Gay machinery: That second move is just theatrical mincing. Don't be so swoopy— You're not that pretty.

After a little deducing, I think this was written circa 2003.

You'd think it was written a lot earlier than that...

And it would be hard to count the holes in his argument, since you'd probably find a new one every time you read it. (For starters, IIRC, the poorest states tend to be the most religious ones, which means that a many a divorced or widowed evangelist woman doesn't HAVE anyone she could expect to support her - and if her parents are dead, there's a good chance they didn't leave her much money anyway.)

"When Your Daughter is Grown but Unmarried"

By David Crank

(From Volume 2 Issue 1 of Unless the Lord ... Magazine)

https://unlessthelordmagazine.com/articles/when_your_daughter_is_grown.htm

"When Your Daughter is Grown but Unmarried"

You kicker her out of the house or charge market rate for rent. Same as you would for a son or anyone else.

We should all probably watch history of the entire world, i guess every six months or so.

Um, it's obvious, when you read it, that the author (and, presumably, the readers) doesn't really APPROVE of an unmarried daughter's moving out, even if she wants to, because it would be un-Biblical. So charging her rent wouldn't be either. (Btw, according to one memoirist, back in 1930s London, decent single women were also supposed to stay under the watchful eyes of their parents - and that likely wasn't due to religion, just conservatism.)

Not to mention that the author clearly doesn't think much of women who actually want to go to college and QUALIFY to earn a middle-class income or higher. (Plenty of evangelicals - such as the late Billy Graham - have said that women should aspire to work as housewives and volunteers, period. This attitude used to infect secular society even past 1970 or so. Miss Manners did a column on it in the 1980s - and she didn't even mention evangelicals.)

More specifically, she spelled out that low wages (or none) for women were based on the idea "that it is not quite nice to give women money."

It's from 1987.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1987-12-20-8704040364-story.html

Lenona, that's the thesis? For these links today?

I don't quite understand the question.

"Um, it's obvious, when you read it, that the author (and, presumably, the readers) doesn't really APPROVE of an unmarried daughter's moving out, even if she wants to, because it would be un-Biblical." ~Lenona

Oh, I know Lenona. I'm just saying that is the answer. Like it or not the answer is still the answer.

Same with your guy who wanted to force other people to pay for what he wants and not for what he didn't want. And hoped a complicated shell game meant other people were paying his bills instead of realizing he was the one getting screwed. That he wouldn't like the honest answer didn't change that it was the honest answer.

Also, you and MM should look up the history of cash.

I've read the history of cash before, thanks. Just not in a long time. Which fact did you mean?

Btw, for some reason, there's a missing line in MM's column. When you read it in one of her books, she says, at the end: "if you can't bear to hand money to a woman, by all means put it in an envelope."

At any rate, Ben, on the assumption that you find the author's attitudes ludicrous, backward, and short-sighted, thanks for that.

David Crank's attitudes, f course.

Did you mean this? If so, that's just hair-splitting.

"...poor women worked for whatever money they could get since the world began."

Yes, she likely knows perfectly well that "money," as opposed to bartering, has not been around forever (maybe only about 3,000 years). No reason to make a fuss. Call it poetic license.

I am not a fan of cafeteria Christians. They make it quite clear they are picking and choosing the parts of the bible they like and those they don't with relatively little basis in historical or biblical scholarship.

That said I also find you equally ridiculous with your random xenophobia. And the same with your concerns about how some minority of people felt about handing women money 30-40 years ago. You are two generations out of date. If you want to be historical then be fully contextually historical. If you want to be current then be current. By 1970 over 50% of women were getting paid cash for work. Today there is a 10% difference in the labor force participation rate between the sexes. And it is clear that if women had the option that gap would be bigger. Oh well, suck it up buttercup and get a job just like the boy have to.

That wasn't the clearest in that first paragraph. David Crank makes it clear he is picking and choosing what he does and doesn't want out of the bible sans context. Hence he is a cafeteria Christian.

"I know of no direct Biblical instruction telling fathers and mothers precisely what they should do in this instance." ~Crank

Period. Stop. That should have been the first point and the last. Because his logic for the rest of his piece equally applies to buttons and sneakers as it does to daughters. Polygamy too.

Just because the Bible records an event that occurred does not mean that God approves of the event. And no, the bible does not approve of polygamy.

I don't think you know what "xenophobia" means - especially since you've misused it in the past.

"A dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries."

To my knowledge, Crank is not a foreigner.

You also conveniently ignored the fact that, whether or not the "cookies" scenario from 1987 would never happen in a secular workplace today, Crank's column is, as I said, likely from 2003. If you have any evidence that evangelical readers - or anyone from Focus on the Family - would frown on it today, do tell. (Last I heard, Dr. James Dobson would certainly argue that mothers, at least, shouldn't worry about life's financial emergencies, if that meant working outside the home - and Dobson is still around.)

Not to mention that death and divorce aren't the only emergencies to worry about. There are accidents and diseases as well.

Another, similar example of willful ignorance, was a 2003 book by a near-evangelical - The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands, by...guess who? As more than one critic pointed out, she refused to discuss life's economic realities.

(That same year, she abandoned Orthodox Jewish custom and considered becoming Christian.)

I used it correctly Lenona.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/xenophobia

"fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign"

You have irrational fears of any group not identical to your own. Crank today. The Amish over and over. Purity ring stuff. This is a reoccurring theme with you. You would make a good puritan. You appear to have an existential fear that someone somewhere is different than you. (hint, most of them are)

How do these people harm you? Why are you so worried about them? Are gangs of Mormon boys forcing you to cross the street over and over? Do Hasidic Jews randomly argue with you over nonsense? Those damn Amish keep building barns in your back yard?

You live a dishonest life Lenona. This has left you unable to differentiate real danger from pretend. Instead you overreact to any perceived difference. Xenophobia, the fear of the stranger.

So yes I look down on Crank for his poor biblical scholarship. At the same time I look down on you for your obsession with manners while regularly engaging in rude behavior like this.

And to answer your obsession with the antique 'cookies' thing, of course you don't give a young woman cash! What a bizarre concept. What kind of barbarian are you? We have phones Lenona. Everything is electronic now.

You know perfectly well that most people think of foreigners, not strangers, when they hear "xenophobia." Therefore, it's misleading.

And basic facts OR criticism isn't the same as fear or hatred. Others here have pointed out facts such as "gay men have more sex than almost any other group," for better or worse. Or that in China, the people still aren't doing the best job at reducing pollution.

Or...that certain religions, in or out of the U.S., ARE worse than others when it comes to allowing and encouraging girls to grow up as full-fledged, educated citizens of their countries. As you've certainly noticed by now, Amy very much agrees with that, even though it's not a subject she raises often. Not to mention the problems that come with theocracies (or near-theocracies) which are created by a fundamentalist majority. Is it any surprise that THOSE problems tend to be harmful, and not just to women? Or not just to their own citizens?

From libertarian author Peter McWilliams, edited from John Philpot Curran (no, not Thomas Jefferson):

"The price of freedom...is external, internal and eternal vigilance."

Forgot to say...do you worry about other people's suffering only if their system might someday affect you?

Example: Adults in First World countries who have never undergone genital mutilation will likely never have to worry that they might be coerced into it. Does that make it rude for such adults to speak against it (whether with regard to domestic or foreign policy) whenever there's a reasonably civilized time and place to do so? Without using hysterics or stereotypes, of course?

"You know perfectly well that most people think of foreigners, not strangers, when they hear "xenophobia." Therefore, it's misleading." ~Lenona

No. Apparently that is just you.

First line on wikipedia.

"Xenophobia (from Ancient Greek: ξένος, romanized: xénos, meaning "stranger" or "foreigner", and phóbos, meaning "fear"[1]) is the fear or hatred of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange.[2][3][4] It is an expression of perceived conflict between an ingroup and an outgroup and may manifest in suspicion by the one of the other's activities, a desire to eliminate their presence, and fear of losing national, ethnic or racial identity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia

The term foreign in this context has always meant strange or unusual. Not referring to a person of a different nationality. For example a foreign object. It appears you have been misunderstanding this word for some time.

"do you worry about other people's suffering only if their system might someday affect you?" ~Lenona

The groups you fear aren't suffering. They are just different than you. Which appears to offend you deeply.

Ben, I agree that you are using the word xenophobia correctly. Lenona is just doing her usual dance where once she is confronted with legitimate criticism, she focuses on some piece of minutia in order to distract you from the fact that she can’t address your criticism. So now you are locked in an argument over the proper use of “xenophobia” and not the fact that she’s a garden variety anti-Christian bigot. She’s a very sad lady who never got married or had children and she resents the women who did, especially if they are middle class, white, and Christian.

What’s really sad is how much of her life is devoted to chasing down almost 20 year old stories and articles that “prove” her point and reassure herself that she didn’t miss out on anything, but the amount of time she’s sunk into this evangelical project suggests otherwise. She’s like a dog licking a hot spot. If she actually gave a shit about kids she’d take her vast parenting knowledge and foster a bunch of kids who could use her help, but she doesn’t do that bc she doesn’t really care. Its why she relishes articles and blogs posts that call other women “moos” and children “crotch fruit”. A jealous, unfulfilled woman is truly a sad sight to behold. Especially when she has spent years, yes years, standing on a metaphorical street corner shouting out her “truth” to every one who passes by.

I honestly found reading about the etymology of the word xenophobia interesting. While Lenona did not provide a source for her definition it appears to come from Lexico which says it comes from Oxford (company not town). I could not find a second source that used that same definition. The majority of dictionaries appear to use the Merriam Webster definition I use. If you follow the greek roots that is the more accurate definition. Though once you follow that path the correct term derived from ancient greek would supposedly be barbarian, which clearly isn't the current common usage.

But yes I recognized the tactic, Sheep Mommy. That is why my responses on points are so short. Without honesty there really isn't much point to dialogue.

The groups you fear aren't suffering.
________________________________________

Ben, you obviously missed the thread (more than a year ago, maybe) where I posted a pretty recent article about sex abuse in Amish communities. Hint: It's worse for those victims, because a lot of the time, for them, there's no way out of it, and no redress or justice. The beauty of other aspects of Amish culture doesn't change that, as much as I'd like to see those aspects adopted by others.

Yes, those victims may include boys, but such a culture is clearly not a great one for women.

Not to mention that Elizabeth Smart herself condemned at least a few aspects of Mormon culture that made it hard for her to escape from her kidnappers. (Someone else pointed out that those kidnappers could never have had such mental control over a non-Mormon girl.)

Any good conservative - John Leo, for one - understands that criticism is not inherently bad or wrong.

Sheep Mommy, are you a foster parent? If so, congrats. (If not, why not? You make it sound so simple, and we all know it's anything but - even if your house doesn't get burnt down.) But maybe there wouldn't be so many foster kids in the first place if it were more permissible to criticize couples who have babies when they shouldn't. Yes, I know liberals are partly to blame for that - but so is the anti-abortion crowd, which destigmatized unwed motherhood.

You make it sound as though it's pathetic, crazy or impossible for anyone to CHOOSE to be childfree. I like many, chose the lifestyle when I was still in the single digits. Why? Because even back then, I liked silence and adult company and conversation - and too many AMERICAN adults, even, don't act like adults, never mind kids. (U.S. men and women alike don't make great spouses either, in part because they're often hopeless with money, don't read newspapers, and are heavily materialistic with no thought for the environment - and thus, little thought for future generations.)

And re "middle class, white, and Christian," kindly provide examples of that. No one else has made such an accusation that I can remember. What I oppose is when boys and girls get coerced by the elder community into marriage and/or children when they're barely out of their teens. That can happen anywhere - and does.

Once again, no Lenona. You are not helping. You don't know these people. You don't know these communities. You are merely attacking those you see as different and strange. This is not kind. And it certainly isn't polite.