An Example of Mocking Adult Virginity Via Twitter (Virginity Used As Insult)

An Example of Mocking Adult Virginity Via Twitter (Virginity Used As Insult)

I follow different types of accounts on Twitter (I’m on Twitter (Link): here), some of the accounts I follow are right wing, some left wing, mostly religious based, but I do follow a small number of political accounts.

While scrolling through my feed today, I saw an exchange between a right wing guy, Cloyd Rivers, and a guy who is a socialist, Feel The Bernie.

You can view a screen shot of their tweets (Link): here.

Here is what they tweeted at one another:

Feel the Bernie to Cloyd Rivers:

  • I imagine whoever is running this account has never had sex let alone touched a woman

Cloyd Rivers reply to Feel the Bernie:

  • I imagine whomever is running a Bernie Sanders account has never had a real job, let alone paid taxes.

I’m not terribly interested in the political wrangling going on there.

I just wanted to note that in the course of debating a political subject, someone out there felt it acceptable to make fun of another guy based on his supposed lack of sexual experience or sexual activity. As though being celibate or a virgin is a shameful, horrible thing.

Continue reading “An Example of Mocking Adult Virginity Via Twitter (Virginity Used As Insult)”

Stop Assuming Dads With Daughters Must Be Disappointed by R. P. Payne

Stop Assuming Dads With Daughters Must Be Disappointed by R. P. Payne

I’ve never understood men who are obsessed with sons (with having one – with being upset if their wife turns out to be pregnant with a girl rather than a boy). Or mothers who are obsessed with having daughters.

(Link): Stop Assuming Dads With Daughters Must Be Disappointed by R. P. Payne

Excerpts:

  • When my mom gets asked about our family, she’ll say she has “four grown children.” She omits the fact that all four of those children are daughters.
  • “I’m just tired of it,” she said. “The dismayed facial expressions, the pity for your dad. I’d rather just not go down that path.”
  • Fathers of daughters—even one, but especially three, four, or more—know this reaction all too well. Corey Widmer, pastor of Third Church in Richmond, Virginia, is the father to four young girls. He noticed that “90 percent of the time, when I tell people I have four girls, the reaction is negative. If it is positive, it’s usually because they came from a family of all girls.”

  • We assume, on some level, that having so many daughters must be a disappointment for dads. Ask nearly any of these fathers, though, and it’s far from the truth.

(( click here to read the rest ))

A Valentine for the Single Christian by K L Bishop

A Valentine for the Single Christian by K L Bishop

She says a lot of things in her post I’ve been saying on my blog for years. So if you appreciate some of the points I’ve been making on my blog, you should probably dig this.

(Link): A Valentine for the Single Christian by K L Bishop

Excerpts:

  • …. It seems that being single in the church is a difficult situation these days. Many churches have made marriage and family somewhat of an idol. There have probably been millions of sermons delivered on dating, courting, marriage, waiting for marriage, etc.
  • But it is not often that our pastors preach to the adult singles in the pews, or encourage people to embrace their singleness.

Continue reading “A Valentine for the Single Christian by K L Bishop”

Non-Romantic Nearness, The Billy Graham Rule, and Pope John Paul’s Friendship With a Married Woman

Non-Romantic Nearness, The Billy Graham Rule, and Pope John Paul’s Friendship With a Married Woman

Apparently, Pope John Paul II had a long term, platonic friendship with a married woman named Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka.

First, I will list an assortment of news articles summarizing the former Pope’s relationship with this woman –

And then I will link to (much farther down this page) a really good blog post by a Christian, Dan J. Brennan, who criticizes other Christians who sexualize all male-female relationships or who discourage male-female friendship. He is against the BGR (Billy Graham Rule), which teaches Christian men to sexually objectify ALL women, even celibate Christian women and keep single women at arm’s length.

(Link):  Pope John Paul II secret letters: Pontiff’s deep affection for Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka revealed

Feb 15, 2016

  • Letters shown to the BBC by the National Library of Poland have revealed an intense 30-year relationship between former Pope, John Paul II, and philosopher, Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka. There is no suggestion the late pontiff broke his vow of celibacy with Tymieniecka, a married woman.

Continue reading “Non-Romantic Nearness, The Billy Graham Rule, and Pope John Paul’s Friendship With a Married Woman”

Christian Personality David Barton Thinks USA Needs Missionaries To Proselytize Marriage, Equates Adult Singlness to Sins Such as Violent Crime, Promiscuity

Christian Personality David Barton Thinks USA Needs Missionaries To Proselytize Marriage

Please do not get hung up on whether or not Barton is lying about visiting Russia, speaking Russian, or smuggling Bibles, as the story below focuses on, because that is not why I am blogging about this story.

I am blogging about this because Barton apparently thinks being single is a sin, which is in direct contradiction to what the Bible teaches; the Bible nowhere states that being married is preferable or better than being single, or that being single is a sin, or that it is sinful or wrong to not get married until thus- and- so an age.

Check out the excerpts.

(Link): Experts Dispute David Barton’s Claims About Translating for the Russian National Gymnastics Team

Excerpts:

  • April 10, 2015
  • by Warren Throckmorton
  • Earlier this week, (Link): David Barton told his Wallbuilders Live co-host Rick Green that he once was fluent in Russian, was asked to translate for the Russian National Gymnastics Team in 1976 and smuggled Bibles into the Soviet Union “back in the day.”  Here is the audio followed by the transcript:
  • Transcript:

    Barton: That’s right, and South Korea. South Korea, Nigeria, they’re sending missionaries to America like crazy. And of course, if I looked at the stats on America, yeah we’re number one in the world on violent crimes, yeah and promiscuity, sexuality yeah and out of wedlock births yeah and and lack of marriage yeah we need some missionaries here. We need somebody who can point us to the Bible…

Perhaps I am misunderstanding Barton’s comments, but it sounds to me as though he is equating adult singleness (“lack of marriage”) to being sinful, like violent crime is sinful, or promiscuity is sinful.

Please, David Barton, provide me with a Bible verse or teaching of Christ’s that says adult singleness, whether lifetime or not, is a sin.

You cannot find a single verse or teaching in the Bible where God frowns upon a person staying single, whether due to deliberate choice, or due to circumstance.

As a matter of fact, God moved the apostle Paul to write these words (link to Bible site) -that is,  that Bible Barton thinks people need “pointing to” explains that singleness is actually superior to marriage:

  •   Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.
  • …28  But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

Apostle Paul was apparently single. Are you saying that Paul is just as bad as a violent criminal or a promiscuous fornicator?

Jesus Christ never married, never had sex, and never had children. Were Jesus and Paul in sin for staying single?

No? Then why do you apply another set of standards to other Christians, and insist or imply other Christians are in sin if they stay single? Why are you equating adult singleness to promiscuity and violent crime?

And, by the way, there is no such thing as a “gift of singleness” or a “calling to singleness.”

Such teachings imply that God chooses and foreordains who will marry and who will not, when the New Testament explains marriage or singleness are personal decisions that God leaves up to each person, and God is fine with whatever choice a person goes with in this area.

I am insulted that this Christian writer and speaker dares to equate adult singleness to sexual promiscuity and other sins – God says in the Bible that he respects singleness and is fine with it. Who is Barton to teach otherwise?

Being married does not keep a person immune from sexual sin, nor will higher rates of marriage cut down on sexual sin.

I have many examples on my blog (link to my page of examples) of married people who commit adultery, married people who are into “wife swapping,” married men who are porn addicts, married men who have sex with horses, and married people who rape children – and many of these examples are of church-going, self-professing CHRISTIANS.

There is nothing inherent in being married that keeps a person safe from sexual sin.

The Bible does not say that people need to have missionaries speak to them to encourage them to get married, as though singles are in error for being single and need to be persuaded to “see the light” and convert to “marriage-ism”.

This Barton guy needs to apologize to adult singles everywhere for implying -and perhaps it was unintentional on his part, a poor choice of words – for equating celibate single adults to fornicators and violent criminals.

The Bible does not condemn singleness or celibacy; it celebrates both.

——————————

Related Posts:

(Link): Christian ‘historian’ David Barton: Allowing women to vote ‘hurts the entire culture and society’ and prohibiting the female vote kept the family together

(Link):  Salvation By Marriage Alone – The Over Emphasis Upon Marriage by Conservative Christians Evangelicals Southern Baptists

(Link): Family as “The” Backbone of Society? – It’s Not In The Bible

(Link): The Myth of the Gift – Regarding Christian Teachings on Gift of Singleness and Gift of Celibacy

(Link):  The Holy Spirit Sanctifies a Person Not A Spouse – Weekly Christian Marriage Advice Column Pokes Holes in Christian Stereotype that Marriage Automatically Sanctifies People

(Link): Lies The Church Tells Single Women (by Sue Bohlin)

(Link): Statistics Show Single Adults Now Outnumber Married Adults in the United States (as of 2014)

(Link): The Christian and Non Christian Phenomenon of Virgin Shaming and Celibate Shaming

(Link): The Gift of Singleness – A Mistranslation and a Poorly Used Cliche’

(Link): The Nauseating Push by Evangelicals for Early Marriage

(Link): A Response by Colon to Regnerus Re: Misguided Early Marriage Propaganda

(Link): Gift of Singleness Gift of Celibacy Unbiblical – Those Terms and Teachings Contribute to Fornication / Editorial About Sex Surrogates

(Link): There is No Such Thing as a Gift of Singleness or Gift of Celibacy or A Calling To Either One

(Link): Singleness Is Not A Gift

(Link):  False Christian Teaching: “Only A Few Are Called to Singleness and Celibacy” or (also false): “God’s gifting of singleness is rare” 

(Link): Is Singleness A Sin? by Camerin Courtney

(Link): Misapplication of Biblical Verses About Fertility (also mentions early marriage) – a paper by J. McKeown

(Link): If the Family Is Central, Christ Isn’t

(Link): The Netherworld of Singleness for Some Singles – You Want Marriage But Don’t Want to Be Disrespected or Ignored for Being Single While You’re Single

(Link): Never Married Christians Over Age 35 who are childless Are More Ignored Than Divorced or Infertile People or Single Parents

(Link): Marriage Does Not Make People More Loving Mature Godly Ethical Caring or Responsible (One Stop Thread)

(Link): Why Christians Need to Uphold Lifelong Celibacy as an Option for All Instead of Merely Pressuring All to Marry – vis a vis Sexless Marriages, Counselors Who Tell Marrieds that Having Affairs Can Help their Marriages

(Link):  Singles Shaming at The Vintage church in Raleigh – Singlehood Shaming / Celibate and Virgin Shaming

(Link): P.T.S.D. is Not Biblical Says K. Copeland and Barton

(Link): Famous Evangelical (David Barton) Says Drinking Coffee is Destroying Marriage

(Link): The Irrelevancy To Single or Childless or Childfree Christian Women of Biblical Gender Complementarian Roles / Biblical Womanhood Teachings

(Link): Celibacy is Not Just for Homosexuals or Roman Catholic Priests / and a critique of a post at another blog

(Link): Husband Lying to Wife About Video Game Console Purchase Another Example of How Being Married Does Not Make A Person More Mature or Ethical

(Link): The Netherworld of Singleness for Some Singles – You Want Marriage But Don’t Want to Be Disrespected or Ignored for Being Single While You’re Single

(Link): Study: Couples Without Children Have Happier Marriages / Study: Having Kids Ruins Your Life

(Link):  Perverted Christian Married Couple Wants to “Wife Swap” (For Sex) With Other Christian Couple – Why Christians Need to Uphold Chastity / Celibacy For All People Even Married Couples Not Just Teens

(Link): New ‘Christian Swingers’ Dating Site Offers Faithful Couples Chance to ‘Hookup’

(Link): Sex and Alzheimer’s – Selfish, Perverted Husband Rapes His Alzheimer’s Wife

(Link): According to Pastor – Jimmy Evans – It Takes One Man and Woman Married To Equal A Whole – so where does that leave Christian singles ?

Middle School Bans Teen’s “Virginity Rocks” T-Shirt

Middle School Bans Teen’s “Virginity Rocks” T-Shirt

(Link): Middle School Bans Teen’s “Virginity Rocks” T-Shirt

  • An Arkansas middle school is under fire for banning a student’s t-shirt which reads “Virginity Rocks.”
  • Although 13-year-old Cloe Rubiano is saving herself for marriage, school officials are unhappy she is sharing that message with students at Ramay Junior High. Rubiano purchased the shirt at a Christian festival to display her pro-life values. The shirt says “Virginity Rocks” on the front, and “I’m loving my husband and I haven’t even met him” on the back.
  • However, when she wore the shirt to school, officials banned the shirt and made her wear a school-issued gym shirt instead, saying the shirt might lead to uncomfortable conversations about sex.

—————————–

Related posts:

(Link):  I Shouldn’t Need An Excuse To Be A Virgin – (Secular Editorial Defends Virginity – More Rare Than a Unicorn Sighting)

(Link): When Adult Virginity and Adult Celibacy Are Viewed As Inconvenient or As Impediments [by Christians]

(Link): Celibate Shaming from an Anti- Slut Shaming Secular Feminist Site (Hypocrisy) Feminists Do Not Support All Choices

(Link): Marcotte on Anyone Choosing To Be a Virgin Until Marriage: “It’s a Silly Idea” – What Progressive Christians, Conservative Christians, Non Christians, and Salon’s Amanda Marcotte Gets Wrong About Christian Views on Virginity

Male Entitlement and Adult Virginity: Who has it worse, Male Vs. Female? (critique of post at other blog)

Male Entitlement and Adult Virginity: Who has it worse, Male Vs. Female?

The guy, John H. Morgan, behind this blog post I am discussing was eventually blocked from this blog about a year ago (read more about that (Link): here), but I think he still visits this blog regardless (which wouldn’t bother me too much if he’d (Link): give credit to this blog once in a while when and if he uses it to generate ideas for his own blog, because he apparently still visits this blog and uses it as a resource).

This is a rebuttal to a few of the points in this blog post:

(Link): How Does God Define Sex (posted Sept 4, 2014)

Here is excerpt 1:

  •  Women who are waiting until marriage are virgins as pure as the driven snow. Men who wait until marriage become crippled with sexual confusion and permanent awkwardness . . . or worse. This double standard has existed for as long as men have walked the earth.

Maybe 50 or 60 years ago that double standard was in place, but no more.

The only places that double standard may still be alive today are certain extremist Christian cults, such as Quivering, Reconstructions, and patriocentric kook Christian groups, but not so much in run of the mill Baptist or evangelical circles.

Male adult virgins do not have life more difficult than adult women virgins.

The stereotypes male virgins endure (which I’ve written about a time or two previously) are not necessarily worse than the ones women adult virgins are subject to.

I would actually argue that adult women virgins, especially in the realm of Christianity, have to deal with harsher, or more prevalent stereotypes, more often than men virgins do. 

While there may be a minority of Baptist or evangelicals who shame men for not marrying and reproducing young, such as disgraced pastor Mark Driscoll and Southern Baptist Al Mohler, who tend to depict single males past 25 as being stuck in adolescence, the vast majority of mainstream evangelicalism shames women far, far more for being virgins past a certain age than it does men.

Why is this so?

Because even in secular culture – this is true for Christians too – men who do not have children are not questioned as much about their childless status. It is assumed that there is something wrong with a woman who does not have children, that she is unloving or horrible for not being “maternal.”

All of this revolves around the topic of sex, since, to become pregnant in a conventional sense, one must have sex, obviously.

Christians often teach that a woman’s greatest, or only godly calling in life, or only acceptable role, is to be a mother (see (Link): this page and (Link): this page)

I have never once heard a mainstream Christian group insist that fatherhood is a man’s most godly calling in life.

Continue reading “Male Entitlement and Adult Virginity: Who has it worse, Male Vs. Female? (critique of post at other blog)”

The Midlife Church Crisis – how churches marginalize anyone who is not married with young children and middle-agers are leaving church

The Midlife Church Crisis – how churches marginalize anyone who is not married with young children and middle-agers are leaving church

I have linked to her material before. I am over 40, never married, never had any kids and noticed by my mid 30s that churches are far too fixated on “family” and children.

This married woman, Van Loon, didn’t notice until she reached her 40s or so and became an “empty nester” (her children grew up and moved out).

I have been saying on this blog for over a year now that many churches, especially Baptist and evangelical ones, tend to exclude every one, except for children and young married couples.

If you are over 30, still not married, or are married with no kids, or are divorced or widowed, you are not even thought to exist by most churches, or your needs are not ministered to.

Everyone is expected to support the 29 year old married couple who has a baby and a toddler.

I see no place in the Bible that permits such favoritism, the negligence, by churches, of entire groups of people (such as adult singles and widowers) to coddle one other group (young nuclear families), but this happens routinely in U.S. churches.

The thing I find sad or frustrating is that while never married, childless adults such as me spot by our mid 30s, or earlier, that churches are too fixated on married with children couples and how this creates all sorts of problems for adult singles and churches, but it takes such couples into their 40s -or older- and it takes their kids growing up and moving out on their own- for these married couples to begin to notice the same thing.

If you’re a 40- or 50- something woman whose kids have grown and gone, and are now just noticing how churches place the “traditional family” on a pedestal and ignore everyone else, welcome to the club. We older, never married, childless singles have known this for years and years and years.

(Link):  The Midlife Church Crisis – In Christ, there is neither empty nester nor new mom. 

  • by Michelle Van Loon
  • ….I’ve had one too many conversations with empty-nester peers about what it’s like to go to church once our kids are grown and gone. Our midlife crisis of faith came from questioning not our beliefs, but our role in the body of Christ.

    When the bulletin is filled with announcements for mothers of preschoolers’ gatherings, family camping weekends, and Vacation Bible School, I know I’m welcome to lend a hand by baking muffins or doing crafts. I’ve gotten the message that, now that my own children have grown, my role is to support the real focus of the church: families.

    Decades ago, baby boomers and older Gen Xers pushed to create churches centered on the young, nuclear family. Sadly, this ministry model now excludes many of us. Having outgrown the local church’s core programs, we’re left to usher, teach fourth-grade Sunday school, or attend committee meetings. At times, I can’t help thinking: Been there, done that. Got the Christian T-shirt to prove it.

  • ….Anecdotally speaking, it seemed that those over age 40 who discovered meaningful service, worship, and connections reported that their church was committed to intergenerational ministry rather than family-centered, child-focused programming. Though there is some overlap between the two ministry philosophies, the congregations that concentrate on families with children under 18 unintentionally marginalize those who don’t fit the profile.
  • … When we church leaders ape our culture’s obsession with all things young and cool—targeting the same desirable demographic groups as do savvy advertisers—we communicate to those who don’t fit those specs that they are less desirable.
  • ((click here to read the rest))

Related:

(Link):  Aged Out of Church by M. Van Loon (For Christians over the Age of 35 – 40 – Churches ignoring middle aged adults)

(Link):  Why Even Middle Aged Married with Children Christians Are Leaving Church – Not Just Unmarried Singles | 40 Somethings Gen X Quitting Leaving Church

(Link):  Mature Christians Need to Stop Allowing the Under 30 Crowd to Direct the Entire State of Christian Affairs

(Link):  Youth Fixation in Churches and how it alienates older Christians

(Link):  Never Married Christians Over Age 35 who are childless Are More Ignored Than Divorced or Infertile People or Single Parents

The Marginalization of the Average Joe and Practice of Selective Compassion by Christian and Secular Americans

The Marginalization of the Average Joe and Practice of Selective Compassion by Christian and Secular Americans

I think conservative writer Ann Coulter’s editorial about Christians who shuffle off to assist ebola patients in Africa – which got her all sorts of vitriol by both left and right wingers, Christians and Non Christians – has been proven right.

I first wrote about that in another post or two:

(Link): Ann Coulter’s Article Hits Home — Literally, by S. Harris – And: further thoughts on U.S. Christian Priorities and Reverse Racism

(Link): Strawman Argument: “You’re Creating a False Dichotomy” – No, I’m Not (Re: Coulter editorial and U.S. Christians aiding foreigners)

After American, caucasian movie actor Robin Williams died from suicide a few days ago, on the one hand, there was, yes, a lot of sympathy and sadness expressed for him and his family online in the days that followed, as it should be.

But there were also some very insulting, unsympathetic views published, and at that, based on William’s skin color or his mental health problems, not only by guys like Bill McNorris and Christian Matt Walsh, but by atheist writer P Z Myers.

As far as I can tell, the Bible does not adhere to the concept of “privilege” as believed by liberals. The American progressives harping on “privilege” causes them to refuse to show care and concern for the groups they believe to be in power.

Jesus Christ taught that people’s sins comes from their hearts (from within), not from their environment, and he did not endorse the view that because you or your group has been systematically mistreated or oppressed at the hands of another group, that this excuses your sin, or makes it acceptable for you to hate your oppressor, or for you to refuse to show compassion to that group.

In Jesus’ day, ancient Israel was ruled first and foremost by the ancient Romans, and on a lesser level, by the religious ruling class (the priests and Pharisees).

A lot of American liberals will say it’s impossible for an American woman to be considered sexist, or for female dislike of men to be considered sexist, because men in American society hold all the power. They will say that because whites held all the power in the USA, that one cannot consider a black person’s prejudices against whites a form of racism.

Then we also get into the identity politics and hate crime laws, where liberals believe that someone should receive a harsher, or specific charge of hate, for, say, mugging someone in a certain group that they consider unprivileged.

For example, a crime that is motivated by hatred of skin color, where a white guy punches a black guy in the face, is supposed to be worse than, say, a white guy punching another white guy. A guy murdering someone who happens to be homosexual is supposed to be a hate crime, but the same act is not considered a hate crime if a homosexual or heterosexual murders a heterosexual guy.

I have never understood these positions, because, for one reason of a few, it doesn’t square with the Bible.

Jesus never once taught the Jews of his day that it’s okay for them to hate the Romans, nor did he excuse their dislike of the Romans, on the premise that the Romans held all the “privilege” or “power.”

Continue reading “The Marginalization of the Average Joe and Practice of Selective Compassion by Christian and Secular Americans”

General Observations Or Concerns About Stuff Christian Culture Likes Group and Blog

This is kind of a follow up to my previous post about SCCL (link at bottom – the group was recently mocking the T. Burpo book).

I found at least one blog post chronicling some of the abusive tendencies within the SCCL group (see link below) – this is so odd.

The SCCL like group members depict themselves as champions of the hurt and abused, but they sometimes bully and abuse other people themselves.

In addition, Drury (who is the owner and maintainer of the SCCL like groups, Twitter account, and blog), who tries to present herself as a feminist, and who also tries to come off as sensitive to homosexuals and more recently, transgendered people and their concerns, has made comments some of them have found offensive on several occasions on Twitter and/or Facebook, but she was reluctant to apologize.

You can read examples here:

(Link): For Surivivors of Christian Fundamentalism seeking refuge in Stuff Christian Culture Likes (group / blog)

A person (Shelly) on that blog left this comment (excerpt from her comment):

Another couple of people [at SCCL] were triggery for me, as they did shit that reminded me of the abuse I received when I was younger, and I no longer felt safe staying there, knowing that

she was perfectly fine to call out the abuse within the church system but wouldn’t call it out within the page that was supposed to be a safe place for the abused.

So I unliked the page, unfollowed her SCCL Twitter (I had unfollowed her personal one after t-gate), and stopped following the blog.

(end excerpts)

I’ve noticed the same thing.

It’s a group that scolds churches or Christian culture for perpetuating certain damaging views, or for allowing or committing abuse, but pretty much allows the regular members to bash the new-comers to the group who may speak up and disagree with whatever topic is under discussion.

I never joined the SCCL Facebook group. I may have left one post at one SCCL blog page once a long time ago (I don’t recall), but something never sat quite right with me about the types of people who post at either the group or blog, so I didn’t join.

The majority of SCCL members can seem kind-hearted and supportive most of the time, but then turn like sharks the next instant on an individual who isn’t keeping with the group think.

I once read a blog post about how even blogs / groups intended for survivors (survivors of church abuse or whatever) can turn out to be just as abusive as the church or cult the person has left. (That post may have also been on Blog on the Way, I can’t remember where I saw it).

If you have been hurt by a Christian, a denomination, or a church, be very, very careful which other groups you choose to align yourself with in the aftermath, or for support or healing.

The group you choose to make your “new home” or support system just may turn on you in the future.

I have seen some people post perfectly polite, fine questions or comments on SCCL Facebook page and get rudely ripped to shreds, ganged up on, by several SCCL members at once over it.

It’s not pretty, and some of the SCCL members, at times, act just as horribly as the fundamentalists, evangelicals, sexists and “homophobes” (what a stupid, inaccurate word, by the way) they complain about.

There are also some hard-core atheists who sporadically show up to SCCL to bitterly complain about theism, the Bible and Christians, and they are some of the most condescending, obnoxious jerks I’ve come across. They usually get shouted down by other SCCL members, but they do post there on occasion.

There is a Christian guy, an older gentlemen (his personal profile photo shows a white-haired guy) named “Warren” who participates at SCCL.

I’d say the guy makes good sense about 95% of the time, but he still gets shouted down and treated rudely by the SCCL regulars – because, in knee jerk reaction, they recoil at anything that smacks of Christian or traditional values.

Continue reading “General Observations Or Concerns About Stuff Christian Culture Likes Group and Blog”

Stop Telling Women Their Most Valuable Asset Is Their Youth (From Time)

Stop Telling Women Their Most Valuable Asset Is Their Youth

This was written in response to G. Rivera’s comments that women should marry young, or not waste their youth married to losers on trial marriages or whatever.

(Link): Stop Telling Women Their Most Valuable Asset Is Their Youth

    by J. Bennett

Why, in an era when we are succeeding in so many ways, do we buy into sexist tropes about aging?

…. Appearing on FOX to discuss the piece, Geraldo Rivera noted, to stunned female hosts, that what a woman brings to a marriage “more than anything else” is “her youth.”

Her youth?

Yes, “her youth,” Geraldo continued. Because a woman’s youth, he explained, “is a fragile and diminishing resource.”

Geraldo’s logic went like this: If a woman were to invest two precious years into a beta-marriage, and then, God forbid, have her man reject her (his words, not mine), she’ll have wasted her most valuable asset. The thing that is, obviously, going to determine not just whether a woman will have a family, but whether she’ll have a husband, and live happily ever after, at all.

…But Geraldo’s sin was not simply that what he said was impolitic. It’s that he put bluntly one of the most insidious and persistent smears: that women come with an expiration date.

It’s a concept that is still pounded into us at every turn, from media to pop culture–and not just by septuagenarian TV personalities.

It is there, almost tauntingly, in a recent article in Esquire, which seemed to bask in its own generosity by proclaiming that a woman could still be hot at 42–as if that were a reason to reconsider their value. It’s there in the endless media blitz by Susan Patton, the “Princeton Mom,” who’s managed to create a “mini empire,“as Salon recently put it, from “one crazy op-ed” about how women need to hurry up and find a man.

…The thing is, reality no longer conforms to those old tropes. Women now get the majority of college degrees. We have careers. We are living longer than ever. We can freeze our eggs to buy us biological time.

And yet our conception of what makes a woman desirable and valuable in society hasn’t caught up. From every angle, we continue to hear that we need to “rush.” That we should make it easier and more comfortable for the men around us. That our youth — not necessarily even our fertility — is our most valuable asset.

((click here to read the rest))
————————–
Related posts:

(Link): Obnoxious, Condescending, Sexist, Pervy Esquire Editorial by 50-Something Year Old Man: “In Praise of 42 Year Old Women” – Condescendingly Reassures 40 Something Women He’d Sex Them Up

(Link): The best age to marry is when you meet the right person – editorial responding to study that says if you marry past 30 your marriage is doomed

(Link): College Women, Don’t Listen to Marriage Concern Trolls

(Link): Men Become ‘Invisible’ And Lose Sex Appeal At 39 – Article from Daily Caller

(Link): Follow Up Part 2 – Reactions by Other Writers to Sexist, Condescending 50 Something Men Who Think They Are Final Arbiters of If Women Are Attractive Past Age of 40 (Re: Esquire Editorial by Junod)

(Link): Creepy, wrong, immature and pathetic: older men chasing after much younger women

(Link): The Annoying, Weird, Sexist Preoccupation by Christian Males with Female Looks and Sexuality

(Link): Ryan Gosling and Shirtless, Buff Cowboy Photos on Social Media – Yes, Women Are Visually Stimulated and Visually Oriented (Part 2)

(Link): Online Dating: Women Want Younger Men (article)

(Link):

Adult Singleness and Virginity Ridiculed by Preacher Mark Driscoll from 2000 – and anti Homosexual and Sexist Rhetoric ( Re Driscoll Rant known as Pussified Nation )

Adult Singleness and Virginity Ridiculed by Preacher Mark Driscoll from 2000 – and anti Homosexual and Sexist Rhetoric

More anti-singlness and anti-virginity commentary from perverted, sexist douche bag and pastor Mark Driscoll has come to light. I have blogged about this creep before (see links at the conclusion of this post for more).

I am not a fan of tip toeing around people’s feelings and the extreme political correctness in today’s culture, (as I wrote of in a (Link): previous blog post here), but, I am not a supporter of this other extreme, the one Driscoll presents in the post I excerpt below.

It’s one thing to speak your mind – in a firm but respectful way, even if the majority of popular culture does not like your beliefs – but Driscoll seems to go out of his way to be unnecessarily rude, condescending, and hateful, or as obnoxious as he can be.

In the year 2000, Neo-Calvinist preacher Mark Driscoll, writing under the name “William Wallace II,” I think, wrote a bunch of inflammatory commentary on his church’s forum “Midrash.” In a book he wrote, Driscoll admitted to posting as “William Wallace II” on that forum (some sites linked to below have screen captures taken from online versions of the book that you can view).

In a series of very long posts, Driscoll ranted against women, feminists, homosexuals, men who are not manly-man enough in his view, and all this has drawn the ire and attention of many netizens after this was blogged about recently.

However, the portion of Driscoll’s post that caught my eye seems to subtly mock or ridicule adult singleness, singles ministries, and adult virginity.

Before I get to that, I wanted to mention this:

According to one source ((Link): source) in a Tweet:

    Driscoll through Wallace says women need a man to help them select a husband (p. 78). Eastern culture > Biblical example incl Ruth, then.

As I replied on Twtter in regards to that view by Driscoll:

    I’m a never married lady over 40, would still like to marry some day – Driscoll can eat my shorts

Yes, Driscoll can take his outdated, sexist views about single women and cram them up his butt.

There was also this (Willam Wallace parody account is quoting Driscoll (Link): Source):

Returning once more to the long rant by Driscoll:

(Link): Mark Driscoll’s Pussified Nation… – Matthew Paul Turner’s blog –
If Turner’s blog becomes unavailable for viewing (which it did earlier today apparently due to a stampede of traffic), you can read the Driscoll penned posts here:
(Link): Posts by Driscoll

Here are excerpts of what Driscoll wrote in 2000, under the name “William Wallace II” – with comments by me below this long excerpt (and additional links by other people about this Driscoll rant):

    We live in a completely pussified nation.

    We could get every man, real man as opposed to pussified James Dobson knock-off crying Promise Keeping homoerotic worship loving mama’s boy sensitive emasculated neutered exact male replica evangellyfish, and have a conference in a phone booth.

    It all began with Adam, the first of the pussified nation, who kept his mouth shut and watched everything fall headlong down the slippery slide of hell/feminism when he shut his the slippery slide of hell/feminism when he shut his mouth and listened to his wife who thought Satan was a good theologian when he should have lead her and exercised his delegated authority as king of the planet.

    As a result, he was cursed for listening to his wife and every man since has been his pussified sit quietly by and watch a nation of men be raised by bitter penis envying burned feministed single mothers who make sure that Johnny grows up to be a very nice woman who sits down to pee.

    Continue reading “Adult Singleness and Virginity Ridiculed by Preacher Mark Driscoll from 2000 – and anti Homosexual and Sexist Rhetoric ( Re Driscoll Rant known as Pussified Nation )”

Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin

Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin

(Before I get to the link proper, here is a long introduction by me.)

I agree with this guy’s editorial (linked to farther below). I’ve written of this phenomenon before on my own blog, going back a year or maybe as long as three years ago (see links at the bottom of this post under the “Related Posts” section).

I do not like legalistic jerks. I don’t think Christians should be rude, mean, hateful jerks to other people, even when condemning certain behaviors as being sinful.

However. HOWEVER.

I can’t say as though I’m a whole-scale supporter of legalism’s opposite characteristics, either – which amounts to extreme leniency and “watering down of standards” in the name of Love and Tolerance.

I have seen some Christians so very afraid of hurting the feelings of Non-Christians (or even that of fellow Christians) who are in sin, or in confronting Christians who are openly supportive of behaviors the Bible condemns, they tip toe around the sin in question to an absurd degree – where they end up practically supporting, condoning, or excusing said sin (whatever it may be).

These Christians are hyper-sensitive to other people’s feelings, and it is a huge annoyance to me.

This tendency to treat other people’s feelings with kid gloves has gotten so bad in Christendom (particularly in regards to sexual sin), that some preachers have admitted they are afraid to speak out against sin in public, in their blogs, TV shows, books, or from the pulpit.

It’s also very common among Christian lay persons, or by ex-Christians or liberal Christians, who confuse God’s propensity to love and forgive with the notion that God (and Jesus Christ) are hunky-dory with behavior the Bible thoroughly condemns, such as hetero pre-marital sex or homosexual sex acts, for example.

(Transgenderism is a sexual state which has become the new liberal Christian, moderate Christian, Theology of Hurt Feelings Christian, ex-Christian, and left wing secular Sacred Cow that you may not criticize at all.)

It’s also intriguing to me that on the spiritual abuse blogs I have visited, whose owners and members champion the downtrodden (i.e., adults who have been mistreated by churches, or victims of sexual abuse whose abuse was swept under the rug by their fellow church members), have forum or blog participants, who will, on one hand, quite understandably call for the heads of such abusive church members on a platter, rightly call out Christians as being naive fools about abuse in churches, but – many of these same people are also very dismissive of, or blind to, abuses by Muslim militants and homosexual militants.

They are very naive of abuses by Muslims and homosexuals. They seem to have a huge blind spot in those areas.

How they can so easily spot and repudiate Christian and church bungling of spiritual and child sexual abuse, or of preachers who exploit their church members, but fail to recognize the dangers of Muslim and homosexual militancy in American society and other regions of the world, I will never understand.

The blindness and naive nature by folks on those sorts of forums and blogs also extends to Roman Catholicism.

I have had a few Roman Catholic friends in the past, and they are fine people, but their church? No.

The Roman Catholic Church used to burn people at the stake, but one Roman Catholic individual recently thanked a (Protestant) blogger for bringing to everyone’s attention the anti-Roman Catholic commentary expressed by yet another blog (a Protestant one which was critical of perceived sinful RC behavior).

I mean, really? Some Protestant writing a critical comment about Roman Catholic behavior in general on a blog is thought somehow worse than the Roman Catholic Church in years past doing things such as:

-Covering up priest sexual abuse of children, or….

-Burning people to death for refusing to convert to Roman Catholicism, or for (Link to Wiki page): translating the Bible into English, or….

-The same Roman Catholic Church that historically has held the position that the Gospel (which includes sola fide) is anathema (to be damned)?

        (Off site link for more on that:

      Roman Catholic Church condemns the Gospel itself

          )

        Seriously?

        But you can’t easily point these issues of the Roman Catholic Church out at some forums or blogs – the ones who are into The Theology of Hurt Feelings – as it might offend a Roman Catholic somewhere.

        The Roman Catholic Church historically persecuted a lot of people (see again: burning people to death at the stake for things like not converting to Catholicism), but criticism on the internet of their church is considered by some of them to be the height of persecution against Roman Catholics.

        At any rate, I agree with the gentlemen quoted below.

        There is most certainly a Theology of Hurt Feelings, where-in some Christians are so incredibly concerned with not offending various classes of sinners (e.g., hetero fornicators or active homosexuals), they think Christians speaking out publicly (on blogs, radio shows, in church services, etc) is “unloving” and therefore Christ would object to it.

        The mind boggles at this. Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay for hetero fornication and homosexual sex acts, among other sins of humanity. But these “lovey dovey” types want other Christians to pipe down about all this and act as though God is totaly fine with, and accepting of, all manner of sin.

        The Bible presents a God who is not only loving, forgiving, and gracious, but also one who is Holy, just, and who does not tolerate sin, he does not like sin, and he won’t put up with sin indefinitely. God is not fine and dandy with sin. And the Bible does in fact call out hetero pre-marital sex, and all homosexual sex acts, as sin.

        I suspect that this well-meaning, yet wrong-headed, tendency to want to be Very Loving, Very Accepting, and To Spare People’s Feelings, is partially responsible for what gave rise several years ago to the ridiculous, non-sensical, un-Biblical habit of referring to fornicators as “Born Again Virgins,” “Spiritual Virgins,” and similar monikers (see links below, this post, for more about that).

        (Link): Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities

        Excerpts.

            BY ALEX MURASHKO , CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER 
            July 25, 2014|8:33 am

          Advocates for behavior considered immoral by Christians who believe the Bible is God’s inerrant word, have successfully used the idea of “love” to affirm homoerotic behavior, to redefine marriage and family, to justify pedophilia, and as theologian and pastor James Emery White recently pointed out, to justify assisted suicide.

          The problem, White writes in his blog, Church & Culture, is that the “love” described to normalize these behaviors is “not the biblical idea of love.”

          Continue reading “Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin”

          Why Singles Belong in Church Leadership by L. Ferguson

          Why Singles Belong in Church Leadership

          (Link): Why Singles Belong in Church Leadership

          Excerpts

            Unmarried ministers offer a unique understanding of devotion to Christ alone.

            by Lore Ferguson, guest writer

            Each time I read a well-intentioned article on how to make the most of your single years, I scan down to the author’s bio and often discover that, sure enough, he’s married to his college sweetheart, pulling advice from a brief period of singleness years ago.

            Even at 33, I’m a spring chicken to some of the seasoned single men and women before me.

            These Christians have spent their lives burning with passion, unmet desires, or unrequited love, or have committed to a life of celibacy.

            These are the clouds of witnesses I look to for wisdom in issues of singleness—not the well-meaning, but hollow three-points and a poem professor with his winsome wife and four little ones. What do I know of his life?

            The hardships of parenting, husbanding, pastoring, teaching, ministering? But what does he know of mine?

            If the life of a single Christian, as Paul admonished, is to be undistracted by the world, concerned with the things of the Lord, then unmarried ministers have a unique calling indeed. And it is one the church ought not ignore — or usurp.

            Where I live, in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, young marriages are common. Younger than the national average at least. Yet few single men and women are involved in ministry.

            Continue reading “Why Singles Belong in Church Leadership by L. Ferguson”

          Taking the Opposite Position from Neo Calvinists Just Because It’s the Opposite of Neo Calvinists

          Taking the Opposite Position from Neo Calvinists Just Because It’s the Opposite of Neo Calvinists

          I touched on this in an earlier post or two, such as this one: (Link): No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected.

          But this time, I wanted to discuss Neo Calvinism and spiritual abuse blogs and advocates in particular.

          I do not support Neo Calvinism, or even old school Calvinism. I think Calvinism is a crock of crap.

          Many of the NC’s (Neo Calvinists, aka YRRs), are arrogant, narrow minded jerks.

          My problem with seeing NC guys, their churches, or their positions discussed and picked apart by some bloggers is that the anti NCs go into reactionary mode.

          Their positions often time seem not so much well thought out in and of themselves, but that they will take a position opposite of that held by most NCs just because it’s the opposite of that held by NCs.

          I do know a little bit about NCs and their theological beliefs, but not as much as their frequent critics.

          According to their frequent critics, NCs believe in a literal six day creation, not an old age of the earth.

          (As for me, I am NOT an NC, and I believe in a literal six day creation.)

          My issue when I visit blogs or Twitter accounts by people who are vehemently anti NC is that they will, it appears to me, automatically take the opposite position on anything John Piper, The Gospel Coaltion, and other NC guys say just to be contrary.

          Continue reading “Taking the Opposite Position from Neo Calvinists Just Because It’s the Opposite of Neo Calvinists”

          The Crumbling Post-35 Pregnancy Myth (article from The Daily Beast site)

          The Crumbling Post-35 Pregnancy Myth

          (Link) The Crumbling Post-35 Pregnancy Myth

          Excerpts:

            The prevailing myth that women can’t and shouldn’t get pregnant after the age of 35 is finally starting to crumble. Science shows women can safely deliver healthy babies into their 40s.
            ———

          A new study finds that women who had their last child when they were 33 or older lived longer than those who had their last child by 29. It doesn’t necessarily mean one causes the other—it’s possible that being healthy enough to get pregnant later also causes longevity—but it’s encouraging news for those of us who waited until our late 30s to have children.

          • That news has been coming more quickly in recent years. As I noted in my book The Impatient Woman’s Guide to Getting Pregnant, the scary statistic that one out of three women over 35 will not be pregnant after a year of trying comes from an analysis of French birth records between 1670 and 1830.
          • Studies of more modern populations find fairly high fertility in a woman’s late 30s.
          • About 80 percent of women 35-39 will get pregnant naturally in a year of trying. That’s barely different from the 85 percent of under 35’s who will succeed.
          • Other recent good news for older women and fertility comes from an unlikely source: statistics from in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics. Until just a few years ago, IVF success rates for older women were depressingly low.

          Continue reading “The Crumbling Post-35 Pregnancy Myth (article from The Daily Beast site)”

          Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or Rhetoric

          Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or “Not All” Rhetoric
          ——————————-
          REMINDER

          If you are new to this blog, I possibly need to remind you that I am socially conservative, right wing, and a Republican.

          (Edit, Sept 2016. My views have shifted somewhat in the last couple of years, since I last wrote this post. I am still right wing but more moderate now.)

          Although I do criticize my fellow right wingers, as well as Christians, time and again on this site over some subjects, I am not liberal, progressive, Democratic, left wing, nor am I pro-choice or pro-homosexuality.

          I do not despise the notions of, belief in, or practice of, moral absolutes, Christianity, the nuclear family, traditional marriage, sexual purity, Christians, the Bible, or a literal biblical hermeneutic.

          (However, I do not always agree with other conservatives about topics, or how to handle those topics.)

          If you’re feeling very confused or duped at this point, as in, “Hey, I’ve been visiting this blog for months now, or I followed you on Twitter, and I thought you are liberal, and that you hate conservatives and Christianity like I do?!”

          No, you have misunderstood me or my positions.

          Just because I am sometimes critical of Christians, or how Christians and conservatives sometimes pontificate about certain matters, does not mean I am against either one or that I am automatically a liberal who supports abortion, Democrats, Obama, or homosexuality.

          You might want to see this blog’s “About” page for more about my views. I tend to criticize other right wingers more so than left wingers on this blog, but this is one of those posts where I have to criticize the left.
          ——————————-
          Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or “Not All” Rhetoric

          Secular feminists hate men who interject into feminist conversations online – or in real life – about sexism and rape apologia to say, “But not all men are like that; I am not.”

          Feminists are annoyed over this common behavior to the point they started using the “#NotAllMen” hash tag on Twitter and blogs.

          If you’re not familiar with the history of, or the bruhaha over, the “Not All Men” phenomenon, you can read more about it on Time magazine’s site here:
          (Link): Not All Men: A Brief History of Every Dude’s Favorite Argument, by Jess Zimmerman.

          (Edit. Since I wrote this post, I read one source that says that it was men who started use of the “#NotAllMen” hash to counter balance the feminist “#YesAllWomen” hash, but by the time I started seeing “#NotAllMen” it was being used by feminists against sexist men.)

          Not too long ago, in a conversation in the comments on a left wing site under an article criticizing a famous conservative journalist’s position about something related to sexism, I pointed out that not all conservatives and Republicans see eye- to- eye on every issue, so please don’t assume that one journalist’s views on that one issue are indicative of all conservatives – as the author of the article I was commenting on seemed to imply.

          I also pointed out in that same post that I myself, who am a conservative Republican, did not totally support conservatives on the particular topic under discussion, and some rude, liberal, Democratic jackass at that site gave me a sarcastic comment and dismissed my view by sarcastically using the “#Not All Conservatives” hash.

          (Among other snarky commentary from that person. This person was truly being an assh-le for no good reason.

          I said nothing to that point to provoke snarky, condescending remarks from anyone.

          After that person was rude to me, and only afterwards, did I tell her she was rude and could kiss my ass, but prior to that, before her rudeness, I was being polite.)

          On the one hand, I can certainly understand why, for example, women may find it rude or annoying when their feminist conversation about male privilege or sexism gets interrupted by some man interjecting to say, “But I am a man, and I respect women” because that can seem to diminish the experiences of sexism by women who are discussing the topic.

          On the other hand, nobody likes seeing a group they are a member of, or sympathetic to, being generalized unfairly, or painted with a broad-brush.

          Liberals are often hypocritical on this point. And they are also terribly blinded to their hypocrisy.

          #NOT ALL MUSLIMS

          For example, any time a conservative points out that quite a number of Muslims are terribly sexist against women (e.g., honor killings of female rape victims, extreme modesty teaching which blames women for male sexual crimes or male misbehavior, the practice of female genital mutilation, forced marriages of young girls to old men – are all common beliefs or practices in Islamic communities)-

          Or, when conservatives make the true observation that most terrorism in the world today is carried out by Muslims (enjoy this site, or this one (*and see a few more links at the bottom of this post)), your left wingers will quickly exclaim,
          “But not all Muslims are like that! I’ve even known some Muslims personally, and they are very nice people.”

          Hence, we see #Not All Muslims at play by left wingers in conversations about terrorism. Often.

          #NOT ALL ATHEISTS

          When I have visited theologically liberal or ex- Christian sites, which are sometimes populated by self-professing atheists (who usually claim to be former Christians), they get angry when Christians point to news stories of atheists who get arrested for murder, or rape, or what have you.

          Immediately, the atheists, or theologically liberal Christians, start saying (this one seems to comes up on Stuff Christian Culture Likes Facebook group about once a week it seems, eg. in (Link): this discussion),
          “How long until conservative Christians point to this news story of this atheist murdering this child as proof that all atheists are unethical, murdering slugs? Don’t they know that not all atheists are killers or child molesters?”

          Yes, I sometimes see anti-Christian atheists bring out the “#NotAllAtheist” commentary.

          However, many times, these same atheists like to bring up the Christian “#Not All Christian” habit of saying, “Maybe the preacher arrested for child rape was not a ‘real’ Christian,” by mentioning the “No True Scotsman” fallacy (you can read more about that here or here).

          You can see examples of Non-Christians complaining about the alleged Christian use of “No True Scotsman” (Link): here (link is to SCCL Facebook group page, a group which runs from theologically liberal to atheistic).

          Let us review.

          Some atheists get angry at Christians who assume all, or most atheists, are immoral scum balls, but atheists do not mind assuming these things are true of all Christians.

          Atheists detest the #NotAllChristians tactic by Christians, vis a vis the “No True Scotsman” stance, but atheists don’t hesitate to scream #NotAllAtheists in similar contexts.

          Oh, I see. We want to make exceptions for our side but not the other side; how convenient.

          We want to be angry atheists snarking on Christians all day long and pointing out Christian flaws, but Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid if Christians mention crimes or misbehavior by atheists! Talk about a double standard.

          NO TRUE SCOTSMAN

          I hate to disappoint the die-hard, irrational, frothing- at- the mouth variety of atheists out there (and many of you are indeed irrational – your hatred for God and Christians is based on emotion or personal dislike of Christians, not due to intellect or dispassionate reason as is often claimed), the “No Scotsman Fallacy” does not totally apply to Christianity to start with.

          Jesus Christ himself taught that not all who consider themselves Christians are in fact actual, real, genuine followers of his, even if they do claim to be so.

          See for example, (Link): this biblical passage or (Link): this one or (Link): this one.

          #NOT ALL HOMOSEXUALS

          I’ve noticed that any time crimes or bigotry by homosexuals against heterosexuals, other homosexuals, or other groups, are brought up on blogs or news sites, especially on forums or blogs that tend to have a large segment of left wingers, most of the left wingers are quick to jump in with the “not all homosexuals” argumentation.

          One case in point was a recent letter to the “Ask Amy” advice columnist.

          Here is a link to the letter:
          (Link): Mom worries about gym teacher in locker room

          Here is the letter:

          DEAR AMY:

            My seventh-grade daughter’s female gym teacher is openly gay. None of the parents or kids has a problem with this.

          The issue is that she observes the girls changing into and out of their gym clothes, and my daughter and many of her peers feel very uncomfortable having a lesbian watch them walk around in their underwear.

          I’m afraid to say anything because I worry that my daughter will be given a “special area” to change, and it will make her feel awkward.

          I understand that seventh-graders need supervision in the locker room, but it seems to me the school should know that it may not be appropriate to have a lesbian in the locker room with young girls!

          By the way, the teacher has never behaved unprofessionally — nor is anyone worried that she might — it is simply an issue of discomfort.

          What’s the right answer that respects everyone involved? — Concerned Mom

          Here is part of Amy’s reply:

          DEAR CONCERNED:

            …You might start this conversation by letting your daughter know that there is a likelihood some of her fellow students at school or on sports teams are also lesbians, and that in this environment, along with trusting her instincts, she also has to trust other people (gay and straight) to have integrity.

          You seem to think that because this teacher is a lesbian, she may also be attracted to — or be an unhealthy presence — for girls.

          Judging by the preponderance of recent alarming news reports of improper sexual relationships between teachers and students, a student is much more likely to be hit on by a heterosexual teacher than a gay one.

          — (end Amy letter)—

          First of all, notice that Amy’s tact here is pretty much a “Not All Homosexuals” argument. She even goes further to use a “Most All Heteros” argument.

          Amy is telling the mother who wrote the letter not to assume that just because a female gym teacher is lesbian that this necessarily means that the teacher is viewing the students in a sexual manner or will “hit” on them.

          That may very well be true, but note the “Not All Lesbians” rhetoric is being employed in the first place.

          When I visited sites that published copies of this letter and had a comment section, I noted that many of the commentators left statements to the effect of “the gym teacher’s sexual preference should not be an issue, as not all homosexuals prey on children.”

          It was remarkable how often the “Not All Homosexuals” cliche’ kept popping up under this particular “Ask Amy” letter and previous ones like it, that mentioned homosexual people.

          Secondly, per Amy’s comment that

            “Judging by the preponderance of recent alarming news reports of improper sexual relationships between teachers and students, a student is much more likely to be hit on by a heterosexual teacher than a gay one”

          there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals in American culture, so it would mathematically figure that there are more hetero predators than homosexual ones, based on “counting noses” of sexual offenders alone.

          However, based on various studies I have seen over the past ten or more years, there is a HIGHER PERCENTAGE of pedophiles among homosexuals than heteros.

          Continue reading “Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or Rhetoric”

          “Because I was single I felt second class.”-by Chandin, former Mars Hill member & single, on Mars Hill church

          “Because I was single I felt second class.”-by Chandin, former Mars Hill member & single, on Mars Hill church

          The lady who wrote this started out single at Mars Hill and later got married. But she discusses, that while she was single, there was some adult singles shaming going on at Mars Hill.

          Early on, Chandin served as a leader of a woman’s only Mars Hill Bible study group.

          (Link): Chandin’s Story, from We Love Mars Hill Blog

          Here are excerpts:

            Community groups discussed the sermons from the previous Sunday. Group leaders were given guides to go through with our groups.

            This was particularly difficult when we studied Song of Songs. Driscoll’s view of sex and marriage in Song of Songs (the Peasant Princess series) was extremely uncomfortable to talk about in a group of single ladies who wanted to be married and one married woman (I am amazed she stuck with us!).

            I asked my coach if we could do a Bible study rather than discuss the sermon on Sunday. I was flatly told no.

            That this was good information to have while we were single, so when we married we would be prepared.

            The sermon series felt torturous.

            Because I was single I felt second class. I know Pastor Mark would address singles occasionally, but for the most part it was difficult to sit through and then lead discussion on it.

            I had attempted to step down from my group twice, but was talked out of it by coaches and pastors.

            …. One of the Pastors reached out to me shortly after the meeting and expressed that he wanted to get to know me more and talk about my abuse further. I agreed, thankful that he cared and wanted to help. I went over to his house for dinner with his family.

            We talked about Anchor and of Brian who I met there.

            Brian and I had discussed dating and marriage, and the pastor was interested in talking to him. After we finished our meal, we began to talk about the abuse I was just coming to terms with. I started to cry.

            His wife stopped me and looked me in the eye and said, “You don’t have to wallow in self pity”.

            I was stunned. I looked at her husband, the pastor, and he nodded in agreement. Crying about trauma, though it happened years before, was considered self pity. I didn’t want to talk about it further. I left confused and felt ashamed for crying.

            Continue reading ““Because I was single I felt second class.”-by Chandin, former Mars Hill member & single, on Mars Hill church”

          Why Susan Patton Is Wrong About College Women and Marriage by S. Atteberry

          Why Susan Patton Is Wrong About College Women and Marriage by S. Atteberry

          (Link): Why Susan Patton Is Wrong About College Women & Marriage

          Excerpt:

            by S. Atteberry

            Susan Patton would be vastly disappointed with me. The mom of two Princeton sons, whose letter to Princeton and now an editorial in the Wall Street Journal telling women in college to marry while there before all of the good fish in the sea are gone, does not want to hear how I didn’t even meet my husband until I was 28, and then I didn’t bother to marry him for another eight years.

            ….There is also one other huge problem with Patton’s article. She’s wrong. Women with college educations are more likely to be married by 40 than woman without college degrees, whether these women married in college or not.

            … I also have theological concerns about Patton’s views on women, men, and marriage. The biggest concern is one I have talked about over and over on this website, and it comes straight from Christian conservative circles as well: it’s the belief that a woman’s primary purpose in life is to marry and have children, and everything else in life should be subsumed under those two roles.

            …You will never hear any of these conservatives say that a man’s primary responsibility in life is to be a husband and father to the exclusion of everything else because it is not good for a man to be alone. Just because human beings are created for companionship does not mean that one relationship and family unit should override everything else.

            … I’m not saying marriage and parenthood are not vital roles in life or are not needed. I’m happily married. I have to say it’s one of my favorite sacraments. I’m just saying it’s not the be all and end all of life for women, and we need to stop talking about it that way.

          ((( click here to read the rest )))
          ———————-
          Related posts, this blog:

          (Link): The Irrelevancy To Single or Childless or Childfree Christian Women of Biblical Gender Complementarian Roles / Biblical Womanhood Teachings

          (Link): If the Family Is Central, Christ Isn’t

          (Link): Is The Church Failing Childless Women? by Diane Paddison

          (Link): Lies The Church Tells Single Women (by Sue Bohlin)

          (Link): Do You Rate Your Family Too High? (Christians Who Idolize the Family) (article)

          (Link): The Isolating Power of Family-Centered Language (How churches exclude singles and the childless) by E A Dause

          (Link): Why all the articles about being Child Free? On Being Childfree or Childless – as a Conservative / Right Wing / Christian

          Are Marriage and Family A Woman’s Highest Calling? by Marcia Wolf – and other links that address the Christian fallacy that a woman’s most godly or only proper role is as wife and mother

          Are Marriage and Family A Woman’s Highest Calling? by Marcia Wolf – and other links that address the Christian fallacy that a woman’s most godly or only proper role is as wife and mother

          (Link): Are Marriage and Family A Woman’s Highest Calling?

          Excerpt:

            by Marcia Wolf
          • Does every woman in the church need to be married with children in order to lead a happy, fulfilling life?
          • Certainly not.
          • But many single women may feel pressure to comply with what the church often upholds as an ideal state of womanhood.
          • Kate Wallace is a single woman with a budding career as cofounder of the Junia Project, an organization that advocates for women in leadership at all levels of the church.
          • A devout Christian, Wallace believes the church tends to overlook single women in favor of married women with kids.

          Continue reading “Are Marriage and Family A Woman’s Highest Calling? by Marcia Wolf – and other links that address the Christian fallacy that a woman’s most godly or only proper role is as wife and mother”