How to Date When You’re Almost Middle-Aged by A. Broadway

How to Date When You’re Almost Middle-Aged by A. Broadway

I skimmed this article over the other day (the link to it is much farther below; I wanted to say a few words first).

I’m over 40, the author was like 38 around the time of writing.

I don’t wish to re-read it, so I’m gong on memory. From what I remember, she seems to tilt to the belief that the older you get, the fewer decent men you have to choose from (I sometimes see this idea in regards to older women: that single women over the age of 35, 40 or 45 are somehow “flawed,” which is why they are still single, or single again).

The author therefore assumes if she does land a man at age 38 / 40, he is likely to be a loser or weirdo.

Look, I am not on board with that sort of negative, defeatist thinking. I’m over 40 and have never married (but yes, I was engaged to a guy for a few years. I have done the “serious relationship” thing).

Like all humans, yes, I have made mistakes in life and have a few odd-ball habits: but who does not. Still, for the most part, I am pretty normal. I’d make a great wife.

Therefore, any time I see married people or adult singles argue that singles over 35, 40, or older, are somehow losers or odd balls, I resent it – because, by default, you’re lumping me into that generalization. I am not a loser or a weirdo.

Over my time on the internet, especially since starting this blog, I’ve met other never-married or single again persons who are over the age of 35, and they’ve not been able to find a life partner. Not because they are losers, weirdos, or failures, but just for the simple fact that finding a compatible partner is not all that easy.

There are more never-married adults over 35 and 40 now (and “single again” adults) than at any time in our nation’s history, according to various news report I’ve seen the last 2 or 3 years. I find it hard to believe that all of the many thousands of over-40 singles are weirdos or too mal-adjusted to marry.

God knows I’m not as effed up as the (Link): married people I routinely blog about: the married, Christian men who rape their wives, abuse girlfriends, or who (Link): murder mistresses or who are arrested for fondling kids.

Continue reading “How to Date When You’re Almost Middle-Aged by A. Broadway”

Advertisements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to Various Cranky Critics Who Have Left Nasty Posts At This Blog From June to August 2014

Response to Various Cranky Critics Who Have Left Nasty Posts At This Blog From Around June to August 2014

If you have even bothered to glance at the heading on this blog, it says,

  • this is a blog for me to vent; I seldom permit dissenting views. I don’t debate dissenters.

This disclaimer doesn’t stop cranky people, the occasional troll, or idiot from leaving nasty, vulgar, or negative remarks.

I do not usually read the negative posts that closely. I generally scan the first few lines of a new post, and if I ascertain quickly it’s a troll post, that it contains vitriol, snark, or a rant, I send it to the trash.

In the past two months, I’ve gotten a handful of nasty grams. I sent those posts to the trash can.

Here are summaries of the various nasty grams I have received, and my responses.

In this post, I will be discussing,

  • 1. The Bitter Lady
  • 2. The Grouchy Be Equally Yoked Lady
  • 3. The You’re An Intolerant Homophobe Guy
  • 4. The Immature I Am a 40 Year Old Man Who Likes to Pork 20 Year Old Women Lying Creepster Troll

-among others

Continue reading “Response to Various Cranky Critics Who Have Left Nasty Posts At This Blog From June to August 2014”

Mother Entitlement – Selfish, Self-Centered Mothers Complain that They Are Not Getting ENOUGH Mother Worship from Culture, Church, or Family on Mother’s Day and Some Moms Complain About Churches Showing Compassion to Childless Women

Mother Entitlement – Selfish, Self-Centered Mothers Complain that They Are Not Getting ENOUGH Mother Worship from Culture, Church, or Family on Mother’s Day and Some Moms Complain About Churches Showing Compassion to Childless Women

I remember seeing posts like this (see link below) last year at Mother’s Day – there are actually mothers out there, including Christian and Mormon ones, who feel that their churches do not do ENOUGH to honor them on Mommy’s Day.

Some mothers I’ve seen go further than that and insult or mock childless (or childfree) women in the comments of blogs that ask people to be more sensitive to the feelings of non mothers.

These bitter, hate-filled mothers spit out, on such blogs, comments such as, “Screw the childless women, what about me, I work hard as a mom all year and DESERVE some recognition.”

Yep, they are that blunt and nasty about it in their comments. (I have a real sample below, with a link to said blog, but it’s by a guy, not a lady, but it’s representative of the type of crap angry mothers who whine about being under-appreciated leave on blogs).

No, I am not exaggerating, I have indeed seen a smattering of such vitriolic comments by mothers on various blogs the last two years, even on Christian blogs by women who claim they are Christian!

Even though churches WORSHIP motherhood 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and hype it up on Mother’s Day itself even more so, these selfish mommy dolts think churches should worship mommy-hood EVEN MORE than they already do.

Meanwhile, never-married, childless, divorced, widowed, and childfree adult women get absolutely NO HOLIDAYS in THEIR honor, so why should I care if mommies don’t feel honored enough on Mother’s Day?

Some mothers are the most selfish, hateful people on the face of the planet.

Some mothers expect and demand everyone around them in their families and at church to make a big fuss over them.

I thought motherhood was supposed to be its own reward?

If motherhood is so lofty, so noble, so high and mighty, and it supposedly makes a woman totally content, and you buy into Christian swill about mom-hood being a woman’s only, or most, godly role in life, why do you, little Ms. Entitled Mommy, need or want others to validate the position for you, by throwing you parties and handing you carnations in church services?

I thought Christians said parenthood automatically makes a person more godly and giving than being single and child-free, or it works out that way over a period of years?

That is not so, because I see many mothers online whining like little children that they don’t get enough attention and presents from their spouses or preachers on the holiday.

I cannot believe how self absorbed and self centered some mothers are.

Here is a link to a blog page by a Mormon woman –
Note that while this woman is a Mormon but her points sound about identical to the average Baptist, Reformed, or Evangelical women I see online; just swap out “Mormon” with the word “Christian” and it reads the same:

(Link): Taking Mom Out of Mother’s Day – Have We Gone Too Far?

Excerpts:

    In a desire to be sensitive toward women who are unable to have children I’m concerned that, perhaps, on Mother’s Day, we may be going a bit too far. Not that we can ever be too compassionate in acknowledging the pain that surely accompanies the inability to have children, but at the same time we shouldn’t need to pull back in giving the much needed praise, encouragement and recognition of Moms’, who are actually raising, or have raised, children — and all that that entails.

  • …In order to be politically sensitive, in all circumstances, where the issue of how women fulfill their role as mothers comes into play, it is my observation that we are becoming increasingly comfortable with relegating actual Moms’ to the back of the bus — even on Mother’s Day. And frankly, that kind of bothers me.

Here was the comment I left on her page (but it did not show up last I checked):

    Never-married and childless women such as myself get ZERO holidays for us. None. There are no cards for us. No cakes, no brunches.

  • Churches never have a “recognize and celebrate mature, celibate, never married, childless women” type of service, so I have a very hard time feeling sorry for mothers who feel their churches or communities are not doing enough to honor motherhood.

Continue reading “Mother Entitlement – Selfish, Self-Centered Mothers Complain that They Are Not Getting ENOUGH Mother Worship from Culture, Church, or Family on Mother’s Day and Some Moms Complain About Churches Showing Compassion to Childless Women”

Just How Family-Centered Is the Bible? by J. Starke – An Essay that Hits and Misses

Just How Family-Centered Is the Bible? by J. Starke

I offer this link with a caveat or four.

Before I get to the link itself, here are a few of my problems with it (with additional critique below the link and excerpts from it).

This essay comes from a site sponsored by a bunch of people, “The Gospel Coalition,” a phrase which sounds so darn “biblical,” but I sharply disagree with them (not all their views are ‘biblical’).

The Gospel Coalition is comprised, for example, of Neo Calvinists (or they support Neo Cal preachers and doctrine; I am not sure if every last writer at their site is a Neo Cal).

Further, they are gender complementarian (also known as “biblical womanhood and biblical manhood.” As taught by these people, their views of gender roles are not biblical.

If you’d like to see a contrary conservative, biblical Christian view about gender and gender roles, please read the material at (Link): Christians For Biblical Equality.)

There are some aspects of this writing that seem to be an even-handed essay telling Christians to be careful about not making too much out of “family” and “marriage” to the point either or both become idols, but there are still one or two aspects of this that I still disagree with and will comment on that below the long excerpt.

(Link): Just How Family-Centered Is the Bible? by J. Starke

Starke begins his editorial discussing how marriage today is in trouble, divorce is on the rise, and so on.

Excerpts:

    by J Starke

    …. But with every response [by Christians to issues in secular culture such as rising divorce rates], there’s always the danger of over-correction.

    It’s not that I think some evangelicals have become too conservative or too traditional. I worry that they’ve simply adopted traditional cultural and societal norms, instead of biblical norms.

    Zechariah

    … The two birth announcements in the Gospel of Luke to Zechariah and Mary reveal how a society’s “traditional” family values may not line up with God’s.

    Zechariah, the priest married to a barren woman, and Mary both heard miraculous announcements about impending childbirth.

    Yet while Zechariah responded with skepticism and doubt, Mary responded with faith and wonder.

    So why would Zechariah, a priest, doubt an angel of the Lord? He knew the story of Abraham and Sarah, so the idea of an older, barren woman giving birth wouldn’t be ridiculous to him.

    But consider Zechariah and Elizabeth’s situation. Some of you may know the pain of not being able to have children.

    It’s the feeling of 10, 20, even 30 years deeply desiring children with hopes unfulfilled.

    Zechariah and Elizabeth also suffered shame. Luke 1:24-25 reveals Elizabeth’s heart. She said, “Thus the Lord has done for me in the days when he looked on me, to take away my reproach among people.”

    By reproach she meant the shame that comes from known barrenness. Maybe some of you have experienced this reproach from more conservative societies, where family is held in such a high regard.

    If you’re nearing your 40s with no children and maybe not even married, you start to receive questions like, “When are you going to get yourself a husband?” “When are we going to start seeing some little ones around here?” You hear the whispers. Every baby shower brings guilt and shame.

    Zechariah and Elizabeth also dealt with questions about whether they did something wrong to deserve barrenness.

    Was there some hidden sin? Worse, Zechariah was a religious leader, a priest!

    Can you imagine how this public shame undermined his position, his authority?

    So for Zechariah, pain and sorrow turned to shame and disgrace. He held on tightly to the cultural idol of family. This idol filled his heart so that there was no room for the truth of God’s promise, even if he heard it from an angel. The good news of a coming son did not inspire joy but unbelief. It’s too late. We’re too old.

    … But there’s another wrong view. A society can make the family the most important thing. It can become an idol, something that fundamentally defines us. We regard anyone who never marries or cannot have children as somehow subhuman. They must have done something wrong to upset God.

    …By contrast, the Bible actually teaches a radically subversive message about the family. God, we often discover, is the cause of barrenness in women.

    Stories of family dynamics rarely flatter. You’ll never find a Leave it to Beaver household in the Bible. Rather, we see constant distress, rivalry, and jealousy.

    Usually this dynamic doesn’t result from undervaluing children. No, we see it when children become the most important thing! Not only that, Jesus also has some deeply alarming things to say about the family, sounding almost cold and uncaring—see Mark 3:31-35 and Luke 14:26.

    And finally, it’s difficult to make family the most central thing for Christians when the two most prominent figures in the New Testament, Jesus and the apostle Paul, were both single. Actually, Christianity made singleness a legitimate way of life for the first time in any culture or religion.

    Christ and the Church

    Before you thumb your noses at traditional values on marriage and family, remember this: When God wanted to paint a picture of his great love for he church and cost of his death, he cited marriage between a husband and wife. God in Jesus Christ is the faithful and sacrificial husband for his bride, the church.

    ….While the family cannot be so important that it invades the space in our heart that only God should occupy, we see that even from Creation, God designed marriage and family to result in a maturing society. Zechariah, however, warns us not to make family the ultimate thing. He turned it into a false god, leaving no room for the truth of the real God.

    … But their [Christians’] convictions should come from the Bible, not simply the norms of traditional societies.

I commend this author for pointing out that some Christians have turned marriage and family into idols, but I feel he gets a few things wrong and makes a few comments that are insensitive to certain types of people.

Here are some additional problems I have with this paper, as outlined below.

Starke starts out sounding sympathetic to barren or single adults who desire marriage and/or children. Starke writes,

    ..Zechariah and Elizabeth also dealt with questions about whether they did something wrong to deserve barrenness.

    Was there some hidden sin? Worse, Zechariah was a religious leader, a priest! Can you imagine how this public shame undermined his position, his authority?

I don’t recall the Bible explicitly saying that this couple was shamed and blamed for being without children, but Starke assumes this was so.

If we grant Starke that point:

When I first read this essay, I assumed Starke “felt” for Zack and Liz (Zechariah and Elizabeth) and how terrible it must have been for this couple to have supposedly been shamed or insulted over their childlessness.

Instead of rebuking the judgmental pro-family types for shaming “Zack and Liz” for being without children, which is what Starke should be doing, Starke instead shames and blames Zack and Liz themselves for supposedly having had made “the family” into an idol (though the biblical text does not say this).

I have more to say about this below this next excerpt.

Starke wrote:

    So for Zechariah, pain and sorrow turned to shame and disgrace. He held on tightly to the cultural idol of family. This idol filled his heart so that there was no room for the truth of God’s promise, even if he heard it from an angel.

There is nothing wrong with Zechariah, or with anyone, wanting to have a spouse or a child.

Simply wanting or desiring something that the Bible does not condemn does not mean one is idolizing it, yet Christians constantly make this leap.

I find this attitude by Stark fairly insensitive.

I have observed for many years now that among Christians who idolize marriage and family, it is made an idol by those who are already married, who are already parents, who tell the never-married and the infertile they are not as good, godly, mature, and worthy as marrieds and parents (hence my one stop threads on (Link): marriage and (Link): parenthood).

It’s the already married and those who are already parents who have turned marriage and parenthood into idols, not the childless and not the singles.

How cruel it is when the majority of Christian culture sets both things up -marriage and parenthood- as idols to be prized and then shames, rebukes, or blames an unmarried person for wanting a spouse, for seeking a spouse, or for an infertile couple to seek medical care to become pregnant.

Christian singles are told by Christians that they are not as mature, godly, or responsible as married couples are, but if they still desire marriage or attempt to get married – by using dating sites, for example – they are told they are “idolizing” marriage.

It’s a highly hypocritical move that Christians foist on other Christians, but they do it constantly.

I’ve written of it before in pages such as:

When Starke advises Christians not to turn marriage and family into idols, who exactly is he warning?

Because it sounds to me as though Starke is, in this essay, further shaming and blaming singles or infertiles who hanker after spouse and children, when he should be solely directing his criticisms at the overall Christian culture, which is maintained and controlled by people who are, 99% of the time, married with children.

Most churches will not even consider permitting un-married adults into positions of leadership, teaching, or preaching. Churches are heavily biased against singles and childless individuals or couples.

Singles should not be shamed for wanting or seeking marriage, and childless people should not be shamed for seeking to have children, especially not in a culture, Christian culture, that keeps cramming the idea down everyone’s throats that marriage and parenthood are more “godly” than singlehood or the state of childlessness, and how marriage and family is so important and fundamental for American society.

Wanting to be married is not “idolatry.” I have discussed that in a few posts before, such as in one by Mark Driscoll (I believe it was this post, (Link): More Singles Commentary by Mark Driscoll (“Two Mistakes Singles Make”), or, it may have been in this post: (Link): Mark Driscoll on Single Christian Women Who Desire Marriage – the positives and negatives of his piece ), and this one:

It also seems to me that the author dances around the stereotype that singles who hate being single and long for marriage are “bitter” which in turn is a component of “singles shaming.”

I’d say most of us older singles are not “bitter” about it, but have either come to terms with it, or feel sad about it at times, or both.

You can largely come to accept your single status but occasionally feel sad about it.

You can also point out how wrong Christians are to idolize marriage and treat adult singles like trash, but that does not make one “bitter” – it’s offering a much needed critique of Christian culture.

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

    While the family cannot be so important that it invades the space in our heart that only God should occupy, we see that even from Creation, God designed marriage and family to result in a maturing society”

“God designed marriage and family to result in a maturing society?” He did? Really? Please provide book, chapter, and verse for that, because I don’t see anywhere in the Bible that declares this.

That belief that God intends “family” to be for the “maturing” of society, or to act as its backbone, is not even mentioned in the book of Genesis, which describes God creating the first married couple, Adam and Eve, and Adam and Eve having their first son.

That God allegedly uses marriage for anything (beyond anything other than for continuation of the human species and as one illustration of Jesus’ relationship to the church) -as a building block of culture, to sanctify people, to mature people and such- are merely assumptions Christians make repeatedly, with no biblical basis.

I’ve written about this issue before, like in this post:

Starke says,

    Before you thumb your noses at traditional values on marriage and family, remember this: When God wanted to paint a picture of his great love for he church and cost of his death, he cited marriage between a husband and wife. God in Jesus Christ is the faithful and sacrificial husband for his bride, the church.

I also wonder who these comments are aimed at. Who does he think may be “thumbing her nose at” marriage?

I am over 40 years of age and still would like to be married. I am not “anti marriage.”

I am very disturbed and angered at how highly other Christians elevate marriage, to the point marriage, and the 1950s nuclear family unit, is turned into a “golden calf” they worship.

Continue reading “Just How Family-Centered Is the Bible? by J. Starke – An Essay that Hits and Misses”

I Blog For Me, Myself, And I – Not For You. Not to get your approval.

I Blog For Me, Myself, And I – not for you. Not to get your approval.

Pertinent links:

—- I BLOG FOR ME, NOT YOU —–

I’ve already made note of this in other blog pages, but here it is again:
I use this blog for me.

I blog predominantly for me, not you.

I’m not interested in pleasing other people. I’m not looking to get a large, regular audience with this blog. If I do, okay. But that is not my goal.

I use this blog to vent publicly. I use it as a journal of sorts.

I’m not here to get other people’s approval.

I am not here to get other people’s input on how they think I should blog or express my views about anything.

This is why I don’t appreciate these condescending morons

    (note: I don’t mind so much the folks who express concern and sympathy for me who are polite. I am talking about the ones who chew me out and who are condescending)

, who stop by this blog and lecture me on how I may “come across” to other people, or,
(and these are some of the sorts of comments I get in the blog posts by visitors that I delete, and they later leave new posts complaining about being deleted, which I only skim the first sentence, then delete, and block them)…
I don’t appreciate these condescending morons …

    who say they think I should change my approach on the blog;

    that they will stop following this blog unless I change quality “X” about the blog or my behavior; e.g.,

    they object to the language I use on the blog lately (ie, cuss words); or,

    they make repeated nutty, crazy, unreasonable, rude demands and threats, such as they will un-follow the blog unless they get my real name (see (Link): this post for more on that); or,

    that they are not happy with my “attitude”

If you go back to the blog archives, for the first year or two I had this blog, I was “Little Miss Sunshine and Sweetness.”

If you don’t like the newer version of me and how I blog in 2013 / 2014, go back and read the blog posts from 2010, 2011.

My 2010 – 2011 posts are very genteel, G-rated, and relatively snark-free.

I’ve noticed since becoming more agnostic – oh hell, even when I was a full blown Christian – that many Christians are uncomfortable with snark, sarcasm, brashness, assertiveness, and people (especially WOMEN) who say it like it is (and I’ve admitted many a time to being a woman on this blog, so you know my gender).

Many Christians seem to be more comfortable with Christians (especially females) who never utter a cross, negative word about anything or anyone, and who are sweetness and light all the time about everything.

I didn’t understand that view, or like it, even when I was a complete Christian.

I’ve always had a biting sense of humor and a negative bent to my nature but had to hide it while a Christian because other Christians frown on it, or act uncomfortable about it.

Most Christians are codependent, by the way – that is why many of you Christians are ill at ease with sarcasm, bluntness, directness, assertiveness, and confrontation.

Some of my views on some topics have changed since I first started blogging with this blog in 2010.

People have a tendency to only read newer posts (from 2013 / 2014), or to react to only the ones that they find most offensive.

Once more, let this fact sink in:
I am not blogging for YOU.

I am primarily blogging FOR ME.

I figure if preachers get wind of some of the blog posts here and change their habits from being marriage-centric as a result of seeing my views, that’s great.

If marriage obsessed preachers don’t see the blog at all, or do and yet remain unchanged, oh well, c’est la vie.

But again, I blog primarily FOR ME.

You are only getting a SLICE of my life, views, and my personality on THIS PARTICULAR blog.

Continue reading “I Blog For Me, Myself, And I – Not For You. Not to get your approval.”

Myths About Never Married Adults Over Age 40

Myths About Never Married Adults Over Age 40

(Link): 10 Myths About Singles Over 40 (excerpts are below)

My comments on the topic:

I don’t think people realize that some of us who arrive at 40 or older and have never married did date and were engaged in the past, but for whatever reason, those relationships did not lead to marriage.

I tire of the negative assumptions that if you’ve not married by 40, it’s because there is something wrong with you, nobody else showed interest in you, or you never, ever dated previously.

I was engaged in my early 30s but realized the guy was not right for me, so I broke up with him. I could have married the guy. But I knew I would have been miserable if I had.

You should not assume that someone is still single at 40+ because they were never engaged, never dated, and never tried. Sometimes people do get engaged in their 20s and 30s, have to break up, and don’t manage to meet a compatible partner for years – and that is not that person’s fault.

It is incredibly difficult to meet a decent life partner the older you get. I marvel at people who fall into marriage after marriage (eg, Liz Taylor) just as easy as some of us change our socks daily. I don’t know how these people marry so easily and quickly. It’s not so easy for the rest of us.

I have also come to loathe the books and magazine articles that purport to explain to singles “why you are still single,” as these are nothing but typically victim-blaming and shame-inducing pieces.

I have seen some never married adults in my life who yes, had issues, and it was somewhat obvious to me why they had never married, but I’d say the vast majority of never married adults who want to be married are not socially awkward, physically unattractive, or weird.

(Link): 10 Myths About Singles Over 40

Excerpts:

    By Dana Robinson

Let’s say you’re checking out someone who just might be your soul mate. Maybe a friend sent you a link to this person’s Facebook page after you agreed to be set up on a blind date, or perhaps you were matched up via an online dating site.

You’re digging this person’s pictures, winning smile and non-smoker status…then, you notice that your potential life partner is past 40 and has never been married.

Suddenly, your excitement does a swan dive into a pool of doubt, suspicion, and — let’s face it — stereotypes and myths about the perpetually unmarried. If your prospective beloved has never been married, it’s clearly due to anger management issues or a cat-hoarding obsession, right?

But if you let those kinds of assumptions guide all of your dating decisions, then you just might be missing out on finding The One. Your first step on the road to an awesome relationship should be questioning these common myths about the never-been-married dater… regardless of whether you’re a man or a woman.

Top five misconceptions about over-40 bachelors:

1. “He’s probably a jerk.”
Well, it’s true that he might be — but there are plenty of men out there who have been married who have the exact same character flaws.

When it comes to online dating sites, this particular trait is more likely to reveal itself in places like photos and usernames (i.e., he’s shirtless in front of the bathroom mirror with a username like RichHotLover75).

If so, marital status notwithstanding, he might be a jerk… or he might just be clueless on how to make the right impression on women.

3. “He’s a commitment-phobe who’ll never marry.”
In this case, the exact opposite might be true. Perhaps he was laser-focused on settling down before now, but his ex-girlfriend decided that she wasn’t quite ready to take the plunge when he proposed.

We’ve all bet on the wrong partner before at some point in our lives, and there’s no reason to punish the guy simply because his previous relationships didn’t work out.

Top five myths about unmarried women over 40:

1. “She’s too ‘difficult’ for any man to deal with.”
That word can refer to anything from someone who’s hard to please to someone who simply has her own ideas and isn’t willing to do what everyone else wants her to do — and neither interpretation is necessarily a character flaw.

“The modern woman, at any age, is [very] independent,” says relationship blogger Anjana Dixon of The Anjana Network. “And if a man wants to go from stereotyping to making a real connection, he must go about his search with an open mind.”

That “difficulty” that you think you’ve identified in someone’s personality may just be what makes her the perfect mate… for you.

2. “She’s desperate.”
Lack of a past marriage doesn’t mean that she’ll accept a ring (much less a date) from just anybody.

Maybe she’s been working her way through medical school or caring for an elderly relative until now, or feels no sense of urgency about children.

So don’t go into the situation thinking that your B-game will suffice, because this woman just might end up dumping you before the waiter’s even taken your drink order on date #2.

3. “She’s too picky.”
We all have the right to select the partner that’s right for us, and it’s possible that The One simply hasn’t crossed her path quite yet.

Resisting the temptation to marry to the wrong person just for the sake of getting married should be applauded, not vilified — wouldn’t you like to be given the same courtesy?

4. “She doesn’t know how to be in a serious relationship.”
“Remember that ‘never married’ does not mean ‘has never been in a serious, committed relationship,’” says psychologist Dr. Holly Parker.

There’s no reason to think that a woman who’s never been engaged is in any way ignorant of how to be a good long-term partner. Parker notes that “we tend to only pay attention to whatever confirms our stereotypical beliefs, and we ignore anything that contradicts it.”

So, in the interest of broadening your own horizons, Parker recommends looking past the lack of marital status and instead paying attention to any aspects of her personality that may indicate that she’s kind and easy to get along with before you pass judgment.

5. “She’s already married to her job.”
These days, you can’t really blame anyone for working 60 hours a week — it may be the only way to ensure that you still have a job next month. But the truth is that women can (and do) successfully juggle relationships along with their demanding careers. And hey, if you can manage to balance both, remember that she can, too!

—————————
Related posts this blog

(Link): How Not To Help All The Single Ladies

(Link):  The Reason Why Men Marry Some Women And Not Others by D. Brennan

(Link): ‘Why Are You Single’ Lists That Do Not Pathologize Singles

(Link): Article by J. Watts: The Scandal of Singleness – singles never married christian

(Link): Topics Preachers Should or Shouldn’t Mention When Discussing Singlehood

(Link): List of Christian Singlehood Annoyances, Part 1 (includes cliches and platitudes)

(Link): New-ish Christian Cliche’ About Singlehood: “Don’t Waste Your Singleness” -or- “Make the Most of Your Singleness”

(Link): List of Christian Singlehood Annoyances, Part 2 (more cliche’s tossed at singles, other annoyances, etc)

(Link): Book: ‘Feminine By Design’ – Married People (supposedly) Fully Reflect God – Singles Do Not / When Christianity Looks More Like Islam and Less Like Christ

Follow up: BITTER GUY Replies to ‘It’s Okay To Call A Guy Creepy (article) / Little Sympathy for Ugly Single Guys’

Follow up: Bitter Guy Replies to ‘It’s Okay To Call A Guy Creepy (article) / Little Sympathy for Ugly Single Guys’

Someone calling himself “OffTheCuff” left a comment on my previous post, (Link): “It’s Okay To Call A Guy Creepy (article) / Little Sympathy for Ugly Single Guys.” I only skimmed it so far as to see the “you sound so bitter” phrase in his post and then deleted it. (I did not read the whole remark.)

The funny thing is, I’m not bitter and did not feel bitter when writing that post. I was pointing out in (Link): the last post that the ugly- to- average looking guys who complain on the internet that they can’t get dates, because they assume all women want Brad Pitt look-alikes, sound bitter themselves.

My main point was, though, that such men are hypocritical.

1. The majority of ugly, dweeby, scrawny, nerdy, socially inept, or obese males who complain that they can’t get dates often feel entitled to women who look like movie star Angelia Jolie. They chase after Angelina Jolie clones and get angry when such women expect them to be at Brad-Pitt-level-good-looks.

2. Women have been judged, and rejected, based on their looks for years and years in American culture, so why do men feel they should be immune for being judged by women for their physical appearance?

I also explained in my previous post that I went through the awkward-looking phase in my early teens and was cruelly picked on by males in school, but by my late teens, I lost weight, was wearing make-up and males were flirting with me by that time.

Men of all ages still respond to me on dating sites now, where I have several recent photos of myself on my dating profile.

But, men on dating sites generally only care about my photos, they care only about what I look like and not about my profile, where I list information about myself.

Why? Because all most men care about are a woman’s looks. They care not about my dreams in life, my educational background or anything else.

I’ve heard similar stories from other women on blogs who discuss their experiences on dating sites.

Men judge women for their physical appearance all the time, yet expect women, including very attractive ones, to give them a break in the ‘looks department’ and date them, even if they find the male physically unappealing (or socially clueless, or some combination thereof). It’s pure hypocrisy.

I’m not the one who’s bitter about this.

I signed off on my last post explaining I accepted many years ago that most men are shallow putz wads about physical appearance, so I learned to diet, jog, and look my best – and it worked. Guys began asking me out.

However, the whiny guys I see on the internet will not simply accept the fact that women do want to date good-looking guys.

Instead of going to the gym and working out to develop a nice physique, so they can begin getting dates with these ladies, they complain online about female dating preferences.

They find blog posts like mine and choose to call me names and put me down for relating my personal experiences.
—————–
Related posts this blog:

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

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

(Link): Nice Guys – the bitter single men who complain women don’t like nice men

(Link): Atlantic: “The case for abandoning the myth that ‘women aren’t visual.’”

(Link): Women Are Visually Oriented Too – Reminder 1

(Link): Superman, Man Candy -and- Christian Women Are Visual And Enjoy Looking At Built, Hot, Sexy Men

(Link): Women Are Visual And Like Hot Looking Men (Part 1) Joseph in Genesis Was A Stud Muffin

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

(Link): Article: Scientists: Why penis size does matter [to women]

(Link): Married Women Engage in Sexual Sin – and most men in denial particularly Christian conservatives

(Link): More ‘Men Are Visual’ Baloney, Discussed at Another Blog

(Link):Conservative Christian Sexist Immature Imbecilic Pressure on Women to Look Pretty and Skinny and to Put Out Sexually

The Society of Phineas blog on Singleness

The Society of Phineas blog on singleness

(Link): Manufacturing Singleness Part 2, from The Society of Phineas blog

There are aspects of the above blog page I agree with, and ones I do not.

I will here-after refer to this blogger as “Phineas,” though he also uses the screen name of “ballista74.”

The blogger of the above classifies Al Mohler, DeYoung and Mark Driscoll as “feminist preachers.” There is nothing feminist about Mohler or Driscoll. I don’t know DeYoung well enough to comment on him.

Mohler and Driscoll are actually anti-feminist. They are gender complementarians. They believe in strict gender roles, that women should be sweet, pretty, and passive, while males should be tough, assertive, decisive, and active.

I would not be interested in marrying a Christian man who agrees with Mohler’s or Driscoll’s views on marriage and women.

Most women, Christian and Non, find Driscoll to be a sexist pig, not a feminist who champions their causes. Saying that Driscoll is feminist would be like saying that the Coyote loves and esteems the Road Runner; it does not compute. Driscoll says things that both genders find offensive.

Christian gender complementarians such as Driscoll and Mohler are known for blaming feminism for the lack of marriages among Christians; see this post: (Link): Christian Males Blaming their Unwanted Protracted Singleness on Feminism – They have the wrong target

That Mohler and Driscoll hold young males partially responsible for the drought of marriages among Christians today is not a party line of feminism (feminists are usually anti-marriage, believing it traps women and only benefits men), and more a throw back to their incorrect interpretations of how they think the Bible discusses and defines gender roles.

I do agree with Phineas that many Christians remain blind to the fact that Christian women on occasion commit sexual sins – I would say this is due in part to inherent sexism of their complementarian gender role views.

Christian males don’t like to admit to themselves that Christian women (or Non Christian women) want sex or enjoy sex.

Male Christians like to think of married Christian women as being frigid, uninterested in sex, and reluctant sex partners who have to be cajoled or guilt-tripped into having sex with their husbands.

Witness the numerous sermons by preachers on marriage where the male preacher will usually pound it into the heads of married women in the congregation that men really like sex, so, married ladies, they are told, be sure to sexually service your husband regularly, because men really, really, really like sex!

Sex is viewed as a male activity. Women are told repeatedly that men are “visual,” so that women are pressured to stay very skinny, diet all the time, and look like fashion models day in and day out, so that their spouses will continue to find them sexually and visually appealing.

Men, especially Christian ones, are not under the same kind of pressure so far as physical appearance is concerned.

Christian men get the notion they can let themselves go and be physically repulsive looking and Christian women, they are told by pastors, will still want them sexually, so long as they are a “strong spiritual leader,” or attend church weekly, or some other ridiculous, poppycock, sentimental or churchy sounding reason.

Regarding this part of Phineas’ post:

    So I perhaps shouldn’t be too offended by all the man-up rants [directed at single Christian males], since they are in response to the women complaining about how the 10-15% of the men they do see don’t want anything to do with them.

    They don’t address how the women generally find it repulsive and disgusting to be addressed by the 85-90% that doesn’t meet their hypergamous standards. After all, if they want the Alpha Experience, they should know too that the Alpha just won’t settle down and marry, or follow after Scripture in any way.

-reeks a bit of sexism to me, in part because there are too many assumptions and generalizations about women.

Women are allowed to be attracted to whom they wish to be attracted to. It always sounds like sour grapes to me any time I see a male complaining that women are not as keen to date the less-attractive males.

From (Link): It’s Okay To Call A Guy Creepy (and a partial copy of this is (Link): located here on this blog)

    Women have a right to express that they don’t appreciate a man’s advances.

    by HUGO SCHWYZERJUN

    What SNL played for laughs, many men (and some women) took – and still take – seriously: Some men can’t win with women, these people believe, no matter what they do or say.

    This attitude is best observed in the recent backlash against calling men “creepy.” “Creep is the worst thing you can call a man,” wrote Jeremy Gordon for the Hairpin, pointing out it’s an impossible charge for a guy to disprove. As Gordon writes, “creepy is a vibe you can’t define… you just know it.”

    Others argue that “creepiness” connotes something specific: male homeliness. Men’s rights activist Robert Lindsay titled a post “Creepy” is Woman Speak for “An Unattractive Man Who Shows Interest In Me,” while Thought Catalog’s Johanna de Silentio wrote that “there are also a lot of guys who are labeled ‘creepy’ just because they happen to be really unattractive.”

    I often hear something similar in my gender studies classes. (It was in a “Men and Masculinity” course years ago where an anguished young man first drew my attention to the Brady skit.)

    Whenever the subject of sexual harassment or “creep-shaming” comes up in class, someone–almost always a man–makes the case that SNL was right: the only way for straight men to safely express sexual interest in women is to do so while following the skit’s three rules.

    With almost invariable bitterness, these young men complain that unless a guy has won striking good looks in the genetic lottery, he’s doomed to be rejected and seen as overstepping his boundaries, no matter what he does.

    …… Men’s rage about sexual harassment regulations and “creep-shaming” may well be rooted in an unwillingness to accept these cultural changes that have given women unprecedented power to say “no” to the lecherous and the predatory.

    Complaints that unattractive, socially awkward men are unfairly labeled “creepy” miss the point. “Creepy” describes having “the creeps;” it’s a word that centers on women’s own feelings.

    It’s no more “unfair” for Ashley the hypothetical barista to be “creeped out” by the advances of an older, unappealing co-worker than it is for her to be excited by the same approach from the man to whom she’s attracted.

    In that sense, the SNL sketch got to an important truth: Women’s subjective experiences and instincts matter.

I also recoil any time I see a male use the terms “alpha” or “beta” when discussing other males as on Phineas’ blog, because these terms are usually employed by embittered, women-hating males who blame feminism and women themselves for their singleness.

They are typically the guys who declare they are “nice guys” and that all women really want to date “bad boys” or perfect, really good- looking guys with a lot of money and won’t even give the “nice guy” a chance.

I’ve blogged about “nice guys” before, so I will not belabor that issue here. See these posts at my blog:
(Link): Nice Guys: Scourge of the Single Woman
(Link): Nice Guys – the bitter single men who complain women don’t like nice men

Where Phineas writes,

    There are many more things that could be pointed out. In conclusion, the feminist preachers such as Mark Driscoll, Kevin DeYoung, and Albert Mohler need to look into the mirror and see what they are doing to precipitate the results that they are noticing.

    When you do certain things within a system you create, these things always create very specific results.

    Insanity is to expect different results out of doubling down and doing the same things. The man-up rants that they write come off as complaining that what they have set up and supported is not working as they desire.

I can agree with that in- so- far as most Christian teaching on dating, sex, marriage and gender roles has contributed to keeping both genders perpetually single.

It is not that Driscoll and Mohler support misandry and “blame the males” at every turn that is solely to blame for protracted singleness among Christians, but that Christians, at the root of it, are

1. afraid of fornication (pre-marital sex)

and some Christians are

2. beholden to traditional gender roles (they fear or hate feminism)

I see in another post at Phineas’ site ((Link): Some Problems in Christian Dating) that he does acknowledge that Christian fear of pre-marital sex drives a lot of the absurd teaching on dating that singles receive.

Points 1 and 2 above drive a lot of the ridiculous dating advice that Christian singles receive, an issue I have covered on this blog before, in posts such as (and I’m tossing in a few related topics here)…

(Link): Christian Teachings on Relationships: They’re One Reason Singles Are Remaining Single (even if they want to get married)

(Link): Christian Males Blaming their Unwanted Protracted Singleness on Feminism – They have the wrong target

(Link): Being Equally Yoked: Christian Columnist Dan Delzell Striving to Keep Christian Singles Single Forever

This is hosted on another blog:
(Link): Feminism, Singleness, And The Idol Of The Nuclear Family

(Link): How Christians Keep Christians Single (part 3) – Restrictive Gender Roles Taught as Biblical

(Link): Magical Christian Thinking: If you have pre-marital sex you won’t get a decent spouse

As for Phineas’ part 1 (Link:) Manufacturing Singleness Part 1, I think he blames single women too much and unfortunately plays into some stereotypes about singles that marrieds possess (I’m not sure if Phineas is single or married).

Notice Phineas refers to older single women as being “bitter.”

Phineas also errs in assuming that older singles “have baggage,” which is another stereotype of singles. The truth is that all people of all ages, both married and single, have “baggage.”

Ironically, some of us, as we age, lose whatever “baggage” we had at one time; particularly is this true for females, most of whom learn to accept themselves by the time they reach age 40.

I spent childhood to my late 30s not knowing who I was and being deeply insecure. I now know who I am and what I want in life and am not afraid to go after it anymore. I lost baggage. I would actually make a healthier martial partner now than when I was in my 20s or 30s.

Quoting Phineas:

    This is nothing different that hasn’t been seen in the culture. Women go off and do their own thing, usually career, but other ministry things, too. They do these things with the expectation that they can find marriage at any time they would like in their lives.

    It is well known that the available pool of candidates for marriage decreases considerably as one ages. Marriage is just not a priority for these women, but when it comes time that they find that there just aren’t candidates out there.

    Or they are so set in their ways and their own desires, that they just can’t find anyone to go along with them and get bitter and angry because they couldn’t have their own perfect romance like all the other women around them.

    Then they always have more chance to get baggage that would keep them from getting married.

It is simply the nature of American culture (and likely British, Canadian, and Aussie culture) that people no longer marry fresh out of high school or early college years, like they used to do. Women should not be blamed for this situation, but they are, as you can see in Phineas’ quotes above.

It’s not so much that women deliberately chose to remain single in their late 20s, mid 30s and older.

Honestly, a woman today has no choice but to go out and live life and hold a job down to be able to pay rent.

What do bloggers such as Phineas expect a woman to do, marry at age 18? I was too insecure and in some ways, too immature, to be married so young. I’m not the same person I am in my early 40s that I was in my early twenties. Had I married back at age 18, I seriously doubt such a marriage would have survived to my mid 30s.

If the woman cannot find a partner at age 18, is she to curl up in a ball in her closet and hope that God magically sends her a spouse?

What do you want a woman who is still un-married at ages 23, 27, 35, to do, just sit at home all day? Should a single woman (or man) not be living life in the meantime, while waiting and hoping for a spouse?

I did not get my first boyfriend until around age 27. I had fully expected to be married by my late 20s to mid 30s. Up until I got my first boyfriend at age 27, what would Phinease suggest I have done, sit about all day doing nothing?

Phineas writes,

    Given this trend, it seems the proper course is for “woman-up” rants from the evangelical feminist preachers, not man-up rants. It seems women are just expecting marriage to be there when they are ready for it, after running after being an “empowered woman”, and then are rushing the offices of these people when they aren’t finding it, complaining how men aren’t there to marry them. Then you get the man-up rants out of them because it could never ever be the chaste sinless women’s faults.

Phineas needs to realize that many of these women, the single Christian ones who are upset they arrive at age 30 to 40 still single, are not feminists who bought into “girl power” or “empowerment” messages.

Concerning marriage, Christian women are conditioned by Christian culture and preacheres to be passive and wait on a husband to appear. These Christian women are simply doing as they were taught by church, family, and preacher; they did not opt for feminism or career over husband.

I have seen population statistics which indicate that for about every unmarried Christian man at age 40, there are three or four unmarried Christian females.

In other words, there is only one male to go around for every three or four women.

Complaining and bitching about feminism and so on does nothing to change the numbers. Even had all those age 40 women been willing, able, and ready to marry a man when they were at age 21, there were NO MEN IN EXISTENCE FOR THEM TO MARRY.

I was raised to be a “gender complementarian” from the time I was a girl. I honestly tried to buy into the traditional gender role nonsense, but rejected it by the time I was in my late 30s or so.

In my teens and twenties, I knew if I married, I’d do my best to be the stereotypical June Cleaver, Christian submissive wife that the anti-feminist Christians constantly lecture at women they ought to be.

So, even though I was a sweet, submissive, nice, lady-like Christian girl – who was a virgin and still am a virgin – I did not get a husband.

Most churches I went to did not have single Christian men my age.

I was never on a feminist power trip, and neither are many of the other Christian women who find themselves mid- thirties or older and still not married.

The entire Christian, female gender should not be blamed for an entire cultural shift, much of which took place before we were born or while we were children.

Further, we Christian ladies are raised from girl-hood to believe in ‘Magical Marriage,’ this is, that if you are good, pray to Jesus, and have faith in God, that God will simply send you your Christian husband in a timely fashion.

I was told that nice Christian girls wait on God’s timing for a spouse, that Christian women do not pursue men, that we are to wait passively (though I did go to singles events at churches and so on).

Christian women are told to pray and wait for God to provide a spouse. But then, no husband ever arrives. This is painful for a lot of Christian women who were sincerely trusting God for a spouse – but here Phineas is lashing out at such women on his blog, as though they are at fault, when they are not.

If Phineas is angry at man-bashing preachers, such as Mark Driscoll, he needs to save his vitriol for Driscoll, instead of blaming, shaming, or complaining about single Christian women.

Phineas wrote,

    2. Unrealistic expectations from women for the perfect man for them are not challenged by the feminist preachers.

    …So given this, it seems women are rejecting men that are “good enough” in the sight of God to be her husband for the absolute perfect man, who does not exist.

And that could just as easily read,

    2. Unrealistic expectations from men for the perfect woman for them are not challenged by the gender complementarian preachers.

    …So given this, it seems men are rejecting women that are “good enough” in the sight of God to be his wife for the absolute perfect woman, who does not exist.

I’ve said it before, but a lot of single Christian men, despite being ugly, dweeby, dorky, poor, weird, stupid, socially awkward, fat, or bald, all expect to marry a skinny pretty movie star look-alike, and Christian preachers uphold this unrealistic entitlement attitude by telling women in their congregations things such as, “men are visually wired and like sex, so ladies, be sure to stay thin and pretty and act like a minx in the bed room!”

One never hears preachers saying, “Remember men, women like buff, hot, muscular men with a full head of hair, so attend the gym weekly, get a “six pack,” and use some Rogaine.”

Preachers refuse to acknowledge that women have sexual desire, which I find insulting… well, they will acknowledge on occasion that un-married women have a libido, as they assume (insultingly and incorrectly) that all single women are harlots who fornicate regularly and who are just dying at the chance to bed married men.

Preachers assume that married women, though, are as pure as the freshly drive snow, or are totally un-interested in sex, because, they feel, married women only want “emotional intimacy.”

The bottom line is that both genders face insulting stereotypes from each other, from preachers, from Christians, and in society. Both genders face hurdles in the world of dating. Neither men nor women have it easy in getting dates or spouses, and it is neither wholly the fault of women, men, or feminism.
—————
Related post this blog

(Link): Trends in male employment may not bode well for marriage (article)

It’s Okay To Call A Guy Creepy (article) / Little Sympathy for Ugly Single Guys

It’s Okay To Call A Guy Creepy (article) / Little Sympathy for Ugly Single Guys

Before I get to the “It’s Okay To Call A Guy Creepy” article, I wanted to comment on all the guys out there who perceive themselves as being ugly- to- average looking who are angry at women who they feel only want to date really good-looking guys.

I have little sympathy for most of these men, because women in American culture have been heavily judged on their looks alone for many, many decades, and they still are.

There are times I will defend un-married males on this blog where I feel they are genuinely under attack from whomever, but other times, I feel their complaints are unfounded, whiny, or grossly exaggerated, and this is one of those times.

When I was growing up, I (and I am a female) went through a “tubby” phase around junior high school age (ages 11 – 13), where I also had acne, wore thick glasses, and had frizzy hair. Both genders let me know at that time of life I was ugly. But the males in particular were very cruel to me about it.

I never got dates in my teen years. Boys did not flirt with me or ask me out. They would spit on me, pull my hair, gather in circles around me on the bus ride home to tease me with cruel put- downs until I cried, and then make fun of me for crying.

Men are total unreasonable, unrealistic jerks when it comes to judging women on their looks. They really are – from the time they are teen-agers to grown men, males will dismiss women on their looks alone.

All men, Christian and Non, from the scrawny, un-muscular, geeky, dorky guy, to the sloppy, fat, obese, 956 pound bald male, all feel entitled to a thin, gorgeous, movie star Megan Fox look-alike.

When on dating sites, the only criteria men care about – even the so-called “Christian” ones – are what women look like.

Men look at a woman’s profile photos on dating sites but never read the damn profiles, where you, the woman, mention what your favorite band is, what your hobbies are, and so forth. All the men care about is your damn physical appearance.

Female politicians get hammered for their weight, hair styles, and wrinkles in the media and from everyday commentators on sites, but the male politicians seldom get scrutinized or criticized for their fat bellies or balding heads or wrinkles.

Teen-aged girls and women are judged harshly by men in the area of looks.

I was just told by a sexist Christian idiot on another site about a week ago that now that I’m in my early 40s that the “bloom is off your youthful beauty,” so no man will want me now, according to this guy. I’ve seen that same view by Christian men (and on occasion by married women) on other sites or in books about singles.

Most dating advice books and blogs aimed at women, even the Christian ones, wrongly assume that the reason women remain single is that they must be ugly or fat, so women (or teen-aged girls) are told in such material to lose weight, diet, have long hair, wear lip stick all the time, and look pretty.

I have never really seen males get instructed by other males in dating advice sites to stay thin, work out at the gym, use Rogaine (if they are balding), etc. I suppose you could cite an example or two, but by and large, I have not seen men advised to shed extra pounds, get in shape, or get a toupee.

Historically in American culture, males have had no where near the pressure to look beautiful that females have.

But it is true that women love good-looking, built men. This is a fact that is over-looked by conservative Christians.

I’ve blogged about this subject many times before, such as (Link): Superman, Man Candy -and- Christian Women Are Visual And Enjoy Looking At Built, Hot, Sexy Men, (Link): Atlantic: “The case for abandoning the myth that ‘women aren’t visual.’” and (Link): Women Are Visual And Like Hot Looking Men (Part 1) Joseph in Genesis Was A Stud Muffin.

We women get the message from preachers and Christian dating blogs that we’re not supposed to be too picky when selecting a Christian mate. We single ladies are not supposed to care about the guy’s money, the guy’s looks – but, rather, that he reads his Bible daily and hands out rice on yearly missionary trips to Africa, and so on.

You Christian men (and the Non Christian men) are let off the “stay in shape, exercise, and diet” responsibility hook, but women are still expected to be youthful, pretty, and thin if they hope to get a spouse.

Even though most women are visual, some of them are willing to date an ugly- to- average looking guy, if he has some other feature they find compelling, such as he’s very funny, sweet, wealthy, attentive, interesting, or romantic.

I seldom see hot- looking (or even ugly or average looking) men willing to date ‘ugly- but- sweet,’ or ‘average-looking but funny’ women. Many women are more willing more often to bend their criteria in the ‘physical appearance department’ when it comes to who they date, than men are.

Women have a right to be attracted to whomever they are attracted to; they are under no obligation to date men they do not consider physically attractive or men they find odd or dorky. Men have had this right for ages and ages, but women are expected by most Christians -and all ugly men themselves- to date ugly or average-looking men.

(Link): It’s Okay To Call A Guy Creepy

Excerpts:

    by HUGO SCHWYZERJUN
    June 27 2013

    What SNL [television show Saturday Night Live] played [the situation of good looking men scoring with women while the ugly men are regarded as creepy by women] for laughs, many men (and some women) took – and still take – seriously: Some men can’t win with women, these people believe, no matter what they do or say.

    This attitude is best observed in the recent backlash against calling men “creepy.”

    “Creep is the worst thing you can call a man,” wrote Jeremy Gordon for the Hairpin, pointing out it’s an impossible charge for a guy to disprove.

    As Gordon writes, “creepy is a vibe you can’t define… you just know it.”

    Others argue that “creepiness” connotes something specific: male homeliness.

    Men’s rights activist Robert Lindsay titled a post “Creepy” is Woman Speak for “An Unattractive Man Who Shows Interest In Me,” while Thought Catalog’s Johanna de Silentio wrote that “there are also a lot of guys who are labeled ‘creepy’ just because they happen to be really unattractive.”

    I often hear something similar in my gender studies classes. (It was in a “Men and Masculinity” course years ago where an anguished young man first drew my attention to the Brady skit.)

    Whenever the subject of sexual harassment or “creep-shaming” comes up in class, someone– almost always a man– makes the case that SNL was right: the only way for straight men to safely express sexual interest in women is to do so while following the skit’s three rules.

    With almost invariable bitterness, these young men complain that unless a guy has won striking good looks in the genetic lottery, he’s doomed to be rejected and seen as overstepping his boundaries, no matter what he does.

    …A society where people are judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, he [a male student of Schwyzerjun’s] declared, should also be a society where men are judged “creepy” solely on the basis of their words and actions rather than their looks. He got cheers from several other guys in the classroom.

    … My student’s mistake is an obvious one: Enjoyment can’t be coerced. Congress can’t pass a law requiring people to be delighted by the advances of others they find unattractive.

    I can get my children to eat broccoli by alternating promises of rewards and punishments, but I cannot do anything to make my daughter love vegetables as much as she loves ice cream.

    Similarly, no law can compel “Ashley,” a barista at the local coffee shop, to feel the same way about the advances of an older co-worker whom she finds repellant as she does about those of the young hottie who joins her on the opening shift.

    Until recently, however, few women could make sexual choices based primarily on physical desire and emotional attraction.

    In a world where few women had the opportunity to prosper without a man’s protection, marriage was about survival. The more educational and economic opportunities women acquire, the more opportunity they have to choose based on what they want rather than what they need for survival.

    As Daniel Bergner’s bestselling What Do Women Want? argues, once you level the economic playing field, women are just as likely as men to make sexual decisions based on desire alone.

    … Men’s rage about sexual harassment regulations and “creep-shaming” may well be rooted in an unwillingness to accept these cultural changes that have given women unprecedented power to say “no” to the lecherous and the predatory.

    Complaints that unattractive, socially awkward men are unfairly labeled “creepy” miss the point. “Creepy” describes having “the creeps;” it’s a word that centers on women’s own feelings.

    It’s no more “unfair” for Ashley the hypothetical barista to be “creeped out” by the advances of an older, unappealing co-worker than it is for her to be excited by the same approach from the man to whom she’s attracted. In that sense, the SNL sketch got to an important truth: Women’s subjective experiences and instincts matter.

    The freedom to act on those instincts doesn’t just lead to romantic fulfillment. In his indispensable 1997 bestseller The Gift of Fear, Gavin de Becker encourages women to rely on their own intuition to keep themselves safe from violence.

    There are few things more risky, de Becker argues, than overriding one’s own sense of real danger (“the creeps”) for the sake of preserving a relationship – or simply being “nice” to a stranger.

    Crucially, de Becker points out that people-pleasing and the urge to avoid causing offense put more women in danger than acting on sexual attraction.

    Women are more likely to be assaulted because they were too polite to someone whom they sensed was creepy than because they were too responsive to the charms of someone who turned them on.

    When men complain about being “creep-shamed,” or insist that the Tom Brady sketch accurately reflects reality, what they’re really lamenting is a culture that is increasingly willing to honor women’s right to be sexual — and women’s right to be safe.

Goodness knows I was judged harshly by males as a teen girl, then, when I lost the weight and the acne cleared up, I was lusted after in my 20s and 30s in person by men who I found to be CREEPY, dorky, ugly or weird, or, in a few cases, by guys that were attractive and okay, but I was just not interested in them romantically.

I’m on dating sites now, and I am still getting judged on my appearance by men of all ages, from their 20s, 30s, and some in their 60s and 70s, who want to date me.

Women are routinely judged on their looks alone by males, all through their life, from their girlhood to their senior years, so no, I can’t feel sorry for the dorky, scrawny, ugly, or fat guys who are upset that some women turn them down for not looking like Brad Pitt.

I used to get turned down for not looking like Megan Fox or Angelina Jolie, but I don’t quite hate the entire male gender for it. I accepted it and worked on my looks – which worked, because guys began asking me out. I do think males need to consider other qualities in a woman other than her looks, however.
—————–
Some guy left a post replying to this one; I did not approve it to appear, but wrote about it here:
(Link): Follow up: Bitter Guy Replies to ‘It’s Okay To Call A Guy Creepy (article) / Little Sympathy for Ugly Single Guys’
—————–
Related posts this blog:

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

(Link): Nice Guys – the bitter single men who complain women don’t like nice men

(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

Cultural Discrimination Against Childless and Childfree Women – and link to an editorial by a Childless Woman

Cultural Discrimination Against Childless and Childfree Women – and link to an editorial by a Childless Woman / A few things you shouldn’t say to a childless woman, by Wendy Squires

Before I include the editorial, I’d like to remind anyone who reads this that I am a conservative.

One of the most irritating things I have seen on politically conservative blogs is that any time the blog owner runs a link to an editorial like this one, one about childless women, immediately, 99% of the conservative readers assume that the childless woman is a secular feminist who hates men, family, and traditional morals. Some probably harbor a secret feeling that all women who are not crazy about babies sacrifice them to Satan, so strong is their hatred and odd-ball suspicion of women who do not marry and have children.

It does not seemingly occur to these idiots – some of whom again are my fellow conservatives – that sometimes conservative men and women (such as me) do not have children, and will never have children, because we are sterile, barren, infertile, are not married and don’t wish to conceive outside of wedlock, or are just are not interested in being mommies and daddies.

That is, there is no sinister motive or evil reason why conservatives and Christians do not have children. There is no sinister reason for why we are not interested in having children. There is no hidden agenda. But many conservatives and some Christians assume there must be an evil agenda or some perverted reason why other people don’t want kids.

Yes, it is possible to be Christian, conservative, Republican, pro- life, pro- traditional values, pro- family and not have children, or have no interest in having kids.

It is simply not true that all childless or childfree people support abortion or are liberal, democrat, or atheist, or hate children.

But you should see the amount of automatic hatred and vitriol that spills out of conservative people’s keyboards when commenting on childfree/childless testimonies. These types of conservatives are just as narrow minded and hate-filled as the liberals and secular feminists they claim to disagree with.

One common insult by conservatives I see tossed at childless women who write these editorials about the discrimination they face as being childless is that they are “bitter.”

Sure, sometimes childless or childfree women sound angry (but even if they sound friendly because they are in fact friendly and content, it doesn’t stop critics from calling them “bitter” anyhow), but the reason they sometimes sound angry (bitter) is not from the state of being childless, but because they are damn sick and tired of being continually insulted directly or indirectly by our child-crazy culture that assumes a woman is flawed, selfish, or strange if she does not have children, or is not interested in having any.

There is nothing wrong with choosing to forgo motherhood. A woman’s worth is not wrapped up in pro-creating.

Here is a link to the editorial along with most of its content:

(Link): A few things you shouldn’t say to a childless woman by Wendy Squires

Not all women can have babies or want to have babies

There are two words for the woman who reached over the table, grabbed my hand and in a consolatory tone announced, “It’s a tragedy you never got around to having children. It’s the most wonderful thing a woman can do.”

Those words are “shut” and “up” (the printable response) or, more charitably, “think” and “first”. Because it doesn’t take Freud to work out this statement was patronising, assumptive and just plain insensitive.

The would-be Buddhist in me told me these were her issues. This woman was jealous that I exist happily without children. The thought of a life without being a mother is too dark for her to contemplate. She couldn’t cope without ticking that box and believes I should feel the same. She was projecting her own issues on me, transferring her pain.

But I still wanted to thump her. Hard. Not just for me, but for all childless women. I’m talking about sisters on IVF; the ones who can’t carry to term; those who’ve suffered stillbirth or the loss of a child; the infertile; those with infertile partners; the ones hoping and waiting on a committed relationship; the ambivalent; the never intended to and don’t feel the need to justify the fact.

Most of the childless women I know do find peace with their circumstances, even if it takes some time. Until, that is, someone comes along and demands their curiosity itch be scratched as to why no kids or, worse, declares you emotionally or spiritually unfulfilled with uncalled for comments such as the one I endured.

Continue reading “Cultural Discrimination Against Childless and Childfree Women – and link to an editorial by a Childless Woman”

Part 2, The Parable of the Neglected Unmarried – Single – Christian

Part 2, The Parable of the Neglected Unmarried Christian
———————-
(Link): Part 1: The World Does Not Need Another Marriage Sermon
———————-
The end of Part 1 read:
While the conservative Christians remain fixated on giving yet more marriage sermons, and bemoaning the liberal attacks on “traditional families” and “traditional marriage” they continue to ignore the needs and problems and mere existence of people over the age of 30 who are not married or who have never been married.

———————
–The Parable of the Neglected Unmarried Christian–

Jesus Christ told the story of the Good Samaritan. In that story, several people, including a priest (on his way to temple – “church” – services, I take it), walked on by the guy who was bloodied, beaten to a pulp, and on the ground and didn’t help the guy.

How many pastors and Christian organizations today keep on walking past the bloodied, bruised, hurting, scared, lonely, frustrated or confused, un-married adults over the age of 30, and do not stop to help them?

Cliches and platitudes, lectures, and un-solicited advice hurled at un-married Christians who desire marriage (such as “serve more!,” “read your Bible more!” “Jesus is all you need, He is sufficient!,” “be content in your singleness,” etc.) are not help, by the way. Nor are those approaches helpful.

Most of the Christians walk on by the bloodied, hurting older Christian singles (and other sorts of hurting Christians, such as those who are grieving over the death of a loved one) because they are in a rush to attend their church services to give (or to listen to) another sermon on marriage and parenting, or the threats of liberalism on “traditional family values and the American constitution.”

(Don’t forget the sermons about tithing and how to be financially successful, pastors love those too.)

So imagine that there is an un-married Christian who was attacked and left for dead on the side of the road, and she keeps getting passed by other Christians who notice her, but who do nothing to truly help.

To put another twist on this story, if we were running it parallel to that of Christ, who made the ‘much- hated- by- the- Jews’ Samaritan Guy the “hero” of His version of the story, it would probably be a homosexual, liberal, atheist, pot-smoking, long-haired Democrat who would stop and offer actual and practical assistance to the bloodied, wounded, un-married Christian on the side of the road.

Yes, contemporary, conservative Christianity’s greatest enemy would be the hero of this version of the Good Samaritan story, which most conservative, American Christians would likely identify as a homosexual, atheistic, Democrat (and, for those pastors still ten years or more behind culture trends, an enemy who also plays “Dungeons and Dragons” and reads “Harry Potter” books).

I can see that scenario happening.

I can totally see an evangelical Christian pausing to tell the wounded, and possibly dying, un-married Christian on the road side,

    “Lady, I’m sorry you’re hurting and beaten, but I’m on my way to baby sit in the church’s nursery and write another book about the importance of children and the horror of legalized abortion!

    Children are so important to the church, more so than any hurting un-married adult.

    Children are the future of America and the Christian church! They are our only hope for spreading the Gospel!

    I’ve decided to ignore the Bible passages where Christ says that one’s spiritual family is to take precedence over blood relations, and the parts that talk about converting Non Christians outside my family. Who needs any of that?

    The homosexuals and liberals are trying to destroy the traditional family and traditional marriage, and Muslims are out-breeding the Christians; that will never do.

    I simply must care for Christian youth first and foremost and really shout about the urgent need for Christian pro-creation.

    Wish you well, but I gotta go now!”

Next, I can see Southern Baptist president Al Mohler stopping for a bit, but only to offer absolutely no practical help to the injured, un-married Christian woman, but only to give her a condescending, judgmental lecture
(please click the “Read More” link to read the rest of the post):

Continue reading “Part 2, The Parable of the Neglected Unmarried – Single – Christian”

Unmarried / Single People Are Supposedly Bitter & Have Too Much Baggage – and that’s why you’re still single they say

Old accusation and stereotypes tossed at unmarried people, even if and when it’s not true: “You’re Bitter!” and “You Have Baggage!” (“And that’s why you’re still single!”)

Before I get to the purpose of the post, a couple of points:

1. Wooo! I am on a roll today! This must be my fourth post in a row today. I need to go jogging pretty soon, though, so I will have to leave the computer for that. But your married Christian bloggers can’t complain, since they say my one magical key in getting a husband is jogging regularly (men don’t want ugly fatties, I’m told).

2. As for the blog post’s heading.

I think Google weighs post titles more heavily than post tags, which is why some of my post headings are insanely long or appear strange.

I normally would not put both terms, “unmarried” and “single” in a post subject heading together, but I don’t know if a person out there will be doing a search using “unmarried” or “single.” Now for the post:

— Hey, since you are unmarried, you simply MUST be BITTER and have TOO MUCH BAGGAGE! —

I really intended on making this post after doing one about how Christians approach the issue of physical appearance, especially as it pertains to dating and marriage, before making this one, but I think that one will take longer to write than this one, and I’m not in the mood to write another long post today.

I’ve seen some Christian bloggers – usually married, male ones – who, when they write a blog post about dating and marriage aimed at unmarried people, if they engage with dissenters in their comment area, will invariably throw the word “bitter” at commentators who hold opposing views.

While it certainly may be true that some unmarried people are bitter – because they want to get married but remain single – I don’t think it’s true of all unmarried people.

I will address the topic of “bitterness” farther below, but I wanted to turn attention to the “I bet you have baggage!” stereotype first.

— BAGGAGE —

I think telling unmarried people they have “baggage,” as in, “the reason you are still single past the age of 35 is that potential suitors perceive someone of that age as having too much baggage” is an idea (and insult, really) that is over-used on blogs, in books, and in TV segments on Christian programs about dating and relationships. I have seen this term used on Christian sites and secular ones about dating and relationships on a somewhat recurring basis.

(Please click the “read more” link to read the rest of this post)

Continue reading “Unmarried / Single People Are Supposedly Bitter & Have Too Much Baggage – and that’s why you’re still single they say”

Nice Guys – the bitter single men who complain women don’t like nice men

This was a page on Buzzfeed; it contains adult language.

I too get tired of seeing bitter guys on blogs complain about how they’re so nice but women don’t want them – they say women (ALL women) only want mean, rude, jerks (which isn’t true of course).

I did not write the following material, it was all written by other people, but I am in agreement with most of it.
—————————–
From Buzzfeed:
The Not-So-Nice “Nice Guys” Of Online Dating
buzzfeed.com/annals/the-not-so-nice-nice-guys-of-online-dating

Author: Ouiser Boudreaux

BuzzFeed Contributor

Nice Guys are an internet standard. To hear them tell it, they are very mistreated! They show up on blogs to complain about how women don’t appreciate Nice Guys like themselves, because even though the Nice Guy is so very nice, women are too self-involved to see the Real Him. The Nice Guy believes he is held back by his intense Niceness.

The truth is, Nice Guys aren’t actually nice guys. They’re entitled jerks who think that if they’re nice to you, you’re obligated to spread. And if you don’t, you’re fodder for the Nice Guy’s extensive complaint box.
Continue reading “Nice Guys – the bitter single men who complain women don’t like nice men”