Great conversation. Once again happy that people are talking about Jon, he always screamed sketchy to me, and it is worrying that he managed to convince women to work with him despite very obviously belonging to some sort of fundamentalist Christian sect. I see so many channels fall for his stuff, including those I've followed for years, and it's just such a depressing thing to see. :( once again thanks for bringing this up Ex, Matt and of course Nicole.
For me, there's too much preaching in this audio transcript. I know, it's her story and she has every right to tell it and I chose to listen but can we just put this bible peoples' conflict aside now and deal in reality?
Insofar as Jon Uhler is promoting himself as biblical, it's good to have her explain what he really means by that. Not gonna be everyone's cup of tea, to be sure, which is why I let Nicole speak for herself and then use her words to write about him in a format that is less Sky Daddy-centric.
I'm talking about the part where she starts actively holding forth on what God wants and means. I did listen to the whole thing. I am not talking about her description of her father. This is a deeply religious, I would say fanatical, Christian woman and as such, I do question her credibility.
I have never met a person so fervently religious who could be trusted to tell you what day of the week it is. She sounds reasonable enough when she's discussing her father, she sounds like a fanatical Jesus fetishist when she starts contrasting her faher's beliefs with "the truth."
I have said it before and I will say it again, many Christians act like people who met one Jew, once and never quite got over it. They consider themselves experts on these matters which, in itself, should raise all the red flags.
I'm not suggesting my sentiments are any weightier than anyone else's. I'm not suggesting you should change anything. But I am telling you what I think about this interview and what I think about this issue is not debatable. I feel and think what I feel and think. There is no need to try to change my mind. I heard the whole thing. Your sentiments are not going to change what I think about this speaker.
"Not gonna be everyone's cup of tea, to be sure, which is why I let Nicole speak for herself and then use her words to write about him in a format that is less Sky Daddy-centric." Which part is the excuses?
Maybe shes become so deeply attached to religion as a result of the trauma, I cant even count how many people I've seen who get reeled into (or reeled back into) religion because of being in an extremely dark point in their lives due to things like depression, anxiety, severe trauma, drug addiction, self harm, etc. and desperately needing comfort, security, community, etc. which is how they ended up falling right into/ back into the arms of christianity, islam, etc and becoming so tightly locked in its grip + becoming so fanatic & obsessive about it
Well, the thing is; do you remember when British feminists came over to Washington on the Heritage Foundation's dime and spoke, at length about these issues?
I often wonder if people are making the connection between the Republican party's desire for a fascist state and the way they used Kelly Jay Keen to give them the ammunition they need to turn women toward voting Republican in this next, crucial, American election.
The thing is, the Brits were quite persuasive and the Republican party trades on the fact that people tend not to look beneath the surface. They either accept what a person says and swallow it whole, or they reject it completely.
Hearing what to my ears sounds like a person who is detached from reality supporting whatever her story supports; (the idea that her Dad is not really an advocate for women's rights?) takes away from the credibility of the point you're trying to make and creates significant gaps where people can easily form an opinion that is not rooted in reality and ultimately does not help protect women's rights.
I care about the net effect of all pf this on three things: 1.) my rights as a woman and 2.) my rights as a person who needs to have access to a robust health care system in the US and 3.) preventing my country from becoming an authoritarian state.
So I am going to speak up wherever and whenever I see or hear something that puts any of these goals at risk. I'm not actually talking to you, Matt. I don't actually care about why you made the decision to broadcast her story. I care about the impact her story could have on those three goals I listed. When I comment on a post like this is it something I do in order to remind other women that regardless of the nutbars running around out there talking about the blood of Jesus and half a dozen other hair-brained ideas, we need to keep our eyes on the prize.
It's in my interest, as an American woman, to discredit this source because she makes my goals look as though they are aligned with fascist goals and they're not.
For that reason, if I were making this choice, I would have dropped this woman and her father and anyone remotely connected to them at first contact. I've done it before, I've dropped KJK and the women who publish in Breitbart, and a few others because when I talk to people about this, I need to be clean and credible. I can't be credible if I overlook the fact that this woman is an evangelical fanatic. My views will be dismissed if I am aligned with her in any way.
It sounds like hyperbole but the fate of the world lies in the balance. This election will determine whether civilization turns toward total barbarism or not. I'm firmly in the "not" camp. I need to do everything I can to be sure the people I have contact with understand that gender critical women are NOT CRAZY.
Something that would be interesting to research: Is there a correlation between how male-centric/patriarchal a religion or denomination is & how much sex abuse is reported? Trouble is, for every filthy, disgusting cockroach you can see...
Something that came up in the space we did with Jimmy Hinton is that women are in fact better bullshit detectors than men when it comes to other men. Regardless of how much power women have in the spiritual structure of the church, a church that listens to women will be safer against predators than one which does not. Hinton endorsed the idea.
Hi Ex! Podcast starts at around 7:30, maybe you can snip off that first silent part? If not, not to worry -- I'm listening! 👍🙂❤️
Fixed now, thank you
I was a minute late making coffee. Thanks for hosting this!
Thanks for the warning Mildred
Podcast begins at 1:55:30.
Great conversation. Once again happy that people are talking about Jon, he always screamed sketchy to me, and it is worrying that he managed to convince women to work with him despite very obviously belonging to some sort of fundamentalist Christian sect. I see so many channels fall for his stuff, including those I've followed for years, and it's just such a depressing thing to see. :( once again thanks for bringing this up Ex, Matt and of course Nicole.
For me, there's too much preaching in this audio transcript. I know, it's her story and she has every right to tell it and I chose to listen but can we just put this bible peoples' conflict aside now and deal in reality?
Sky Daddy is not interesting.
Insofar as Jon Uhler is promoting himself as biblical, it's good to have her explain what he really means by that. Not gonna be everyone's cup of tea, to be sure, which is why I let Nicole speak for herself and then use her words to write about him in a format that is less Sky Daddy-centric.
I'm talking about the part where she starts actively holding forth on what God wants and means. I did listen to the whole thing. I am not talking about her description of her father. This is a deeply religious, I would say fanatical, Christian woman and as such, I do question her credibility.
I have never met a person so fervently religious who could be trusted to tell you what day of the week it is. She sounds reasonable enough when she's discussing her father, she sounds like a fanatical Jesus fetishist when she starts contrasting her faher's beliefs with "the truth."
I have said it before and I will say it again, many Christians act like people who met one Jew, once and never quite got over it. They consider themselves experts on these matters which, in itself, should raise all the red flags.
I'm not suggesting my sentiments are any weightier than anyone else's. I'm not suggesting you should change anything. But I am telling you what I think about this interview and what I think about this issue is not debatable. I feel and think what I feel and think. There is no need to try to change my mind. I heard the whole thing. Your sentiments are not going to change what I think about this speaker.
Literally not trying to change your mind about the speaker
you are literally here making excuses for her to me.
You cannot possibly lack the self-awareness to see that.
"Not gonna be everyone's cup of tea, to be sure, which is why I let Nicole speak for herself and then use her words to write about him in a format that is less Sky Daddy-centric." Which part is the excuses?
She was raised in a crazy-religious household, so it's not surprising she's still affected by her upbringing. It is what it is.
I could have done without that too, would have been more appropriate for a Christian podcast
Maybe shes become so deeply attached to religion as a result of the trauma, I cant even count how many people I've seen who get reeled into (or reeled back into) religion because of being in an extremely dark point in their lives due to things like depression, anxiety, severe trauma, drug addiction, self harm, etc. and desperately needing comfort, security, community, etc. which is how they ended up falling right into/ back into the arms of christianity, islam, etc and becoming so tightly locked in its grip + becoming so fanatic & obsessive about it
I felt it was important to let Nicole fully express herself. knowing that a listener might reach this very conclusion on their own.
makes sense
Well, the thing is; do you remember when British feminists came over to Washington on the Heritage Foundation's dime and spoke, at length about these issues?
I often wonder if people are making the connection between the Republican party's desire for a fascist state and the way they used Kelly Jay Keen to give them the ammunition they need to turn women toward voting Republican in this next, crucial, American election.
The thing is, the Brits were quite persuasive and the Republican party trades on the fact that people tend not to look beneath the surface. They either accept what a person says and swallow it whole, or they reject it completely.
Hearing what to my ears sounds like a person who is detached from reality supporting whatever her story supports; (the idea that her Dad is not really an advocate for women's rights?) takes away from the credibility of the point you're trying to make and creates significant gaps where people can easily form an opinion that is not rooted in reality and ultimately does not help protect women's rights.
I care about the net effect of all pf this on three things: 1.) my rights as a woman and 2.) my rights as a person who needs to have access to a robust health care system in the US and 3.) preventing my country from becoming an authoritarian state.
So I am going to speak up wherever and whenever I see or hear something that puts any of these goals at risk. I'm not actually talking to you, Matt. I don't actually care about why you made the decision to broadcast her story. I care about the impact her story could have on those three goals I listed. When I comment on a post like this is it something I do in order to remind other women that regardless of the nutbars running around out there talking about the blood of Jesus and half a dozen other hair-brained ideas, we need to keep our eyes on the prize.
It's in my interest, as an American woman, to discredit this source because she makes my goals look as though they are aligned with fascist goals and they're not.
For that reason, if I were making this choice, I would have dropped this woman and her father and anyone remotely connected to them at first contact. I've done it before, I've dropped KJK and the women who publish in Breitbart, and a few others because when I talk to people about this, I need to be clean and credible. I can't be credible if I overlook the fact that this woman is an evangelical fanatic. My views will be dismissed if I am aligned with her in any way.
It sounds like hyperbole but the fate of the world lies in the balance. This election will determine whether civilization turns toward total barbarism or not. I'm firmly in the "not" camp. I need to do everything I can to be sure the people I have contact with understand that gender critical women are NOT CRAZY.
This doesn't help.
Something that would be interesting to research: Is there a correlation between how male-centric/patriarchal a religion or denomination is & how much sex abuse is reported? Trouble is, for every filthy, disgusting cockroach you can see...
Something that came up in the space we did with Jimmy Hinton is that women are in fact better bullshit detectors than men when it comes to other men. Regardless of how much power women have in the spiritual structure of the church, a church that listens to women will be safer against predators than one which does not. Hinton endorsed the idea.