• Rachel Nichols, Misandry, Agnosticism, and Good Christian Bitches

Rachel Nichols, Misandry, Agnosticism, and Good Christian Bitches

This is not the type of blog where I want to talk about personalities, but I’ve done so a few times before.

My preference is to discuss subject matter (such as complementarianism or mental health issues).

There was a television show that aired a few years ago called “Good Christian Bitches.” Some conservatives saw it as being an “anti conservative” program.

Here is a little bit about that show:

The dramedy, based on Kim Gatlin’s novel of the same name, will be brought to life by famed “Sex and the City” and “90210” executive producer Darren Star. The plot centers on the life of reformed “mean girl” Amanda, played by “Talladega Nights” actress Leslie Bibb, who returns to her hometown of Dallas to find herself fodder for malicious gossip from the women in the Christian community.

…“I find the title offensive. I don’t think those two words should be combined,” she said. “A show like this can damage perceptions [of Christians in this country].”
~~~~~~~~~~~

Unfortunately, some women who profess Christ are in fact … bitches.

They act bitchy, though they normally do so with a fake smile on their faces. I see this online, as well.

I remember reading about this a few years ago, where a church-going Christian woman explained to an advice columnist that she and her church friends wanted to exclude her divorced sister from any outings:

May 8, 2014

Dear Amy: Every fall, my sister, cousins and a cousin’s sister-in-law have a weekend shopping excursion in our home city. We stay in a hotel, treat ourselves, shop for our children and go out for lunches and dinners. It is a great time to reconnect.

I have a sister “Wendy,” who we do not invite. She is offended to the point of tears when she finds we have not invited her.

My two sisters and I are very close in age, but Wendy hasn’t been as close to this set of cousins as my sister and I have been through the years.

We are all married stay-at-home moms. Wendy is a divorced, working mom with one young child.

There are several reasons we do not include her. We know she doesn’t have very much money for such an outing. She also does not have many of the same interests as we do. Her life is quite different from ours.

We’re not interested in what she has to talk about.

She complains too much about her aches and pains, and claims to have some kind of neurological disease that some of us feel is more psychosomatic than real and which she uses to avoid getting up for church on Sundays.

She also complains about her ex-husband who left her for another woman, but everyone knows it takes “two to tango” and she is not without fault.

We’re all very active churchgoers, while she only sporadically attends services. Plain and simple, she does not really fit in with us anymore.

She takes it very personally, and last year even came over to my home unannounced crying about it, which upset my children and caused my husband to threaten to call the police if she did not leave.

Now she barely speaks to me and has told our relatives that I am a horrible person (even though I’ve helped her).

How can we get her to understand that she should perhaps find another set of friends whose lives and interests align more closely with hers? Sad Sister

(end citation of Ask Amy letter)

Amy’s response is to tell “Sad Sister” that she is a “horrible person.” I agree with that assessment.

I have several reasons as to why I doubt the validity of the Christian faith as of the last several years, and one of those reasons has to do with how self professing Christians behave.

All of the content above, about Good Christian Bitches and that “Sad Sister” letter reminds me of women such as Rachel Nichols who I sometimes bump into online (I’ve also met these types of Christians in real life).

Rachel Nichols is an individual whom I first came across on a blog called Spiritual Sounding Board blog, a blog that is primarily about spiritual abuse victims.

Nichols says she is a single, Christian woman, who I believe has stated she desires to be married one day, she believes in the Mike Pence Rule, and I think she’s in favor of the Christian equally yoked belief ( a belief that a single Christian can only marry another Christian).

I tried to get along with Nichols, but she rubbed me wrong from the outset.

I normally bit my tongue and didn’t say too much to her.

Nichols (here after “RN”) attempts to come across as a pious, godly, moral, outstanding Christian, but is actually catty, passive aggressive, and condescending at times.

(As such, she reminds me of yet another trouble making woman who was banned from Wartburg Watch a few months ago.)

UNWARRANTED BITCHERY

Point 1. 

If Nichols decided to un-follow my blog, I am fine with that.

I did not know she was following it in the first place until she told me she was un-following it.

(I don’t hardly check the e-mail address that is configured for this blog, so I don’t see notifications from this blog if someone follows it or un-follows it.)

I did not ask her to follow it.

What I find rude, pathetic, and sort of “weird-funny” is that she thought it would be a good idea to do a trounce (and probably with one hand held across her forehead for dramatic effect).

Nichols made a point of coming back on to this blog after she un-followed it to give me a list of detailed reasons she was un-following and why she hates me or hates this blog.

Nichols couldn’t just un-follow and never visit again.

No, she had to leave a nasty parting shot letting me know and telling me why.

When I broke up with my fiance’, he wanted to know WHY I was breaking up with him.

Even though that turd took advantage of me financially and was a self-absorbed maggot, I refused to go into detail. I told my fiance’ it just was not working out, and I wanted to move on.

I did not want to unnecessarily offend or hurt his feelings, even in a break-up conversation, by going on for three hours, like so:

“Here is a bulleted list o’ reasons I am dumping your ass:

  • You are dumb
  • You are broke and using me for money
  • You’re dating your Mom (she always comes before me)
  • You are selfish
  • (…etc – 457,895 other reasons could go here…)”

Nope. I just told him I was breaking up, that it was not working out for me.

Even though he hurt me deeply and angered me, one reason of a few I did not give him a detailed list is that I was sparing him additional pain or emotional upset.

If I could do that with a terrible ex fiance’, I’m sure that the Good Christian Bitches out there are capable of doing it with a blog, but they choose not to.

Point 2.

I’ve discussed what it’s like being single and over the age of 35, especially in the context of growing up in and around conservative Christianity, on Julie Anne’s blog often. Rachel Nichols saw some of my posts there about that.

On that blog, I’ve brought up before how I’d like to marry.

This was part of what Nichols said to me on my blog a few days ago (link to Nichols comment to me):

You keep saying you want a man–even if you have to renounce Christ to get one. Keep up the misandry and you’ll scare even the secular men away.
~~~~~

I don’t remember saying “even if I had to renounce Christ.” I’m not sure where she got that from. I asked her about it in reply, but she never returned to reply.

As far as I can remember, I have actually said the opposite a few times, that renouncing Christ is the one of the few things I’ve not done in regards to rejecting most the rest of Christianity.

(I address Nichols’ “you are a misandrist” opinion farther below.)

What I have said on blogs is that I don’t adhere to the “equally yoked” doctrine, which is a belief of some Christians that a Christian single must only marry other Christians.

Perhaps Nichols is such an odd-ball she regards renouncing equally yoked as being the same as rejecting Christ himself?

If I remember correctly, Nichols is one of those Christian singles who refuses to date or marry Non-Christians.

Nichols not only huffily let me know that she is not only a supporter of the stupid, sexist, and ineffective Mike Pence Rule, but that she digs the equally moronic Equally Yoked rule in regards to dating and marriage.

I think it’s very lousy and sh*tty of Nichols to throw my singleness in my face in the way that she did.

Nichols’ attitude reeks of cattiness and bitchiness, so I don’t know how she expects to get any dates or get a husband.

I was engaged once. As I told her under her post, I’m sure I could get another fiance, or a boyfriend, if I decide to date once more.

I’m not so sure about her.

Nichols will have a far tougher job of things in this area because she insists on  dating Christian men only (and single Christian men over the age of 30 are in short supply), and she’ll have a tough go of getting a boyfriend or husband because of that bitchy personality of hers.

I’ve also mentioned at SSB and other blogs how my mother, who was very dear to me (in spite of the misgivings I have of some of her parenting), passed away several years ago, and coping with that loss has been very difficult.

I am shocked that Rachel did not leverage THAT personal tid-bit, about my mother’s death, to throw in my face and further drive the knife in.

I mean, Rachel, you made the personal dig about my single status, why not go all out, and mock the death of my mother and my grief over the loss, too?

Are you only going for a 50% “Good Christian Bitch” rating and not an all-out 100% level?

Thank you, Rachel, for at least not signing off your catty post by saying, “God Bless, signed, Rachel.”

I used to help moderate a highly visited Christian forum awhile back, and the angry commentators would send me private notes telling me, when I had to put them in mod for breaking forum rules, basically, to go “F” myself and burn in Hell, but they’d sign off with a sweet and pleasant, “God bless,” or, “Jesus loves you.”

MIKE PENCE RULE

I only very briefly mentioned the idiotic “Mike Pence Rule” in one small sentence on that post, and Nichols got positively steamed about it in her post.

Here is what Nichols said (Link):

Btw, the Billy Graham Rule or Mike Pence Rule is also the Rachel Nichols Rule. It’s an excellent guideline to establish healthy boundaries between men and women in the workplace. If Pence and his secretary need to talk business how will the Second Lady sitting there, knitting or reading a book, hurt anything? (It won’t.)
~~~~

There is nothing “excellent” about the Pence Rule (formerly known as the Billy Graham Rule). It’s sexist, unnecessary, and does not work.

One does not need the Pence rule to have “healthy boundaries” in any workplace.

As I told Nichols before, I worked in a secular workplace with men on a full time, professional office job, I sometimes met alone (and at night, and sometimes at diners and restaurants) with male co-workers with no ‘Mike Pence Rule’ in effect, and there was no sex involved.

If I were a secretary working for Pence, and Pence invited his wife to come and sit with him and me, I’d find it sexist and insulting, because Pence is

1. indicating by his actions that he is viewing me as a harlot, an easy lay, and as a sex object, all of which I find insulting

2. assuming I want to have sex with Pence, which is arrogant of Pence

I don’t find Pence physically attractive, so there would be no sex going on between him and me.

(Even if I did consider him a cutie, there’d still be no sex, because I would honor his marriage vows to his wife.)

I’m an adult. I’m not a teen who needs adult supervision on a job.

I’m a professional, I am on a job to get a job done, not flirt with a man or worry about his freaking out over “what will my wife think if we work alone.”

Assuming you’ve never committed adultery on your wife before and not therefore given her a reason to distrust you:

If your wife is that freaking insecure about you meeting other women alone for business reasons, divorce her.

If your wife insists on constantly going through your cell phone, e-mail accounts, Facebook messages, and sitting in on all your business meetings, you need to divorce that hot mess.

Why do I have to be a secretary in that example, by the way? What if Pence has a woman peer (someone equal in authority to him) or a woman supervisor, someone who out-ranks him?

Does his wife have to sit in on ALL his job related duties, as though he or the woman co-worker are horny teens who cannot be trusted?

Should the wife sit in if a woman Senator drops by to confer with Pence or get his signature on some paper work?

Maybe Pence should never, ever leave home at all, but sit inside a big, plastic bubble at home, where his wife can watch him 24 hour a day, every day?

What about Sarah Sanders (link), Rachel?

If for some reason Sanders needs to meet with Pence for work related matters, you honestly think the wife should jog on over and sit in on their meetings?

Don’t you think that that would be weird? I sure do.

My dad had meetings with women co-workers on his job, and my mother did not get in her car and drive over to his office to sit in on any of them.

Why are you advocating that Pence have his wife sit in on his meetings? That is weird.

You are a weirdo, Rachel.

The Mike Pence rule assumes the worst about both men and women.

I may blog more about the Mike Pence Rule in the future.

For now, all I’d like to say is that Nichols’ annoyance or anger at my rejection of the Pence Rule is way, way out of proportion to what I said.

Here is all I said about the Pence Rule in the post that got her upset:

However, I don’t want to expend a lot of energy on that in this post, as it would involve criticizing the sexism inherent in the Billy Graham Rule (also known as the Mike Pence Rule). You can read another post on that issue here.

That was it.

That was all I said about the Pence rule in that last post, and from that, I got that lecture from Nichols about the Pence Rule.

Nichols was acting way, way too offended by my one sentence remark; it was one short comment out of a long post about conservatives having unreasonable standards about sexual harassment.

MISANDRY

In the comments on an older thread here, Rachel accused me of misandry (her comment is located here).

I left a reply for her, asking her to cite specific examples of what she meant, because she just made the accusation but without giving any examples.

Nichols has not dropped by again to reply. My post to which she was responding was this one:

The Conservative (Right Wing) Criteria Required Before Believing Sexual Abuse Victims, As Put Forward by Some Conservatives – A Critique By A Conservative

I made it a point to mention in that post that I am a conservative.

In that post, I outlined how I disagreed with conservative, male hosts Tucker Carlson and his guest Mark Steyn regarding some of their comments about the “Me Too” twitter trend.

I think I also mentioned in that post (or let me say it here) that I agree with conservative TV host Tucker Carlson most of the time, I’d say about 98% of the time.

As a matter of fact, I am in agreement with Carlson on the subject of immigration to the United States, where he normally argues that the United States should have better immigration policies, kind of like what you see being discussed here (link to the Fox news page):

I also am very fond of Mark Steyn, who is often a guest on Carlson’s show: he literally makes me laugh out loud quite often, even on political topics that can be very dry.

If I hated men, as RN claimed (and yes, she claimed I hate men, she referred to me as a misandrist), why would I make it a point to watch Carlson’s show every night it’s on?

I try to avoid one of Carlson’s MSNBC competitors as often as I can: the very liberal WOMAN host named Rachel Maddow.

If I hated men and loved all things women, why on earth would I be tuning in to regularly watch a male host rather than a female one?

iceCream.gif

I suppose Nichols lives in a world where, for a woman to disagree with a man on any topic, but especially regarding ones such as sexual harassment, this automatically makes one a “misandrist.”

I guess, according to Rachel Nichols, I can never, ever disagree with any man ever, especially not in regards to sexism, because that would make me a man hater -?

According to Rachel Nichols, I cannot critique a man’s opinions about the “me too” twitter trend or critique what a man says about sexual harassment.

No. I should just roll over and automatically agree with any thing any man says every where, all the time, because anything less makes a woman a misandrist (in the Rachel Nichols universe).

In my estimation, Tucker Carlson and Mark Steyn are spot on and correct about issues such as immigration to the United States, but….
I feel they are dead wrong concerning criteria they are willing to accept in sexual harassment cases (which I discussed at length here).

In Rachel Nichols’ weird world, though, I must agree with all opinions put forward by all men, or else, if I do not, this means I supposedly hate all men.

How does she function in the world with such an outlook, I wonder?

OTHER MISANDRIST POINTS TO PONDER

Either on this blog, at SSB blog, TWW blog, or elsewhere on the internet, I have mentioned several times over that I have an older sister who is verbally abusive towards me, so I had to limit contact with her starting a few years ago, after taking a life time of abuse off this sister.

I have mentioned here or elsewhere that I once had a very bullying WOMAN boss at a full time job I had, and this woman was a bitch and a nightmare to work for. Other employees, both men and women, hated this one woman boss’s guts.

(I also had several other bosses at that same job, some were men, some women, and this one particular boss was the only one I had problems with. The rest were nice, warm human beings who I got along fine with.)

Months ago, I also did a post where I strongly objected to the opinions and behavior of TWO WOMEN who used to post to TWW blog.

If I was a misandrist, why is it one can find me also pointing out flaws in other women, such as these?

If I’m such a man hater (which suggests I approve of all women everywhere all the time and agree with all other women on every thing), then how is it one can find me on this blog (or in the comments on other people’s blogs) criticizing the behavior or view points of OTHER WOMEN?

Not only did I criticize Tucker Carlson and Mark Steyn’s take on sexual harassment, I also pointed out in that post and in others I stopped following a certain right wing WOMAN personality on social media.

I stopped following this well-known WOMAN conservative on one of my social media accounts because she was regularly posting the same sort of criticisms of the “Me Too” twitter hash that Carlson and Steyn were bringing up on Carlson’s television show, plus, she kept posting some “suck it up buttercup” type rhetoric, saying all women victims should just pipe down about having been sexually harassed.

I criticized some of the views of “factual feminist” Christina Hoff Sommers about mid-way down this page. Sommers is a woman. Not a man. But a chick.

I also did this post, critical of the American women who downplay the existence and ramifications of sexism in the United States:

The Growing Partisan Divide Over Feminism by Peter Beinart – The Republican and Conservative Women Who Want to Remain in Denial About American Sexism

If I was so pro-woman to the point I am anti-man, as RN was indicating, one would not see me criticizing WOMEN for advancing the same views as MEN are in these subjects – but I have done that very thing.

I also was critical of the “soft” complementarian views put forward by WOMAN writer Aimee Byrd in a post about the complementarian teaching about “tie breaking votes.”

If I was a misandrist, why would I be critical of a woman writer?

In a post where I speculate about why it is so many Christians want to excuse sexual abusers for their abuse, I expressed respect for MALE actor Terry Crews for pointing out in interviews that Russell Simmons (who is also a man) was a hypocrite.

After Crews had been groped in public by Venit (a man) and went public with it, Simmons told Crews to just drop the matter.

Weeks later, it was publicized that Simmons himself had been groping (and raping) women, which I wrote about here.

If I was a misandrist, I would not give a damn if a Terry Crews (a man) had been sexually assaulted (groped) by another man… but I did (and I do).

I also wrote this post several months ago:

Abuse, Codependency, and Males

I don’t think men should be sexually assaulting or sexually harassing other males. I can only guess that Rachel Nichols thinks I’m okay with dudes harassing other dudes. It’s sad that I should have to clarify that no, I’m not okay with it.

I am opposed to sexism against women. I hate sexism. I do not hate all men.

YOU CAN START YOUR OWN BLOG

I will say as I am a woman who has experienced sexual harassment by men since I was a girl, that is my point of interest from which to blog.

My point of interest is not to blog about men on men harassment.

I am not a liberal and am not into “intersectional” every thing, where liberals yell and scream that if you do not blog about issues faced by EVERYONE (e.g., men facing sexual harassment, parakeets or penguins facing sexual harassment, or one-armed, green eyed asexuals facing sexual harassment), then you are a “____ophobe” or racist or misandrist or whatever pejorative label.

My blog is not intended to be all things for all people. I’m a woman who is predominately concerned about and interested in sexism against women (especially when carried out and codified by MEN). None of that means I hate all men.

If you are a woman who is upset or outraged by male sexual assault victims…

Or you feel that the “me too” trend may cause false allegations to be filed against men…

Then please, go start your own blog and discuss it there, and do not assume that because someone else (me) is not AS interested in discussing “reverse sexism” (or sexual abuse against men by other men) that this means I am a “misandrist.”

Even on the topic of workplace abuse (with NO sexual component involved in the bullying), studies show that WOMEN are the most common targets: both male and female bosses and male and female co-workers target WOMEN to bully MORE than they target MEN. (Source: “The Bully At Work,” book by Gary Namie.)

Male on Female sexual abuse and harassment is more common than male on male or female on male.

So, that is one reason why I’m more into calling that out, than in expending post after post discussing the smaller numbers of male- on- male or female- on- male harassment.

If you’re more interested in  male- on- male or female- on- male harassment, then by all means, feel free to start your own blog and blog away on those topics.

This reminds me of the cranky grouch, “chrissymonds65,” who chewed me out a few weeks ago (under this post) because I dare to blog about problems I see with mental health professionals or with their profession and because I have written about my own first hand, negative experiences with psychiatry and psychology.

Chrissy Monde apparently wants each and every post I make about the mental health profession to be upbeat, positive.

To her and to Rachel Nichols, and to people like these: I am not your Public Relations team or marketer. I’m not here to blog about every topic you’re into or to blog about it from the perspective you want to see it discussed.

CHEERY HAPPY BLOGGING

This snippet is also pertinent,

By K. Beatty, taken from the page “Why Evangelical Women Leaders Don’t Talk about Politics“:

“Even among women whose messages are not overtly political but simply biblical, the faintest whiff of a political statement will incite serious backlash,” says Sharon Hodde Miller, a writer and speaker whose PhD research focused on women and calling.

Miller herself has received criticism for writing on the importance of character in political leaders.

“We expect female Christian leaders to teach within a particular box, and when they step out of that box, there are consequences.”

That particular box is winsome—leading from nonthreatening gentleness and warmth rather than direct authority.

“Many evangelical women have built their platforms based on an illusion of intimacy,” says Kristin Kobes Du Mez, a historian at Calvin College. “They are their followers’ ‘friends’ and ‘sisters,’ and that illusion of intimacy must be maintained.”

As this particular moment is so politically polarized, bringing up politics is risky for leaders whose livelihood depends on retaining followers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 I do get this sense that some Christians (the women ones particularly) expect women writers (such as myself, whether the writer is Christian or not) to behave or blog a certain way.

Depending on the Christian woman and whatever the given topic is, they may expect me to be lovey-dovey, docile, and to avoid being critical, negative, or grouchy about any thing (though some of them, such as Chrissy Monde like getting grouchy with me in the comment box).

SPIRITUAL SOUNDING BOARD BLOG

I left a post for Rachel Nichols on JA’s (Julie Anne’s) SSB blog about four days ago, and Julie Anne refused to publish it.

I find that shocking and irritating, because as I told JA in a private message, as Nichols said she was un-following this blog, I am not sure if she would see the reply I left for her on this blog, where-as, she might see a remark I left for her on Julie Anne’s Spiritual Sounding Board blog.

But, you know, I recognize that SSB is JA’s blog, so I dropped things there. Julie Anne can run her blog how she wants to.

I have not been to JA’s blog in a few days and don’t know if I plan to return – except I may need to now, in order to provide a link to a comment that Nichols left to an atheist there.

AGNOSTICISM

In a December 14, 2017 post, under a main post entitled “Guest Post: My Dinner With Ravi: An Atheist meets the “Great Apologist of our Time” at “Spiritual Sounding Board” blog, Rachel Nichols left this post for atheist Steve Baughman:

By Rachel Nichols (link to her post)

DECEMBER 14, 2017 @ 10:50 AM
I am deeply disillusioned by this. I can’t blame you, Steve. Not right to kill the messenger.

It hasn’t wrecked my faith though. I’m a follower of Christ, not Zacharias after all.
~~~~~~

This is the part of Nichols’ post that caught my attention:

It hasn’t wrecked my faith though. I’m a follower of Christ, not Zacharias after all.
~~~~~

When I was discussing this privately with Julie Anne a few days ago, Julie Anne said she doesn’t have a problem with that post by Rachel, because she doesn’t think Steve the Atheist guy would have a problem with it.

I, however, have a problem with it. A huge problem.

I am surprised that Julie Anne is so dismissive of that sort of thing by Nichols, when she has a spiritual abuse blog filled with some visitors who have become atheists because they’ve been hurt by churches, certain doctrines, or by Christians – some in part by the very attitude that Nichols was putting on display there.

Rachel sounds condescending, snarky, and dismissive there.

I have problems with the Christian faith and have really been struggling lately as if to stay or ditch it and go whole-hog on Agnosticism.

Do I want to tell you why? No, not in the entirety, because the moment a doubter starts laying it all out there, saying,

“My reasons for leaving the faith are as follows: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6,”

the immediate response by most Christians is to do one or more of the following:

Play Defense Attorney for God, try to argue you back into the Faith, tell you that all your reasons are Stupid and un-biblical, or, to tell you that you must have never been truly saved to start with.

I can perhaps do a future post about why I am thinking of leaving the Christian faith, but it’s a topic that would take too long to explain.

I did explain under another post at Julie Anne’s blog a few weeks ago, that on the one hand, I do think Ex Christian atheists, such as Steve, need to maybe be careful about using their personal experiences with Christian as an “anti-apologietic,” because it doesn’t work that way.

In other words, if Steve wants to leave Christianity because he’s disappointed with it after encountering famous Christian apologists such as Ravi Zacharias falsifying or exaggerating his educational credentials, that is all well and good (I actually understand it), but, however, crummy behavior by Christians in and of itself does not “disprove” truth claims of the Christian faith. (I would hope Steve already knows that.)

On the other hand.

Some other guy at SSB in that same Ravi Zacharias thread was arguing that Steve the “Ex Christian Atheist” has no moral basis on which to object to Zacharias’ behavior because he, Steve, does not believe in a deity.

I am not sure what that guy was ultimately arguing, that we should all ignore Steve and anything Steve says about Jesus, about Christianity, about Zacharias?

I responded to that guy along the lines of,

“What difference does it make if Steve lacks a belief in deity, when the professing Christian is not bothering to follow the moral dictates of that God as recorded in the Bible? It’s a distinction without a difference. Even Jesus said, “Why do you call me “Lord Lord” but do not do what I teach?”

You can have a God and believe in a God, but if you don’t even bother to do what that God says he wants you to do in his Bible, why do you bother?  You are a Christianized Atheist.

You’re really not that much different from a Steve type of guy who says, “I don’t think a God exists.”

You’re saying “Okay, there is a God, but I won’t bother obeying him or doing what he would prefer.”

(That’s also a lot like Satan and the fallen angels – demons – the Bible says they know God exists too, but they give God the middle finger and tell God to kiss off.)

I have no idea how to explain this to Christians who keep wanting to harp on “follow Jesus, not Christians or celebrity pastors, Christ will never let you down but the rank and file will!” rhetoric in a way that they can grasp, but whether you want to accept this or not-
Some of us (me included) who leave the faith (or who may leave it), do see constant Christian mis-behavior among so many professing Christians as a reason to reject Christ / the Christian faith.

And irony on top of irony:

I not only see Ravi Zacharias exaggerating his credentials and allegedly having an extra-marital affair…

(see how that “equally yoked” thing doesn’t work, Rachel?

 Ravi Zacharias is a Christian, but he’s still flirting with other women  – and he’s doing so over a cell phone, and so the Mike Pence Rule doesn’t help there, either – they were “alone” over a cell phone connection, LOL!),

-But I have this self-professing Christian, Rachel Nichols, cattily and arrogantly dismissing what she assumes are Steve’s reasons for rejecting Jesus or the Christian faith, as though his concerns are nothing, in her judgment.

And that adds to the list of self professing Christians I see who do not reflect the Jesus they say they follow, and once more drives me a bit farther away from this faith.

According to how Rachel came across in her remark to Steve on SSB:

Rachel “has Jesus,” while Steve was supposedly worshipping Ravi Zacharias.

Rachel was “following Jesus,” while Steve was supposedly merely only “following Ravi Zacharias.”

It seems like a rather heartless and simplistic way to dismiss someone’s supposed reasons for leaving the faith.

(I’m not even sure what Steve’s reasons are or were. I didn’t dig deeply into his site last I was there to see.)

I would take it if you asked Steve, did you love Jesus or follow Jesus at one time, before you de-converted?, he’d probably say yes, yes I did.

I would guess that with Steve, that the Ravi Zacharias moral lapses were just another brick in the wall of reasons Steve left the faith.

BILL NYE RACHEL’S SCIENCE GUY

Rachel told me something in her post about how she thinks I am “listening to Bill Nye the Sciene Guy’s teachings about sex and have gone off the deep end.”

What in the hell? I have no idea what any of that even means.

If you can decipher what she meant by that, please let me know.

Bill Nye is an atheist guy (I think he’s atheist?) who is into slamming right wingers over not buying into left wing propaganda about global warming – I’m not down with that.

I’m not an atheist, either.

I did used to watch Bill Nye’s show about science on TV years ago. I don’t even remember when it was on, in the 1990s?

The only thing I remember is the catchy theme song,

“Bill Nye the Science Guy! Bill Nye the Science Guy! Bill Nye the Science Guy! Bill! Bill! Bill!”

That is all the knowledge I have of Nye.

I’m not a Nye fan.

I have no clue what nutty Rachel meant by any of her Nye references or Nye’s view on sex – does Nye even teach stuff about sex?

I though Nye only talked about dinosaurs, climate change, and how much he hates Republicans and Trump above all?

RECAP

=If Rachel or anyone wants to un-follow this blog for whatever reason, I can deal with that, but.

But it’s kind of petty for you to, as she did, leave a final farewell, kiss off post where you (she) outlines my every perceived flaw.

Maybe if she and I had been close online friends, or she had been posting here for years, I could maybe get it, but as it is, we didn’t have that kind of relationship.

Also, taking pot shots at perceived areas of vulnerability that you know about from having read my comments on other blogs or on here (e.g. my single status) in the process of that final kiss off was just very mean-spirited and petty.

=The Mike Pence Rule is all kinds of stupid and sexist, and I’ve gotten through life fine without it, you can too.

=I’m not a misandrist.

Criticizing men’s comments or views about sexual harassment of women by men does not make a person a misandrist.

I’ve criticized women before not just on this blog but on other blogs.

I am more the human equivalent to the internet’s Grumpy Cat – I am an equal opportunity, low key misanthrope. (I’m not a hard core misanthrope. I’ve been known to help people in need before.)

Yes, the word Nichols really should be after is “misanthrope,” not “misandrist.”

Rachel Nichols is catty and spiteful, and I don’t think she’s honest or accurate in her criticisms. She is kind of horrible. She is bad advertising for her Lord and Savior.

I think that does it. Knowing me, though, after I hit the Publish button, I’ll sit there and think, “I forgot to add something,” and I’ll have to edit this post to add whatever it is. I hope not.

In the future, I may or may not do a post about leaving the Christian faith, or one about the Mike Pence Rule.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “• Rachel Nichols, Misandry, Agnosticism, and Good Christian Bitches

    • Jim, the strange thing is I don’t focus a lot on my questioning of the Christian faith, not here, and not really on other blogs. I’ve only indirectly discussed it on this blog and some of the other sites where Rachel and I posted to.

      I don’t recall even having made any posts on this blog discussing my semi- agnostic state.

      I usually post about mental health issues, or a Christian doctrine called ‘complementarianism.’

      I have never rejected Jesus Christ, so I don’t know where Rachel was getting that from.

      I have said the last 2 – 3 whatever years on these other sites I was posting to I’ve been having doubts about the faith, but I’ve not totally rejected the faith.

      Rachel is, or was, rather condescending, dismissive, and catty towards myself, towards an atheist guy named Steve on another site, and sometimes to other Christians.

      I once had an online friend for several years who treated me like absolute trash. She held herself up as a steadfast Christian.

      However, she would cuss me out and act very hostile towards me.

      Even when this ex friend was in her faith crisis, and I was still a total Christian, I was supportive of her at that time. I was not judgmental or hateful towards her.

      When my own faith crisis hit, she cussed me out over that, accused me of being an atheist, and just dumped me. I did not see any trace of the empathy and support the Bible says one should expect from a self professing Christian.

      That ex friend of mine and Rachel are alike in some ways:
      They claim to be people of great faith but are quite mean-spirited and insulting towards people. They do not remind me of the Jesus of the Bible they claim to follow.

  1. Rachel N may be a follower of The Activist Mommy on youtube, who published a video on how bad and dangerous she thought Bill Nye is.

    • @ Forrest

      Rachel Nichols never did return to respond, so I don’t know what got into her. I didn’t even understand some of her complaints towards me in her final grouchy post to me.

      We seemed to agree on a lot of other subject matter, but one point or another I made in one of my last posts seem to set her off, or something.

      Rachel could be kind of smug, catty, or disagreeable with me (and with others) on Julie Anne’s “SSB” blog, so I stopped going over there for that, and because Julie Anne wouldn’t let one post of mine directed at RN stand (where I asked RN to come back to this blog to hash things out) – that post was removed or never published.

      I have heard of “Activist Mommy” in regards to her conflict with Teen Vogue Magazine (PJ Media article), but I’ve never seen or heard any thing about her concerning Bill Nye.

      I had to go to You Tube and run a search on “Bill Nye” + “Activist Mommy” where I found this:

      _Bill Nye, the Guy Who Hates Science and Loves Teaching Perverted Sex! Warning! Graphic!_ (link to You Tube video)

      Thank you, Forrest, for giving me this information.

      I was only a bit familiar with Nye via his old science kid’s show, and he’s been in the news the last few years yelling about climate change deniers. Other than that, I don’t know much about him.

      In that video, ‘Activist Mommy’ shows clips from a show Nye was on called, “Bill Nye Saves The World,” and I’ve never seen this show before seeing this clip on You Tube today, after you told me about Activist Mommy and Nye: but apparently Rachel has heard of this before.

      So, Rachel, (if Rachel is reading this), YOU’RE the one watching so-called perverted (as ‘Activist Mommy’ refers to them) sex shows by Nye, not me.

      I’ve finished watching that ‘Activist Mommy’ Nye video.

      Some of my comments on it:

      I’m still a conservative, not a liberal, and no, I didn’t agree with the stuff in that Nye show clip.

      I can’t say I endorse a “spectrum of sexuality,” (not totally sure what that means), nor do I endorse women ‘speaking out of their vaginas’

      I have no idea if Rachel Nichols will ever see this or not, but:

      Rachel Nichols is bearing false witness against her neighbor (Exodus 23:1), attributing views to me I do not hold, by saying I support or agree with Nye on all those things.

      Rachel, you’re in violation of that Bible you probably say you believe in.

      While I don’t share any of the views I see Nye promoting on his show:

      On the other hand, I’m not sure if biblical scolds such as “Activist Mommy” or Rachel Nichols are going to make a dent in the culture wars by wagging their index fingers in a School Marm fashion at Non-Christians or liberals who do believe in that stuff.

      If I were forced between being stuck on a desert isle with either Rachel Nichols, Activist Mommy, Bill Nye, or the woman in the video who says she “screams out of her vagina,” I’d be very hard pressed to choose among any of them.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s