|
Post by journey on Feb 26, 2010 21:43:42 GMT -5
The bias on this forum is still very much in favor of the person who doesn't point out where something is wrong-- to make things still look good, to focus on intentions rather than actual results. I really don't like that, when someone says, this language is bad and it hurts and your view is seriously violation the boundaries of daughters, that the automatic reaction of SO MANY people is just to double back onto the motivation of the mother. Whatever, that's a DIFFERENT conversation. Can we just talk about results here? Try to actually allow a large fracture of opinion, without reflexively trying to "peacemake" like women in fundamentalism are taught to do all the time? I think there is TOTALLY a way to say, "You just violated the boundaries of your daughters, by doing ___ and ___." The key, for me, is to NOT insinuate evil intent, and/or throw in personal slam or attack. Personally, I welcome diverse opinions. Where I find conversation and debate almost impossible is when negative underlying motivation (and/or negative intent and/or sweeping personal judgements about the other poster) are being included along with actual facts. I don't think it's fundie-woman-peacemaking that calls for civil conversation. Not at all. Fundie-woman-peacemaking means no dissent allowed, and that's simply NOT what's being said here. Civil conversation involved good healthy relational skills, period. Nothing fundie about it. If we're being true to the basic egalitarian laws of mutual respect, then we can say something like, " This violates boundaries, because __ and ___ and ____." We can also say something like, " And when you said that, it made me feel shitty, because of my experiences with ___ and ____." No personal attacks are being thrown at the other person. We are simply relating back our thoughts and our experiences, our concerns and our research. But, if we're being true to the basic egalitarian laws of mutual respect, we can NOT say, " This violates boundaries and and I feel shitty AND you're a schmuck and a loser for ever saying it in the first place." In the same manner, we also can't say something like, "Only an idiot would say something like that." Or, "The reason you said that is because you were secretly wanting to hurt me/them. I know your motives. I know exactly what you were thinking!" So the thing that bothered me about the charis thing, and then about the response charis gave, had NOTHING to do with the actual facts. Those who pointed out their observations that daughter's boundaries were crossed, and shared how it felt to be a daughter who had her boundaries crossed, I think did a great job. My concern has to do with the way we treat a person who is being disagreed with. It is the personal attacks that I say are completely out of line. And you can't say that fundie's don't do the debatish attack thing but instead go for peacemaking. No attacking? Ha. That's about all we DID do. If we thought someone was wrong or dangerous? We threw facts out the window and went after their character, attacked some side issue and vilified them until no one was willing to hear a word they had to say. (Ever see Doug Phillips go after the "evil feminists," for example)? lol... Someone attacks the "godly" Gothard? As a fundie in the Gothard camp, you don't think about the facts they are presenting----you react with emotions and quick offense, because, hey, they must be "bad" in order to not like Gothard, and so you attack them on a personal level (and soon the facts, whatever those even were, become moot because you're so busy slinging mud you can't even see anything, anyhow). Someone says something positive about feminism? You don't talk rationally and calmly about the facts---you assume that something must be rebellious inside of them because they speak positively of feminism, which you already know is evil and satanic and the cause of all the world's ills, so you go for them on a personal level and go for the throat. So, in my opinion, it is being the OPPOSITE of a fundie, when we work to respectfully discuss and debate facts, assuming positive intent until proven otherwise, INSTEAD of mixing facts and personal attack together into one big swirling vortex and hurling it at the "opponent" (cuz, to a fundie, whoever disagrees is always the enemy). You will RARELY see respectful debate inside the halls of fundamentalism. To disagree while respecting the personhood of the other person is not something learned there. It is something I had to learn, slowly and painfully, as I came OUT of fundamentalism. ...And precisely because of my time in the hallowed halls of personal-attack-prefered-over-considering-reasonable-thoughts-of-dissenters, I always cringe when I see it happening elsewhere. Dissent and disagreement can be such healthy constructive things, but to be a healthy thing, it has to be inside of an environment of respect. As a woman who escaped fundamentalism and lived to tell about it, one of the things I cherish most highly is the ability and freedom to have diverse opinionated enthusiastic discussion about various issues WITHOUT anyone being told they're going to burn in hell (or aren't a "real" Christian or are ungodly or aren't being "logical" [my favorite---ha, everyone always thinks THEY are the logical ones and the other folks aren't, ever noticed that?] or any number of interesting personal-attack-type twists)... If we are truly NLQ here, as in "Not Doing It No More" (lol---not doing the whole fundie dance, I mean) then an atmosphere of mutual respect in the face of different opinions would TRULY set us apart from the typical patriarchal woman online environment (where everyone has to tow the party line or they get moderated right on out, along with a few damning verses and promised prayers that the kicked-out one will be convicted by the Spirit to see the error of their ways). My humble, or maybe not so humble (lol), opinion...
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Feb 26, 2010 22:04:34 GMT -5
Journey, I think there is a difference between civility and what I called before "to peacemake." And, I will concede that "to peacemake" is actually not foundational to fundamentalism-- you've thoroughly convinced me on that. I think civility allows for disagreement, but does so with respect, while "to peacemake" pretends there is no disagreement, or pretends a false consensus. And, in that vein, when the response to stated disagreement is something like "well, in our hearts, in our intentions, etc, we *really* just agree..." I see that as more of what I just called peacemaking, and find it condescending and demeaning. And, since we're kind of talking about communication on NLQ, I think there was a lot of it at the beginning of the atheist/theist thread as well-- coming to a false consensus, a "both extremes are equally bad and aren't we nice here in the middle" in some posts (some of my atheist friends in real life also engage in this, I should have definitely seen that it wasn't fundamentalist, silly me). I think that idea of false balance and that really, deep down, others can't possibly REALLY disagree is actually not part of civil conduct.
But I will say, it seems that fundamentalism doesn't accept any dissent or anger or interpersonal friction within the group, which leads women like Vyckie while in that movement to constantly try to smooth over disputes within the family, by talking motivation of the disputers, pretending underlying agreement, whatever, to make the conflict disappear somehow. That's probably why I connected the "peacemake" vibe to fundamentalism-- but it really is only used in group there, and it is used by many others as well. My bad.
And I STILL think it's weird where we pointed out a disagreement or hurt without attributing negative intent, the reaction seemed to focus more on the intent, which we didn't even talk about, than the real issues we brought up. I'm not sure what that MEANS, really, but maybe what I wrote and what people heard just weren't the same thing at all. Maybe it's not possible to hear "that's bad" without hearing "you meant it to be bad." But I don't see how I can change when people interject such a meaning? Is there a way I could avoid that somehow?
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Feb 27, 2010 0:45:36 GMT -5
Actually, I didn't think I was focusing on Charis' intent (since I don't know what it actually is) as on her actual words that I was reading, and giving them the benefit of the doubt in not ascribing motives to them that they didn't actually say. Ok, I'll agree that saying her daughters "lectured" her that she was wrong implies that she may have said, in so many words, "You're microaborting my grandchildren!"-- but she didn't actually say that those were the actual words she used to them. In my mind, she could just as easily have said, "But don't these pills have the possibility of aborting a fertilized egg?" (This was without reading the clarification of what actually happened, from her own blog-- which I will admit was more coercive than I originally thought. In any case, if my own daughter grew up and went into the medical profession, I'd be more inclined to accept her expertise in a matter such as this.) As far as "peacemaking" is concerned, I will readily admit that I have a weakness in this area. But I don't think that's what I was doing in this case-- and I would do what I did for anyone here whom I thought was being misunderstood by other readers, if what I was reading the person to be saying, was different than what other readers were understanding. It was not so much "But she didn't mean to!" as "Are you sure that's actually what she was doing?" If I can give someone the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to try to do so (not that I always can-- I've got trigger points too!) But that's part of who I want to be-- peacemaking weakness notwithstanding. That said-- when we really do get into talking about motives, I'm not sure I even understand why a statement that something could be unintentional, somehow denies the pain of the person who was hurt. Of course the person was still hurt. "She didn't mean to," in my mind, does not at all mean "Therefore you shouldn't feel angry or hurt." Feelings are not should's or shouldn'ts-- they just are. I think the pain is probably similar whether the inflicter did it intentionally or not. To me what "she may not have meant it" does, is simply keep the possibility of interaction open. Because if I believe someone meant to hurt me-- the dialogue is over, and I will refuse to interact with the person any more at all, whereas if I think it was somehow less than intentional, I'll keep communications open. Which is what we are trying to do here, in any event.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Feb 27, 2010 2:10:47 GMT -5
I have so far not responded to Charis's blog post ~ hupotasso.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/radical-pro-abortion-feminism-and-hyper-submissive-quiver-full-two-sides-of-the-same-coin/#comment-4162 ~ because I was so stunned ~ and my thoughts have bounced all over the place as I've tried to process what has happened here, how it could have been prevented, what can be done about it now ... Charis ~ I feel that you have seriously misrepresented No Longer Quivering and "my followers" ~ I really don't understand because, truthfully ~ No Longer Quivering is not all about pointing our fingers at QF mothers and saying, You are the villain!!No Longer Quivering is about former QF mothers (me in particular) looking at the reality of the very painful and lasting harm which this philosophy and lifestyle has done to our children (Angel in particular) our husbands, our selves ~ and yes, we're also saying that Quiverfull ruins God and Christianity for some of us ~ and seeing the potential abuse and the realized abuse ~ we're pointing the finger AT OURSELVES and saying, I am the villain.Sure I want to explain how it happened ~ what I was thinking ~ the gradual process by which I was sucked in ~ in order to help those to whom it's all so utterly inconceivable to get a glimpse of Quiverfull reality ~ and perhaps by telling my experience, QF women will recognize my journey as paralleling the path which they themselves are currently on ~ and I hope it serves as a warning to only proceed with great caution or perhaps to find another road altogether. But I do not offer these explanations as excuses, justifications or to somehow avoid responsibility for the role I played in bringing QF into our home and becoming so enamored of the vision that I could not look at reality and see the truth of our situation. That's why, when Angel responded to my latest installment: Divide & Conquer with anger and accusations ~ I did state that I honestly thought I was doing a good thing at the time ~ but I also made it clear that my good intentions don't automatically merit a "get out of jail free" card ~ I still want to acknowledge that it was horrible of me to blame Angel for all the tension in our home and to choose to support Warren by sending her away rather than him. I guess, for me ~ there came a point when I just had to admit to myself that I really screwed up ~ and honestly ~ even my good intentions were self-serving, based on fear, insecurity, the desire for superiority, and the need for control. I told myself that I was doing it for Jesus and for Angel ~ but really, the reason QF appealed to me is that it provided spiritual sanction for what I wanted: I wanted absolute certainty, I wanted to be absolved from the responsibility of having to make choices, I wanted my choices limited to only those possibilities which I felt for sure I could not fail to fulfill, I wanted guarantees that my children would faithfully and wholeheartedly serve the Lord all their days, I wanted everyone ~ including myself ~ to think of me like Mary Poppins: Practically Perfect in Every Way. There was more ~ but you get the idea. Quiverfull gave me what I wanted ~ complete with Bible verses so that I could believe that everything I was doing was really all about Jesus and His will ~ it was all about Angel and her best interests. Once I faced the facts ~ I left my Mary Poppins complex behind and I no longer feel the need to have everyone think I'm right and that my motives are pure and that I'm such a wonderful person. No ~ I'm not perfect. I'm just a person ~ a complex mixture of selfish and altruistic intentions ~ and those motives are all intertwined so that it's sometimes too much of a tangle to try to sort out. So yeah ~ Angel's angry at me. She tells me it's the "old me" that she's really mad at ~ and I don't know if that's really true or if she's trying to protect me by making some distinction between the "old me" and me-me. I do know that I have all but lost that automatic self-protective reflex which formerly had me twisting my own brain ~ and everyone else's ~ in knots to make sure I always came out in the right. Honestly ~ I was so good at it that as a child, Angel could not think of anything that was not perfect about me. I now recognize that as unhealthy ~ both for Angel and for me ~ and I don't want to be like that anymore. It is my hope that by honestly owning up to my part in our family's disastrous experience of Quiverfull ~ my acknowledgement will provide much-needed validation for the QF daughters who read here at NLQ ~ and it will be a step towards processing and healing for them. I wish that when Angel was acting out ~ that when she bit herself and cut herself and cried out, What is wrong with me? ~ I wish that I would have answered her with, What is wrong is not you, Angel ~ it's this belief system and this lifestyle and the unrealistic expectations and your parents' total disregard for and violation of your personal boundaries which are all wrong ~ and I am so sorry. Instead, I said ~ don't think about yourself, do more, try to understand, ... It's quite late (hopefully, not too late) ~ but I'm saying it now: our QF life was foundationally fucked up ~ and I'm sorry. It's my sincere desire that by saying it now ~ and saying it publically, and providing a place where other exQF moms will say it with me ~ our collective voice will grow louder and louder until we are impossible to ignore ~ and in this way, many daughters will be spared the pain and the crazymaking which Angel did not escape. So daughters ~ I know that hearing me say, I messed up ~ is not the same as receiving that acknowledgement from your own mothers ~ but I do hope that it counts for something. I can't apologize for what you've been through on account of QF teachings ~ but I can at least say, NO ~ it's not you ~ you are not crazy ~ you have reason to feel so ambivilent and even angry toward your parents even though they obviously are working so hard to provide a godly home. When you hear QF moms here rationalizing and justifying ~ I think it's right that you call us on it ~ respectfully, I would hope ~ but if not ~ I can deal with that too. Not every exQF mom is at that point ~ so don't be surprised if your anger freaks them out and they resort to defensive, name-calling blog posts ~ or they disappear ~ heck, even as I'm writing this, I'm finding myself having to plead guilty as charged to trying to smooth everything over. Charis ~ "honor your parents" is not a trump card at No Longer Quivering. However you want to define "honor" ~ it does not mean that if an abused daughter reacts with anything less than understanding, sympathy and forgiveness towards her parents ~ she should be warned that she will be doomed to repeat her parents' mistakes and that it will not "go well" with her. I remember this was a favorite passage of S.M. Davis ~ and whenever I heard Warren using that passage to insist that Angel show "honor" to her father so that it would go well with her and that her days on earth would be long ~ even in my QF-induced fog ~ I cringed ~ because to me it sounded like a thinly-veiled death threat. The "promise" of the 5th commandment was routinely used to keep her in line ~ and I don't care if it means to "accurately weigh" or to bow down and worship at the parents' feet ~ it's just plain wrong to imply that anyone will have a short and troublesome life if they fail to comply. That approach reduces Christian living to fear-based legalism ~ it is spiritual abuse and manipulation and it is no less despicable than whacking a child with 1/4 inch plumbing supply line. Ugh ~ I'm up much later than I intended ~ and I feel like I should say more ~ I haven't really addressed some important points which have made here in this thread ~ but it's as much as I can do for now.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Feb 27, 2010 2:18:22 GMT -5
This is what I posted on Charis's blog, I have no idea if she will approve it. *** Arietty ~ I also posted a comment on Charis's blog ~ a heartfelt response to Jane's post. Since it is being "held in moderation" ~ apparently along with yours which also has not been approved ~ I, too, am posting my comment here in the hopes that Jane will see it: Jane ~ I have no idea what to say ~ but I just have to respond because your post above about what you went through with your four children brought tears to my eyes ~ I cannot imagine the pain you’ve endured and I wish there were some way that I could comfort you. I am glad, Jane ~ that you still have your faith in God because I know the strength and the peace which comes from trusting in Jesus ~ I don’t have that anymore and sometimes, like when I read about single moms struggling just to survive and to provide for their children and to keep their babies as you have ~ I wish that I could pray and feel that comfort and the assurance that the Lord is in control and all of this is part of His eternal plan. I don’t even have a point here ~ just saying how it is and that I feel for you and I admire your strength and your faith. I wanna say, “bless you” or something ~ but I can’t and you don’t need that from me ~ you obviously are already blessed without any help from me. You have blessed me with your transparency and with the sharing of your pain which I know runs very deep ~ it would be easier to keep all of that to yourself ~ to forgive and forget and to focus on a happy testimony. Your honesty humbles me and your faith inspires me. Peace. Vyckie
|
|
|
Post by journey on Feb 27, 2010 2:49:40 GMT -5
Jemand, And I STILL think it's weird where we pointed out a disagreement or hurt without attributing negative intent, the reaction seemed to focus more on the intent, which we didn't even talk about, than the real issues we brought up. I'm not sure what that MEANS, really, but maybe what I wrote and what people heard just weren't the same thing at all. Maybe it's not possible to hear "that's bad" without hearing "you meant it to be bad." But I don't see how I can change when people interject such a meaning? Is there a way I could avoid that somehow?--jemand I want to try to explain why I reacted the way I did when you wrote this (the three paragraphs below) to charis. Hopefully this comes out clearly: "That post bothered me a great deal as well, charis's possessiveness of her children's choices and bodies bothers me still, and bothered me back when this post was written: nolongerquivering.proboards.com/i....322&page=2#4684 when apparently her children's virginity in their TWENTIES is thought to be even REMOTELY her business, and even more so by implying that her pride in them is not insignificantly based in the status of their hymens at marriage." ---jemand Some really really good points in here. No problem with what you are bringing out, fact-wise, about crossing appropriate boundaries with adult children.... Boundary violations are RIFE in fundie/patriarchy/QF culture...and certainly a major part of that is that children are allowed very little, if any, personal boundaries at all. But, and I so don't even mean to pick on you in particular, jemand (like a lot of what you write, actually!), but am doing so because I am thinking of QF women in general who may come here and post as they begin extracating themselves from the QF lifestyle... Does this above paragraph show that you understand what it is like to rear children within the Christian fundamentalist worldview, where sexual purity is right up there next to salvation, a world where EVERYBODY'S sexual status is everybody's business? No. I wish that things like the above could be said in a slightly different way...because everyone who's lived the QF life isn't at all going to be shocked that a QF mom would be highly interested in the family planning choices of her children. HA. When you are QF, you are interested in the family planning choices of EVERBODY, for goodness sake, to say nothing of your adult children.... Pointing out that such an interest is not appropriate, that it is crossing boundary lines, is a GOOD thing (a part of becoming healthier, a part of what ex-QFers need to consider, think about, reflect on)....but, for the sake of future QF moms who come here, it would be so helpful for them if commenters could point it out without that, "you're stupid if you think this," tone. Does that make sense? If the point is just to say your opinion, then, fine. But if the point is for the QF mom to *hear* it, then, it's not so fine. "I'm also extremely angry that engineering is deemed a "man's world," and studying engineering is apparently tantamount to getting a sex change. So, you have unresolved issues with your young adulthood, whatever. Stop trying to tell all other women where they shouldn't go because THAT space is for MEN." --jemand Personal attack. Not at all necessary. You have a great point in here, an opinion that should be stated and heard. Why add in the slams and the over-dramatization of what charis actually said? "But yea, maybe I just have some anger issues here, which is why my posting frequency has dropped dramatically. Maybe I'll get over it soon. On the other hand, when I first saw that post, I wasn't actually quite so angry as hilariously amused, until I realized it was meant seriously."---jemand This comes across to me as mocking the intelligence and/or sanity of the person you disagree with. You can't believe they actually hold their opinion seriously----it's such a dumb opinion that you thought it had to be a joke. ? Personal attack. Not necessary. I normally don't care to get into these things, and avoid them with a ten foot pole. I have enough going on in my regular life and would prefer to have zero conflict online. I've also expressed my sadness at the reaction charis has had on her own blog.... ...I understand the anger issues, too. I can't even look at pro-patriarchy stuff online... I try to listen in on theological arguments about gender and I just start fuming. I'm in total sympathy with you about some things just making it hard to see straight. If I had to talk with evangelistic patriarchalists all the time, I'm not sure I could do it without exploding and throwing stuff or something. I understand the concept of being triggered. The thing is, more slowly-leaving-QF women are going to come here. They are and are going to be in all stages of questioning and walking out of the fundamentalist patriarchal worldview, in various stages of recovery and figuring out who *they* are, what *they* want from life, what opinions *they* are going to form....all of them in process, which takes a long amount of time. They are used to being told how stupid and wrong they are...and how they can't trust their intuition, can't trust themselves (easily decieved females)... Living as a QF woman (wife or daughter), you are so beat down.... It is hard to explain it, it really is. The last thing these women need is more attack. They are making the valiant valiant attempt to get their life back, and probably losing their marriage, their dream of what their life would look like, their community, their church, etc, all at the same time. I really hope we can evolve to being the kind of place that can welcome them, let them be free to be a mess, to be all mixed up, and to be big enough people to let them just BE, to say good stuff mixed with crap, to point out the crap when we think it needs pointed out (and sometimes it doesn't) WITHOUT attacking them in the process. I hope this makes sense. I hesitated to even write this. I really hope it came across the right way. I mean you no disrespect, jemand, nor mean to single you out, and find your contributions here often valuable.
|
|
|
Post by journey on Feb 27, 2010 2:55:53 GMT -5
Vyckie, Your response to charis...woah. That was amazing. You really are an amazing person.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Feb 27, 2010 7:51:08 GMT -5
In Recovery seems to mean a ton of misdirected anger. I went over and read Charis's post on how "pro-aborts" are the same as hard line evangelical quiverful men. I've always really liked Charis but that thread reminded me that people coming out of any kind of abusive, addictive, situation can very rapidly become kind of "dry drunk" on a new kind of rage and judgmentalism. Aimai, If you are referring to the last post on Charis's blog, I am the author of it. I wrote that as a comment to her original post. If you click on "source" at the end of the text in blue, you'll see my original reply within the thread. I'll explain what I mean, and I hope I can make it understandable. My children keep interrupting me! I just deleted a long block of text because this is just not so easy to explain, and I'm not a very good typist so I'm sitting here, swearing at the computer for every typo. (I'm on a German computer....) Essentially, I see very radical feminism, that elevates the mother's right to choose what happens with her body above the rights of her unborn child, just as impossible to convince otherwise as Patriarchy. Patriarchs believe in their right-responsibility over their families, which leads them (at times') to make decisions disregarding their family's wishes, especially their wife's, and puts the wives in a position where they must always try to agree and go along. Try to tell them they are exercising rights they don't posses, and they just won't understand. Radical feminists who uphold a woman's right to abort her baby will not hear about an unborn baby's right to live. I see two groups of people who are upholding the rights of one person over another person's, denying the unborn baby personhood and rights, or denying a woman the right to say no and to have equal say in her marriage because she is a female. To me, it's discrimination. In the case of unborn babies, because of their age and their place of residence. In the case of the wives, because of their gender. And I see the same irony Charis sees. We (rightfully) raise up against child abuse, but those same women who rise up against child abuse, calling the parents monsters, will turn around and defend a woman's right to choose whether she wants a pregnancy to follow it's course, or she would rather end it. Please bear in mind I'm only talking about women in the west who have chosen to be sexually active with the person who got them pregnant. As for microabortions, well, I agree with Charis that life begins at conception. It's a matter of personal belief, and my conscience would seriously bother me if I were to use a hormonal contraceptive which may prevent implantation. I don't believe we have a say in when life begins. Anyway, I'll go back to not talking about abortion and my beliefs. I read charis's original post to mean that she can't influence her children'S choices, even if they are choosing to do something that she believes is morally wrong. Would you all say it's right to interfere if you think your children are making parenting mistakes? What if they chose to follow the Pearls' teachings and beat their children with plumbing supply line? Would you voice your opinion strongly? Their belief system tells them it's the right thing to do. Yours tells you it's abuse. Do grandparents have the right to speak up for their grandchildren, born or unborn, regardless of their age?
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Feb 27, 2010 9:24:17 GMT -5
oh, journey, thank you so much for writing that post It was immensely helpful, actually. I don't feel any disrespect in it, and you did point out some problems with my first hastily written post that I hadn't really seen so well before. The tone in the very first part was definitely predicated upon the fact that I was much gentler before (in the post I linked to)-- and nobody seemed to hear my point, because I had toned it down TOO much (and probably because it was enmeshed in an abortion debate) and I wished to be forceful so people would take the boundary violation it was seriously. It was also that frustration with Charis in particular and feeling like what I've said before has been ignored, or that she just comes and then runs away to her own sandbox without trying to really engage us or reply to problematic things we bring up in dialogue here that was coloring the rest of the post, which was over the top. Sorry everyone, and Charis in particular. ETA, madame, I shall try to keep this short here. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, any more than consent to heavy petting is consent to sex. Or consent to date is consent to sex. That is especially true when strong measures have been made to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy to as small as it presently is possible to make them. When a woman seeks out an abortion, it is tautologically true that she does not consent to pregnancy, and that it doesn't matter the personhood of the fetus-- if a live, full human being attempted to use her reproductive organs against her will, we call it rape and give her the right to attempt to stop it herself, or by calling police to help her. I think there are two separate questions involved, the question of whether someone has the absolute right to terminate the life of a fetus if it could live outside her body and be removed without posing a danger to her (I think no) and whether someone must consent before such things as sex, donation of kidneys,.... AND pregnancy become ethical. (I think yes.) The fact that the present state of technology conflates the two doesn't mean there aren't two questions there, and given that as a society we allow people to refuse organ transplants *after their deaths!* I cannot possibly see why pregnancy is something that should void consent clauses, without seeing that it uniquely removes rights of women.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Feb 27, 2010 11:06:31 GMT -5
ETA: What I'm really trying to say with all of this is: NLQ Rocks Heavy! I mean, really, what an amazing group of women, Charis included! Kissies for Everylady! There are so many things I want to say but this discussion is moving so quickly that I'm having a time keeping up and not only that but I've spent quite a lot of time this morning answering Charis over at her place. So, if y'all will indulge me I'm going to cross-post what I wrote this morning even though I didn't intend to... But first! Jemand - Thank you for your honesty and ability to take a look at yourself and your motivations. This is what bravery is made of Madame - In the following I address part of the reason why I'm not particularly fond of the words Radical and Feminist being thrown together in (what I suspect is) a rather 'uneducated' fashion and I hope you will give it some consideration - and it's not, of course, my intent to harsh on you, but it is an issue in this conversation that I'm taking the opportunity to address...) *** Charis –
Thank you for allowing my comments here and thank you for answering my question/s
*I guess I just don’t understand what a “Radical Pro-Abort Feminist” is (never having even heard of one, let alone known one) and the ‘radical’ qualifier, instead of making it better, is extremely offensive to ME personally for reasons I will explain shortly.
*You got the idea that feminists support abortion from the reaction you got at NLQ for your pro-life stance? I’d say that’s taking a really, really tiny group of women and projecting onto them, broad brush style, the title Feminist – I think (nay, I know) that for every single ‘feminist’ there is a different definition of Feminism; you have your “biblical” feminism and I have my Radical Feminism a la Andrea Dworkin - “Radical” here meaning *a basic principle; foundation*, not *wild-eyed terrorist bomber*.
*If by NOW you refer to the National Organization of Women (about which this feminist is somewhat ambivalent) then I say: if you had taken a moment to do your own homework you would have found that that assertion is simply not true. As for me, one of the basic principles of Rad-Fem is not only NOT to support porn/prostitution/sex trafficking (pornstitution, if you will) but to go so far as to be actively ANTI-porn because of the soul-killing harm it causes women and children.
*If it wasn’t the QFDs you feel attacked you then my reading comprehension skills must have disappeared overnight – I’m confused – if it wasn’t the daughters, then who was it? Make no mistake, if I blame anybody for this dust up it’s the patriarchy.
*I’m flattered (I guess?) that you think I have a great deal of authority at NLQ but the fact of the matter is that I am the *moderator* for my little *patriarchy blaming* corner and, other than that I am a member just like anylady else. I have the same vulnerability/opportunity to being challenged in my beliefs and being ‘called out’ when I’ve made a mistake or have been too harsh – that’s a big part of the reason I’m there! Hanging out there is making ME a better human being! IOW, I have no “authority” to make the changes you suggest and moreover, I wouldn’t even if I could because NLQ is all about coming together and learning from/supporting each other (which is sometimes difficult), not splitting off into little groups where we all agree with each other and can feel safe in our certainty.
*I’m sorry that you felt/feel that your character was/is assassinated at NLQ but you must know that nolady there expects you to apologize for your pro-life stance – certainly not me. But I will say this: personally, I feel pretty angry with you because as much as I have tried to be engaging with you and your positions and have asked you sincere questions in order to ‘get to know you better’ and have spent an equal amount of time carefully and respectfully reading your comments at NLQ, you chose to lump ME in with those ladies (?) whom you feel/felt hurt by and that you chose to use (what is to me) really inflammatory language to do so insults ME.
And although I’ve been hurt by this, I have no need to go back to NLQ and talk shit about you – my brand of feminism finds such behavior morally and ethically repugnant – on the contrary, I am spending my time back at NLQ (and I’m not alone) trying to understand the DYNAMIC that created all of these bad feelings and to try to learn from it.
In Sisterhood, Sea
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 27, 2010 12:51:07 GMT -5
Oh, wow, Vyckie, thank you so much for your post. It speaks to so many things that have been going on around here lately (including stuff with me last week), and I really appreciate your honesty and sincerity here.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Feb 27, 2010 12:57:30 GMT -5
Patriarchs believe in their right-responsibility over their families, which leads them (at times') to make decisions disregarding their family's wishes, especially their wife's, and puts the wives in a position where they must always try to agree and go along. Try to tell them they are exercising rights they don't posses, and they just won't understand. Radical feminists who uphold a woman's right to abort her baby will not hear about an unborn baby's right to live. I see two groups of people who are upholding the rights of one person over another person's, denying the unborn baby personhood and rights, or denying a woman the right to say no and to have equal say in her marriage because she is a female. To me, it's discrimination. In the case of unborn babies, because of their age and their place of residence. ... I don't believe we have a say in when life begins. ... Do grandparents have the right to speak up for their grandchildren, born or unborn, regardless of their age? It strikes me that the central tenet of the pro-life viewpoint must be inherently spiritual, because there is much more than 'age' or 'place of residence' involved in the issue for me. The analogy of 'controlling patriarch is to woman as woman is to aborted zygote/embryo/fetus' is troublesome to me because I believe that personhood is predicated on more than a spiritual principle. A zygote, or fertilised egg, is a single-celled entity (I'm not even sure it qualifies as an 'organism' yet) and therefore is incapable of cognition, emotion, self-awareness, pain, or any other marker of personhood apparent in children. (For the record, I don't think newborn babies are developed enough to be considered full persons, either, but as they do not reside inside a woman and can be given up for adoption, they are irrelevant to the abortion discussion.) From my point of view, equating a woman with a zygote is grossly insulting to the woman and scientifically/medically ludicrous. The only way it remotely makes sense to me to equate the two is by admitting the presence of two souls - and ensoulment at conception has not been historically part of Christianity or Judaism. The abuse of patriarchy stems from the subordination of a person of generally equal capacities to another based on the arbitrary characteristic of sex. We all know that men and women are equally capable of thinking and have free will. A zygote does not - it doesn't have a brain, so how can it express thought and will? The term 'place of residence' bothers me as well because it makes me a 'place.' It strips me of humanity. I consider myself more than soil awaiting implantation. As jemand has already pointed out, the mandatory commandeering of our organs as life support for another being (something that cannot legally be done even for a fully developed, unarguably living adult) is what we react against. The perceived hostility of pro-choice women like she and I is due to what we feel is a commandeering of our right to decide what happens to us. That doesn't mean that, should we fall pregnant, we would feel animosity toward the zygote/embryo/fetus (if it got that far) and abort it instantly. We may or may not feel anything at all toward it. We may choose to love and embrace it and bear a child. But we absolutely do feel hostile toward a state mandate that we take the latter path. I'm not interested in convincing anyone that they could or should have an abortion. The 'personally pro-life' crowd does not bother me. It's the imposition of that belief system upon state politics that scares the bejebus out of me. Because I don't believe in ensoulment at conception, a zygote/embryo/fetus is absolutely not a person to me, and to legislate otherwise has direct and sustained impact on my ability to decide my own future. I believe that motherhood should be a gift given freely, not a sentence imposed by government. I believe that mothers should be honoured for the sacrifice they make to bring children into the world - honour and sacrifice that become meaningless when mandated. If a soldier dies in combat for going to rescue his fallen partner, we award him a posthumous medal. If he does so because his commanding officer threatened to shoot him in the face if he didn't, well... he simply traded a sure death for a 'very likely' one. There's no honour in that. Likewise, carrying a pregnancy to term because your only other option is suicide is a perversion and degradation of motherhood in my mind. (I hope this will be taken in the respectful tone intended, because I feel quite calm writing it and don't suppose I've been overly militant. ;D Edited because I forgot to finish the sentence above.)
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Feb 27, 2010 13:58:10 GMT -5
.... The term 'place of residence' bothers me as well because it makes me a 'place.' It strips me of humanity. I consider myself more than soil awaiting implantation. As jemand has already pointed out, the mandatory commandeering of our organs as life support for another being (something that cannot legally be done even for a fully developed, unarguably living adult) is what we react against. The perceived hostility of pro-choice women like she and I is due to what we feel is a commandeering of our right to decide what happens to us. That doesn't mean that, should we fall pregnant, we would feel animosity toward the zygote/embryo/fetus (if it got that far) and abort it instantly. We may or may not feel anything at all toward it. We may choose to love and embrace it and bear a child. But we absolutely do feel hostile toward a state mandate that we take the latter path. I'm not interested in convincing anyone that they could or should have an abortion. The 'personally pro-life' crowd does not bother me. It's the imposition of that belief system upon state politics that scares the bejebus out of me. Because I don't believe in ensoulment at conception, a zygote/embryo/fetus is absolutely not a person to me, and to legislate otherwise has direct and sustained impact on my ability to decide my own future. I believe that motherhood should be a gift given freely, not a sentence imposed by government. I believe that mothers should be honoured for the sacrifice they make to bring children into the world - honour and sacrifice that become meaningless when mandated. If a soldier dies in combat for going to rescue his fallen partner, we award him a posthumous medal. If he does so because his commanding officer threatened to shoot him in the face if he didn't, well... he simply traded a sure death for a 'very likely' one. There's no honour in that. Likewise, carrying a pregnancy to term because your only other option is suicide is a perversion and degradation of motherhood in my mind. .... Thank you for commenting. I was partway through making a similar comment but deleted it. There are a few things that I personally find disturbing about the "radical pro-life" people -- the ones who would legislate against termination (not to imply that Madame is. It isn't evident from her comment, and I have no reason to think so). In no particular order: One is that the instances of miscarriage (spontaneous abortion) are estimated to be non-negligible: Spontaneous abortion is a very common experience for women. It is estimated that between 25-50% of conceptions spontaneously abort. Researchers do not have an exact figure due to the fact that when this occurs very early on, many women do not know that they were ever pregnant. www.estronaut.com/a/spontaneous_abortion_common.htm [ETA because my point wasn't clear] This puts at risk the situation of women who require medical attention after an incomplete SA. They would be suspected of deliberately attempting abortion, and potentially charged. There is a bill before the Utah legislature that may have this consequence. Another is that it not only places the existence of a potential person ahead of an actual viable person, it doesn't take into account the life-circumstance should the potential child become real. Will the child be loved and cared for or resented and abused? Just because most women CAN bear children doesn't mean they all should. Does that mean that these women are not allowed a sexual relationship with their partner? No BC is infallible. Men OTOH face no such restriction. Yet another: at what point does the premium placed on the potential over the living human cross over into the "just an incubator" thinking? This is not a simple issue, but it keeps being simplified and distorted as "baby-killing". Women must be allowed to make their own decision regarding their bodies.
|
|
aimai
Full Member
Posts: 172
|
Post by aimai on Feb 27, 2010 16:48:22 GMT -5
Others have said it well. This set of observations from Madam really gets my goat: I see two groups of people who are upholding the rights of one person over another person's, denying the unborn baby personhood and rights, or denying a woman the right to say no and to have equal say in her marriage because she is a female. To me, it's discrimination. In the case of unborn babies, because of their age and their place of residence. In the case of the wives, because of their gender.
And I see the same irony Charis sees. We (rightfully) raise up against child abuse, but those same women who rise up against child abuse, calling the parents monsters, will turn around and defend a woman's right to choose whether she wants a pregnancy to follow it's course, or she would rather end it.
Please bear in mind I'm only talking about women in the west who have chosen to be sexually active with the person who got them pregnant.
As for microabortions, well, I agree with Charis that life begins at conception. It's a matter of personal belief, and my conscience would seriously bother me if I were to use a hormonal contraceptive which may prevent implantation. I don't believe we have a say in when life begins.
There is a ton of just flat out falsity in these observations.
1) an embryo is not a person, anymore than a piece of my finger is the whole of me.
2) potential life exists in myriads of places and times. It is not identical to a full blown human.
3) my womb is not a "place" or a "residence" and an unimplanted or implanted fetus is not separable from my physical being, anymore than my kidneys or my lungs are. While an adult woman, or a live child, may physically leave the control of a controlling husband the fetus can not leave my body and survive. Furthermore, its existence within my body may kill me. The two relations: patriarchal husband to wife and woman to fetus are simply not parallel.
4) Many women in all societies have had abortions and will continue to have abortions. Very few of them are "radical feminists" and many of them are already mothers. (Something like 60 percent of all abortions are performed for women who are already mothers). The argument that abortion is something that a small subset of women do, because they don't respect human life, are not christian, or are self identified as "radical feminists" is totally unfounded. Your own mother, your own grandmother, your sisters, your neighbors--many of them will have had an abortion during their lives *as mothers*--for reasons that are intimately related to their status as wives, mothers, neighbors, friends, human beings. Its not because they are some kind of ravening, imaginary, isolated, individual. Its because they are nested in circles of demand and family that make having one more baby, or a damaged child, impossible. And yet they continue to exist as good, moral, thinking, loving human beings. 5) You are " only talking about women in the west" who have "chosen" to be sexually active? Are you under the impression that all women in the west have freedom to choose when, how, with whom to have sex? That choosing to have sex is identical to choosing to play russian roulette, or craps, and that women make some kind of bargain with fate that they will accept all pregnancies regardless of their intentions when they are in the sexual relationship? Who says? I don't believe in this bargain. Women are entitled to have sex without having a baby. 6) What about "ectopic pregnancies"--these are pregnancies that result from women having sex that can never result in a live birth. Are women who want to terminate ectopic pregnancies, which will otherwise kill them, murderers? If not, why not?
7) Right now "in the west" if you include Nicaragua a woman is being killed by cancer. She is ten weeks pregnant with a tiny embryo. Under Nicaragua's draconian anti abortion laws the Catholic hospitals will not treat her cancer--she has a ten year old daughter and would like to live to raise that child. Who is "pro life" and "pro child?" The society that bans all abortion--even the morning after pill--and kills the woman surrounding the embryo or the "radical feminists" who think that the woman should have a choice whether to die from treatable cancer with her fetus, or live to care for her ten year old?
I know we said we'd stop arguing about abortion but I am sick and tired of being lectured to about the personal magical beliefs of people like Charis, or Madam. Women are dying, all around the world, for lack of affordable medical care, prenatal care, post natal care. They are dying *in our own country* and their children are suffering. And the so called "pro-life"forces in our own country are attempting to destroy national medical care coverage for all on behalf of embryonic life which they will immediately abandon after birth. (I'm speaking here about the Catholic Bishops and the Stupak amendment which is preventing us from offering affordable health care coverage to 30 million uninsured men, women, and children). Its unconscionable.
aimai
|
|
aimai
Full Member
Posts: 172
|
Post by aimai on Feb 27, 2010 18:31:42 GMT -5
That was radically intemperate of me and I apologize for writing it. I object to the demonizing and "othering" of women under the heading of "pro-aborts" and the insistence that there are two kinds of women, good women (who don't have abortions) and bad women who do. There are lots of different women--plenty who have had abortions think of themselves as "good" and plenty who haven't had abortions think of themselves the same way. Even Charis's "micro-aborting" daughters and daughters in law don't think of themselves as murderers, and neither does Charis, obviously, or she wouldn't have them in the house. Here's the thing--I don't see why abortion should/must divide woman from woman in this society. We have different opinions on a lot of things that also involve life or death--for instance: should we have gone to war with Iraq? Should we have the death penalty? Should we spend our tax money on free health care for children (I think so) or on free health care for Seniors (others think so), on whether we should have total liability for companies that engage in practices that lead to worker deaths (pro strict liability/high OSHA funding) or limited liability for corporations whose products cause death, whether we should have a minimum wage or not, etc..etc...etc...All of these decisions, and many more (how much arsenic should be permitted in groundwater, clean air act, child labor laws) have direct consequences on the number and type of people who die, every day. And yet we don't hear people calling others "murderers" or, often, even noting the connection between the act (the vote? the payment of money? the choice of who to support? the purchase of the item?) and the death. Look at the regulations we've put in place, thanks to years of feminist and union agitation, that protect workers from being burned to death as they were in the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Its illegal to lock workers into their work place. Or look at the many fire codes and building codes we've fought for. Each of these regulations has substantially improved working/living conditions and prevented many deaths. I'm pro-regulation, others are radically anti regulation. And yet the obvious deaths that ensue when people work in unregulated environments, or when they don't have health insurance, or when their employers underpay them are somehow not seen as on a par with the imagined evil of an individual woman deciding that she doesn't think it safe, or desirable, to continue on with a pregnancy? I just think its a matter of balance. Have we solved the problem of hunger, poverty, no education, hopelessness, war? Obviously not. The focus on women and their reproductive lives is a distraction from these bigger, more intractrable problems. These are the ones that I, personally, think are worth focusing on. Others may differ. They may feel that the most important thing we could be thinking about, talking about, working on is the individual woman and her fetus. OK, lets take that seriously. Who are these women? If you go to the www.guttmacher.org/media/presskits/2005/06/28/abortionoverview.html institute you find this: Nearly half of all pregnancies to American women are unintended; four in 10 of these end in abortion. About half of American women have experienced an unintended pregnancy, and at current rates more than one-third (35%) will have had an abortion by age 45. Overall unintended pregnancy rates have stagnated over the past decade, yet unintended pregnancy increased by 29% among poor women while decreasing 20% among higher-income women. In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million abortions in 2000. Nine in 10 abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. A broad cross section of U.S. women have abortions: 56% of women having abortions are in their 20s; 61% have one or more children; 67% have never married; 57% are economically disadvantaged; 88% live in a metropolitan area; and 78% report a religious affiliation. In other words: many of these women are religious (78 percent), 57 percent are "economically disadvantaged" and most have one or more children already. Must run. But I did want to apologize for my intemperate language up above. aimai
|
|
|
Post by mommybunny1 on Feb 27, 2010 18:32:53 GMT -5
As a complete outsider to the QF/Patriarchy lifestyle, participating on this forum has been eye opening. Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in our society. People have very powerful feelings about the subject.
The women who are trying to move into the mainstream from QF/Patriarchy have a lot on their plates to sort through. Remember that this is an extreme lifestyle. Folks who have spent years living in an extreme situation have difficulty dealing with a world that is full of all sorts of shadings and colors.
The fact is that the majority of women are neither "radical pro-abortion feminists" or "reactionary vitriolic pro-lifers" Most women are thoughtful and respectful of the weight of this issue. I do not think that very many women at all think that abortion is a good thing. It is a terrible thing to need to consider.
Because of the controversy and because of the gravity of such a thing, women need to be as safe as possible to decide how to proceed. I really think it needs to be a personal decision as opposed to a legislated decision. This is my opinion. I have no desire to change anyone's mind about their feelings about this.
The reason why the pro-choice women seem so angry and vehement is that they are using abortion as a spearhead against the institutional Patriarchy that we in the twenty first century live. It seems to me that the reason the arguments are so difficult is because the pro-life women fall into two categories. Some pro-life women would never have an abortion. They would try to dissuade any relative or friend from making that decision. But they would not go to a women's clinic and protest or taunt women arriving as patients or the staff. (And they certainly would not bring their children to this sort of demonstration. Other pro-life women are more adamant and feel that there is a real crime in aborting. They confuse the fact that the laws of our country may have had biblical inspiration, our laws are not in the bible. They have a right to protest in public of course, but to taunt an already distressed woman is cruel.
The abortion issue is really about Patriarchy. Who decides? Do we really want strangers, mostly men, to tell us what to do? It is just as heartbreaking and damaging to a woman to be intimidated to abort a pregnancy as it is to be intimidated into carrying to term. For too many generations we have succumbed to Patriarchy. We have allowed our gift of bringing human life into the world to be a weakness when it should be a strength. For a short time, we hold the future of the next generation in our bodies. And for a longer time, we hold that future close to our bodies. We, as the carriers of life, need to do what is best for all of our children and for our families. This needs to be one decision that needs to be Matriarchal in character.
Even if divided in this issue, we as women should remain respectful and supportive of our sisters.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Feb 27, 2010 19:40:25 GMT -5
..... The abortion issue is really about Patriarchy. Who decides? Do we really want strangers, mostly men, to tell us what to do? It is just as heartbreaking and damaging to a woman to be intimidated to abort a pregnancy as it is to be intimidated into carrying to term. For too many generations we have succumbed to Patriarchy. We have allowed our gift of bringing human life into the world to be a weakness when it should be a strength. For a short time, we hold the future of the next generation in our bodies. And for a longer time, we hold that future close to our bodies. We, as the carriers of life, need to do what is best for all of our children and for our families. This needs to be one decision that needs to be Matriarchal in character. Even if divided in this issue, we as women should remain respectful and supportive of our sisters. In that vein, I would like to present two sentences from the Supreme Court of Canada in striking down the Canadian abortion law in 1988: The right to "liberty" contained in s. 7 guarantees to every individual a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. Liberty in a free and democratic society does not require the state to approve such decisions but it does require the state to respect them. R v. Morgentaler csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1988/1988scr1-30/1988scr1-30.html That, I believe, is key to the issue: personal decisions, freely made, should be respected. We don't have to agree or approve, just respect the right of the person to make the most appropriate decision for her circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Feb 27, 2010 19:56:27 GMT -5
Aimai, my name on here is Madame, not Madam.
I'm sorry I managed to upset you so. I didn't mean to upset anyone, and I only addressed my post to you because you were the one who mentioned my post from Charis's blog. I did not mean to lecture you. Actually, it would have been better if I had let it be, after all, that reply explained why I avoid debates over abortion!
I'm going to take a break from here. Right now, I don't have the time or the energy to write posts that will be misunderstood, coming back and trying to respond coherently, all to be misunderstood again, or have my carefully written post go unnoticed. I have enough conflict in my real life, and don't need online arguments that lead nowhere.
I'm one more person who doesn't feel she fits on here. I have stayed and posted off and on, but I don't think I have much to add, or the time to process my thoughts in a way that they make sense and don't come across as snippy or lecturing. I'm not a very good typist, I have little computer time at the moment, and I'm not as good at expressing myself in English as I wish I were.
I respect everyone on here and your opinions, even when I don't share them, and even when I have trouble understanding where you are coming from. But I find some of you are quick to jump at anything that sounds remotely against what you stand for, and find that disturbing and not exactly conducive to conversation. It can be tiring, trying to explain and explain again that it's just my opinion, based on my beliefs, and that I'm not trying to get anyone to agree with me.
All the best.
Madame
|
|
|
Post by journey on Feb 27, 2010 23:49:28 GMT -5
(((jemand))), You rock! Thanks for your graciousness.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Feb 28, 2010 0:04:18 GMT -5
I'm going to step in here now and ask that we return the focus of this thread to MusicMom's introductory post and also the discussion re: ex-QF mother / daughter interactions ~ and please ~ no more about abortion / birth control unless it actually relates to QF (for example, the personal boundary issue raised by jemand).
There are places all over the internet devoted to the pro-choice / pro-life debate ~ the NLQ boards is not here for that purpose ~ and I agree with arietty that it never gets us anywhere and is a major distraction from what we are trying to accomplish here.
Late last night, I wrote a rather lengthy post which addressed several lines of thought which I believe could lead to productive communication between moms and daughters.
My suggestions are obviously coming from a mom's perspective ~ I'd like to hear some feedback from the daughters here. To those who posted or PM'd to say, "great post, Vyckie" ~ thanks, I appreciate the positive feedback ~ but I wrote it as a starting place for discussion ~ it was not my intention to have the final word on how moms/daughters should relate here on the boards.
Also, I'm hoping that KR will have a chance to address the way in which the "promise" of the 5th commandment has been used as a bully club by QF parents whose fragile egos cannot deal with the least amount of criticism from their offspring.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Feb 28, 2010 2:52:44 GMT -5
Also, I'm hoping that KR will have a chance to address the way in which the "promise" of the 5th commandment has been used as a bully club by QF parents whose fragile egos cannot deal with the least amount of criticism from their offspring. Still not feeling very well, Vyckie, but I'll try to post something soon. I'd appreciate more personal stories from QF daughters here on the use of that commandment as a tool of control, in order to have more of an idea how to address it.
|
|
|
Post by mommybunny1 on Feb 28, 2010 9:15:48 GMT -5
Vykie, Thanks for the refocus.
You helped me to understand why I am here. As you know, I was never QF of even a Christian. I came from a mainstream Jewish home. But there was always something twisted about my upbringing. I did not understand it fully until the past few years. (I am 50.) My parents used the Fifth Commandment to inhibit any attempt I made to think outside their point of view. They still try to do it to this day. My parents are very invasive into the details of my life. They are very clear with me that my need to maintain my boundaries is a violation of this. I have dishonored them by having different values than they do. I have dishonored them because I have lived my life without their approval. And when I interact with my mom, I am often physically ill afterward. It is so frustrating, even now, to not be simply loved by my parents.
My own children are grown up and living on their own. I am very close to them. We do not invade each other's individuality however. I do not require them to share their lives with me. I think that I have actually earned it. My mother asks me all of the time to tell her what is going on in their lives...all the way to details that I would never even ask them.
There is still an ownership relationship between parents and children in my parent's eyes. My younger brother, however, has been chosen and is being groomed for "leadership" in the family. My mother is constantly calling my children to remember to call my brother on holidays and birthdays, to always attend dinners and events initiated by him.
I grew up in and area that had a large number of second generation Americans of European background. Most of them were Catholic. And there was a tight enclave of Ashkenazi (from Europe) Jews. We lived side by side. The Catholic kids went to Catholic school and the Jewish kids went to the public school. We interacted on a very limited basis. The boys met playing little league. The girls really were guarded closely. Intermarriage did occur, but infrequently and it was often scandalous.
Years later, I worked in healthcare in that community. It was only then that I fully realized how arbitrary the division had been. I honestly thought that the Catholic folks were different from us as human beings. It sounds absurd to me now. The thing is that my parents still believe this.
My parents are extraordinarily judgmental. Their judgment is the final word when it comes to me. They have judged me to be a failed human being. The core of their point of view is based in religion. They have their own particular understanding of the Old Testament. It has its roots in the ghettos of eastern Europe. It kept these people alive and protected them to a degree. When this (Think Fiddler on the Roof) point of view no longer served to protect them, the fled to America. They clung to each other in America using the same tools. As the second generation born in America, the rules of living that helped our grandparents survive became an unhealthy burden to the American born generations. My parents, American born, were still dependent on the life that felt safe to them. My mother always uses logic that proves her to be correct. Now that she is older, I no longer feel the need to tell her that her logic is only correct if she never leaves the boundaries of her world.
I am a failed human being. At fifty, I finally understand that this is not true. I did fail at marriage...twice. I married men who controlled me. I mistook criticism for love. I mistook controlling for caring. I got myself into horrible situations, much like Vykies. And like Vykie, I almost made work. That is, until my own body began to fail. Ultimately, I was honest with my children and apologized for putting them into the circumstances that I did. I raised them with great joy. They were the light in my life always. And they are still just that.
The Old Testament affected me in many ways just as it has affected you. This is why I question my faith. We have been abused. The Bible was used to abuse children and marginalize women. The words are in there. We can study and mince words and try to interpret it from the point of view of language and human understanding at its writing or/and translations. But the words are there. I am afraid to completely throw away the belief in this G-d we have. And yet, I am really having difficulty worshipping this being.
I am sorry about the length and rambling nature of this post. I did not expect to write this. It just sort of poured out. One day I will tell you more about myself. The fact that my parents see me as a failed person is absurd. And even more absurd is the fact that when they wag their opinions at me, I feel like a failure.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Feb 28, 2010 9:28:11 GMT -5
Also, I'm hoping that KR will have a chance to address the way in which the "promise" of the 5th commandment has been used as a bully club by QF parents whose fragile egos cannot deal with the least amount of criticism from their offspring. Still not feeling very well, Vyckie, but I'll try to post something soon. I'd appreciate more personal stories from QF daughters here on the use of that commandment as a tool of control, in order to have more of an idea how to address it. Hope you get to feeling better soon, KR! Here's some info for you on this topic: We listened to this message by S.M. Davis: How to Lengthen Your Life by Honoring and Obeying Your Parents - www.solvefamilyproblems.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage-ask.tpl&product_id=917&category_id=65&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=14Here's a link to the PDF study guide: tinyurl.com/yg7jbpuNotice the product description: The only commandment of the Ten Commandments that came with a promise was the fifth one: “Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land.” God gives you and me the power to shorten or lengthen our physical lives. Life is not all static, set, and predetermined. Though man alone cannot change the date of his death, there are things man can do that will cause God to change it. What you do with your life determines what God does with your death. How amazed we may all be when we get to heaven to find that someone lived far longer than he would have lived because he honored his parents.This message not only defines and illustrates honor and obedience, but it also graphically demonstrates how a person can use them to shorten or lengthen his life. Your children will never forget the changing dates on the tombstones on this dramatic video!Even though this teaching made me cringe ~ I believed it ~ and it was this thought which was actually in the back of my mind when I went online to search for my biological father so that I could "honor" him. Since contacting my father led to meeting my uncle, Ron ~ which led to my escape from QF, perhaps there's some truth to the message ~ after all, if I hadn't gotten out, I might be dead today. Just kidding ~ I know it's bullshit. In fact, I think it's worse than B.S. ~ it is spiritual blackmail. This is one of the reasons that some of us here cannot hold a bible in our hands without feeling anxious and nauseated. Anyway ~ yes ~ I second what KR said ~ would love to hear from some of the daughters here ~ how was this verse used in your home. What about the moms? Did anyone share Charis's interpretation that "honor" means to "accurately weigh"?
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Feb 28, 2010 10:05:15 GMT -5
mommybunny1, your posts are some of the most interesting to me as you've been both a daughter in a similar environment and a mother yourself. I really appreciated your willingness to discuss your upbringing here. I'm glad you have good relationships with your children - sometimes I think it's impossible, that the parent-child dynamic is always based on strife, competition and control. Stories like yours remind me that it's possible to have something different.
It's not surprising that at 23 I find it immensely difficult to live without my mother's approval. From your post I see that this is probably a lifelong impulse.
The threat/'promise' of long life if I honoured my parents was, of course, part of the fundamentalist doctrines at my church. I have never heard anyone interpret 'honour' the way Charis does - it was always about 'respect' (more on that in a moment), agreement and peacekeeping. If you argued with a parent about anything, the days of your life would start peeling back like a sticky calendar.
'Respect' was amorphous. For my father, calling him "dad" instead of "father" was disrespectful. It was disrespectful if I did not immediately quit the bathroom when he needed it. It was disrespectful if he called me and I said I needed a minute to finish what I was doing (no matter what it was) before coming to see what he wanted. It was disrespectful if I wasn't hungry at dinnertime or didn't like what was prepared. It was disrespectful if I was in a bad mood - even if I didn't actively say anything rude to anyone.
My father, while not in the church, was extremely controlling of the emotions my mother and I were allowed to demonstrate. If I was depressed as a teenager, I was displaying a 'bad attitude' and was therefore "disrespecting" my father. My mother was the one telling me that so dishonouring him meant my life would be shortened. She also told me that my 'bad attitude' meant I was possessed by demons. She couldn't understand why I couldn't just stop provoking him and submit like she did. Never mind that he attacked her much more than he did me, without 'provocation' - clearly there was something wrong with me.
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 28, 2010 10:38:05 GMT -5
'Respect' was amorphous. For my father, calling him "dad" instead of "father" was disrespectful. It was disrespectful if I did not immediately quit the bathroom when he needed it. It was disrespectful if he called me and I said I needed a minute to finish what I was doing (no matter what it was) before coming to see what he wanted. It was disrespectful if I wasn't hungry at dinnertime or didn't like what was prepared. It was disrespectful if I was in a bad mood - even if I didn't actively say anything rude to anyone. This is really interesting. I knew some kids who'd called their parents "mom" and "dad" for their entire lives. When the family got involved with Charity Ministries (the Amish-influenced QF sect in PA), the kids (then teenagers) suddenly had to call the parents "mama" and "papa." That always seemed so odd to me. Why were these considered more "respectful"? It never made sense to me, to adopt a seemingly foreign tradition in the name of "honoring one's parents." In my own life, I was fortunate (I guess?) that my own parents were too absent/ self-consumed to take enough interest to smack me over the head with the fifth commandment. My most damaging contact with these teachings was through the Gothardite "headship" and "authority" model that I learned from family friends who tried to take me in and turn me into a QF fundamentalist.
|
|