Why is Church Cliquey? Part 5

Forgive all the exposition in this post, it feels necessary to set up the stunning conclusion—I made this part of my Why is Church Cliquey? series because this series has turned into the story of my relationship with church. The good. The bad. The heartbreaking.

This is where we're going to get specific. Are you ready? I'm not.

Exposition

Some background: I left my church in 2014 because my ex-boyfriend (who was abusive) went there and also held a leadership position. This wasn't a political statement of any kind—I walked in—I saw him—I walked out. Once I realized he still attended and was also apparently on the same volunteering schedule as me, I never went back.

His presence made a safe place unsafe.

Later that same year, I reached out via email to the leadership at my church. I objected to my ex-boyfriend being in any kind of leadership position, and I said so in my email. I never heard anything back, not even to acknowledge that it was received. 

So there you go. There's not much to it—just my moral opposition to someone that I knew to be abusive serving in a leadership role at my former church. I don't know what I expected, exactly. I have no basis for believing that he ever went on to abuse anyone else at the church, partially because I cut off all contact. 

That was in 2014—fast forward to last year. My old church got a new pastor. I've never met the guy, but I have many friends who still attend the church—let's just say we have a lot of mutual fb friends.

So I was stalking his fb page (like I apparently do) and I saw that he had recommended the book "Love and Respect."

Reader, I got angry.

I know, I know, anger bad. But seriously, I saw red—or more accurately the red and white color scheme of the Love & Respect franchise.

I had never read the book, but I was familiar with its ideas. I had written about how its precepts disproportionately place burdens of shame and fear on women.

Rightly or wrongly, I was angry that the new pastor of my old church was recommending this as a "good Christian book" about marriage, knowing how it skewed toward the subjugation of women.

Then, it got worse.

I talked to my friends about this and they brought up that not only had the pastor recommended the book on his fb page, he had also preached about Love and Respect from the pulpit and AND—he was leading a premarital group that used Love and Respect as the focus.

Clearly, this guy was not just a fan (Love and Respect "liked" his post on fb, so I guess Love and Respect is a fan of him)—he was an acolyte, an evangelist for this particular ideology.

This felt too personal to ignore, like someone bursting into my living room and launching into a diatribe about how all half Asian half white women recklessly abuse semicolons, so I finally read the book. Insert ALL THE SWEAR WORDS here.

It was too perfect, too much of a cosmic coincidence—the church I had left because of an abusive relationship had hired a pastor who preached an abusive ideology.

Why?

On the one hand, I mean, it kind of makes sense. The Christian church has long had a misogyny problem and Christian men are probably just as likely to be abusive as anyone else. I realize, counter-intuitively, that not even my ex-boyfriend's misogyny was "personal"—he likely views all women the same way, not just me—I wasn't the only "bitch," after all.

On the other hand, it makes no sense at all because this is f***ing 2016 and I live in Los Angeles, California. This is the same church that regularly had a woman—yes, someone with ovaries—preaching from the pulpit (much to the chagrin of some members of the congregation). This is the young, hip, hipster church filled with artists, musicians, actors, writers. This is MY church...was my church. How could this happen?

Think about it: this pastor is leading couples who are dating or engaged through the book "Love and Respect." Dating—they're just dating and already they're being inculcated into these ideas of "what marriage should be" and "what male/female relationships should look like" and "how wives should appropriately (and unconditionally!) respect their husbands."

Young women are already learning that they should continue to "respect" the men who abuse or betray them, that they should lower their expectations for intimacy and equality, that they are especially culpable for any current or future problems in the relationship—and all this presented as the biblical secret to a good marriage.

Meanwhile, young men are taught that they are entitled to unconditional respect from their girlfriends.*

Yeah, I would say that makes me pretty angry.

Love and Respect is a Religion

And it's like, of course—of course this pastor doesn't just like the book "Love and Respect," he lives and breathes it—because that's how these kinds of ideologies function. You don't just read the book and go, "Hmm, that was good."

You buy the DVD teaching series. You infuse an unsettling power dynamic with casually sexist yet charming jokes and anecdotes from your own marriage. You lead seminars on its principles. You directly quote its ideas and concepts in your sermons without citing your source, implying that this is straight from scripture. You lead multiple book studies. You are one step away from buying special underwear with the Love and Respect logo.*

That's the thing about "Love and Respect." It's counter-intuitive—it has the quality of a "special revelation" given straight to prophet Emerson Eggerichs—this "truth hidden in plain sight" that God chose to reveal, but only to him!

Joy Eggerich (daughter of Emerson) writes in her blog about the concept of unconditional respect: "This was something I struggled with for years as my father was unpacking the powerful truth of respect for me."

"Struggled with"

"for YEARS" (emphasis mine)

And she's HIS DAUGHTER

If you read Joy's blog, you can tell that she's a fairly intelligent person—and yet she struggled with this concept for years? Bullsh**.

This is just one example of women twisting themselves into painful hermeneutical, political, and emotional positions in order to obey God's "command" to demonstrate "respect."

I can certainly understand how someone like Joy might end up in this position—she would have to basically renounce her entire family, risking their disapproval and rejection, in order to break out of the system. So she buys in, 100%—at one point even dating a man who uses her own father's concept of "respect" to cow her into submission.

Love and Respect takes the questionably biblical prescription for female subjugation and male dominance and places it on par with the gospel of Christianity.

Biking My Way to Freedom

I don't know how other people find the strength to leave an abusive relationship, but my moment happened on my bike, pedaling through the streets of Los Angeles on my way home.

I was crying, a total and complete mess. But as my entire body strained against the resistance of the pedals, something broke through the pain and the grief, overwhelming me—

It was a single word: No

That's what I feel now when I think about misogyny and the church. My church. My former church.

No. Just no.

This is not a polite, "No thank you, I would not like any misogyny with my Christianity." This is a declaration, a boundary line, a scream.

No.











*You could argue that the gender roles within Love and Respect are only meant to apply to heterosexual married couples, but in Christian culture, dating is meant as preparation for marriage, so dating relationships should mirror the eventual marriage relationship. Furthermore, you are communicating that in the most significant and central relationship of her life, a woman must always operate in a one-down position. Tell me this doesn't influence her other relationships with men. 

*Things that I know happened and are not just hypothetical: No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No.

Undateable: Why Single Christian Guys Are All Dented Cans - Anger

I've written about anger in this series before--in the entry on Entitlement and in the entry on Cowardice. In fact, if I've written about anger in every entry in this series, I wouldn't be surprised in the least.

Photo by Ferran Jordà

This is not about a normal, everyday kind of anger. Anger--the kind of anger I'm talking about--is tightly wound up with entitlement and an underlying sense of victimization:

Victimization: I have been injured.
Entitlement: I have a right to be angry.
Unspoken Assumption: I have the right to enact revenge and/or even the score.

This kind of anger feels dangerous, because it is so deeply rooted in a sense of righteous justification.

Instead of calling it "anger," it might be more accurate to refer to it as bitterness, resentment, or rage--an anger cherished, nurtured, held close.

I'm writing about anger not just because I drew it out of the jar as a writing topic (which I did), but because--

Anger is my Achilles' heel.

If you want something from me, try getting angry. I might just crack.

For whatever reason (maybe getting yelled at as a kid, I dunno), anger has an unpleasant effect on me: My throat tightens. I get quiet. I go numb.

I've learned that anger can be a form of manipulation and control. And it works. I can't think of a single abusive dynamic that I've been a part of that hasn't involved this kind of anger.

One guy I worked with would yell at me, then get even angrier when I responded neutrally instead of emotionally.

He would consistently tell me about how angry yet another guy was with me (triangulation).

This happened again in another situation, where one dude capitalized on the anger of another dude to overcome a break in our relationship (bonus points if it's someone in a position of power, authority, or influence):

"___ is very angry with you. You need to do something. I can help you fix it."

Essentially, Dude A used fear of authority, specifically fear sparked by someone in authority (Dude B) being angry with me, to get what he wanted.

I mean, it worked--maybe a little too well: I soon after entered into an abusive dynamic with Dude B, a dynamic centered around anger, fear and control. It felt a little too much like being handed from one abuser to another.

That was last year. This year, I found myself once again sitting across from one man telling me that another man was "very angry with me." I find this funny (rule of 3; first time tragedy, second time farce). If you find yourself in a conversation where one person is earnestly telling you that another person is angry with you, and what are you going to do about it, I can say with certainty that something is wrong.

But I digress. Achilles' heel.

This is about anger and Christian guys and being undateable.

I had an epiphany once, while working on this series: "Christian men don't actually respect women." And then that thought kept me up all night the way that 3am thoughts sometimes do.

I think there's some truth to it: some men and some Christian men do not see women as equals. They do not see women as fully human. And it's hard to respect someone unless you view them as fully human.

I've heard from a reliable source that "anger is a gateway emotion." If we think about shame as the root of this kind of anger (abusive anger), a disproportionate response to perceived slights* makes a lot of sense:

How would you feel if something not quite a person (that you don't regard as an equal) made you feel completely worthless? Especially when everything you believe about yourself and everything society encourages you to believe tells you that you are superior, the genuine article, the real thing?

It would be incredibly enraging. The balance must be restored. Someone or something must pay. Shame is an unbearable emotion, and it must be displaced onto the body of another.

In this case, violence is just settling the score, evening the debt, restoring the equilibrium.

Where does the shame go?

I've written before about how the burden of shame accrues to women. Even the way we talk about and think about anger contributes to this burden. Anger more than almost any other emotion is seen as "out of control" or "out of my control," serving as a justification for violence.

The less that men are "in control" of their own emotions or passions, the more women are responsible for the outcome of those emotions.

This is not to blame shame for the abusive anger of men--rather, the underlying belief that men are more valuable than women, more human than women, more entitled to respect, dignity, rights, justice, power, autonomy, etc.

Yes, I blame misogyny. I blame Christian teachings that emphasize complementarian gender roles. I believe that a system that enforces rigid, narrowly defined gender roles enables and encourages the abuse of women.

As men displace their shame onto women, they feel better, while women feel worse. Messages from our culture that implicate women in their own victimization serve to reinforce this sense of reverse responsibility: You are the one at fault. You caused your own abuse. You caused your own assault. You were not hyper-vigilant enough.

I suspect that just as men cannot heal the shame of women, women cannot heal the shame of men. And women are definitely not responsible for the underlying misogyny of men's anger.

Another important point: Submission to this type of anger is a bad idea. For so long I bought into a conception of Christian reconciliation that entailed submitting passively to unhealthy and abusive anger. I thought that by demonstrating humility I could heal the relationship and reestablish equilibrium. I even apologized to my very first abuser for treating him poorly (not listening to him, not respecting him). Not even joking.

For one, it doesn't work. It can even intensify the abuse. For another, there is nothing Christian or holy about submitting to dehumanizing behavior. Any theology, church, person who tells you otherwise is selling you an abusive crock of ****.








*I owe this idea to a discussion of Roy Baumeister's writing about abuse at WenatcheeTheHatchet. While I don't agree with Wenatchee's interpretation, I did find Baumeister's ideas about men's rationalizations for domestic violence helpful.

Undateable: Why Single Christian Guys are All Dented Cans: Entitlement

I went back to the beginning recently, and read about the misogynist, the coward, the racist, and the guy who won't take "No" for an answer.

And I found it striking. Partially because a few things have happened:

1. I stopped going to church.
2. I'm not sure I want to date Christian guys anymore.
3. I encountered more than one man who is a husband, father and believer in Jesus Christ, and also spouts Red Pill Reddit language and rhetoric.

This last one, if I'm honest, leaves me feeling heartbroken and confused--I feel betrayed, somehow.

And that sort of leads me to today's topic, entitlement.

"Entitlement" feels like a hot button word that gets thrown around a lot, particularly in articles about Millenials and the job market. But what does "entitlement" mean in the context that I am writing about?

I turned to Google to find out what exactly people feel entitled to. The results were predictable and a bit dull--the short version is that people feel entitled to government benefits, such as:

Entitlement to medicare
Entitlement to social security
Entitlement to paternity leave
Entitlement to bank holidays

And the puzzling:

Entitlement to kill a mockingbird

My two favorite things to be entitled to:

Entitlement to wear kilt
Entitlement to tea breaks

Photo by George Redgrave

Sam Heughan in "Outlander" on Starz

Yes. One thousand and one times yes.

[Why has no one made a calendar of attractive, possibly shirtless men in kilts drinking tea? I would buy the hell out of that calendar.]

So here's my unofficial definition of entitlement:

Entitlement is an unwritten, unquestioned and often unconscious law held to be inviolable and true, so that when the law is broken, the entitled person is justifiably angry, hurt, and vengeance-seeking.

[And its converse: Entitlement is an unwritten, unquestioned and often unconscious law held to be inviolable and true, so that when the law is upheld or enforced, the "victim" of the entitled person cannot justifiably be angry, hurt, or vengeance-seeking.]

I feel like entitlement, taking the posture and role of the victim, and not taking "No" for an answer are all tangled up together.

You learn the unspoken rules of a relationship, sometimes when it is in the process of ending, often after it has already ended. In one of my relationships, the unspoken rule was: You are not allowed to leave.

Entitlement is the unspoken law that leads to violence.

You see, I don't think anger, or the pain at the heart of anger, causes violence. There's another step there, another component--

The man doesn't kick the dog because the boss yelled at him. The man kicks the dog because he believes he has the right.

Let me give a simple, everyday example:

The law: A woman must always graciously and without rancor accept a compliment from a man. [Especially if he is a stranger]

It's funny, really. It's violence wrapped up in "You're beautiful." And what's even funnier is that the violation of this law is already presumed, the compliment followed immediately with, "I can give you a compliment" or "That's a compliment you know," before the woman even has time to react--the hatred trailing so closely on the heels of love.

And it's not just strangers.

I've thought a lot about the disparate rage that men have directed at me--from the first emotionally abusive relationship I had in my early 20s, to more recent experiences. I think about a story that a friend once told me.

He was a friend of the family. And he had a crush on her, despite an age difference of some 20 years (she was in college, he was in his 40s or 50s). He was giving her a ride, but she had brought a friend along--probably for safety.

And for whatever reason, he was angry with her. Angry because she brought a friend. Angry because this wasn't going according to plan. Angry because she didn't reciprocate his feelings. Angry.

And he threw acorns at her.

In the scene I imagine, there is nothing playful about it. He is looking down, not making eye contact. Scuffing his shoes against the dirt. Casually picking up an acorn. Half-heartedly throwing it. The petulant anger of a 10 year-old in the body of a middle-aged man.

There's another guy that I know. And he's one of the good ones. But I was recently struck anew by the memory of something he once said about my writing. I was struck by how passive-aggressive it was, this single comment. Rage, buried deep.

I laughed it off, initially. "He's just intimidated," I thought.

It's always just some guy. Throwing acorns.

I have no desire to date an acorn-thrower. But if even the good guys are like that--I don't know. It breaks something open inside of me.

I wonder if entitlement is at the heart of misogyny--these unspoken laws:

"You don't respect me": You must respect me
"You don't give a s*** about my intentions": You must give me the benefit of the doubt at all times, and forever.

It's not anger. Because anger doesn't cause abuse. It's not pain. Because there are many, many men (and women) who experience intense, searing, heart-rending pain and yet fail to abuse anyone.

It's not that they rage--it's that they feel justified in their cruelty.

I'm trying to avoid dating abusive guys.

Women, Men & Mixed Messages

Photo by John Wiley 

So, I came across this quote on a guy's online dating profile. Although there was no attribution, I instantly knew where it came from: the infamous "Sexodus" article that inspired this response.

This same gentleman states in his profile: "I believe in gender equality, feminists need not apply"--which is hilarious in its own right. 

But I am not here to make fun of some random guy on the internet (okay, maybe just a little bit). I am here to dissect this passage of text, because I was an English major and that's what you do.

Besides, I'm fascinated by what provoked a guy to quote it at length on his online dating profile.

Surely, there must be something here--something compelling that resembles an actual thought. Because at first glance, I'm feeling a bit dubious. 

Here's the quote, presented completely out of context because that is how I found it: 

"Women have been sending men mixed messages for the last few decades, leaving boys utterly confused about what they are supposed to represent to women, which perhaps explains the strong language some of them use when describing their situation. As the role of breadwinner has been taken away from them by women who earn more and do better in school, men are left to intuit what to do, trying to find a virtuous mean between what women say they want and what they actually pursue, which can be very different things."

"Women" - Who are these women? Do women represent some monolithic entity that speaks and acts as one, has a unified message and point of view, perhaps holds secret, underground meetings about the mixed messages they plan on sending men to keep them confused and under gynocentric control? [If you are part of this underground society, please email me. I bet you guys have awesome snacks.]

"Men" - Also presumably a monolithic entity representing all male humans.

"Mixed messages" - I'm so intrigued. What are these mixed messages and how can I start sending them. Seriously feeling out of the loop here. Was it that time I contradicted myself and said I like Coke better than Pepsi? Sorry about that.

"The last few decades" - I feel like the timeline here is a bit vague: So...starting in roughly the year 1985, women started sending men mixed messages:

Man: What do you want to eat?
Woman: Italian. No, Chinese. No, Korean BBQ. No...I take that back, Italian.
Man: God, Woman, make up your mind!!!

I could see how this would be frustrating, but unless there is a memo out there from "All Women" to "All Men," I'm not sure how the author can prove this multi-decade mixed-message sending conspiracy. I've been alive for at least some of this time period, I think, so I'm also wondering at what point I began sending mixed messages to men. I doubt it was when I was born, though I suppose my birth could have been sending out some kind of message.

Just trying to assess my role in the damage here--especially since, as a feminist, this is probably all my fault.

[Side note: If a guy texts me "Sup" and I answer "Not much" is that considered a mixed message? Asking for a friend.]

"...leaving boys utterly confused..." - Wait a minute--I thought we were talking about men here, but now we've somehow reverted to boys--who I am sure spend at least 80% of their waking hours thinking about those insidious mixed messages women seem to be sending them. You're right, this does seem wrong.

"...about what they are supposed to represent to women" - Now, I don't mean to be insulting, but I spend exactly zero seconds of my time thinking about what I am supposed to represent to men. In fact, I spend the same amount of time thinking about what I am supposed to represent to anyone.

Huh. I'm starting to see why women have all the power. If boys/men are spending that much time contemplating what they are supposed to represent to women (A partner? A sperm bank? A guy on the street? A father? A brother?), then maybe men are ultimately subservient to women.

"Strong language" - I think you mean misogynistic language.

Those mixed messages I've been sending make it totally okay for boys/men to call me a "castrating bitch." I get you. Is it the fact that I made more money than you last year? Please don't hate me.

"Role of breadwinner" - Men don't automatically inherit this role because they are men. Yeah, I guess that could be confusing.

"...taken away from them" - Wow, those feminist assholes. How dare they earn more than men do. I think women should earn less by default, then maybe those poor boys will stop being so confused by the mixed messages.

"...by women who earn more and do better in school" - Since these are the only two metrics of comparison that matter, I can see why men would be upset. Someone is better than you at something, and that someone is a woman. Unacceptable!

"Men..." - Oh. We're back to men now. What happened to the boys?

"...are left to intuit what to do" - Intuition is hard. I guess before this shift in power relations the men's monolith simply issued a manual on how to be a man, and things like shifting gender dynamics and evil mixed messages were a thing of the future. Times really have changed.

"...trying to find a virtuous mean..." - Shoutout to Aristotle! I like it.

"...between what women say they want..." - There I go again--missing the semiannual gathering of all women during which we discuss what we want and then tweet about it to the male masses.

"...and what they actually pursue..." - I'm a little bit lost here as to how all women pursue the exact same things. I mean, I could be wrong here, but it seems like not every woman has the exact same goal in every situation. I mean, have you talked to any women lately? No? That's what I thought.

"...which can be very different things." - Women! They're contradictory! Unlike men who always say and do the exact same thing. None of those confusing mixed messages.

Damn. That was disappointing. I thought I would learn something about how people I disagree with think thoughts, but instead I feel like I was hit over the head with a frying pan. There's less than a thought here. There are -18 thoughts.

And yet someone, somewhere is nodding their head vigorously in agreement about women and their mixed messages.

So here's an anti-mixed-message:

That quote was stupid as ****.

If the above message was too mixed for you, please contact me and I will endeavor to make it less mixed, perhaps by doing some skywriting.

Have a good one.

Undateable: Why Single Christian Guys are All Dented Cans - The Myth of Persistence

Photo by quinn.anya

So I've started doing this thing where I'm completely honest with men. Why?

Well, for one, it amuses me and my dark sense of humor. I get to say fun things like:

"I'm not interested in pursuing anything romantic with you."
"Hitting on one person on the fb status of another person is kind of a douche move."
"You fondled my earring at a BBQ and it made feel uncomfortable and disrespected."
"When you grabbed me from behind around my ribs directly under my breasts [yeah, that happened], I felt unsafe and violated."

Yep. That's right. Just waiting for the marriage proposals to roll on in.

For another, I'm done protecting a man's feelings at the expense of my own personal safety.

And that brings me to the topic for today in dented cans: THE MYTH OF PERSISTENCE. And yes, it definitely deserves to be in all caps.

There's this weirdly longstanding myth out there that women want men who will continue to pursue them even in the face of blatant rejection (see also, "The Notebook").

You say, "I just want to be friends."
He hears, "I just want to be friends until I change my mind and decide we should definitely get married and have five kids."

You say, "I'm not interested in you in that way."
He hears, "I'm not interested in you in that way, but you should definitely grab me and try to kiss me."

You say, "I like someone else."
He hears, "He's probably a douche-bag--so you still have a shot!"

To the men that believe this myth, "No, I'm not interested" means "Try harder. You're not trying hard enough. Persist long enough and I will say 'Yes.'"

Except it doesn't mean that.

No--when you persist in pursuing me after I have made my feelings clear, I can only assume that there is something wrong with you either emotionally or mentally. And the last thing in the world that I desire is to have an emotionally or mentally unstable man pursuing me, or worse, believing that I owe him something--a date, friendship, my time, a second chance.

In short, when a man will not take "No" for an answer, all my self-preservation instincts kick in, and all I want is for him to stay the **** away from me.

I feel fear and anger.

Fear--because if this man apparently can't understand or chooses not to understand the words that I use to communicate (perhaps if I did an interpretive dance?), who's to say what other boundaries of mine he won't violate due to this "misunderstanding"? If he has already violated my verbal boundaries and made me feel unsafe, there are still other boundaries he has yet to cross: emotional, spiritual, mental, physical.

But truthfully, I have trouble understanding the level of pure terror I feel when a man refuses to take "No" for an answer.

My best guess is that this is a dehumanizing experience--I am not a person to these men. I am the projection of all of their baggage about women. I "owe" him something--my body, my "Yes," a chance for him to prove that he is the man of my dreams and we are meant to be together-- In short, I cannot give consent because I am not fully human. His pursuit has very little do with me, and so much to do with the fantasy world he has created in his mind: A world in which I should say, "Yes."

At a certain point this fantasy becomes far more important than my humanity. And that is terrifying (cue visions of being chained up in a dungeon somewhere by a man who "just wants to love me," and is willing to wait as long as it takes for me to realize that).

My guess is that many men fail to understand this as well--they have never experienced fear for their personal safety in the context of romantic relationships, partially because women are not encouraged to pursue in the face of rejection, in fact, quite the opposite. Any romantic rejection is humiliating and shameful.

And what about "Not Leading Him On," that crime that women seem to be accused of at a substantially higher rate than men? Why do women so often take the path of least resistance, trying to "let him down easy." It goes back to fear, again. Women have been taught that saying "No" is not only rude, but also dangerous.

A stranger came up to me in the 99 cent store and told me that I was "beautiful." He followed this up immediately with, "That's a compliment you know."

Of course, I enjoy compliments most when they are followed by vaguely hostile or threatening statements. I also enjoy being put in a situation in a public space where I am expected to thank a stranger for harassing me or be subjected to the accusation of "ungrateful b___ who can't take a compliment."

Unfortunately for me, as a woman, I fear for my physical safety. Therefore, I try not to engage with men in an aggressive or potentially escalating manner.

The same goes for turning down men who are romantically interested in me--but as it turns out, it matters very little what I say:

I've had different Christian guys: Corner me in a car and demand repeatedly that I go out on a date with him, then text me to apologize and tell me that he really "respects" me; Tell me my job is on the line unless I let him back into my life (as a friend, of course); Ignore my request to be "just friends" by grabbing me and dipping me for a kiss, all while citing the scene in "Hitch" when Will Smith and Kevin James accidentally make out ("You lean in half way, then wait for her to go the other half").

Then there's the anger--yeah, being seen as not quite human kind of pisses me off. And there's the icky, would rather not think about it, idea that my biracial, "exotic" looks only contribute to the extent to which men are able to project their own fantasies onto my very real, non-white (but still human!) body.

The intersection between race and perceived sexual availability is a fraught one at best--but whether it applies here or not, let me just say:

I don't want to be touched, grabbed, or groped in public by men I don't know.
If I say I don't want to date you, I mean exactly that, and I don't care to repeat myself.
I am in no way obligated to explain to you why I am not interested. I owe you no justification whatsoever.
If you won't take "No" for answer, consider yourself banned from my life.

So why is it that Christian men are so horrible at grasping the concept of women as fully human?

The word "consent" is quite the buzzword these days, but I believe there are many Christian men who do not grasp the concept:

Consent (or if you prefer, "Respect") isn't just about sex. It's about respecting the boundaries of another human being--seeing them as fully human--in every single interaction, romantic or not.

There are certain things that "Nice" Christian guys tend to believe or say that are inconsistent with consent:

One, believing that if you go to the trouble of asking a girl out, she should say, "Yes," just because you took a risk and put yourself out there.

Two, if you ask a girl out and she says, "Yes" even though she is not ultimately interested, then she is leading you on.

Three, you are a "Good Christian Man" but every girl you ask out says, "No," meaning that there is something wrong with them, not you. You are a victim of feminism, shallow female whims, or unfair discrimination.

Four, if a girl says "No" before the first date or after five dates, you deserve a full, complete, and honest explanation as to why.

Five, women don't actually know what they want. They read romance novels and "Fifty Shades of Grey" and then complain that they don't want to be raped, beaten, sexually harassed, or coerced into sex. What gives?

One and two are obviously contradictory, but I have heard both. Trying to control whether or not someone says "Yes" or "No" to a date is contrary to the idea of consent--and trying to control a person's motivations in general feels fishy.

For three and four, being rejected sucks, obviously. But believing that someone else is "wrong" for rejecting you or that the the entire female population is delusional because they are not romantically interested in you is also contrary to the idea of consent--particularly to the idea that a woman should be able to choose to date or not date someone for any reason. Yes, any reason, even one you think is shallow or stupid.

Also contrary to consent is manipulating a person into unwanted contact of any kind.

For five--well, perhaps that is the subject of another blog post, but it boggles the mind that women are still not allowed to be complex or contradictory beings with a freedom of choice and personal autonomy that transcends one particular sexual fantasy or choice of reading material. "Women don't know what they want" seems highly correlated with the myth of persistence--"Women don't know what they want" but "I (a man) know what they should want." Gross.

In conclusion, if a guy will not take "No" for an answer he is, in my opinion, undateable.

Up next in the Dented Cans series, a post on entitlement.

F*** A Nerd: A Solution to the "Sexodus" Crisis

Ladies, there is a crisis in the land: Cowed and oppressed by the forces of radical feminism, heterosexual men everywhere are checking out of the dating scene and checking into video games and online porn. You might have heard about this crisis, this "Sexodus." It is a terrible, terrible scourge of biblical proportions (the 11th plague) afflicting women everywhere.

But luckily I have come up with a solution:

F*** a nerd.

Find the most pathetic specimen of masculinity possible. The more he loathes himself, the better. The longer he hasn't showered, the more he needs the redemption that only your body can provide. He lives in his mom's basement and watches online porn for 12 hours a day? Perfect.

Throw away those unrealistic and cruel expectations for men manufactured by feminism and romantic comedies. You say you want a man who will treat you with respect, and yet you read "50 Shades of Grey." Twice. Clearly, you don't know what you want.

Plus, you think you're so hot. Well, let me tell you, your expectations are way, way too high. Are you Jennifer Lawrence, Taylor Swift, or Beyonce? No? Then you are fugly at best. However, your female privilege has convinced you that you are all that, two Coach purses, and 54 pairs of shoes. You think you can get a "hot guy" with a job to commit to you. Good luck with that. 

Remember: You can always be replaced with porn and video games. Porn doesn't file false harassment charges. Porn doesn't nag at you to empty the dishwasher or get a job. Porn doesn't say "No" when it means "Yes." Porn doesn't only have sex with assholes. Porn doesn't smile at you one day and put you in the "friend zone" the next. Porn doesn't fight back. Chew on that.

Ladies, if you have sex with a nerd, he might just start to overcome the years of rejection and oppression he has experienced at the hands of our female-dominated society. Sure, he knows he really deserves a supermodel and the six figure job you got just because you are female, but the consolation prize of your subpar body will have to do for now.

Really, it's for the good of humanity, the continuation of the species, and a peaceful resolution to the war on men that's being raged in America.

If we are to end this crisis, drastic measures must be taken. So here's my advice:

Stop trying to get ahead at work. Turn down that promotion. You don't need that promotion. A man needs that promotion.

Stop being good at school [a female-created institution designed to make men feel incompetent and insecure].

Stop volunteering to lead at church. You don't need that leadership position. A man needs that leadership position. If a man stops coming to church, it's your fault for taking the leadership role that was rightfully his.

Stop having expectations for the men you sleep with. It's enough that he condescended to sleep with you in the first place, when he could have been playing Minecraft.

Stop complaining about sexual assault, sexual harassment, and sexism. Men are tired of hearing about it. You are only perpetuating the feminist myth that all men are rapists and pigs. Men will assume that asking you on a date will get them charged with assault.

Stop sending mixed messages. Either you want a real man who forcibly takes what he wants or you want a passive nice guy who treats you as an equal but never makes a move. You can't have both.

Women: the choice is simple. If you don't "lean back" and spread your legs, unemployed men drowning in self-pity who have given up on any semblance of personal hygiene are going to refuse to have sex with you.

Do you want to die single and alone? I didn't think so. Get out there, and start f***** as many undesirable and unattractive men as you possibly can. If you're lucky, one of them might even agree to marry you.

But don't count on it.


Inspirations:
Lysistrata by Eurpides
Matt Walsh
Article about the "Sexodus"

What side should you hug a girl, dating women at church, and how to hit on girls with a facebook status

More advice from Google searches below. I'm kind of starting to sense a theme here...

"what side you should hug a girl" 

Okay. This sounds like a personal question. But may I suggest hugging the side that is facing you, unless that side is her backside. Hugging from behind is not recommended unless you are already in a relationship. 

As for which side is better to hug, the left or the right, I can't really say that I have a preference. I'm right-handed, so I guess it's more natural for me to side-hug with my right arm. 

Perhaps you can observe the girl in question for a few minutes to see whether she's right or left-handed, then go in for the kill, er, I mean side hug. 

"a lot side hugs from a guy at church" 

Hmm. This is perplexing. Is this guy chasing you around the foyer giving you lots and lots of side hugs? That's kind of creepy. Especially if he's alternating sides. *shudder*

Or is he just giving a friendly, Christian, brotherly hug every time he sees you? 

I'm guessing this is one of two things. 

1. A guy at church is side-hugging you a lot. You do not like him and it's making you uncomfortable. 

2. A guy at church is side-hugging you a lot. You sort of kind of like him and you especially like his hugs (maybe a little too much). You want to know if there's something more than brotherly affection going on here. 

If it's #1, simple, don't hug him. I don't care how nice he is, or how Christian you are, no one should be side-hugged without their consent. Period. 

If it's #2, observe how he interacts with other women. Does he promiscuously side-hug women left and right? Is he just a really friendly, sincere kind of guy? 

Maybe it's nothing. 

I say keep hugging him (and maybe a few other guys too). The bigger your sample size, the better you'll be able to tell "It's so good to see you, person I only feel platonically for!" from "Maybe some day we can take this side hug a little bit further but not too far because that would cheating on our future spouses unless you are my future spouse in which case how do you feel about full-frontal hugging before marriage?" 

"how to hit on girls with a facebook status"

This is a new one. Are we talking hitting on one girl or a bunch of girls at once? 

Let's hope it's just one girl. Here's what I would do: 

Tag her in a status update that either A) Lightly teases her for something funny she did, or B) Challenges her to a friendly and fun competition, or C) Both.

The key here is to keep it light and low-pressure. Think good-natured teasing or something harmless you can be competitive about (progressively squee-worthy pictures of baby animals?).

"dating a guy with no qualifications" 

What kinds of qualifications are we talking about? How's his side-hug technique? 

"dating women at church" 

If you want to date women at church, or if you want to attend church solely to date women, here's what I would do: 

1. Show up.
2. Be attractive or have a good personality or both.

3. Ask a woman out. 

That's all I've got. Best of luck to all you huggers and daters out there. 

Hey Ladies -- Ask For More Than What You Want [Especially When It Comes to Money]

Hey ladies [that sounds condescending but there are no sufficient alternative word choices], ask for more than what you want. Especially when it comes to money.

I know money is this weird, awkward thing that makes you uncomfortable (or is that just me?), but learning to ask for a fair rate will help you avoid other weird, awkward conversations in the future, like the one where you're sobbing on the phone to your mom that your coworker (who does the exact same job you do) is making escargot to your beans on toast.

Scenario #1 - Sophomore year of college, I'm applying to a summer program in LA called Act One. I apply for a summer grant through my college to pay for the program. Max awarded to each student is $5,000. I do the math and ask for $3,850. Why? Because I'm stupid, that's why. Guess how much they gave me.

Scenario #2 - I'm offered a job as a production coordinator on a music video. The producer offers me a weekly rate of $400 over the phone. My response: "Cool, that sounds great." Well, actually, that was his starting offer. But instead of negotiating, I accepted the first number I heard. Guess how much I got paid.

Moral of the story: ask for more money. In fact, go ahead and ask for more than what you tell yourself you would be happy with.

In fact, you can use the handy 30% rule that I just made up. Take a second and think about what you want. Then ask for 30% more than the number that just popped into your head. 

Let's put this into practice.

Say you want a raise. You currently make $10 per hour. You feel you would be happy making $13 per hour. Ask for $17.

Say you are raising money on Kickstarter to make a short film. You estimate the budget as $5,000. Ask for $6,500.

Say you apply for a temporary gig as a dog walker and are offered a flat weekly rate of $300. Ask for $390, then let them bargain you down.

Now there's a good point--you can always accept less than what you initially ask for. However, it's difficult to roll back time and ask for more.

Reasons we don't ask for more than what we want:

1 - Avoiding disappointment

Manage your expectations. Don't let your expectations manage you. Yes, they might say no. But what are you going to do if that happens? Implode? Doubtful.

2 - Scarce resources

There's not enough to go around as it is, and you don't want to steal food off of Bob's table. But don't worry about Bob. Bob's table is Bob's table. Your table is your table and which would you rather have, slow-cooked pot roast or meat from a can?

3 - I don't deserve more

I know there's been much talk lately about millennials and something called "entitlement," but in my limited experience, women tend to sell themselves short, both in terms of ambition (give me this much money) and their own abilities (you should hire me because...).

4 - Fear of being "not nice"

Money-grubbing, demanding, difficult to work with--insert your own unsavory adjective here. There's nothing wrong with asking nicely. In fact, I recommend it. But ask. Do it.

You could even take this a step further and apply it to your personal relationships.

A guy asks you to hang out with him and his buddies, but you really want to go on a date.

"Hey [random dude's name]. I appreciate that you asked me to hang out, but I really want to hang out with someone 30% hotter than you."

Or

"Hey, I think you're great and I really want you to ask me out on a date."

Or 

"Would you like to go out sometime?"

Now go -- share this blog post on your facebook wall. 

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you."

"That's Not Cool, Bro": Homosociality, Objectification and the Uses of Social Media in Rape Culture

I've been contemplating writing this for a while now. This is the "nice" version, believe it or not. The hide yo' wife, hide yo' kids, hide yo' husbands version is in the works.

Upfront disclaimer: I'm going to talk about rape. And feminism. And Twitter.

Maybe you've heard about the Steubenville, Ohio rape case. Maybe you haven't. You can read about it here or here, but if you don't care to, a few facts about what allegedly took place:

1. Two high school football players sexually assaulted a girl at a party.
2. Many other people were present.
3. Some of these other students / partygoers posted to YouTube or Twitter about the rape.
4. They expressed positive and/or approving thoughts and feelings about the rape [There's a YouTube video of a guy talking and laughing about it].

Now, I think you and I have at least a little bit of difficulty getting into the headspace of a rapist. We probably also have a problem getting into the headspace of anyone who would think of rape as a good thing.

Nevertheless, these people and these reactions exist, so let's think about it for a minute. Okay, more than a minute:

Why would someone think that rape is funny?

There's a lack of identification. There's a lack of empathy. There is perhaps a sense that the victim of rape deserves to be raped.

Then, think about the dynamics of two intersecting phenomena: homosocial approval and social media.

What is homosocial approval?

For the purposes of this blog, homosocial approval is explicit or implicit social approval from other dudes. In the case of Steubenville, this could be an over-identification with football, with high school social status, and with the approval that comes from other guys when you boast about your sexual conquests.

Of course, homosocial approval is not always negative. It can be very positive. But when combined with sexual violence and social media, it becomes something else entirely. See also this incident in which two high school boys took pictures of a girl as they assaulted her (because what's a sexual assault unless you can show pics to your friends later, amiright?).

Like most of us, I have borderline racist and misogynistic friends and/or acquaintances. [I'm sorry, is that harsh? You know what I'm talking about, though. Maybe it's because I have a lot of Christian friends (low blow).]

And the friendly misogynist-next-door--he's unlikely to ever rape anyone. However, he does continue to perpetuate the idea that women are objects. Or, that a woman's primary value is in how she looks. Or that she's fair game as long as she's legal. Or that a woman is responsible for a man's behavior. And that, my friend, is destructive.

I started writing this with a question: How do my male friends respond when their friend says something borderline racist/misogynistic? Does it bother him? Does he say something? Does he shrug it off? Does he laugh nervously?

I guess that was actually a series of questions.

I'm asking you, hypothetical guy friend, to do one thing: withhold your approval. Don't agree. Don't fist bump. Don't retweet. Don't hit "like."

Maybe the phrase "rape culture" makes you mad--because you believe that there is no such thing. That it's a phrase coined by feminists to victimize men. Fine. Forget that phrase. Call it whatever you want. Call it dude-thinks-rape-is-super-funny-in-youtube-video culture. I don't care.

And what about me? I'm female. Guys are supposed to be trying to impress me. Doesn't my approval or lack thereof count too?

It doesn't. Not in the same way. I'm not the target audience here. You try lecturing a guy on manners after he calls you a bitch for turning him down. Or giving a crash course on sexual harassment to the gentleman, and I use that term loosely, who won't take "No" for an answer. It's not gonna happen.

He doesn't care what I think. That crude joke was not for my benefit. It was for you. Not me.

So hey bro, dude, man, whatever. Do me a favor and don't laugh.

It's not that funny, anyway.

The 7 Deadly Sins of Being a Woman

So, church today got me thinking about the ways that we gender things like sin, sex, shame, anger, evangelism, and emotional needs. It got me wondering--do churches split men and women into gender specific groups so we can talk about the differing sins that plague each gender? How do we tend to gender certain sins?

Lust

Sex, as we all know, is for men, and thus only men struggle with lust. Women never struggle with their sexual desires. They just want to be loved unconditionally, like that movie "The Vow" (or was it "Pretty Woman"?) No further comment needed here. Moving on.

Gluttony

I don't know about you, but I feel like Los Angeles has this weird relationship to food, eating, diet, and exercise. As a city, we're probably bulimic, anorexic, and addicted to exercise. On a good day. Now, far be it from me to look down upon healthy eating (not my fav) and exercise (not my fav either). But I feel like extreme dieting and exercising are like gluttony's prettier, skinnier cousin. In our culture, things like weight loss and being skinny are heavily geared toward women. There's a lot of shame involved. See also, envy.

Greed

Ah, the gold-digging stereotype--it lives on, it thrives even. Though I suppose now that many women are making more money than their spouses, men will start being objectified only for their good looks and hot bodies. On another level, it seems like women are constantly accused of having unreasonable expectations--of men, of marriage, of sharing housework, of having it all. It's not so much the injunction to "settle" as it is anger that women might have these kinds of expectations in the first place.

Sloth

If anything, Sloth is a guy. A guy who plays XBox all night and works at Dairy Queen. Women are really falling behind on this one. They're going to have to work super hard to even think of achieving parity.

Wrath

Recently, I read an article on Relevant Magazine entitled "When I'm Bad at Being a Woman." The article didn't seem to be about being a woman at all--but rather about anger, disappointment, getting credit for your work, and basing your value in God. As I tried to suggest in the comments, the title betrays the underlying assumption that getting angry makes you a bad woman (Hey kids! Close reading--it's not just for English majors!) I think with women and getting angry, there's always the fear of being the shrew--the B-word. But anger, man oh man is that a real emotion, and if anything, I wish I expressed it (rather than holding it in) more than I do. Because anger is so much better than resentment and bitterness.

Envy

Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Women are notorious for constantly comparing themselves to other women, favorably or unfavorably. Of course, our culture doesn't contribute to this at all. Of course, I'm being sarcastic. Here's the thing about women, especially women at church--they are the nicest, most accepting people EVER. But that envy stuff is real.

The only gender-specificity I can really see here is that men are not under the same pressure to compare their appearance to that of other men. I could be wrong.

Pride

I sometimes think that one of the worst things a woman can be is arrogant (to those that think she's arrogant). I'm not saying men get a free pass on this one, either. There's just this desire to take her down a peg or two. I should know.

I don't think having an ego is all bad--instead, women pretend that they are not competitive, ambitious, or confident in themselves and their abilities. Or women are confident, they just don't express themselves confidently, in fear it will come off as arrogance.

I worry about gender stereotypes in the context of church. Mostly, I worry that women or girls who don't fit into the dominant gender stereotypes (emotional vs. analytical, for example) will feel alienated and as if they are "bad at being a woman."

Dear Sort of Sexist Guy,

Hey there. How's it going? It's me. Yeah. We went to college together. We work together. I think I had a crush on you back in the 8th grade.

You were the one who told me in high school that most guys think that men are better than women--they just don't say it out loud. But you--you were above that kind of cowardice. "Think about it," you said, "Why are the best chefs in the world men?" I still can't argue with your unshakeable logic.

I feel a bit bad for you, Sort of Sexist Guy--the way political correctness has driven your kind underground, for the most part. You can't even post sexy pics of underage girls on facebook anymore without getting some kind of feminist flak. I mean, where's the harm in a little objectification? The sooner girls realize that they are primarily valued for their looks, the better.

I really have to admire your panache, Sort of Sexist Guy. You could be rocking a unibrow and a beer gut, but that doesn't stop you from making condescending comments about a woman's weight or how she's "let herself go."

Of course you "loooooove women." And yeah, you're sort of an a-hole, but in a good way. Cause you're a guy. And guys are a-holes.

At least you're not like Sort of Racist Guy or Sort of Misogynistic Guy. I'm never going to catch you ranting about how feminism has ruined the American dream or how the REAL reason you're such a jerk is that this one girl broke your heart this one time in the second grade...

You're just a little bit of a chauvinist. I get that. Now that I think about it, you're not half bad, Sort of Sexist Guy. Maybe we can hang out some time and you can tell me all about how if I only lost some weight and started reading challenging books, I could really make something of myself.

Well, it's been real. I sort of gotta go do some laundry.

Yours (sort of),
MT

10 Reasons You Should Think Twice About Dating Someone Who Goes to Your Church

DISCLAIMER: Every guy I have ever dated that has gone to the same church has been a perfect gentleman. No complaints or negative experiences here. Also, there [were] only 8 reasons.

Reason #1 - The Awkward

Let's talk about the awkward, shall we? Awkward: He asks you out. You say no. He proceeds to pretend that you have fallen from the face of the earth. Awkward: Your friend dated his friend's roommate's set dresser's bartender's ex-girlfriend's cousin. Awkward: You volunteer together every other Sunday and still have to see each other at church, even if it ends...awkwardly.

Reason #2 - "That Guy"

Let's talk about that guy (there also exists "that girl," I'm sure, but all my experiences have been with that guy. Sorry.) Have you ever heard "No one wants to be that guy"? Well, revise that to "No one wants to date that guy." Harsh, but true. Why? Because he hits on every single single girl at church, which means he's: A) Desperate, B) Has very little dating experience, or C) Desperate and has very little dating experience. It might be poor personal hygiene. It might be the tendency to constantly bring up a struggle with lust during coed group discussions. It might be an inability to take "no" for an answer (At which point that guy becomes "that stalker" and you might have to get a restraining order.) Regardless, that guy will always ask you out, as a rule. Which is, as you already may have guessed, awkward.

Reason #3 - She's Just Not That Into You

This is not, strictly speaking, entirely true. It's just that, if you like them, they probably don't like you, and vice versa. When girls complain that, "No one asks me out," what they really mean is "No one cute (or that I like) has asked me out." I theorize that, realistically, there are one or two girls or guys everyone wants to date. They, in turn, have inexplicably taken a vow of celibacy and/or are holding out for Ryan Gosling. Yes, the guys too.

Reason #4 - Nice Girls Finish Last

You are too nice. If you were raised to be a good Christian guy or girl, you probably aren't completely comfortable saying "no"--just "no"--no qualifications, no "You're a really nice guy, but..." or "I'm really focusing on my acting right now, so..." These things take practice. If you're nice to a guy, he might think you're flirting with him (in fact, he will definitely think you're flirting with him if you don't want him to think you're flirting with him). Now, you're stuck somewhere between a rock and a literalist interpretation of scripture: If you're not nice, you're a bad Christian. If you're too nice, you're a good Christian, but now this guy is stuck to you like a barnacle to a whale's arse no matter how politely you tell him that you're focusing on your walk with the Lord.

Reason #5 - The Prohibition Against Drinking in Church [Communion Wine Excepted]

Just kidding. Sort of. Problem is, Christians take dating way too seriously, and at church, everyone is on their best, church-behavior. Plus, when you're screening every member of the opposite sex for desirable life partner traits, it kind of takes the fun out of dating, or most forms of social interaction for that matter.

Reason #6 - The Sisterhood of the Traveling Gossip Pants

People, they talk. And by people, I mean girls. They talk about guys at church and whether or not it would be a good idea to date them. This leaves, oh let's see, one and a half guys who are acceptable to date. All the single girls at church then hold a gladiatorial contest to determine who gets to sit next to him during Bible study. (Of course, then he goes and says something that could be construed as insensitive and we all take a vow of celibacy and/or continue to hold out for Ryan Gosling.) It's brutal.

Reason #7 - The Insta-Couple

The minute you sit with that guy or girl at church, everyone assumes you are a couple. I'm not sure why this is. Probably because when you look around at church, it's all couples or suicidal single people sitting by themselves. Or with friends. This makes so much sense. Guys I barely know have sought me out at church in order to sit next to me. I guess that's their way of staking their claim. Perhaps there's something about singing "Blessed Be Your Name" next to someone that really clinches whether you should spend the rest of your life with them. Sitting together = practically married, after all.

Reason #8 - The Insta-Wife [Add one heaping tablespoon Jesus and stir]

Church engagements are known for being criminally short. Or maybe it's just my church. Soon after becoming someone's insta-girlfriend or boyfriend you are this close to becoming someone's insta-husband or wife. It's insane. Not to mention scary. What makes it worse is that everyone will be secretly or not-so-secretly judging you for your three-minute-engagement. You dog, you.

Reason #9 - The Temple of the Holy Spirit Market

Think about it for a minute--scoping out your church for dates feels...a little bit icky. "Wow, that was a really great sermon--I really felt like God was speaking to me about---whoa, that guy in the plaid is hott!" Or worse: "She's really cute, I wonder if...OMG! WEDDING RING ALERT!" Treating church like a singles mixer pretty much always leads to feeling like the least spiritual, most shallow person on the face of the earth.

Reason #10 - The Clincher

You might meet someone and fall in love. This reason alone should be enough for you to never think of, or even CONSIDER dating someone who goes to your church. Don't say I didn't warn you.




More on church dating:

Undateable: Why Single Christian Guys are All Dented Cans - Introduction
Undateable: Why Single Christian Guys Are All Dented Cans - The Misogynist
Undateable: Why Single Christian Guys Are All Dented Cans - The Coward
Undateable: Why Single Christian Guys Are All Dented Cans - The Racist
Undateable: Why Single Christian Guys Are All Dented Cans - The Myth of Persistence 
Undateable: Why Single Christian Guys Are All Dented Cans - Entitlement

The Burden of Fear

As I walked past the seedy--yet somehow comfortingly familiar--entranceway to the local crack den on my way to church, I couldn't help but think about respect, and its importance in my life.

Yes, I was thinking about the suspect(ly) named Love and Respect Ministries and how as far as I can tell, it's mostly about women learning to respect men, not men learning to love women. As it turns out, I have a theory as to why this is:

Books, conferences, and ministries focused on making marriage better are primarily marketed toward women. And the primary marketing tool at work is fear. Fear of infidelity (his). Fear of a less-than-great marriage. Fear of not being good enough (as a wife, mother).

But the core fear, that coveted, prized, and beloved of advertisers the world over fear--is the fear of abandonment. How do I know this? 'Cause Google tells me so. One of the most persistent, recurring ads I get online warns me: "Why Men Pull Away: 10 Ugly Mistakes Women Make That Ruins [sic] Any Chances Of A Relationship."

[Then there's this Christian book, "What Your Husband Isn't Telling You" by the same author of "Why Men Hate Going to Church." This guy has got this angle on lock. I love the contradictory messages: men are simple and have basic needs (food, sex); men are a mystery, buy this book.]

Christian or secular, it doesn't matter. The fear is the same. The message is the same: If he leaves, it's because of you. You did something wrong.

This plays out on a larger scale as well. Why are men leaving the church (or why don't they attend in the first place)? Women. The feminization of Christianity. The predominance of xx chromosomes. Who's supposed to do something about this "crisis"? Women, particularly if they hope to ever get married to a Christian man.

Seems a bit backwards to me--men aren't stepping up and being men in the church! Who's to blame? Women! The most manly thing we can do is blame someone else (Eve) for our problems.

But, sadly, it seems that this kind of fear, no matter how poorly articulated, sells.

I've been writing about the burdens that women are expected to bear in our culture, and I feel like this is a key burden.

It fits so neatly with a pressing temptation women face: To take on blame for the failure of a relationship. Or I dunno, maybe it's just me.

There's something oddly comforting about taking on the burden of blame, perhaps because it's easier than anger, or perhaps because it turns into something you can control. If I change my behavior, repent, respect, submit, then he won't leave me.

There's the fear too, that men always cheat. That they can't keep it in their pants. It's in their very nature to stray. And this fear too, sells.

And as far as the feminization of church goes...color me confused. I get the part about wanting "adventure to live" and "battle to fight" and such, but I doubt that this translates into "What I really want as a Christian man is to literally go into battle and die for my family/faith/country" or "I could really use a few more disfiguring knife wounds so that everyone will know I'm a real man" or "I want nothing more than to do the back-breaking, manly labor of a lumberjack for the rest of my life" or "I wish that disemboweling scene at the end of Braveheart could happen today."

All this "Men were made for battle" stuff seems to translate into, "Get back, woman! Let the men lead." Am I wrong?

I am not a man. And far be it from me to offer here a definition of masculinity. However, I am a daughter and a sister and a friend, and I'd like to challenge this conception of what it means to be a man.

To return to this article, my favorite article, from the website Love and Respect Now, I think we need men who can honestly and non-defensively talk to their own daughters. I'm not sure what, in the name of Mel Gibson, this has to do with battle, or MMA, or adventure, or knife throwing, or rescuing wenches from dragons, but it seems important to me. And probably way, way more difficult. Is that not true strength?

The Burden of Secrecy

So I've gotten some feedback on the "burden of intention" and I feel the need to clarify. I'm talking primarily about unwanted attention. This is not a case of I wish the guy would make the first move or why won't he ask me out, but of OH-CRAP-I-THINK-HE-LIKES-ME-MUST-AVOID-ALL-INTERACTION-OR-I'LL-BE-ACCUSED-OF-LEADING-HIM-ON-WHICH-WOULD-MAKE-ME-A-BAD-BAD-PERSON.

Let's move on, shall we.

The Burden of Secrecy

This one is hard to write about, as I don't fully understand it myself. I look back on instances when I've willingly shouldered this burden and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Why?

Of course, women are not the only ones expected to bear this particular burden. Take the victims in the Jerry Sandusky case, for instance. For whatever sick reason, children are often held to secrecy too. The powerless are expected to protect the powerful, the victims their victimizers. For another distressing example, you can go here.

So why don't I--me, personally--speak up about inappropriate male behavior? Why do I tend to keep someone else's "shame" a secret?

Well, for one, silence and secrecy might be a burden, but I think we all realize that speaking up carries its own price. In fact, this corollary could apply anytime an individual speaks out against injustice or wrongdoing. The more powerful the institution or individual, the higher the price to pay. If I speak up, I know that my conduct, character, dress, and body could be scrutinized as well.

I can think of one specific example where I kept silent, partly out of a strong (but misguided?) sense of self-sufficiency. I asked myself, can I handle this on my own? And the answer was yes. So I did. But it goes deeper than that. I wanted to spare him (my harasser) shame and embarrassment. I was concerned not only for his feelings, but for his reputation.

Which leads me to this question: How was it that I was able to internalize a borderline harasser's potential shame to the point of keeping quiet, but he was unable to--for even a second--empathize with the discomfort he caused me with his unwanted and inappropriate verbal and physical advances?

Is this the way we socialize good girls and good boys? We teach the girls to feel for others. To desire to be desired above all else. To keep the peace, and for goodness' sake, if you don't have anything nice to say--

We teach the boys that empathy is for girls and that their [the boys'] desires are always legitimate. It's only harassment if he's ugly. No, it's harassment if it's unwanted. It's harassment if you tell someone to stop and they persist anyway.

I have a new standard now, for speaking up. I ask myself, if this happened to someone else, some other girl, would I be angry? If it were my friend, my sister, would I want this to happen to her? I can't think of a question that has the potential to make me feel more enraged, more protective.

And I was wrong, by the way, about his shame and about mine. He felt none. I felt all.

Burdens and the women who bear them

Zora Neale Hurston famously called black women the "mules of the world" in her book Their Eyes Were Watching God. I find this image, resonant within the book, resonant without too. In brief, I've been thinking about burdens, and the women who bear them.

I am also inspired by the article "A Message to Women from a Man: You Are Not Crazy," particularly this quote:

"It’s a whole lot easier to emotionally manipulate someone who has been conditioned by our society to accept it. We continue to burden women because they don’t refuse our burdens as easily. It’s the ultimate cowardice." 

Here are some of the burdens I think women are expected to bear: 

The Burden of Intention

This is a burden that I take on a lot--way more than I should. Perhaps I have mostly myself to thank for that, or perhaps evangelical "purity" culture should get some of the blame. But folks, today we're talking about intention. So let me just put this out there: I worry about the intentions of other people. All the time. 

Yes, I'm talking about romantic intentions. If I'm nice to this guy, will he think that I like him? What if I'm leading him on? What if he thinks I'm leading him on? Is this guy asking me on a date or just asking me to hang out? What if he likes me? Crap. MUST AVERT SITUATION. 

Now, I over-think a lot of things (as if you didn't know that already). But why is the burden on me and not on the man to clearly define his intentions. I don't want to monitor my every word and action so I'm not sending out the wrong signals. I don't want to manage the situation. I don't want to have to straight up ask, "Are you pursuing me romantically?" I don't want to have to make my (non) intentions clear when he hasn't even asked me out.

Why would I think this is my responsibility in the first place? Maybe it has something to do with needing to be "nice." Or maybe it's the mantra to "guard the other person's heart."

This is a burden that I do not want to bear, a price I am unwilling to pay. And yet I pay it.

The Burden of Desire

This one is tricky, but I've been thinking about the different ways that women and men desire in our culture, or more specifically, how our culture thinks about the desire of men versus the desire of women.

Yes, I'm talking about sexual desire. One thing that's always struck me is that a woman's desire is so easily itself made an object of desire (fetishized). Sexualized advertising aimed at men often seems to hinge on [a simulacrum] of female desire--this woman, this beautiful woman, desires ME. 

For whatever reason, I could say something seemingly innocuous, like, "Brad Pitt is hot!" And that could easily turn into: "You think Brad Pitt is hot. Nudge nudge, wink wink." It's as if any acknowledgement on my part that I am a living, breathing and desiring human being makes me something of a tease. Means I'm doing it for the attention. Makes me into a sexual object when really, I was asserting my subjectivity (KEANU REEVES IS HOTTER THAN BRAD PITT). I don't see this happening when a guy calls someone hot.

Let's take this deeper. There's a common rationalization out there that has to do with female desire. I'm sure you've seen this snl video titled "Sexual Harassment and You." No? Go watch it and come back. 

Basically, women are shallow (and kind of dumb). It's only sexual harassment if the guy is ugly. If the guy is Tom Brady, well, I just met you, and this is crazy--

I'm really struggling here, because this rationalization appears to be taken as the God-given--so obvious it hurts--TRUTH. What exactly is this truth saying? 

Women prefer attractive men. Yeah, that makes sense. Is that shallow? Sure. 

Women will tolerate (even welcome) harassment, abuse, etc. from a guy, just because he's hot. Okay, now you're making me queasy. Apparently a woman's desire, her preference for attractive men, makes her sick in the head. What?

Along the same line of reasoning, a woman will only call a guy "creepy" if he is unattractive. If he is attractive and exhibits the same courtship behavior he is not creepy. Women obviously don't really know what they want. That guy wasn't really sexually harassing you. You were just comparing him to Ryan Gosling.

A man's desire, on the other hand, is almost always valid (and validated). It doesn't matter if she desires him (she's irrational, capricious, shallow, and probably likes jerks), it only matters that he desires her. She is not a person. She is a projection of a man's desire.

This explains the fixation on the sartorial choices of rape victims. She may not have desired sex, but what was she wearing? What kind of male desire was being projected? 

A man's desire is pure and unequivocal. The heart wants what it wants.

So how do women bear the burden of desire? Women are required to be open and accepting of the desire of any and all while also accepting that any desire they express could be ridiculed and sneered at (especially if they are considered unattractive).

Tune in next time for...

The Burden of Secrecy

The Burden of Shame
The Burden of Fear

The Burden of the Body

The Burden of Character

Girls, Guns, and Beer

When I was a kid, I was in Girl Scouts and my brother was in Boy Scouts. I remember being jealous about the cool things my brother's troop got to do. Why were their activities so much more fun than ours?

Now that I've graduated into adulthood, life is rarely divided into gender specific activities--with the exception of the women's ministry at church.

If you hadn't noticed, churches approach men and women's ministries differently. Take this hypothetical announcement:

"Men, it's time for the [monthly men's ministry event]! This month we will [do something stereotypically female by sharing our feelings and having a good cry] ... Not! We will actually be [doing something extremely manly like shooting guns or lassoing cattle.]"

Wait a minute. Just because I'm female doesn't mean I don't want to shoot guns or lasso cattle. Why are their activities so much more fun than ours?

Well, from the previous non-quotation, I can make the following gross generalizations about men:

Men don't actually want to hang out with each other. They need an incentive (beer, poker, guns). Men do not like to share their emotions. In fact, they are terrified by the thought. Men are afraid of being perceived as overly feminine, thus they define themselves in opposition to the feminine qualities of vulnerability, sensitivity, and empathy.

Women, on the other hand, love to talk about their feelings. Put a bunch of women in a room together, and they will bond [paraphrased from a friend].

I took the opportunity to brainstorm words/things I associate with men's/women's ministry. The results are below.

MEN	WOMEN
Fun	Food
Bros	Bonding
Play	Crafts
Football	Tears
Accountability	Affirmation

These items are pretty funny in juxtaposition. Which would you prefer, football...or tears?

[As an aside, women's ministry events have the BEST FOOD EVER and/or I have cried into some pretty quality mini quiche bites while making hand-painted ornaments that say "Jesus is the BOMB!"]

I also brainstormed words about assumptions men's and women's ministries tend to make about men and women:

The church assumes men are…	The church assumes women are…
Bored	Tired
Concerned with work	Concerned with family
Lazy	Insecure
Disengaged	Overwhelmed
Distracted	Stressed
Lustful	Wounded
Desire entertainment	Desire comfort
Need encouragement to “man up”	Need validation

The assumptions [I'm assuming] the church makes about men seem blatantly insulting. As for the assumptions the church makes about women--

A lot of books, talks, and events seem to revolve around the issue of worth. And that's great. But there's more to women than their need to feel loved.

For a purely hypothetical example, I might be insecure, but also kind of arrogant. I might need validation, but also a kick in the pants. Yes, it's great knowing that God loves me just the way I am, but I also want to do something about it.

In my experience, issues related to worth and self-esteem tend to manifest cyclically throughout the seasons of life. And what brings me out of myself is usually acting as if I am loved, not the feeling itself. 

As for whether guys bond better by doing things together rather than by having deep, heart-to-heart talks--

My brother is two years younger than me. When we were kids, he was always trying to get me to play with him (maybe other older siblings can relate). On one family roadtrip, my mom taught us how to play poker with toothpicks. My brother was so enamored with the game, that he kept the game going long into a night of sleeping in our Jeep Cherokee (it was an interesting trip). 

So yeah. Maybe there's something to it.