‘When Women Refuse’ Proves Violence Doesn’t Usually Come With a Misogynistic Manifesto

‘When Women Refuse’ Proves Violence Doesn’t Usually Come With a Misogynistic Manifesto

(Link): ‘When Women Refuse’ Proves Violence Doesn’t Usually Come With a Misogynistic Manifesto

    • Male violence against women who refuse sexual advances isn’t merely the domain of a college student suffering from mental health issues. It’s an epidemic that’s a troubling part of the fabric of America. That’s the message sent by (Link):

When Women Refuse

    , a Tumblr blog created on Monday in response to Friday night’s horrific mass shooting in Isla Vista, Calif., near the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara.

The blog’s creator, feminist activist, author, and Lux Digital cofounder Deanna Zandt, told Think Progress that she was inspired to start the site because “we still don’t view gender based violence as a large cultural issue—we tend to think of these as isolated incidents.”

In the aftermath of the shooting, media detailed the mental health challenges of the shooter, 22-year-old Elliot Rodger, who targeted women who had spurned his advances. Rodger killed six people before turning a gun on himself. Snippets of Rodger’s 137-page manifesto to friends and relatives have been published, and then there are the chilling videos he posted on YouTube.

“I don’t know why you girls aren’t attracted to me, but I will punish you all for it,” Rodger declared in one video just hours before he embarked on his shooting spree.

In an effort to distance themselves from Rodger’s deadly misogyny, men took to social media with the hashtag #NotAllMen to post tweets like, “Dividing men into the ‘good guys’ and the ‘bad guys’ is short-sighted.” Zandt told Think Progress that she noticed that several guys in her social networks also shared the belief that Rodger’s actions were an exception. Then, after seeing writer Kate Harding sharing news stories on her Facebook page of men who’d used violence after being rejected, Zandt decided to launch the Tumblr to show Rodger’s actions weren’t an isolated incident.

Anyone can submit a story of a woman who’s been the victim of violence because she rejected sexual advances. Scrolling through the When Women Refuse submissions shows that Rodger’s actions aren’t unique. There’s the story of a 16-year-old stabbed to death after refusing to be a guy’s prom date, and the tragic (and all-too-common) tale of a woman whose controlling ex couldn’t get over her and stabbed her, her mother, and her new boyfriend.

((read the rest))
————————–
Related posts:

(Link): Bitter, Frustrated 22 Year Old Male Virgin and Member of Men’s Rights / PUA Groups Kills Several Women Because He Couldn’t Get Dates – what an entitled sexist doof

(Link): Female Dragonflies Are Pretending to Die in Order to Avoid Irritating Males

(Link): Nice Guys: Scourge of the Single Woman

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

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

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

(Link):  Dudes, Stop Putting Women in the Girlfriendzone

(Link): Testosterone-Deficient Gamma Male Whines About the ‘Friend Zone’ (post from The Other McCain) – AKA, Ugly, Fat, Weird, Awkward, or Poor Nice Guys Who Unrealistically Expect to Attract Rich, Pretty, Thin, Socially Normal Women

(Link): Guy So Depressed Over Being Single He Cut Off His Own Penis (article)

(Link): When Adult Virginity and Adult Celibacy Are Viewed As Inconvenient or As Impediments

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”

Christian Confusion on Sexual Ethics – Sexual Purity is For All Ages and All Marital Statuses, and Sexual Sin is Not Just Limited to Adultery – Rape is Not An Extra Marital Affair

Christian Confusion on Sexual Ethics – Sexual Purity is For All Ages and All Marital Statuses, and Sexual Sin is Not Just Limited to Adultery – Rape is Not An Affair

Conservative Christians keeps presenting some very skewed views about sex and sexual sin.

While a lot of Christians have watered down the biblical teaching of “virginity- until- marriage,” the ones who still do bother to give it lip service seem to think that sexual sin only befalls unmarried people who are younger than age 25.

There is an ignorant assumption by most Christians that married couples will never commit sexual sin, because they are supposedly getting their sexual desires satiated on a regular basis with their spouse (which is false, see these links: Link 1, Link 2, Link 3, Link 4, for just a few examples).

In some recent news stories about rape, some Christians have been characterizing the reported rapes as being “extra marital affairs,” and one young lady, who was raped several times at age 19 by a co-worker, told her Christian college (B.J.U., Bob Jones University) about the rapes, and was told by college staff that she needed to repent of her sin of being a rape victim.

I wrote about the first story here:
(Link): Married Youth Pastor Jailed for Sexually Assaulting Teen Girl Writes Editorial About Said Abuse for Christianity Today, Uproar Ensues On Christian Blogs

One rape victim also made the comment in an interview that she thought in terms of sexual sin as being ‘adultery’ and did not have a concept of rape.

As one commentator over at SCCL Facebook group pointed out in regards to this news story about BJU’s mishandling of response to sexual assault victims (source),

    The lack of a working, moral vocabulary for sexual violation is a huge blindspot for faith communities. The Christianity Today article last week was also couched in “adultery” terms. The discussion of sexual morality has to grow outside the marriage/adultery frame. Also, that moral vocabulary has to do a better job in connecting to broader social justice. Less hush-up. More call-out.

It is true that often, in their stereotypes about sex and sexual sin, the Christians who do bother to preach against sexual sin any more (many do not preach against it), still often neglect to teach that celibacy applies to married couples (e.g., when one partner cannot perform, or the couple are apart for whatever reason), as well as to unmarried people, and that sexual purity applies to people of all ages, not just to teen-aged kids.

(Link): Rape victims say Bob Jones University told them to repent

Excerpts:

    June 18, 2014 1:00PM ET
    by Claire Gordo

    Raised in a conservative Mennonite home in rural Ohio, Katie Landry was a sheltered kid. She hadn’t even held hands with a boy when, at age 19, she says her supervisor at her summer job raped her. Two years later, and desperate for help, she reported the abuse to the dean of students at her college.

    He goes, ‘Well, there’s always a sin under other sin. There’s a root sin,’” Landry remembers. “And he said, ‘We have to find the sin in your life that caused your rape.’ And I just ran.”

    …But most damaging was how, through the language of Scripture, victims say they were told that their sins had brought on their rapes, that their trauma meant they were fighting God and that healing came from forgiving their rapists.

    [Katie Landry discusses having been raped by a co-worker]

    Landry didn’t know the word rape; she only knew adultery, and liked the man’s wife, she said. Afraid of her attacker and deeply ashamed, she said she failed most her classes first semester, and kept her assaults a secret until her junior year.

I do think there is something very amiss with any so-called Christian group, church, or denomination, that speaks of sexual sin only in terms of adultery, so that when a young, unmarried woman is sexually assaulted, she does not even have the terminology to describe it, or is not even familiar with the word “rape.”

I also wonder if the church Ms. Landry attended did not read aloud from the Scriptures, where episodes such as the rape of Tamar are discussed (see (Link): 2 Samuel 13:32).

Christians have idolized marriage to the point that it’s given them faulty views about sexual sin, where some of them think only un-married adults are capable of sexual sin, or others think that the only sexual sin married people are capable of is “adultery” (never mind all the married men who view porn, use prostitutes or who sexually fondle children, aside from men raping 19 year old women).

I see a lot of outrage over this B.J.U. story from left wingers, ex Christians, etc, and rightly so – but – these are the same groups who criticize sexual purity teachings, which I find a tad hypocritical.

If Christians supported and taught sexual purity across the board rather than only emphasizing virginity for females ages teen to 25, but also taught and upheld the biblical views that males are to remain virgins until marriage as well, and that any sexual activity outside of marriage (rape, consensual affairs, porn use, etc), was wrong, maybe some of these problems could be lowered.
————————-
Related posts:

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

(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): No Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity – Christians Attack and Criticize Virginity Sexual Purity Celibacy / Virginity Sexual Purity Not An Idol

(Link): Males and Females Raped at Christian College, College Doesn’t Care – Equally Yoked is a Joke

(Link): How Feminists Are Making Women Easier Rape Targets

(Link): The ol’ Christian myth that married couples are impervious to sexual sin but singles have lots of sexual sin

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

(Link): Marriage does not guarantee sexual purity: Married guy discovers his wife is having sex chats with online buddy

(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): Jason the Christian’s Sexless Marriage – Christians promise hot regular steamy married sex but it isn’t true

(Link): AARP post: How to Handle a Sexless Married Life – But Christians Promise You Great Hot Regular Married Sex

(Link): More Married Couples Admit to Sexless Marriages (various articles) / Christians promise you great frequent sex if you wait until marriage, but the propaganda is not true

Married Youth Pastor Jailed for Sexually Assaulting Teen Girl Writes Editorial About Said Abuse for Christianity Today, Uproar Ensues On Christian Blogs

Married Youth Pastor Jailed for Sexually Assaulting Teen Girl Writes Editorial About Said Abuse for Christianity Today, Uproar Ensues On Christian Blogs
—————————————–
Don’t forget, I may not be blogging as much or as often in the future, if at all.
See this link (Link): [Blog Break] for more info.

—————————————–
There has been an uproar the last day or so, ever since Christianity Today published a long page by a jailed sex offender who preyed on a teen girl.

I don’t know the man’s name because the piece was published anonymously. I shall here after refer to the author, the convicted sex offender, as “Mr. Perverted Youth Pastor,” or “Mr. PYP” for short.

The author of the piece, Mr. PYP, is in his 30s, and he worked as a youth pastor. He was jailed for statutory rape of one of his female church students under his charge, a young lady he began to groom for exploitation when she was around 11 or 12 years old.

Mr. PYP said in his piece published by Christianity Today that he found the attention from the young lady flattering and intoxicating, and felt his wife was not paying him enough attention, and IIRC, I think he mentioned that the wife was not putting out enough (sexually), or whatever. (I only skimmed the guy’s story, I did not read all of it closely.)

The thing is, a grown man of age 30 should not be seeking validation from an 11 or 16 year old girl – that is not only morally wrong, perverted, and gross, but absolutely pathetic.

I think the editors at Christianity Today intended for this pervert’s essay to be a helpful warning to Christian men not to get too close to women (or something along those lines), and which unfortunately also plays into false stereotypes about the genders, but the guy who wrote the page, Mr. PYP, never fully and unambiguously owns his sin, moral failing, and crime, so it comes across as though he’s excusing and justifying his behavior.

There’s a bit of “victim blaming” in the piece on Mr. PYP’s part, where he uses terminology such as,
“When WE [he and the young lady he was victimizing] decided to end the affair, I felt that…”

I don’t feel like summarizing the guy’s entire story and situation on my blog, so click here to read his page (“My Easy Trip from Youth Minister to Felon”) and read it for yourself.

The aspect of this story I am interested in for the purpose of this blog is that here he is, he is a married adult (with, IIRC, a kid of his own), he worked as a pastor, and yet he also sexually exploited a young lady, and I will explain further below why this interests me.

Another aspect I am interested in regarding this story is that Mr. PYP does not take full responsibility for his actions in the piece, and he classifies his sexual exploitation of the young lady as an “extra martial affair.”

Now, I, to a point, do regard his actions towards her as an “extra marital affair” because he was a MARRIED man who was sleeping with this girl – he was in fact sleeping around on his wife, but of course, his actions are more than just a standard extra-martial affair, because he was taking advantage of a young lady.

In my opinion, his actions contain traits of both situations, sexual abuse as well as an extra-marital affair.

There are a few other writers online who disagree with my view on this; they think his actions were 100% sexual abuse and that the phrase “extra marital affair” should not even be used when discussing this case, but I never- the- less see a tinge of extra-marital affair in the situation as well (but on the man’s part only; I am not blaming the girl at all).

I am simply saying that yes, while Mr. PYP did sexually abuse a teen girl, that in doing so, he also violated his marital vows to his wife to remain faithful to the wife – which to me can categorize his actions as being an affair as well as being sexual abuse.

Why I am interested in this story:

As I have pointed out time and time again on the blog, Christians have several falsehoods and fairy tales and stereotypes about marriage, sex, dating, gender relations, and whom they feel a Christian should marry.

Many conservative Christians believe that married people are immune from sexual sin. Christians falsely believe if a man is married, he must be getting steady, regular, hot sexy sex from his wife, and he therefore will not use porn, fondle kids, or have mistresses. This is of course naive and incorrect, because even men married to sexy wives, who get regular, great sex from the wife, still use porn and have affairs.

Continue reading “Married Youth Pastor Jailed for Sexually Assaulting Teen Girl Writes Editorial About Said Abuse for Christianity Today, Uproar Ensues On Christian Blogs”

Are Single Women – and specifically Never Married Women – More Likely To Be Victims of Abuse? Rebuttals to this view which is advocated by W B Wilcox

Are Single Women – and specifically Never Married Women – More Likely To Be Victims of Abuse? Rebuttals to this view

The study mentioned on this page below is familiar. I read about it over a year ago. Someone did a study claiming that women who never marry are more likely to be abuse victims.

I’m not sure if I totally understand the study correctly.

I’m a never-married woman who is over the age of 40, but I fail to see how my single status supposedly makes me more vulnerable to being a crime victim than that of a married woman.

Or, given that some conservatives are using this study with the assumption that it’s single women who are “shacking up” with a man who are more prone to being victims, I guess I understand that, though I do not necessarily agree.

That is, some conservatives are using this study to shame single women from having pre-marital sex, or from not having a live-in lover. They are using this to pressure single women to force their live-in lover to marry them.

I understand the Bible does not condone “shacking up” or pre-marital coitus, but, I am not a fan of my fellow conservatives using such “scare” or “shame” tactics to convince single women from not having pre marital sex or live-in BFs. I think it’s a distasteful, sexist approach.

You can read more about all this stuff using these links:

First, here is the offensive, sexist editorial – I mean, how can they blame WOMEN for being the victims of violence?

They should be calling out the men who are abusing these ladies and/or the children. Also note, on the “One Stop Thread” page of this blog, I have link after link to news stories of married men who were caught sexually or physically abusing their OWN kids or someone else’s!

Again, here is a link to the offensive editorial:
(Link): One way to end violence against women? Married dads.

    by W. BRADFORD WILCOX AND ROBIN FRETWELL WILSON June 10

The data show that #yesallwomen would be safer with fewer boyfriends around their kids.

… The bottom line is this: Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father.

—(end excerpt)—

The Bible no where suggests that a woman needs to marry or is obligated to marry – Jesus and Paul, in the New Testament, actually depict singleness as being preferable to marriage and parenting!

If it were true women were safer being married, I think Jesus and Paul would have taught on the topics of marriage and singlehood differently than they did.

Here are various rebuttals and commentary in response:

(Link): The Washington Post Says Women Get Abused Because They’re Not Married

Excerpts:

The story, which was originally titled “The best way to end violence against women? Stop taking lovers and get married,” got re-named after wise Internet users made a rightful stink over its controversial content. Also noteworthy: the sub-header read “The data show that #yesallwomen would be safer hitched to their baby daddies.”

Now it’s called “One way to end violence against women? Married dads.” But I think the Post should have taken it down completely.

Using legitimate data to back up their claims (nothing says “I’m telling you the truth!” like a graph), authors W. Bradford Wilcox and Robin Fretwell Wilson do the world a great disservice by making it sound like women have the power to avoid being abused — and it apparently comes down to what they should be doing with their bodies, their kids, and their lives.

…. Further, Wilcox and Wilson feign total ignorance of a problem they themselves are perpetuating — institutional sexism and misogyny, which are major factors in the widespread problem of violence against women and children.

By drawing the conclusion that a simple marriage certificate is actually responsible for the stats, they’re doing both genders a huge disservice, and they’re tricking readers into thinking abuse doesn’t have anything to do with misogyny.

As they write, “The bottom line is that married women are less likely to be raped, assaulted, or robbed than their unmarried peers.”

Well, that’s certainly an interesting point. How did they arrive there, and what explains it? Is it true that getting married can protect you from abuse?

Actually, no. Because correlation doesn’t mean causation. While they back up their conclusion with legitimate data points, the statistics say more about healthy relationships than they do about the institution of marriage.

—(end excerpt)—

(Link): Violence Against Women: The Washington Post’s Sad, Sloppy Journalism

    The most serious problem with the Washington Post’s sloppy journalism is that it none-too-subtly suggests that all partner violence against women can be boiled down to a single factor: your relationship status.

Decades worth of research blow that simplistic idea out of the water in two seconds.

Continue reading “Are Single Women – and specifically Never Married Women – More Likely To Be Victims of Abuse? Rebuttals to this view which is advocated by W B Wilcox”

Four myths about sex and women that prop up the new misogyny

Four myths about sex and women that prop up the new misogyny

Some of the the myths the author describes in this are some of the same ones spread by conservative Christians.

(Link): Four myths about sex and women that prop up the new misogyny

    Sorry, would-be pickup artists. There is no such thing as a “friend zone”

    by AMANDA MARCOTTE, ALTERNET

    This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

    Trading in myths and misinformation is the bread and butter of any reactionary movement, as is amply demonstrated by the various myths that prop up everything from gun nuttery to the anti-choice movement.

    Unsurprisingly, then, there’s a great deal of misinformation upholding the troubling trend of new misogyny that festers in everything from “men’s rights” forums to “pick-up artist” communities to the various rape apologists and two-bit woman haters that litter the right wing media landscape

    [Note from this blogger: the left wing also has woman-haters among them. Some of them have done things like made “rape jokes” against conservative, right wing, female politicians, such as Sarah Palin. Funny how liberal writers usually fail to acknowledge the sexism inherent in the LEFT WING].

    The tragic shooting in Isla Vista, which was committed by a young but hardened misogynist named Elliot Rodger, has shown a spotlight on this weird but influential world where ugly myths about gender and sexuality flourish.

    Here are some of those myths, some of which influenced Rodger, and why they are so very, very wrong.

    1. Evoutionary psychology nonsense.
    While the more mainstream conservative movement embraces a religious form of misogyny, the new misogyny often prefers to pretend to have a “scientific” rationale for its negative attitudes towards women.

    Anti-feminist writer James Taranto, who is not a scientist, distilled this theory in the Wall Street Journal, positing that evolution made men and women’s sexual desires complete opposites, with men trying to get away with sex with as many women as possible and women being “hypergamous,” which is the new pseudo-scientific word for “gold digger.”

    His sole evidence for this theory was a long-discredited 1989 study that showed that men were more quick to say yes to sex with a stranger.

    None of them have stopped pushing the belief that women are disinterested in sex itself, (Link): but only use it as a commodity to trade with “high status” men, since pushing this belief allows self-appointed “pick-up artists” to sell dating books and classes to men who want to learn to fake being “high status” to get more sex.

    Nor do they stop pushing the idea that men are more promiscuous than women, a self-serving myth that allows them to demand chastity in female partners while excusing their own sexual dalliance.

    In reality, men and women have roughly the same number of sexual partners over a lifetime.

    Both sexes are interested in casual sex, but men more readily agree because they both feel less likely to be violently assaulted by a stranger and are more likely to expect the encounter to end in orgasm. Nor are women programmed to be gold diggers.

    As women’s ability to make their own money has increased, there has been a decline in women seeking richer husbands. Women aren’t preprogrammed to be gold diggers, because the second they’re freed from having to chase rich men, most are happy to date men more like themselves.

    Continue reading “Four myths about sex and women that prop up the new misogyny”

George Will: Being a victim of sexual assault is a “coveted status that confers privileges” (a rebuttal)

George Will: Being a victim of sexual assault is a “coveted status that confers privileges” (a rebuttal)

I am right wing, a conservative, but sometimes, I realize other conservatives get things wrong, oh so very wrong. This is one of those times.

I do think that, at times, liberals are guilty of hyping certain situations or instilling a ‘victim mentality’ in people, but not in the case of sexual assault, of rape. Will is way off base with his editorial.

The following is from a site that tilts left, but this editorial criticizing Will’s views is right on the money:

(Link): George Will: Being a victim of sexual assault is a “coveted status that confers privileges”

    The Washington Post columnist thinks women are lying about sexual assault in order to get “privileges”

    Washington Post columnist George Will doesn’t believe the statistic that (Link): one in five women is sexually assaulted while in college. Instead he believes that liberals, feminists and other nefarious forces have conspired to turn being a rape survivor into a (Link): “coveted status that confers privileges.”

    As a result of this plot, “victims proliferate,” Will wrote in a weekend editorial that ran in the Washington Post and New York Post.

    Further compounding the crisis of people coming forward about sexual assault to stay de rigueur is the fact that “capacious” definitions of sexual assault include forcible sexual penetration and nonconsensual sexual touching.

    Which is really very outrageous, according to Will. It is really very hard to understand why having your breasts or other parts of your body touched against your will should be frowned upon.

    It’s not very surprising that George Will does not think that sexual assault on campus is a big deal. It’s also not very surprising that he thinks that definitions of sexual violence are somehow overly broad because they factor in forms of sexual contact other than penetration.

    But what is puzzling — about this editorial and the army of nearly identical pieces of rape apologia that find a way into national newspapers with some regularity — is how much one has to ignore in order to argue these points.

    Continue reading “George Will: Being a victim of sexual assault is a “coveted status that confers privileges” (a rebuttal)”

‘Check Your Privilege’ Means ‘Shut Your Mouth’

‘Check Your Privilege’ Means ‘Shut Your Mouth’

(Link): ‘Check Your Privilege’ Means ‘Shut Your Mouth’

Excerpts:

    What he actually said isn’t that hard to fathom, because he announced his target in his very first sentence: the use of the phrase “check your privilege” to “strike down opinions without regard for their merits, but rather solely on the basis of the person that voiced them.”

    It’s perfectly reasonable to ask someone to consider whether their arguments or observations reflect the biases of privilege. Perhaps an upper-middle-class white man’s claim about the hardships of poverty or the prevalence of racial discrimination reflects a lack of experience of those things, for example.

    But all of us need to ask ourselves whether our views are skewed, regardless of how privileged we are, because there are many possible sources of bias.

    Fortgang is quite right to complain that being obsessively on the lookout for white male heterosexual bias can obscure more than it reveals, in part by ignoring how much heterosexual white men can differ.

    In any case, Fortgang didn’t complain about being asked to reflect on the incompleteness of his worldview. He complained about the dismissal of opinions based on who was uttering them.

———————-
Related posts:

(Link): Warning: This Column Will Offend You – by M. Moynihan (Re: Trigger Warnings in Written Material, Terms such as slut shaming, man-splain, etc)

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

(Link): So According to Some Feminists Believing in Female Equality Means Supporting All Actions and Behaviors by All Females Ever – Even their Pubic Hair Photos and Bloody Vagina T Shirt Designs? What?

Warning: This Column Will Offend You – by M. Moynihan (Re: Trigger Warnings in Written Material, Terms such as slut shaming, man-splain, etc)

Warning: This Column Will Offend You by M. Moynihan (Re: Trigger Warnings Before Written Material, Terms such as “slut shaming,” “man-splain,” etc)

(Link): Warning: This Column Will Offend You by M. Moynihan

    Should students be warned that reading The Great Gatsby might “trigger” a past trauma? The campus censors think so. But they are only protecting your feelings.

    It’s with a twinge of nostalgia that I recall all those incredulous faces. Sometime in the 1990s, I suggested to a group of college friends that it wasn’t exactly right to brand Ian Fleming a hopeless sexist (his deeply held dislike of America, all agreed, was a more agreeable phobia).

    This note of dissidence was interrupted by the sound of jaws shattering as they hit the floor, a crescendo of denunciations, and a few dramatic walkouts.

    One of those who remained said, with a jabbing finger, that mine was the argument of someone “unaware of his gender privilege.”

    It was almost inevitable, regardless of one’s personal politics, to find oneself — with bowed head, like an undergraduate Rubashov—accused of trespassing some previously unknown frontier of offense.

    I would soon learn never to object to the charge of privilege: it’s a phantom, something one possesses and abuses without knowing it. And like denying your alcoholism, a denial doubles as an acknowledgement that you’re afflicted with the disease.

    Floating in the fog of privilege, all sorts of voguish developments in language control bypassed me.

    But through the daily horror of Twitter, where these concepts are released into the non-academic world, I’ve been exposed to all the latest phrases doubling as argument, like the various prefixes affixed to “shaming” and “‘splaining” (the latter so rendered, I assumed, in homage to Desi Arnaz, before realizing this was a vulgar indulgence of Cuban stereotypes).

    Shaming” and “‘splaining” are fluidly defined verbs, though it seems an admonition to people with my biography (boring white guys) that they engage in conversation about race or gender in particular ways, with particular conclusions—and only when speaking to particular people.

    Thus, there is the scourge of “slut shaming,” which one can be accused of, for instance, when questioning whether the so-called Duke porn star is indeed “liberated” when shooting videos for defaceherface.com.

    And there’s the promiscuous use of “mansplaining,” defined by a fusty man at The New York Times as a condescending chappie “compelled to explain or give an opinion about everything — especially to a woman.”

    This midwived the now ubiquitous “whitesplaining,” best demonstrated (Link): in this Atlantic.com polemic upbraiding a member of the indie band The Black Lips for having opinions about—whitesplaining — hip-hop music. Not in a racist way, mind you. It’s just none of his cultural business.

    These faddish portmanteaus suffer from overuse, but one can at least see the point: They are polemical words, more pointed and ideological than what we used to call know-it-all-ism and sexist condescension.

    Being so behind the times, I only just discovered the neutron bomb of censoriousness masquerading as concern: the “trigger warning.”

    This is, roughly, a label that would accompany an article, film, song, book, or piece of art warning potential viewers that the content might make them upset or uncomfortable (often the point of art) and thus trigger memories of a traumatic event.

    Continue reading “Warning: This Column Will Offend You – by M. Moynihan (Re: Trigger Warnings in Written Material, Terms such as slut shaming, man-splain, etc)”

Confusing Sexual Assault and Sexual Abuse with Consensual Sex and Then Condemning Sexual Purity Teachings – and other, related topics

Confusing Sexual Assault and Sexual Abuse with Consensual Sex and Then Condemning Sexual Purity Teachings – and other, related topics

SUMMARY:

    A lot of Christians (usually theologically and politically liberal or moderate) and Non-Christians think that because Christian sexual purity teachings (which includes the teaching that having pre-marital sex is sinful) causes victims of sexual abuse to feel sad, ashamed, or bad, that Christians should drop biblical sexual teachings altogether, or stop insisting that pre martial sex is sinful. I disagree.

While I am sympathetic to victims of sexual abuse, the Bible none – the – less still teaches that CONSENSUAL sexual activity outside of marriage remains immoral.

I was skimming over the “Stuff Christian Culture Likes” facebook group today, where I saw a link there to this discussion on Reddit:

    (Link):

How Christian Purity Culture Enabled My Father’s Abuse, submitted by J__P (aka King Coupons?)

Here are some excerpts from that page:

    [by JP / King Coupons]

So, as the daughters [of the self professing Christian men] were kept inside, while the sons worked, the fathers pushed the men with the motivation that one day they’d get to have their daughters, as if that was the only proper motivation.

I later learned, in college, after I’d already abandoned my faith in God, that this man had regularly abused his daughters, both physically and sexually.

They were still virgins, though, of course, by the technical standards of the Southern Baptist church.

Even though he abused them, he’d never “taken their virtue.”

I even found out that, on the few occasions I had been to their house, I had managed to visit both just after he’d abused them, and just before. That was the man I was supposed to look up to. He was the godly, masculine influence in my life.

This comes up repeatedly on liberal, emergent, and ex-Christian forums and blogs: throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

That is, because some self-professing Christians do not, have not, or will not live out biblical ethics that they parrot the rest of the week, this is taken to mean by the liberal Christians, ex Christians, and emergents (and amazingly, even some conservatives these days), that those biblical ethics can, or should, be ignored by everyone all the time.

I just recently left a post addressing this topic at Sarah Moon’s blog,

    (Link):

The Answer To Sexual Shame is Not MORE Sexual Shame, Carson T. Clark

In that post, sexual abuse was discussed and mixed in with sexual purity.

Here are some excerpts from the page by Clark at Sarah Moon’s blog, with some of Moon’s comments in the mix:

    [Content Note: Sexual and Spiritual Abuse]

[My understanding is that these are comments by Moon:]

When I was 16, I dated an abuser who was constantly coercing me into having sex with him.

I had been raised in fundamentalist purity culture, so I thought of sex as something gross and scary.

My boyfriend at the time tried to combat those feelings by sending me on guilt trips and by holding me to his manipulative, subjective standards of “responsibility.”

…Yes, I had a lot of hang-ups about sex because the the culture I’d grown up in, and it was liberating and healthy for me to learn later in life that my sexuality could be a good thing.

But the fact that purity culture hindered my acceptance of my sexuality does not excuse the way this person treated me for over a year.

Being in a relationship like this was a horrible process. I constantly felt guilty for not having sex, and then guilty for having sex.

Even when I consented to sexual activity, I felt violated.

I never felt like I really had a choice in the matter. I thought it was my responsibility to have sex with him, or I felt afraid of what might happen if I didn’t. I felt trapped, like I didn’t belong to myself and was no longer a person.

… If you don’t think it is okay to coerce a woman into sex before marriage, but feel that people have the right to coerce married women into having sex with their spouses, I want you to stop and think about why.

…Clark states that “[f]or the longest time…a marital rape culture existed. Just awful.”

I’m sorry to say, that marital rape culture still exists, and Clark’s words serve to reinforce it.

That this person’s boyfriend was an abusive jerk who wrapped his jerk-holery up in “purity” talk does not mean sexual purity teachings themselves are bogus.

This is part and parcel of the (Link): Genetic Fallacy, by the way.

If serial killer Ted Bundy were alive today, and if he were to tell you that murder is morally wrong, would you disagree with him and claim the opposite because of the source?

Would you say, “Nah, murdering people is fine! I’m not going to listen to you, because you have murdered people before, you hypocrite.”

I doubt that this person’s boyfriend was even a Christian to start with.

Before you trot out the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, bear this in mind:

Jesus Christ and Apostle Paul warn in the Bible that not all who claim Christ are actual followers, but are in fact, wolves in sheeps’ clothing who you need to either steer clear of or rebuke

    (see for example

this link (Matthew 7:21)

    ,

this link (John 14:15)

    ,

this link (John 14:23)

    ,

this link (1 Corinthians 5:11)

    ,

this link (1 Corinthians 5:1-5)

    ,

this link (Matthew 7:15)

    ,

this link (Matthew 7:15-18)

    – I could list several other verses, but you get the idea).

Quoting Christ (from Matthew 7:21-23):

    “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’

And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

I am semi-agnostic these days myself, after having been a Christian since my childhood, which makes it a little easier for me to stand apart from Christianity now and assess some of its flaws, or rather, how self-professing Christians are mishandling the faith.

But then, I can also call Christian-critics on the carpet a bit easier, too.

Sometimes the people who criticize particular Christians, or how certain teachings are presented by Christians, are absolutely “right on the money,” but sometimes, their criticisms are a huge crock or are inaccurate.

And in this group I include all of them; full blown agnostics, hard core atheists, luke warm atheists, feminist Christians, liberal Christians, and emergents.

When you’re not in any one, particular camp any longer, it becomes ten times easier to spot all the fallacies and biases from all sides.

Returning to Moon’s view that a rape culture exists – I guess she means in Christian marriages, and she mentions this because Clark raised this point first?

I am unaware of mainstream, every day, Baptist or other conservative Christians, who believe a man has the right to rape his wife or that he should. The Bible certainly does not contain such a teaching, that’s for sure.

Continue reading “Confusing Sexual Assault and Sexual Abuse with Consensual Sex and Then Condemning Sexual Purity Teachings – and other, related topics”

Sexual Equality, Sexual Decadence: The Emerging Menace of Female Predators – from The Other McCain – Also quotes feminists as saying Virginity Invalidates Lesbianism and is Hence a Terrible Concept

Sexual Equality, Sexual Decadence: The Emerging Menace of Female Predators – from The Other McCain – Also quotes feminists as saying Virginity Invalidates Lesbianism and is Hence a Terrible Concept

If you are a Christian person, please don’t assume other Christians are any better about this subject than secular feminists, because they are not.

I have a collection of links at this blog of Christians – yes, Christians – who “bad mouth” and criticize adult singleness, celibacy, and virginity. It’s not only secular feminists who denounce sexual purity / virginity but some Christians these days as well.

I will include a few links to examples of Christians who have bashed sexual purity and virginity at the bottom of this post, under “related posts.” It’s not just secular feminists who attack sexual purity, it’s Christians too, sadly.

I would say the guy at this Other McCain blog is not a fan of secular feminism, nor am I.

But, I do think secular feminists are right on some topics some of the time.

I am not in full agreement with Christian and conservative “modesty” teachings or always with how they are taught, or that males are excluded from such teachings (see for example these posts on that issue: (Link): Modesty: A Female-Only Virtue? – Christian Double Standards – Hypocrisy and (Link): Beauty Redefined Site Discusses Modesty: Modest Is Hottest?)

The blog page has a quote from some feminist author who thinks virginity is a terrible concept because it invalidates what she calls “queer sex.” So there you go, more virgin and celibate shaming from secular quarters.

I would encourage you to read the entire page below, of which I will only be offering a few excerpts:

(Link): Sexual Equality, Sexual Decadence: The Emerging Menace of Female Predators, by The Other McCain

Excerpts:

    …. The Washington Post offers feminist Jessica Valenti op-ed space to argue that we need to keep talking about “rape culture,” coincidentally providing Valenti a chance to promote her book about “Female Sexual Power.” But what if female sexual power is actually a major contributing factor to rape culture?

    This paradoxical possibility isn’t something anyone at the Washington Post is willing to consider, yet the celebration of aggressive promiscuity in the name of “empowerment” may be implicated in all kinds of unintended consequences:

    [his points here can be summarized in my previous post here: (Link): Can Boys Be ‘Coerced’ Into Sex? (article from Daily Beast) ]

    So, “girls are more aggressive sexually today,” which Jessica Valenti and other feminists would certainly applaud as liberation and equality, an exercise of “female sexual power,” no matter what the parents of young victims might say.

    And in case you haven’t noticed, boys are not the only victims of “more aggressive” women. Careful readers may notice a recurring theme in the following stories:

    [he then notes several examples of adult women who preyed on female students]

    … Parents who invoke lost innocence in expressing disapproval of their teenage daughters having sex with lesbians are “bolstering up a highly heteronormative hierarchy,” as feminist Jess McCabe says, because “this concept of virginity, in a sense, invalidates queer sex,” as feminist Hew Li-Sha says, and as feminist Erin McKelle says: “Heterosexuality is the norm, and virginity just works as reinforcement to this.” The feminist message is consistent: Don’t be misogynistic homophobes, parents!

~ click here to read the rest of his post ~

His blog also contains other posts about sexuality and feminists – here’s the home page:

(Link): The Other McCain
—————————
★ Related posts:

★ Christians who espouse anti-singleness, anti-celibacy, anti-virginity views
(this is only a partial list, I have many more examples on the blog):

(Link): Christian TV Show Host Pat Robertson Disrespects Virginity – Says Pre-Marital Sex Is “Not A Bad Thing”

(Link): Anti Virginity Editorial by Christian Blogger Tim Challies – Do Hurt / Shame Feelings or Sexual Abuse Mean Christians Should Cease Supporting Virginity or Teaching About Sexual Purity

(Link): More Anti Singleness Bias From Al Mohler – Despite the Bible Says It Is Better Not To Marry

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

(Link): Christians Who Attack Virginity Celibacy and Sexual Purity – and specifically Russell D. Moore and James M. Kushiner
——————-
★ Other Related Posts (secularists who bash sexual purity etc)

(Link): Inconsistency on Feminist Site – Choices Have Consequences

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

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

(Link): Can Boys Be ‘Coerced’ Into Sex? (article from Daily Beast)

(Link): Slut-Shaming Is Bad—But The Overreaction Against It Also Hurts Women by J. Doverspike

(Link): How Feminists Are Making Women Easier Rape Targets

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

(Link): Modesty Teachings – When Mormons Sound like Christians and Gender Complementarians

(Link): Funny Satirical Piece: Woman Mocks Demands for Female Modesty By Shaming Males (and their judgy Mothers) For Being Immodest

(Link): Sometimes Shame Guilt and Hurt Feelings Over Sexual Sins Is a Good Thing – but – Emergents, Liberals Who Are Into Virgin and Celibate Shaming

(Link): Slut Shaming and Virgin Shaming and Secular and Christian Culture – Dirty Water / Used Chewing Gum and the CDC’s Warnings – I guess the CDC is a bunch of slut shamers ?