Pat Robertson’s Unrealistic, Unhelpful Advice to the Unemployed

Pat Robertson’s Unrealistic, Unhelpful Advice to the Unemployed

Pat Robertson is the main host of a Christian television program called “The 700 Club.” This program comes on Monday through Friday. He takes viewer questions at the end of many of the episodes.

I usually give out links to the episodes I discuss, but I didn’t plan on being online tonight, it’s growing late, I’m getting sleeping, and frankly, I’m too sleepy and lazy to google for the link.

On an episode of 700 Club that aired this week – the week of May 22, 2017, or possibly the last part of last week (like around May 18 or 19, 2017), Robertson took a question from some guy who was out of work.

It seems about twice per year, every year, Pat Robertson’s show receives a question from a lady or a man who says they are out of work, they have sent out hundreds of resumes, yet they are not getting employed, and nobody is even calling them in for job interviews.

They sometimes add that they pray constantly and ask God to send them a job, but so far, their prayers seem to be going un-heard, and they want to know why God isn’t helping them.

Continue reading “Pat Robertson’s Unrealistic, Unhelpful Advice to the Unemployed”

2017 Study Urges Caution in Dating Co-Workers

2017 Study Urges Caution in Dating Co-Workers

(Link):  The Surefire Way to Turn Your Worklife Into a Living Hell

Excerpts:

“We are spending more time at work,” said Elaine Swann, a lifestyle and etiquette expert. “Relationships are now becoming more acceptable — especially because our work environments have become a lot more casual than they were in yesteryear.”

This comes as we are spending more time than ever in the workplace — the average work week in 2015 was 38.7 hours, compared with 38.1 hours in 1980 — and more than half of American employees didn’t take all their vacation days in 2015.

Continue reading “2017 Study Urges Caution in Dating Co-Workers”

The Surprising Danger of Being Good at Your Job (The Drawbacks to Being Self Controlled, Competent, and Reliable in Relationships) by R. Sugar

The Surprising Danger of Being Good at Your Job (The Drawbacks to Being Self Controlled, Competent, and Reliable)

Even though this article originally has the word “job” in the headline, it also discusses the impact of being reliable, competent, and self controlled in a person’s dating life, friendships, and so on.

People such as myself who are sexually abstinent into their 40s have a hell of a lot of self control (obviously, I’d say). I’m also pretty disciplined at exercise and dieting and in other areas of life.

I was the reliable, competent one in my relationship with my ex-fiance’, and yes, as a result I was over-worked and grew resentful of that idiot. I ended up carrying more than my fair share of the workload.

I was also reliable on jobs I held in the past, as well as in group assignments I was placed into by college professors to the point that bosses or other team members would over-work me, take me for granted, etc.

I definitely related to this article…

(Link): The Surprising Danger of Being Good at Your Job (The Drawbacks to Being Self Controlled, Competent, and Reliable) by R. Sugar

Science confirms what high performers have known for years: It’s not easy being so competent.

(Link): A study from Duke’s Fuqua School of Business suggests that people with high self-control — the kind of people who remember birthdays, choose the salad instead of the fries, take on extra projects at work, and resolve conflicts easily — might actually pay a price for those virtues.

“People always talk about how having high self-control is a good thing,” says researcher Christy Zhou Koval, a Ph.D. candidate and first author on the study, which was published in this month’s Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. And in many ways, it is a good thing: “Go-getters get what they go after,” she points out. “They’re better at goal pursuits. They make very good relationship partners.”

They’re also better-off financially than their less-disciplined peers; they tend to be in better health, and they generally have higher-quality personal relationships.

But all that comes at a cost: High-self-control people, the researchers found, end up burdened by their own competence.

Continue reading “The Surprising Danger of Being Good at Your Job (The Drawbacks to Being Self Controlled, Competent, and Reliable in Relationships) by R. Sugar”

Woman Boss at Thinx Company Accused of Sexual Harassment

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.

(Link):  Sexual-Harassment Claims Against a ‘She-E.O.’

Excerpts

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.

Continue reading “Woman Boss at Thinx Company Accused of Sexual Harassment”

Alpha Females Part 4 – From Psychiatrists and Counselors: How and Why Being a Beta Female is Harmful and Damaging to Women

Alpha Females Part 4 – From Psychiatrists and Counselors: How and Why Being a Beta Female is Harmful and Damaging to Women

This commentary will be divided up among a few posts. Here is part 4.

(This post may be edited in the future to re-word things, polish things, add new thoughts or links / For Twitter: #TheAlphaFemalesGuide )

From this series:

Visit Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Part 3B: Response to Venker: Re: Personal Experience

Introduction.

For those new to my blog:

I am a right winger. I was a Republican until recently. I am now a conservative Independent.

I was a conservative Christian for many years (I am no longer sure about what my religious views are), and I (Link): Am A Former Gender Complementarian (someone who believed in and lived out traditional gender roles (what Venker would describe as “feminine” or “beta”), views which are based in large measure on incorrect interpretations and applications about gender in the Bible).

I sometimes agree with secular left wing feminists on some topics, but not always. At times, I disagree with secular and religious left wing feminists and have written several blog posts critiquing some of their views.

This series of blog posts is addressing the dating and relationship advice of author Suzanne Venker, who wrote a book called “The Alpha Female’s Guide to Men & Marriage” which she has lately been marketing online and on TV news shows.

Here is one article by Venker about her relationship views:

(Link, off site):  Society is creating a new crop of alpha women who are unable to love by S. Venker


As many books and articles on the subjects of boundaries, codependency, and even domestic violence explain, when or if a woman exhibits codependent behaviors or attitudes (such as being passive, having an unwillingness to say no to others, doesn’t put her own needs first), she will tend to attract abusive, selfish, or exploitative individuals.

Unfortunately, many of these same codependent traits are considered “feminine” by many conservatives and by Christians (under the teaching of gender complementarianism). Author Venker touts such traits under the heading of “Beta” or “being nice” or as “being feminine” or “being soft.”

While I myself do not agree with every last facet of secular (or even Christian) feminism, they are at least correct in fighting against expecting such behavior from girls and women, because they realize it leaves females open to being exploited, or treated unfairly at jobs or in relationships.

As this Christian-authored piece explains, feminism (not even secular feminism) is entirely bad, wrong, or off-base:

(Link): Perhaps Feminism is Not The Enemy

I also explained in (Link): Part 2 how many conservatives (and Venker herself) misunderstand, wrongly explain, or misunderstand feminism.

As I explained in (Link): Part 3 of this series, I was a “Beta” myself for many years (as was my mother), which is what Venker says women should be, if they hope to marry or have a happy, stress-free, marriage once they marry.

However, being “Beta” does not guarantee that a woman will attract more men, get more dates, or have a happy marriage – again, as I already explained in Part 3.

WHAT THE EXPERTS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT WOMEN BEING BETA

Psychiatrists and therapists have written books and articles explaining how and why taking advice such as Venker’s can lead to problems for women, including in the area of dating and marriage.

Below, I will excerpt content from the books The Disease to Please by psychiatrists Harriet B. Braiker, PhD, and counselor Beverly Engel from the book The Nice Girl Syndrome.

First, here are the relevant portions from Venker’s article on Fox News:

(Link):  Society is creating a new crop of alpha women who are unable to love by S. Venker – on the Fox News site

Today they abound. There are several reasons why, but it’s in large part due to women having been groomed to be leaders rather than to be wives. Simply put, women have become too much like men. They’re too competitive. Too masculine. Too alpha.

That may get them ahead at work. But when it comes to love, it will land them in a ditch.

Every relationship requires a masculine and a feminine energy to thrive. If women want to find peace with men, they must find their feminine…

In essence, being feminine means being nice. It means being soft instead of hard…

…What men want most of all is respect, companionship and sex. If you supply these basics, your husband will do anything for you…

—(end excerpt)—

There, Venker is telling women to deny who they truly are and downplay their personalities, desires, and so on (don’t come on “too strong”), because if they stay as-is, they will repel men, but if they change themselves to make a man happy, they can attract men, or the man they have won’t want to divorce them.

Let’s see what Dr. Braiker has to say about that type of reasoning (spoiler alert: Braiker totally disagrees with Venker).

From the book The Disease to Please:

Page 95:

…If you are the people-pleaser [people-pleaser = Venker’s Beta, Nice, or Feminine] in an unbalanced relationship… you will be forced to deny or suppress your own needs. Inevitably, even the nicest people will become frustrated and angry when their emotional and sexual needs are denied indefinitely.

Healthy relationships that endure are balanced and interdependent. Balanced interdependence means that both partners are aware of and sensitive and responsive to the needs of the other.

—(end excerpt)—

From pages 93-94:

Many people-pleasers [people-pleaser = Beta, Codependent, Nice, or Feminine women] who have used this approach [making a man dependent upon them by doing nice things for him all the time, stifling your own needs, etc., and  using other approaches Venker recommends] sadly discover that manipulating a man into an excessively dependent position – no matter how nice and well-intended your motives – may actually push him into doing the thing you most fear: abandoning you.

—(end excerpt)—

From pages 94 to 95, Braiker gives a case study of a patient of hers named Jennifer who utilized Venker-type methods to hold on to her husband [she always was available to him sexually, she sacrificed her needs to meet his at all times, and sought to “spoil” him].

The result? Jennifer’s husband Ron began having an affair on her with another woman, and later, Jennifer came home one day to find a note of good-bye from her husband, Ron, where he said he was divorcing her for the other woman.

A little later in this same chapter, starting on page 95, Braiker discusses how many career women are what Venker would refer to as ‘Alpha’ in the workplace (confident, competent, assertive, and so forth) but think that to attract or retain a man in their romantic life, that they must behave in what Venker would refer to as a “Beta.”

Braiker explains in this book that this is not so – that acting “Beta” (or “nice” or “feminine” – all which amounts to the same thing, regardless of the terminology used: being a codependent with bad boundaries in practice), causes such women to attract abusive or selfish men. Braiker then spends the rest of the chapter cautioning women from being passive in their romantic life to avoid users, abusers, and narcissists.

Here are a few excerpts, by Braiker (pages 95, 96):

… I have treated many highly successful career women who have entrapped themselves in bad relationships with men by their self-imposed people-pleasing [people-pleasing = being Beta, Nice, Feminine, Codependent] subservience.

A large number of these women who are now at the pinnacle of their professions grew up in the 1950s and 1960s, in an era when femininity and sexual attractiveness still carried with them certain gender stereotypes such as submissiveness, dependency, passivity, and sensitivity.

Today, many of these women, and even a significant number of younger women too, fear that the very traits that account for their success in the workplace – assertiveness, mental toughness, aggressiveness, competitive-ness – become liabilities in their romantic relationships with men.

[Here Braiker inserts the case study of one woman patient who is a CEO]

Many women like my [C.E.O.] patient, harbor misgivings about whether their achievements might boomerang when it comes to relationships with men and come back to haunt them.

…. As a consequence of this dangerous combination [fear of success combined with people-pleasing], they may engage in a range of self-defeating behaviors that can sabotage either their careers or their personal relationships, and often both.

… Some people-pleasing women attempt to resolve the dilemma by splitting their personality traits into two discrete “sides.” They may display their competitive, assertive, and aggressive side at work.

In their personal relationships with men, they may adopt an exaggerated “femininity,” displaying passivity, submissiveness, and compliance. This masquerade, of course, is no solution at all. Rather, it is a recipe for inner conflict, anxiety, identity confusion, and lowered self-esteem.

—(end excerpt)—

Braiker then next, on pages 96-97, offers up the case study of one of her women patients, Helene, who was a successful business woman who was living out what Venker suggests in her book for women to do: be assertive at the job, but be the passive, sweet, sex kitten at home with her mate.

The result of this for Helene? Lots of abuse.

…behind closed doors when they are alone, Bob [Helene’s boyfriend] treats Helene abusively. [Helene has a far more successful career than Bob does, which Bob is aware of.]

Helene defends Bob’s behavior by “understanding” how difficult it is for a man to stand in her shadow.

…Helene realized [via therapy] that she needed to correct some of her own gender stereotypes. Helene believed that by demonstrating her people-pleasing [Beta, nice, feminine] behavior in her personal relationships with men, she was being more feminine and, therefore, more sexually attractive.

[At her place of employment, where she was CEO, Helene tolerated no sexual harassment for herself or for any woman]. However, because of her Disease to Please [being codependent, Beta, nice, and feminine], Helene was actually rewarding a man for treating her abusively behind close doors.

—(end excerpt)—

From page 97:

It is imperative that you recognize how dangerous and self-sabotaging your people-pleasing tendencies with men can become so that you can change the unhealthy dynamic of your relationships. Otherwise, the Disease to Please [being codependent, Beta, nice, and feminine] will serve as a veritable mating call to men who have a perverse need and desire to control nearly every aspect of your behavior. Worse yet, you will allow them to do so.

—(end excerpt)—

Page 98:

Unless you repair the damage by curing the Disease to Please [being codependent, Beta, nice, and feminine]  that produced it, you will limp away from the relationship with the brand of “damaged goods” on your ego. [Then the cycle will repeat itself as you attract yet another abusive, selfish, or jerk boyfriend who mistreats you all over again.]

—(end excerpt)—

As you can see from those excerpts (and there are plenty more in the book), Dr. Braiker strongly warns and advises women against the very traits and attitudes that Venker is telling women in articles, books, and TV appearances that she thinks they should have!

While there are plenty of selfish or abusive men who would enjoy being able to thoroughly control a woman, and a woman who, per Venker’s teaching, willingly goes along with it, a lot of men soon tire of this extreme “feminine” type of woman and dump her.

In her book, starting on page 100, Dr. Braiker discusses a male patient she had once who admitted that he loved to date the sort of women Venker advises women to be, because they were so easy to control. But, the guy soon got tired of dating these passive, wimpy, Beta women.

Here’s what he said:

“…One day, I realized I’m sitting in the boat [of life] all alone. I don’t want the kind of woman who will do anything to please me anymore. It’s boring and lonely. I want a partner who can sit on the boat next to me and keep me company. I want us to please each other without losing all boundaries or identity.”

Another male patient said (page 101):

“I do like to be in control, but I really want someone who will push back. I like steak because it gives me something to chew on. I don’t want to eat pre-chewed baby food. That’s how I wind up feeling about a woman who will give up her own substance just because she’s trying to please me. There’s nothing to chew on; there’s no challenge there at all. I just get bored.”

As Dr. Braiker so succinctly puts it (from page 106):

-There’s nothing wrong with wanting to make a man you love happy or wanting to please him. Just be sure that you’re not pleasing him by hurting yourself in the process.

-Any man who is threatened or feels diminished by your intelligence, achievements, success, or talent is NOT someone with whom you are likely to have a gratifying relationship with anyway. Look elsewhere.

—(end excerpt)—

Earlier in the book starting around page 49, Dr. Braiker discusses a single woman patient she had named Miranda who wants badly to get married. Miranda cannot figure out why she can’t seem to hold on to a man.

Miranda wrongly assumes the way to “catch” a man is to take the sort of advice Venker gives in her relationship book – she tries to be very pleasing and agreeable with every man she dates, she molds herself into whatever type of woman she assumes her current boyfriend of the month likes, and so on.

The result is that all these men eventually become bored with Miranda – and break up with her.

As Braiker describes it in the book (page 50), Miranda puts on the “beta” routine that Venker advises:

So, as soon as Miranda finds herself attracted and interested in a man, she puts herself in a subservient, submissive, position. She lavishes men with attention, adoration, and praise. Miranda believes that to be worthy of a man’s love, she must prove she will always put his needs first.

…The truth is that she [Miranda] cannot offer the one thing a healthy man wants and needs the most: the ability to truly share herself because she knows and values who she is.

—(end excerpt)—

Notice that Miranda’s assumptions on how to attract a man are similar to the tactics Venker puts forward in her Fox news article. And, as Braiker goes on to explain, Miranda was her patient because her “beta” femininity was driving men away, and she could not figure out that it was her very beta-femininity-ness that was at fault.

EXCHANGING AGENCY AND INDEPENDENCE FOR BEING OVER-RELIANT ON A MAN

Continuing with my critique of Venker’s views; more from her article at Fox news:

(Link):  Society is creating a new crop of alpha women who are unable to love by S. Venker – on the Fox News site:

And because I had zero interest in my husband adopting a more feminine role, I set about to become the feminine creature our culture insists women not be.

And here’s what I learned: It’s liberating to be a beta!

I’m an alpha all day long, and it gets tiresome. I concede that I thrive on it; but at the end of the day, I’m spent. Self-reliance is exhausting. Making all the decisions is exhausting. Driving the car, literally or figuratively, is exhausting.

—(end excerpt)—

So, Venker is apparently fine ceding normal adult and personal responsibility to her husband because it makes her life easier. What she’s also sacrificing is her independence, dignity, and agency by doing so.

I take it that Venker is a right winger or conservative: right wingers and conservatives support personal responsibility; they don’t recommend that adults neglect it.

As I explain in an older post, I am a FORMER gender complementarian. Sometimes people on other sites have asked me, “Why do you suppose so many Christian women willingly endure the sexism known as complementarianism?”

One of several reasons so many Christian women remain “stuck” in complementarianism and go along with it is precisely to ride the coat-tails of a husband, because it’s easier going through life with someone taking care of you than it is for you to take care of yourself, by getting a job, taking care of your own car, and so forth.

Christian women are willing to trade off their autonomy, dreams, goals in life, and independence in exchange for male-provided financial stability and having a husband who is like a “father figure” who they can rely on.

In the book of Genesis of the Bible, God, by the way, actually predicted this would happen as a result of sin, when He told Adam and Eve that the woman would desire her husband and turn to the husband – rather than to God.

Ever since, yes, many women have indeed traded off God-reliance (or self-reliance) to depend on a husband for emotional and financial stability. And women like Venker (along with hordes of Christian gender complementarians) are prodding women to keep this up. It’s so sick, and rather tragic.

Women depending on men to this degree – and giving up their identity, needs, and self-hood in the process – is a RESULT of the Fall, a RESULT of sin entering humanity – but Venker and complementarians and other conservatives think this is awesome, healthy, or great for marriages and dating. Sick, sick, sick.

Secular feminism seeks to correct this type of sin that impacts women so strongly (and so this is one aspect of feminism that is good!), ironically.

Secular feminists are trying to free women from this very sin God predicted back in Genesis (and secular feminists – and a smaller number of Christian gender egalitarians – see how damaging it is), but many Christians and conservatives keep trying to cram women back into this same “sin box” and tell them it is “good” for them and for their relationships.

So, Venker finds being responsible and making decisions all day tiring. Well, yes, most people do. But the solution is not to hand over all or most of your personal responsibility to another adult.

Counselor Beverly Engels warns women against this very temptation in her book (Link): The Nice Girl Syndrome.

Engel discusses in the book (pages 212 – 214) that during her early 30s, on a month long trip to Europe, she met a European guy named Jacob. By the time she met this guy, she had been in Europe for a few weeks, was exhausted.

She ends up going to his place, they had sex a time or two, though the second time she didn’t really want to. The guy wasn’t exactly overtly abusive, but she felt she “owed” him sex to be nice to him, since he was now taking care of her. He was making her breakfasts, letting her stay at his home, etc.

For a period of time, due to exhaustion, Engel says she let this Jacob man control her, she was tired of making decisions for herself, she was tired of all the responsibility on this trip, so she was willing to turn the steering wheel over to Jacob – as Venker is asking women to do in their own relationships.

Engel says that is a bad move, and she has regret over her interactions with Jacob to this day. Even though she kept turning the guy down sexually, so long as she stayed at his home, he kept repeatedly bugging her for sex and for more sex. He was super persistent.

Venker’s advice to women boils down to that they infantilize themselves to be more attractive to men. This is bad and dangerous advice.

From page 131 by Engel:

You can’t expect anyone else to take responsibility for your welfare. You are the only one who can take care of you.

The price you pay for looking to someone else to take care of you is dependency, the loss of self, and, ultimately, the inability to control your life.

YOU DON’T WANT TO DATE OR MARRY THE SORT OF MEN VENKER’S ADVICE WILL ATTRACT

From page 45 of Engel’s book:

It used to be that the payoff for being sweet and nice was that one was taken care of and protected by the men and authority figures in one’s life.

Girls and women were perceived as weaker and in need of protection from the “big, bad world,” and boys and men took on the responsibility of making sure that nothing bad happened to them. But those days are gone, along with chivalry and manners.

Most boys and men today do not feel responsible for protecting girls; in fact, many view girls and women as objects to be exploited.

…This doesn’t mean that there aren’t men who like taking on the role of provider and protector. But these men are not necessarily throwbacks to an earlier time – unfortunately, they often take on this role as a way of dominating women. In fact, these men often look for women who are passive, who appear naive and innocent, because such women are easier to control.

–(end excerpt)–

Yes, as you can see, Venker’s advice, if followed, will open you up to appearing very attractive to abusive, selfish, cruel, or self-absorbed men who only want to use you, not care for you or about your needs.

The sorts of men you will attract if you follow Venker’s advice are not the sorts of men you want to date or marry. You want to avoid these guys, not marry them.

I also find this, from Engel’s book, highly pertinent (from page 126), where Engle is discussing a patient she had named Nina:

Nina was painting a picture of a storybook family life – the dutiful wife, the hardworking husband, the kids who were seen but not heard. Or was it? Nina was a young woman who was raised in the 1980s – not the fifties. Something just wasn’t adding up.

After several more sessions and some gentle prodding on my part, Nina finally opened up more about how it really was in her family. As it turned out, it wasn’t so perfect after all.

Yes, her mother was a dutiful wife, but her father was quite demanding. He expected his wife to wait on him hand and foot when he was home, and he was extremely hard to please.

There were many nights when he refused to eat what she [his wife, who was Nina’s mother] had cooked and insisted that she cook something else entirely. He complained if the house wasn’t immaculate and the kids weren’t bathed and dressed up when he got home.

As we continued to explore Nina’s childhood, Nina admitted that it really wasn’t by choice that her mother didn’t have any friends or didn’t go out much. It was at her father’s insistence that Nina’s mother not associate with anyone outside the family.

–(end excerpt)–

If you go by Venker’s marital advice, you may find yourself with a similar dynamic in your marriage that Nina’s mother was in. How many of you married women out there want that sort of loveless, emotionally abusive marriage?

Exchanging your decision-making abilities or duties for a life of ease and simplicity, all so more stress and responsibility falls on your husband, is a lazy, stupid, immature, potentially dangerous thing to do, and it’s actually unfair to your husband. I am dumb-founded that a conservative author any where would recommend that other women do this, or that she does this herself.

I hope this post of mine, with excerpts from books by a psychiatrist and a counselor, both of whom have treated many patients over the years (and hence have way more insight and experience in relationship dynamics than Venker does) clarifies just how terrible, sexist, and harmful relationship advice such as Venker’s is.

If you didn’t want to take my word for it, as (Link): based upon my experience and my mother’s, with how awful it was to utilize Venker-like advice in our own relationships, I hope the insights by professionals (one with a PhD) lends more credence.


I intend on writing a Part 5, if or when I get the time and/or inclination. And then, I think I may finally be done with this series. – Thankfully. This was not something I enjoyed writing all too much.


Related Posts:

(Link):  Alpha Females Part 1 – Nothing New Under the Sun. Conservative Women Keep Issuing Same Sexist, Unhelpful Dating And Marital Advice to Women

(Link):  Alpha Females Part 2 – Defining the Terms – How Anti-Feminists and Complementarians Misrepresent Concepts or Terms

(Link): A Response to Venker: Re: Personal Experience

American Christians, Liberals, Liberal Pet Groups, and Persecution

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.

bakecake
Above: Accurate Visual Representation of How Some Pro-LGBT Groups Treat Christians. (Artist Unknown.)

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.

Continue reading “American Christians, Liberals, Liberal Pet Groups, and Persecution”

Turns Out That the Husband’s Job Is Probably the Best Predictor of Divorce

Turns Out That the Husband’s Job Is Probably the Best Predictor of Divorce

(Link): Turns Out That the Husband’s Job Is Probably the Best Predictor of Divorce

Excerpts:

The predictors of divorce, however, remain mysterious. But in a (Link): new study published in the American Sociological Review, Harvard sociologist Alexandra Achen Killewald has found that the things that increase the probability of divorce — as they relate to work, at least — have changed over the past couple decades. It turns out that the amount of money that either the husband or wife makes isn’t that important: For contemporary couples, the biggest determinant is whether the husband is working full-time.

Continue reading “Turns Out That the Husband’s Job Is Probably the Best Predictor of Divorce”

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

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

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

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

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

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

gbLogo
Ghostbusters Logo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preacher Perry Noble Gives Advice to Adult Singles On How To Date and Marry Days Before Articles Say He’s Having Marriage Problems – Consider the Source

Preacher Perry Noble Gives Advice to Adult Singles On How To Date and Marry Days Before Articles Say He’s Having Marriage Problems – Consider the Source

As I’ve said before, Consider the Source when listening to dating advice.

On July 6th, Christian Post published a page with dating advice by pastor Perry Noble.

On July 8th, Christian Post published an article suggesting that Noble may have been fired from his church for, among other things, marital problems.

Why is a guy who is in the midst of having marital issues writing dating advice for singles? Please. Does the phoniness in contemporary Evangelical Land know no limits?

From what I’ve seen on the internet the last two, three days, Noble’s church is expected to announce tomorrow that he was fired, probably due to marital conflicts or alcoholism or something.

Continue reading “Preacher Perry Noble Gives Advice to Adult Singles On How To Date and Marry Days Before Articles Say He’s Having Marriage Problems – Consider the Source”

‘Marriage Changes When You Don’t Just Need A Warm Body and a Paycheck’: A Talk With Rebecca Traister

‘Marriage Changes When You Don’t Just Need A Warm Body and a Paycheck’: A Talk With Rebecca Traister

(Link): ‘Marriage Changes When You Don’t Just Need A Warm Body and a Paycheck’: A Talk With Rebecca Traister  by Jia Tolentino

Excerpts:

  • 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.

Continue reading “‘Marriage Changes When You Don’t Just Need A Warm Body and a Paycheck’: A Talk With Rebecca Traister”

Bill That Lets Bosses Fire Single Women For Getting Pregnant Gains Steam

Bill That Lets Bosses Fire Single Women For Getting Pregnant Gains Steam

I’m right wing, have pretty traditional values, but I’m not comfortable with this idea of firing single women who get pregnant- which seems to be a hypothetical scenario this left wing site is presenting.

I happen to be pro-life. What if a single woman becomes pregnant, is concerned she may get fired for being pregnant, so she runs down to an abortion clinic to have the kid aborted?

The older I get, the more I become libertarian on some topics, depending on the particular topic. As far as this topic does go, it doesn’t seem right to me for an employer to penalize an adult for having pre-marital sex, which is basically what this is doing.

I also note that employers won’t be able to fire single MEN who knock a woman up. A man can stick his penis in various women’s orifices all year long, get several of them pregnant, and that man gets off scot-free; men pay no penalty under this system. It’s very sexist in that regard, IMO.

(Link): Bill That Lets Bosses Fire Single Women For Getting Pregnant Gains Steam

  • Critics say the language could protect an employer who doesn’t believe unmarried people should have sex outside of wedlock.
  • WASHINGTON — In wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage, Republicans are pushing legislation that aims to protect Americans who oppose these unions on religious grounds. But critics say the language is so broad, the bill creates a license to discriminate that would let employers fire women for getting pregnant outside of wedlock.
  • …The bill specifically protects those who believe that marriage is between “one man and one woman” or that “sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.” Ian Thompson, a legislative representative at the American Civil Liberties Union, said that in addition to targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, the bill “clearly encompasses discrimination against single mothers” and would hobble the ability of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal body that protects women from sex-based discrimination, to act.
  • This scenario isn’t merely hypothetical. There are a number of recent (Link): cases where religious schools have fired unwed teachers for becoming pregnant.
  • A Montana Catholic school teacher who was fired for having a baby out of wedlock, for example, (Link): filed a discrimination charge last year with the EEOC. While the U.S. Supreme Court has (Link): recognized a ministerial exception to employment discrimination laws, that exception is somewhat limited, not necessarily covering educators employed by Catholic schools who teach about exclusively secular subjects.
  • At a press conference on Thursday, Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho), who authored the House bill, strongly denied that it could be used this way. “It’s just allowing people to continue to believe the way they do,” he told The Huffington Post.
  • When NPR asked Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who introduced the companion Senate bill, about a hypothetical university firing an unmarried woman for having sex out of wedlock, he said, “There are colleges and universities that have a religious belief that sexual relations are to be reserved for marriage” and they “ought to be protected in their religious freedom.”

————————–

Related Posts

(Link): Single, pregnant mother fired from church for not being married

(Link): Bias and Discrimination Against Singles and Females – Woman Fired by Christian Employer for Being Divorced but Her Male Divorced Co-Workers Not Fired

(Link):  Women in Sao Paulo Must Provide Proof of Virginity to Be Hired as Teachers

(Link): Civil, Secular Authorities and Marriage and The Dippy Christian “Marriage Pledge” Preachers are Being Asked To Sign

(Link): Sex is Not the Primary or Only Basis of Marriage – Rape Victims / Asexuals / Bestiality ~ Zoophilia / Sexless Marriages / Park Bans Single Men -AND- Single Women – Rebuttal to Blogger John Morgan 

(Link): Discrimination Against Singles in Spain – and Ageism