views and thoughts on topics, especially ones pertaining to christianity – with an emphasis on how most christians either ignore or discriminate against unmarried christians – and how christians have turned marriage and parenting into IDOLS and how there is no true support for sexual purity, virginity, or celibacy among christians – this is a blog for me to vent; I seldom permit dissenting views. I don't debate dissenters ————-
Evans told CP that until manhood is properly defined, culture cannot be saved.
I am a (Link): former gender complementarian, so I understand the outlook of a Tony Evans and guys like him, and many of the assumptions that are made about culture and gender roles, but these are views that I no longer share.
Gender Role malarky aside, one of my biggest problems with the views of Tony Evans brought forth in this article is that he is of the mindset -like many Christians are- that culture can or should be saved.
He further thinks that teaching Christian gender roles is the way to go about it.
As I’ve stated many times previously in other posts, the Bible says that Jesus Christ alone saves, and he saves on the individual level.
There’s been a lot in the news recently about incels and redistribution of sex. Incel = involuntarily celibate, and redistribution of sex = women being expected to shag these blokes so they don’t get all murdery about not getting laid. Completely understandably, many people took exception to this.
It takes away womens’ bodily autonomy and puts the blame on them when men become violent.
It’s also sparked a debate, with plenty of guys steaming in to say #NotAllMen and get defensive about incels being the only ones who become aggressive when rejected. Elizabeth May retaliated to this by asking the women of Twitter what their experiences had been after rejecting men.
Thoughts on the NRO Essay “Advice For Incels” by Kevin D. Williamson
About me and this blog:
If you are new to my blog: I have been a conservative my entire life. I’ve never voted Democrat. I was a Republican until a few years ago. I am no longer in any political party.
I sometimes critique secular, left wing feminists on my blog (such as but not limited to (Link): this post and (Link):this one), but there are times when I believe other conservatives get feminists wrong, and feminists are actually correct on some issues.
I was brought up in a traditional values, conservative, Christian family where my parents brought me to Southern Baptist churches as I was growing up, where I was taught to believe in gender complementarianism, which I did for many years, until I finally realized how (Link): wrong and sexist complementarianism is.
Because I grew up as a complementarian, I am quite familiar with what they think and why they think as they do.
My current religious beliefs are somewhat “up in the air,” as I am waffling between being agnostic, (or a deist), and the Christian faith. (Note: I am not an atheist.)
I am by no means anti- Nuclear Family, anti- motherhood, or anti- marriage, though I do posit that many to most conservatives – especially the religious ones – have gone to un-biblical lengths and have turned the Nuclear Family, marriage, natalism, and motherhood and fatherhood into idols which is wrong of them.
— end introduction to me and this blog —
I saw a link to this essay go through my Twitter feed today:
On one level, this essay – “Advice for Incels” was okay.
However, I think that while the guy who wrote it has his heart in the right place, I think he gets a lot of things wrong and is naive about how Baptist and conservative Protestant and evangelical churches are for adult singles.
I’ve spent the last several years on this blog covering these topics – I’d encourage Williamson and anyone who read his NRO piece to read the books (Link): “Singled Out” by Field and Colon and“Quitting Church” by Christian author Julia Duin for even more information.
Actually We Don’t Owe You Sex, and We Never Will by M. Donegan
(Link to the Donegan editorial is farther below)
As I’ve mentioned on older posts on this blog, not only do women not owe men sex, we don’t owe them smiles, dates, attention, emotional support, or companionship, but some of them are under the very misguided notion that we do.
According to this article, some of these bitter sexist ass hat male incels feel that women have a moral obligation to have sex with them – no, we do not. One of the incels quoted argued that people (or is it just men?) have a “right” to sex – no, wrong again.
If you are a sexless man, I am under no obligation to have sex with you. I do not owe you sex.
Who Are “Incels”? Behind the Misogynistic Ideology That Inspired The Toronto Suspect
Much farther below, in this post: link to an article hosted on The Lily, about Alex Minassian, who was apparently influenced by online “incel” (women-hating) groups.
I’ve actually already done a post or two about these misogynists before, such as (Link): this one– they refer to themselves as “Involuntary Celibates” and blame women for their problems and lives, rather than taking responsibility for themselves. (They also like to live in a fantasy world where women have lives so much easier than men, and, women are supposedly to blame for the problems of men.)
These bitter men exude hatred of women but then have the audacity to bleat on Reddit threads and elsewhere that “women don’t like nice guys,” and they cannot comprehend how it is no woman wants to date or have sex with a “nice guy” (who is actually a big, sexist, woman-hating jerk) such as themselves.
It’s no mystery – well, not to the rest of us.
One problem of posting about these sexist douche canoes is that they will at times want to leave a comment under any posts you make about them.
According to some of these articles I’ve read about Incels, they celebrate every time an Incel kills women. If Incels kill all the women, there won’t be any women for them to have a chance of having sex with – they’d have to have sex with other men.
Other than being immoral, killing women is counter-productive to their goals of having sex with a real living woman. But I guess not only do they lack in looks, incels also aren’t very intelligent.
After bringing her rapists to justice, an exclusive interview with a woman who infiltrated the online pickup artist community to investigate her own assault.
by BRANDY ZADROZNY | 02.07.17 1:21 PM ET
A woman’s mission to find and prosecute the (Link): men who raped her while she was drunk and unconscious in a downtown San Diego apartment ended this week, after a third man was sentenced to eight years in prison for his role in her attack—the maximum term possible under California law.
Friday’s sentencing of Jason Berlin, 28, wraps up a years-long investigation, undertaken in large part by the victim herself—a woman whom The Daily Beast has called Claire in previous (Link): exclusive reporting on the proceedings—and concludes a first-of-its-kind case that indicted not only Berlin and two co-defendants, 27-year-olds Jonas Dick and Alex Smith, but an entire underground community of so-called pickup artists, whose techniques San Diego Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Fraser likened to a “sophisticated criminal enterprise.”
“In the last decade, [dating sites] marketed to the desperate, to people who were lonely and hopeless,” she [Whitney Wolfe, the founder of the dating app Bumble] said on Wednesday at the Washington Ideas Forum, an event produced by The Aspen Institute and The Atlantic. “Therefore when someone used it they felt this sense of shame or embarrassment.”
… Wolfe said she hoped her app could erase some of those fears for heterosexual women who are online dating; the gimmick of Bumble that separates it from Tinder, Hinge, and the scads of others is that the woman has to send the first message.
Married Church Staffer Arrested for Secretly Filming Upskirt Videos of Girls, Women in Church Bathroom and While They Kneeled During Services – Equally Yoked is BUNK
Way farther below in this post is a link to a news story about a married church staff guy who was a pervert. (I think I first saw this news story via @watchkeep’s Twitter account.)
My Christian parents brought me up to think if I wanted to marry, that the best place for me to meet potential spouses would be at a church. I suppose the assumption with that is that the type of men who attend church regularly are going to be “safer” or better moral choices than the type of dude you might meet at a bar.
However, in the last few years of running this blog, I have seen (Link): so many news stories of church-going Christian men who get arrested for abuse or perversion, I now have my doubts about that.
Secondly, single women out-number single men in churches. I know that every church I’ve been to in person, I’ve been one of the few singles there. The only men in attendance and 80 years old, which would be fine if I were 80 too, but I’m not, and May December relationships (Link): make me want to barf.
Below is a news report of a church staffer who was caught secretly filming “upskirt” videos of girls and women in church bathrooms and during church services. That is bad enough as-is, but the report says that the church discouraged the women from contacting the police over this.
Five Things Every Married Man Should Stop Obsessing Over Around Single Women by J. Kamps
Thank you, Jean Kamps! Kamps is one of the very few married (Christian) women I’ve seen who comprehends how terribly Christianity, especially married Christian men, treat single women – the way most to all married, Christian men ASSUME (wrongly!) that all single women are minxes out to bed any and every married man we come across.
(These married Christian men must have some ego to assume I find them attractive enough to want to boink. I don’t. Women are visual too and have sexual desire, but we don’t want to sleep with any and every man we come across.)
Often times some of the assumptions Kamps is addressing here in an article by a married Christian man, are taught under the BGR “Billy Graham Rule.” I have blogged on this topic many times before. I will put links to some of those posts at the bottom of my post, under “Related Posts.”
Jasmine’s story is an example of Benevolent Sexism. Hostile Sexism is fairly easy to recognise. Benevolent Sexism is sneaky and far more socially pervasive. It parades around wearing a facade of chivalry, making out women to be weaker, lesser, diminished, objectified, by using what are perceived as good manners, male consideration, and role definition.
Benevolent Sexism operates on the fundamental belief that, whether observed in practice or not, there IS a gender hierarchy.
….Benevolent Sexism even uses compliments and praise to disarm and disempower women. “Women are kinder, gentler, naturally more loving. Women are not as strong as men, so they require protection. Women are not as naturally competitive.”
Love-Sick Teenager Who Won’t Take No For an Answer is Finally Shut Down by his Ex-Girlfriend’s FATHER in an Epic Text Exchange – Men of All Ages Need To Learn to Handle Rejection and to Respect Other People’s Boundaries in Dating
If there are any MEN reading this – especially men over the age of 21 – you need to realize that some of you are just as bad in your online behavior, especially on dating sites and apps, as this 15 year old kid is.
See how obnoxiously persistent this teen kid is, how he keeps dragging this exchange on and on with the teen girl’s father? This is how 90% of you men over the age of 21 behave towards grown women online, especially on dating sites.
You men refuse to take “no” from women for an answer, or to choose to view a woman turning you down as the ultimate insult.
You men take rejection by women far too personally, and send negative, nasty, insulting comments to some women, all for merely politely turning you down on a site, for refusing to give you their number, or going on a date with you.
Women you don’t know (single women) don’t owe you squat in life – women don’t owe you a smile, flirtation, chit chat, their phone numbers, sex, emotional support, or dates.
You will be turned down as you go through life by various women you flirt with or ask on dates – it’s a reality. Get over it. Learn to let go, accept defeat graciously, and stop taking it so damn personally.
Learn to respect other people’s boundaries. If a woman or girl tells you “no” or “not interested,” just let it go. Don’t send the girl or woman nasty, insulting messages if or when she turns you down. Just move along.
Advances in technology, and the urge to express ourselves as loudly as possible, mean rejection has never been so easy to dole out. Swiping left on Tinder, blocking on Twitter, marching to the polling booth: a firm no is never far away, but the bitter sting never fails to shock.
We’ve witnessed an unusually high level of public rejection over the last few turbulent weeks, from politicians discovering their posses were lacking compadres and feeling their ambition turn to ash in their mouths, to the much-maligned EU, sadly opening its Dear John letter from 52% of the UK, all calls going straight to voicemail.
Rejection can teach you a lot about yourself and those around you. “No” may never be music to your ears, but you can learn to take it with dignity. Or, at the very least, store up ample fuel for your revenge.
….On a dating app
“Why don’t they love me?” I’d cry when I was single, throwing myself on to a fainting couch whenever someone I’d contacted didn’t reciprocate.
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.
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.
Sexual Assaults or Harassment Carried Out by CIS Men Taking Advantage of Trans-friendly Bathroom Policies – Collection of News Stories
(and related issues)
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
Persecution watchdog group hopes romantic connections between Western and Pakistani Christians could lead to asylum. Other persecution groups aren’t so sure.
An advocacy group for Pakistani Christians is now getting into the matchmaking business.
The British Pakistani Christian Association (BPCA) (Link): launchedan online dating site in May to connect Pakistani Christians living all over the world.
Named for a common term for a South Asian wedding, (Link):Shaadi4Christians serves as a tool for single Christians—and their parents, who still often arrange marriages for their children—scattered in the South Asian diaspora.
The BCPA views marriage as a way to escape persecution.
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.
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.
Church Tries to Punish Girls Who Sued Over Sex Abuse by Outing Them – Singles: Don’t Take Dating Advice from Religious Groups Who Think It’s Acceptable to Harass Rape Victims – And Dump Equally Yoked Teaching
This story is horrible enough as it is, and another indicator of how unsympathetic and awful churches are towards abuse victims of all kinds.
However, I also wanted to add this observation, as outlined in the next few paragraphs.
I was taught as a kid that Christian singles are only to marry other Christians, which is sometimes called “being equally yoked.”
My parents, who were Christians, would advise me when I was younger to seek out a spouse in a local church, if I wanted to marry.
In light of stories like the one I’m posting here, I don’t think I consider churches a good place to meet potential dates or mates any longer. I am questioning that.
If church members think it’s compassionate or acceptable to be hostile to child sex abusive victims and to protect the pedophile who assaulted them, one wonders how heartless and immoral the persons at that church must be in other areas, and how terrible their judgement concerning other things is.
Thirty years ago, the magazine declared that single women over 40 are more likely to be killed by terrorism than to get married—prompting a nationwide crisis whose anxiety still lingers.
…Thirty years later—the publication date of the article was June 2—it’s easy to forget that the so-pervasive-as-to-be- (Link): Ephroned marriage-and-terrorism stat was plucked from a single piece of journalism that was in turn based on a study that was, at the time of the story’s publication, unpublished. It’s also easy to forget, given its resonance, that the stat comes from an article that has since been so (Link): thoroughly (Link): debunked, by demographers and sociologists and media outlets alike, that Newsweek, 20 years after the fact, (Link): retracted it.