|
Post by coleslaw on Aug 3, 2010 16:52:59 GMT -5
The word, "helpmeet" is an offensive translation of the Hebrew word, "ezer" which is better rendered, "Help," or "Helper," It is used once in reference to Eve and is translated Helpmeet (gag) the other 20 or so times it appears, the "Helpmet," Is God Himself and, curiously, He doesn't get diminished by being someone's meet, no God is a Mighty Helper, a Rescuer, or simply Helper. A very poor translation which is a reflection of the sexism and bias on the part of the translaters and a pisspoor excuse to mistreat women. It's not a word, it's a phrase: "a help meet for him" means "a helper [who is] suitable for him". As language changed over the years and "meet" lost its meaning of suitable, fit or apt, people started assuming "help meet" was all one word. So the translation was not a poor one when originally made, it's just that people no longer understand the words as they did back in King James's day.
|
|
jo
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by jo on Aug 3, 2010 17:23:57 GMT -5
I get that its a parody, but those two points are inaccurate information. Just a statement, feel free to leave them wrong, but they are wrong.
I am likely a little sensitive to suggestions, even in gest, that tomato staking is less offensive than Pearl's trainings given how many times I've been actively involved in watching Elizabeth teach a mother how to properly tomato stake their child. It actually results in more hits than Pearl's training sessions, and Elizabeth is proud of that point--because children raised via her methods learn to never question their parents far faster than kids raised via Pearl.
|
|
|
Post by journey on Aug 3, 2010 18:07:54 GMT -5
Oh.... This was a hard hard post to read. UGH. It is so freaky how *obviously* sick this kind of teaching is...now. But then...nope. I was all bought in. It was exactly the kind of thing my husband was saying was God's way, you know? It made me feel like we were on the right track, on to godly and amazing things. Now? I mean, tomato staking, for example. Hello! What is the difference between tomato staking and breaking the will of a prisoner? Hardly any difference whatsoever, only in the case of tomato staking, it's a mom and young child instead of prison guard and prisoner. It's breaking down a person's spirit, no matter how you look at it. It is SO sad. I applaud whoever it was who said, above, that the only way to "win" as a woman in this kind of world is to basically cease to exist. That's exactly what I learned to do. It's the only way you can live through it with a smile. It is so wonderful, so delicious, to be alive again! Hooray for freedom!
|
|
|
Post by debrabaker on Aug 3, 2010 19:11:59 GMT -5
It does make me cringe to realize that all three of those parenting methods would be violations of the Geneva Convention.
|
|
|
Post by debrabaker on Aug 3, 2010 19:14:38 GMT -5
Oh, Coleslaw, if the word helpmeet was so grand in the seventeenth century, why was it only appllied the one time it was used to characterize Eve but not the nineteen other times it was used to characterize God?
Think about the furor that would rise if you substituted helpmeet when the helper mentioned was/is God? The patriarchists would have their pants in a wad then, mark my words.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Aug 3, 2010 19:29:00 GMT -5
I was reading through the blog of the woman who had the Arby's proposal and found her strongly worded criticism of Debi Pearl. She has a couple posts critiquing the Pearls and looks like she will continue them. kristinaskeeps.blogspot.com/2010/03/pearls-and-no-greater-joy-introduction.htmlIt's nice to see that not everyone swallows it all.. especially happy about this as Kristina is having her first baby soon so may not embrace those abusive "training" methods. It's a good reminder IMHO that people can follow some aspects of this movement but not embrace everything. I also wonder if the Pearl's star is starting to fade.. and maybe the critical voices are starting to be listened to within these movements.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Aug 3, 2010 19:31:36 GMT -5
Oh, Coleslaw, if the word helpmeet was so grand in the seventeenth century, why was it only appllied the one time it was used to characterize Eve but not the nineteen other times it was used to characterize God? Think about the furor that would rise if you substituted helpmeet when the helper mentioned was/is God? The patriarchists would have their pants in a wad then, mark my words. Let's try this again. "Help meet" is a phrase consisting of a noun (help) and an adjective (meet) in the larger phrase "a help meet for him" or as we would say nowadays "a helper suitable for him". "Meet" is not part of the translation of the Hebrew word "ezer", it's the translation for the Hebrew word "kenegdo", which appears after "ezer" in this passage. I suspect in the passages in which God is referred to as a help, the word "kenegdo" doesn't follow it, and that's why God is referred to as a "help", not a "help meet". "Meet" is an adjective, though, in this context, not a noun, not even part of a compound noun. It became that later, when people forgot what it originally meant as an adjective.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Aug 3, 2010 19:52:45 GMT -5
Oh, Coleslaw, if the word helpmeet was so grand in the seventeenth century, why was it only appllied the one time it was used to characterize Eve but not the nineteen other times it was used to characterize God? Think about the furor that would rise if you substituted helpmeet when the helper mentioned was/is God? The patriarchists would have their pants in a wad then, mark my words. Let's try this again. "Help meet" is a phrase consisting of a noun (help) and an adjective (meet) in the larger phrase "a help meet for him" or as we would say nowadays "a helper suitable for him". "Meet" is not part of the translation of the Hebrew word "ezer", it's the translation for the Hebrew word "kenegdo", which appears after "ezer" in this passage. I suspect in the passages in which God is referred to as a help, the word "kenegdo" doesn't follow it, and that's why God is referred to as a "help", not a "help meet". "Meet" is an adjective, though, in this context, not a noun, not even part of a compound noun. It became that later, when people forgot what it originally meant as an adjective. What coleslaw said. We were a KJV only group and that, along with the fact that I read a lot of old novels as a child and that I am apparently an idiot savante where spelling and words are concerned (it's freaky) I've been really comfortable with more archaic English usage. It always makes me wonder when I see 'helpmeet' used as a noun because it isn't a noun in the scriptures, it's two separate words as coleslaw explained. When you join the two words together I think a lot is lost in translation, frankly. As for the article, the thing that has been bothering me all day and has stuck with me in a disturbing way is 'tomato-staking'. Never having heard of it and not even knowing what it meant, the term used when describing a parent-child interaction is very disturbing to me. There is just something so personally invasive in the idea that your child is 'staked' to you like a tomato plant... Creeps me out. Excellent article, hopewell.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Aug 3, 2010 20:31:50 GMT -5
I can see this being used in a good way. If you want to go visit friends, ride your bike around the block, run an errand to the store, or otherwise get to roam around loose, you should have to prove you can handle the freedom first. If you are likely to run or ride out into the street, break your friend's toys or get into big fights with him, lose the store money or otherwise get yourself into danger, you need to stay closer to home. I used to tell my son that I would gladly grant him all the freedom he showed me he was responsible enough to handle. "Sit right here where I can keep an eye on you" is a time honored parental technique for dealing with the young and the restless, and one I'd like to see applied more often in the waiting room where I work. I suspect there is a dark side to tomato staking as practiced by people who engage in corporal punishment, but I think it can be a way of using natural and logical consequences to teach pro-social behavior.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Aug 3, 2010 21:03:15 GMT -5
I completely agree in principle and practice (although not for the purpose of smacking an errant child quickly). It's the terminology that creeps me out. There's a tomato, and then there's staking...and for some reason it just conjures disturbing relationships and images in my head.
But yeah, a tight leash on an acting out or immature child isn't a bad thing in and of itself. I guess there's a behavioral 'tone' involved in it, a 'flavor' of it all that is key to whether it's good parenting or scary control freakishness with a strapping attached.
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Aug 3, 2010 22:05:30 GMT -5
And to think I used to have a lot of those books in my possession. I also had that abominable series, Elsie Dinsmore. I read quite a few of those books and in the end they made me gag. Thank goodness my daughters flat out refused to read them after getting a slight ways into the first one.
Wanna hear a funny one? Sue Gregg revised one of her cookbooks based on an article I wrote about traditional means of cooking breads using a sponge. I have to tell you though, that sponge recipe I used makes some of the best bread I have ever eaten. I would still be making bread if wheat wasn't such an issue for me and if I had the time.
With regard to the dating vs. courtship thing -- one of the things my business/life coach told me to do is to date a number of men to find out what the heck I really like/want in a mate! Goes totally contrary to the advice of the courtshippers, but I agree with whoever it was who said earlier that you are giving away bits of your heart was nuts, I have found that your heart always expands to include MORE people to love. How else could we have so many kids and love each one passionately if our hearts got used up by our husbands and first children?
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Aug 3, 2010 22:25:37 GMT -5
I went to an Above Rubies meeting in which Val Stares preached that you have given a piece of your "soul" to every man you ever had sexual contact with.. she became all tearful and confessed that this haunted her because "somewhere out there is a man other than my husband that has a piece of my soul".
I was deep into fundyism at that point but I thought this was a load of crap.
Also looking back, what the heck was the point of that teaching? She was preaching to a group of women who were no doubt mostly converted to christianity as adults, married women with some kind of past. Why did we need to be told that this supposedly irreparable loss of our souls had occurred?
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Aug 3, 2010 22:49:04 GMT -5
I went to an Above Rubies meeting in which Val Stares preached that you have given a piece of your "soul" to every man you ever had sexual contact with.. she became all tearful and confessed that this haunted her because "somewhere out there is a man other than my husband that has a piece of my soul". I was deep into fundyism at that point but I thought this was a load of crap. Also looking back, what the heck was the point of that teaching? She was preaching to a group of women who were no doubt mostly converted to christianity as adults, married women with some kind of past. Why did we need to be told that this supposedly irreparable loss of our souls had occurred? Did you know that if someone takes your picture you lose a part of your very soul too? Scary stuff!! /sarcasm The really obnoxious thing about all of these teachings is that their proponents insist they are biblical, when in actual fact they are making up stuff to meet their own needs and assuage their own fears. There is nothing biblical about losing pieces of your heart or soul because you had a crush on your tenth grade science partner or (God forbid!) actually dated or slept with him. I will state once again that I blame most of this crap on bible studies and books -- everyone needs to put their own spin on scriptures, find some new angle or twist on something to promote themselves or their brand of fundamentalism. The traditional messages and interpretations can only be expounded to the faithful so many times before it's been there heard that. You need something new and improved to catch their eye and gather a following or subscription or fill a conference hall. 'Love thy neighbor!' Pfft! Come over here by me and I'll tell you how you can really serve God better! There's this little-explored section of Deuteronomy that will blow your mind!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by amyrose on Aug 3, 2010 23:06:47 GMT -5
The really obnoxious thing about all of these teachings is that their proponents insist they are biblical, when in actual fact they are making up stuff to meet their own needs and assuage their own fears. There is nothing biblical about losing pieces of your heart or soul because you had a crush on your tenth grade science partner or (God forbid!) actually dated or slept with him. I will state once again that I blame most of this crap on bible studies and books -- everyone needs to put their own spin on scriptures, find some new angle or twist on something to promote themselves or their brand of fundamentalism. The traditional messages and interpretations can only be expounded to the faithful so many times before it's been there heard that. You need something new and improved to catch their eye and gather a following or subscription or fill a conference hall. 'Love thy neighbor!' Pfft! Come over here by me and I'll tell you how you can really serve God better! There's this little-explored section of Deuteronomy that will blow your mind!!!!! And for the really lucky ones--their spin becomes the latest Fundagelical fad a la "Purpose Driven Life" (and all of it's spawn down to "The Purpose Driven Baby") or the "Prayer of Jabez" or "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" whatever the newest one is (I'm a bit out of touch with that world these days) and they get to become millionaire celebrities.
|
|
|
Post by grandmalou on Aug 4, 2010 7:56:56 GMT -5
"Tomato staking"... Holy cow! Back in the day, I remember men referring to women as "a good-looking tomato..." that was before they were "chicks" or "babes" or whatever. As to the idea of giving away pieces of our hearts, I was always taught that the more love you gave away, the more you got back...that we are to love everybody...and there is a Gaither song that says "Take that love and give it away"...paraphrasing a bit on that one, but...like someone earlier said, we have love to give to each child, even after loving our husbands...yeah, I know, more paraphrasing...but...just sayin'. Oh, yeah...here we go...God is LOVE! and "You can't outgive God"! LOL Shut up, Lou Ann! Super good and revealing article, Hopewell!!!
|
|
|
Post by apprentice on Aug 4, 2010 7:57:21 GMT -5
Sounds like BSDM with children forced into it.
The whole purity thing is just so odd. But I guess if you teach people to not respect anyone who isn't "pure"...
As for me, since I play with people who respect me, and vice versa, I can't say my heart is a half-eaten cake or whatever. Of course, I slept with the guy I'm going to be marrying within an hour or two of meeting him. And I'm not monogamous. So I imagine plenty of people just hear EW DIRTY anyway.
|
|
|
Post by debrabaker on Aug 4, 2010 8:12:01 GMT -5
re tomato staking.
Someone got her inspiration from how one would treat a tomato plant?
What does a good tomato plant do? Makes tomatoes.
What will treating a child like a tomato plant do?
Make them placid and vegitative (yes, I know they are actually fruit but all angiosperm are.)
|
|
|
Post by freefromtyranny on Aug 4, 2010 8:53:57 GMT -5
I know Elizabeth of raisinggodlytomatoes fame personally and some of the things that are being said here about her are untrue. But since she currently has a smear campaign against me on her forum I have no inclination to correct any of the information here. Carry on!!
P.S. Loved this post!! It felt like coming home....in a cleansing/closure type way.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Aug 4, 2010 9:03:50 GMT -5
The point is to make you feel bad, so you will be more likely to do what you're told. If you feel too good about yourself, you'll analyze what's being proposed instead of jumping to a reaction through fear/doubt/anxiety.
|
|
hrd
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by hrd on Aug 4, 2010 9:32:26 GMT -5
Thanks for editing the Islam sentence! Now I understood what you meant, but it didn't come off that way.
Anyway, I went back, and I was looking at that picture of the girls signing the purity contract. It really, really creeps me out. I have a 12-year-old daughter and I can't imagine my husband being so involved with her hyman. There is something incestuous about it!
|
|
|
Post by hopewell on Aug 4, 2010 10:01:08 GMT -5
Ladies--what a great discussion we've got going!!
Scary isn't it--now imagine a new mother reading all this and, in sincere good faith trying it. I, personally have tried a version of "tomato staking" [no physical punishment involved]. It did help a lot--my son WAS attention seeking and getting my attention helped tremendously. As he has grown up he's gotten a little better at not using negative behavior to get the attention he craves [only a little better] and I've gotten somewhat better at seeing his needs.
I think, even as we should criticize these practices, it's important to remember that the Moms they are aimed at are often VERY isolated. In seeking to be a better parent these can be the only resources they are able to obtain. Isolation also drives people to extremes many times.
Keep the discussion going ladies!
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 4, 2010 10:09:18 GMT -5
Ok, the Islamic thing was misunderstood. I should have mentioned the public beatings, stonings, etc. No offense to Islamic parents who are, of course, well intentioned. Seriously--no offense meant. I don't mean to pick on you hopewell. I'm using your example here, though, 'cause you seem to roll with the punches and not take things personally, so I just wanna say... For some time, I have noticed that a lot of people here seem comfortable saying very derogatory things about Islam. I think this has to do with (1) greater cultural responses to 9/11 in the Western world as well as (2) QF cultural backgrounds that saw Islam in highly demonizing ways. I have seen this happen dozens of times now, so I really am not picking on Hopewell in particular. But see... We do make an effort to make sure that evangelical Christians feel welcome here, and I don't have a problem with that. I think it's great. But I really wish we weren't so comfortable as a group making derisive statements about Muslims in general. This doesn't affect me personally except inasmuch as I've spent a considerable amount of time in one Muslim country and count many Muslims as good friends. I think we are generally very good about religious tolerance here (especially when it comes to atheism, pagansim, and various strains of Christianity), but it would mean a lot to me if we could make such an effort when it comes to Islam. One way to help would be to refer to "radical Islam" when we're talking about groups like the Taliban. I guess that's really all I'm asking--that we stop engaging in offensive, generalizing stereotypes about Muslims. Also, general recognition that the Muslim world is just as diverse as the Christian would would go far--there are many Muslim feminists and liberals just as there are Christians.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Aug 4, 2010 11:36:57 GMT -5
Anyway, I went back, and I was looking at that picture of the girls signing the purity contract. It really, really creeps me out. I have a 12-year-old daughter and I can't imagine my husband being so involved with her hyman. There is something incestuous about it! The experience of being a daughter in fundamentalism and being constantly told that my father's emotional incest was positive ("you should be glad, other kids don't know their fathers") has been a strong deterrent from the idea of ever having a child myself, for two reasons: 1. The father-child bond is totally poisoned for me and I feel like I'd resent my husband for having a normal loving relationship with a daughter. 2. I can't help but feel like daughters are raised (not only in fundamentalism, but to some extent in broader Western culture as well) to be junior wives. I hated feeling like my mother's replacement, and I don't want to be replaced.
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Aug 4, 2010 12:38:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hopewell on Aug 4, 2010 13:37:31 GMT -5
Thank you--great clarification. That's a much more appropriate way to put it.
|
|