Dude Writes to Miss Manners Advice Columnist: “Miss Manners: No one Ever Replies to Me on Dating Sites”

Dude Writes to Miss Manners Advice Columnist: “Miss Manners: No one Ever Replies to Me on Dating Sites”

WARNING. The following post contains “Adult” language


Before I paste the letter from the single guy to Miss Manners in (farther below), let me say this:

Let me explain to you clueless men out there the REAL reason women do not send you a polite rejection letter when you message them on dating sites:

Because 98% of men out there, men of all ages on dating sites, do NOT handle rejection gracefully, but with insults laced with profanity (and often drenched with sexism), no matter HOW POLITELY and GENTLY the woman turns the dude down.

In the past, when I was on dating sites more often, and I would politely reply to a guy who winked at me or messaged me on a dating site and said to him something polite such as, “Thank you for your interest, but after looking over your profile, I don’t think we’re compatible, but I hope you meet someone of your liking very soon!”

And for that trouble, the guy in question would reply thusly to me (this was a typical reply I’d get from men whom I turned down gently – this was not an exception, but a general rule):

“Fuck you! I didn’t like you any way. You are a fat, ugly cow.

I see from your profile you work as an ‘X’, your career is in “Z” field. I bet you only make $40,000 a year, which is not a lot.

Well, I am a 6 ft 4 inch hunk of man, I stay in shape, I am sexy, I work as a ritzy investment banker and make $250,000 a year!

I own a Porsche and a BMW. I go skiing in the Alps twice a year. I have met Bruce Springsteen in person TWICE and got his autograph.

Any woman would want me. You are a stupid slut for turning me down! Go fuck yourself, and I hope you get raped!!”

Yep, that is the usual reply a woman gets on dating sites when she turns a guy down, even if she is super sweet in how she goes about it.

I often wonder why these assholes bother “winking” at me, or messaging me on these sites, in the first place, when, after I reject them, they shoot back with, “You’re an ugly bitch.”

Well, my dear, my photos are in plain site on my profile, and if you felt I was an ugly bitch the whole time, why did you bother to flirt with me? If you don’t consider a woman nice, smart, and pretty in the first place, then do NOT message her on this site, you moron.

To those types of men in real life and on dating sites: You sore loser. Grow up. Learn to handle rejection better and with aplomb, instead of lashing out at women who aren’t interested. YOU RUDE LOSER.

(Link):   Miss Manners: No one ever replies to me on dating site

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

I am a male member of a popular dating website. When I read the profile of someone I’d like to meet, I write them a personalized letter pointing out some of our common interests, adding a bit of levity where I can, suggesting we meet for coffee and conversation. These letters generally run from five to eight sentences. In other words, I’ve put some effort into it.

Continue reading “Dude Writes to Miss Manners Advice Columnist: “Miss Manners: No one Ever Replies to Me on Dating Sites””

The Ugly, Unfair Truth About Looking Beautiful by W. Leith

The Ugly, Unfair Truth About Looking Beautiful By William Leith

(Link): The Ugly, Unfair Truth About Looking Beautiful

Why, after decades of feminism, do we seem to demand that women in the public eye be extraordinarily beautiful but their male counterparts can get away with being ordinary?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The art critic John Berger famously said that, in our culture, “men act and women appear”. He didn’t mean that women didn’t actually do anything, or that men never looked pretty. His point was that this was how men and women were depicted.

Men were supposed to be effective, and women were supposed to be attractive. He was right. And it was a travesty. But that was in 1972; it was a long time ago.

Or was it? Four decades of feminism later I am reading the comedian Angela Barnes’ blog. “I am ugly, and I am proud,” she writes. She goes on to say: “The fact is I don’t see people in magazines who look like me. I don’t see people like me playing the romantic lead or having a romantic life.”

At the top of the blog is a picture of Barnes. And the thing is, she isn’t ugly. Neither is she beautiful. She’s normal looking. She’s somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, just like lots of women you see every day in real life.

It made me think of this year’s Wimbledon ladies’ final between Sabine Lisicki and Marion Bartoli. When Bartoli won, the BBC commentator John Inverdale infamously said, “Do you think Bartoli’s dad told her when she was little, ‘You’re never going to be a looker, you’re never going to be a Sharapova, so you have to be scrappy and fight’?”

Continue reading “The Ugly, Unfair Truth About Looking Beautiful by W. Leith”

Why Women Are Tired: The Price of Unpaid Emotional Labor by C. Hutchison

Why Women Are Tired: The Price of Unpaid Emotional Labor by C. Hutchison 

(Link): Why Women Are Tired: The Price of Unpaid Emotional Labor by C. Hutchison

My comments about this subject, before copying some excerpts from the link above:

Another form of Male Entitlement: expecting the women around you to cheer you up, listen empathetically as you tell them about your problems. (Though other women can also be guilty of this at times, as I wrote of (Link): here).

In a (Link): much older post I wrote, where I linked to and excerpted an article from elsewhere, some guy in the article admitted that when he went to a local bar after a day at work, he enjoyed the female bartender more than the male ones, because any time he tried to talk about his problems (and receive empathy for his problems) from the males, the male bartenders would tell him to shut up and get over it.

However, when the lady bartender was on duty, she would listen to him and offer sympathy, he said. He relied on and appreciated her willingness to listen and respond with empathy.

My ex-fiance talked non-stop (as I wrote of (Link): here). He always wanted me to listen to him talk about his life, he never cared about mine, and he never asked about my views on anything. My ex expected me to stroke his ego and cheer him up in his ups and downs in life – but he was unwilling to do this for me.

My ex college friend made my mother’s death (Link): all about himself when I sent him notice of my mother’s passing. He talked about himself in his reply to me, instead of just doing what he should have and said, “I’m sorry for your loss.”. This ex friend making everything about himself was a pattern for him.

Even before my mother died, my ex college friend would e-mail me and talk about himself – he would ask me a question or two about me, but when I would write back commenting on HIS life – as well as responding to his questions about my life – he would never comment on my replies ABOUT ME.

I got the feeling he was asking about me only out of a sense of politeness. I don’t think he really cared about me or what I was up to or what I was thinking.

While some women can be very self absorbed and can be emotional vampires (I’ve been friends with a few and am related to one), I think at least most women are aware that they’re doing this to another women (and women tend to be aware of how it can be draining to be someone’s emotional support), but men seem to have a blind spot in this area.

Continue reading “Why Women Are Tired: The Price of Unpaid Emotional Labor by C. Hutchison”

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

Talking With Both Daughters and Sons About Sex – article via NY Times

Talking With Both Daughters and Sons About Sex

You will notice that this study which is mentioned below describes how sexual stereotypes influence how parents teach their kids about sex: daughters (girls) are encouraged to be abstinent and to delay sex, but not boys.

I see this same exact (sexist) pattern among Christian families: Christians buy into secular stereotypes that girls should be as sexually pure as the freshly driven snow and Christians wrongly assume females lack a libido, but males are assumed to be sex-starved horn-dogs who lack control, and boys are not generally expected to remain celibate.

Ergo, females are taught in Christian sermons and other Christian content to sexually abstain. Christian boys don’t generally receive as much pressure or sermonizing on abstaining. There may be something “off” about Christian teachings about sex, since they are mirroring secular cultural assumptions about gender and sex in these matters.

On the other hand, regarding other (non sexual) topics, I can see how Christians might BENEFIT (or, ironically, be MORE in line with the Bible) if they went along with secular mores instead of with their incorrect biblical interpretation of some topics. But on this issue, they sound quite similar to secular culture, and are off they mark, I believe.

(Link): Talking With Both Daughters and Sons About Sex – via the New York Times

Excerpts:

Christian Egalitarian Singles Blog – A Blog Worth Bookmarking

You may want to visit and bookmark this blog – I think this blog is worth checking out and re-visiting (so you may want to book mark it):

(Link): Christian Egalitarian Singles

It’s a blog that sometimes addresses the same topics I cover here. But it’s much nicer in tone with no profanity.

Here are a few samples of topics from their blog:

(Link):   Singles are Marginalized in the Church Because the Church is Focused on Marriage and the Family

(Link):   Singles are Marginalized in the Church Because Marriage is Seen as a Cure for Sexual Temptation

(Link): Singles are Marginalized in the Church Because the Church has Placed Too Much Emphasis on Sex

(Link):  Singles are Marginalized in the Church Because Single Women Have No Husband to Submit to.

(Link):  The Church Marginalizes Singles Because Singles are Forced to Develop Skills and Traits Traditionally Associated With the Opposite Gender and Become Independent

(Link):  Singles are Marginalized in the Church Because of the Doctrine of Male Headship

There are other posts on their blog. That is just to give you an idea.

It Doesn’t Take the Combination of Male and Female to Image God by S. O’Connor

It Doesn’t Take the Combination of Male and Female to Image God by S. O’Connor

I used to be a Christian gender complementarian. One unfortunate by-product of complementarianism is this notion that it takes a man married to a woman to equal a full human being.

I am a woman over age 40. I have never married. I find it deeply sexist and insulting any time I see Christians insisting in their sermons, books, blog posts, and where ever else, that it takes a man married to a woman to fully image God, because this view implies that a never-married woman such as myself is not “fully” human.

Nowhere does the Bible say it takes a man and a woman together to “equal” God’s image but this idea seems fairly common in Protestant, evangelical Christian circles.

I do not need a man as a husband or otherwise to fully represent God or to be a “full” human being.

The following blog post picks this “it takes two” view apart nicely:

(Link): It Doesn’t Take the Combination of Male and Female to Image God by S. O’Connor

Excerpts:

Practically everywhere I go I hear that it takes the combination of male and female to image God. God is not a man or a woman, it is argued, so it’s only logical that neither gender can fully image God by itself.

Continue reading “It Doesn’t Take the Combination of Male and Female to Image God by S. O’Connor”

Nice Guys Aren’t So Nice After All: Men in the “Friend Zone” Often Have A Hidden Agenda, Say Psychologists (Daily Mail article)

Nice Guys Aren’t So Nice After All: Men in the “Friend Zone” Often Have A Hidden Agenda, Say Psychologists (Daily Mail article)

No kidding. I can’t believe someone had to do a study about it. Women have known this for ages.

(Link): Nice Guys Aren’t So Nice After All: Men in the “Friend Zone” Often Have A Hidden Agenda, Say Psychologists

Dec 20, 2016

By Cecile Borkhataria

  • ‘Nice guys’ is usually made fun of for being unattractive, shy and clingy
  • They don’t voice their feelings, instead hoping women will fall for their kindness
  • But one psychologists suggest that nice guys  in the friend zone aren’t actually that nice and ‘they feel entitled to women’, and are narcissists as a result

Many men in the ‘friend zone’ may seem kind, caring and affectionate – but one psychologist has warned they have a hidden agenda.

Dr Scott Kaufman says men with the ‘Nice Guy Syndrome’ who are often relegated to the friend zone often have a sense of entitlement, and so are likely to be narcissists.

Continue reading “Nice Guys Aren’t So Nice After All: Men in the “Friend Zone” Often Have A Hidden Agenda, Say Psychologists (Daily Mail article)”

Christian University, Liberty University, Hires Guy for Athletic Director Role Who Ignored Gang Rape Reports by Women At His Previous College Employer – according to news reports

Christian University, Liberty University, Hires Guy for Atheletic Director Role Who Ignored Gang Rape Reports by Women At His Previous College Employer – according to news reports

I can’t say as though I am surprised by this story.

A lot of Christians and Christian institutions have sexist, out-dated views about women and sexual assault. They still blame women for being raped, while diminishing the role the male rapist plays in the rape.

Many of these conservative Christian groups, colleges, and persons (who tend to be “gender complementarian” in outlook) claim to care deeply about women and the safety of women, but their actions show they do not truly care about girls and women.

I find it hypocritical that so many conservative Christians place a lop-sided premium on a woman’s virginity (and no value on a man’s virginity), but they do nothing to safe-guard a woman’s virginity being taken from her against her will by a rapist.

Or, if a woman is raped and her virginity is taken (assuming she was a virgin at the time of the rape), these Christian groups, persons, and universities do nothing to hold the rapist accountable – or they seem very reluctant to do so.

Even under Old Testament laws, a male rapist had to marry his female victim or face other consequences (which was a way for a female rape victim in those days to avoid facing ostracism and other negative ramifications – not that I advocate for rape victims to have to marry their attackers). How strange that certain types Christians these days take rape less seriously than Old Testament cultures in some ways.

I am not comfortable with trans-women being allowed into women’s restrooms as I discuss (Link): in this post, and I see many conservative Christians are also wary of allowing men into women’s restrooms, and this fear is in large part due to the idea that men with bad motives will use Trans rules and laws to rape or otherwise sexually harass girls and women in areas once considered female-only (such as women’s bathrooms or locker rooms).

However, I wonder why those same Christians are so willing to have such lackadaisical attitudes towards women being raped by Christian men in or on Christian university sports programs or Christian campuses?

There are two different links below related to this story. First link:

(Link 1): Liberty University’s hiring of ex-Baylor AD sends a chilling message about sexual assault by Adam Kilgore

Excerpts:

Liberty and its president, Jerry Falwell Jr., hired a man in the midst of ongoing litigation relating to the high-profile disgrace that forced him from his old job.

McCaw ran the athletic program in which law firm Pepper Hamilton, tabbed by the school to perform an independent investigation, found “a failure to identify and respond to a pattern of sexual violence by a football player, to take action in response to reports of a sexual assault by multiple football players, and to take action in response to a report of dating violence.”

Evidently, that did not disqualify McCaw from landing the same position at Liberty.

Fifty-three percent of the roughly 15,000 students who attend Liberty University are women. How were they supposed to feel when they woke up Tuesday morning? How should their parents feel?

Continue reading “Christian University, Liberty University, Hires Guy for Athletic Director Role Who Ignored Gang Rape Reports by Women At His Previous College Employer – according to news reports”

She changed his flat tire. He never called her again. Is this a case of a fragile male ego?

She changed his flat tire. He never called her again. Is this a case of a fragile male ego?

(Link): She changed his flat tire. He never called her again. Is this a case of a fragile male ego?

October 13, 2016

[Man and woman go on date; woman changes their flat tire]

“I figured if I can, why not do?” Ukpo said by phone of the date she first wrote about on the blog (Link): Madame Noire. “I don’t subscribe to this idea that because I’m a woman, I have to play this damsel in distress thing.”

It’s at this point in the story that Andrew Smiler, communications director at the Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity and the expert I called to discuss the fragility of the male ego, began chuckling.

He knew where the tale was headed — and why. Like me, he’s heard countless stories like Ukpo’s, where confident, well-intentioned women are trying to help, but a dating disaster ensues.

For clarity, I asked him, “What exactly is so funny?”

Smiler laughs again and explains: “We give people some really messed-up messages about gender roles. Even in the early 21st century, we have this supposedly egalitarian culture, and guys are taught that they should never show weakness or ignorance or inability to do a task. And in various ways they should ‘wear the pants’ in the relationship.”

Continue reading “She changed his flat tire. He never called her again. Is this a case of a fragile male ego?”

Sexism, Protecting Women, Family Values, and Christians Placing Biological Family Above Everyone Else

Sexism, Protecting Women, Family Values, and Christians Placing Biological Family Above Everyone Else

(Link):  The Problem with Protecting our Wives and Daughters

Excerpts:

by K. Du Mez

….I’m reminded here of the poignant words of Madeline Southard, one of the leading proponents of women’s rights in the Methodist church in the twentieth century. In her 1927 book, The Attitude of Jesus toward Woman, Southard raised precisely this question.

For centuries, Southard noted, women had been considered “the creature of her sex-relationships and of the resultant blood relationships.” As such, a woman’s status had been determined by her being “the wife, mother, daughter, concubine or mistress of some man,” but not as “a person in herself.”

Continue reading “Sexism, Protecting Women, Family Values, and Christians Placing Biological Family Above Everyone Else”

Taking the Fear and Desperation Out of Online Dating – via The Atlantic

Taking the Fear and Desperation Out of Online Dating – via The Atlantic

(Link): Taking the Fear and Desperation Out of Online Dating by J. Beck

Excerpts:

“In the last decade, [dating sites] marketed to the desperate, to people who were lonely and hopeless,” she [Whitney Wolfe, the founder of the dating app Bumble] said on Wednesday at the Washington Ideas Forum, an event produced by The Aspen Institute and The Atlantic. “Therefore when someone used it they felt this sense of shame or embarrassment.”

… Wolfe said she hoped her app could erase some of those fears for heterosexual women who are online dating; the gimmick of Bumble that separates it from Tinder, Hinge, and the scads of others is that the woman has to send the first message.

Continue reading “Taking the Fear and Desperation Out of Online Dating – via The Atlantic”

Tennessee Republican Kicked Out of State House for Sexually Harassing 22 Women

Tennessee Republican Kicked Out of State House for Sexually Harassing 22 Women

Before I continue with this post – (I may delete this intro comment later) – I have at least two or three more blog posts I want to comment on, but they’re the sort where I have to sit and pick apart another person’s argument line by line.

Such posts take anywhere from an hour or more for me to compose and are a pain in the butt to write, so I don’t know when/if I’ll get around to writing those.


Tennessee Republican Kicked Out of State House for Sexually Harassing 22 Women

Sometimes left wing, Democrat men sexually harass or rape women – various Kennedy family members immediately spring to mind, as well as Bill Clinton.

So I find it at times amusing or frustrating when left wing sites, such as “Raw Story” report about right wing men who get caught in sexual abuse scandals, as if to suggest only right wing men are rapists or sexists, when both sides of the political aisle contain such people.

(Link): Tennessee Republican Kicked Out of State House for Sexually Harassing 22 Women – Raw Story, via Reuters

A Tennessee lawmaker was expelled from the state’s House of Representatives on Tuesday following accusations of widespread sexual harassment, media reported.

Republican state Representative Jeremy Durham was ousted by a vote of 70-2, according to the Tennessean newspaper, which said this was the state’s first legislative expulsion since 1980

…A report released by Tennessee’s attorney general in July accused Durham of inappropriate sexual conduct with 22 women over a four-year period. The report said Durham repeatedly made unwelcome sexual advances toward female legislative staff, interns and lobbyists.

Benevolent Sexism in the Christian Bedroom (Christian Stereotypes About Female Sexuality) by J. Kamps

Benevolent Sexism in the Christian Bedroom (Christian Stereotypes About Female Sexuality) by J. Kamps

Some parts of these posts tackle subjects I’ve mentioned before on my blog in the past.

(Link):  It’s my orgasm, not his [part 1] by J. Kamps

(Link): It’s my orgasm, not his [part 2] by J. Kamps

Excerpts from (Link):  It’s my orgasm, not his [part 1] by J. Kamps

Jasmine’s story is an example of Benevolent Sexism. Hostile Sexism is fairly easy to recognise. Benevolent Sexism is sneaky and far more socially pervasive. It parades around wearing a facade of chivalry, making out women to be weaker, lesser, diminished, objectified, by using what are perceived as good manners, male consideration, and role definition.

Benevolent Sexism operates on the fundamental belief that, whether observed in practice or not, there IS a gender hierarchy.

….Benevolent Sexism even uses compliments and praise to disarm and disempower women. “Women are kinder, gentler, naturally more loving. Women are not as strong as men, so they require protection. Women are not as naturally competitive.”

Continue reading “Benevolent Sexism in the Christian Bedroom (Christian Stereotypes About Female Sexuality) by J. Kamps”

Love-Sick Teenager Who Won’t Take No For an Answer is Finally Shut Down by his Ex-Girlfriend’s FATHER in an Epic Text Exchange – Men of All Ages Need To Learn to Handle Rejection and to Respect Other People’s Boundaries in Dating

Love-Sick Teenager Who Won’t Take No For an Answer is Finally Shut Down by his Ex-Girlfriend’s FATHER in an Epic Text Exchange – Men of All Ages Need To Learn to Handle Rejection and to Respect Other People’s Boundaries in Dating

If there are any MEN reading this – especially men over the age of 21 – you need to realize that some of you are just as bad in your online behavior, especially on dating sites and apps, as this 15 year old kid is.

See how obnoxiously persistent this teen kid is, how he keeps dragging this exchange on and on with the teen girl’s father? This is how 90% of you men over the age of 21 behave towards grown women online, especially on dating sites.

You men refuse to take “no” from women for an answer, or to choose to view a woman turning you down as the ultimate insult.

You men take rejection by women far too personally, and send negative, nasty, insulting comments to some women, all for merely politely turning you down on a site, for refusing to give you their number, or going on a date with you.

Women you don’t know (single women) don’t owe you squat in life – women don’t owe you a smile, flirtation, chit chat, their phone numbers, sex, emotional support, or dates.

You will be turned down as you go through life by various women you flirt with or ask on dates – it’s a reality. Get over it. Learn to let go, accept defeat graciously, and stop taking it so damn personally.

Learn to respect other people’s boundaries. If a woman or girl tells you “no” or “not interested,” just let it go. Don’t send the girl or woman nasty, insulting messages if or when she turns you down. Just move along.

Continue reading “Love-Sick Teenager Who Won’t Take No For an Answer is Finally Shut Down by his Ex-Girlfriend’s FATHER in an Epic Text Exchange – Men of All Ages Need To Learn to Handle Rejection and to Respect Other People’s Boundaries in Dating”

‘It’s Not Me, It’s You’: A Loser’s Guide to Dealing with Rejection by The Guyliner

‘It’s Not Me, It’s You’: A Loser’s Guide to Dealing with Rejection by The Guyliner

(Link): ‘It’s not me, it’s you’: a loser’s guide to dealing with rejection by The Guyliner

Excerpts:

Advances in technology, and the urge to express ourselves as loudly as possible, mean rejection has never been so easy to dole out. Swiping left on Tinder, blocking on Twitter, marching to the polling booth: a firm no is never far away, but the bitter sting never fails to shock.

We’ve witnessed an unusually high level of public rejection over the last few turbulent weeks, from politicians discovering their posses were lacking compadres and feeling their ambition turn to ash in their mouths, to the much-maligned EU, sadly opening its Dear John letter from 52% of the UK, all calls going straight to voicemail.

Rejection can teach you a lot about yourself and those around you. “No” may never be music to your ears, but you can learn to take it with dignity. Or, at the very least, store up ample fuel for your revenge.

….On a dating app

“Why don’t they love me?” I’d cry when I was single, throwing myself on to a fainting couch whenever someone I’d contacted didn’t reciprocate.

Continue reading “‘It’s Not Me, It’s You’: A Loser’s Guide to Dealing with Rejection by The Guyliner”

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”

Actress Jennifer Aniston Responds to Media’s Constant Fixation on her Reproductive Status

Actress Jennifer Aniston Responds to Media’s Constant Fixation on her Reproductive Status

I’ve said it before, but women face much more scrutiny and pressure to have children than men do.

This is by actress Jennifer Aniston:

(Link): For The Record 

Excerpts:

  • Let me start by saying that addressing gossip is something I have never done.  I don’t like to give energy to the business of lies, but I wanted to participate in a larger conversation that has already begun and needs to continue. Since I’m not on social media, I decided to put my thoughts here in writing.
  • For the record, I am not pregnant. What I am is fed up. I’m fed up with the sport-like scrutiny and body shaming that occurs daily under the guise of “journalism,” the “First Amendment” and “celebrity news.”
  • …If I am some kind of symbol to some people out there, then clearly I am an example of the lens through which we, as a society, view our mothers, daughters, sisters, wives, female friends and colleagues. The objectification and scrutiny we put women through is absurd and disturbing. The way I am portrayed by the media is simply a reflection of how we see and portray women in general, measured against some warped standard of beauty.
  • …But I really can’t tell myself that anymore because the reality is the stalking and objectification I’ve experienced first-hand, going on decades now, reflects the warped way we calculate a woman’s worth.

Continue reading “Actress Jennifer Aniston Responds to Media’s Constant Fixation on her Reproductive Status”

The Conservative, Christian Case for Working Women by J. Merritt

The Conservative, Christian Case for Working Women by J. Merritt 

Some of the few complementarian Christians I follow on social media did not like this article at all. They seem to find any criticism of their position, or any suggestion of other options for women, to be a great affront to complementarianism itself, or to God or the Bible. Why do they feel their movement is so fragile?

Christian women who reject complementarianism – some of them may go by various labels, such as “Jesus feminists,” or “egalitarians,” or “mutualists,” don’t seek to limit women the way complementarians do. Non-complementarian men and women do not mind if a woman chooses to be a stay at home wife and mother.

However, complementarians do not truly afford all women, and especially not non-complementarian, women this same courtesy.

Much complementarian content will pay “lip service” to respect a woman’s right to choose to work outside the home and so on, but often times, from what I’ve seen, that very same site, or authors on some other complementarian site, will cry and clutch their pearls in sorrow or grief that more and more Christian women are choosing to stay single, not have children, and/or to work outside the home.

Notice that in this article, at one point, complementarian Owen Strachan, who is a spokes-head for complementarian group CBMW, comes right out and says egalitarianism, or any departure from complementarianism, is supposedly a sin.

Egalitarians are all about giving women more choices, telling them to go after their dreams, and doing whatever they feel God has led them to do.

Complementarians really chaff at that. Complementarians want women in boxes. I wrote a much older post saying that (Link): this is one reason of several I really have been struggling with holding on to the Christian faith. I was raised in a Christian family that bought into many of these complementarian ideas, and it’s not something that worked out well for me in my life.

(Link): The Conservative, Christian Case for Working Women by J. Merritt

Excerpts:

  • An evangelical Christian and avowed feminist argues that God intends every woman to work.
  • The final episode of Leave it To Beaver aired in June of 1963, but many conservative Christians still promote a vision of womanhood reminiscent of June Cleaver.  When Tobin Grant, political-science professor at Southern Illinois University, analyzed General Social Survey data from 2006, he found that nearly half of evangelical Christians agreed with this statement: “It is much better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family.”
  • Forty-one percent agreed that “a preschool child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works.” For these evangelicals, a woman’s place in the world is to get married, bear children, and support her breadwinning husband.
  • Katelyn Beaty—the managing editor of Christianity Today,America’s largest evangelical Christian publication—has set out to change this notion of gender. Her new book, A Woman’s Place, claims to reveal “the surprising truth about why God intends every woman to work.”
  • This declaration may surprise many of her magazine’s 80,000 print subscribers and 5 million monthly website visitors. And it may also rouse many of her fellow evangelicals who believe her ideas defy the Bible’s clear teaching, if not qualifying as outright heresy. While Beaty knows criticism may be coming her way, she is making a conservative Christian case for working women.

Continue reading “The Conservative, Christian Case for Working Women by J. Merritt”

Women, Stop Listening to Sexist Relationship ‘Experts’ by D. L. D’Oyley

Women, Stop Listening to Sexist Relationship ‘Experts’ by D. L. D’Oyley

If you are not already aware, Steve Harvey, whom this author discusses, is a Christian. He is sometimes a guest speaker on Christian network TBN.

(Link): Women, Stop Listening to Sexist Relationship ‘Experts’ (page 1) (Link to Page 2) by D. L. D’Oyley

Excerpts:

  • Feb 2016
  • She Matters: If they’re men who hold shoddy views about sex and women, it follows that their advice to women will also be shoddy.
  • …It’s a common theme among men, including many so-called relationship experts. And that’s a huge problem.
  • It should be obvious why that’s an issue, but in case it isn’t: You have men who hold screwed-up views about sex and women telling women how to be better women to land a man.
  • If the perspective with which they view women is shoddy, then it follows that their advice to women will also be shoddy.

Continue reading “Women, Stop Listening to Sexist Relationship ‘Experts’ by D. L. D’Oyley”