It still the fault of the wimmenz according to a “traditional” Catholic clergy member

I found the blog of Bishop Donald Sanborn, a traditional Catholic, meaning he is no longer affiliated with the larger Roman Catholic Church.  His blog title is In Veritate, with the blurb underneath “Sanctify them in truth”.

Bishop Sanborn goes on a lengthy about tirade about the metoo movement.  I’m not sure that he really understands what the metoo movement is about, or desires to understands the actual lived experiences of women.  In his mind it is about women wearing immodest clothing and being in close contact with men in daily life in ways they never had been before.

According to Sanborn, immodestly dressed women in the workplace and men that are not 100% committed to be faithful to their wives….”some very bad things take place”.

Of course, like many Sanborn seems not to understand that one can be very modestly dressed and still receive inappropriate attention from men.  This has happened throughout all of human history.  Women just never had a voice before they do now.

The women of #metoo aren’t just the actresses who told of their experiences with Harvey Weinstein.  They are your great aunt Matilda, the woman across the street or your coworker.  They’ve just chosen to keep quiet with their story.

Sanborn writes:

“Although men are principally guilty, the women are partially if not equally guilty. In many if not most cases their dress is sexually enticing, and their conduct with men often invites sexual advances.

Most of these assaults upon women are seen in show business, an environment which is notably loose and never known for its observance of chastity and fidelity. Most of the “victim” ladies in these cases look like lascivious women, and probably did much to cause the assault.”

Well if that isn’t straight up misogyny, I don’t know what is.  Sanborn talks about the entertainment business not being known for its chastity and fidelity, inferring these ladies shouldn’t be surprised by what happens.  But the women telling their #metoo stories aren’t just limited to the entertainment business.  There are plenty of clergy members across all denominations who have victimized women, other men and children.

Sanborn just doesn’t get it.  Sadly he is not the only one.


Working Moms Violate Scripture And Other Gems By Lori Alexander

Lori Alexander takes on working moms in this post.  Working “career” women are often a favorite target of old Lori.  Lori does not work.  Her children are grown.  Her Christian journey seems to revolve around pointing fingers at other women, telling and/or assuming what they are doing wrong.

She has absolutely no concept that women throughout history, Christian or otherwise have worked in some way to economically provide for the family.  Not all women of course.  But for many women, it was simply a matter of economic survival.

In another variation of her usual screeds, Lori talks here about women who really enjoy being homemakers.  Lori chastises women who dry clean their clothes…oh the horrors.  I’ve always had a few items in my closet that needed to be dry cleaned.  Lori doesn’t dry clean…not even her husband’s suits?  Perhaps she can document how she avoids dry cleaning any items.

Of course she knows those naughty career women cook packaged food every night because they are “home so little”.  How simply amazing it is that Lori seems to be in every kitchen.

Lori says we aren’t to be busy going to appointments????  What does that even mean?  Skip the dentist?

Lori say families don’t need grumpy mothers……has she looked in the mirror lately?


Beyonce and Ed Sheeran

Apparently there was a Twitter kerfuffle criticizing Ed Sheeran for wearing his usual rolled out of bed look when he recently performed with Beyonce.  Beyonce was wearing an intricate hot pink creation for the event.  Ed Sheeran wore his usual attire, and Beyonce wore her usual attire, intricately crafted costumes for the stage.  If Ed was expected to wear something different, then Beyonce’s people should have called Ed’s people.  Or perhaps Ed’s people could have called Beyonce’s people so she could wear a similar I just rolled out of bed look.

This particular discussion will go away soon.  It has generated some intersesting discussion though.  In an article at Elle , R. Eric Thomas writes that Ed and Beyonce look like 75% of heterosexual couples.  While I generally don’t see many women about wearing what Beyonce wears to perform, I totally get the point he is making.

Why don’t people comment on that more often?  Why do we focus so much on women’s looks, but have little expectation about what men wear?  Just saw some wedding photos today where one of the male guests was dressed in a short sleeve shirt and khakis.  It isn’t the first time I have seen such behavior.  You know the women aren’t allowed to dress that casually.  If they do, the’d probably be told they are “letting themselves go”.

A Woman’s Struggles in the 1800s

At the Mercy University Press News website I found an interesting interview of the author Carolyn Newton Curry.  Curry has written a book called Suffer and Grow Strong: The Life of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas 18341907.

Carolyn Curry’s novel comes from reading the diaries of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas, a woman from a wealthy family living in the South during the 1800s.  Particularly interesting in the interview is when Carolyn Curry is asked if  Thomas having lost four children affected how she viewed motherhood.  Such an experience was more commom in those times, I can’t imagine what it would be like for anyone to go through that.  After the Civil War Thomas’s life changes and she goes about pursuing experiences that were less typical from women of her background.

The interview itself is interesting, and the book sounds like a great read.  I’ll let you know!

The Face of Female Anger(With Updates)

Many woman have been brought up with the notion that they are expected to contain their anger, stuff it deep inside and never let it out.  I know I was brought up that way.  I’m not sure it was explicitly told to me, but I knew my public face was to be nonconfrontational.  I was not supposed to display anger in public, and if I did it would reflect on me poorly, in a way it would not for a man.

Of course it is a good thing to be able to manage your anger.  But anger that is never let out can eat away at you.  There must be a balance.  The internet turned out to be a perfect storm recently with several reflections on anger:

1)From the site Jenna Bookish a review of the book Rage Becomes Her  by Soraya Chemaly.  I haven’t read the book the blog author reviews, but her post alone is interesting enough in its commentary of female anger.  She makes the point that the societal expectation that women do not express their rage is “a way of limiting and controlling our power”.  I remember meeting with a school principal many years ago to discuss an issue that was going on with my children.  I one one hand felt the pressure to “stay in my lane” when it came to expressing my displeasure.  On the other hand, I felt like I would get nowhere on behalf of my child if I went in there treading a narrow path of acceptably female behavior.

2)The above mentioned Soraya Chemaly opines on rage and Serena Williams.  I don’t agree with her about Serena Williams.  I believe her conduct was unacceptable.  If male players get angry on the court, that is unacceptable as well.  I’ve read that Williams threatened to shove a ball down a female tennis officials throat.  Those kind of expressions cross the line for me.  Perhaps I should root for the home team, but this should have been Naomi Osaka’s day to shine.  Its a damn shame it wasn’t.

Chemaly’s article makes many great points.  She talks about an early expression of anger, where her dad told her to help her mom with after supper clean-up.  She says that she will not do it unless her brother helps as well.  Her brother ends up joining the clean up crew.  I had no brothers growing up, so I didn’t experience this.  I do have one girl and one boy….I wonder if I have unwittingly done similar things.

    Go read her article, especially her comments about the motivation for Prohibition.

3)Here is a different take on anger at the blog of The Forgiven Wife. where the author Chris talks Responding to Your Husband’s Sin.  In her post she talks about “repetitive sin”, such as a person that has their driving privileges curtlailed related to speeding tickets(I’m assuming that person has paid much money in ticket costs and has had many many tickets).   She talks about other offenses such as “misusing alcohol”.

She tells us that we should respond in a healthy and helpful way, and infers we should not show our anger.   I’m not sure who defines what is a “healthy” way of defining anger, but I know people who have dealt with a loved one’s alcoholism for a long time are angry, and justifiably so.  Alcoholism has a huge reach into the structure of family life.

   She states:  “Seek professional or pastoral support from someone who will help both of you. The idea isn’t to find someone whose only goal will be to fix your husband’s problem. Find someone who will also help you respond in a way that is healthy for both of you.”  Most people would say that the alcoholic has considerable amount of work to do on his own.  But again, who decides what the appropriate way of responding is, and what is healthy?  For some people the right thing would be for the person with the alcohol problem to move out of the house so that the family can have a rest from the potentially destructive behaviors caused by alcoholism.  Update:  I am not sure in the initial stages that the priority is here for the “nonsinning spouse” to learn how to respond in a healthy way.  But I am getting the impression that anything less than the wife walking on eggshells could be even worse than husband’s chronic alcoholism, etc.  Instead of focusing on the actual problem there is an attempt to pathologize any reaction by the wife that the blog author does not find “healthy”.  So wrong.

   She also states: “Frankly, sometimes we make it even harder for our husbands to come forward about a sin.  Your usual reaction may contribute to the temptation your husband faces. For instance, if his temptation is related to his feelings of inadequacy in some area and your reaction is to point out that he’s always messing up, you may be piling on to something that he already isn’t managing well. Your reaction may make the temptation worse as well as making it hard for him to confess.”  Honestly if you read anything about the dynamics of alcoholism, the alcoholic wasnts you to feel to blame for their problem.  Chris is saying here that if we only behaved in a different way, our husbands would have it much easier.  If you’ve ever known people with addiction problems you know it doesn’t work that way.  You may have responded in a “healthy” way with “grace” for years, with the behaviors escalating.

This post aimed at the loved ones of alcoholics tells us about the 3 “C’s”.. 1) You didn’t cause it 2) You can’t control it 3)You can’t cure it.  Those are certainly wise words.

I have to say I am confused by the post at the Forgiven Wife.  Why is this painted as the way a wife should respond to a husband?  Why isn’t it generalized to both spouses?  A husband or wife would be angry over speeding tickets or addiction.  I’m also confused because the post somewhat speaks to behaviors I associate with immaturity.  Multiple speeding tickets and a write up for losing your temper at work.  One hopes that a certain age one matures and this simply isn’t one worries about, whether one is a woman or a man.  My husband and I know a handful of people who seem to be spinning their wheels when it comes to “adulting”.  One of them is a grandfather. My husband loaned the grandfather some money recently.  He says it is a loan, but he knows his friend the grandfather will likely not pay him back.   Another is a woman turning 50 soon.

Do you have differing notions of rage when it comes to men vs. women?

Update to this post:  I’ve looked around The Forgiven Wife’s blog a bit more.  It seems anger is perfectly acceptable for her husband in the linked post and in other posts in her blog.  Not only that if he is angry, he still deserves to be “comforted” in the way only a wife can.  I’m not sure why The Forgiven Wife encourages women to walk on eggshells in the event of “repetitive sin” with their husband.  And if the walking on eggshells thing really worked wouldn’t the repetitive sin stop?  My other thought is that if the children see mom walking on eggshells in response to potentially destructive behaviors like alcoholism, it sends a very bizarre and confusing message if there is an ongoing issue.  There certainly is a way to display anger, but letting your spouse know you are angry and frustrated is perfectly okay.

And likewise, if the wife has “repetitive sin” as she describes in the post, I would expect the husband to be frustrated and angry.

I’ve been the person walking on eggshells around others with destructive behaviors.  You can only do it for so long, until you let the dysfunction of others make you dysfunctional as well.

There is a book called “Love and Respect” by Emerson Eggerichs.  Some people love it.  In one of the introductory examples the husband buys the wrong card for his wife.  I think he buys an anniversary card for her birthday, or maybe vice versa.  Eggerichs goes on with the example, how the wife reacts, how the husband reacts.  In reading the example I feel the wife is placed in a no win situation no matter how she reacts.  While it is not directly said the message in the example but stated more explicitly in the rest of the book, the wife must “respect” the husband.  I feel like “respect” means different standards of behavior for the woman than the man?  The man can be angry but the woman is to respect/walk on eggshells even in egregious circumstances.  Can someone tell me why this is so?


Would you let this guy “biblically counsel” you?

I’ve heard the term biblical counseling for a while, and I have yet to fully discern exactly what it is.  From what I gather, there is no legal licensing board, or code of ethics.  Members don’t seem to be required to get criminal background checks.  The soon to be mentioned Rick Thomas has a criminal background.  He may or may not pass a background check to allow him to be a state licensed counselor.  That apparently isn’t a concern in the world of biblical counseling.

I became acquainted with Rick Thomas through this skeevy post on another website.  When men talk about modesty there is always the danger it will venture into the creepy.  Rick doesn’t disappoint.  He writes:

“Satan’s deception twisted these good things into bad things. Her desire to be loved tempts her to use her looks to capture the gaze of a man to fill longings in her heart that only the Lord can satisfy.”

Ole Rick thinks he knows the mind of a woman.  Little does he know most of us are just trying to get through our day, knowing that we will not please everyone in the modesty department.  If we try to hard to be modest, though, we might be accused of being frumpy or matronly.

Just as Rick thinks the wimmenz are dressing expressly to catch his eye, he makes an even more laughable statement about the menfolk who wear super large belt buckles trying to draw attention to their crotch.  Gee, Rick, I’d never pondered that.  I just thought they liked super large belt buckles.  I guess these fellas drew your eye though.

When the so called religious menfolk talk about modesty, their ego must prevent them from realizing they are doing more harm than good.  But Rick gets even better in this post Figure Skating Can Be Erotic , in which he infers the figure skaters are provocatively showing their crotches to Christian husbands.  We as wives must worry about this problem.  Rick doesn’t mention that many female figure skaters are under 18, some of the ones he says are provocatively showing their crotches, but if I would worry about anything if I was a wife in Rick Thomas’s audience, I’d be worrying about that.

How mortifying, and most likely traumatic,  would it be for a young woman to receive counseling from this guy?

If you have a lot of disposable income, you can give ole Rick a nonrefundable $500 to become a “mastermind”.  If that isn’t a red flag right there I don’t know what it is.  There a variety of products you can buy from Rick’s website, but once you have hit click you are out the money.  It would seem the so called biblical counseling gurus would have an arbitration process in place for those the counseling was less than satisafactory for, or even possibly traumatic.  There seems to be no recourse at all for a client of the biblical counseling “profession” who has been wronged.  One could hire an attorney and file suit, I suppose.  You will of course be told that isn’t the Christian thing to do.

I was raised in a faith tradition that was accepting of the secular mental health profession in general.  I was unfamiliar with biblical counseling until recently.  Judging from what I see, it isn’t a road I would venture down.

Giving Tuesday

Did you give?

I gave to a local animal related charity.

Dogs and cats have no political ideologies. They are furry and cute. Plus they are much more likeable than most humans.

I’d like to think St. Francis of Asissi would understand.