hrd
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by hrd on Apr 23, 2010 9:58:43 GMT -5
As a Jewish person, I'd like to address the hair-covering issue.
The tradition of hair-covering is indeed old. It is given many different interpretations, which I will not attempt to address here. Depending on your "flavor" of Judaism, you may cover your hair at all times, only when praying in a synagogue, only when praying, or never. It is the same tradition of "modesty" that is continued in Islam.
Hair covering can be an expression of tradition, but it can also be used as a tool of Partirarchy. So, yes, sticking to one's ethinic/religous tradition can be seen as a way to respond to centuries of oppression. After all, men also wear head coverings as an expression of relious observance. However, in its contemporary form, it is often imposed upon women as one aspect of strictly-imposed "modesty" rules. Particulaly is ultra-orthodox communities in Israel, women must follow modesty guidelines that are indeed oppressive. I won't clog up this post with a lot of links, just do some google news searching on the current segregated bus line debate going on and you'll get the idea.
I think this is relevant, because it is just like christian fundie impositions of beauty (or non-beauty) standards. If the issue were simply how long most women in a given community kept their hair, of course, not that bog of a deal. The issue is that these standards become (1) religious dogma, and (2) tools of oppression used to prop up patriarchy and keep women in a pre-defined role.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Apr 23, 2010 10:58:27 GMT -5
I think this is relevant, because it is just like christian fundie impositions of beauty (or non-beauty) standards. If the issue were simply how long most women in a given community kept their hair, of course, not that bog of a deal. The issue is that these standards become (1) religious dogma, and (2) tools of oppression used to prop up patriarchy and keep women in a pre-defined role. Thanks for this. I'll have to look into the bus line issue you mention. I just wanted to make a quick note that perhaps I should have included the doctrinal 'bite' that came along with the long hair mandate. It wasn't just about women having long hair because it's 'natural' or 'modest' for them: in 'Message of the Hour' teaching, it was a blatant signal of subordinate social status. Long hair was a sign of submission to one's husband or father. Indeed, women were not allowed to touch their hair with sharp instruments of any kind, because that would indicate a spirit of rebellion against God's authority transmitted through the male figure in her life. The story that Branham's followers told about worldly persecutors unsuccessfully attempting to cut the hair of Message women supposedly reflected their character. Allegedly, the reason that the scissors worked on worldly women's hair was that they didn't obey their husbands. We were taught that we could look at any worldly woman and know all about the dynamics of her marriage and the state of her soul by the length of her hair. Needless to say, cancer patients had an especially traumatic time with the loss of their 'glory' and symbol of virtue. I quite enjoyed the fact that I had the shortest hair of my peer group. I was also the least submissive. ;D (Think there's something to all their hocus-pocus? Nah, neither do I...)
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Apr 23, 2010 11:17:51 GMT -5
We were taught that we could look at any worldly woman and know all about the dynamics of her marriage and the state of her soul by the length of her hair. Needless to say, cancer patients had an especially traumatic time with the loss of their 'glory' and symbol of virtue.
I quite enjoyed the fact that I had the shortest hair of my peer group. I was also the least submissive. ;D (Think there's something to all their hocus-pocus? Nah, neither do I...) Oooh, Sierra ~ you are tempting me to go ahead and write a blog post which I've had in my mind to do for a while: Oh no! I've Lost My Glory!! ... all about how after I filed for divorce, my hair started breaking off and lost about half its length ~
|
|
hrd
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by hrd on Apr 23, 2010 11:55:33 GMT -5
We were taught that we could look at any worldly woman and know all about the dynamics of her marriage and the state of her soul by the length of her hair. Needless to say, cancer patients had an especially traumatic time with the loss of their 'glory' and symbol of virtue. I quite enjoyed the fact that I had the shortest hair of my peer group. I was also the least submissive. ;D (Think there's something to all their hocus-pocus? Nah, neither do I...) Goodness, how crazy is that? What about after you have a baby? After all three of my children were born, my hair fell out in big clumps for weeks. Some sort of hormonal thing--it grew back. So does thin, stringy hair indicate rebellion of some sort? Kinda "damned if you do," since presumably refusing to get pregnant would be rebellious too.
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on Apr 23, 2010 14:21:50 GMT -5
[ We were taught that we could look at any worldly woman and know all about the dynamics of her marriage and the state of her soul by the length of her hair. Needless to say, cancer patients had an especially traumatic time with the loss of their 'glory' and symbol of virtue. Wow, that is totally crazy. I mean...wow. And hey, I'm guessing that Branham preached pretty much to white people, but that belief must have had some very weird implications for race. (Did Asians and South Asian Indians win the righteousness contest, seeing as how they can usually grow hair very long indeed?) I've always thought that a woman with a shaved head looks very beautiful and feminine, though you have to have the right-hspaed skull to pull it off. (I don't. ) I'm thinking that wouldn't go over too well...
|
|
|
Post by Ex-Adriel on Apr 23, 2010 14:28:54 GMT -5
Alright, I wasn't going to say anything, but now that the "Glory" thing came up... ;D
I was about 6 to 8 years old... going to a bible camp for a long weekend, and my mother packed me a travel-sized shampoo - she didn't look at it closely when she picked it out, and neither did I.
Anyway, I came back from camp on Sunday afternoon, straight into evening services, and ALL of the women were crawling all over me and petting my hair, commenting on how the Lord had seen fit to manifest my growing faith, my spiritual development, etc.
So we get home, and mother takes out the shamoo I'd been using for the past three days - yep. Volumizing shampoo. She was so distressed. Father had to order her not to say anything to the church about it.
It's pretty hysterical now, but still - sadly, I was frightened by the whole thing at the time, and worried that Christ would shun me for my presumption.
It really isn't anything to do with Jewish or old Christian religious practices - it's truly supposed to be an outward manifestation of your faith and submission to God (and father/husband).
|
|
|
Post by corardens on Apr 24, 2010 8:02:04 GMT -5
Ex-Adriel, that is HILARIOUS! Hilarious in retrospect, at least---I can sadly recall the same fuss made over inane details in my own family. But really, though: Christ shunning a kid over a thing like that? The guy hung out with lepers, for hissake---he can't be THAT picky...
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Apr 24, 2010 18:04:31 GMT -5
It's really disturbing that people think that a woman's healthy hair is a sign of god's favor to her. Especially in Ex-Adrial's case where it was a sign of direct spiritual development that had happened at a three day camp.
When the flip side is that bad hair is a sign of god removing his glory, it's only a very small step to then say that physical disabilities are a sign of sin.
How were people with diseases and physical problems treated in your churches?
Even though I went to a fundy church, fortunately hair problems were not seen as a sign of sin. One of my friends, who is still a fundy, has alopecia which causes her hair to fall out, but it has not turned anyone against her.
|
|
|
Post by Ex-Adriel on Apr 25, 2010 18:33:01 GMT -5
When the flip side is that bad hair is a sign of god removing his glory, it's only a very small step to then say that physical disabilities are a sign of sin.
How were people with diseases and physical problems treated in your churches?
This particular group was very small, and I don't remember there BEING any physically disabled people in the home church... (remember I was young, so there may have been, and I just don't remember)
However, this was one of the very strong "faith heals all things" communities, so there was an exceptionally strong sense at all times that whatever wrong happened to you (health, financial, mental health especially) was all entirely your own fault for not having enough faith.
So yes, even though I didn't see any evidence towards physically disabled people, there was plenty of pressure on sick or mentally ill people (and their families) to boost your faith so they would be healed.
|
|
syfr
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by syfr on Apr 26, 2010 12:25:06 GMT -5
I always find long hair and skirts are signs of submission, etc. stuff amusing, because I love long skirts swishing around my ankles, and I keep my hair long for convenience. I also abhor the whole submissive thing, am finishing an advanced degree, and will never change my name.
ETA: It just goes to show: 'You can't judge a book by its cover!"
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Apr 26, 2010 12:51:11 GMT -5
Wow, Ex-Adriel, I gotta say I'm impressed with whatever shampoo that was if it worked so well you got spiritual props for it! It's hilarious now, although I'm sure at the time it was very disturbing! Regarding Branham and race... there was actually a Korean girl whose extremely fast-growing hair was praised frequently in my congregation. I'm not sure anyone ever made it out to be a direct result of her obedience to God or anything, but it certainly attracted attention. What's really frustrating is how I saw the African-American women tormenting themselves over their hair's inability to grow long or the curl that made it look shorter. I knew a woman who wore wigs all the time because her hair kept breaking off too short (maybe from efforts to straighten it?). You'd think the racial differences would be enough to discredit the idea that God had a single plan for how women's hair should look, but of course not...
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Apr 26, 2010 13:27:07 GMT -5
On the contrary, I could see it leading to *racism*...
|
|
|
Post by lemons4sale on Apr 29, 2010 13:49:36 GMT -5
LOL I think the sin - in their eyes - is BEING a woman! I love the way long skirts feel, especially when they flow out when you spin or if you have on a crinoline underneath! Goodness, how crazy is that? What about after you have a baby? After all three of my children were born, my hair fell out in big clumps for weeks. Some sort of hormonal thing--it grew back. So does thin, stringy hair indicate rebellion of some sort? Kinda "damned if you do," since presumably refusing to get pregnant would be rebellious too.
|
|
syfr
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by syfr on Apr 29, 2010 13:54:27 GMT -5
lemons4sale,
I even have hoops for an Elizabethan costume. I feel like a bell in them! Ding-dong!
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on May 3, 2010 13:34:27 GMT -5
Well, what do you know... totally by accident, I found this Branham gem. He argues that a woman cutting her hair is akin to marital infidelity and grounds for divorce.
From 'The Church and its Condition,' preached in Jeffersonville, Indiana on August 5, 1956: And now, you say, "Brother Branham, I think if I got short hair, it makes me cool and everything like." That's right, but if you got long hair you'd be cooler. It'll take it all off your neck, and wrap it up and make it right. Why, you know what the Bible said, that a man has a right to put away his wife and get a divorce from her if she cuts her hair? If she cuts her hair, it shows she's living untrue to him. The Bible said so; I Corinthians 12, find out if it's not right. She that... A woman that cuts her hair dishonors her head, which is her husband. And if she's dishonorable, she should be divorced and got away from. That's right. But, see, the pastor never tells you those things. And that's the reason that you do the way you do.
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on May 3, 2010 14:08:08 GMT -5
I've never known anyone to twist, turn and TORTURE scripture the way Branham did. WTF?
|
|
|
Post by corardens on May 4, 2010 4:22:26 GMT -5
What the... is that transcribed from speech? It sounds like Sarah Palin-ese, for crying out loud.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on May 4, 2010 5:50:48 GMT -5
What the... is that transcribed from speech? It sounds like Sarah Palin-ese, for crying out loud. Yes. I cut and pasted it from the printed sermon online. Voice of God Recordings is the name of the studio where Branham's sermons are copied and distributed. There are over 1100 in audio format (as I was leaving the church they'd just started converting their cassettes to mp3 format, but my mother had the whole set in cassette tapes mounted on the wall in our basement) and the printed versions are transcribed directly from the tapes. They distribute little booklets that used to have a background of the sky with golden letters saying 'The Spoken Word' on the cover. That might have changed by now. Branham's speech is notoriously hard to follow. In fact, it's a bragging point amongst Message of the Hour churches that 'God is able to raise up a prophet out of a Kentucky hillbilly with a 7th grade education to condemn this proud generation that worships knowledge.' Branham used words like 'knowed' and 'ain't,' and you get the more hardcore followers starting to use the same speech. I always thought that was a very interesting form of pretension. Like the Branhamists who wore cowboy hats and went hunting in order to be more like him... ;D
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 4, 2010 12:19:20 GMT -5
Huh.
In Maranatha Campus Ministries, all the guys tried to dress and talk and walk like the leaders, too. Some of us dared to roll our eyes (in private where no one could see us). ;D
Branham's biblical exegesis bears every sign of being done by a guy with a 7th-grade education. The amazing thing is that more educated religious leaders let this guy speak at their rallies and never, apparently, tried to correct his ignorant misreadings.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on May 4, 2010 12:58:47 GMT -5
Branham's biblical exegesis bears every sign of being done by a guy with a 7th-grade education. The amazing thing is that more educated religious leaders let this guy speak at their rallies and never, apparently, tried to correct his ignorant misreadings. That's the beauty of the charismatic movement. Branham had a very powerful personality. His sermons were delivered in an impassioned scream his followers nicknamed 'the eagle cry.' The supernatural was always the main attraction, though: divine healing, telling people what was wrong with them (physically or morally), prophecies (some of which have been debunked, but try telling that to a Message believer!), and, of course, his 'spirit.' Branham was evidently very humble in person. He recognised that he didn't have much stature in the world. He also tried (I think) to imitate Jesus by initially denying he was a prophet, and then later on slipping and calling himself one. He usually backtracked and said that 'prophet' really meant 'servant' and that he was just one of many prophets, but his followers made him out to be the last prophet of the Gentile dispensation (is that term used outside Message circles?) from Malachi 4:5. Message believers tell people that Branham's humility is evidence that he really did have the Holy Spirit, and that the rancid hatred in his sermons was the inspiration of the spirit of Elijah (which he apparently had in addition to the spirit of God). All that said, many ministers did turn him away. Message believers will usually be more than happy to tell you stories of churches that burned down or people who died after rejecting the prophet...
|
|