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.
….These films are also objectively bad. They hinge on undefined traditional values, and imply that there’s a literal magic that spurs improbable behavior around Christian holidays.
The characters—particularly the women—are completely one-dimensional. The plots are improbable at best and completely far-fetched at worst. And yet, they’ve never been more popular.
While there’s surely some aspect of escapism in these films, there’s also something darker at play: These movies don’t just depict a world that’s brighter and cheerier than our own; they depict one drastically different, where being a woman who Has It All is as simple as embracing the holiday spirit.
At the end of another year where the news cycle highlighted the inequalities, hurdles, and abuse that women around the world still face, one reason these movies are still so appealing is that they can be watched with both envy and outrage.
We can laugh at them because they’re so far from the truth of modern women’s experience.
Last week, the National Center for Health Statistics reported that America’s birthrate reached a historic low in 2017, falling to 60.2 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age.
For a population in the developed world to replace itself, the average woman needs to have around 2.1 children. In the United States, where fertility has been below replacement for about a decade, the average woman now has 1.77.
Several commentators have described the plunge as a mystery, particularly since we’re in a period of economic growth. Some on the right have, absurdly, blamed the shrinking birthrate on abortion, even though abortion rates are also as low as they’ve been since Roe v. Wade was decided.
More thoughtful conservatives, like National Review’s David French, speculated that the baby bust could be a sign of the same sort of sweeping despair that has been linked to America’s decreasing life expectancy.
I have another theory. Perhaps the United States is becoming more like the rest of the industrialized world, where declining birthrates are correlated with a lack of support for working mothers.
When the tiny island nation of Malta voted to allow divorce in 2011, Melody Alan realized that her own strongly Catholic country, the Philippines, was the only one left in the world without that right (aside from the Vatican).
Last fall, as the #MeToo movement began to ripple out from the U.S., she and fellow advocates for divorce seized the moment and tried to recast the debate.
Ms Alan’s own husband left her and their two children for another woman in 2010. He offered to support an annulment of their marriage (an elaborate court or church procedure) but only if she would pay the entire cost – more than a year’s worth of her schoolteacher’s salary.
“I wanted to be free of him and call myself a free woman, but I couldn’t,” she told legislators in February, when a parade of women appeared before a committee of the country’s House of Representatives. Some recounted abuse at the hands of their husbands, abandonment to a life of poverty and single motherhood with no chance of remarriage.
Last month, a divorce bill cleared the House of Representatives for the first time. …
[Some Christians object to the idea of adult men dating teen girls.]
….But there’s a group of Moore’s allies for whom the basic idea of an unmarried older man “courting” a teenage girl is not anathema at all—fundamentalist home-schoolers.
Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson, who (Link): endorsed Moorein the contested Republican primary and has spoken at his rallies, told an audience in 2009 that girls should marry when they’re (Link): “about 15 or 16.”
I’ve never married, still a virgin at age 40+, and I have a sex drive: it’s simply not true that “getting married young”(or getting married at all) is necessary to prevent someone from dabbling in sexual sin.
Being celibate is a choice and a self-discipline, and it’s not due to lacking a sex drive; it is not a godly, incredibly difficult feat only a few can pull off. Anyone can do this.
Is is somewhat difficult when you’re single and rather be married and having sex? Yes, it can be somewhat difficult at times, but not to the point where one loses control of one’s ability to refrain.
Also, getting married does not keep people from “burning with lust,” with all due respect to the New Testament’s apostole Paul:
A lot of people get married only to sexually sin by having sex with people not their spouse, by fondling children, viewing porn, hiring prostitutes etc., and so on – see my many examples of married couples engaging in sexual sin (Link): here (i.e., collection of news stories of married people arrested for hiring prostitutes, etc).
Excerpts from the article:
Moore has an even deeper relationship with Doug Phillips, a disgraced leader in the “Biblical patriarchy” movement. Phillips was president of Vision Forum, a Texas-based organization devoted to the (Link): “restoration of the Christian household.”
In Phillips’ world, men ought to be self-sufficient by the time they marry, but women live under their father’s authority until they marry.
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.
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.
Father Who Had Daughter Marry Her Rapist Sentenced to Jail
Christians sure do go on and on about how the Nuclear Family is so important to culture – I’m here to say that being in a Nuclear Family did not protect this teen girl from statutory rape, or from her sicko father trying to marry her off to her rapist.
I’m sure there are plenty of single-parent families out there who don’t end up trying to marry their son or daughter off to that child’s rapist. So, Christians really need to drop the rhetoric about how Nuclear Families are the Cure for everything that ails society (not to mention the Bible does not teach this).
Christians: Stop spreading the falsehood that parenthood is necessary to make a person mature, ethical or godly – not only does the Bible not teach this, but real life examples show you it’s just not true. Such as.
Woman Burned To Death For Refusing Marriage Proposal
And there are some whiny, cry-baby men who think THEY have single life harder – news flash, (Link): you don’t have it worse, men: men usually are not murdered by jealous women over turning down dates or proposals.
While I’d say that the root of this case involves a lot of misogyny and patriarchy, I think perhaps a small factor is an over-emphasis upon marriage.
Perhaps if cultures like this one were taught that being single and/or celibate are perfectly fine lifestyles to live, we wouldn’t see people feel so pressured to marry, and they would realize they can control their sexual urges. Therefore, women would not be killed for turning down dates, requests for sex, or marriage proposals.
You don’t have to be married, or have sex, to enjoy life or be happy and content. (I am not knocking a desire to be married, you realize, only saying if it does not happen for you, you will survive – and realize you can enjoy life without marriage or sex.)
Dollars to doughnuts that everyone in this news story was Muslim.
If so, I’d like to say again I see striking parallels between Islamic attitudes and behaviors towards women as I do from some gender complementarian or Quiverfull Christian groups, as well as sexist men and MRA (Men’s Rights Activists) groups – they all treat women like second-class citizens to be controlled by men and are considered to have value only in- so- far as they breed like rabbits and/or provide men with sex.