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

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 )

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 ) ) 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.

In her (Link): blog post, she says (and note: she is talking about President Donald J. Trump in the following paragraph):

Christians have now been effectively divided by the worst kind of reviler [she refers to Trump], and those who support him despite his pattern of public abuses [she refers again to Trump] are even proud of doing so, and censure those who won’t.

The very watchbloggers [she is likely meaning Deb and Dee of the Wartburg Watch blog] who cared about exposing evil are silent in the face of ongoing public abuse of journalists, attacks on alleged abuse victims, and humiliating by proxy of free thinkers who dare to speak truth to power or simply ask questions.  They don’t seem to realize these abusive attacks ultimately endanger their own freedom of speech or ability to combat abuse.

—(end excerpt)—

I saw Hope (or Melody) leave a post at WW (Wartburg Watch) recently, complaining in a round-about way that the ladies behind WW, Deb and Dee, were not supporting abuse victims because they do not permit political argumentation to occur on their blog.

I really do not see the connection there, and I’m not a dummy.

I fail to see how prohibiting regular or full-scale political debate on one’s spiritual abuse blog is somehow the same thing as facilitating the cover-up of something like, say, child rape by pastors.

I don’t always visit WW consistently, but if I am following developments correctly from what I have seen lately, another WW visitor named David (who has his own blog) apparently left posts critical of Trump (or some political figure) on the WW blog, which Deb and Dee later removed (as is their policy). “Hope” (also known as Melody) seems quite upset by this.

Deb and Dee of The Wartburg Watch blog usually choose to focus on subjects such as child abuse that is covered up by churches, and on spiritual abuse conducted by Christian churches – which is their prerogative, as it is their blog.

When “Hope” complains at WW, and there on her own blog, about “watch bloggers” (meaning, the women at Wartburg Watch blog) supposedly not caring about “exposing evil” and other such melodramatic references – due to their rule about not wanting political debates to take place in their comments section, as politics is not the focus on their blog or mission – she is really just upset that WW is not an Anti-Trump venue or is not promoting a “Never Trump” position on their blog. That’s what it boils down to.

First of all, it’s highly presumptuous  of Hope / Melody to insist that Deb and Dee (the women behind WW blog) should blog to suit her. It’s their blog, they get to call the shots.

If Hope feels so strongly about Trump, why doesn’t she start her own blog and post Anti Trump content all day?

Secondly, Hope presumes without proving.

She is (I can only take it), referring to Trump in the paragraphs above, as though he is a monster who is going to send all American journalists off to the ovens and jail any dissenters. The man has been in office for a month or two now, and none of that has happened.

The worst the guy (Trump) does is Tweet his disagreements with journalists on his Twitter account, hardly something to hyperventilate about.

I want to reiterate here that I’m not strongly for or against Trump – which makes me a hell of a lot more objective than Hope or than most “Trump Trainers,” anti Trumpers, or Never Trumpers out there.

On her blog, (Link): she writes:

Lately, it is the atheists, who are the ones who see clearly and truly tell it as it is.  The Christians in other countries who see this may rightfully wonder why we send them missionaries, when the American church acts like spoilt brats complaining of danger while rejecting those fleeing war.  If it is for freedom and love that Christ has set us free, why are American evangelicals some of the most miserly and cruel?  How is it that they are so easily turned against their neighbor?

–(end excerpt)–

And those dangers posed by refugees that folks are concerned about are in fact very real, they exist (links to follow, farther below, as this post goes on) – not like your souped up crazed paranoia that Trump is going to shoot all journalists in their faces for publishing critical pieces of him.

The Bible says you are not to bear false witness against your neighbor. But here Hope is, distorting the views of those who disagree with her.

Hope is misrepresenting the motives and views of those who don’t share her warm ‘n fuzzy “accept all refugees from Islamic nations” mindset, or her hatred and suspicion of President Trump.

Concerning Trump, some who voted for the guy did so in SPITE of the man’s sexism, not because of it. For her to sit there on her blog and on Twitter and act as though everyone who voted for him did so due to nefarious motives is deceitful and uncharitable on her part.

Here is an essay by a liberal woman who voted for Trump, where she implores the Trump haters, such as Hope, to stop bashing her and undestand WHY she voted for Trump:

(Link): Liberals [and conservative Never Trumpers] Should Stop Ranting and Seek Out Silent Trump Voters Like Me

I am an urban, millennial woman, and I voted for Trump. Now, I’m afraid to explain my reasoning to an angry, vitriolic left that will not listen to me.

—(end quote)—

 You know who the bully is? People such as Hope who scold, shame, and browbeat folks who didn’t vote the way she thinks they should have.

The actual bully here is the one who argues that any one who doesn’t walk lock-step with her concerning Trump or refugee policies is evil, supports evil, or loves abuse, and is not “Christian enough.”

You, Hope (a k a “Melody”), are actually behaving towards your philosophical and political opponents the way you accuse THEM and Trump of acting.

You were even using your Twitter account as a bully pulpit to snipe at folks – similar to what Trump does with his Twitter account. Let that sink in and chew on it for awhile.

These passages are applicable (Romans 14)-

Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

One person considers one day more sacred than another;another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

(end excerpt)

That could be re-stated as:

One Christian considers Hillary Clinton more sacred than Trump; another considers Trump more sacred (or less evil) than Clinton. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one political candidate as special does so as to the Lord.

(end quote)

Concerning refugees and Islam.

I happen to be concerned about the safety of American citizens, which means, I support limits on refugee /  migrant / immigrant numbers, and making sure that those who do obtain access are here LEGALLY and are thoroughly vetted.

None of that makes me cruel, heartless, or a great big “meanie.”

“Loving your neighbor as yourself” does not mean setting aside prudence, safety, or common sense.

“Loving your neighbor as yourself” does not mean leaving your car doors unlocked when you go out shopping so a thief can steal your car. It does not mean leaving your home’s doors unlocked and windows wide open so a burglar can sneak in and steal your television set or slit your throat.

“Loving your neighbor as yourself” does not mean being a codependent doormat and a push-over.

“Loving your neighbor as yourself” does not mean allowing heart- tugging photos of dead toddler refugee children washed up on a beach over-ride practical cautions or national security measures on behalf of the still-living who have no desire to get blown up by Muslim radicals because you are weepy or concerned with how we look to foreigners.

Get a grip.

Further, I don’t give a rat’s ass how these views of mine as a U.S. citizen on this issue are regarded by left wingers in France, Germany, or Scandinavia – areas, by the way, which have Muslim refugees who have been groping and raping European little boys and adult women.

Where is Hope’s compassion or concern for VICTIMS of Islamic based terrorism and sexual assault, some of which is carried out by Refugees from Islamic nations?

I am more nervous about an ISIS member sneaking into the U.S.A. from among Refugees than I am about anything Trump may Tweet from his Twitter account tomorrow.

The following is more alarming than Trump, or just about anything Trump says or does
(by the way, if memory serves, and unless I am confusing her with another woman I had a run-in with on Twitter, Hope – also known as Melody – has a nasty, intellectually dishonest habit of refusing to accept news reports from any news source that conflicts with her views of the world – how very convenient for her):

(Link): U.S. mistakenly granted citizenship to hundreds of immigrants

(Link): US Government Mistakenly Grants Citizenship to Hundreds of Immigrants

(Link):  Flaws in Fingerprint Records Allowed Hundreds to Become U.S. Citizens

(Link):  DHS granted citizenship to hundreds of illegal immigrants from terrorist countries

(Link):  Report: U.S. Government Erroneously Granted Citizenship to 858 Immigrants With Deportation Orders

(Link):  Watchdog: Feds wrongly granted citizenship to hundreds facing deportation

 (Link): More than 800 immigrants with pending deportation orders mistakenly granted U.S. citizenship

(Link):  DHS: 858 illegals were granted US citizenship by mistake, ‘but the problem could be even worse’

(Link): N.Y.-area bombings raise immigrant screening concerns

Hope writes on her blog,

The seeds that led to this evangelical betrayal were sown in the willingness to cover up sexual abuses of the most vulnerable and precious people so the show could go on, and in the superior attitudes that lead to world missions that spread Americanity and lack humility.  (Again, remember I have personal experience of this subculture, and I have not lost my faith because God is both good and love.)

The callousness that it takes to condemn the innocent has manifested itself in a culturally acceptable callousness that hates and rejects innocent victims of war for the religion they were born into overseas.

Those 10,000 plus refugee kids that are missing in Europe apparently don’t matter to watchbloggers equal to American children, or to the “prolife,” equal to unborn American babies.  And the same folk who reject all Muslims, send out missionaries and thank servicemembers and their spouses, as if they really care about our emotional or physical safety.

Vomitous.

I frame this as a betrayal because that is the best description of how this has gone down for those of us Christians, from whatever perspective, who stood against this insidious bullyculture.

…Many of them reading this won’t be able to get past the fact I frame it this personally- that I see fit to judge them on their character according to their actions and attitudes.  Their feelings being hurt is more of an issue to them than getting to and speaking the truth responsibly when human lives are at stake.

—(end excerpts)—

I come from a military family. Several of my family members are military.

If you don’t believe that some or most Muslims are terrorists, than how can you argue that discussing the relation between Islam and terrorism can entice a Muslim overseas to kill your military husband?

In other words, if your world-view is correct and there is no link between terrorism and Islam (i.e. all Muslims are innocent as little doves and don’t want to murder “infidels”), it should not matter if folks like me ring the alarm bell that allowing Islamic refugees into a nation may raise the possibility of more terror attacks.

If Americans and Christians ceased talking or posting about Islam and terrorism, it would not halt Islamic terror attacks. -You do realize that, right?

One reason the radical Muslims want to kill us is simply because we are not Muslims. They want to take over the world for Allah, to establish a Caliphate. Therefore, whether we tweet about how terrible they are or not and how they are terrorists is not going to sway them either way.

If Christians didn’t care about Muslims at all, then why oh why are they indeed sending missionaries out to convert them? Muslims who convert to Christianity are less likely to blow up civilians in the name of Jesus than the name of Allah. Isn’t that a good thing?

How bullying of you to insist bloggers blog to YOUR dictates and YOUR PET CAUSES.

How vomitous and callous of you not to give a damn, or take into serious consideration, the possibility of Americans (and other Westerners) being run over by cars, knifed, shot, or blown up by Islamic terrorists – some of whom have stated that they will seek to enter other nations via Refugee programs?

This is reality, sweet pea (you can Google and find many more news reports confirming this):

(Link):   Islamic State finds success infiltrating its terrorists into refugee flows to West

(Link):  ISIS fighters attempt to blend in with surging level of refugees leaving Mosul

(Link):   ‘Just wait…’ Islamic State reveals it has smuggled THOUSANDS of extremists into Europe

I guess Hope (Melody) does not care about the children (and women) being raped or groped by Islamic refugees and immigrants, such as:

(Link):  Cover-up: The Swedish Left’s Sacrifice of Women to Political Correctness

(Link):  ‘Easy Meat.’ Britain’s Muslim Rape Gang Cover-Up

LONDON — Some scandals are so massive that they’re simply hard to believe. As many as one million white English children may have been the victims of Muslim rape gangs, better known as grooming gangs, in towns up and down Great Britain.

(Link):  Iraqi refugee who raped a 10-year-old boy at a swimming pool in a ‘sexual emergency’ has his conviction overturned because the Austrian court ‘didn’t prove he realised the boy was saying no’ 

(Link):  Man [Islamic refugee] who raped 10-year-old boy at swimming pool in Austria has sentence overturned by Supreme Court

(Link):   Germany’s Migrant Rape Crisis Spirals out of Control

Suppression of data about migrant rapes is “Germany-wide phenomenon.

(Link): Swedish women start ‘vigilante’ patrols at swimming pools after reports of sexual assaults by refugees

  (Link):   Germany tells refugees don’t touch women at pools

Where is Hope’s concern over these innocent women and children being raped or fondled by Islamic refugees? I guess she doesn’t love her neighbor as herself – how completely vomitous of her.

How dare Hope betray the populations of nations such as the USA, Germany, Sweden, and Great Britain.

And why is it Deb and Dee’s responsibility to turn their WW blog into a Pro-Refugee, Anti-Trump resource? That is pretty arrogant of her to demand or expect that or act like a petulant child when they won’t go along with that.

It’s also pretty arrogant to assume that their chosen focus – spiritual abuse in American / Western churches – somehow translates to them not caring about anyone outside of the United States? Maybe they do care but just choose not to highlight those particular topics on their blog.

Here is an editorial cartoon for Hope (via Twitter) –note: there is further commentary below this image:

terrorVicMigrant

The woman behind that blog, Hope (aka “Melody”) is quite presumptuous and sanctimonious.

Regarding this comment by Hope (source):

“Their feelings being hurt is more of an issue to them than getting to and speaking the truth responsibly when human lives are at stake.”

—(end quote)—

That is the pot calling the kettle black. You are asking people, such as Americans, to allow their feelings to over-ride mature, sensible, logical safety measures and concerns, all because you see a few sad photos of dead refugee kids washed up on beaches.

You, Hope, are the one asking me to put my personal physical safety at risk because of your misguided notion of what it means to be compassionate to refugees. Nope. That’s not going to fly.

The audacity you have. What an arrogant cookie you are.

If people don’t see eye to eye with you on debatable matters, you automatically cast them as bullies, jerks, or meanies.

Hope writes:

Bear with me also, because in the government of the culture I grew up in, people yell at and mock each other then go out and get drinks together having had a splendid debate, and having made progress as a nation, despite differences.

One of the wider problems of American culture is the inability to debate respectfully and say tough things to each other and yet stay in the debate without insulting each other and being cruel or petty.  The evangelical church here is notoriously thin-skinned, and I say this as a sensitive person myself.

—(end excerpt)—

You are guilty there of those very things yourself.   You have insulted anyone and everyone who does not share YOUR views.

You cannot accept that other people can have equally valid yet differing views to yours, so you resort to casting negative motives on them, such as assuming that they are heartless, non-neighbor-loving, sexist pigs.

All because they voted for a candidate you did not like, or because they believe immigrants should be properly vetted, and because they actually see that radical Islam poses a danger to Western societies (ISIS is not sending Non-Muslim persons roses and teddy bears but men wearing suicide vests, or nuts mowing civilians down with trucks).

Hope writes:

And it is a personal rejection of anyone like me who grew up overseas.  (I was told to go back to the UK for my concern for refugees back in 2015.  Most Christians were silent or said the same kinds of things to me.)

–(end quote)–

And just today, the UK suffered yet another terror attack, in London: a guy drove over several pedestrians and stabbed someone to death.

Dollars to doughnuts that the Loon behind today’s London attack turns out to be a Muslim.

(Link): London attack: Assailant shot dead after four killed near Parliament – CNN

March 22, 2017

A man killed four people, including a police officer, outside the UK Parliament on Wednesday in what British police are looking at as an act of “Islamist-related terrorism.”

—(end excerpt)—

I bet you anything the punk responsible for that attack was NOT a Lutheran or a Methodist. Oh, but how Hope’s heart bleeds for refugees (and how she will deny there is such a thing as radical Muslims who do kill Westerners and others). No compassion for the victims of the violent refugees or the radical Muslims from Hope, no.

Quoting Hope:

Do you not see the in-congruence of railing against Saeed Abendini’s domestic abuse while supporting the Americanity of Franklin Graham?  Do you not understand the craziness of claiming to care about religious freedom while praising Russia?  Do you seriously not understand the brazen hypocrisy of claiming to care about abuse victims (or even being a survivor oneself) and still voting for a self avowed “p*ssy-grabber”?

–(end quote)–

Some Christians who spoke out against Saeed also speak out against Franklin Graham’s excesses – but so what if they do not? Why does everyone have to have all the same exact boxes of out-rage ticked off on the Outrage Chart that you do?

Why do you feel you are the final or only arbiter of what or who other Christians or Americans should or should not support or condemn?

I condemn Trump’s sexism and even Tweeted numerous links against it during the 2016 elections, but unlike you, I don’t have the arrogance to shame and scold those who voted for the guy, or to accuse them all of being abuse supporters, abuse deniers, or sexists.

Again, many who voted for Trump voted for Trump in spite of his sexism, not because of it. 

Evangelicals and others who voted for Trump voted for him because they didn’t want another eight years of failed Obama policy in office, which is what we would have had under Hillary Clinton. They didn’t believe an establishment Republican nominee would bring actual change to Washington.

Some Trump voters wanted a conservative SCOTUS judge nominated, which they would not have gotten under Hillary.

Some of the folks who voted Trump did so because they believed he may be able to jump-start the economy.

In light of all those differing (and understandable) reasons people had for voting for Trump, none having to do with hating women, with hating all Muslims, or with hating black people, or with supporting abuse –

Hope, where in the holy hell do you get off equating every one who voted for Trump with people who excuse or cover up abuse – with child abuse, domestic wife abuse, spiritual abuse?  Why not also accuse them of hating rainbows and puppies while you’re at it?

Hope said,

Imagine what you are putting missionaries through- who love their Muslim neighbors.

–(end quote)–

I cannot imagine how you can be so thoroughly ignorant of the dangers radical Muslims pose to Western societies.

You want to place political correctness and what Muslims may think about us against our safety. Talk about having your priorities out of order. Talk about being codependent.

By the way… (and spoiler: their conversions have nothing to do with how American Christians act or if they voted for Trump or not):

(Link):  Muslim converts breathe new life into Europe’s struggling Christian churches

(Link): Why some Muslim Syrian refugees are converting to Christianity

(Link):  Droves of Middle East Muslims are converting to Christianity

(Link): Muslim refugees convert to Christianity after claiming to see Jesus in their dreams

Hope said:

Imagine how it is for their kids wanting a college education “back home” when a prominent evangelical college president lets slip the idea of “taking out those Muslims,” as if all such religious folk are extremist murderers!

–(end quote)–

Did he say ALL Muslims are “extremist murderers”? I don’t believe so. If they want to take his comment that way, that’s their responsibility.

Here’s a video by a moderate Muslim who agrees with me, not with Hope:

Video: By the Numbers The Untold Story of Muslim Opinions & Demographics

Hope said,

I couldn’t even post a photo of the Obamas either as a milspouse or as an American citizen to advertise the time of his farewell speech without a nasty ad hominem comment about him on my Facebook from a former watchblogger friend who chose to delete me because I said (in summary) not cool.

I had to detach indefinitely from a Christian family member for the same unrepentant uncalled-for response to a photo wishing a former president well.  How is any of that behavior Christlike?

…And I am a moderate conservative and was no fan of Obama’s politically. But I can’t say I respect the man on any level without being accused of being a globalist or liberal by so many professing Christians.

–(end quote)–

I am not an Obama supporter. However, had I been your Facebook friend, it would not have bothered me in the slightest had you posted a “good luck in the future to Obama” type photo.

I am a right winger, but I would’ve found such a post by you wishing Obama well classy, harmless, in good taste, and so I would not have left you a nasty comment about it. So please, stop lumping all your right wing friends into the same rubric. We’re not all alike.

Hope said (in the comments on her blog page),

However, I do not accept nor understand Christians refusing to talk about or allow discussion of a significant and serious pattern of lying, alleged and repeated sexual abuse extending to possible spousal rape, and bullying of individual citizens and a free press by a political candidate favored by a vast majority of evangelical voters, on a blog ostensibly devoted to exposing spiritual abuses.

–(end quote)–

Trump, though, is not a spiritual leader. He’s a businessman who became a politician.

You honestly do not grasp how lambasting anyone who voted for the guy and doing so on a blog such as WW won’t offend Trump voters who lurk or post there? Or you just don’t care?

(Again: I did not vote for Trump myself, but I’m not going to assume the worst of every one who did.)

You have people who voted for Trump who are good, kind, moral people, including some evangelicals. You, however, continue to equate any and all who voted for Trump as being monsters.

You want WW readers to sit and read posts which say in effect,

“If you voted for Trump, you are evil, wrong, horrible, stupid, and you probably rape children for fun in your spare time. And Jesus loves me more than you because I did not vote for Trump. Thank you God for not making me like the sinful tax collectors or the Trump voters.”

And you really don’t see how that won’t cause a conflict or upset? Are you serious? And are you that obnoxious and arrogant?

By calling them abuse deniers, abuse supporters, and so on, you are being highly offensive. People will spend more time on that WW blog screaming at each other over politics than being supportive of spiritual abuse victims.

As to the substance of your accusations in the above excerpt:

What did Trump supposedly lie about, specifically? Where is your proof that Trump lied?

I should pause here to say that a lot of the stuff Trump Tweets – the man exaggerates, and the American media take him way too literally.

I wonder sometimes if Trump is playing the media – if he is, it works. The media are forever running down rabbit holes. I don’t think some of what the guy tweets is a lie per se, so much as it’s the way he communicates – the way he phrases things. He likes to over-state things, but I do not think he is deliberately trying to mislead anyone.

Last I checked, we still have a free press. Trump is not having reporters lined up and shot in their faces. The media is all over him, criticizing his every comment and policy.

As to Trump’s sexism, etc, even if I grant that point, what were people supposed to do, either sit the election out, or vote for Hillary?

Or write “Donald Duck” or “Mickey Mouse” in on the ballot?

The WW blog exists primarily to discuss topics such as complementarianism and spiritual abuse. That they may periodically allow a politically- tinged comment to go through by a member, despite their “no politics” policy, doesn’t mean they want the entire focus on their blog to be upon politics or Trump.

By the way, someone voting for a candidate you personally find repulsive is not a form of “abuse.”

A blog that chooses not to devote all its time and energy on ragging on that candidate you dislike is also not “abuse.”

Theirs is mostly a religious based blog, not a political one. It’s not rocket science to understand why they don’t want to broadcast “Never Trump” paranoia and loathing such as yours 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

As a reminder yet again: I did not vote for ANYONE in this last election, not Trump nor Hillary.

(But I also understand why some may have felt moved to vote for one or the other, or for a third party candidate.)

Hope said,

I could have told you in 2015 that if this person were to become president, our nation would be a bullyculture and that the most vulnerable people worldwide would be harmed by that; that people would die as a result of it.  And so it now is.

–(end quote)–

My dear, Trump is trying to protect us from the true bullies, which consist of…

The liberals (including the ones who by and large make up our media) who seek to use political correctness and the courts to shut the mouths of Christians and conservatives, to run Christian bakers, photographers and florists out of business, and the radical Muslims who want to literally kill us all. You have some of your views so terribly backwards, it’s painful to read.

Your attitude towards those who don’t share your perspectives is so very condescending and sanctimonious. And you wonder why some friends are deleting you or de-friending you or muting you on social media?

I suspect it’s due less to your views as they are but your manner in stating them, or that you are on this unrelenting crusade to keep pestering people over and over about these matters. And that you are dictating to people, as though you are a supervisor about how and what, they should blog about.

There’s nothing mean or hateful about speaking out and against Islamic terrorism, the possibility that some terrorists may infiltrate other nations via refugees, and there’s nothing demonic in and of itself for voting for Trump (which I did not personally do), and voting for Trump does not make one a racist, sexist, or a villain.

Until and unless you grasp those concepts, you’re going to keep mistreating people and keep alienating them.

Trump isn’t the bully, Hope. The people who have understandable, logical, and rational caution about accepting just any and all Islamic refugees into their nations are not the bullies, Hope. You are. You’re showing the very traits in your attitude that you accuse others of having.

Edit. Pertinent to this conversation:

(Link): ERLC Defends Russell Moore, Who Apologizes for His Role in Trump Divide

Excerpt:

A week ago, Moore met with denominational leader Frank Page over an investigation into numerous complaints regarding the ERLC. The criticism centers around Moore’s vocal opposition to Trump and his campaign, his characterization of the faith and motives of Trump’s Christian supporters, and whether such messaging (toward fellow Southern Baptists not DC lawmakers) extended beyond the proper role of the ERLC president.

Moore reiterated and clarified the apology he shared in December, but ultimately stood by his positions.

“I stand by those convictions, but I did not separate out categories of people well—such that I wounded some, including close friends,” said Moore. “I cannot go back and change time, and I cannot apologize for my underlying convictions. But I can—and do—apologize for failing to distinguish between people who shouldn’t have been in the same category with those who put politics over the gospel and for using words, particularly in social media, that were at times overly broad or unnecessarily harsh. That is a failure on my part.”

…In Monday’s statement, Moore repeated that fellow Southern Baptists have “reasonable and defensible” reasons to disagree with him on matters of conscience, such as how to vote in the 2016 election.


This post has been edited to add new links, and may be edited in the future to add further thoughts or to correct errors


Related Posts:

(Link):  Tolerance, Compassion, and Knowing People Personally

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

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)”

“Jesus Didn’t Die to Save My Hymen” Declares An Anti-Sexual Purity Advocate – My Response

“Jesus Didn’t Die to Save My Hymen” Declares An Anti-Sexual Purity Advocate – My Response

I have addressed topics similar to this before on my blog, so instead of re-hashing all my previous points and arguments, I may just link you to a few of my older posts farther below.

(I should perhaps mention that I’ve had a long day today, am very tired, and currently have a bad headache, so I am not in top form to compose a post right now.)

Here’s the impetus behind this post:

I was reading through my Twitter feed today and saw a post where Janet Mefferd, Christian radio host, shared a comment about how an anti-Sexual Purity article Tweeted by Christian site ‘Relevant’ was Gnostic in nature, in that it talked about ‘sexual soul purity’ vs. ‘sexual bodily purity.’

You can read Mrs. Mefferd’s Tweet (Link): here, with some responses by me below it.

Where-upon an anti-Sexual Purity advocate I follow on Twitter by the name of April, shared Ms. Mefferd’s Tweet or another related Tweet by Mefferd with the comment above it, “Jesus didn’t die to save my hymen.”

You can view April’s tweet (Link): here.

I Tweeted in response to April the following comment:

Taking an anti-sexual purity stance waters down biblical sexual ethics. I’m over 40, still a virgin.  @ April_Kelsey

Well, I don’t recall Ms. Mefferd or myself or anyone else who defends the concept of sexual purity, or who say the Bible does teach the concept of sexual purity, as saying that Jesus died to save your hymen.
Continue reading ““Jesus Didn’t Die to Save My Hymen” Declares An Anti-Sexual Purity Advocate – My Response”

Secular Liberal Author Doesn’t Think A Woman Choosing to Be Celibate is A Form of Feminism – Especially if Motivated in Part by Religious Convictions

Secular Liberal Author Doesn’t Think A Woman Choosing to Be Celibate is A Form of Feminism – Especially if Motivated in Part by Religious Convictions

This is another one of those posts I didn’t want to write.

Previously, I blogged about this:

(Link): I’m a 32-Year-Old Virgin, and I’m Living the Feminist Dream by K. Bryan

This editorial by Bryan, which was originally published on The  Washington Post, did not sit well with writer Aimée Lutkin over at left wing feminist site Jezebel. Lutkin spends much of her post summarizing Bryan’s editorial.

Here are excerpts from Lutkin’s piece,
(Link): Purity Culture May Get You What You Want, But That Doesn’t Make It Feminist

Being happy and fulfilled and a woman at the same time does not automatically make one a feminist.

….Considering Bryan’s scholarly pursuits and her immersion in purity culture, it seems likely that her choices are influenced more by her Catholicism than the fight for equality between the sexes.

But hey, if Bryan feels free to disregard the needs of men to pursue goals like learning to scull on the Potomac and working a job she says is the best she’s had in her life, perhaps she has achieved her idea of equality through sexual abstinence.

In a world that frequently feels like it specifically wants to make women miserable, feeling some measure of happiness as an independent woman is a triumph. But although equality is a kind of triumph, triumph is not necessarily equality. Bryan says:

…Personally, my feminist dream definitely includes lots of consensual, joyful, sexual congress outside of marriage, without shame or religious condemnation, but we’re all dreaming a different dream.

Regarding this comment by Lutkin:

But hey, if Bryan feels free to disregard the needs of men…

I’m sorry, but what? Since when is sex a “need,” and who of the female sex cares if men are going without sex? Women are not obligated to give men sex to meet their supposed “need for sex.”

I thought feminists fought against men objectifying women to be used as sex objects? I thought feminists at Jezebel like to say, “Men, we don’t care about your boners.” Now, here we have a feminist writer at Jezebel telling women that they really need to care about men’s boners.

I note that left wing feminists are arrogant enough to think they alone get to determine and define for other women what feminism is.

Continue reading “Secular Liberal Author Doesn’t Think A Woman Choosing to Be Celibate is A Form of Feminism – Especially if Motivated in Part by Religious Convictions”

Woman Has Abortion Because She Couldn’t Fit Into Her Wedding Dress

Woman Has Abortion Because She Couldn’t Fit Into Her Wedding Dress

Depending on the situation, I may at times attempt to understand WHY a woman had an abortion and even attempt to be compassionate about it. But most abortions take place because the baby conceived was done so via consensual sex. In these cases, I am not generally charitable.

As to the article I link you to below: a woman aborted her kid because she was afraid she wouldn’t be able to fit into her wedding dress later. What a selfish bitch (as are several of the other women mentioned in this article – some of them had abortions for trivial and/or purely selfish reasons).

Contrary to secular, left wing feminists, some of the women mentioned in this article, and/or their choice, should absolutely be “slut shamed” – to the hilt.

(The men who got them pregnant should also be slut shamed, because they are sluts too, and irresponsible ones.)

Some of the women in this article are so cavalier about killing an unborn child – or a blob of tissue that would otherwise turn into a baby – and some are ditzes who are too lazy or sloppy about birth control use.

Continue reading “Woman Has Abortion Because She Couldn’t Fit Into Her Wedding Dress”

Tolerance, Compassion, and Knowing People Personally

Tolerance, Compassion, and Knowing People Personally

I keep running into politically left wing types or touchie-feelie Christians (some of whom may be somewhat conservative, which surprises me) on social media who assume the reason I must oppose certain things, such as–

-Mass Muslim immigration
-Allowing biological men into women’s bathrooms and fitting rooms under transgender laws

is due to some kind of personal animosity towards these groups of people.

The reason I object to, or am concerned about, things such as mass Muslim immigration or transgender bathroom bills has NOTHING to do with personal hatred on my part towards Muslims or transgender people.

I find this so frustrating that this is assumed about me from the start, and this assumption occurs constantly on Twitter and other blogs.

If you bother to get to know me, or read many of my blog posts on this blog, or stop and ask me my feelings about things (instead of JUST ASSUMING you know why I must hold thus- and- so an opinion on a given topic), you would discover I’m pretty laid back about things, more so than the people who yell at me online.

Continue reading “Tolerance, Compassion, and Knowing People Personally”

I’m a 32-Year-Old Virgin, and I’m Living the Feminist Dream by K. Bryan

I’m a 32-Year-Old Virgin, and I’m Living the Feminist Dream by K. Bryan

Parts of Bryan’s essay resonated with me. There are different reasons I decided to abstain from sex, but avoiding things such as sexually transmitted diseases, having to spend money on birth control, and men using you for sex just to dump you the next day were a few of my own reasons, and she cited one or more of these reasons in her essay.

(Link): I’m a 32-Year-Old Virgin, and I’m Living the Feminist Dream by K. Bryan

Excerpts

My name is Kate. I’m 32 years old. I’ve never had sex.

When I was young, I always imagined I would be married by 25 and have a brood of kids. Jesus said in the Gospel of Matthew to “make disciples,” and I thought it would be cool to take that verse literally and have 12 kids. I wanted enough kids to fill a baseball team, a hockey bench and a big house full of love.

That obviously didn’t happen. Or it hasn’t happened yet. But I love my life. …

Do I feel a void because I’m not married and I don’t have children yet? Sure. Do I wish I were having sex? Of course.

No, Focus On the Family, I Do Not Want to Civilize a Barbarian – via Biblical Personhood Blog

No, Focus On the Family, I Do Not Want to Civilize a Barbarian – via Biblical Personhood Blog

There is certainly nothing wrong with marriage or the nuclear family, but often times, in attempting to defend the nuclear family or the institution of marriage, a lot of Christians and conservative groups (such as Focus On The Family) err too far in making an idol out of both and denigrating singleness (or childlessness) in the process.

I have taken Focus on the Family to task before on that issue and one or two others.

Another blogger, Biblical Personhood, caught wind of a Focus on the Family blog post by  Glenn T. Stanton – well, it’s on a blog called “First Things,” which the lady blogger of Biblical Personhood says is an off-shoot of Focus on The Family.

I have discussed Stanton on my blog before, such as in these posts:

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

(Link):  Mefferd Guest Incredulous that Preachers Push Kids To Marry Early

Based on what I remember about Stanton, he can veer a little bit too much into idolizing marriage.

At any rate, here is the link to the blog post by Biblical Personhood, with some additional comments by me below this excerpt:

(Link): No, Focus on the Family, I do not want to civilize a barbarian via Biblical Personhood blog

Here is an excerpt from the opening (please click the link above to visit the other blog if you’d like to read the entire page):

From Biblical Personhood Blog:

(Link): Focus on the Family recently suggested something that seems, at first glance, to flatter women. I did not feel flattered at all. They suggested women are the number one way to change men for the better:

/// start quote

… the most fundamental social problem every community must solve is the unattached male. If his sexual, physical, and emotional energies are not governed and directed in a pro-social, domesticated manner, he will become the village’s most malignant cancer. Wives and children, in that order, are the only successful remedy ever found. – Glenn T. Stanton

/// end quote

This is highly problematic, to say the least.

From the theological perspective :

Have Focus On The Family never heard of Jesus and being born again? Surely Jesus is better at changing humans – even the alleged “malignant cancer” called unattached males – from the inside than any woman is? How could a Christian™ organization say that women, not Jesus, is the only remedy for men’s bad tendencies?

(( read the rest here ))

If you are an unmarried man (and you either want to stay single for the remainder of your life, or are aware you may never marry, even though you may want a wife), I’m sure you must really appreciate guys like Stanton saying you are basically a raging animal, or an immature man-baby, unless you are married to a woman.

You, if you are a single (unmarried) man, are a nothing, an incompetent, immoral loser unless you have a wife, is how Stanton’s reasoning comes across. You must have a wife and possibly father a child by said wife to count or to be a “real man.” This is pretty insulting stuff, especially bearing in mind that the Bible that Stanton likely would say he reads and agrees with, says nothing of the sort.

I did read over the Biblical Personhood blog post a day or two ago, but I don’t remember exactly everything that blog author wrote.

I will here add my own thoughts about the Stanton penned blog post. Some of my observations may be similar to those by the Biblical Personhood blogger.

Stanton writes:

 Women create, shape, and maintain human culture. Manners exist because women exist. Worthy men adjust their behavior when a woman enters the room. They become better creatures. Civilization arises and endures because women have expectations of themselves and of those around them.

I disagree with just about everything he said there, on different levels, and for different reasons.

Most cultures are patriarchal, and this has been the way the world has been for thousands of years.

Women are not allowed to shape or maintain politics, marriage, or church – let alone culture, because men hold all the power. Women are taught by parents and culture from girlhood that this is normal, that men should be in charge, and females are conditioned from childhood to accept this and go along with it, especially Christian girls.

As much as I dislike blatant sexism, where men sound like cave-men and make loud, rude, condescending claims, such as women are not as logical or intelligent as men (this is used to justify limiting women in the workplace and so on)-
I also do not appreciate this (Link): benevolent sexist, noble-sounding, sappy and fouffy writing that tries to convince women that being subservient to men, allowing men to lead and protect them, and thus they can and should give up self-determination and their agency, is in their best interest, because dang it, women are so much more morally superior creatures to men.

This sort of writing is sugar-coated sexism. It’s asking women to give up their personhood,  identity, or their independence, in exchange for something else (in this case, the betterment of men or culture).

I’m really tired of how sexists keep demanding things of women, and nothing of men, of expecting women to fix men, or to fix society.

Continue reading “No, Focus On the Family, I Do Not Want to Civilize a Barbarian – via Biblical Personhood Blog”

America’s Lost Boys by S. D. James (Why Men Are Not Marrying)

America’s Lost Boys by S. D. James (Why Men Are Not Marrying)

I don’t know how much of this I agree with, but it does pertain to topics I blog about frequently, so here it is.

I keep seeing conservative Christian men blame feminism for delayed marriage among men, and at least one Christian sociologist blamed Christian women for declining marriage rates, because he feels that single Christian women are unwilling to marry Christian male porn addicts – he argues they should marry porn addicts anyway (for real; see this post).

Yet another article I (Link): linked to previously blamed porn addiction – that men are getting their kicks from nude women online, so they don’t feel the need to date real life women.

This article is citing immaturity for why so many men are not marrying (the single men supposedly want to play video games all day long).

An older article on my site that I linked to (Link): blamed the poor economy.

(Link): America’s Lost Boys by S. D. James (Why Men Are Not Marrying)

Excerpts:

Where have America’s young men gone? According to Erik Hurst, an economist from the University of Chicago, they haven’t gone anywhere—they’re just plugged in.

In a (Link): recent interview, Hurst says that his research indicates that young men with less than a four-year degree (according to virtually all data, that’s an increasing number) are spending their days unemployed and unmarried, but not un-amused.

“The hours that they are not working have been replaced almost one-for-one with leisure time,” Hurst reports. “Seventy-five percent of this new leisure time falls into one category: video games. The average low-skilled, unemployed man in this group plays video games an average of twelve, and sometimes upwards of thirty hours per week.”

Hurst goes on: “These individuals are living with parents or relatives, and happiness surveys actually indicate that they [are] quite content compared to their peers, making it hard to argue that some sort of constraint, [such as that] they are miserable because they can’t find a job, is causing them to play video games.”

Continue reading “America’s Lost Boys by S. D. James (Why Men Are Not Marrying)”

“My boyfriend was intimidated by my sexual history. So I dumped him.” by T. Hornung

“My boyfriend was intimidated by my sexual history. So I dumped him.” by T. Hornung

I’m not going to take the usual, secular, left wing feminist standard here (for one thing, I’m right wing and don’t always agree with secular feminists), where I’m supposed to say a woman’s sexual history is not a boyfriend’s business, or the boyfriend should not be upset by his girlfriend’s sexual past, and say, “Rah rah, women’s sexual freedom.”

I am forever amazed that “sex positive” feminists, whether they are men or women, assume that their previous sexual choices should not, or will not, have any consequences upon them or the people around them.

Some of us are more “serious” about sex than other people – sex actually means something to us, so yes, we find it troubling, and I suppose this is doubly so, if we are virgins over 35 years of age, and have to grapple with the fact that our current partner has had sex with other people in the past.

Continue reading ““My boyfriend was intimidated by my sexual history. So I dumped him.” by T. Hornung”

“‘I Kissed Dating Goodbye’ [Book] Told Me to Stay Pure Until Marriage. I Still Have a Stain on My Heart” – Regarding: Dating Book by Author Josh Harris (with other related links about the IKDG book) and Criticizing “Purity Culture”

“‘I Kissed Dating Goodbye’ [Book] Told Me to Stay Pure Until Marriage. I Still Have a Stain on My Heart” – Regarding: Dating Book by Author Josh Harris (with other related links about the IKDG book) and Criticizing “Purity Culture”

August 24, 2016 update: I added a new link at the bottom of this post: people continue to attack the idea of sexual purity by publicizing backlash against the Harris IKDG book.


I myself have never read the IKDB book, which was written by Harris. I have read about the book on other sites in the past, and it is my understanding the book discussed how to date, and other such topics, and is not strictly about sex or virginity.

The author uses this review of the IKDG book to bash “purity culture,” and in so doing, touches on the topic or staying chaste until marriage.

I am in the middle of this debate. I cannot completely agree with all the critics of “purity culture,” depending on what they are criticizing about it and why.

I believe that the Bible teaches both male and females are to sexually abstain until marriage, so I don’t believe in tossing out this teaching all because some young women feel they have been hurt or oppressed by it.

On the other hand, how some Christians have taught about sexual purity has been lop-sided – males are typically not addressed, only females – and Christians could do a better, or more sensitive job, in how they present the concept of remaining a virgin until marriage.

With that introduction, here is the link, with some excerpts (and note, I am not in complete agreement with all views in this piece; however, I’m not a supporter of a lot of Christian dating advice. Christian dating advice tends to act as an obstacle to singles who want to someday marry):

(Link): “‘I Kissed Dating Goodbye’ told me to stay pure until marriage. I still have a stain on my heart

Excerpts:

July 27, 2016

In 1997, Joshua Harris published “I Kissed Dating Goodbye,” a book that was in part a warning about the harm that relationships before marriage could cause. Harris evoked images of men at the altar bringing all their past partners with them into the marriage to reinforce the point that love and sex before marriage took pieces of your heart and made you less.

At the time, Harris was just 21, but he was already a rising star.

…He [Harris] was what we, as young evangelicals, wanted to be. And so we strove passionately to attain the ideal of premarital purity he laid out for us. Now, almost 20 years later, even Harris appears to be questioning whether his advice did more harm than good.

…But Harris’s book was hugely influential.

…On the surface, I am a purity-culture success story: I am a heterosexual woman, a virgin until marriage, now with two small children and a husband I deeply love. We attend church. We believe in God. And yet, for me, the legacy of purity culture is not one of freedom but one of fear.

WashPost Columnist: ‘Ghostbusters’ Haters Are ‘Virgin Losers’ – (via NewsBusters Site); Both the Right and Left Wing Get Some things Wrong About This

WashPost Columnist: ‘Ghostbusters’ Haters Are ‘Virgin Losers’ – (via NewsBusters Site); Both the Right and Left Wing Get Some things Wrong About This

This story comes from NewsBusters, which is discussing a column written for Washington Post newspaper by columnist Kristen Page-Kirby about the new Ghostbusters movie.

The original Ghostbusters movie, released in the 1980s, contained four male leads. The reboot version of the movie, which was released July 15, 2016, contains four women leads instead.

Unfortunately, over a year or more ago, when news came out that there would be four women leads in the film, some of the sexist jerkwads who inhabit the internet started lambasting the movie all over You Tube, Twitter, and where ever else – not because the move was bad (it wasn’t even released yet), but because they were incensed that Hollywood was cramming some form of feminism down their throats.

Interestingly, I didn’t see as much backlash over the main character of the new Star Wars film, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” being a woman – Rey.

gbLogo
Ghostbusters Logo

At any rate, I will be discussing two or three different topics in this post that are related to this new film, or mentioned by the conservative essayist at the NewsBusters site.

This is another story where I am in the middle. I can’t say as though I’m completely on one side or another in regards to some aspects of this story, depending on what is under discussion.

I am currently a moderate right-winger (I used to be more to the right than I am currently. In the last few years, I’ve been reconsidering if some of my former political and Christian beliefs are wrong.)

I’ve been more open the last few years to hearing the criticisms and views of liberals and Non-Christians – which is not to say I agree with everything I see left wingers and Non-Christians espousing or arguing in favor of.

I sometimes think secular, liberal feminists have good points on some topics, but I normally disagree with them.

As far as the Ghostbusters film reboot is concerned, I do think some of the backlash against the movie does in fact stem from sexism. But then, I do think some people may honestly feel that the movie is genuinely bad due to having a poor story line, or what have you.

I have not seen the movie yet. I don’t go to movie theaters that much anymore.

I usually wait until movies air on cable television; I’m willing to bet that this Ghostbusters reboot will probably be shown on F/X channel, or SyFy, or some other cable network in the next two years, and I have cable television, so I don’t know if I want to invest my time and cash into driving down to a theater to see this, since it will eventually be on television.

I saw the original Ghostbusters in a movie theater when it was in theaters in the 1980s. I was a kid at the time.

The original was okay, it was quite enjoyable and plenty of fun, but it was no movie masterpiece, so to all the men online who were griping about the reboot featuring all women leads: get the hell over it already.

And yes, you were, or are, being sexist douche bags about it. I don’t buy for a moment that ALL male griping about the film is based on non-sexist reasons, like shoddy trailers, or supposed poor CG work.

The vast majority of the professional reviews (and I have read a ton of them) for the new Ghostbusters film have deemed it “okay.” -Not terrible. Not great. But just “meh.” It’s so-so, most reviews have said.

What I don’t appreciate is that the columnist for WaPo who was discussing male backlash about the movie is using virginity as an insult.

Continue reading “WashPost Columnist: ‘Ghostbusters’ Haters Are ‘Virgin Losers’ – (via NewsBusters Site); Both the Right and Left Wing Get Some things Wrong About This”

Sexual Assaults or Harassment Carried Out by CIS Men Taking Advantage of Trans-friendly Bathroom Policies

Sexual Assaults or Harassment Carried Out by CIS Men Taking Advantage of Trans-friendly Bathroom Policies – Collection of News Stories

I actually have a long list of such examples in a  (Link): previous post of mine on the blog, but because some pro-Trans activists on Twitter are so lazy or stupid (they are incapable of finding those links in that post), here is a stand-alone on the topic.

I will continue to amend this post to add new links as I come across them. Should this post become way too long, I may make a part 2.

As an aside, out of my last 2 and a half or so years on Twitter under the “Solo Loner” account, the rudest, most intolerant, hateful, and vitriolic groups I have encountered on Twitter have been militant atheists(*) and pro-Transgender activists.

(*Please note I said “militant” atheists – I’ve run across a few non-militant atheists who were polite and agreeable.)

It doesn’t matter how non-inflammatory or polite my Tweet is in regards to atheism or transgenderism (even if all I am doing is re-tweeting a link without comments of my own), both those groups over-react and will send nasty, hate-filled rants. They are doing more damage to their respective causes than good.

Anyway, here is the collection of links to news stories about pro-Trans laws and regulations making it easier for CIS men to rape or otherwise sexually harass women and girls:

Examples of CIS Men Taking Advantage of Pro Trans Policies to Sexually Harass or Assault CIS Women and Girls

(Link): Top Twenty-Five Stories Proving Target’s Pro-Transgender Bathroom Policy Is Dangerous to Women and Children 

Continue reading “Sexual Assaults or Harassment Carried Out by CIS Men Taking Advantage of Trans-friendly Bathroom Policies”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excerpts:

  • An evangelical Christian and avowed feminist argues that God intends every woman to work.
  • The final episode of Leave it To Beaver aired in June of 1963, but many conservative Christians still promote a vision of womanhood reminiscent of June Cleaver.  When Tobin Grant, political-science professor at Southern Illinois University, analyzed General Social Survey data from 2006, he found that nearly half of evangelical Christians agreed with this statement: “It is much better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family.”
  • Forty-one percent agreed that “a preschool child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works.” For these evangelicals, a woman’s place in the world is to get married, bear children, and support her breadwinning husband.
  • Katelyn Beaty—the managing editor of Christianity Today,America’s largest evangelical Christian publication—has set out to change this notion of gender. Her new book, A Woman’s Place, claims to reveal “the surprising truth about why God intends every woman to work.”
  • This declaration may surprise many of her magazine’s 80,000 print subscribers and 5 million monthly website visitors. And it may also rouse many of her fellow evangelicals who believe her ideas defy the Bible’s clear teaching, if not qualifying as outright heresy. While Beaty knows criticism may be coming her way, she is making a conservative Christian case for working women.

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

Women, Stop Listening to Sexist Relationship ‘Experts’ by D. L. D’Oyley

Women, Stop Listening to Sexist Relationship ‘Experts’ by D. L. D’Oyley

If you are not already aware, Steve Harvey, whom this author discusses, is a Christian. He is sometimes a guest speaker on Christian network TBN.

(Link): Women, Stop Listening to Sexist Relationship ‘Experts’ (page 1) (Link to Page 2) by D. L. D’Oyley

Excerpts:

  • Feb 2016
  • She Matters: If they’re men who hold shoddy views about sex and women, it follows that their advice to women will also be shoddy.
  • …It’s a common theme among men, including many so-called relationship experts. And that’s a huge problem.
  • It should be obvious why that’s an issue, but in case it isn’t: You have men who hold screwed-up views about sex and women telling women how to be better women to land a man.
  • If the perspective with which they view women is shoddy, then it follows that their advice to women will also be shoddy.

Continue reading “Women, Stop Listening to Sexist Relationship ‘Experts’ by D. L. D’Oyley”