Are teen girls responsible for helping teen boys fit in?
There’s a disturbing trend I’ve noticed lately where, when a disturbed man goes on a killing spree, the blame is often put on the girls who wouldn’t give him the time of day.
I wrote a few thoughts about that back in 2018, when the Toronto van attack occurred.
I never ran that piece, and as I’ve been cleaning up the blog, I found it again in my drafts folder. I actually would like some of these thoughts published, so I decided to flesh it out today, even though it is six years later!
So here I am, six years ago:
This week, in my hometown of Toronto, a loner rented a van and rammed into pedestrians, killing 10 people and wounding 16 others.
While I don’t live in Toronto now, I grew up there. I’m familiar with Yonge & Finch (where it happened). This one hit close to home, literally, as so many others have hit close to home for many of you.
When stuff like this happens, the debate inevitably turns to guns, or mental illness. And that’s not what I want to talk about here (PLEASE let’s not do the gun control debate in the comments, okay? Guns were not involved here and there were still multiple fatalities. That’s not what I’m trying to talk about.)
Instead, I want to talk about this thread that we often hear about how these mass murderers were loners who were rejected. This guy belonged to an “incel” group, which stood for involuntary celibacy. Girls wouldn’t give him the time of day. He was lonely and angry about it.
It reminds me of another Canadian mass murder, The Montreal Massacre, which occurred December 6, 1989. A gunman burst into a university engineering class, lined up the men and women separately, and gunned down all the women. It was reportedly widely at the time that he was similarly lonely and mad that women had rejected him.
In fact, pretty much all the mass murderers have been “loners”.
How do we handle the loners in our midst?
I do think, as a society, we have to ask what steers murderers in this direction. We have to ask if there’s something we can do to identify people who may be dangerous and reach out to them earlier.
But here’s where things get dicey. I read this comment on the New York Times site, and I thought it had interesting insight:
There is often…reporting about their status of a “loner” or “being awkward” in school and, I think, an implied link that … if the kids around him reached out more this could have been avoided. I can say that as a girl in my school years, I often did reach out to kids, often boys, who sat alone or who were awkward. Many times this resulted in regret on my part–they, being socially awkward, did not have much emotional intelligence or boundaries and I would have to extricate myself from the “friendship” or be endlessly bothered or harassed. I don’t think there is a person alive who did not feel lonely or left out sometime during their schooling years, but always reporting about how the person (man) was “lonely” or “socially isolated” in school indirectly places blame on the other students, often girls. The cliche of the “snobby cheerleader” who often gets what she deserves (humiliation) in almost any teen movie or show reinforces this. Often times, children stay away from or shun other kids they know are dangerous. This is different than bullying and is an adult problem to be handled by professionals.
Kids should not be held responsible, directly or indirectly, for the actions of a classmate.
I tend to agree.
Bullying a classmate is different from avoiding a classmate who seems dangerous or awkward.
I remember reaching out to loners in high school, too, and then regretting it as they stuck to me like glue and asked me out every day.
I want to be Jesus’ hands and feet in this world. We know that Jesus loves all, and that His eyes are especially on the loners. But sometimes people are loners because they are simply nerds or socially awkward, and other times people are loners because they seem dangerous (and they start stalking anyone who gets close).
(Sheila from 2024 chiming in again!)
At the time of the Toronto van attack, Rebecca was in Psychology class at the University of Ottawa.
She wrote about her experience of this incident in our book She Deserves Better.
From She Deserves Better
I was in university when the news broke about a mass killing spree in Toronto. A young man had rammed his van into pedes- trians in retribution for being forced into “involuntary celibacy.”3 Women didn’t want him, women didn’t like him, and so he killed them to get revenge. My university classes (I was a psychology major) talked about him from an anti-bullying perspective. Several male professors pontificated: “Well, if some girls had just been nice to him in high school, maybe he could have turned out differently.”
I piped up rather angrily: “What if the reason girls weren’t nice to him in high school wasn’t because the girls were mean but rather because they could tell he was the kind of guy who would end up ramming a van into girls who didn’t want to have sex with him?”
Yes, children should grow up in a world where they are not unnecessarily ostracized, bullied, picked on, or ridiculed simply because they are different. But that needs to be balanced with a careful conversation about how your daughter does not owe flat- tery and an ego boost to dangerous people, or people who don’t respect boundaries.
We need to stop putting the responsibility for men’s good behavior onto women’s shoulders.
It is not up to women to make sure that boys and men behave correctly–let alone that boys or men don’t kill them. And I’m finding these conversations increasingly more difficult.
When I spoke at Colorado Christian University a few years ago, I made the point that in evangelical circles, we often paint a picture of salvation that looks like this:
God saves women so that women can save men. We can’t expect men to do it on their own. And when we talk about how important women are to men, it sounds almost like we’re complimenting women. “You can make such a difference in his life! You can be such an influence on him!”
Yes, we can influence the men around us.
But influencing someone for good is not a female job.
It is a human job.
And when the church talks like you can’t expect men to do the right thing unless there is a woman offering him unconditional respect, sex on demand, and constant praise, then the church really is infantilizing men while blaming women when things go wrong.
It doesn’t matter how much you say that you think women are so valuable; when you frame the problem like this, then you’re excusing men’s bad behavior.
We all need to be a strong community for each other. We need to watch out for our neighbours, especially those with young kids, and get the authorities involved if kids are being neglected or abused. We need to figure out better ways as a society to heal childhood trauma. We need to research what makes some people commit violence.
But we need to also do this without continuing the narrative that when a man does something wrong, it’s because some girl or woman didn’t do her job.
What do you think? Do you hear this sort of rhetoric a lot? What can we do about it? Let’s talk in the comments!
This idea that teenage girls are primarily responsible for a celibate loner’s murderous rampage is just another rendition of, “when in doubt, blame the women.” And that makes perfect sense in a white evangelical culture where 8 year olds are blamed for the intoxicating effects of their tummies on grown men. If a man is aroused by the sight of a 8 year olds bare tummy it’s because he is a pedophile not, because she is in the wrong. Yet, evangelical culture routinely sacrifices girls on this alter.
(Apologies in advance- my thoughts are a bit disjointed today.)
My son is a loner. Many times I have wished he had more people to interact with him. He is socially awkward, is on the autism spectrum, and is very nerdy. However, does that mean that if he did something egregious that I would ever blame his peers, particularly girls, for that *choice* of his? I sure hope not! (Fwiw, he is self-confident while being realistic about his strenghs and weaknesses, and happy being mostly alone. We continue to work on social/life skills, but he is happy with himself, happy with the one friend he has, and just overall happy with life.)
But why do we blame the kids? Why not the teachers or the administration letting kids slide through the system instead of setting up lunch-buddy programs or something? (I’m NOT saying we should blame school staff, etc. What I’m getting at is- why do we automatically blame the lowest entity in the system? Because they are the weakest and least able to defend themselves and we feel less out of control if we have something to blame. That lets us feel we can prevent horrible events from happening again.)
I think what Rebecca said in SDB is spot on- many girls do not interact with some people because they intuitively or otherwise realize there is something “off” and they do not feel safe. Why does the church work so hard to condition us to silence that still, small voice that God has gifted us?? It is unbiblical imo.
As for “women can save men,” I was taught that at a previous, toxic church. I was told I needed to realize that my God-given purpose in life was to develop my husband into the man God had designed him to be. Perhaps if I had done that better, I would have been blessed with more kids (that I wanted.) Let me get this straight… *I* am to complete the job that *GOD* did not finish? Are you kidding? (And since I didn’t, God punished me with infertility.) That’s not too much pressure to put on a woman now, is it? (eyeroll) In that situation, it seems they have placed women over God even! But at the end of the day, us women need to know we are the lowest, and the lowest means it is *always* our fault.
I’d suggest that men befriend other members of their own sex, police the bad actors among their own sex, do their own research to improve their own selves (instead of asking women to provide such resources 🙄), and learn to be gigolos to their own wives, but what would be the point?
In the church, at least, men are told that they’re fabulous leaders whether they are or not. They certainly don’t listen when women (and especially their own wives, who see the real man that manifests in the privacy of their homes) bring up myriad areas of improvement, and there’s clearly not enough peer pressure among them to just be better human beings, let alone “better men,” whatever that’s supposed to mean.
Men are so competitive in so many areas of life (shout-out to Matthew Fray), yet there’s a real race to the bottom to be real friends to other men, to be awesome husbands, to be highly involved fathers to their own children.
Women can’t fix any of this. And we’re tired of trying.
As a parent of young boys and a girl, I feel some real fear about the culture they are growing up into. I fear that as young men and women seem to be diverging in so many ways (religiosity, desire for children, educational attainment), resentment and blame against girls and women will continue to grow. We need to teach boys and young men to own their own stuff and work on themselves as people. But I fear our culture is heading towards openly embracing narratives that entitle men to women’s emotional support, physical labor, and even our bodies. I wish we could step back collectively and recognize that this is not serving anybody, regardless of gender, but I fear that won’t happen.
Yes, I’m seeing a lot of that happening, too, and it is really disturbing.
I was actually one these socially awkward boys. During that time in high school and after I wanted to girls to reach out to me, but it didn’t happen much in high school, but it happened when after high school . A girl who was also a Christian whowas a few years older than we did reach out. A girl did who was bubbly who befriended a lot of guys, but didn’t seem like she got along with girls. We didn’t date but she was a very friend and we hungout a lot along with others, unfortunately I got very emotionally attached to her I felt good that I got some attention from a girl and it led to problems. I remember doing passive aggressive things. She did things too that were not right too.After she had to relocate, I was actually glad in a way that I was away from her.But I went through bad Deppression and regret and anger for getting so attached to her carried baggage
The girl I still talk to every now and then, we live on different sides of the country.
She had been married 4 times on her 4th husband.
I really could have benefitted from emotionally health male friends and avoided the things that happened.
Absolutely right.
It is NOT a girls responsibility to reach out to lonely guys.
I’m can attest that coming from the other side.
Thanks for speaking up, Jason!
Every time I hear someone blaming women for a loner turning into a killer, I think ‘those girls were wise enough to recognise and avoid a dangerous man.’
I once had a lengthy conversation with a guy who was so bitter that no woman would go out with him – he insisted that this was because all women were ‘spoiled princesses’ who were only interested in men who were good-looking, powerful or wealthy and that they deserved to be killed by incels. Any time I pointed out a relationship where the guy did not fulfil these stereotypes, he came up with an excuse as to why the woman was dating/married to that guy. Accepting that his own bitterness, anger, negativity and selfishness were deterrents to women dating him would have meant that he had to accept responsibility for his single state and start doing some work on his own character. So much easier simply to blame women for being selfish and demanding instead. (He was actually a good-looking guy with a reasonable job – but his sense of entitlement was scary)
I hope you flagged him to some authorities! Sounds like he could be violent toward women himself.
That 2018 mass murder was literally in my backyard – the killer lived only 5 min from my office, went to my old high school and the killings happened where my aunt lived. Since it was a local case, details came out that were missed by the international media. This wasn’t a case where a nice guy was unable to get a girlfriend. It was someone with extreme social deficits who would hiss like a cat and avoid girls. At his trial, the judge concluded that he was obsessed with mass murderers, wanted attention and feared that he would fail at his first job. She thought that he faked some of his connection to the incel movement because it would increase the attention he got. Here is the judgment: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2021/2021onsc1258/2021onsc1258.html
In short: girls/women didn’t cause this, at all.
And isn’t it interesting how quickly the news cycle missed all these details and defaulted to the “well, the girls were mean” trope? It’s almost like it’s an implicit bias or something.
I absolutely believe that women avoid men who creep them out, and that is a good thing. Nevertheless, people in dysfunctional and abusive environments dissuade women from honouring that instinct, both regarding men their own age and predatory men.
I wish we did a better job at telling young people that life changes a LOT after high school.
I wish that we talked more about an “internal locus of control.” What can you control if women don’t date you in high school?
Maybe try studying harder, hitting the gym, ensuring that you are hygienic (deodorant, clean clothes without holes, clean and trimmed hair), and learning to be a pleasant person to be around.
If you have fantasies of hurting people, feel a sense of entitlement, etc., please get therapy. Learn hard lessons. Decide if you would rather be hateful or have healthy relationships.
Ask women out for low-key dates. It’s just coffee. It’s an afternoon at the art museum. Generally, women usually say yes.
Ask some of your trusted friends for gentle but truthful feedback.
Again, the race is long.
It’s crazy, because it’s so obvious that men who do these things are going to be happier than those who throw it all onto women’s shoulders.
IMO, this shows the flawed understanding of mental illness that exists in both secular and Christian circles. If a person is having homicidal thoughts, that person needs serious intervention by both a psychiatrist and likely law enforcement. Kindness, friendship, a girlfriend, a pet, prayer, Jesus’ love, going to church, getting saved- none of these things are likely to change the situation any more than they would cure cancer.
If a disgruntled employee goes to work and murders several co-workers or supervisors, would we say, maybe if they’d still be alive if they had given him a raise sooner, or sat next to him in the break room?
If a disturbed woman drowns or poisons her small children, do we say, oh, if only the baby hadn’t had colic, or if her husband or friends had supported her more, maybe she wouldn’t have done it?
No. There are normal human reactions to stress, conflict or rejection. And then there are psychotic reactions. Murdering someone, especially a complete stranger, is never a normal human reaction.
I agree that mental illness needs to be a bigger part of the conversation; telling people to just be more inclusive won’t work when the isolated person is hissing like a cat and behaving creepily toward young women. But I want to push back on the idea that there’s a clear line between normal human reactions and psychosis. Whether you like it or not, the full spectrum of behavior is in fact fully human, and viewing an arbitrary segment of human behavior through a pathological lens is unhelpful. Maybe you think you wouldn’t drown your own infants, for example. But what if they were screaming for days on end and you were recovering from major abdominal surgery with no support? Struggling people are neither moral monsters nor psychotic. They have reasons for the things they do.
Agree that this is not a normal reaction to stress, conflict or rejection. The 2018 mass killer, however, was not psychotic. He knew what he was doing, and knew that it was wrong. The insanity defense was rejected at his trial.
He did have autism with severe social deficits, but people with autism are NOT inherently dangerous. There was a lot of concern around the time of the trial, where the defence lawyers wanted to argue the insanity defence on the basis of the autism diagnosis, that this could unfairly stigmatize others with autism.
I agree with the main points of this article. But this one makes me uncomfortable. I think it’s some of the wording, and I don’t want to be the wording police.
But right now my son is reading the book, Kids Beautitudes. And it is making his anxiety so much better already after just a few days. One of the Kids Beatitudes involves playing with the new boy who is lonely. I know the context is different. And the kids in the example are very young. The older we get, the more complicated it gets!
But what bothered me is this: I don’t think social deficits always equate to moral deficits. In fact, I’m certain they don’t.
But girls should absolutely not be taught to be in denial if they are getting warning signals that cause them to feel cautious or afraid.
I think there is a huge difference between someone who is socially awkward and someone who is actually creepy/unsafe. Also, there is a huge difference between a 10 year old boy who wants friends (which could be provided in a group setting or by friendship with other boys) and a 20-year-old who wants a girlfriend. Guys who want girlfriends need to put in the work on making themselves safe men to be around.
I just wish that the boys with personality disorders weren’t seen as representative of “boys” as in the title. Although I agree that girls are not “responsible” for making boys less “lonely.” And I know that girls don’t have a way of sorting the dangerous from the safe boys immediately.
I agree that socially, we reap what we sow. There is no such thing as an entitlement to either friendship or sex. Our social lives work according to emotional cause-effect, with some cognitive portion involved. But definitely the lower and mid brain regions are strongly involved and integrated with the cerebral cortex when it comes to our social behaviors.
I believe that when Eve was created to be a help for Adam, the word “ezer” was the same word used of divine help. The immediate context was companionship. This is one of the ironies of “male leadership.” Women have been knee-capped all to often from being the kind of help they could be socially.
All women aren’t socially better than all men, but there is a strong tendency for girls to mature faster than boys, and it’s more true than ever, with the younger generations. Girls mature even faster than ever. Boys mature more slowly than ever. It’s environmental in part.
Some girls are nerds, and some women are warrior women. Some boys are artists and poets – and nerds. But I think the statistics show that men need women, and it’s not just for sex.
Does it make women “responsible” per se? No, but Jesus asked the stronger to serve “the least of these.” It is God’s will for the stronger people in the Kingdom to serve and protect the weaker, for the richer to give to the poorer.
Now just as we don’t need to give all our belongings to a thief that shows up at our doorstep, we don’t need to waste ourselves emotionally on narcissists. There is a place for wisdom in our faith walk.
This wisdom should be manifesting in women choosing wisely who to be socially and emotionally giving to. I don’t think women should be giving narcissist supply to either alpha males or lone wolves. But I think there is a time and place to be kind to “the least of these.” It may not be a dangerous man. It may be an elderly man in a nursing home. It may be a special needs teen. It may be a disabled veteran. It doesn’t have to involve putting oneself in harm’s way or risking being resented by the “friend zoned” lone wolf.
We would like it if strong men behaved with chivalrous behavior toward not only weaker women but also toward the elderly, children, the disabled, etc. We would like it if the rich people were more charitable to the poor. Ironically complementarians have a tendency within “headship doctrine” to imagine women as being parasitical but then turn their husbands into parasites of them. What would be preferable would be appreciating their strengths and welcoming women to lead with their strengths. I won’t hold my breath.
What is important to remember is that, while it is a net positive to be aware of the lonely and the needy among us, it will be a net negative if we allow our caring to shut down our intuition about people who might be dangerous. Children are not always equipped to deal with the “creeps” they might get from a classmate, and if they are being encouraged to befriend someone who is lonely at the expense of their God-given intuition, that will end up being a problem. So yes, seek out the lonely child, but parents should always be aware of how the relationship is progressing, and ready to step in if it’s turning toxic.
I don’t believe Eve was created to be Adams helper, she was created to be his equal partner. Telling girls they are the helper, and because they are socially conditioned to be more mature, so now need to serve and protect the awkward, strange, or creepy boy is a dis-service to the girls. The boys male peers should be the ones to offer friendship, not the girls. Its not the girls job to give boys attention, she does not owe anyone attention, and we are in this bad place because men and boys thing they are owed attention and affection and sex from women just because they want it. Often those boys can’t handle being treated like a friend, they want and push for more and are rightfully rejected. The stronger who should be serving the weaker are not the same aged peers of the boy, but instead teachers, parents, counselors, coaches.
You misunderstood me.
This is how I read the relevant passage in Genesis:
Did God Make Man A Woman Servant Suitable for Him? (Genesis 2:18)
https://eitan.bar/articles/servant-help-suitable-him-genesis-2-18/
Although I feel no need to integrate it with a “mutual submission” or “servant leadership” reading of the Household Codes, since they were not part of the Ten Commandments are were of Greek pagan philosopher origin. I think it’s fine that Eitan Bar at least filters Paul through Jesus rather than vice versa.
Actually peers can get leadership experience in school by helping other kids. Volunteer programs exist to befriend special needs students and get extra credit.
I think kids should not only learn to be followers in school. And in Montessori schools with the mixed ages it’s even better for them, because the older children can help the younger.
Usually in public school the kids just learn to be followers. Very few get any leadership experience.
Yes, I do like the Montessori model!
“I think there is a time and place to be kind to “the least of these.” It may not be a dangerous man. It may be an elderly man in a nursing home. It may be a special needs teen. It may be a disabled veteran. It doesn’t have to involve putting oneself in harm’s way or risking being resented by the “friend zoned” lone wolf.”
I think that this article makes it very clear that there is a distinction between someone who is dangerous and someone who is just in need of some friendship and compassion. The point is that when someone who IS dangerous does evil or violent things, we should not be blaming other people for their actions.
Of course.
Agree that social deficits are not moral deficits.
The problem with the “incel” movement isn’t lack of social skills, it is the fact that a subculture has developed which tells men that they will always be rejected, that creates an expectation that they are entitled to a sexual relationship with the ideal woman and fuels resentment that they don’t have one. At no point are these men encouraged to actually develop social skills or interests or treat women like normal human beings. It is all about stoking rage. In some ways, it is a lot like violent racism.
There are some programs in schools designed to help kids develop social skills. My kids’ elementary school had a Recess Buddies program, where older students would look out for younger students who seemed to be alone at recess and get them included in games. They also participated in programs that matched high school students with youth who had special needs, to be buddies during the school year or summer. These programs were great for everyone involved! But of course, they weren’t getting into romantic relationships with their buddies! There are some dating coaches for people on the autism spectrum. But unlike basic human decency and inclusion, nobody is entitled to a romantic or sexual relationship. Early projects to encourage social inclusion, combined with counseling and skill development and opportunities to meet people, may help those relationship to develop naturally. If someone is sucked into a world of anger, resentment and hatred, though, they should be avoided.
I think this is one reason why I wish emotional health and wholeness was seen as the goal of church life/parenting rather than pairing off and marrying.
If the goal is pairing off, then if you’re not paired off, you feel like you’ve been cheated.
But if the goal is wholeness and emotional well-being so that you can be in good community, then that is something you can achieve on your own, even if you’re not paired off.
One thing I have seen (from being too online) is that it’s not necessarily a relationship that is supposed to “cure” a so-called incel, but sex. I think sex is propped up as being the measure of a guy’s value—if he can get sex from women, he is a real man or a worthy man. (Yes, I’ve seen people say some girl should have just slept with Eliot Rodger and then he would have been a-ok!) I think it degrades men, women, and relationships, and takes a good thing (sex) and makes it the only thing, instead of Jesus.
Holy cow, I was just thinking how much the killer in this post sounded like Elliot Rodger! And no, Rodger’s crimes were not the fault of the women who wouldn’t sleep with him. If we’re looking for something to blame, how about the fact that Rodger had an ego the size of Russia, a chip on his shoulder at least as large, a massive sense of entitlement, and an undiagnosed case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder? Seriously, watch the episode of “Copycat Killers” about Rodger – it goes over ALL of this and parallels him to Patrick Bateman in “American Psycho.” It is definitely worth a watch.
People fail to realize that giving attention to a narcissist is like plugging an electric generator into a black hole.
I’ve been in more than one relationship to a narcissist in my life, and it’s exhausting. All the attention in the world doesn’t change a narcissist for the better. It make him worse. He feels that he is entitled to his whole life being one big smoothly delivered customer service experience from all people and all things. But life and people don’t deliver as they should. He will inevitably be disappointed time and again.
To try to please a narcissist is to become exhausted on a treadmill of trying to please the unpleasable.
We must stop making more narcissists. This is why we need to break the cycles of passing dysfunction from one generation to the next. Somebody called this gender wars and culture wars. It’s not. If the truth sets free the Christian mothers they can set free both sons and daughters. I made my son codependent. I didn’t mean to. He imitated me. It was a low point realizing what my example did to him. It was one of the worst feelings I’ve ever had. I felt completely defeated.
Jen, you’re not alone. Hugs.
I once befriended a guy who was different and awkward because he seemed like a really nice person, and I wanted to include him. But because I was friendly to him, he kept thinking I was interested in dating him, even though I told him no several times. Eventually I had to stop being friends with him because he kept believing I was interested in him. And it wasn’t all his fault either. Other guys in his life told him I must like him because I was being nice and talking to him. Even though I was very clear: “I don’t like you like that, and I just want to be your friend. We would never work out anyway.”
I really don’t think he was a bad guy, just awkward with some disabilities. But you can’t even necessarily befriend a lonely guy, because then they start thinking you like them!
shhanson, that’s why I get so frustrated with people who say “girls shouldn’t be blamed when lonely men commit violent acts BUT it would still be great if they could offer friendship to lonely men…” because it ignores the risks that girls in this situation have to face.
I’m glad the guy you befriended at least didn’t cause you any major problems. When I was in my early 20s, we had a lonely young guy turn up at our church – the guys offered him friendship, but that wasn’t enough for him, he wanted a girlfriend. He sexually assaulted multiple girls in the church, some as young as sixteen. The church leadership’s response? He needed a wife, because then his frustration wouldn’t ‘make’ him misbehave… At the time, I was living alone and was extremely careful to make sure he never found out where I lived. I opened the door one evening to find him standing on the doorstep – one of our church elders had given him my address, because they’d decided that I would be a suitable wife for him…
Yep. It’s like Neville Chamberlain giving Poland over to Germany thinking they would be happy with that and leave the rest alone. It never works that way.
Today I’d like to remember my great uncle who died bravely and early in WWII. His death haunted my grandfather for the rest of his life. My grandfather came back from the war and spent his life in areas helping people who were the “wrong colour” – he never made a lot of money, but he was loved ….
I’m also remembering a spitfire pilot who went on interminable missions, and spent his life with the ghosts of the ones who were lost. But couldn’t ever talk about it. Any of it.
I knew others.
They were all men. And I’m honouring them today.
I know the culture war and gender wars are relevant.
But for me this post is not for today. 😔
I had WW II veterans in my family on both sides. They were loved. They are missed. The youngest of them just passed a year ago or so.
Thank you for sharing Jen. 😔♥️
I’m sorry you feel this post was inappropriate for Remembrance Day, but I disagree. On Remembrance Day, we pay our respects to those who gave their lives for peace and freedom – I can’t think of a more appropriate day on which to speak out against injustice. (It’s also inaccurate to refer to this as a gender war – this issue is something that anyone of good character should be concerned about, regardless of their gender)
Thank you for weighing in.
People come here to talk about these issues – showing up in different forms, pretty much every day.
One day of the year is set aside for Remembrance Day. Apart from my own experiences, on a larger scale – “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana. I think one day for collective remembering is a good thing. I also have personal reasons to want to honour that.
Regarding my comment about gender wars – the title of the post is “Are Girls Responsible For Making Boys Feel Less Lonely” – while the article may diverge from this in its specifics, it was framed as being posted to underscore this point. It’s about gender. Calling it a gender war isn’t a reach for me. The focus in response is also frequently tends to talk about collective gender.
We can differ on interpretation and that’s okay. I find the lines between problem solving and gender based outrage to be a bit too blurry.
I agree that this topic is gendered in so far as it discusses young women who are being blamed for young men committing acts of violence (only because men are seldom, if ever, blamed for women’s acts of violence). But brushing this off as some kind of gender war ignores the very real harm that this kind of thinking does to both men and women.
Women are encouraged to ignore major red flags in the men around them because of their ‘responsibility’ to prevent men feeling lonely. And if they don’t put their own lives at risk by befriending these men, then they are blamed for any violent crimes those men commit.
Men are treated as helpless infants who are unable to behave well unless women do most of the hard work for them. This is incredibly offensive to the many men who take responsibility for their own actions and do what is right. It also gives men who are isolated because of their own poor behaviour an excuse to avoid making any changes. (I’m thinking of a young man I knew who couldn’t get a girlfriend because of his own poor behaviours. He had the sense to listen to advice from trusted friends and put some hard work into changing. If he’d been told that he was fine as he was and all he needed was for women to stop being selfish and start paying him attention, I can imagine what a mess he would be in by now)
I really don’t see that a belief/attitude which is harmful to both men and women can be called a ‘gender war’.
If you don’t want to think about relationship and social issues on Remembrance Day, that is absolutely fine – but in that case, maybe just avoid checking out the Bare Marriage page on November 11th.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
I had actually posted a longer response in this discussion yesterday – which apparently disappeared into the ether.
I don’t come here to destroy – and that’s not what my comments about Remembrance Day were meant to do. I come here because I do care about the issues. I also care about maintaining integrity in how/when/why we discuss them.
Rhetorical question – “Did I say anything out loud that other onlookers didn’t think?”
In any endeavour, the person asking “could this be done better” shouldn’t be an enemy.
I thought that was the whole purpose of articles like this one? To generate discussion, awaken consciences and provide alternatives.
Granted, my original post was not clinical. I do have a horse in the race. But by sharing personal experience, my effort was an attempt to be a softer, personal approach (an effort to invoke thoughtful responses) rather than simply “WTF?!”
There is more to say – but I’m tired, the overall water we are swimming in is complex, and I don’t have to “win” anything.
No hard feelings. Respectful disagreement isn’t a toxic commodity in my life.
Hello “K”- I’m simply another voice weighing in that you may also choose not to hear, but your original comment came across to me as a judment on the Bare Marriage Team in which you found them failing. Which surprised me- in a post on how women are so often blamed for things they did not do wrong you attempted to shame them for exactly that- not doing anything wrong. The irony makes me sad.
May I ask what blog you host where we can find your thoughts instead so discussions about remembering lost loved ones can be had in posts dedicated to that end? If you do not have one, perhaps another approach to consider would be sharing a website that offers others a chance to share their loved ones’ memories and inviting others to join you there instead of trying to shame Sheila and team for failnig to meet your personal standards and expectations.
Hello Anonymous,
My original post spoke from a personal perspective and where I was placed on the day I wrote it.
What I’m struggling to “hear” from your response – is a discussion where my actual perspective is being accurately portrayed and dealt with.
I’m saddened (but not surprised) that you heard malevolence (“attempted to shame” – etc. etc.) What you choose to impute into my original comment is on you. Not me.
Sheila describes Bare Marriage as a marriage blog. It has also been described as a Christian blog.
At this point she is still talking about marriage between men and women.
The entire issue that I am engaging in – is one of DEFINITION – applicable in terms of both principle and practice.
If this is a feminist blog – then the article actually fits very well within a feminist framework, and the article is perfectly authentic and acceptable for the day on which it was posted – in both definition and practice.
If this is a Christian marriage blog, then the absence of any sign of remembrance or just silence – on a day which is nationally set aside for the purpose, to remember people who fought and died and why (and the majority of the ones fighting were male) echoed loudly to me. Why THIS article, on a day where a lot of remembrance that is being done involves men?
Instead, the choice here was to talk exclusively about women’s concerns on this day. And that says something.
What does it say?
I’m not interpreting Sheila according to my own definition of what I’m CLAIMING she was trying to say. At no time have I done that.
Sheila is free to post whatever she wants to here. She is free to take her blog and her audience in whatever direction she wishes to go.
I’m trying to figure out what that direction is – because this one (under my understanding of the overall mission, as I had heard it previously) wasn’t clear to me.
Again, I’m refraining from imputing motive.
Power and definition have an interesting relationship. Ironically, some of the best examples of the dynamic could be made using Hitler’s speeches in the Second World War. Does this article, on this day reflect on the mission of Bare Marriage?
As a last note – to you, personally: are you intending to insist that everyone who comments here has to host their own blog in order to be able to do so? Or just the ones who hold opinions you personally disagree with?
(Bearing in mind that echo chambers are part of the dynamic that created current churchianity’s problems in the first place.)
I’m not responding to further comments made from the perspective of imputing motive.
P.S. Here is an article that could springboard a Remembrance Day post….
https://aimeebyrd.substack.com/p/the-challenge-for-men-to-connect
Maybe expand and talk about the legacy of trauma and what men are facing in terms of generational patterns even today?
Offer resources and hope?
I share this because you asked. Not because I’m intending to teach Sheila how to run her blog …..
Hello again, “K”
And I am saddened but not surprised that you chose to impugn motive on me. You missed the point which is that you could have approached commenting on this blog in a kinder Christian manner, appreciating that others can choose to post what they choose on the days in which they choose, without having to try to “win” by correcting them. The irony remains.
I was trying to help you see an alternative to posting a comment unrelated to this particular post while implying that Sheila failed to meet a certain set of standards you feel we should meet as Christians. We don’t have to attend every “fight” we are invited to, and, especially as Christians, we also do not need to start every one, either. (Some are needed, some are not, but that could be a series of blog posts all on its own😅.). And while many women understand all too well the “tone policing” that goes on, engaging in discussions online does leave a plethora of gray area re: tone and how things are meant. You certainly don’t seem to be taking my comment with the heart it was meant though. To use your own words (again), that is on you, not me.
I’m seeing enough of a pattern now to have a pretty good idea on where things stand so I will not try to give you food for thought anymore. You seem to have your hackles up and anything said now that you don’t agree with will probably be negatively received.
I’m bowing out. You can have this “win.” I wish you well. Peace.
I’m posting a response after the last one – which I really didn’t think I was going to do.
But I have an opportunity to make one point – which (in service to the reason I spoke up in the first place) is relevant.
Why do you call yourself “Anonymous” here? Do you ALWAYS call yourself anonymous when you post on this site? Or is it just here and now, in response to me?
I call myself K because there are very real life ramifications to me – which include safety concerns if I can be tied back to things which I have said here about my personal life. In fact the issue isn’t just a “private” domestic issue – it’s possible that media coverage (and legal fallout) would be an issue too.
There are women who come here and post the way I do. For similar reasons.
Was that your reason? Or was it more of a game?
Do you fully understand the reason yourself?
The issue of anonymity isn’t binary. (People with legitimate concerns VS people playing games.) Again, it happens in a context and creates a “water” which we are all swimming in. The challenge for EVERYONE is to remember that they are wet.
There have been various theories of this posited throughout the ages, but my concerns lie primarily within the “deindividuation” camp.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crowd_psychology&wprov=rarw1
Again. It comes down to defining what brings people here. Why are we congregating together – or ultimately ….. well, potentially Robespierre, really.
I’m talking around very big social constructs here – this is the world of ideas. To “win” is to have people engage and do work of their own in forming an informed opinion – not to develop personal disciples for myself or watch people split into tribal factions.
Would I like to “win” that – yes. Actually, I would.
Being a social watchman and being a social policeman are not the same thing (definition of watchman according to Ezekiel.)
I have no issue with you as another person. However, I am not making peace with your perspective.
I think if today you wanted to celebrate your loved ones you have many opportunities to do so, that don’t include reading a marriage blog and being offended that its not about Veterans Day for me, and Remembrance Day for you. If your choice was to focus on remembering those who paid a sacrifice to their country you can do that. Trying to shame people for talking about something different and gaslight us by saying its about gender wars is not ok.
Hello “S” – thank you for making my original point about “wars” so eloquently.
In your comment you projected motivations “trying to shame people” and also malevolent intentions “gaslight” onto me.
Apparently my sin was being “other” than what you considered acceptable? I voiced my opinion in my comment. You are welcome to disagree in principle – but not to impute motive.
None of the conversations on this blog happen in a vacuum. They happen in a religious setting that has been heavily influenced by Bill Gothard.
They happen in a world which has been shaped by “The personal is political” – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_personal_is_political
And we live in the world where the idea of cultural hegemony is relevant (polarization, anyone?!)- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony
Talking about gender and social structures overlaps enormously with both of these fields.
I unapologetically use the terms “gender war” and “culture war” – because even if the people reading and commenting here don’t want to “go there”, within the reality of broader culture and church history, others certainly will.
Yeah, people need to realize when they’re not the intended audience and move on. Surfing a known feminist blog and then being offended by feminist articles is like walking into Wendy’s and being offended that they serve chicken nuggets.
Mary, your comment is extremely valuable, thank you for making it.
It begs the question:
Is this primarily a “feminist blog” – as you say? (Is Sheila comfortable with that designation? – And which form/wave of feminism is it representing?)
Is it primarily a “Christian blog” – in which case my original comment (which was a form of wishing to “give honour where honour is due) becomes pertinent again.
Is it an “all things to all people blog” – in which case it generates discussion, but defining its purpose becomes almost meaningless because it defies definition – by definition …
Is it a mixture of all of these things – under a single guiding principle?
Your comment sums up why I spoke up originally, quite poignantly. (I understood this blog’s purpose to be primarily a Christian endeavour.)
Was I wrong?
For highlighting the issue so articulately, I thank you.
As a single woman who has received very little interest from men, this topic is a bit difficult because whenever it’s brought up it feels like my loneliness from seemingly being overlooked is brushed aside and I am being asked to carry the responsibility of other’s loneliness as well. That’s too much of a burden. I can only carry my own. It’s work enough to remember I wouldn’t change my choices, even though I wish my options had been different. It’s work enough to be content with my consequences of my choices and find joy in how that means life is. It’s work enough to figure out living in a world that roadblocks practical life stuff for singles. It’s work enough. Men, stop adding, please.
“God saves women so that women can save men.”
So… I guess that shoots the following ideas out of the water: “Women’s husbands are their ‘umbrella’ of authority.” “It’s the husband’s job to get his wife sanctified.”
If there’s one thing that REALLY annoys me, it’s woolly thinking and rubbish exegesis — especially when it comes wrapped up in pseudo-spirituality or psychobabble.
Also, I think it was CS Lewis in The Screwtape Letters who said that people are quite capable of holding onto any number of contradictory beliefs without realising it. He wasn’t wrong!!
Yep, and I’ve been there in that labyrinth of confusion.
Anybody can shine a lamp to anybody else, of course. But Messiah Complexes are misguided.
I’ve realized what bothers me about this article. There’s been some discussion about narcissism. Other even worse personality disorders exist like psychopaths and sociopaths. But most boys don’t have NPD and are not psychopaths or sociopaths.
I keep thinking about this and going around and around in circles. As soon as I wonder what we could do to help the boys to grow in their emotional intelligence, I immediately realize such a project would be unwelcomed by the vast majority of white conservative evangelical men.
So then I come back to this. What can we do, then? Some of us are mothers. We start there. We start where Jesus would have us start. We work on ourselves first. Then we are in a better position to help our children, both sons and daughters. If our husbands are in the way of this, and we can’t talk to them, we change our own conduct anyway.
We married women who are stuck in bad marriages with children more or less functioning as hostages at times, well. We have two paths in front of us. One path leads to certain doom. The other path will be a road of certain pain but ultimately go away from doom. To continue being enabling and codependent is certain doom. The end of the road is mental and physical burn-out. It is the heartbreak of watching the children learn bad examples – whether they become abusive or narcisissistic, or whether they develop an anxiety disorder or become codependent – after having justified one’s own suffering by the thought that sacrificing for the children was worth it. There isn’t a worse feeling in the world that I’ve had before than hurting my child while I tried to help him.
Somebody mentioned in the comments “gender wars” and “culture wars.” But I don’t see it that way. I think we can’t help our kids as much as they need, so long as we don’t change our own conduct first. So we change our own conduct first. Period. We don’t have to talk about it to husbands who hate relationship talk and can’t hear any tiny negative thing ever. We just change and they don’t have to like it and they don’t have to understand it. They can adjust or they can not adjust. But change we must, for our sakes, for the sake of our walk of faith, and for the sake of our children.
Because what we do in front of our children, while they are watching. It hurts our boys too. Not only our girls. I personally know several men in my circle of acquaintance who have the enabling role in their marriage. Without exception, their mothers were enabling. These are not gay men. They are heterosexual. They didn’t want to be like their fathers.
One didn’t want to be an alcoholic like his father. So he never drinks. He didn’t have a bachelor party. His wife had a bachelorette party. She had a female stripper at her party with her girl friends. He took her out in a boat on a lake the next day, to give her an upgraded diamond engagement ring. She put her head over the side of the boat and threw up because she was hung over. It was quite romantic.
For years he has been passive while she has yelled at him, blamed and shamed him, and controlled him. She calls him on the phone and micro-manages his grilling tuna and folding laundry while she is at work. He works, too, but sometimes his work is seasonal.
Why does he put up with it? He learned it from Mom! But not his oldest brother. His oldest brother is a vice president and a narcissist. He is one of those people who brags and name drops all the time and keeps up with the Jones. All the best material things, better than everybody else. Always the latest computer. Always a new car. And he is an alcoholic, too.
It is important for us to do all we can as mothers to stop making more narcissists and more enablers. We can’t urge the “male leadership” of the “evangelical” churches to come up with programs to help our boys learn more emotional intelligence. And they are not about to do it themselves. They are the blind leading the blind. They, themselves, lack emotional maturity and emotional intelligence all too often. Besides whoever staffed the programs would just abuse the boys, and it would only be covered up.
Wow Jen you just blamed women/mothers for everything wrong with a mans behavior, and managed to try to shame a woman for drinking at her bachlorette party and being hung over the next day, so what if she was.
I still have no idea what your comment about not being gay men had to do with anything.
I wanted to make some points without my points suffering death from a thousand qualifications.
We’re in this together. We can break the generational cycles if we work at it. It’s hard, and it’s messy and imperfect. But it’s worth it. I hope you and I can agree about that.
I take responsibility upon myself because I want to be able to put hope in what I can accomplish, because I can’t depend on anybody else to do it for me. Only God helps me.
By taking responsibility to do everything I can to make it better I don’t accept implicit blame. That’s not how I feel about myself or about other mothers.
In particular by changing my own conduct I’ve felt empowered. I thought I had to change other peoples’ minds before I could change my relationships. I’ve learned that’s not the case. I felt hopeless before. I don’t feel that way anymore, about one-and-a-half years after deciding to change my own conduct.
I do what I can, and I’m glad that I can do something rather than nothing, and that I don’t need to rely upon anybody else except for God.
One thing I learned is that, if your child has learned either narcissistic or codependent behavior from watching you interact with your spouse, the place to begin is to make your child feel safe to express negative emotions about anything at all. And then don’t rush in to fix, smooth, shape or finesse it. Just make him or her feel seen and heard.
Don’t give too much empty praise, either. Give the child real responsibilities instead. They figure out that the praise is empty. And building up a false empty shell won’t help them in the long run. That’s the beginning of narcissism!
Start small. It’s no big manifesto. It’s one little step at a time. It had been death by a thousand cuts. It needs to become progress by a thousand little mundane things in daily life.
We can do it! It takes time, but it works.
Interesting commentary on this post. The question, rephrased, is: who is responsible for (male) behavior? While the answer seems obvious, even the commenters seek to place responsibility for future male behavior on persons other than those future males.
Yes, we collectively and individually have responsibilities to live in society. Yet most individuals would not behave in the manner described in this story – murdering others as revenge for their entitlement going unfulfilled,or as a means to fulfilling that entitlement.
The man in the blog, who intentionally murdered strangers, initially claimed to be part of an incel GROUP. This was corrected by Cynthia in one of the early comments. However, the conversation continued with arguments for “how to we include the ‘loners'” and “how do we prevent ‘loners’ from forming”.
According to this man’s words, he chose a group that supported him in his goals – an incel group. Presumably, his goal was to murder women. However, this was a lie. His other words were that he used the excuse of the incel group to gain fame. He admired mass murderers. He purchased fame at the expense of the lives of strangers and used the incel group lie to bolster his fame.
It was never about women.
The entitlement cannot be solved from the outside; it’s a individual’s job to work on it from the inside. In order to protect others from the entitled person’s actions, people need to be allowed to stay away from or jail, if necessary, the dangerous person.
As has been stated by several different commenters, people choose to be ‘loners’. Rather than solving the “problem” of ‘loners’, what if we respect their wishes and autonomy and choice by leaving them alone? What if this isn’t actually a problem at all?
As has been stated by at least one commenter and in the New York Times comment, what if imposing our togetherness value on someone who does not want it is actually a problem we can solve through personal responsibility?
Unless, of course, the underlying question is: how do we re-shape our culture to be one that values life? It’s an easy answer but difficult to implement. It will take a loooong time for the culture to shift – even when individuals do all the right things.
I suspect you may have misunderstood my comments.
I’m a woman who prayed to Jesus for help to stop being an enabler. Over the course of a year-and-a-half I went through ups and downs, mostly changing my own conduct, sometimes rebuking, always forgiving after rebuking. I don’t believe it would have worked had my husband not recently been through some humbling hardships. I’m not saying it can be just that easy in all cases. I faced it that I don’t want to give up on our relationship, and I made my choice, but I affirm that sometimes divorce is the best choice in the circumstances. I had not been physically abused but had been going through cycles of narcissist abuse – covert narcissist – not grandiose narcissist.
I’ve rejected New Testament Household Codes and refused to live out my faith within that tiny fine print, as if the whole Bible isn’t mine, and as if Jesus words – and His examples of treatment of women – are the most clear expression of God’s will in the entire Bible.
Leaving Paul, I’ve returned to my first love, Jesus, who didn’t say submit to your husband. But He said blessed are the meek (addressing both men and women). And He said to love our enemies and pray for those who do spitefully use us. (But He gave us an example of having good boundaries and also told us to go no contact with toxic people if they do not respond to our rebukes three times. And He did not enable sin.)
Great thoughts! I must admit I often feel very sorry for those in my midst who seem to choose loneliness, no matter how much I try to pull them out of it. This is actually a good reminder that they CHOSE it, and they’re not something I have to fix.
LtbB- good points. I mentioned above that my son is a loner. It’s a fine line to walk between respecting his loner choice while also continuing to work on social skills. I see my role as his mom as to have taught him the skills to make/keep friends, effectively work with colleagues, and simply exist in our society in a respectable manner- while also respecting that he has the choice to implement all those skills or not. When I have mistepped, we discuss it, and I apologize if the situation calls for it. As I learn better skills myself, we talk about that, too. He is of an age and capacity to now choose for himself.
As a parent, it can be difficult to let go of what I envisioned for him and instead enjoy seeing who he is becoming as he is more and more on his own. But if I struggle with that, it is *my* struggle, not his. I am thankful for his confidence, his often unique way of seeing things, and that he is happy as he is, “loner” and all. I was often a loner up into adulthood because I wasn’t taught healthy social skills. I desparately wanted friends. It’s taken a long time to unlearn bad and learn good skills.
All that said- if he exhibited behaviors that would harm others, I would contact the appropriate authorities. If he acted upon them, I would probably feel tremendous guilt while also logically knowing I gave him the best chance I could and ultimately it was his choice.
Do Christian women have any specifically Christian answer to offer the world as to all the young men who are feeling adrift and alienated and lonely? Or do we intend to just leave a vacuum to be filled by whoever had the Youtube video or podcast that was viewed the most? Whether that was Andrew Tate or Jordan Peterson or somebody else?
Most incels online will never go on to shoot anybody. Yes they are in toxic groups. Do we have better alternatives to offer them?
Not because we are responsible for their sins. Because we are Christians. Because we are a light in the darkness. Because we are mothers. Because we know we have to break the cycle of generational dysfunction. Not because we blame ourselves and women. Because we want to do it out of love for both daughters and sons.
My perspective is that I became liberated from the Pauline epistles and then went through some anger and resentment that needed processing. After a while I could hear Jesus gently calling me back to Him. I had to re-learn to hear His signals without the Pauline and Calvinist noise and the leavening of the Pharisees in the form of hidden neo-Platonism.
All many commenters can hear is anti-feminism. You’re not hearing Jesus in anything I say.
Can we do better than all the angry men in the church who are reactive against the secular feminists? Who can never see us or hear us? Can we see and hear young men? All the ones who are adrift and alienated and who will never shoot anybody? Not because we are responsible. Because we are Christian. Because of following Jesus and living the Beatitudes. Isn’t that why we resent the male leadership of the churches, because they don’t live the Beatitudes?
Jen, as I stated, I was reflecting on the conversation – not just your contributions.
However, I am delighted to hear that you have done your own internal work AND have witnessed your husband do the same. I imagine that you were not able to do his work for him, and that he chose to do it.
And that’s kinda the point I was making. We each have to do our own work. Nobody can force us to do it, and we can choose not to do it. If your husband was like my ex who refused to do his own work and was violent with me and tried to kill me repeatedly after I did my own work, I hope you would have protected yourself by leaving the relationship. And, yes, I am breaking generational cycles of trauma and abuse in my family. My children are benefiting from this. I do it from love, not duty. I don’t HAVE to break these cycles as a duty to my children and any future generations. That would be coming from a place of taking responsibility for the actions of others. There’s nuance here and it can be subtle.
Jen, I hear you and agree with you that people will need to change their perspectives in order to avoid further murders, no matter the number or gender of the casualties. And I agree that Christian women can provide a loving perspective and presence in-person and online.
AND…
We cannot make others choose to do this inner work, or force them to love other people, or to change them from being ‘loners’. Or choose the voices they listen to.
I also hear several commenters as they talk about themselves or loved ones as ‘loners’. I also have children who might be described that way. It is NOT a defect. They don’t need to be changed. They get to make choices that are different from yours. They live with the consequences of their choices. They can make different decisions if they wish. They can – and are – do(ing) their own internal work. Even with my own children, I am only responsible for so much – their choices are their own. I cannot force them to listen to me; that would not only violate my parental responsibilities but would also backfire by pushing them away. Please consider extrapolating this to the population at large. If I cannot make these decisions for my own children, how little impact would I have on strangers?
People will listen to who they choose. They may choose to listen to me or you or incels or Calvin or Paul or Jesus.
I’m not saying to extract yourself from the dialogue. I’m asking you to recognize the autonomy of each person, and that you would limit the expectations you have of yourself to influence others.
(And I’m glad you learned better ways of relating to horses, Jen. They are lovely, scaredy, stubborn creatures! Two of my kids ride; one is an apprentice learning to break colts – no smacking allowed -and run her own ranch.)
I think the church as a whole has something to offer such men – if they wish to accept it – but I don’t think that it necessarily has to be offered by women (and in some cases, it would actually be inappropriate).
A church that is living out faith in the right way will offer a welcome to all who wish to come, but that welcome will be offered by the most appropriate people. If a young man such as you describe needs to know that he is known and loved by God and valued and welcomed into church life, that is something that can be communicated by men his age, or by older people – he does not need to receive that message from young, single women. He can also receive friendship from men his own age and from couples.
But we do also have to accept that not everyone is going to accept that offer – some because they are happy as they are (which should be respected) and some because they would rather remain on the path they have chosen.
Very true!
I think the church does need to do better–but I’m not sure this is on women. I think it’s on healthy men to step up.
Maybe the churches should be teaching girls how to rebuke (and forgive when there is repentance) boys. It’s horrifying that some churches teach girls to “submit” to boys to practice for marriage.
This would help the boys, too. They would learn to reap what they sow socially with girls. All teens need to learn socially about the cause-effect that happens emotionally with other people of both sexes.
I used to be joked with when I was a young girl in 4H to slap my horse the way I would my boyfriend. The world outside of the Evangelical churches knows that girls need to be assertive sometimes with boys.
(Actually I seldom slapped horses. I learned better ways.)
I just saw a horrible headline on the CBC news site that made me think of this. It so desperately needs to be rephrased:
The CBC story: (warning-graphic murder) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/sexually-frustrated-murder-accused-took-what-he-wanted-from-housemate-jury-hears-1.7374302
No, this person didn’t murder because he was “sexually frustrated”! It wasn’t about the fact that he spent 8 hours trying to get someone to have sex with him! He killed because he was controlling and violent and didn’t see women as human beings deserving to ability to live safely.
Turns out he had a previous conviction, from breaking into his former girlfriend’s home with an axe. She had described him as jealous and violent. She also described how she reported numerous violations of his restraining order to police, but nothing was done. Then he went on to kill another woman. (Warning: more descriptions of violence) https://www.pressreader.com/canada/ottawa-citizen/20220915/281530819871314?srsltid=AfmBOop5YCRiDq8IEQkKNbBnc84zK0xpRl8uStOStmuElclqLzcOB_JT
It was never about the roommate who was killed. It was also not about the sex workers who refused to be with him. This is a story about a violent man, whose violence wasn’t taken seriously by police even after he demonstrated criminal behavior.
I hate that news organizations don’t frame this stuff properly! It’s seriously infuriating.
It appears they have retitled the first piece you share as well as forwarding to a different url. That makes me think enough people are seeing the injustice and calling it out which is a step foward at least.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/crown-opens-case-against-ottawa-man-accused-of-killing-inuk-woman-1.7374302
I apologize- this was meant as a reply to Cynthia’s comment, above,
I’m glad they fixed the headline, and hope others noticed how awful it was. I’m not crazy about how the Crown prosecutor is framing it either, but realize they need to focus on proving the case to get a conviction, and may not be able to present all evidence (such as past convictions) to the jury.
I can’t help being a bit wary though, because prosecutions of others cases in Canada involving white men sexually assaulting and murdering Indigenous women have been dehumanizing to the victims and sometimes sympathetic to the perpetrators (like the murder of Cindy Gladue or the serial murderer Robert Pickton).
It’s interesting to me, as I read this comment thread, that I see several different types of people grouped together under the title “loner”:
1. People who are introverts and like spending time by themselves, but are otherwise socially well-adjusted and often have at least a few very close friends.
2. People who are otherwise normal, whether introverted or extroverted, but feel they don’t have enough people in their lives who truly understand and value them, and thus feel loneliness.
3. People who have a type of developmental disability, like ASD, but are otherwise content with their social lives.
4. People who are going through a temporary “awkward stage,” like puberty or moving to a new city, and find it difficult to make friends (but are otherwise normal people).
5. People with mental illness or psychological disorder(s), but who are not violent.
6. Violent/harmful people, who may also fit into more than one of the above categories.
I think it is important that we do not paint all of these people with the same broad brush. Each type of person should be encountered in a different way, and we should be attentive to the differences between the groups. Someone who is happily introverted is not necessarily lonely (and doesn’t need to be “fixed”). Someone with mental illness or psychological disorders, who is not a violent person, needs therapy instead of isolation. Someone who is violent or harmful, regardless of how much they may or may not fit into the other categories, needs carefully-calibrated intervention and boundaries.
In all of these cases, I do not believe gender has anything to do with how we should engage with these types of people in society. Both men and women can be equally effective (or ineffective, sadly) as therapists, teachers, parents, prison staff, law enforcement, psychologists, pastors, fellow Christians, etc. Different people will respond differently to interactions from men or women, at different times and in different roles in their lives. I believe we all, as humans, need to recognize the unity of our humanity (we are all created in God’s image) as well as the uniqueness of each human (we each uniquely represent some small aspect of God that we could not see without that person existing). It’s easy to lump people together and engage in blame and shame when bad things happen. It’s a lot harder to learn to recognize the individuality of each person and figure out, as a society, where each of us belongs and what the appropriate way is for us, as the hands and feet of Christ, to engage with each other human out there.
This is a beautifully articulated, valuable and thoughtful comment. Thank you for making it!
I think that what is considered a well adjusted social human ideal tends to differ even between cultures.
I remember reading in Elaine Arons book “The Highly Sensitive Person”, (which deals with Sensory Processing Sensitivity – side note, not disorder) that individuals with the genetic marker for the sensitivity are likely to have a harder time fitting in to North American culture, with Canada being the most difficult country to live in with the trait, according to their studies.
Meanwhile, people the same traits were more likely to be chosen as leaders by their peers in Oriental cultures.
So some of what is valued as “socially well adjusted” has more to do with cultural expectations than what is genuinely healthy overall.
Your response highlights that Christian culture should have a space for a diverse range of individuals – on the basis of knowing and valuing people as themselves. Christianity should not just reinforce the expectation of cultural ideals – while not being blind to the fact that genuine problem behaviours exist.
Thank you for your truly wonderful comment.
I hear what you’re saying, Willow. But I do think gender has to do with this, simply because women are at risk of sexual assault–especially teenage girls, who bear the highest risk, and especially from their peers.
Teen girls are not responsible for teen boys fitting in. Yes, we can all be kind and inclusive to those around us. But it is also very wise to teach your daughter to trust her intuition, because the risks are so high.
I think we need to do more to help our sons foster relationships with other boys and men, and make this normalized, so it doesn’t come back on women.
There have been some really interesting comments about loneliness in general and how we as individuals/society/church should respond to such loneliness. But I think many people are missing the point of this article. It’s not talking about loneliness in general, or even male loneliness, but about the way in which girls are blamed for acts of violence committed by lonely men.
I’ve commented elsewhere on this thread about being in a church where a young man’s sexual assaults were excused BY THE CHURCH LEADERSHIP on the basis that it was the fault of the young women in the church for not going out with him. Read pretty much any news report about a male loner who commits violent acts and you will find the same narrative – he was ‘frustrated’ or ‘angry’ or ‘bitter’ because he didn’t have a girlfriend. But any man who uses the lack of a girlfriend to excuse violence was NEVER a safe person for girls to be with in the first place.
Yes, of course we should all be working towards a society in which everyone feels welcome. Yes, loneliness and isolation are horrible things. But discussing them in response to this article feels like deflecting attention away from the topic of the article – that young girls who wisely avoid unsafe men are then being blamed for the actions committed by those same men.
Question, and please don’t think I’m trying to beat a dead horse, but I’m trying to think through Sheila’s, “Do you hear this sort of rhetoric a lot? What can we do about it?”
Do you think if being a “loner” was more socially accepted (simply the state of it, if that makes sense?), do you think the lessened stigma would lower the incidence of wrongly deflecting blame upon that state? Put another way, if society could more readily accept people in a chosen “lone” state, do you think that would help direct blame where it actually belongs-on unsafe men (and women)? I suppose my thought is that it might be easier to change how society at large views things than the church, which could help women feel more confident in making wise choices (and maybe change how headlines, etc., present these cases).
I wish there was an easy, quick answer to bring about real change in the short and long term.
I’m not sure that being more accepting of people who like being/want to be alone would help, because those who are genuinely contented with their lone state don’t tend to be the ones who cause the problems. And anyway, it’s not loneliness or aloneness that causes the violence – at bottom, it’s a sense of entitlement – “I am owed this and if no one will give it to me then I will take it.” And it’s that sense of entitlement that needs to be challenged.
(Yes, loneliness is a huge issue in our society, and the church should be stepping up to be the kind of community that eliminates loneliness. Equally, people who enjoy isolation should not be pressured to change their way of life. But neither of these things will stop this kind of violence.)
I think the most effective thing we can do is to keep challenging the blame-shifting. It’s not going to be easy and it will take a LONG time to see change, but if we keep chipping away at it, eventually things will improve.
The second thing we can do is to keep bringing the conversation back to the original topic. I find it interesting that in most cases, it is possible to discuss a topic and stay fairly on-track. For example, if you write an article on providing community support for people with cancer, you are unlikely to have people saying “But what about people with heart disease – don’t you care about them?”. If you write about the need for improved facilities in secondary education, no one is going to say “oh, so you’re saying that primary education is unimportant?” But write an article about how wrong it is to blame young girls for the violent acts committed by young men and it’s inundated with comments about “how can we stop young men being lonely? Surely women should be doing something to help”. It’s so easy to be deflected – someone raises a topic that is very important (like combating loneliness) and we lose sight of the fact that, while that is a really important issue, it’s not the issue being discussed here!
Thanks! Appreciate your thoughts.
In addition to chipping away at the entitlement, I wish school systems would incorporate teaching healthy behavior vs. unhealthy (such as entitlement). I feel like I had only my gut to go on to “feel” if a guy was unsafe or not. Had I been taught green flag vs. red flag behaviors at a young age, I might have had confidence enough to follow through on gut feelings backed by logic/learning and there are probably other women in a similar state.
Yes, and warning about green flags v red flags is something that anyone can get involved in, not just the schools. It’s worrying how many people just don’t recognise the warning signs, but not really that surprising. Misinforming and misleading people as to what is ‘safe’ behaviour is deep rooted in our culture and goes back decades – you only have to look at the majority of films and novels from the last century to see that. The number of times physical violence, sexual assault, gaslighting, emotional manipulation or control are explained away as being due to the hero ‘loving’ the heroine or the heroine ‘making’ the hero behave that way by ‘pushing’ him too far is scary! I think that is why it is so hard to combat this narrative of women being to blame when men do bad things – because it has been subtly reinforced for decades. The whole idea of the ‘guiding star’ – the pure woman whose innocent character inspired her man to keep to the right path – goes back to the Victorian Era. And of course, the flip side is that a man who doesn’t keep to the right path either didn’t have a pure woman to guide him, or that she failed in her role. It’s going to take a long time to root it all out.
I wish green and red flags were more widely known. I default to thinking about teaching it in schools because I know I was never going to learn that info in my home life. School was the best option to learn it for me. If I had learned it there, I might have better understood that my homelife wasn’t healthy. I had no reason until I was much older to think of looking into anything else because abusiveness was just my normal.
Agreed on the movies- these tropes are ridiculous. The more I learn, the more I recognize how widespread they are even in smaller doses.
Thank you, Angharad!