that Trump apologize for what Sayoc did.

Excuse me, but for the past several years, especially since Trump was elected in 2016, those on the left have been going bonkers:
Doing things like forming mobs to attack people on the streets in large scale protests (they especially  like to target anyone wearing a Trump supporting “M.A.G.A.” hat);
following Trump staff or other Republicans into restaurants to yell at or heckle them, while the left,
including but not limited to democrat politicians such as Maxine Waters, has a history of telling other Democrats to harass or commit violence against Trump supporters, Republicans, and/or conservatives (examples of this below).

I remember when George W. Bush (Republican) was in office, and later, when Sarah Palin (Republican) ran for office, liberals and Democrats were making jokes about those Republicans getting killed or being gang raped.

This behavior is coming from the same guys who scream and complain that all conservatives and Republicans are supposedly mean, intolerant, bigoted, and hateful.

Further, liberals and Democrats have the audacity to sit around today and blame the heated political climate solely on Trump? Oh no you don’t.

I left the Republican party a few years ago, but there is no way I could ever become a Democrat, largely because of the vile behavior by Democrats you see below, but also what grates on my last nerve even more is the staggering hypocrisy. Many Democrats and liberals often participate in the very behavior they say they see and hate in Trump, conservatives and Republicans.

Year 2006.

Story 1.

Nobel Peace Laureate, Betty Williams, Wants to Kill [Republican President] George W. Bush

Media coverage and / or op/eds on this story:

I could kill Bush: peace campaigner

https://www.smh.com.au/world/i-could-kill-bush-peace-campaigner-20070714-gdqm4t.html

Excerpt:

A Nobel Peace Prize winner has been forced to apologise after telling delegates at a US peace conference: “Right now, I could kill George Bush”.

Violent Voices of “Tolerance”

https://www.wnd.com/2006/07/37207/

Continue reading “Liberal and Democrat Incivility, Harassment, Or Violence Against Conservatives or Republicans, 2006 – 2018 (examples, with links to news sites)”

The Authors at The Federalist Site Often Don’t Get It: Joy Pullman is Fine With Men Harassing Women Who Wear Headphones In Public – Part 1

The Authors at The Federalist Site Often Don’t Get It: Joy Pullman is Fine With Men Harassing Women Who Wear Headphones in Public – Part 1

I am quoting portions of an essay at The Federalist site in order to offer a rebuttal to it. Link is below.


The Federalist is a conservative web site.

I’m a conservative.

However, I am a conservative who is truly and actually repulsed by sexism against women – and yes, many conservatives will say they are as well – but then they go on to mock and ridicule the very legitimate concerns raised by other women, which means, ultimately, they are supporting and defending sexism despite their avowed concern for women and girls.

Lets’s examine one example of this very thing. From the right wing site The Federalist comes this editorial written by a Joy Pullman:

(Link): Even Women With Headphones May Want A Man To Chase Them

Here is the obnoxious sub-heading on that page, which was published in September 2016:

Back off, uptight whiners, and stop making public and romantic life so much less fun for everyone. Some ladies like a good chase.
–(end quote)–

I’m surprised a woman wrote this piece, because it conveys a lot of the stupidity, the ignorance of women, and wrong, sexist assumptions many men have of women, but this is written by a conservative woman – so maybe I should not be surprised.

A lot of conservative women (I myself am conservative, but please recall, I don’t agree with them on all topics) hold this bizarre and wrong position that the automatic, correct position on any topic pertaining to gender that feminists, or all women as a group (which may or may not include feminists), are championing or upset about, must be to adopt the direct, opposite position.

And that is an incredibly stupid and irresponsible position for conservatives to take, for, like broken clocks, (Link): even liberal feminists are correct at least twice a day.

Continue reading “The Authors at The Federalist Site Often Don’t Get It: Joy Pullman is Fine With Men Harassing Women Who Wear Headphones In Public – Part 1”

Reflections On Lori Alexander’s Debt Free Virgins Without Tattoos (post updated)

Reflections On Lori Alexander’s Debt Free Virgins Without Tattoos

(Post updated below.)


I used to be a gender complementarian, and I wrote about that in (Link): this post.  I rejected complementarianism many years ago.

Lori Alexander is an extremist Christian gender complementarian (some may consider her more of a patriarchalist, I suppose) who has a Facebook group and a blog called “The Transformed Wife,” where she dispenses what many consider to be extremely toxic, harmful, and sexist advice to women, which makes most women want to gag or vomit.

Lori Alexander recently wrote a post called something like, “[Men Find] Debt Free Virgins Without Tattoos [More Attractive].”

If you are new to my blog, a little about myself, so you can see my qualifications for addressing Mrs. Alexander’s commentary:

I was a conservative Christian for many years and a gender complementarian until around the age of 35. I am currently between the ages of 45 and 50 and am still a virgin (that’s right, I’ve never had sex, not even when I was a college student).

I was committed to the idea of waiting until marriage to have sex, and I never found “Mr. Right,” ergo, I never had sex.

I attended college, which my father paid for (thanks, dad!), so I never had any student debt.

I have a college degree.

I’ve never had any tattoos. I’ve also never drank alcohol, smoked, or abused drugs.

Someone on Twitter posted (Link): these screen captures of posts by Lori Alexander. In those screen caps, Alexander is recorded as writing the following (which I will critique below):

By Lori Alexander (“The Transformed Wife”)

Do you know how much more attractive debt-free virgins (without tattoos) are to young men?

Unfortunately, there are so few of these types of young women anymore because of the high costs of college (debt) and sexual promiscuity even within those in the church. [snip URL Alexander cites to her blog post on this subject]

— end Lori Alexander quotes–

A summary of my conclusions and opinions on this matter:
Mrs. Alexander, you are simply incorrect. I am a virgin, I don’t have any tattoos,  I have no debt, for many years I was the epitome of the good, godly, sweet, demure, lady-like complementarian, I’ve never identified as feminist – but none of that enabled me to catch a husband, Christian or otherwise. I remain single past the age of 45.

There are no guarantees that a woman will gain a spouse if only she follows a certain set of dating advice or rules, such as… prays for a spouse, “trusts the Lord” for a spouse, follows complementarian teachings, refrains from attending college, or refrains from receiving a tattoo or dabbling in feminism.

Continue reading “Reflections On Lori Alexander’s Debt Free Virgins Without Tattoos (post updated)”

Thoughts on the NRO Essay “Advice For Incels” by Kevin D. Williamson

Thoughts on the NRO Essay “Advice For Incels” by Kevin D. Williamson

About me and this blog:

If you are new to my blog: I have been a conservative my entire life. I’ve never voted Democrat. I was a Republican until a few years ago. I am no longer in any political party.

I sometimes critique secular, left wing feminists on my blog (such as but not limited to (Link): this post and (Link): this one), but there are times when I believe other conservatives get feminists wrong, and feminists are actually correct on some issues.

I was brought up in a traditional values, conservative, Christian family where my parents brought me to Southern Baptist churches as I was growing up, where I was taught to believe in gender complementarianism, which I did for many years, until I finally realized how (Link): wrong and sexist complementarianism is.

Because I grew up as a complementarian, I am quite familiar with what they think and why they think as they do.

My current religious beliefs are somewhat “up in the air,” as I am waffling between being agnostic, (or a deist), and the Christian faith. (Note: I am not an atheist.)

I am by no means anti- Nuclear Family, anti- motherhood, or anti- marriage, though I do posit that many to most conservatives – especially the religious ones – have gone to un-biblical lengths and have turned the Nuclear Family, marriage, natalism, and motherhood and fatherhood into idols which is wrong of them.

— end introduction to me and this blog —

I saw a link to this essay go through my Twitter feed today:

(Link): Advice for Incels by Kevin D. Williamson

On one level, this essay – “Advice for Incels” was okay.

However, I think that while the guy who wrote it has his heart in the right place, I think he gets a lot of things wrong and is naive about how Baptist and conservative Protestant and evangelical churches are for adult singles.

I’ve spent the last several years on this blog covering these topics – I’d encourage Williamson and anyone who read his NRO piece to read the books  (Link): “Singled Out” by Field and Colon and  “Quitting Church” by Christian author Julia Duin for even more information.

Continue reading “Thoughts on the NRO Essay “Advice For Incels” by Kevin D. Williamson”

Annie Murphy’s Sex and Relationship Column Gives Some Fantastic Advice About “Losing Your Virginity” by Princess Weekes

Annie Murphy’s Sex and Relationship Column Gives Some Fantastic Advice About “Losing Your Virginity” by Princess Weekes

In my several years of blogging here about sexually related topics – celibacy and virginity included – this is only about the third or fourth article I’ve seen by liberals (this site I quote below, The Mary Sue, leans left) discouraging “virgin shaming,” and encouraging women to remain virgins if they want to.

Respecting virginity is very rare these days – virginity usually gets mocked – and this is especially true of liberal feminists, but even right wingers and conservative Christians are pretty bad about this subject.

I’ve never understood how “sex positive” feminists can hold such a double standard – they run about insisting that culture respects any and all female decisions regarding sex, but they always make an exception regarding virginity. Like (Link): this, for example. Many “sex positive” feminists are just fine with ridiculing women who are virgins by choice.

(Link):  Annie Murphy’s Sex and Relationship Column Gives Some Fantastic Advice About “Losing Your Virginity”

by Princess Weekes

Feelings about sex and virginity are very individualized. Everyone matures at a different level, and even though we claim to live in a sex-positive era, there is still a level of judgment when it comes to people who are virgins.

Continue reading “Annie Murphy’s Sex and Relationship Column Gives Some Fantastic Advice About “Losing Your Virginity” by Princess Weekes”

Liberals Bully Porn Actress Online For Refusing to Film Sex Scenes With Homosexual Actors

Liberals Bully Porn Actress Online For Refusing to Film Sex Scenes With Homosexual Actors

(Links to follow.) Story as I understand it: a porn actress, Ames, who identified as bi-sexual, tweeted that she refused to film sex scenes with a male actor known to also film homosexual sex scenes with other male actors, because she had health safety concerns.

After she tweeted that, Liberal Social Justice Warriors piled on, some even sending her death threats about it. They really think a woman should have to have sex with someone, or a certain type or category of person, even if she does not want to.

The day after receiving all this online bullying, the actress committed suicide by hanging.

I thought liberals were supposed to be pro-woman, feminist, and supportive of a woman’s chose? No, some of them are not (the ones who are wholly sold out for supporting a Liberal Agenda vs. sincerely helping all women), as this story once again demonstrates.

Continue reading “Liberals Bully Porn Actress Online For Refusing to Film Sex Scenes With Homosexual Actors”

Fewer People Are Getting Married – And That’s A Good Thing by J. Wright

Fewer People Are Getting Married – And That’s A Good Thing by J. Wright

If you are new to my blog, I’d like to inform you that I am a conservative, a right winger.

I am not against “the family unit” or against marriage, but, I have noticed that a lot of other conservatives have disparaged singleness and have elevated marriage (as well as parenting and natalism) in to false idols they worship.

So, I’m not against marriage, babies, or the nuclear family, but I am opposed to the over-emphasis upon those things by my fellow conservatives.

(Link): Fewer People Are Getting Married – And That’s A Good Thing by J. Wright

Excerpts:

In a week full of terrible things, the Wall Street Journal published an essay entitled  (Link): “Cheap Sex and the Decline of Marriage” that pondered, “Why is marriage in retreat among young Americans? Because it is now much easier for men to find sexual satisfaction outside marriage.”

“Women: They’re Destroying Everything with Their Sluttery” is, I suppose, kind of a fun theory for an article if your readers hate women.

But the notion that unmarried young people are having an unprecedented amount of sex is without basis in fact. Studies from the (Link): Archives of Sexual Behavior indicate that extramarital sex is actually on the decline. Baby boomers are estimated to have 11 average sexual partners over their lifetimes, while millennials are expected to have only eight.

It stands to reason that women as well as men are having less cheap and easy sex.

Oh, well.

Continue reading “Fewer People Are Getting Married – And That’s A Good Thing by J. Wright”

Teen Vogue Magazine Promoting Anal Sex (2017)

Teen Vogue Magazine Promoting Anal Sex

One wonders if this teen magazine ever offers celibacy or virginity as choices for teen girls? Probably not. Liberals generally do not support a girl or woman’s choice to sexually abstain, but will mock it.

I don’t think the vast majority of women want to have anal sex with a man but are usually pressured into it by a boyfriend. Ditto on oral sex and other non-missionary style forms of sex. (But perhaps the article was aimed at LGBT individuals.)

If you are a teen girl (I cannot imagine why a teen girl would be reading my blog, but regardless…) you can do with your body as you please. If you do not want to have any sex at all, then do not have sex. If you do not want to have anal sex, then do not have anal sex.

Do not allow feminists, boyfriends, magazines, or Hollywood pressure you, shame you, or guilt trip you into doing sexual activity you feel conflicted about or don’t want to participate in.

If you have a boyfriend who is pressuring you to have sex or to engage in a particular sex act you’d rather not perform, please realize it is better to be single than to stay in a relationship with a guy who guilt trips you, uses threats of breaking up, or whatever, to get his way with you sexually.

If a guy does not respect your boundaries and wishes in the area of sexuality, break up with him!  Please stop wasting your time with him. You will eventually get another boyfriend later. There is nothing wrong with being single.

(Link): Teen Vogue’s Bizarre Anal Sex Article Shows Women Are Still Being Defined in Relation to Men

Excerpts:

The supposedly progressive piece, intended for teenage girls, refers to women as ‘non-prostate owners’, ignores the organ for female pleasure and fails to mention any potential dangers

Defining women by the men around them is an issue feminists have sought to address, and correct, for years.

…It would stand to reason that we could assume that in 2017 any work aimed at women would be sure to avoid such regressive patterns.

However, in (Link): Anal Sex: What You Need To Know for Teen Vogue, sex educator and feminist activist Gigi Engle managed to harp back to a time where women were defined by their relationship to men.

…Not only is any potential pleasure a woman may feel during anal sex reduced to the lack of male body parts (she is a “non-prostate owner”) but the clitoris, the actual hub of female sexual pleasure, has been removed. The lack of a male body part is the focus of what defines the female body, and what is actually there isn’t identified at all.

What is this teaching the audience of a magazine aimed at teenage girls? It tells them their identity is not “woman”, but rather “non-man”.

It tells them that should they consent to anal sex, their body is just a hole for the man to penetrate, and the part of their body that is most sensitive and reliable for the female orgasm is so irrelevant that it doesn’t even warrant a label.

It tells them that consenting to anal sex is not about their pleasure, but about their partner’s.

What it fails to tell them is the potential dangers of anal sex. The possibilities of fissures and tears which can become infected very easily due to contamination by faeces, severe enough to need surgery, or lead to anal abscesses which increase the chances of catching HIV.

By treating anal sex as an equivalent to vaginal sex, you increase the chances that your audience will not understand the potential damage they can do to their own or their partner’s body, and in turn increase their chances of becoming seriously ill.

(Link): Parents outraged over Teen Vogue anal sex how-to column (but magazine still defends it)

Teen Vogue is defending its decision to publish a graphic tutorial to anal sex for children and teenagers – (Link): calling critics homophobic.

“This is anal 101, for teens, beginners and all inquisitive folk,” author Gigi Engle wrote in “A Guide to Anal Sex.”

… (Link): The original article did not include any references to practicing safe sex – but was later amended to include a line about condoms being “non-negotiable.”

“Here is the lowdown on everything you need to know about butt stuff,” the writer declared.

Parents across the nation became enraged upon learning that Teen Vogue wanted to turn their children in sexual deviants.

Continue reading “Teen Vogue Magazine Promoting Anal Sex (2017)”

Christian Virginity Peddlers Vs Muslims Who Molest Girls and The Liberals Who Look the Other Way 

Christian Virginity Peddlers Vs Muslims Who Molest Girls & The Liberals Who Look the Other Way 

I intended on making this blog post the other day but forgot. As I noted in one of my (Link): last posts, I have not visited SCCL (Stuff Christian Culture Likes) Facebook group since early June 2017 for reasons that are explained in that post.

A couple of weeks ago, someone in my Twitter shared a link to (Link): this page titled“Jodi Heckert Pledged to Protect His Daughter’s Virginity, Now in Prison For Child Molestation”

If you scroll to the bottom of that page, there is a line that reads:

“H/T Stuff Christian Culture Likes.”

[Hat Tip to Stuff Christian Culture Likes]

So, I take it that Stephanie Drury, maintainer of SCCL Facebook group, posted a link to that news story on her group for her members to mock and cluck in worry over. This same, group, though, which is largely comprised of liberals, does not like for Islam to be called out for infractions against girls, women, or for anyone, really.

When I mentioned in one of (Link): my other posts critical of SCCL that about any time I see a terrorist mentioned on the news, the terrorist almost always turns out to be a Muslim (yes, it’s true, (Link): most of them are), several of Drury’s SCCL readers had temper tantrums.

Before I continue, allow me to quote from liberal, atheist, and Democrat Camille Paglia here:

But today’s liberalism has become grotesquely mechanistic and authoritarian: It’s all about reducing individuals to a group identity, defining that group in permanent victim terms, and denying others their democratic right to challenge that group and its ideology.

… The reluctance or inability of Western liberals to candidly confront jihadism has been catastrophically counterproductive insofar as it has inspired an ongoing upsurge in right-wing politics in Europe and the United States.

Citizens have an absolute right to demand basic security from their government. The contortions to which so many liberals resort to avoid connecting bombings, massacres, persecutions, and cultural vandalism to Islamic jihadism is remarkable, given their usual animosity to religion, above all Christianity.

…Right now, too many secular Western liberals treat Islam with paternalistic condescension…

Source:

(Link): Camille Paglia: On Trump, Democrats, Transgenderism, and Islamist Terror

Paglia is one of the few left wingers I’ve seen who comprehends.

Islam is notorious for sexism. Many of their Imams teach it is acceptable for husbands to beat wives. Honor killings, where Muslim families will stone girls or women to death for being rape victims, are not uncommon. In some Islamic nations or cultures, women are not allowed to ride bicycles, wear skirts, or obtain educations. (Examples with links to news stories of all those mentioned (Link): here)

Continue reading “Christian Virginity Peddlers Vs Muslims Who Molest Girls and The Liberals Who Look the Other Way “

Educated Women Are Freezing Eggs Because Of “Missing Men”

Educated Women Are Freezing Eggs Because Of “Missing Men”

(Link): Educated Women Are Freezing Eggs Because Of”Missing Men

Excerpt:

Women with master’s degrees and doctorates are freezing their eggs because there are not enough educated men in the world, according to a new study.

Researchers interviewed 150 women who were having their eggs frozen at eight clinics in the US and Israel between June 2014 and August 2016. More than 80 percent of participants had college degrees.

Continue reading “Educated Women Are Freezing Eggs Because Of “Missing Men””

Christians Are Not Called to Have Amazing Sex by R Pietka, and the SCCL Push-Back

Christians Are Not Called to Have Amazing Sex by R Pietka – via Relevant Magazine, and the SCCL Push-Back

The essay “Christians Are Not Called to Have Amazing Sex” by Rachel Pietka was discussed over at Facebook group SCCL (Link): here a few days ago.

The consensus by the SCCL readership is that the page – by R. Pietka – is that it’s awful. Many in the SCCL thread did not approve of it or agree with it.

I don’t know why the SCCL readership largely condemned the page, because some of it is right in line with the ex-Christian, or liberal Christian views, about sex and sexual purity.

I’ll give you a long excerpt from the page before discussing it a bit more below:

(Link):  Christians Are Not Called to Have Amazing Sex by R Pietka

What Christians need to remember about God’s design for sex.

…While the [Christian based sexual abstinence] movement is great at detailing— and exaggerating—the benefits of saving sex for marriage, it is dishonest about the challenges abstinence presents to couples who eventually tie the knot.

…Jessica Ciencin Henriquez recently detailed how the abstinence movement affected her sex life and marriage in a revealing article titled, (Link): “My Virginity Mistake.”

Henriquez relays how she pledged herself to Jesus at a purity ceremony at age 14, remained a virgin until she married six years later, and wound up divorced after she and her husband could not make things work in the bedroom.

Looking back, Henriquez states if she had not insisted on waiting for sex until marriage, she could have prevented her divorce.

Henriquez’s story is important because it highlights an issue the abstinence movement rarely acknowledges: sexual incompatibility within marriage.

While this issue may seem irrelevant, it is actually fundamental to traditional Christian beliefs about sex. The fact that sexual compatibility does not matter to Christians when choosing a spouse makes the shocking and countercultural statement that sex is not our God.

Continue reading “Christians Are Not Called to Have Amazing Sex by R Pietka, and the SCCL Push-Back”

The Real Bully: Not Tolerating and Misrepresenting Trump Voters and All Who Are Concerned About Islamic Terrorism Via Refugee Programs

The Real Bully: Not Tolerating and Misrepresenting Trump Voters and All Who Are Concerned About Islamic Terrorism Via Refugee Programs

(Oct 2018 Update Below)

The woman whose blog post I am addressing is guilty of the very things she accuses others of. The irony.

I am not positive, but I believe the following was written by the same woman who I had to un-follow or mute on Twitter over her non-stop ‘Never Trump’ ranting several months ago (and/or she Tweeted me several times disagreeing with my links to news stories about Islamic refugees who had raped women or killed people). (I believe she is on Twitter here (Link): @MYsongofpraise )

(She is now tweeting under the name Melody / @PeaceofResista1 – more on this below)

April 8, 2016 , UPDATE

As of a few moments ago, “@MYsongofpraise” blocked me on Twitter. LOL. My goodness.

I think I had her on mute myself, or else unfollowed her, but I didn’t block her. But she has blocked me from following her Twitter tonight.

I cannot grasp the mentality: she feels that Trump is a bully, but she uses her blog and Twitter account to bully anyone who voted for Trump, or who is not naive about Islamic migration and Muslim refugees (as she is).

I called her out on all that via this blog post (which I shared on Twitter, and just a few minutes ago on Twitter), and she must have just seen one of my Tweets, because she only just blocked me a few moments ago.

// end update

I am neither strongly for or against Trump.

I did not like Trump’s sexist comments or behavior, as reported in the media. I do think that gender complementarian Christians should have spoken out more forcefully against Trump’s sexism than they did.

In my view, some who support Trump go over board, but then, so do people who are opposed to Trump.

You have Trump supporters who get vitriolic over the mildest criticisms of Trump or his policies, and they seem to feel Trump is the second coming of Jesus and can walk on water and do no wrong.

On the other hand, Liberal Anti- Trumpers and conservative Never Trumpers are equally bad, but in the opposite direction – they behave as though Trump is the reincarnation of Hitler, which he is most certainly not (and the non-stop comparisons by them of Trump to Hitler cheapens the horror of the Holocaust).

Here is the person and blog post I am responding to (I will include excerpts from the post further below):

(Link): Watchblogging and #evangelicalbetrayal – from the “On Hope” blog, the URL contains the phrase “atckmelodythoughts”

The individual who is behind that blog post – I shall refer to her as “Hope” (is her name Melody?) – describes herself as a moderate conservative.

If I remember correctly, and unless I am confusing her with another person, I followed “Hope” on Twitter several months ago ((Link): @MYsongofpraise – now tweeting as “PeaceofResista1“) ) but had to un-follow her, as she is a rabid Never-Trumper. The frequent anti-Trump rants, and their companion worst-case assumptions of Trump supporters or Trump voters, got tiresome to read.

This blogger is (again, assuming this is the same person I encountered on Twitter months ago), very naive concerning Islamic-motivated terrorism in Western nations.

She’s the sort who wants Americans (and others) willy nilly accepting refugees from Islamic nations, without seemingly caring about the possible negative ramifications involved.

She thinks it’s mean, cruel, or un-Christlike to exercise caution and prudence into accepting migrants, refugees, and immigrants into one’s nation. We’re supposed to allow touchie-feelie, bleeding heart sentiments over-ride caution and good sense in regards to national security.

Continue reading “The Real Bully: Not Tolerating and Misrepresenting Trump Voters and All Who Are Concerned About Islamic Terrorism Via Refugee Programs”

Abortion Widens the Gender Gap and Exploits Women – editorial via the Public Discourse Site

Abortion Widens the Gender Gap and Exploits Women

I’m generally pro-life on the abortion issue. I’ve not had time to read this entire article closely. From what I’m skimming, I agree with much of it.

A year or two ago, I saw numerous articles about men (usually younger and college aged) who were calling themselves “Bro Abortion” or something (some abortion term with the word “bro” in front of it, to designate male support of women getting abortions legally).

The upshot from all this, is based on reporting I saw, is that the REAL reason a lot of these men so strongly support abortion is not because they care about women, or a woman’s right to choose for herself and so on, but because they don’t want to deal with getting a woman pregnant! They don’t want to have to raise a baby or kick funds to raise a baby. These selfish dolts are SEXIST. They are only for using women for sex.

Anyway, here are excerpts from the article.

(Link):  Abortion Widens the Gender Gap and Exploits Women by Brian E. Fisher

… Abortion: Men Started It

The exercise of power over the life of one’s offspring is not a new construct. In ancient Rome, for example, thepaterfamilias, or family patriarch, maintained a legal right to dispose of children deemed unwanted or unfit after birth. Likewise, a widespread preference for male children has compelled parents in China and India to terminate the lives of their daughters for centuries.

(Link): Gender-determination ultrasounds have been used more recently to terminate these lives (Link): prior to birth, but the brutal infanticide of daughters remains common.

What is startling about the “women’s rights” argument for abortion ubiquitous in modern Western culture is that it reframes the act of abortion as a means to women’s freedom, whereas historically it was, by and large, a reflection of male dominance.

… Men Use Abortion to Oppress Women

The passage of time revealed that the license to abort a child for any reason and at any point in pregnancy (thanks to the concurrent Supreme Court decision in Doe v. Bolton) would not yield the unfettered liberation contemporary feminists had predicted.

Indeed, there was a major oversight in their calculations—namely, how men would turn the perceived freedoms of abortion on the women who had worked to secure them. Roe effectively promised men consequence-free sex.

Continue reading “Abortion Widens the Gender Gap and Exploits Women – editorial via the Public Discourse Site”

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

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

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

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

From this series:

Visit Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

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

Introduction.

For those new to my blog:

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

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

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

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

Here is one article by Venker about her relationship views:

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


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

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

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

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

(Link): Perhaps Feminism is Not The Enemy

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

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

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

WHAT THE EXPERTS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT WOMEN BEING BETA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—(end excerpt)—

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

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

From the book The Disease to Please:

Page 95:

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

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

—(end excerpt)—

From pages 93-94:

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

—(end excerpt)—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—(end excerpt)—

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

The result of this for Helene? Lots of abuse.

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

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

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

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

—(end excerpt)—

From page 97:

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

—(end excerpt)—

Page 98:

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

—(end excerpt)—

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

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

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

Here’s what he said:

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

Another male patient said (page 101):

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

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

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

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

—(end excerpt)—

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

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

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

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

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

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

—(end excerpt)—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—(end excerpt)—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From page 131 by Engel:

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

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

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

From page 45 of Engel’s book:

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

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

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

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

–(end excerpt)–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–(end excerpt)–

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

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

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

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


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


Related Posts:

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

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

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

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

Alpha Females Part 3 – Being a Beta Female Does Not Work, It Won’t Get You Dates, Or Keep Your Marriage in Good Shape

Alpha Females Part 3 – Being a Beta Female Does Not Work, It Won’t Get You Dates Or Keep Your Marriage in Good Shape

This commentary will be divided up among a few posts. Here is part 3.

(This post may be edited in the future to re-word things, polish things, add new thoughts or links)

Visit Part 1. | Part 2 | A Response to Venker: Re: Personal Experience

Part 4

Introduction.

For those new to my blog:

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

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

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

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

Here is one article by Venker about her relationship views:

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


Venker, the author of “Society is creating a new crop of alpha women who are unable to love,” relies on a lot of anecdotal commentary to bolster her arguments in her article on “Fox News” site – I can only assume her book is filled with much of the same nonsense…

BEING A TRADITIONAL FEMALE, WHICH VENKER AND OTHERS BASICALLY EQUATE WITH BEING A DOORMAT, DOES NOT WORK FOR RELATIONSHIPS

I have anecdotal commentary in the other direction based on my own life, that of my mother’s and that of other women, to counter Venker’s arguments.

(Update: Please see (Link): my response to Venker here: she is fine with using her personal life experience in articles or books to sell other women on the notion they should be “Beta.”

However, when I produce examples in this post on MY experience – of how being Beta did not make my relationships better – she dismissed this approach on Twitter. Her using her personal experience to back up her view is acceptable to her, but not when others do the same thing to back up their views.

That is inconsistent. If she can appeal to her personal experience to make a point, so can I).

Here is an excerpt from the page by Venker:

….Indeed, my mother was the quintessential alpha wife. An alpha wife micromanages, delegates and makes most or even all of the decisions. She is, quite simply, the Boss.

— end excerpt–

Yes, I grew up quite the opposite from Venker. My mother was the total opposite of Venker’s.

MY MOTHER

My mother was the very sort of woman Venker advises other women to be. My mother in turn raised me to be like herself, which I was, up until my late 30s or early 40s.

My mother was the sweet, docile, doormat who catered to my father’s every need. My mother was definitely the opposite of “The Boss.”

My mother made home-cooked meals for my father most nights. She did not have a job outside the home.

My mother was the stereotypical womanly woman, passive, non-confrontational, soft-spoken woman that conservatives are forever applauding and pressuring other women to be like.

Continue reading “Alpha Females Part 3 – Being a Beta Female Does Not Work, It Won’t Get You Dates, Or Keep Your Marriage in Good Shape”

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

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

This commentary will be divided up among a few posts. Here is part 1.

Visit Part 2 | Part 3 |  A Response to Venker: Re: Personal Experience

Part 4

Introduction.

For those new to my blog:

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

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

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


This series of posts is addressing author Suzanne Venker’s relationship advice, as I have seen her advocate for, in behalf of her book “The Alpha Female’s Guide to Men and Marriage.”

I myself am not, nor have I ever been, what she terms an “Alpha Female.”

I have always been what she refers to as a “Beta,” and guess what?

Being a Beta did not land me a spouse, dates, or make my life easier, more peaceful, less stressful, or rewarding, as Venker tries to reassure her female readers that it will. More on that in a future post.

As a conservative who is in her 40s and still single (though engaged at one time), I have been seeing these sorts of attitudes about gender and marriage that are discussed below in an article by Venker advanced by secular and religious conservatives since I was a teen in the 1980s.

There is an annoying, recurrent, and yes, sexist, motiff by conservatives to say the reason society has problems with marriage, dating irregularity, high divorce rates, and other relationship problems – is that women are at fault.

Women are always blamed for relationship trends and problems – and at that, usually by other women – and at that, by women who tend to be conservative and who publish books or articles about dating and marriage.

Continue reading “Alpha Females Part 1 – Nothing New Under the Sun. Conservative Women Keep Issuing Same Sexist, Unhelpful Dating And Marital Advice to Women”

Why Sexual Desire is Objectifying and Hence Morally Wrong by R. Halwani

Why Sexual Desire is Objectifying and Hence Morally Wrong by R. Halwani

I’m not sure if I agree or disagree with this. I just thought it would be interesting for this blog.

(Link): Why Sexual Desire is Objectifying and Hence Morally Wrong by R. Halwani

Excerpts:

Once desire becomes suspect, sex is never far behind. [8th-century philosopher Immanuel] Kant implicitly acknowledged the unusual power of sexual urges and their capacity to divert us from doing what is right.

He claimed that sex was particularly morally condemnable, because lust focuses on the body, not the agency, of those we sexually desire, and so reduces them to mere things. It makes us see the objects of our longing as just that ­– objects. In so doing, we see them as mere tools for our own satisfaction.

Treating people as objects can mean many things. It could include beating them, tearing into them, and violating them. But there are other, less violent ways of objectifying people.

We might treat someone as only a means to our sexual pleasure, to satisfy our lust on that person, to use a somewhat archaic expression. The fact that the other person consents does not get rid of the objectification; two people can agree to use one another for purely sexual purposes.

…Sex, though, is different.

Continue reading “Why Sexual Desire is Objectifying and Hence Morally Wrong by R. Halwani”

CDC Report: Virgin Teens Much Healthier Than Their Sexually Active Peers (2016 Report)

CDC Report: Virgin Teens Much Healthier Than Their Sexually Active Peers (2016 Report)

Oh no. Just look at the CDC being a bunch of slut shamers!

How dare the CDC point out there are any benefits to sexually abstaining – because this just ruins some of the liberal, left wing, secular feminist talking points and probably gets the Anti-Purity Culture Crusaders upset (note: I do agree there are some problems with Purity Culture teachings, but unlike most of those who rant against it, I don’t think the Bible teaches that God is a-ok with pre-marital sex.)

(Link): CDC Report: Virgin Teens Much Healthier Than Their Sexually Active Peers

BY BRANDON SHOWALTER , CP REPORTER

Dec 6, 2016 | 9:06 AM
A new Centers for Disease Control study examines teenage health behaviors in connection to their self-reported sexual activity and shows those who remain abstinent are much healthier on many fronts than their sexually active peers.
The (Link): report [which is a PDF document NOT an HTML one], titled “Sexual Identity, Sexual Contacts, and Health-Related Behaviors Among Students in Grades 9-12, United States and Selected Sites,” showcased the results from a 2015 survey that monitored several categories of health-related behaviors like tobacco usage, drug and alcohol use, sexual habits, unhealthy dietary behaviors, and behaviors that contribute to unintentional injuries and violence.
The report concludes “that students who had no sexual contact have a much lower prevalance of most health-risk behaviors compared with students” who had sexual contact…..
With regard to smoking, teenage virgins are 3,300 percent less likely to smoke daily than their peers who are sexually involved with someone of the opposite sex, Stanton computed from the report’s data.Teen virgins are 9,500 percent less likely to smoke daily than their peers who are sexually involved with someone of the same sex or in a bisexual relationship, he added. Continue reading “CDC Report: Virgin Teens Much Healthier Than Their Sexually Active Peers (2016 Report)”