Virgin Shaming in the Church

image001ShameShame

I need to apologize. My attitude in writing this post was bitter, unloving and sinful.

The reason I’m not deleting the whole thing? For one thing my critiques of the article were perfectly true, but unloving. Most importantly, I want to show that I’m also a sinner in need of mercy as well as grace.

 

A lot of singles are leaving the church now. I refuse to leave because the Bible says we are not to forsake the Assembly. That said, I dislike going, find it a miserable drudgery and act of penance, and strongly suspect most of the real church members–the smug, sanctimonious couples who count–would just as soon we all leave or better yet vanish from existence. But I digress.

My real issue is with an article written by Matthew Cochran published in The Federalist. http://www.thefederalist.com/2014/06/09four-myths-about-the-helpless-single-woman/Despite (possibly) good intentions, it’s obvious to this single woman that Cochran is clueless about his subject matter.

Cochran addresses a previous article he finds disagrees with written by a single woman. While Matthew Cochran is a man who hasn’t likely been single since his teens he feels he knows all about this subject. After all, he is married and has a Y chromosome. Therefore he must be a spiritual giant.

Hear are the four statements she made that he considers mythical. (Warning: I have indulged my satirical impulse and grossly exaggerated some of Cochran’s statements. If you want to know his exact words please follow the link.)

  1. We’re Victims. Yes, regardless of what God hands you, considering yourself a victim is counterproductive. But according to Matthew Cochran we’re a bunch of sinful lepers  who deserve to be marginalized because we were not “proactive” in seeking out husbands when we were younger. This has got me scratching my head. What were we supposed to do? Set out deer traps baited with homemade pies? Cochran fails to remember that back in the 80’s and 90’s when there were more men available for us Gen-Xers, it was considered unseemly for girls to even tell guys they liked them unless the guy said he liked you first. If you asked a guy out he would assume you were easy. The only way to “get a guy” was to be thin, blonde and perky. A severe eating disorder was a bonus. Wear a whole mess of caked on make-up. And tight revealing clothes. (Those mini skirts showed Christian guys how spiritual you were. Ha ha.) It helped to be an airhead, or at least conceal any intelligence or common sense God blessed you with. You also had to be a social adept, saying “yes” when you meant “no” and vice versa. Lots of brainless, boring small talk that was absolutely meaningless white noise. Guys didn’t have to prattle stupidly, but girls did, plus you had to giggle all the time when nothing was even funny! Some guys at college complained about this, but they always dated the giggle geese. If you weren’t pretty enough or couldn’t figure out the “rules” to the dating game in a month or so you were disqualified and no guy on campus would date you. Ever. So, rules have changed over the years. Despite Cochran’s desire to pin all the blame on spinsters there have been a lot of changes recently we haven’t all been able to keep up with. It’s easier to assume that bad things only happen to those who were asking for it. Just ask Job’s buddies. (I wonder if Cochran’s wife proactively pursued him. Most conservative guys get scared by aggressive husband-hunters and call them unfeminine.)
  2. Biology Changes a Woman’s Behavior. Cochran also thinks that we imagine we can have babies in our nineties like Sarah. We don’t realize how quickly our biological clocks are ticking without fellows like Matthew Cochran to remind us of the fact. Thus our rebellious desire to stay single. His solution? Panic and husband hunt for crying out loud! “Proactively” chase anything in pants, while armed with nets and tranquilizer darts. When guys see you hunting for something with a pulse to drag to the altar they won’t be able to resist your charms. We all know how men love desperate, clingy women. Right?
  3. There Are No Good Men. Cochran counters we’re all just too picky. We only want to date Brad Pitt clones, bad boys who drive around on motorcycles. I never have gone for Alpha males; I always liked Nice Guys. But they didn’t feel likewise, hence we never dated. The fact is, out of all the churches I have visited recently, there were 0 single men over 20 attending. It’s either marry a pagan or steal another woman’s husband. Both unacceptable. According to Cochran, we are single because we all are addicted to hard core porn and watch so many Hollywood movies we confuse them with real life. News flash! I hate television shows and almost never see movies. If I had my choice of any Hollywood hunk I would choose none of them because their godless lifestyles sicken me. As far as porn goes, I avoid “Christian romances” and the tripe by Nicholas Sparks–so no I’ve never read 50 Shades of Grey.  “…it is time to find new media and social circles before writing off many marriageable men who already feel invisible.” Where are these many marriageable men? What alternate universe does Matthew Cochran inhabit? Any marriageable men in my church or community must not only be invisible but inaudible and unregistered by any other bodily senses as well. More likely they don’t exist. No doubt Cochran would blame us for that too. It’s always the single woman’s fault!
  4. Singleness Is Holier. Now begins Cochran’s real virgin bashing. He starts off by saying that celibacy is impossible therefore we must all be a bunch of harlots. If you say that you’re still a virgin you’re a lying hypocrite as well as a harlot because no one can go without sex! (Some Christian married men must lie awake at night fantasizing about the wild sexual escapades they would have if they were still bachelors. Then they pin their lustful thoughts on Christian singles. That’s called projection in psychology.) He goes on to say that even if you are one of those ascetic weirdos (aka virgins) with that gift nobody wants you must spend your days perched on a pillar in the desert. You’re of no use to God or the Church at all and are vastly inferior to wives and mothers spiritually as well as every other way that counts. Apparently Mother’s Day, Valentine’s Day, weddings and all our marriage seminars have failed to convince you that you’re a bunch of pathetic losers and a disgrace to the Kingdom of Heaven. Get lost Mary of Bethany! Martha’s the real hero after all.

Pardon me while I go vomit.

Virgin Shaming in the Church

Why is Christian Art So Cheesy?

I’m afraid I will offend a lot of sincere believers I respect with this blog. But what I have to say really needs to be said. Most Christian art and literature stinks!

I’m not referring to the lack of swearing and explicit sex and perhaps violence as well. I’m referring to everything wrong with the Harry Potter novels (from a purely literary viewpoint) x 2. And no, most Christian novels aren’t filled with witchcraft. If anything they’re not imaginative enough.

Here are 3 common problems with Christian literature in particular. Mind you, not ALL Christian fiction is this bad–thank goodness!

  1. Two-dimensional characters. All the Christians are so pure and perfect that there is no real internal conflict. Most of the non-Christians would make Snidely Whiplash look like a well-developed, realistic antagonist. And why is it that the most likeable non-Christian is always the one to convert–after which he/she is so pure and perfect that they no longer struggle with temptation and all the conflicts are miraculously resolved for them?
  2. Predictable, overdone plots. Everyone knows after the first page or two who will convert before the end. You can also tell before the end of chapter one who will wind up together in Christian matrimony (more on that in point three!) People who are lost at sea are never really dead. They invariably return before the trilogy ends. If a hero is missing in action, he is sure to return the day after the heroine marries someone else. Adopted children always brood about how their birth mothers didn’t want them, even if they didn’t know they were adopted till their wedding day (a common theme.) Birth mothers always agonize over how evil they were to give their babies away–instead of aborting them or bringing them up as a single teenager in poverty and ignorance. What about a happy, well-adjusted adoptee who was pleased with the family who selected her? How about a woman who gave her baby up for adoption and realized it was the right, unselfish thing to do at the time? I don’t know what most Christian writers have against adoption.
  3. An overemphasis on marriage. Prairie romances and Amish romances are referred to as romances and not conversion stories for a reason. The hero or heroine converts by page 125 and the wedding takes place in great detail on page 150 before the wedding bells and book end on page 175. It makes me want to puke. No wonder most Christian men prefer nonfiction to novels. I’m a woman, and it’s too sugary for me. I may be a borderline diabetic. Ha ha. If I had a teenage daughter I would forbid or at least limit her reading of sweet Christian romances. The food equivalent of sweet romances is candy, pure and simple. A steady diet of either will make you sick. Worst of all, the perfect romances and men make women–married or single–discontented with their lives. Married women wish they were married to Cowboy Clem from Maybelle Sirrup’s latest tome When the Heart Weeps. Single women wish they were married period and sometimes may even doubt their salvation due to the lack of cowboys in their lives.

If you are still reading this, thank you for bearing with my rant. If there are any exceptions to this kind of Christian literature will youbook stack please list them?

I do like the novels of Catherine Marshall and Eugenia Price. Unfortunately they’re not here now.

Why is Christian Art So Cheesy?