The Federalist Writers Continue to Disregard That Some of Their Readers Are Conservative, Single, and Childless – Re: “Childless Chris Evans’ Inspiring Condemnation Of Anti-LGBT Bigots: ‘Those People Die Off Like Dinosaurs’”

The Federalist Writers Continue to Disregard That Some of Their Readers Are Conservative, Single, and Childless – Re: “Childless Chris Evans’ Inspiring Condemnation Of Anti-LGBT Bigots: ‘Those People Die Off Like Dinosaurs’”

June 22, 2022

Post updated below, November 2022

I just wrote, (about two days ago!), (Link):  another rebuttal of sorts to another editorial at the Federalist that was, once again, in a round about way, shaming anyone single or childless for being single and childless.

And here we are again.

The owners of The Federalist, and their writers, really need to be aware that some of their readership consists of single, childless, conservative adults.

Not every un-married, childless adult out there hates the nuclear family, marriage, or parenthood, or is liberal or Democrat.

Some of us single and childless adults are conservatives who don’t agree with the progressive LGBT agenda.

Several days ago, when actor Chris Evans was informed that some nations were banning his new Disney / Pixar movie, Lightyear, because it contains a lesbian kissing scene, Evans made some kind of response in the media about how people who object to lesbianism or homosexuality will one day die off, and their views will go extinct, and he thinks that is a good thing.

While I myself do not support the entirety of the LGBT-agenda, in- so- far as they advocate things like wanting to force Christian bakers to bake wedding cakes for homosexual weddings, or legally (Link): permitting biological men who identify as women into women’s domestic violence shelters, bathrooms, and prisons, I also do not support any conservative retort that amounts to denigrating singleness or the state of being childless.

It is not necessary, fair, or kind, to push back against progressive LGBT propaganda, or to defend marriage and parenthood, at the expense of singleness and childlessness, but I will discuss this further below.

Here’s the latest singles-shaming, childless-shaming piece from The Federalist, only this time, it’s by another author, not the same one I was critiquing the other day over her essay (I will analyze it below the link and excerpts):

(Link): Childless Chris Evans’ Inspiring Condemnation Of Anti-LGBT Bigots: ‘Those People Die Off Like Dinosaurs’

Excerpts:

June 22, 2022
by Hans Fiene

Evans’s lack of children gives much greater weight to his insistence that all LGBTQIA2 opponents will go the way of the dodo.

… Next, when you remind them that they’re on the wrong side of history, they’ll repeat the debunked claim that history is more likely to be written by those who exist than those who don’t.

[When Evans was asked what his views were about anyone who was objecting to his new Lightyear movie due to its representation of homosexuality, Evans responded by conveying that]

 Their complaints will perish with them. Their bigotry will be swept into the dustbin of history. You simply need to wait for them to enter extinction.

To understand why his words are so comforting, it’s important to remember that Evans is an unmarried 41-year-old man with no children. Had his words been spoken by a man who sired offspring, they would be of no comfort to you.

… Evans’s lack of children, therefore, gives much greater weight to his insistence that all LGBTQIA2 opponents will go the way of the dodo. How can you not be comforted by the glorious confidence of this man who has reached middle age and yet has zero children to enroll in Miss Naughty’s Preschool for Drag Princesses? If kidless Captain America is certain that transgender eight-year-olds will still be a thing when the children of anti-LGBTQIA2+ Christians, Mormons, and Muslims inherit the earth, why should we fear?

Indeed they are! And you should be so confident of their idiocy that you do not fear forgoing procreation and leaving the children of your ideological enemies to continue your march towards queer justice. They’ll gladly oblige!

“Every time there’s been social advancement as we wake up, the American story, the human story is one of constant social awakening and growth and that’s what makes us good,” the film star added.

Absolutely! The human story is one long march towards libertine justice! Societies only grow stronger the more they encourage sterility and physically destructive sexual behaviors. That never brings about cultural collapse. So don’t feel an ounce of dread when you look at those Christian parents filling their 12-passenger van with their Christian children.
— end excerpts —

According to the end credits under that essay on The Federalist the author is…

Hans Fiene is a contributor to The Federalist. He is a Lutheran pastor in Missouri and the creator of Lutheran Satire, a series of comical videos intended to teach the Lutheran faith. Follow him on Twitter, @HansFiene
— end —

The Anti-Singles, Anti-Childless Pastor

Yikes. No. No, no, no, no.

To the Lutheran pastor who wrote this piece:
Your own Lord and Savior (Link): never married or had children, and yet His teachings and deeds were not forgotten.

Jesus of Nazareth’s world views were passed down by his spiritual children, initially by word of mouth, and then, in writing.

The Gross, Shaming Natalism Propaganda on Gab Platform by Its Rude Members, Including By Roman Catholics and Other Conservatives

The Gross, Shaming Natalism Propaganda on Gab Platform by Its Rude Members, Including By Roman Catholics and Other Conservatives

A few days ago, someone I follow on Gab – I was automatically signed up to follow that person when I joined the site, I did not choose to follow them on my own – (with Gab being a social media platform that is similar to Twitter) shared a meme by someone else called “Disco.”

You can view that meme (Link): here on Gab.

I will also provide a screen shot below.

By the way, I am not as familiar with Gab’s functions and commenting as I am with Twitter’s, so I am not quite sure how to reply to people on Gab or how to link to specific comments by myself or others.

I am a pro-life conservative.

I am not opposed to equal rights for women, but I don’t identify as a feminist.

I don’t really fit in totally over on Gab, a platform which unfortunately attracts a lot of extreme right wing kooks (but some of the users seem okay),
but I don’t really fit in over on Twitter, either (where I was suspended for months previously before I got posting ability again),
because Twitter is over-run with far left “nut jobs,” most of whose views I normally do not agree with.

I have found that both conservatives and liberals / progressives are about equally annoying and wrong on the parenthood, marriage, or nuclear family topics.

Not all progressives or liberals are opposed to women having children; they just believe (and I agree with this concept, though I am a conservative) that women (and men) should be permitted to decide for themselves if they truly want to be a parent or not.

People should not be guilt tripped or pressured into having children.

There are some very fringe, far-out there leftists who are “anti nuclear family” and who are opposed to people having children, and they call themselves “anti natalists.”

I don’t agree with progressives who try to propagandize women (or men) from having children.

I don’t think it’s the progressives’ place to try to brainwash, scold, shame, or guilt trip people from having children.

But then I see the reverse dynamic from a lot of secular and Christian conservatives.

I see people who identify as conservative or Roman Catholic on sites such as GAB who keep pumping out these stupid, horrid, “Have ten kids by the time you’re 30” type memes or comments.

And these views are not even “biblical.”

Pat Robertson’s Insensitive Reply to a Domestic Violence Victim (November 2018)

Pat Robertson’s Insensitive Reply to a Domestic Violence Victim (November 2018)

Before I present the viewer question from the domestic violence victim, and Pat Roberston’s horrible response to that person, I wanted to say a few words first.

I’ve already done a post on this blog called (Link): “Women, Stop Asking Pat Robertson Relationship Advice,” but women (and sometimes men) keep e-mailing Pat Robertson for relationship advice.

Here is the gist of that previous post:
If you write Robertson for relationship advice – especially if you are a woman – 9 out of 10 times, Robertson’s reply will be sexist, unsympathetic, and victim-blaming. So do not waste your time.

Secondly, you’re an adult.
You don’t need Pat or the Bible or any other person to tell you what you need to do or what you should do. You can make up your own mind as to what you think is best for you.

Abusers do not change, no matter how much you submit and pray for the abuser.

It is a waste of your time and “tossing pearls before swine” to stay with an abuser. If you consider divorce a sin (I don’t, certainly not in the case of abuse – and abuse can be verbal, emotional, and financial, not just physical), God says in the Bible he forgives sin.

What most all the competent articles and books about domestic violence say is this:
You will need to leave the abuser – contact your local domestic violence shelter for assistance in that.

The Entitled, Insensitive Comments Left by Entitled Christian Mothers, and the Men Who Support Them, Under the Post ‘Don’t Ask Moms To Stand In Church This Sunday (Mother’s Day)’

The Entitled, Insensitive Comments Left by Entitled Christian Mothers, and the Men Who Support Them, Under the Post ‘Don’t Ask Moms To Stand In Church This Sunday (Mother’s Day)’

As of 2018, the snotty entitlement and insensitivity of some mothers – and Christian men who support them – continues.

I’ve been blogging about this topic for a few years now on this blog. It makes me sad to see this still going on.

DefendTheSheep (person on Twitter) tweeted out a link to this reasonable essay imploring Christians to be more sensitive towards those who find the Mother’s Day holiday painful. Link to that:

(Link): Don’t Ask Moms To Stand in Church This Sunday

My problem is not with the essay itself.

As a matter of fact, I encourage you to click the link above to visit the page and read it.

My problem was with some of the hideous comments various people left below the page.

Some of the comments were just incredibly insensitive or very mistaken about why some people find Mother’s Day – especially when it’s celebrated during church services – to be hurtful or stressful.

Christians often like to teach that parenthood and marriage are necessary to make people more giving and loving and compassionate, but that is not so. The married parents leaving comments under blog posts such as the one I am discussing here are very selfish and entitled – being parents has done nothing to make them more loving, caring, or empathetic.

Pastor Actually Questions, in the Year 2017, If It’s Acceptable for Mothers to Work Outside of the Home.

Pastor Actually Questions, in the Year 2017, If It’s Acceptable for Mothers to Work Outside of the Home.

I cannot believe we are in the year 2017, and Christians are still asking about this sort of thing and pontificating about it. To even ask and muse about this in 2017 is just sexist.

In regards to this story linked to below, Dee of Wartburg Watch asked on Twitter, something along the lines of, how much money does preacher Todd Wagner earn so that his wife (assuming he has a wife and kids) is able to stay at home all day to watch their kids?

How many of the women in Wagner’s church congregation (who may even be mothers themselves) have jobs outside the home, part of whose job income are paid to him in tithes, so that he can afford to have his wife stay at home and be a stay at home mother?

(Link): Does the Bible Say It’s OK for Moms to Work?

Excerpts:

July 28, 2017

by Sheryl Lynn

The pastor of a multi-site church in Texas [Watermark Community Church] recently responded to a question on whether the Bible says it’s OK for moms to work.

While it’s not forbidden, Todd Wagner questioned the motive behind a mother choosing to work over being at home with her children.

// end excerpt

“While it’s not forbidden.” – Yes, you can end it right there. Anything beyond this is Wagner’s opinion.

Pat Robertson’s Incredibly Insensitive Advice to Gail the Unmarried Woman

Pat Robertson’s Incredibly Insensitive Advice to Gail the Unmarried Woman 

I am infuriated at Robertson’s response to this Gail woman who wrote to him. I am trying to keep my language clean in this post, but I want to cuss up a storm.

A woman named Gail wrote a question to Christian television host Pat Robertson. You can view her question and listen to Robertson’s response below (I will embed the video in this post).

Gail wrote to Pat Robertson (despite the fact I’ve tweeted several times over begging women of America to stop asking him for relationship advice – dang it Gail, have you not seen my warnings??) and Gail asked Robertson a question.

Gail wanted to know why all her female friends are married but she is not, even though she’s prayed and asked God to send her a husband. Gail also said she is having financial problems.

Robertson went on to shame and scold this woman. He said (to paraphrase) that she had a lot of egotistical nerve expecting God to just answer her prayers and plop a husband down in her lap. Robertson told Gail if she wants a husband or financial help to go out and work for it.  He implied that she is at fault in some way.

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.

Pat Robertson Says Wives Who Want Emotional Support from a Husband Are Immature and Should Not Expect Emotional Support

Christian TV Show Pat Robertson Says Wives Who Want Emotional Support from a Husband Are Immature and Should Not Expect Emotional Support

What did I just tell you a few days ago in this other blog post? Here’s a reminder: (Link): Women: Stop Asking Pat Robertson For Romantic Relationship Advice – Whether You Are Divorced or Single 

On today’s (August 15, 2016) episode of 700 Club, Pat Robertson answered a letter from a woman named Susie who said her husband does not give her emotional support, so she seeks out her parents for that. Susie wanted to know how she could get her spouse to support her more.

Robertson’s reply was not only unbiblical, but it was terribly insensitive.

Women: Stop Asking Pat Robertson For Romantic Relationship Advice

Women: Stop Asking Pat Robertson For Romantic Relationship Advice – Whether You Are Divorced or Single 

---

Aug 16, 2016 edit: Just a few days after I made this post imploring women to stop asking Robertson for romantic relationship advice, Robertson did this:

(Link):  Christian TV Show Pat Robertson Says Wives Who Want Emotional Support from a Husband Are Immature and Should Not Expect Emotional Support

Then Robertson turned around and did this – November 2016 edit:

(Link): Pat Robertson’s Incredibly Insensitive Advice to Gail the Unmarried Woman 

Yep. This is why I beg you, women of the world: stop going to Pat Robertson with dating, singleness, divorce, or marriage questions! You are not going to get valuable advice or empathy for your problems, but a lot of victim-blaming and shaming.

---

So, yesterday (August 2, 2016), on the TV show “The 700 Club,” Christian host Pat Robertson fielded a question from some woman who wrote in saying she had been divorced four times (I placed two videos of that segment in this post, towards the end).

If I understand the woman’s letter correctly, she says she accepted Christ as her savior, or turned to God, after her fourth divorce.

She said her first four husbands were abusive. She wants to know, now that she has rededicated her life to God, will God send her a loving husband?

Look, I knew before Pat ever opened his mouth how he would answer this woman. And I cringed in anticipation. And I was right about his reply.

I’ve watched The 700 Club every single day since the year 2005, and off and on prior to that. My mother used to watch his show when I was a kid, so I was exposed to it back then. I suppose I still watch it out of habit.

I have seen so many episodes of this show, I already can tell you how Robertson is going to answer before he opens his mouth, and I am correct about 90% of the time (regarding relationship questions he receives).

More often than not, if you are a woman and you write Pat Robertson for relationship advice, especially if you have been divorced, he will most likely blame you. He will tell you that you have a “failed relationship picker” and you should stay single.  He figures that since you have failed at marriage once or twice before, there is little sense in trying again, because you will only fail again.

Robertson will shame and blame you for having married abusers, duds, and losers.

Robertson is also not kind to single women over 40 who have never married but who would like to marry.

Why does society still view childless women like me with suspicion? by E. Day

Why does society still view childless women like me with suspicion?

(Link): Why does society still view childless women like me with suspicion? by E. Day

Excerpts:

• Remarks like Leadsom’s go far beyond the usual cut-and-thrust of the political arena and reveal how (Link): childless women are still viewed with innate suspicion. This, in spite of the fact that women in their mid-40s are now almost twice as likely to be childless as their parents’ generation. One in five women born in 1969 is childless today, compared with one in nine women born in 1942.
• But there remains a taboo, a retrograde belief that (Link): we are in some way unnatural for not fulfilling our biological destiny. How else to explain the fact that the first question many people ask when I meet them is whether I have children, followed by an uncomfortable pause when I say that I don’t. “But why?” I can see them thinking. “What’s wrong with her?”

Jezebel Site and xoJane Site: Pot Meet Kettle – On Supporting All Women’s Voices

Jezebel Site and xoJane Site: Pot Meet Kettle – On Supporting All Women’s Voices

I saw this paragraph or so in (Link): an article on Jezebel’s site (by S. Edwards; title: “xoJane Publishes Terrible Article By a Woman Who’s Glad Her Friend Died, Then Deletes Her Byline“):

• It’s a well-known fact that outrageous confessionals—the kind that populate xoJane’s section, It Happened to Me — garner traffic. Outrage, disgust and anger are the stuff of going viral (a phrase that conjures up disease as much as anything else). Yet xoJane seems to consistently cross an unspoken line, confusing any woman’s opinion as one inherently worth publishing, no matter the opinion, or its costs.

Salvation Army Bans Duggar / Quivering Cult’s ‘Retreat’ (Called ‘Get Them Married’) that Promoted Arranged Marriages for Teen Girls – Quivering Advocates Are Anti-Adult Singleness and Anti-Celibacy

Salvation Army Bans Duggar / Quivering Cult’s ‘Retreat’ (Called ‘Get Them Married’) that Promoted Arranged Marriages for Teen Girls – Quivering Advocates Are Anti-Adult Singleness and Anti-Celibacy 

Before I present you with the links to the news reports about this story (which are much farther down the page), I wanted to make some introductory comments in general, and a few specific comments refuting a few points from a pro-Quivering page about celibacy.

In regards to the specific news story I am blogging about today, this Quivering group is completely overlooking Apostle Paul’s comments in (Link): 1 Corinthians 7 that it is better for people to remain single than it is to marry – and Paul does not say that this teaching is in regards only to “a few,” or only a “minority” of people.

The Bible nowhere states that marriage is “a norm,” or that God expects or wants all, or most, people to marry.

It just so happens that in other cultures thousands of years ago, most people did happen to marry – one should not deduce from this cultural situation that God supported it or wanted it to be so. It just was what it was.

If the Bible said that all or most ancient Jews painted their bodies green once a year and balanced weasels on their heads while jumping up and down on a watermelon one week out of a year, one should not assume from this that

• 1. God created that cultural practice and/or that
• 2. God wanted Americans in the year 2016 to practice these things as well.

The Quivering group’s position on marriage, celibacy, and singleness is unbiblical, not to mention disturbing.

According to this article (linked to much farther below), the Quivering group was going to call this event, (where they set up marriages for little girls to marry), “Get Them Married.”

Why not have an event called, per 1 Corinthians 7, “It Is Better To Stay Unmarried”?

Am I opposed to marriage? No.

Is the God of the Bible against marriage? No.

But the Bible does not say that being married is better or more holy for girls, women, or culture, than being single, but a lot of Christian groups, and these wacky Christian cults, insist otherwise.

Christians need to do a better job of recognizing adult singleness and celibacy as legitimate, godly, biblical lifestyles and choices for all persons (and not only meant for a small minority of people who were supposedly “gifted” with it), instead of promoting marriage and natalism as the only legitimate avenues or as ways of fixing culture, the nation, or as pleasing God.