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 ————-
Despite a boom in flexible working, many singles say they’re still picking up the slack from colleagues with families. Career coaches are advising them to say no.
…“The assumption [by employers] is that you can drop everything or that you don’t have a care in the world [if you are single and do not have children],” says Chaka. “Actually, as a single, life is more expensive, you have to run all errands yourself and you don’t have someone to fall back on financially if things go wrong.”
During research for his book Going Solo, Eric Klinenberg, a professor of sociology at New York University interviewed hundreds of single people in Europe and America and discovered “there was widespread perception that singles became the workhorses in corporate offices”.
…Except for one thing: single people still don’t have access to the legal benefits and protections the government grants to those who get married.
….Spouses in the US can pass on Medicare, as well as Social Security, disability, and veterans and military benefits. They can get health insurance through a spouse’s employer; receive discounted rates for homeowners’, auto, and other types of insurance; make medical decisions for each other as well as funeral arrangements; and take family leave to care for an ill spouse, or bereavement leave if a spouse dies.
These privileges are unavailable to the unmarried in the US, yet most single people would benefit if they were.
Woman Boss at Thinx Company Accused of Sexual Harassment
I often see secular, left wing feminists deny that women can be terrible to women on the job. Of course, men can sometimes be horrible to other employees.
But in my time in the working world, while I was subjected to a few male jerks here and there, I also had to deal with rude, harassing, or awful female co-workers or female bosses. One of the all-time worse workplace bullying I ever encountered was at the hands of a FEMALE boss, not a male.
It’s a fact that there is such a thing as women bosses or women co-workers who harass other women workers, but feminists are loathe to admit this, because they seem to feel it bolsters sexist claims by men against women in the workplace.
The woman boss in this news report sounds absolutely disgusting and like a lunatic. And a control freak.
Also, it is sad to note that this supposedly “feminist” type company was AGEIST! They were ageist against any woman over the age of 29.
All the young ladies in this company, the ones being stalked by this perverted and creepy-sounding boss, should read the book “Boundaries” and related material.
Miki Agrawal, the co-founder of Thinx — a company that makes “period underwear” — doesn’t think much of boundaries. “I just love the taboo space,” she told New York last year, of her mission to (profitably) destigmatize menstruation. And in a promotional video for the product, she said, “My favorite thing to talk about are the things you’re not supposed to talk about.”
According to a complaint filed late last week by a former employee (and echoed in interviews with multiple current and former employees), those things have included: the size and shape of her employees’ breasts, an employee’s nipple piercings, her own sexual exploits, her desire to experiment with polyamory, her interest in entering a sexual relationship with one of her employees, and the exact means by which she was brought to female ejaculation.
My comments about this article from the Wall Street Jounal (excerpts from said article are much farther below):
Single ladies who want to be married:
The kind of man you will attract if you minimize yourself, play yourself off as vapid, helpless, or ditzy, is NOT the sort of man you should want to be dating or marrying in the first place.
Further, if anything, the problem is the reverse.
If you are a woman with money in your savings account, or are employed and earning a pay check, you must be aware of men who are out to use your for your money – it happens. Our culture often paints women as being the gold-digger, but I have often seen the reverse situation.
Since I’ve been a little girl, most of the couples I have seen (cohabitating, dating, or married), including my ex fiance, have consisted of men who prey on ambitious women for the woman’s money. A lot of men seem to like and be attracted to ambitious women.
There are a lot of lazy men out there who are male gold-diggers: they leech financially off their wife or girlfriend.
I have an Aunt who works full time to pay all the bills, while her husband sits around in dirty overalls in a recliner watching football on TV all day, when he’s not down at the corner bar drinking beer with buddies. I have other examples I could cite, but that should be sufficient.
Single women: you need to be true to yourself, as the old saying goes.
If you get to my age (mid-40s), you will have a sh*tload of regrets if you played down your true skills, talents, and quirks over your life- all because you thought you had to do so in order to get dates or get married.
Never, ever downplay your true life goals, hobbies, interests, or intelligence to lure men to you. It won’t end up how you think it will – you will end up attracting a user, abuser, creep, or a self-absorbed sexist who doesn’t care about you, your life, or your goals.
If you end up single, it’s not the end of the world. You will get by just fine. You will find other things in life to preoccupy your interests and time other than romance, if you never get a husband.
American Christians, Liberals, Liberal Pet Groups, and Persecution
(This post has been edited and updated, especially towards the bottom, to add more commentary or links)
For about the past year, I have thinking about blogging about this topic but put it off until now.
I have seen liberal Christians, ex-Christians, left wing Non-Christians, and moderately conservative Christians complain or mock American Christians who claim that American Christians are being persecuted in the United States due to being Christian.
In the past, I’ve seen liberal Christian blogger RHE (Rachel Held Evans) comment on this subject on her blog, on her Twitter account, as well as the Liberal, quasi- Christian, Stephanie Drury bring this up on her (Link): “Stuff Christian Culture Likes” Facebook group from time to time.
I’ve also seen moderately conservative Christians I am acquainted with discuss this in Tweets or on their blogs.
To reiterate a point I’ve made before, I do sometimes agree with SCCL’s Drury on some issues, and I even periodically Tweet her links to news stories I think she may want to share on her Twitter account or on her SCCL Facebook group.
However, I totally part ways with Drury on some topics – like this one.
The view of liberal Christians, ex-Christians, liberal Non-Christians, and even some moderately conservative Christians, is that American Christians are not under persecution in the U.S.A. for being Christian, or for practicing Christian beliefs.
I am not sure if the liberal or moderate conservative disagreement on this issue pertains to semantics (the terminology involved), or if they are actually blind and oblivious to the harassment that Christians, especially conservative, or traditional valued, Christians, face in American culture.
It is my position that American Christians do in fact face harassment – especially from the left wing – in the United States for being Christian, for wanting to practice their faith and carry it out in public, and for defending it in public.
If you are a liberal who objects to the term “persecution,” how about, instead, the words or phrases, “harassment,” “bullying,” “picking on,” “hounding,” or other terms?
I do not see American Christians getting a free pass in the United States to hold certain views or to practice their beliefs.
The left (and I’d include severe anti-theist atheists here, on this point, regardless of their political standing) insist that Christians keep their Christian faith walled off, private, and separate from all other areas of their lives.
News Article via Time: Christian Wheaton College Discriminates Against Adult Single Women for Being Single
Hat tip to Nate Sparks, which is how I first became aware of this article from TIME magazine. (He mentioned it in his blog post here).
It looks as though this college is placing more pressure on single women than they do married people of either gender, especially in regards to sexual topics. News flash for the people at that college: as I’ve detailed on this blog many times (pointing to numerous examples to various news stories – seethis link for examples), being married does not make a person magically immune from sexual sin.
If anything, most of the news items I see of Christians engaging in sexual sin are MARRIED people, not singles. I have many news links about married Christians who are caught or arrested for viewing child porn, using prostitutes, or having sex with animals (seethis link for those examples).
Excerpts (please note the portion I put in bold face type):
By E. Dias, Feb 2016
… The memo argues that a culture of discrimination at the school led to the “denial of equal treatment, protection, and support” for Hawkins in the proceedings against her. It raises a range of concerns over the process.
These criticisms include the different approaches administrators took after two other white faculty public support for the Muslim community, the way Hawkins was questioned about her scholarly citations of black theology, and the way her status as a single woman made her “more vulnerable to administrative inquiries about her personal views on sexuality.”
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.
After two months, my [Jia Tolentino’s] copy of Rebecca Traister’s new book is already dog-eared, wine-stained, and train-battered. All the Single Ladies is essential, careful, bold, and rigorous; it’s a warning and a celebration, and I loved it. Traister and I talked on the phone last week.
[Rebecca Traister said]… I always hated it when my heroines [book characters] got married.
… but I took in the message that Laura learned, and then taught us: that marriage was the end of fun.
…one of the interesting things that’s happened coterminously with the decline in marriage rate is the rise of the wedding industrial complex and the fetishization of marriage as the signal achievement of female life.
That’s happened even as women have been marrying less and less, and for a couple of reasons.
One, the economic strata of women who still most consistently marry are the wealthiest women: you have a whole industry that’s built up around selling them very expensive weddings, and this industry now crosses classes. There’s a diffuse but very strong pressure to correct women’s move away from marriage by fetishizing it.
This, in turn, is possible in part because marriage is no longer the thing that kicks off a woman’s adult life.
As sociologists put it, marriage is now a capstone event instead. It’s the thing you do when your life is in shape, when you have the right amount of money —and particularly in middle and lower-income communities, when you know you have the right partner, and in many cases, when you already have a kid. Marriage is popularly a sign that your life is in order, which contributes to this renewed positioning of marriage as aspirational.
[Jia Tolentino said] Right. It’s the fairytale narrative run through a late-capitalist filter. You make your money, you formalize your ambitions, and then you still get rewarded with the kiss and the ring.
[Rebecca Traister said] Despite all this, women are still not marrying at the same rate they were. You can bombard women with messages that they should be aiming for this; that they should be doing that. But you know what? They’re still not doing it. You might be able to make them feel bad about it—but this mass behavior no longer applies.
This is quite similar to some Christians, who push early marriage and baby-making for everyone in America. I have more posts about it (please see the “related posts” section at the bottom of this post for those links).
I bet Southern Baptists, Reconstructionsists, and other types of Christians wish they could enforce this on American women.
I used to be a Southern Baptist, and I still have pretty traditional values, but, some Southern Baptists and other right wingers are way more strident than I am on some topics, and some of them are more severe.
This article mentions that this ban – which is obnoxious and sexist to start with – would also penalize women who are UNABLE (due to physical issues) to have babies.
See, this comes up among conservatives and Christians in the United States constantly – they tend to automatically assume that if a woman is still single past age 30 or 35, and is childless, that she deliberately chose to not marry and chose not to have children.
Please realize I have nothing against women who choose to forgo marriage and/or children. I do not have a problem with those choices.
However, I am someone who had wanted to marry but never met Mr. Right, so I am still single in my 40s. I never cared one way or another if I ever had a child or not, but I wasn’t intentionally avoiding having one. If I had a kid, it would have to be while I was married – if I don’t have a spouse, I cannot have a kid.
I find it very insulting when I read articles and editorials by Christians (especially Southern Baptists) who immediately assume that every last unmarried (or childless) woman is single (or childless) due to deliberate choice, or from being too picky when younger –
Christians – and Republicans and social conservatives – often assume that women get hundreds of marriage proposals by the time they are 30 years old but turned them all down, because they were too demanding and refused to marry a man unless he had the income of Bill Gates and the looks of actor Brad Pitt.
I got one marriage proposal in my entire life, it was after I hit the age of 30, and I had to break up with that guy, and no other proposals have been forthcoming. It just makes me infuriated when so many other Republicans, social conservatives, and Christians assume I CHOSE to be single this long, when such has not been the case.
Single, pregnant mother fired from church for not being married
This is very similar to a post I did several months ago. You can read my opinions about story like the one below in (Link)this post here.
By the way, note that this woman is considered single by her church because she did not go to a courthouse and obtain a marriage license, contra to blogger John Morgan, who has the weirdo idea that this woman is already married to the baby daddy because the two had sex at one time.
Well, as far as this woman’s church employer is concerned, she is SINGLE (as in shacking up), since she is carrying a baby but not legally wed (by her state). If you would like to know more about that, please see these posts at this blog:
A single, pregnant mother is considering legal action after apparently being fired from her job at a Virginia baptist church.
Apryl Kellam is engaged to her fiancé, James Coalson, but church leaders allegedly demanded she get married after falling pregnant.
Kellam began working at Staples Mill Road Baptist Church in September, but claimed she never received or signed a copy of the employee handbook.The handbook allegedly said that church daycare employees must be married, although Kellam insisted she never hid her personal life.