[Continued from "You Call That Advice? (Part 6)."]

John’s blog, which is trying blatantly to whip up excitement for a book that doesn’t exist, as well as garner clients who want his style of “marriage coaching,” had a post offering advice to single women regarding sex.  The gist, of course, is to not have sex until the man makes a commitment.  He even offered some scripture and advised single women to place the scripture in their online dating profiles.  [PUKE!]  He thinks that men can offer good advice on sex and love to women and doesn’t understand why there are no nationally syndicated male advice columnists.

By the time I read that I was irritated beyond compare.  I wrote a comment to the post.  I said he was ignorant and said that Dan Savage, a male (and man), has an advice column, Savage Love, that is nationally syndicated.  The following is what transpired.

_______________

From: John
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, April 4, 2010 10:24:48 PM
Subject: Shaming statements

We have transcended the dialogue phase and now you have devolved into judging and name calling.  It is always the same when I engage in dialogue with liberals.  They ALWAYS devolve into name calling.

You profess freedom of speech but you don’t want to allow it for conservatives.

I have had enough, don’t contact me again.  You have made it quite clear your opinion of me, I don’t have to put up  with continued verbal abuse.

John

_______________

Subject: Re: Shaming statements
To: John
Date: Monday, April 5, 2010, 6:49 AM

John,

You are the one who hadn’t heard of dialogue other than from Catholics, dear.  I have not called you names.

Once again you make assumptions.  You don’t know that I’m a liberal, and you certainly don’t know that I don’t believe that the First Amendment should apply to everyone in the United States.

And, by the way, since you have never heard me speak, you have most certainly not be subjected to “verbal” abuse.

Frankly, I’m a tad confused as to what happened between my last response, that indicated I’d write more later, and this latest email of yours, which was a full three emails since then.  You seem to be a bit irrational.

Sincerely,

Suzanne White Montiel
_______________

From: John
To: S M
Sent: Mon, April 5, 2010 7:05:27 AM
Subject: Re: Shaming statements

You made the comment on my blog that I am “so ignorant.”  It was insulting and demeaning.  Your tone throughout has been condescending and that you come across as a teacher who is trying to reach a recalcitrant student.  You have made continuous shaming statements, have not recognized any worth for what I do.  You ignored a previous comment praising my article about Sexual advice for single women by a woman.  I played along with you just waiting for the name calling that invariably comes when dealing with liberals.  You embrace liberal ideas which is your right to do and then criticize me for being conservative.  I knew as soon as I gave you my blog address that you would go on there and find fault with my articles.  You did not surprise me.  Then you lectured me about clinical terms for female anatomy.  I was studying medical text books on OB Gyn when I was 14.

For the record I have a genius IQ and am extremely widely read.  I got a BA with a double major, attended grad school for Clinical Psych and attended nursing school as well.  I was on winning debate teams in school and understand logic quite well. I have won awards in public speaking.  I have excelled at everything that I have attempted.

We are both in the helping professions, we just are at opposites sides.  I have made continuous statements that people are free to accept or reject my advice, but you continue to try and educate me and bring me into your fold of liberal ideas.  I played along until you started making insulting statements for which I am free to reject and do.

If you really want to help, how about lobbying insurance companies to stop limiting psych help to one hour once a week.  If they want to place a total cap on services, that is one thing, but to tell clinicians how they can offer services and limit them to one hour once a week, it contributes to overall failure of services.

As a clinician, you are ethically enjoined to treat people with unconditional positive regard, something that you have totally ignored with me.  You come across as extremely arrogant and condescending.  I choose to rid poisonous people from my life.

John
_______________

John,

Ignorance isn’t stupidity, but those who mistake the two are defensive nonetheless.  When making statements such as, “The problem is, is that there are no nationally published male advice columnists” then you open yourself up to criticism.  I have the same problem with that statement that I have with much of your advice, that you state things definitively that are simply not true.  There is at least one nationally syndicated male advice columnist, and his name is Dan Savage.  When you state patent untruths you appear to be ignorant and uneducated.

One of the other things that makes you appear uneducated is your blanket statements about men, women, liberals, etc.  Furthermore, the fact that you majored in “Bible” makes it clear that your “education” took place at what was/is probably an unaccredited institution, the name of which you have neither told me nor publicized anywhere on the internet as far as I can tell.  (See that, that was a qualifying clause, rather than a definitive statement.  That allows for the possibility that I am wrong, because unlike you, I know I’m not always right.)

Having looked at anatomy books as a teenager hardly makes you knowledgeable about female genitalia.  For example, did you know that within the last forty years there have been discoveries regarding the wonder that is the clitoris?  It’s not just that little thing “at the top of the vagina.”

That you feel the need to tout your “successes” and your intelligence quotient just shows your insecurity regarding your views.  I’m sure you think that if you “prove” that you’re smart that somehow your opinions, no matter how lame and unsupported they are, have more value.  Not true.  Notice I’ve not bothered to outline my credentials?  That’s because I actually write well, with actual facts to support my statements.

I don’t criticize you for being conservative, I criticize you for being dogmatic and unyielding.  I criticize you for being inflexible and not open to the possibility that there are points of view other than your own.  I criticize you as a white man of privilege who simply cannot comprehend that there are experiences to which you are not privy, pregnancy being just one of them.

Other than the ignorance it spews, your blog is also not well written.  You claim to be a writer, so write correctly.

I have never tried to get you to think like me; I, obviously incorrectly, thought that you might be interested in a viewpoint other than your own.

Why you’ve pulled insurance companies’ policies out of the air I’m not quite sure.  It is becoming increasingly clear that an intelligent and pointed discussion with you is impossible.

And once again you’ve made an assumption based on the silly things going on inside your head.  I am not, and never claimed to be, a clinician.

Sadly, you’ve reinforced my admittedly ignorant view of people in those middle states.  Please stay in Indiana.  Advise the hicks there with your lame and repetitive Bible-based doctrine.

Happy to be poison to idiots,

Suzanne White Montiel
_______________

And so ends the saga. I thank John for the material, even if he doesn’t know it.

I swear.  True story.

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •