|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Aug 21, 2009 14:50:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by phyllis on Aug 21, 2009 15:30:28 GMT -5
Wow. Vickie, I could relate to all you said so much. I forgot what you called it, but it was the martyr and something-that fits so well. It stunts both people.
I realized long ago that my husband's withdrawal controlled me totally. I would do anything to avoid that. It's still a problem for me.
But, yeah, a did this lifestyle to myself for many years. I was a martyr; he could be whatever he wanted, as long as he didn't withdraw. I guess it's an unhealthy attachment problem.
What's helped me is therapy, reading a million secular self-help books (women who love too much, etc.), trying to accept whatever fears and feelings I have, yet try not to panic and act on those feelings. That works better.
Thank you so much for describing a scenario that I thot applied only to me. It's one where the wife is actually more competent in some ways, but yet is controlled by the weaker in some ways man. It's a hard life of exhaustion and resentment-a prison of her own making.
|
|
lectio
Full Member
growing...
Posts: 128
|
Post by lectio on Aug 21, 2009 17:45:36 GMT -5
Great thoughts...
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Aug 21, 2009 17:54:09 GMT -5
What are Debi Pearl's credentials for giving marital advice or Biblical interpretation?
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Aug 21, 2009 18:10:58 GMT -5
It's enabling behavior, really. This is very similar to the Hare Krishna take on marriage although some said that it depended on how well the husband was also following the instructions of his own Guru and the scriptural requirements. If he fell away completely the wife could live separately and remain "chaste" and faithful in the hopes that he would return to a Krsna Conscious life at some point. The husband would have to be very obviously in "maya" (illusion) though, for everyone to agree that this was the correct course of action. Some said that the wife should remain no matter what. There was a lot of social judgment flying around.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Aug 21, 2009 18:17:03 GMT -5
The other thing that strikes me as I read your letter to Angel, is that being blind in and of itself doesn't have to be that much of a handicap. I think there was definitely more going on with Warren than that. I had a friend for several years who went to school and became a psychotherapist, despite his blindness. He had various devices to assist him and a computer that "talked" to him and read pages verbatim. He had people who read text books for him via disabled student services. Sure he missed out on body language but he was great at interpreting tone of voice.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Aug 21, 2009 18:37:40 GMT -5
I just want to say that I loved this post. I could see exactly the same things occurring between my father and mother growing up. (Though I don't think I ever would have referred to my dad as a basically nice guy, as he started out entitled and ripened over the years ). Unfortunately, I tried to counter the enabling effects of my mom's submission with total insubordination and rebuke, and I realize now that it only prompted him to avoid conflict with me and inflict my share on my mother. He knew he could get away without too much hassle by focusing all his ire on her. He also enforced his rule by collecting weapons, which made resistance, well, scary. I met a lot of men over the years who were slowly transformed into domineering pricks by the submission of their wives. Often the women were the ones enthused about their Biblical roles and would look for ways to interpret the slightest whims of their husbands as solemn commands. I knew a lot of women who would refuse to make plans to do the most basic life chores or plans (go to the park, shop for groceries) without their husbands' explicit approval. It would take a lot of willpower for anyone to resist assuming a dominant position when one partner constantly thrusts that role upon the other. "Be my lord; command me," is an open invitation to anyone with insecurities (who doesn't have those?) to feel superhumanly valued. And frankly, such elevation can't occur without debasement of the other party. I'm not, of course, trying to blame the victims of abuse for putting their abusers on a pedestal. In the end, responsibility lies in the man's lap to recognize that he is not to be the sole beneficiary of his wife's beliefs. But the patriarchal/QF ideology does support the abusers' actions and, when held in the minds of both parties, is very hard to root out.
|
|
jeb
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by jeb on Aug 21, 2009 18:45:22 GMT -5
Because of my relationship with Vyckie I've come into contact with and become familiar with 'biblical patriarchy' and it's been almost a mind numbing experience. Here are these guys who are, supposedly, God's representatives and to whom women in general and their wives and daughters in particular are supposed to look up to/kowtow to, but who are not even responsible for their own actions. The men have no control over themselves or responsibility to act and be above reproach in and of themselves. If a woman dresses in a way that they find sexy, or even attractive, and they find themselves lusting after her . . . it's not their fault . . . it's the fault of the woman. And if they act on their lust it's even more her fault. If the woman doesn't bow down and worship the man in the way they think God requires them to and they get mad and throw things and beat the woman or otherwise show themselves to be less then godly . . . it's not their fault . . . it's all her fault. If she was more godly, more submissive, more obsequious he wouldn't be forced to lose his temper and show his total lack of self control like that. Bottom line . . . these supposed representatives of the great god on high aren't responsible for anything. If they screw up it's not their fault at all. But just like Adam, way back in Genesis when God accosted him in the garden saying, "Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from? " they, like Adam reply, "The woman that you gave me, she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it". So it's still and always only the woman's fault but never the man's. These guys make me embarrassed to be a man. If I can't be responsible for my own thoughts and actions then what good am I? If I can't treat others from across the sexual spectrum as I would like to be treated then I should be accorded no respect at all never mind the dumbfounding submission these guys expect from their women. And that's my take on 'The Patriarchy'. . . . for what it's worth. And now, since I believe laughter is a good medicine that one should take every day . . . . here's a fellow that I get a kick out of and his thoughts on religion. Hopefully this isn't your first dose for the day and won't be your last. But you don't have to take this one if you don't want to. S'up to you. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeaccnhgcNc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Demo%2Bphilips%26docid%3D978643452452%26mid%3D20BBD95ECE10861BF99E20BBD95ECE10861BF99E%26FORM%3DVIVR18&feature=player_embeddedY'all be good to yourselves now, eh? John
|
|
|
Post by pandapaws on Aug 21, 2009 19:53:24 GMT -5
Maybe I am wrong but it appears Vyckie that you and Warren were not intellectual equals, you were much smarter. I can't imagine being submissive to a man that wasn't at least my intellectual equal. (But then again, I am not the submissive type.)
|
|
|
Post by philosophia on Aug 22, 2009 2:38:29 GMT -5
;D
Jeb , thanks for the funny! I needed that!
|
|
athenac
New Member
I'll be a post-feminist in the post-patriarchy
Posts: 39
|
Post by athenac on Aug 22, 2009 4:04:40 GMT -5
I really liked this post. (I like all your posts, but I liked this one especially.) Last year when the whole hoo-ha was going on with the FLDS, I got to thinking. Boys and men are as much victims of that system as the girls and woman are. Boys and men (and girls and women) may be abusers, but they are also victims. They're in a situation that is outside their control. Yeah, okay, so the men get to have lots of wives (as long as they're not thrown out of the cult for minor infractions as teenagers), but they don't get to pick their wives, if they step out of line their families may be taken away, they're born into a situation where they have no choices in life, and the burdens of that lifestyle must overall be enormous for the men, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Even regular Mormons are put in odd sitations regarding "speaking God's words," holding the priesthood, going on missions, and other responsibilities. There's a lot about it on exmormon.org. Similarly, QF men must have a lot of stress in their lives. It seems like there's a wierd family dynamic where everyone is an adult and an infant at the same time. Fathers are waited on, but have to earn a living for a massive number of people. Mothers are physically worn down from doing housework, teaching the kids, cooking the food, and having LOTS of babies, but they have no authority over basic things like what kind of toothpaste to buy. Older boys are trained for careers, and it seems like there's an expectation that they will be breadwinners in charge of providing for their own families within a few years of turning 18, but they're not really allowed to have social lives outside the family any more than a secular 10-year-old. Older girls are already doing much of the work of mothering their younger siblings, taking care of the house, and "helping" the men, but there is no planning for a career and no developing of life skills outside the family. Younger girls are helping with chores and taking care of even younger siblings from the time they are walking. Younger boys... what is their place in the family? I hope stuff like this is discussed and expanded on in your book.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Aug 22, 2009 8:08:14 GMT -5
Vyckie – What a fantastic post! Seriously, I felt like I had picked up a book at Barnes and Noble (I’m the kind to just pop open to a page and see if I like the writing style – because you really can’t judge a book by its cover!) and found myself wanting to read more. Obvious, fawning adoration aside : " 'He’s expected (and he expects of himself) to do and be what goes contrary to his nature and his actual abilities. It puts us all in a situation in which appearances are everything and reality is the only impediment to our happiness….' " I was talking with a friend recently about this very concept, although as it relates to the secular world – the ‘average’ man being manipulated by the patriarchy-at-large (politicians, religious leaders, CEOs) which is comprised of privileged men and a handful of women who emulate them. This patriarchy sells the idea that all a man has to do is work hard and he will get ahead – become one of the privileged. So here is the ‘average’ man being told on a daily basis that he has a right to all sorts of things: fast cars, big houses, sex, thickburgers, bass boats, guns, and a job that will provide the money necessary to buy all these things. This is the bill of goods boys and men have been sold every day of their lives – it’s no wonder that they believe it. The problem is that there is not enough room (or profit margin) at the top to accommodate every man. 99% of them will never reach those powerful heights, yet they still operate from a place of privilege because they’ve been told so often, and for so long that they have these ‘rights’. In reality, though, all the powers-that-be really ever wanted from them was their work and their insatiable need for fast cars and big houses and sex and fast food. Big money. Religious Patriarchy is really just a sub-set of the patriarchy-at-large except, apparently, they use the promise of salvation to enslave boys and men to do their bidding. As in the feudal system, the more serfs, the more power for the king and his court. Historically, as women (both religious and secular) we’ve been put in the position of supporting men as they tilt at windmills because another one of those ‘rights’ he believes he has is to have a woman – a mother, wife, girlfriend, sister, daughter – cheer him on to something he most likely will never achieve. So, in this sense (as in a great number of pedophilia cases) the abuser is also the abused and can be pitied on that level. Warren can be pitied on that level. And for the guys who ‘get it’ – who see that they are, and have been, used as pawns by the Big Boys – we need more like you, John *Edit to add: Agreeing with Athena in hoping to see this covered in more detail in the book!
|
|
|
Post by grandmalou on Aug 22, 2009 8:31:34 GMT -5
WOW! This is definitely fodder for the brains! Thanks, Kidly...and thanks to all who responded to this article! What a group we have going here, and what a book this is going to be! One tired Grandmalou here...it was well worth my sitting up until 3 AM to read all of this though! LOL...gotta get ready now to head to work...maybe more on this later. I am cross-eyed...Grandpa is doing a tad bit better. Love to all... ;D
|
|
jeb
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by jeb on Aug 22, 2009 9:54:42 GMT -5
Thanks for your kind words, Sea. Maybe a bit of wisdom has come with the gray hairs, eh? And Philosophia, glad you got a laugh out of that crazy Emo thing. Some folks find him too silly I think but it's his very Weirdness that I find so funny. Y'all enjoy your weekend now. John
|
|
Hillary
Full Member
"Quivering Daughters ~ Hope and Healing for the Daughters of Patriarchy" Now Available!
Posts: 129
|
Post by Hillary on Aug 22, 2009 22:42:31 GMT -5
Excellent post, Vyckie.
You wrote:
<i>As Christians, we constantly heard that in a godly marriage it is essential that a man loves his wife and that the woman respects her husband. Here’s the rub ~ the patriarchal blueprint for the marriage relationship guarantees that a man will not truly love his wife and that a woman can never truly respect her husband.
A man’s growth and maturity are stunted due to constantly being rescued from adversity ~ and he has nothing of himself ~ only a dependency upon the woman to uphold that illusion of his headship and control.
There is no love in patriarchy. There is no respect. There is only perpetual immaturity, dependency and frustration for the man who is subjected to the most sophisticated manipulation as his wife gives over control and authority to him ~ and in that move, takes control of God Himself ~ for in response to her obedience, has the Lord not promised to bless her?</>
When patriarchal marriages fail, I think one of the reasons is because through their very nature they enable sin in the other marriage partner.
Submissive wives cannot do much more than offer one quiet plea to her husband and if that does not succeed, she is to take her requests to God.
But if a "Christian brother" were to see the same sin in the husband's life, he would be remiss to let it go with a simple passive exhortation. Why do all the Scriptures which admonish "encouraging one another to righteousness" become null and void if the "one anothers" happen to be married to each other?
|
|
|
Post by phyllis on Aug 23, 2009 7:46:23 GMT -5
"The only impediment to our happiness is reality" Wow-was that ever true. Although I still am somewhat keeping that unreality going (being an enabler) I have gotten much better. At least I'm no longer homeschooling and trying to make myself and my husband play roles that neither of us were ever good at. That was a huge problem. Those roles did not fit our personalities at all. It was miserable and frustrating and exhausting. Another sentence I read somewhere-I think in Melody Beattie's book, not sure-anyway, it was "These situations could not long exist if not for the enabler." We enablers smooth the waters constantly, hold it all together out of fear that the little world we want so much might succumb to reality at any moment. We'll drive ourselves into the ground to try to keep all those plates spinning and everybody "okay."
|
|
|
Post by jadehawk on Aug 23, 2009 16:49:20 GMT -5
wow, that was truly an excellent post! I remember reading about the four kinds of love a long time back, but completely forgot about them until this post. And it's so true, too. The best relationships (romantic or otherwise) are co-operative ones where there's a bit of compromise, but mostly everybody gets to be themselves, and where the relationship helps both sides to be better at being themselves. Everything else is poisonous and unhealthy to various degrees. And I agree with sargasso that this is reflected in the businessworld as well. This is specially visible in such super-patriarchal business-societies as Japan, where the underlings are basically slaves, but with the hope of becoming the powerful abusers themselves (incidentally, that's how fraternities work, too. the new guys are abused for their first year, but in the following years they do the abusing; it's a very strange form of male-bonding ), but is also present in in our supposedly enlightened society. think of the American mythos of "from rags to riches". everybody is promised that if they only work hard enough, they can become rich. but is that true? no, of course not. and if it were, society would collapse, because no-one would be around to pick up the trash anymore :-p this is the fault of a super-capitalist, super-competitive mindset: it praises competition and hierarchy over cooperation and egalitarianism, and it damages everybody who is part of that rat-race. It's actually ironic that many religiously patriarchal groups eschew the materialist patriarchy as evil, and vice versa, when they're in many ways the same thing: slavery for the promise of greater things, and division and alienation from each other of those participating.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Aug 23, 2009 18:20:03 GMT -5
Author Joe Hallinan in his book Why We Make Mistakes, talks about why Nutrisystem is such a successful company. It's not because the product works. It doesn't work any better than any other diet plan. He points out that if you watch the TV ads, they show people who have lost 40, 60 or more pounds and then add in small print "results are not typical". He then goes on to say is that the reason that the disclaimer doesn't convince people not to buy the product is because people don't think of themselves as typical. They figure they will beat the odds.
Same thing with the "anyone can be rich" myth. Most people can work out for themselves that not everyone can get rich. But they don't want everyone to get rich; they just want to get rich themselves, and like the Nutrisystem customers, they don't think of themselves as typical.
It's like the old joke about 2 men being chased by a bear. One of them finally says, "This won't work. There's no way we can outrun the bear." And his friend says, "I don't need to outrun the bear. I just need to outrun you."
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Aug 23, 2009 22:51:44 GMT -5
It's interesting that just before Vyckie posted this, I posted a comment on another blog about how the authority-submission paradigm really just results in control and enabling. That some men are mature enough to eschew being treated as a demigod by their wives and children, but that in any event it is a huge temptation when everyone surrounding you treats you as if you are inherently more special than everyone else, not to believe it.
|
|
jlp
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by jlp on Aug 24, 2009 16:15:00 GMT -5
Great post Vyckie. You showed the reality of patriachal teaching versus the myth.
|
|
jlp
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by jlp on Aug 24, 2009 21:01:21 GMT -5
More women need to speak out about the myths of complementarianism and patriarchalism. They need to talk about what they were told would happen if they were supportive and obedient wives, and what actually happened. The truth needs to get out.
|
|
chloe
New Member
Posts: 37
|
Post by chloe on Aug 26, 2009 1:30:15 GMT -5
Oddly, I was reading the works of Abelard (or such fragments as we have) just before I read this installment. I may have to take a look at Bernard again; his involvement with the Second Crusade may have put me off him at bit. It's strange to see his work in English.
Your insights are pretty powerful. When faced with relentless submission, I imagine almost anyone could be goaded into tyranny.
|
|
|
Post by barbaraw on Aug 27, 2009 17:35:57 GMT -5
You know, I'm wondering if it doesn't really matter which of those stages one is in as long as one's partner is in the same stage.
I mean, I can totally see two people in the "I love me for me" stage getting along very well. As long as neither expects much from the other. But if they're content to have kind-of-connected separate lives where they pursue their own happiness, why not?
And I think that if both people are "I love you for you," as long as they both stay there, and are able to take care of each other's emotional needs from their own store, that might work, too.
And "I love me for you" goes without saying.
I'm less certain about "I love you for me," though. . . .
|
|
|
Post by redheadedskeptic on Sept 2, 2009 18:46:31 GMT -5
"Dad cares ~ he tries harder than anyone I know. The problem is that he lacks the capacity to care effectively." Oh, wow, my mom says almost that exact same thing to me quite frequently.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Sept 3, 2009 6:24:18 GMT -5
The other thing that strikes me as I read your letter to Angel, is that being blind in and of itself doesn't have to be that much of a handicap. I think there was definitely more going on with Warren than that. I had a friend for several years who went to school and became a psychotherapist, despite his blindness. He had various devices to assist him and a computer that "talked" to him and read pages verbatim. He had people who read text books for him via disabled student services. Sure he missed out on body language but he was great at interpreting tone of voice. tapati ~ it's true that plenty of blind people are able to function quite well despite their disability. Warren had heard about this fact enough that he was absolutely convinced that it applied to him too ~ and the children and I also believed it ~ to the extent that we were able to deny the obvious truth ~ that Warren's blindness was a major handicap in that it exacerbated all his other problems. Warren was just sure that he had superior listening skills and that he could interpret tone of voice ~ and no matter how we insisted that he really didn't know what we meant when we said this or that ~ HE KNEW what we'd said. We were never allowed to say, "You can't see ~ so how can you insist that I was not looking at you when you were talking?" Well ~ he could tell by the sound of our voices ~ blind people have that ability. So ~ even though there were 7 other people at the table who actually saw with their eyes that the supposed offender actually was looking at Warren when he was talking ~ HE KNEW they had their head turned and there was no arguing with him about HIS FACTS. Ugh. I got tired out and discouraged just remembering this and writing about it ~ I seriously can't believe that we lived with it day in and day out for years and years. We always sat at the table together for every meal ~ three times a day we had to suffer through that dreaded ordeal. I hated it so much that now the only time we all sit at the table for a meal is when we have company and the weather is not nice enough to eat outside ~ and even then, we don't always sit down together. Poor traumatized me.
|
|