|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Jan 22, 2010 8:53:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by susan on Jan 22, 2010 13:20:36 GMT -5
Oh, gosh, this is good, Sea!
I know you were really busy this time -- but I'm hoping you'll go more in-depth with your future posts on this.
I find myself getting into what you're saying -- but then it's just -- over, so fast. Almost before you even got started!
|
|
|
Post by dandydeluxe on Jan 22, 2010 14:03:24 GMT -5
"but then it's just -- over, so fast." Oh my, isn't that the way it goes huh?
|
|
|
Post by susan on Jan 22, 2010 14:15:16 GMT -5
LOL!
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Jan 22, 2010 19:20:14 GMT -5
I'm a little uncomfortable with the "pole dancers" side of this. There is a great deal of exploitation in the sex trade, but there are women who choose to do sex work and don't feel exploited, and I think that should be respected.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Jan 22, 2010 22:37:14 GMT -5
I'll respect sex work when women are making the vast majority of the money in this multi-bazillion dollar/yen/euro/coin-of-the-realm business.
(I'd like everyone to notice that I did not say that I do not respect sex workers...)
Until then I theorize about a world in which the economic 'choices' for women do not run the gamut from:
Prairie Muffin & Lovin' It!
to
Pole Dancer & Lovin' It!
and
a whole lot of crap in between and beyond.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 23, 2010 0:53:36 GMT -5
I'm a little uncomfortable with the "pole dancers" side of this. There is a great deal of exploitation in the sex trade, but there are women who choose to do sex work and don't feel exploited, and I think that should be respected. yeah... I know you never said you didn't respect sex workers... but I also am slightly uncomfortable, not entirely sure why. Maybe I'm just uncomfortable with sarcasm on such a topic? In which case, it's just me and I should up my sarcasm detector.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Jan 23, 2010 14:12:46 GMT -5
I'm a little uncomfortable with the "pole dancers" side of this. There is a great deal of exploitation in the sex trade, but there are women who choose to do sex work and don't feel exploited, and I think that should be respected. kisekileia ~ I think that I can understand your concern here ~ and it's a bit tricky when dealing with a topic like this in which women's choices appear to be pitted against each other because there's the risk of strengthening the illusion of choice which keeps us women fighting one another rather uniting against our common enemy of Patriarchy. I don't know if it'll actually address the issue you've raised here, kisekileia, but I want to share what the "Pole Dancers" in this series represents to me. When I was a fully-convinced "Prairie Muffin," I was working my ass off to be the very most godly woman that I could possibly be ~ it was an exhausting lifestyle and it cost me a lot. I would look around at the "Pole Dancers" (that is, as Sea explained "every other woman" ~ women who, to my consideration, took the "broad path" and the easy way ~ women who only gave birth to the number of children they felt they could handle, who shirked their God-given responsibility to educate their own children ~ instead throwing them to the government school wolves, who worked outside the home and used babysitters, who bought "plastic bread" from the grocery store, etc.) ~ and in order not to envy the apparent ease of their lifestyle, I had to believe that these women would seriously pay for their laxity ~ their children would turn out to be shallow Christians ~ if they followed the Lord at all. Other women do not have to literally pole dance or prostitute themselves in order to fit into the category of "whores" to the Quiverfull mind. Any woman who indulges herself in the least little way, is obviously selling herself and not truly worthy of the Lord's special favor. So as you're reading this series, when you read "Pole Dancers" please keep in mind that for the "Prairie Muffins," even Sarah Palin would fit into the category of "Pole Dancers." We're using the term, in true Quiverfull style, to represent EVERY WOMAN who is anything less than a sold-out, self abnegating Quiverfull submissive mom of many.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jan 23, 2010 14:27:49 GMT -5
That's very interesting, Vyckie-- I am very much one of those lax Christians you are talking about. I work 30 hours a week outside the home, my kids go to public school (a very good school system, much better than the public schools I went to as a child), I buy storebought bread and I used birth control to limit my children to what my husband's and my incomes could handle. Awful, isn't it? ;D But because I'm not ex-QF, I kind of looked at the Prairie Muffins and Pole Dancers in a different way. I saw two groups of women, on extreme opposite ends of society-- but both, in their own way, contributing to the upholding of The Patriarchy while still making their own choices. They don't realize that their choices are being constrained and limited by The Patriarchy-- the male supremacy still entrenched in our culture, so entrenched that we often don't see it. Both do what they do to please men, and men reward them for it, though they run risks to their own bodies and disadvantage their own children, in the way they live their lives. And so they are sisters-- twin sisters, even-- though they would deny it themselves. This is not a condemnation of either the Prairie Muffins or the Pole Dancers-- it's a wish that we could live in a world where women could be fully empowered to do what's best for them, and not for men.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Jan 23, 2010 15:26:20 GMT -5
Jemand – I agree - it is kind of uncomfortable, isn’t it? The conclusion that I’ve come to after, well, years of thinking about it is that it’s uncomfortable for this reason: I will not judge a woman for doing what ever it is she needs to do to get through the damn day (or pay her way through college) but I cannot simply ignore the reality – the fact – that the Sex Trade is, at best, exploitative and at worst torturous and deadly to feminized human beings on planet Earth. It's like, do I care if the relatively small number of women who ‘choose’ to strip don’t ‘feel’ exploited or oppressed? – yes I do, because every woman is entitled to be the individual they are. But I care much, much more about the untold/unknown number of women and girls who have zero choice in the matter. I know that they feel uncomfortable with the idea that there are women who ‘choose’ to be degraded, devalued and generally treated like a commodity – a bag of chips, or whatever. And the brutal truth – the thing that really makes all of this so not-pleasant to think about – is that we know that it is not a room full of women sitting there throwing dollars at *Barely Legal Girls!* miming sex acts at Bob’s Boobie Bungalow in Elkhorn Tennessee…
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jan 23, 2010 17:18:13 GMT -5
While I'm sitting here waiting for my hair to dry, I thought I'd check in to see how the blog-a-thon was going. For the greed-inspired leaders in patriarchy who are licking their wounds and egos because EVERYBODY's sales are down, I can't help wondering if they are envious of climbing total? If they had not turned what was once a general and wholesome message into a cult of personality and control, then much of this would not be necessary. Anyway... I can't help but comment here about this pole dancing thing which accomplishes its satirical offense quite well. I hate the imagery, though I appreciate the intent very well. I think what you're all saying, not in so many words, is that both opposite ends of the spectrum objectify women.Quite simply, objectification is the process of turning a person into an object. The objectified person loses a part of their personhood in the process when they become little more than a means to an end. This, I believe, just proves my thesis that much of the impetus behind *The Patriarchy* in the first place stems from Love Avoidance in the male leaders in the movement. undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/search/label/Love%20Addiction%2FLove%20AvoidancePer Pia Mellody, this feature primarily seen in dysfunctional homes of adult children who are addicts, these men were smothered by domineering female parents or caregivers who used their children to gratify their own personal needs. These boys who grow up to be men have to cope somehow with this abuse they endured. They cope by objectifying women later in life. They are rescuers who are torn between rescuing (as they did their female parent or major influence) and running from the relationship when it becomes overwhelming. In the process, they find that they can salvage some good feelings about themselves by looking down on women -- as objects. What is the difference if a woman serves her man as a lesser creature by the guidelines of the weirdness of cultic religion or whether that woman is serving men in the sex industry? Woman is still perceived as just an object. But as it has already been stated, at least the woman in the sex industry can go home for awhile and has some money that she receives in exchange for her services. It also does not use spiritual manipulation to keep women trapped in the system, believing that they will be bombed from heaven because they have no more umbrella of protection... Women in patriarchy generally have it far worse, often having no money to show for their work, they cannot retreat to their homes for respite (because they live where they work), and non-compliance results in alienation from all situational support including God. People argue that, at least, the Prairie Muffin has heard the Gospel. Have they? Too much stems back to Doug Wilson's theory which stems back to George Knight's late '70 theory, to the confederates, to ... Well anyway, through some interesting gyrations, they claim to trace everything back to the character and nature of God??? I don't think so. I can also state emphatically that Vyckie is right about the objectification if not demonization of people who do not fit into their paradigm. Finding myself in churches where most everyone followed this stuff, most of my same-aged peers treated me as though I was not really "right," much like old Judaism differentiated between a fully vetted proselyte and a "gate proselyte" who was allowed some entry into the system but without all of the rights and benefits. I discussed this once with Corrie Marnett who said that even if I was able to have children or was in a position to adopt, I would still be unacceptable to the group. I figure that the only way I could ever make it work (should I so desire) would be to actually have the prefrontal cortex removed from my brain (aka lobotomy). Which brings up an interesting point, that they only want good and healthy stock. It is much like the Victorian attitude wherein the rich looked down on the deserving and undeserving poor because their state of poverty and disease was somewhat of a curse of birth, God's repudiation of the lesser folk or the "non-elect." I guess that's why we're women, too? What a sad mess.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Jan 23, 2010 22:18:11 GMT -5
I like this series in the light of Cindy's comment that they are both objectified as women and KR's comment (in the other thread) that they are both at the mercy of patriarchy.
I don't like it as sarcastic wit. I think the comparisons could be done very interestingly without the snark.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Jan 24, 2010 5:54:27 GMT -5
So as you're reading this series, when you read "Pole Dancers" please keep in mind that for the "Prairie Muffins," even Sarah Palin would fit into the category of "Pole Dancers." We're using the term, in true Quiverfull style, to represent EVERY WOMAN who is anything less than a sold-out, self abnegating Quiverfull submissive mom of many. Vyckie, I have a problem with this interpretation of prairie muffins vs pole dancers. Do you mean to say that ALL women are out there trying to please men in everything they do? I understand the use of pole dancer/prostitute or "wife swap" (As Voddie Baucham calls it) in patriarchal circles to mean any woman who doesn't live the prairie muffin life, but I thought they saw those women as selfish, self-serving, unfaithful, being willing to obey any man but a husband, etc... Feminism is against women being objectified, and feminists are exactly the women who VB et al are referring to. I think I'm missing the point if pole dancers also encompass women who choose their path in life and don't live to please men.
|
|
jwr
Full Member
Posts: 218
|
Post by jwr on Jan 24, 2010 6:39:30 GMT -5
I'm extremely sarcastic; sometimes way over the top. So to me, Sea's post doesn't offend. And if you limit the meaning of "Pole Dancer" to a paid sex worker, they are some of the most brutalized, oppressed women on the planet. I'm speaking here from a global perspective. I can believe that some western women do sex work of their own free will, and enjoy it. But globally speaking, they're a small minority.
I live only six miles from a Calcutta brothel neighborhood called Sonagachi (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4055143.stm), where the prostitutes are as young as 11, and have been kidnapped and trafficked. After being sold to a brothel, they are beaten and raped mercilessly by a pimp, until their wills are totally broken and they submit. Most of them have looks in their eyes like they plan to commit suicide in a few hours. And they are victims of an extreme patriarchy, because even the "madams" work for men. Men are at the top of the chain of command.
Last time my wife visited one of these squalid brothels (claustrophobic rooms smaller than many American walk-in closets), she sang Bengali devotional songs to them, and hugged them and cried with them. One of them (about 17) grabbed her hand and said, "If you give me somewhere to stay I'll walk out now and never return!" But we don't have a facility yet, so my wife was unable. She still gets teary-eyed when she talks about that girl.
So, in a very real sense, the Prairie Muffin and the Pole Dancer are at the opposite ends of the same pole. Yes, it's sarcastic but it really makes a point.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Jan 24, 2010 9:32:14 GMT -5
So as you're reading this series, when you read "Pole Dancers" please keep in mind that for the "Prairie Muffins," even Sarah Palin would fit into the category of "Pole Dancers." We're using the term, in true Quiverfull style, to represent EVERY WOMAN who is anything less than a sold-out, self abnegating Quiverfull submissive mom of many. Vyckie, I have a problem with this interpretation of prairie muffins vs pole dancers. Do you mean to say that ALL women are out there trying to please men in everything they do? I understand the use of pole dancer/prostitute or "wife swap" (As Voddie Baucham calls it) in patriarchal circles to mean any woman who doesn't live the prairie muffin life, but I thought they saw those women as selfish, self-serving, unfaithful, being willing to obey any man but a husband, etc... Feminism is against women being objectified, and feminists are exactly the women who VB et al are referring to. I think I'm missing the point if pole dancers also encompass women who choose their path in life and don't live to please men. Madame ~ what I'm saying is that *in my Quiverfull days* any woman "who is anything less than a sold-out, self abnegating Quiverfull submissive mom of many" ~ and especially any women who "choose thier path in life and don't live to please men" ~ might as well be a pole dancer. They were all in the same category in my mind: selfish, self-determined (to a QFer, that's a bad thing), independent-minded, superficial Christian. Offensive, I know ~ but that's what being a super holy Christian will do to a person. The judgementalism and superiority are inherent to the achevievment of that level of self-denial.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jan 24, 2010 11:18:52 GMT -5
Vyckie, I have a problem with this interpretation of prairie muffins vs pole dancers. Do you mean to say that ALL women are out there trying to please men in everything they do? I understand the use of pole dancer/prostitute or "wife swap" (As Voddie Baucham calls it) in patriarchal circles to mean any woman who doesn't live the prairie muffin life, but I thought they saw those women as selfish, self-serving, unfaithful, being willing to obey any man but a husband, etc... Feminism is against women being objectified, and feminists are exactly the women who VB et al are referring to. I think I'm missing the point if pole dancers also encompass women who choose their path in life and don't live to please men. Madame ~ what I'm saying is that *in my Quiverfull days* any woman "who is anything less than a sold-out, self abnegating Quiverfull submissive mom of many" ~ and especially any women who "choose thier path in life and don't live to please men" ~ might as well be a pole dancer. They were all in the same category in my mind: selfish, self-determined (to a QFer, that's a bad thing), independent-minded, superficial Christian. Offensive, I know ~ but that's what being a super holy Christian will do to a person. The judgementalism and superiority are inherent to the achevievment of that level of self-denial. Madame: Here's how I hear what Vyckie is saying here: QF, like all cults, require, reinforce, and reward thinking in terms of all black and white. Like Vyckie writes in her review of Joyce's book, balance is almost redefined as compromise, and compromise is redefined as sin. Everything is a matter of extremes, and there is no category for the person who is actively struggling to attain but has not quite yet arrived. I could be a very good Gothard follower, but if I'm not going to an FIC or if I wasn't born into the right covenant family, I'm not quite good enough. You have to be the right kind of good enough. (e.g.,Corrie's aforementioned comment to me about my having kids really opened my eyes on a practical level about this. I can NEVER be acceptable to this group. Therefore, as an example of their black and white thought, in theory, I may as well be a pole dancer! It doesn't matter because they've already determined that I'm non-elect because I am not one of their sycophants.)Therefore, to the Prairie Muffin, anyone who is not in their category of purity and meeting the standard of works may as well be the worst example of sin one can conjure up, because their fate and their ultimate spiritual standing is the same -- they are lost and reprobate. In terms of thought reform, this actually encapsulates quite a lot and is very effective as a point of interest here in this discussion. One of the most obvious is the elitist mentality, falling under Lifton's categories of the sacred science (anything outside of their belief system is essentially entirely evil because it is not entirely good) and dispensing of existence (anyone who fails to meet their standard is denied personhood). If you prefer the Spiritual Abuse model, this the" image consciousness" element which demonstrates their paranoid elitism. (Note that black-and-white thinking does not accomodate well any kind of analogy -- it is metaphorical and therefore not black-and-white by nature. Satire also requires a sense of humor which is hard in black-and-white. And satire requires the observer to pick up on the subtle implications which requires critical thought. If you are in a system where your critical thought is constantly being dulled, analogy is a very difficult thing to comprehend.) So I see the analogy of PM vs PD as something to definitely not read in any sort of literal terms. I see it as challenging the black-and-white thought of the cult. Vyckie and SargassoSea will have to correct me if I'm wrong, but they seem to me to be poking fun at this extreme of the PM pattern of thought (little thought at all-- just an algorithm that places everything in life into some automatic category). So when I read the "all women are like pole dancers, and I'm a pole dancer," it's not literally talking about the sex industry but the black and white thought. I don't see it as something that should be taken literally or that seriously in that sense. It's pointing out the cruelty of the PM in terms of their extremes. Moral of my post? I would say that if the PM vs PD analogy rubs you the wrong way, step back from it and ask yourself if you are not falling into the same pattern of "all or nothing" and "black-and-white" thought pattern that the cult forces on its audience to manipulate and win the day. Remember that Doug Phillips says "He who defines, wins." They bait emotional traps to catch people and trap them into these algorithmic ways of formulaic thinking. If you can resist the emotional bait of deep offense (the offense at the Pole Dancer reference), you can see the analogy. But appealing to emotion is a huge power upon which the Prairie Muffin Mentality capitalizes. That's just what I see in this discussion which is quite trenchant but demonstrates very many glaring problems with QF and patriarchy. Vyckie or SaragassoSea, Have any feedback?
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 24, 2010 12:00:37 GMT -5
cindy, I think it may be kind of problematic to try to solidly declare another's discomfort or offense is "actually" coming from something other than their stated communication... I think it's problematic to say that taking offense or being uncomfortable is probably coming from not taking in the whole picture or thinking badly, irrationally, or incompletely. I don't think you can or should make that characterization.
my 'problem' with it, I'm not entirely sure whether or not I have what I would label 'problem' without the quotes, is that I haven't yet decided whether this falls too closely under the umbrella of making fun of these women, derisively objectifying them in our analogies and contempt for their "bad thinking" as much as the system we're trying to bring down here.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Jan 24, 2010 12:28:25 GMT -5
Vyckie and Cindy, Thanks for your replies. I'll try to explain what I mean. I fully understand that in QF thinking, any woman who doesn't fit in the PM mold is by default a pole dancer.
Here's the last PMM and PDC point:
Prairie Muffins are helpmeets to their husbands, seeking creative and practical ways to further their husbands’ callings and aid them in their dominion responsibilities.
Pole Dancers are cash-cows to their managers, seeking creative and practical ways to further their boss’ bank accounts and aid them in their oppressive responsibilities.
Both define themselves as subject to men, there to further a man's calling or career.
I know nobody on here would believe herself "created to be his (some man's) assistant". Even if PMs may consider me a pole dancer, I would not define myself as one, because I don't live to serve a man/men.
I see all the reasoning in Cindy's post, but I struggle reading the two manifestos with the thought that I have to be either a PM or a PD.
I'm finding it hard to explain what I mean! (and my computer is typing in slow motion. Unhelpful!)
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Jan 24, 2010 12:53:48 GMT -5
Cindy – Welcome, and thanks for your input – very interesting. Arietty – Just between you and me , I didn’t start out with the intention of “snarking off” (hat tip to the ever quotable Grandma Lou!) but I found that in developing the series I was getting WAY too heavy. I mean, obviously I take patriarchal oppression of feminized people - in all its guises – really seriously and had I stayed *straight* with it I suspect that I would have just ended up being dismissed as yet another crazy-angry-man hating-lesbian-feminist… (I was thinking about the old adage which says: Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but the highest form of intelligence and was looking around for an attribution when I ran into this www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/may/23/psychology.science ) Madame – I appreciate that your post was addressed to Vyckie, but I’d like to make one small point if I may: Do you mean to say that ALL women are out there trying to please men in everything they do? Of course, not every woman is out there trying to please men in everything they do. It’s just that the patriarchal system is set up so that men have the most to gain, right? Example: Am I trying to please men when I walk down the street? No. I’m trying to get from point A to point B. But that doesn’t stop men from feeling they have the right to stare at me or hit on me or make fat jokes about me or even rape me. And I guess that’s my point – It’s not about what my intention is, it’s about what men make it into because they make the ‘rules’. JWR – Thank you for that. It’s amazing what just a little real-life perspective can bring to the issue. I think that most people in the US have never really known a woman who works in the trades, especially the men who rent/buy them. But I have. And you have. And on this we see eye-to-eye (I wanted to put a smiley here, but it's totally inappropriate - and, anyway, it's the thought that counts!) Jemand – ...I haven't yet decided whether this falls too closely under the umbrella of making fun of these women... Excellent point, as usual! And I guess I touched on that with Arietty, and with Madame, but I’d like to say this too… I truly don’t feel like I am making fun of any woman at all. The PMM is its own thing and, of course, I don’t change a word of that – it speaks for itself – but with the Creed, I mean very seriously every word with absolutely no fault laid at any sex worker’s feet. You know where I put it... The only thing that makes it *snarky*, I think, is that I have used the Manifesto’s format. (Okay – except for Point #11 – there I’m going to make a really, really tasteless joke! And the ‘rick-roll’ is a Must See!) EveryNLQer – Since I’m here I thought I’d mention that in the weeks to come there will be a contest or two to write the ‘Best’ Pole Dancer’s Creed Point #, so feel free to start thinking about how you would write it… (and, yes, Austin Avery – there will be prizes )
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jan 24, 2010 13:58:00 GMT -5
cindy, I think it may be kind of problematic to try to solidly declare another's discomfort or offense is "actually" coming from something other than their stated communication... I think it's problematic to say that taking offense or being uncomfortable is probably coming from not taking in the whole picture or thinking badly, irrationally, or incompletely. I don't think you can or should make that characterization. Jemand, I approach this from the perspective that the so-called Biblical Patriarchy movement is absolutely and unequivocably cultic -- whether intentional or not, the group uses thought reform techniques (what others would prefer to call spiritual abuse) to manipulate their following. In terms of thought reform as Lifton defined it, I don't find it problematic at all. According to Lifton and the literature concerning spiritual abuse, the system does supress the critical thought processes of its followers. That does not mean that those who get pulled into the system are weak minded or irrational at all. It means that the techniques of the system lulled them into suspension of their own good critical thinking. Central to the message of the anti-cult literature is that all people are vulnerable because manipulative relationships take advantage of human nature -- much of which involves an appeal to emotion (because we are emotional creatures as well as thoughtful ones). They throw out emotional hooks that knock people off balance, and while in that cognitive state, it is easy to manipulate a person to accept ideas that they otherwise would have rejected. That does not mean a person is irrational. It means that they are a human being which is a thing to celebrate. The brightest and best of the most intellectual all can be duped. I didn't mean to suggest in any way that anyone who gets pulled into any idealistic group is any less capable or intelligent than anyone else on the planet. However, when a group of ideologues get pulled off center, in order to perpetuate the system, they will all resort to thinking in terms of black and white. But that is the perspective of thought reform which teaches that ALL human beings are vulnerable because off-balance groups will always resort to the exploitation of the very best strengths as well as the weaknesses of their followers and those whom they try to recruit. The moment that we stop actively evaluating what is going on in any setting by choosing for ourselves what we will accept and what we will do, we become somewhat vulnerable to manipulation. But every human being experiences many things constantly which compete for our attention and can potentially suspend our critical thinking momentarily. Hence, we are all vulnerable. The trick is to actively think about ideas and behaviors, choosing to remain alert. As a fellow member of the human race and as one who has been duped personally and came out of black-and-white thinking, you could consider what I said as highly complimentary! I hope that clarifies a little bit about where I am coming from.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 24, 2010 15:33:01 GMT -5
well, you were addressing your remarks to Madame, who is not QF, and her concerns I felt were not well addressed by telling her she was probably thinking too black and white, or being baited by an emotional trap. I'm wondering if you are understanding the point Madame was making?
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jan 24, 2010 16:33:32 GMT -5
Jemand,
Not posting on any forums anymore, only really available to do so here because of illness, I take for granted that I am new here and lots of people here don't know me. (I'm sorry if that makes things more confusing -- not my intent.) After this, I'll probably drift off into blog oblivion again for another year.
Madame and I are known to one another from other forums and have exchanged some emails in the past. She's likely heard my ramblings along these lines many times before (yawn!) and knows (or I hope knows) that I hold her in high regard. She's got a great critically thinking mind, and like all the rest of us, we both are working on thinking through the bunk. What I addressed to her specifically applies just as much or more to me as it does to her or anyone coming out of any manipulative religious group.
I think, in many ways, after such an experience with this type of abuse, we who are affected will be affected by it always in one way or another. In that respect, it's always good to keep mindful of the basics.
I JUST COULDN'T resist this topic, however. The analogy is trenchant and tough, but it pierces to the heart of the issues involved as a result. Excellent for opening up a discussion.
Peace, Cindy
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 24, 2010 17:10:43 GMT -5
Jemand, Not posting on any forums anymore, only really available to do so here because of illness, I take for granted that I am new here and lots of people here don't know me. (I'm sorry if that makes things more confusing -- not my intent.) After this, I'll probably drift off into blog oblivion again for another year. Madame and I are known to one another from other forums and have exchanged some emails in the past. She's likely heard my ramblings along these lines many times before (yawn!) and knows (or I hope knows) that I hold her in high regard. She's got a great critically thinking mind, and like all the rest of us, we both are working on thinking through the bunk. What I addressed to her specifically applies just as much or more to me as it does to her or anyone coming out of any manipulative religious group. I think, in many ways, after such an experience with this type of abuse, we who are affected will be affected by it always in one way or another. In that respect, it's always good to keep mindful of the basics. I JUST COULDN'T resist this topic, however. The analogy is trenchant and tough, but it pierces to the heart of the issues involved as a result. Excellent for opening up a discussion. Peace, Cindy OH! That makes so much more sense. It just struck me as a kind of assumptive thing to say, and since you have history and know and understand each other well, and there's background info that you don't necessarily have to spell out in such a post, it makes *way* more sense. Sorry!
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jan 25, 2010 1:37:56 GMT -5
Cindy, thank you for your analysis. Your description of cultic control strategies very much fits the cult I was in (Maranatha Campus Ministries, a dominionist/shepherding cult of the 1970s and 80s) as well as it does Quiverfull.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jan 25, 2010 16:57:41 GMT -5
Cindy, thank you for your analysis. Your description of cultic control strategies very much fits the cult I was in (Maranatha Campus Ministries, a dominionist/shepherding cult of the 1970s and 80s) as well as it does Quiverfull. Krwordgazer, I can well relate! Along with the Gothard mess, I've had to sort out the charismania, too. (My Gothard group was charismatic, and I grew up in the Assemblies of God, but we always "supplemented" with all sorts of other "stuff" like Maranatha. I am so glad that you are out! For folks who can't relate, in place of wearing dresses or having lots of kids, many pentecostals/charismatics chase signs, wonders and "new anointings" instead. I put up a new intro -- I was sure that I'd posted one when I joined months ago, but I can't find it. nolongerquivering.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=intro&thread=668
|
|