|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on May 10, 2009 9:26:01 GMT -5
Hey Everybody ~ Molly's blogging again. I wrote to Molly a while ago and asked if I could use one of the comments which she had left on the blog in the "early days" of No Longer Quivering. She agreed ~ so this morning, I've posted: Dear Happy Full-quiver-er ... 2spb.blogspot.com/2009/05/dear-happy-full-quiver-er.html
|
|
|
Post by stampinmama on May 10, 2009 9:45:04 GMT -5
Great post, Molly!
What many of these women in "healthy" patriarchal marriages don't realize is that at any time, their husband could turn and ask them to do the same things that the "unhealthy" husbands do. And they, by their own backing of twisted scripture, MUST do these things. Healthy marriage or not, the basis for this lifestyle is unbiblical and wrong. When it comes right down to the core, how can ANY marriage where one is in complete and utter dominant control truly be "healthy?"
|
|
|
Post by melissawith4kids on May 10, 2009 12:42:07 GMT -5
Do you think that this kind of movement generally attracts men who are abusive? I mean a healthy, non-dysfunctional man would find the gross errors of this teahing would they not?
|
|
|
Post by anotheramy on May 10, 2009 15:40:04 GMT -5
Do you think that this kind of movement generally attracts men who are abusive? I mean a healthy, non-dysfunctional man would find the gross errors of this teahing would they not? I've wondered about this too. It seems healthy men could get sucked into it just as easily as healthy women if they become convinced enough that it's *the* lifestyle most pleasing to God. One might argue that anyone convinced that much by fringe religious convictions isn't healthy, but I think just about anyone can get sucked into it if the moment is right.
|
|
|
Post by grievousangle on May 10, 2009 19:27:52 GMT -5
Do you think that this kind of movement generally attracts men who are abusive? I mean a healthy, non-dysfunctional man would find the gross errors of this teahing would they not? Everybody in it is dysfunctional. Everybody in it thinks there is an angry little penised loving god reading their thoughts every minute of the day and night. Everybody in it thinks that if they turn away from this mad system of belief they will be dragged before the angry little penised loving god and condemned to hell. They have a gun at their backs. Seriously. You cannot reason with them and you cannot do anything for them until they realize they have allowed a very powerful and a very wicked story utter control over their lives. You cannot be mentally healthy with a gun to your back. It just is not possible. There is really only one way out and that is escape. It doesn't mean one must give up church or religion or anything like that; but one MUST be willing to admit that there is NOTHING infallible about ANY human narrative dealing with metaphysical realms and that ANY story demanding anything less than full, adult, free, humanhood for women as well as men is a LIE of the patriarchy. If you are not a full up human then you are livestock. In the patriarchy, women are livestock, not real humans.
|
|
|
Post by princessjo1988 on May 10, 2009 20:10:39 GMT -5
Hi!
I must say great timing for this blog! I was showing my mum your blog the other day (my mother, and therefore I, was involved in a very conservative church...pretty similar story to everyone else), and she brought up something similar to the points that Allison put forward...so I will email her the link to this discussion and blog post...lets just say my mother is a little in denial about the real truth of the community we were involved in.
It is my personal belief that these "cults" (for a lack of a better word) do draw in abusive men, just from my own experience with them. The statistics of abuse were just incredible for the church we were involved in...
Jo
|
|
ahunt
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by ahunt on May 10, 2009 20:29:21 GMT -5
He allows me to be myself
This is what I find so disturbing. The implication is that a husband has the authority to FORBID his wife from being who she is.
I do have customers who adhere to quiverful principles, and while they are perfectly lovely women, it is difficult for me to discern much in the way of a personality. And on the rare occasions a husband accompanies his wife, whatever opinions she may have seem to vanish.
Only one husband was overtly overbearing, critical and impatient, and finally I informed him that the first time my husband barked orders at me "like that" would be the last time he ever did it.
The man looked at me, clearly surprised, and then he shut up. Here's the kicker...his wife and family still patronize my store. Not sure what to make of that.
|
|
|
Post by visualsyntax on May 10, 2009 21:40:41 GMT -5
Almost all of those books are written by men.
|
|
|
Post by themomma on May 10, 2009 22:56:43 GMT -5
I think it will draw abusive men but I also think that "normal" people will get drawn in and could become if not out right abusive at least very controlling and rigid.
Maybe where the patriarchal lifestyle becomes abusive is in the religions that teach you can lose your salvation or salvation is works-based somehow...hmmmmm, that is an interesting thought.
I think I will make a poll.
|
|
lectio
Full Member
growing...
Posts: 128
|
Post by lectio on May 11, 2009 2:20:16 GMT -5
I think this movement attracts Christian men who were already somewhat conservative and are drawn to the "sold out" aspect of the Vision Forum (etc) crowd. Most of these men are men who were raised/discipled to believe in benevolent male leadership already. They're already followers of "patriarchy lite," and their wives have been trained in the same sort of thing. So the pump is already primed, as it were. Meaning, I'm not sure if any of them go into it healthy to begin with. I don't think that the conservative church IS a healthy place with regards to gender relationships... What they think/feel is *right* is when men are in charge and women are cheerfully supporting them. That is what "healthy" is to them, that is what feels like "all is right with the world." So...no. I don't think many healthy men fall into this. Just like completely healthy people don't usually fall for cults. I'm sure SOME do and get duped (because the appeal is legit--the pictures are swell, the promises are wonderful, who DOESN'T want a perfect happy family???etc), just as in the cult world, but I think those are the ones who get duped for a short amount of time and then get OUT of it... You know, the ones who are in for only a year or two and then begin to realize what's going on and get out (because their inner voice keeps pestering them that something's very wrong, even if they don't understand what exactly it is). This has been my experience, anyway. Men who go gung-ho with this stuff usually have some pretty serious women issues, some very deep fears of strong women and/or a very deep need to be in control/power. Vyckie, Aw, thanks, ya sweet thang.
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on May 11, 2009 2:43:01 GMT -5
Lectio, I think you are right about the kind of people who get into this. My parents' church is conservative evangelical, believes in male headship, promotes moderately large families (a lot of people have 4-5 kids) and all that. Even though it's not Quiverfull, I can really see how its doctrines could prime people to get into even more extreme ideas like the Quiverfull movement. The people there are just so...cookie-cutter. It's probably partly because the church is in a recently rural, mostly white town, and I'm used to living in cosmopolitan city environments, but it seems like everybody kind of fits into this cheery, polished mold for how Christian women should be and how Christian men should be. It just feels...fake or maybe just creepy, I can't decide for sure which. Individual personalities are subjugated to the broader narratives of how people are supposed to be, which tend to be along the lines of "My life was all messed up, but now with God everything is wonderful." What ultimately got me away from my parents' church was when that narrative stopped being true for me.
|
|
aimai
Full Member
Posts: 172
|
Post by aimai on May 11, 2009 6:26:42 GMT -5
Cults and things like Cults: Here's a link to an online test to determine whether something is a cult. One of the things to think about in reading it is to remember that at their worst some of these families are themselves mini cults. Although in many cases these families are nested in larger organizations and communities that may or may not share the cult like aspects to the extent that the father, say, is treated as an avatar of god and he also is the sole supporter of the family financially the family is well on its way to being an unhealthy little isolate that can spin out of control. www.icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_checklis.htm Here's some of the nutty grafs: The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished. Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s). The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth). The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity). The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society. The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations). The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities). The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion. Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members. The group is preoccupied with making money. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members. The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on May 11, 2009 7:33:34 GMT -5
Cults and things like Cults: Here's a link to an online test to determine whether something is a cult. One of the things to think about in reading it is to remember that at their worst some of these families are themselves mini cults. OMG, aimai ~ I checked "yes" on every one of the points in your post. Not really surprising ~ my mother frequently said that we had our own family cult going ~ but still a little startling to realize just how seriously cultish we had become.
|
|
becky
New Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by becky on May 11, 2009 12:01:58 GMT -5
Almost all of those books are written by men. Actually, it's 50/50 in the list above.
|
|
|
Post by akibare on May 11, 2009 15:39:20 GMT -5
As an outsider, this post reminds me of thoughts I've had reading various of the happy (truly happy, as far as I can tell) family blogs out there, and that is... if both partners in the marriage, both parents in the family, truly WANT to live the stereotypical gender-roles "traditional" family, homeschool, home-based business, neo-agrarian lifetstyle, etc - why not just do it? Why the need for the wife to be unable to choose the path for herself?
There are many marvelously working economic family units out there, everyone happy with their part and prospering, truly an inspiration, and that's a great thing. But what happens when you're not so lucky, or something changes, and the one partner who's been given full control goes in some wacky harmful direction? That's the question.
For what it's worth, you can find posts out there on QF-aligned sites from women who really WANT to go more "traditional gender-based," who want to stop working outside the home, who want to stop using birth control, and who want to start homeschooling, but because their leanings have drawn them to the "I should submit in all things to my husband" first (and the husband seems to go along with that part) they are struggling with the fact that their husbands don't WANT them to stop working, don't want to have lots of kids, etc. Which is another version of the strange mismatch.
If it's a case of "well, I know my husband would never ask me to do anything that I don't already want to do, because we are so well matched" then it bears asking, "in that case, why the need to officially submit?"
Sometimes it reads like a backlash against feminism, to say that because some women have (unfairly, in my view) been criticized for choosing the homemaker lifestyle, the response must be to proudly proclaim not having a choice. Why not proclaim the right to choose the homemaker lifestyle?
|
|
jlp
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by jlp on May 11, 2009 20:02:11 GMT -5
Vyckie,
I am a very religious devoted Christian. So what I am going to say may sound a little unusual.
You are doing the Christian community a wonderful service with this website. The topics that you are writing about, the challenges you are making to the Bible, and your insights are something that Christians, especially conservative evangelical Christians need to hear.
I have loved every topic that you have written about. Please keep up the good work. And God bless you, whether you believe in Him/Her or not.
|
|
|
Post by luneargentee on May 11, 2009 23:09:46 GMT -5
aimai, thanks for the scary list. Having been part of the Jehovah's Witnesses, I could easily tick off nearly every item on that list.
Rather than referring to these religions as cults, some anti-cult groups refer to them as "high demand organizations." They believe it removes the stigma of the word "cult" and allows them to interact more easily with cult members.
Either way, these organizations seem to focus solely on the importance of the organization/religion above the welfare of its members, which is certainly not what Jesus taught.
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on May 11, 2009 23:39:17 GMT -5
I like the term "coercive religious group" for such groups. It's easily understandable, and doesn't have the mishmash of meanings associated with it that "cult" does. "Cult" seems overly sensationalistic to some people, and some Christian groups use "cult" to mean "any religious group we think is heretical".
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on May 13, 2009 10:32:02 GMT -5
For what it's worth, you can find posts out there on QF-aligned sites from women who really WANT to go more "traditional gender-based," who want to stop working outside the home, who want to stop using birth control, and who want to start homeschooling, but because their leanings have drawn them to the "I should submit in all things to my husband" first (and the husband seems to go along with that part) they are struggling with the fact that their husbands don't WANT them to stop working, don't want to have lots of kids, etc. Which is another version of the strange mismatch. I wanted to bring attention to this because it seems like a very interesting problem, and not one that I've personally seen in real life. How does this situation usually resolve itself? Both in Christian circles and in American culture, it seems like there's an attitude that women should get to pick the number of children in a family, and if a husband wants to stop having children, well, he's just a mean man who doesn't understand that you *deserve* another child. Of course, secular culture would not expect that number of children to be five or more, but woe to the poor man who decides that he wants one or no children when his wife wants two or three.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on May 13, 2009 10:49:59 GMT -5
Do you see that a lot? I haven't, but we may not be in the same social circles at all.
All the couples I know who got together while childless and not pregnant, made these decisions jointly before getting married/committed. I know my partner and I talked a lot about babies - not just number, but timing, what kinds of infertility treatment we thought were appropriate, adoption, fostering, etc. I know a lot of men who think kids are mom's problem, but I've never run into a couple who thought all family planning was up to the woman.
That's not just nonreligious couples either - we're related to several Catholic families that did childrearing decisions as part of their pre-Cana counseling, and an ELCA couple with differing opinions who made an explicit agreement with mediation from their pastor, before he would perform their wedding. Those kinds of reasoned decisions don't always stick in real life - my partner and I agreed on "one or maybe two" before we started trying to get pregnant, but the whole process was so traumatic that when we started talking about a second he said NO, NO, PLEASE NO. A friend of mine whose husband had his vasectomy long before they were married has occasional sadness about it, and another friend had a good and long-term relationship break up when her partner decided he had been wrong and really did want children. But that's just what happens when you try to predict your feelings in the future.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 13, 2009 17:25:37 GMT -5
I like the term "coercive religious group" for such groups. It's easily understandable, and doesn't have the mishmash of meanings associated with it that "cult" does. "Cult" seems overly sensationalistic to some people, and some Christian groups use "cult" to mean "any religious group we think is heretical". Thank you so much for this term, Kisekileia. It's so much less of a hot-button than the word "cult." I feel I can more easily talk to former members the particular group I left, using "coercive religious group" to discuss what we went through, instead.
|
|
|
Post by madame on May 13, 2009 17:33:38 GMT -5
For what it's worth, you can find posts out there on QF-aligned sites from women who really WANT to go more "traditional gender-based," who want to stop working outside the home, who want to stop using birth control, and who want to start homeschooling, but because their leanings have drawn them to the "I should submit in all things to my husband" first (and the husband seems to go along with that part) they are struggling with the fact that their husbands don't WANT them to stop working, don't want to have lots of kids, etc. Which is another version of the strange mismatch. I wanted to bring attention to this because it seems like a very interesting problem, and not one that I've personally seen in real life. How does this situation usually resolve itself? Both in Christian circles and in American culture, it seems like there's an attitude that women should get to pick the number of children in a family, and if a husband wants to stop having children, well, he's just a mean man who doesn't understand that you *deserve* another child. Of course, secular culture would not expect that number of children to be five or more, but woe to the poor man who decides that he wants one or no children when his wife wants two or three. I've never ran into that mentality, and I've interacted with many parents (especially on forums where people often reveal more than they would IRL), both religious and non-religious. Any attitude of entitlement would not go unchecked, I tell you, whether it came from a mother or a father. In my experience, most people would defend the one who doesn't want more, while showing understanding to the one who wants them. Most would encourage the broody mother to give him some more time, but if he still said no, they'd defend him. I think a couple have to make a decision together on the number of children they are going to have. It's not fair for a woman to stop taking birth control in order to get pregnant, against her husband's wishes, and it's also not right for a husband to declare they will not be using any birth control when his wife is not happy with the idea. If one partner doesn't want to have any more, I think the other should let it go, at least for some time.
|
|
|
Post by visualsyntax on May 13, 2009 20:26:36 GMT -5
Almost all of those books are written by men. Actually, it's 50/50 in the list above. Maybe I need to look again but I honestly only saw one female writer among them. I was raised Catholic, but I'm Italian, it was a small town so the conservatism I see among QF families I can easily translate into my upbringing. Like, I remember being told in the 8th grade that I had no business going to school b/c I was just good for cranking out kids. It was disturbing. I subscribe to Unitarianism now and I don't think I could go for a more dogmatic religion than that.
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on May 14, 2009 3:43:03 GMT -5
You're welcome, KRWordgazer .
|
|
orual
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by orual on May 28, 2009 11:15:22 GMT -5
Hi - first post - a bit shy. LOL One of the things I've noticed (being an ex-patriarichal with Quiverfull leanings - although ex-husband didn't like kids and forced me to get a tubal ligation after our second) is that the families where the wife is TRULY happy (not fake happy) is a family who's wife isn't TRULY submissive. One of the things that use to annoy the snot out of me when certain women would lecture me about my submissive wife duties (when I was doing my hardest to be a submissive wife and being put down because I wasn't submissive enough) was that the wife was usually married to a man who could care less about what she did. So, she really wasn't being submissive - she just pretended to be. Some of the ladies and I would snidely gossip about how that 'woman' really wore the pants of the family, etc. I actually know of a wife who would brow beat her husband with one breath then turn around and teach how women have to 'obey' their husband. The mind, it boggles. I guess what I'm saying is that I would find it difficult to believe that there are truly happy quiverfull/patriarichal families that completely tow the line. On another note, I don't think that this type of doctrine appeals to a well-adjusted male, because most well-adjusted/good men don't want to be the boss of their wives. My dad use to tell my mom that the teachings was a bunch of hog-wash - then joke about how he wasn't a good christian LOL. The sad part is that they never left the church and I swalled that crap hook line and sinker. I hope this isn't to ot.
|
|