|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on May 23, 2009 12:44:44 GMT -5
|
|
lectio
Full Member
growing...
Posts: 128
|
Post by lectio on May 23, 2009 13:45:12 GMT -5
THIS IS SO GOOD.
This is so pivotal. I resonate with much much much in this post. Yes. Exactly. Very well said.
|
|
|
Post by castor on May 23, 2009 14:17:14 GMT -5
This makes me think of my friend, and wow, I'm so worried.
What you told about Dale choosing the door knobs reminds me of my friend's life too. There was this time that she and a muslim sister (that's what she calls other muslim women) were talking about groceries. And my friend told the muslim sister about a certain kind of sausage she liked, but her husband didn't allow her to buy it and made her buy another kind. I was shocked. I wanted to shout "But YOU do all the grocery shopping. YOU do all the cooking." That he decided what she would buy and what she would cook was absurd to me, and horrible.
But I didn't say anything because I believed in tolerance. And if this was my friend's choice I should accept that. And blahblahblah.
|
|
|
Post by luneargentee on May 23, 2009 14:59:47 GMT -5
I think that too often because we want to be politically correct, or a proper third wave feminist, we accept all choices that women make because they are the women's choices. So if a woman chooses to join a patriarchal religion and subsume her identity, we are supposed to accept it. If a woman chooses to become part of a BDSM relationship, we are supposed to accept it. If she chooses to have 6 children while unemployed and without any apparent way to adequately care for and raise those children, we are supposed to accept it. If she decides to become a sex worker, we are supposed to accept it.
However, no account is made for the fact that most of the choices made by women are not actually their choices. The woman who joins a patriarchal organization because her parents fought and divorced when she was a child and she feels she will be safe and protected is not making a free choice. The woman who becomes a sex worker because she was sexually abused as a child and sees herself only as a sexual object is not making a free choice. The woman who has numerous children she cannot physically, mentally or emotionally support because she is suffering from depression or drug dependency is not making a free choice. A woman who finds fulfillment in submitting herself to pain and abuse and enslavement or who finds fulfillment in the abuse and degradation of others because of abuse or neglect or depression she has suffered is not making a free choice.
While I certainly do not want the government or religion or any other type of organization stepping in and managing our personal lives, there are some choices that are bad. They are not freely made, so they should not be freely supported.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on May 23, 2009 15:17:29 GMT -5
I think an important consideration relating to what luneargentee mentioned is how a choice today will restrict choices tomorrow. I don't support as a good and fulfilling choice a woman's decision to immerse herself in a patriarchal religion and relationship because that choice is hard, almost impossible to undo. It can't be a "free choice" because it doesn't allow room for growth, for change of opinion, etc.
On the other hand, I can support some women's choices to participate in a BDSM scene... if it has preordained parameters which are limited and very temporary and there is no compulsion to continue in this lifestyle for the rest of one's life, only as long as it is fulfilling. Most of the BDSM community HAS made major steps toward fostering such an atmosphere, so I can be tolerant of a woman's choice to pursue it as indeed a free choice.
Sex work today is perhaps not trivial to leave, mostly because its illegal nature requires connection to unsavory characters, but it may not be any harder to leave than patriarchal religion and in fact it is not INTRINSIC in the work that it is impossible to leave, it is the current legal environment which traps them. Legal, but regulated sex work may create an ally in the police force for these women where today the police are only an enemy or even jailer.
It's whether a decision can be freely undone which is much more important than how it is made.. room for growth more important than external "diagnosis" of "your problems" which means you aren't "allowed" to make your own choices. That causes issues, to my mind.
|
|
|
Post by jadehawk on May 24, 2009 2:54:25 GMT -5
a handful of points: 1)James T Kirk doesn't believe in no-win situations because he's a man (or more specifically, he's a Straight White Male); there are no no-win situations for those who make the rules :-p 2)Vyckie, the part were you were saying that it was *your* fault etc. sounded very guilt-laden, and reminded me of this thread over at Rapture Ready. it starts out as something else, but as you read, you realize how severely guiltridden and lonely and miserable this woman is because unlike you, she didn't take that last step and give up on the ridiculous patriarchal belief. I feel really sorry for her, that she could possibly feel her life would have been better if she stayed with her murderous husband 3)luneargentee, while I agree with what you said mostly, you have to be careful not to go too far in your assumptions. saying that being into BDSM is caused by childhood abuse is only one step down from the vile claims that homosexuality is a result of being abused as a child. there's BDSM and there's being cruel, heartless and violent; just like there's rape fantasies and rape; the former is harmless, consensual sex-play; the latter is despicable and inhuman.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on May 24, 2009 7:19:00 GMT -5
"James T Kirk doesn't believe in no-win situations because he's a man (or more specifically, he's a Straight White Male); there are no no-win situations for those who make the rules..." Indeed. The virgin/whore dichotomy came to mind as a fine example of a 'no-win' situation for women in general and on a daily basis.
|
|
|
Post by AustinAvery on May 24, 2009 14:38:31 GMT -5
Vyckie, As one who looks in on right-wing religious organizations from the outside, your story frighteningly confirms what is a sort of knee jerk reaction for me and many of my ilk. We see people deep in the throws of the religious right as not having opinions of their own. As, in fact, not wanting to think. And it seems to me that if the movement could convince someone as intelligent and thoughtful as you are to essentially give up who you were--at least for a time--then weaker intellects don't stand a chance. Very disconcerting! BTW, "Crazy for God" gets good again at Chapter 52. His coming to grips reminds me a little of your own revelations--albeit he enjoyed being on the top of the system, whereas you and other women are on the bottom. Anyway, if you ever pick it up again, skip all the stuff up to that chapter. You'll catch on easily to what little you missed. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 24, 2009 20:01:32 GMT -5
Vyckie, I really felt for you, reading this story; particularly this part:
It is my opinion that you haven't failed. What you have done is, you have finally succeeded. You succeeded in breaking yourself and your children out of that terrible way of living. You succeeded in asserting who you really are in the face of all the forces that wanted to abnegate you. You succeeded, at last, in being/becoming yourself. And yourself is who God created you to be.
When I was coming out of my own involvement with cultic religious coercion, I wanted to know-- and my friends who came out with me wanted to know-- why God had let us get into it in the first place. We were asking why God didn't stop us before we harmed ourselves, and others in His name, so much. What I found out was that God wasn't threatened by these questions. God wanted me to ask them. And I found, as time went by and I gained perspective, that I had come out when I was ready, and not a moment sooner; God didn't try to force me. But God was there -- I never stopped sensing Him-- helping me get out when I was ready, and God was there letting me accuse Him; and God was there showing me a new way to be. In fact, in every way, God showed Him[Her]self to be exactly the opposite from the coercive leaders who had always told me what to do and when to do it, who had made decisions for me "for my own protection." God didn't make decisions for me because God wanted me to be an adult and make my own choices-- and God was willing to take the risks involved in not controlling me-- even if that meant I got involved in a cult; even if it meant that on coming out, I might decide to stop following God altogether.
I don't know what you will finally choose to do or believe, and I am not trying to manipulate your choice. But my own perspective is that God is so much bigger than we can imagine, and God really, truly wants us to be free.
|
|
|
Post by luneargentee on May 25, 2009 2:49:23 GMT -5
3)luneargentee, while I agree with what you said mostly, you have to be careful not to go too far in your assumptions. saying that being into BDSM is caused by childhood abuse is only one step down from the vile claims that homosexuality is a result of being abused as a child. there's BDSM and there's being cruel, heartless and violent; just like there's rape fantasies and rape; the former is harmless, consensual sex-play; the latter is despicable and inhuman. There's sexplay, then there's abuse. A relationship that requires one partner to always be submissive is not natural, for whatever reason. I've played in BD. I've never been into SM, although I've known people into that. If giving or receiving pain is the only reason for the relationship, then there's a problem. Doms often play mental games on subs to push them past their comfort zone, and keep them in relationships they may want to leave. You can have a safe word, but if the other person has messed with your head to push you into not using it, or if they just don't care, then it doesn't matter. An unending need for pain, whether mental or physical, is not normal. If you have this need, you need to find out why.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on May 25, 2009 9:16:19 GMT -5
The thing that struck me about this story is that if you only thought you were following God and you had cult thinking then the responsibility should land, not on you, but on the people who claimed they were speaking for God. I mean, it's not like you were Joan of Arc hearing directly from God. There were specific people telling you what God thought all through the story - and for the believers who say you fell for cultic thinking, why aren't they going after these preachers & authors and public speakers? I mean, I've been targeted tangentially by various Christians for conversion and intimidation...why can't they turn that power on the "bad" Christians - or do they think cultic preaching is some sort of natural trap they have to leave in place? I mean, they preach against them a little bit...but why not organize boycotts, get them blackballed, etc? That seems to be saved for politicians they don't like and woman who escape male control.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 25, 2009 11:41:49 GMT -5
Rosa, the cult I was in was targeted by a watchdog Christian group-- I only found out about it years later, because it was kept secret from us rank-and-file members-- but this group was speaking to the leaders of my group about their concerns, trying to get my group's leaders to change their ways. It worked, to a certain extent. The group did back off on some of its worst policies, and eventually some of the lower-level leaders confronted the higher-level leaders, and the group actually voluntarily disbanded itself.
Today there are websites like "Battered Sheep" that try to help, and the book The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse was written by Christians, to Christians. I plan to read the book when I can afford to buy it-- but my understanding is that it speaks not just to people in these groups; it challenges the groups themselves.
In other words, there are Christians who do try to do things about these other groups. It's just that the Christians who are trying to counteract them are not controlling, not manipulative, not coercive-- and so their impact is naturally toned-down in comparison. But I think it would be dangerous to take on cultic methods in order to combat cultic groups. Direct, honest confrontation, without coercion, is the best that can be done. With regards to your suggestions-- boycot what, exactly?-- and blackballing is not something an outside group has any power to do to a cult. The cult has usually already "blackballed" all outside groups.
Anyway, the general populace is probably not going to even hear about what moderate Christians do. It's not newsworthy enough.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on May 25, 2009 12:06:56 GMT -5
That's awesome, that they took some direct action. I'm thinking, though, about the blackballing of speakers and arranging of boycotts and following people around with signs that sometimes occurs - usually by the fringe groups, almost by definition. But actual action instead of just words. Calling in the IRS and social services and the fire marshals.
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on May 25, 2009 16:31:52 GMT -5
Rosa: I agree with you, that moderate Christians don't do enough of that. I think a lot of it is that most moderate Christians simply don't KNOW how seriously screwed up and coercive some Christian groups can be, and thus don't want to undermine groups that also consider themselves Christian. That, and a lot of moderate to liberal Christians are non-confrontational people who place a high value on peace, and thus don't want to cause conflict.
|
|
|
Post by philosophia on May 26, 2009 0:35:06 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Vyckie was not saying she was guilty in that section, but that was the accusation against her. Her guilt was from the voluntary surrender of her rights to keep peace or please others. (My big issue.) well, that's because *I* had been following a cult, because *I* had been living a legalistic life not actually based on the correct interpretation of the bible, because *I* had tried to do it all in my own strength, because *I* didn't really have a genuine, living relationship with Jesus ~ I only thought I was a born-again Believer loving, obeying and living for the Lord ~ but obviously, something was really messed up or else He would have worked everything out for good according to His purposes.
So, all the responsibility for the disaster which befell my family ~ all of it goes to *me.* I did it His way ~ but when it didn't work out ~ that wasn't His fault. The failure was mine.
Beam me out of here, Scotty ~ this battle's rigged and we're all going down and there's no way I can win.
What'd you mean, the transporter is jammed and you can't lock onto my signal? The message that I am also getting is that the faith I have held was not "true" faith. Now there is some higher level of intimacy that I must be missing if I want out. Where does it end? If I had true faith I would not leave. And the irony is that the people who are saying these things are Calvinists, who believer God controls everything. These same people rail against "works based salvation." They argue that I am where God wants me in the marriage. So is he controlling everything or not? If I am where God wants me, then I will still be where he wants me out of the marriage. What all of the frantic lecturing preaching correspondence has shown me is that at least in the human heart there can never exist any such thing as salvation by grace and not works. Not when the very people who preach that doctrine tell me that choosing to divorce my husband is choosing eternal damnation, when he has chosen to sin against me throughout our marriage and gets a free ride! Vyckie, your blog is a "Godsend"
|
|
tl
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by tl on May 26, 2009 21:36:21 GMT -5
I am really glad that you realized that you could not abdicate responsibility. However, you were tricked by things that were not the truth. They were also not the truth about God, who God is, or what God wants. God never wanted any woman to have to live under the patriarchal domination that your husband prescribed for you and your family. Although he said, and others say God wants that, you will not find such things ever said in Scripture. It is reprehensible that such things are taught as truth.
|
|
|
Post by momgodin on May 26, 2009 22:39:03 GMT -5
Been lurking, and just wanted to say hi to Vyckie an give a sisterly ((hug))). I used to love Star Trek in the '70s, so I can appreciate some of this. Good point made that James T. Kirk being a white male, didn't accept the Kob-u situation. When hubby and I got out of the navy, we got in a conservative church that laid the biblical hierarchy on us. When we pointed out the obvious problems, they said *we* had a problem with authority. lol. Nope, just incompetent authority and...fake authorities. (btw- how many of these wannabes have actually been under military command?) Real authorities take responsibility for their teachings. These folks are accountable to NO ONE. They're fakes. So, the Kob-u no-win scenario was designed to test the character of the star fleet? What then, was the "good"character response? Surrender? Resignation? Going out with a bang? The only good response I can imagine is a complete takeover of the incompetent authorities. My Bible taught me that authorities who oppress their charges have proven themselves unworthy of their leadership position. I've been told, "Well that makes YOU the authority, and not Gods word (as interpreted by us)" And I say "Right. Because I have the Holy Spirit and its my duty to follow the wisdom he gave me." The lesson in all this should be: whether in love or war, or religion- NEVER go against conscience. Thanks for letting me vent. I hate that this is allowed to go on. But I am SO happy that you escaped.
|
|
|
Post by grandmalou on May 27, 2009 7:21:03 GMT -5
Thank you a million times, Momgodin, for this great post:
"My Bible taught me that authorities who oppress their charges have proven themselves unworthy of their leadership position.
I've been told, "Well that makes YOU the authority, and not Gods word (as interpreted by us)" And I say "Right. Because I have the Holy Spirit and its my duty to follow the wisdom he gave me."
The lesson in all this should be: whether in love or war, or religion- NEVER go against conscience."
You said precisely what I have been wanting to say to my pastor for the longest time! But he quoted one time to me Paul speaking to Timothy about "I do not allow women to speak or teach in church or have authority over men"... They (he and his wife) are Baptists to the max, and my dh and I have become close friends with them. So I've been trying to figure out a way to say without saying? that his patriarchal mindset is WRONG...and now I think I will just print out what your post said, and hand it to his wife in his presence...YES!
|
|
|
Post by sleepybones on May 27, 2009 10:38:45 GMT -5
This quote was interesting:
"That, and a lot of moderate to liberal Christians are non-confrontational people who place a high value on peace, and thus don't want to cause conflict."
I don't wish to pick on you, kisekileia, but I wanted to address the wider implications of the way you phrased this.
"Valuing peace" does not mean avoiding confrontation. The conflict is already there. Addressing it is a way to move past it to greater harmony, or at least to try. Ignoring abuse is not peace-loving behavior, it's self-protective behavior. Moderate Christians would rather not address the darker aspects of Christianity, would rather pretend that their nice religion could never really lead "normal" people into some terribly abusive situations. I see moderate Christians as those who go to church most Sundays where the pastor reads select Bible verses and the kids learn select stories and everyone's happy because they know not to ask the deeper questions. (How many mainline sermons are based Numbers 31:1-54? THIS is moral, God-directed behavior? LOL) They know not to push this, because it might lead them to reject their religion.
Speaking of which, I don't call myself a Christian. But what I will say for Jesus is that he was truly a peace-lover. He spoke truth to power, and he was confrontational. (Examples: overturning tables in the temple, stopping people from stoning a woman, healing the sick on the sabbath.)
And by the way, this is the charge to any moderate, whether Christian, Muslim or Jewish. Address your extremists head-on. Take a stand against their hate, so that they and we and everyone knows who you are! Think long and hard about what your views can lead to and why, and how to prevent violent extremism in the first place.
|
|
jlp
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by jlp on May 27, 2009 11:13:03 GMT -5
First of all, luneargentee - I loved what you said about women not having free choices. It's so true.
Second, I want to extend my compassion to Vyckie and her children for all the suffering she was taught to endure that was needless. I don't understand why some parts of the Christian community target women for their abusive teaching, but they do. They don't do this to men because men would never tolerate it. And because so many of the leaders behind the patriarchal teaching are men, and they would never put up with this abuse themselves.
I think it's great that Vyckie is writing this. I hope she puts it into a book form. There are many Christian and previously Christian women who will be able to relate precisely to what she went through, because they went through it also. It's time the truth about the dangers of this teaching become more widely known.
|
|
|
Post by AustinAvery on May 27, 2009 11:31:46 GMT -5
jlp,
You asked why some parts of the Christian community target woman. The first part of the answer, if you're interested, can be found int an interesting book by Merlin Stone, When God was a Woman. She looks at ancient religion, and posits that religions were originally female centered (probably because women could bring forth life and humans did not yet understand the connection between sex and procreation). When male dominant war-like tribe(s)--Judaism for one--came along, to convert people from their female-centered religious traditions, they had to lower the female deities a notch. Incorporate them, but make them subservient, or make them the problem (Adam took the apple of his free will, but Eve gets the blame).
|
|
jlp
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by jlp on May 27, 2009 12:00:14 GMT -5
|
|
jlp
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by jlp on May 27, 2009 13:14:31 GMT -5
AustinAvery,
I'm not asking why some Christians target women, I know why they target women. They can take Bible verses that have either been mistranslated or taken out of context and put pressure on women to obey their understanding of these verses. Women are not aware that some bible verses have been purposely mistranslated and others purposely taken out of context, so they believe these people. The women think they are sincerely doing what the Bible says they should be doing.
Christians don't target men because men won't allow themselves to be treated as secondary human beings like women will. Christians also don't target women because most of their leaders are men, and these men will not tolerate the treatment they expect women to tolerate.
|
|
jlp
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by jlp on May 27, 2009 13:51:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by grandmalou on May 27, 2009 15:00:14 GMT -5
Thanks so much, jlp, for your last two posts on biblical equality websites. I will go have a look. In the meantime, I walked up to their house...our Pastor, his wife, and her mother live by our church. I decided to just get this out in the open and ask him if he was saying that (1 Timothy 2:12) for real, or if he meant it sarcastically. Plus a whole lot of other things that have been bothering me for awhile now. We really had a nice visit, and he cleared up for me that original question by quoting "There is now therefore neither Jew nor Greek, nor male nor female"...Gal 5:28 if memory serves me)... Anyway, then we talked about gardening, which my dh and I love to do. We have been hard pressed for a good place to plant ours, as all our neighbors spray nasty stuff everywhere, and it runs over to our yard when it rains or they water. Even though I have talked with them about having multiple chemical sensitivities. Pastor and his wife have been wanting to have a garden, and they have the space, on a hill, but do not have the best of health right now. So dh and I are going to go help them plant one so we can all have some organic veggies.
|
|