|
Post by AustinAvery on May 27, 2009 15:06:28 GMT -5
jlp,
Can't disagree with you there.
I have trouble understanding how any Bible verse could ever be "properly" translated. For example, does "thou shalt not kill" mean we should all be vegetarians. The plain language says so to me, but Christians insist that the verse doesn't really mean what it says. And that's just a disagreement between people who both speak the same modern language.
Translations magnify the problem IMO. Was Mary a "virgin" as so many believe, or, as language scholars who have traced the English, back to the Latin, back to the Greek (and back to Hebrew and/or Aramaic thrown in the mix somewhere) have suggested, merely a "young unmarried" woman?
I guess I'm glad that Vyckie and Laura offer, in this site, hope to those who want to leave the Quiverfull movement without relying on any Bible versus at all.
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on May 27, 2009 22:15:26 GMT -5
Sleepybones: On balance, I think I agree with you. I think a lot of liberal Christians take a desire to "keep the peace" and a reluctance to criticize others who claim Christianity too far.
|
|
jlp
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by jlp on May 28, 2009 7:34:04 GMT -5
It's hard to say this but its the truth: some parts of the Christian community depend upon poorly translated verses (such as 1 Tim. 2:12) to define the existence of womanhood. This is how women end up being convinced to take subordinate roles.
I really applaud Vyckie's sharing of her experience of being expected to be powerless in her marriage. Many women are suffering through the same experience, and reading Vyckie's experiences can help them break through the bondage that Christians are teaching women to put themselves into. Good work Vyckie! Keep it up.
|
|
jlp
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by jlp on May 28, 2009 7:35:49 GMT -5
AustinAvery,
I would like to share with you what I mean about mistranslated verses. But there's so much to share I'm thinking about how I can condense it for you.
Give me a day or two and I will figure out how to tell you in a manner that's not too long.
|
|
|
Post by AustinAvery on May 28, 2009 12:09:13 GMT -5
AustinAvery, I would like to share with you what I mean about mistranslated verses. But there's so much to share I'm thinking about how I can condense it for you. Give me a day or two and I will figure out how to tell you in a manner that's not too long. Sounds great. I'll look forward to it. Bible translation is an area I have read about only in the most cursory way.
|
|
|
Post by northernfirefly on May 28, 2009 12:45:48 GMT -5
Hi Vyckie, Your plight here was instantly recognizable. Lucky for me though, the pastor of the fundamentalist church I belonged to worked with the battered women's shelter in my community and his counsel at one our workshops was illuminating: that a woman leaving her abuser has no duty to stay. The abuser is the one responsible for breaking up the marriage.
The current social setup is that women have to flee their abusers. Their abusers are rarely held accountable to the extent that women may remain in their homes. Through no fault of their own, the women must leave and suffer social stigma and poverty and, all too often, stalking and murder with hardly another person or institution to defend them. The abuser wins the public relations battle by claiming that he was willing to stay and work it out - and the **** went and left him!
In my marriage, I struggled with these questions of being in submission to an abusive man. One person who gave me a light-bulb moment about the unhealthy way Christian submission was taught to women was Katharine Bushnell. She declared that the point of view recommending women to take man's word as God's word was nothing more than idolatry, a deadly sin.
Katharine Bushnell was a scholar of Greek and Hebrew and pointed out many places where the bible was mistranslated in matters concerning women. Interestingly, she also declared that in Genesis, Eve was given a great honour - that she would be an enemy of Satan. So much for the "curse" I was taught. And, as for the "pain in childbirth" passage, she points out that Hebrew grammar would have to be mutilated to arrive at such a translation and, she continued, that absolutely nothing is said about childbirth or pain: instead, she came up with a plausible translation (also according to her fellow male scholars) that conveyed a sense of a trap lying in wait for women.
Now, many years have come and gone since my pastor and K. Bushnell influenced my life. They came at a time when I was willing to do anything to preserve my marriage and it was almost killing me. I managed to break free of my marriage, with their help, before another baby could come. My two children are adults now. It is still a nightmare just to think about the times my ex-husband would use the Bible and church doctrine to try and trap me. His way, there was no way out, a perfect no-win scenario.
Good luck to you Vyckie and everyone here. Your stories inspire hope and healing.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on May 28, 2009 22:55:17 GMT -5
Hi There, everyone I've been having a wonderful time here in Canada so far ~ took a short trip over to B.C. this afternoon ~ all the hills and trees are so beautiful. Now, I've got a little time to write, so thought I'd catch up on some of the recent posts. luneargentee ~ you make a good point about some choices not being freely made ~ the trick, as I see it, is how to determine which is which and when we discover that a choice is not actually freely made ~ how to respond? I have a very dear friend who is in a seriously abusive relationship ~ to the point that she lost her custody of her children to the state due to her husband's abuse ~ she could have retained custody had she agreed to divorce him ~ but she is so brainwashed that she chose to stay with him even though it meant losing her children. Recently, when Shelly was at my house, she told me that her husband had been physically violent with her, and I responded that I was not going to let her go home. She stayed with me ~ got a protection order against her husband ~ and she was doing pretty well. But it only lasted about two weeks ~ Shelly couldn't handle the autonomy she had with me. She was so used to being told what to do and how to do it every minute of the day ~ and when I encouraged her to make choices for herself, she just couldn't do it. She went back to her abusive husband. UGH!! So ~ what to do? I know that in my first marriage ~ I had to be "kidnapped" by the pastor's wife and taken against my will to the abuse shelter. The problem with forcefully removing an abused woman from that situation is well-stated by krwordgazer ~ using coercive tactics to "rescue" someone from a coercive relationship seems rather self-defeating and contradictory. It's a very frustrating dilemma ~ although I do have a few ideas which I've picked up that I plan to share here in the near future. momgodin ~ hello and welcome. No kidding about the total lack of accountability ~ I still get angry when I remember one of the men in our home fellowship (who shall remain nameless ) used to quote a verse from Corinthians (can't remember chapter and verse ~ I'm deliberately trying to forget references these days) which says, "The spiritual man judges all things but he himself is not subject to judgment." In other words ~ this man (okay, it was Dale) believed himself to be a "spiritual man" ~ so he could judge anyone and everyone ~ but no man could judge him ~ he is only accountable directly to God. A complete takeover of incompetent authorities ~ now wouldn't that be something? sleepybones ~ you make an excellent point. I always thought of myself as a peacemaker ~ but for all my efforts, our home was not actually a peaceful place. Protecting, excusing, covering up for a tyrant is not the way to make true peace. northernfirefly ~ Katherine Bushnell sounds familiar ~ I'll have to check my bookshelves to see if I have anything by her. So glad to know that you got out. Sounds like you have quite a story ~ hope you'll post an introduction when you get a chance.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on May 28, 2009 23:38:34 GMT -5
Before leaving for this trip to Canada, I checked my stack of books for some reading material to bring along ~ but nothing appealed to me ~ I was hoping to find something to think about other than NLQ-ish topics. So ~ I picked a book from John's bookshelf which looked interesting: A Brief History of Everything ~ by Ken Wilbur. It seems to me that someone recommended this book to me at some point, but I can't remember who ~ not austinavery?
Anyway ~ the very first chapter talks about Patriarchy ~ and here's a quote which, when I read it made me think, "Yeah ~ that's the reason that I've wanted to take responsibility for my part of the mess our family became ~ that's why I've wanted to point out that it was me who sought out all this QF/P teaching..."
"... the really gruesome problem with the "imposition theory" ~ men oppressed women from day one ~ is that it paints a horrifyingly dismal picture of women. You simply cannot be as strong and as intelligent and oppressed. This picture necessarily paints women basically as sheep, as weaker and/or stupider than men. Instead of seeing that, at every stage of human evolution, men and women co-created the social forms of their interaction, this picture defines women primarily as molded by an Other. These feminists, in other words, are assuming and enforcing precisely the picture of women that they say they want to erase. But men are simply not that piggy, and women are not that sheepy.
"So one of the things I have tried to do, based on more recent feminist scholarship, is to trace out the hidden power that women have had and that influenced, co-created, the various cultural structures throughout our history, including the so-called patriarchy. Among other things, this releases men from being defined as total schmucks, and releases women from being defined as duped, brainwashed, and herded."
I tend to agree with this. In the telling of my story, I have felt like I really can't have it both ways ~ I can't claim to be a strong, intelligent woman ~ and then say, "Look how this religion, this movement, this man, totally duped me into living this demanding, impossible lifestyle." That is why I've made such a point of stating that I do recognize my part of the responsibility ...
However ~ at the same time, I'm definitely NOT taking all of the blame. As I said in my post:
Okay ~ well, so long as there's no escaping this scene, I guess I'll just confess. Yes ~ I have been responsible for much* of the dysfunction and abuse.
(*Not all ~ Warren, "the Church," our twisted, patriarchal society ~ and several others who shall not remain nameless as I continue to tell my story ~ as well as some less-obvious culprits, and I ~ together we share the blame. The undoing of our family was honestly a group effort.)
When I first started corresponding with my uncle, he wrote part of his story for me ~ one point which Ron made in the telling of his tale is that his studies at Stanford led him to conclude that his personal shortcomings were basically society's problem and not really his.
When I read it the first time, I thought, "This guy seriously doesn't want to take responsibility for his own actions." But, after hearing more of his perspective and learning quite a lot more on my own ~ I'm now inclined to more-or-less agree. There's so much which influences and even "determines" our choices which we only vaguely comprehend, if at all ~ and which we have absolutely no control over.
I'd really love to hear from sargassosea especially on this one ~ what'd you think?
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on May 29, 2009 0:35:49 GMT -5
Vyckie, when you have a chance, could you please set up a forum thread for Dogemperor's guest post?
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on May 29, 2009 1:28:29 GMT -5
When I first started corresponding with my uncle, he wrote part of his story for me ~ one point which Ron made in the telling of his tale is that his studies at Stanford led him to conclude that his personal shortcomings were basically society's problem and not really his. When I read it the first time, I thought, "This guy seriously doesn't want to take responsibility for his own actions." But, after hearing more of his perspective and learning quite a lot more on my own ~ I'm now inclined to more-or-less agree. There's so much which influences and even "determines" our choices which we only vaguely comprehend, if at all ~ and which we have absolutely no control over. I'd really love to hear from sargassosea especially on this one ~ what'd you think? Not sargassosea, alas, but this is something dear to my perception of life, the universe and everything. While it is important for everyone to think positively, strive for the goal, it's also important to recognize the huge inertial mass of the rest of the world that has no investment in anyone's personal aspirations. Not discriminating between what can be changed and what is completely outside one's control, and not being prepared for the random sideswipes can be devastating. That is what makes me angry about scams like The Secret thesecret.tv/. The bottom line there is that if bad things happen, or good things fail to happen, you were not concentrating hard enough. We need to try to do the best we can, but not recognizing that we are not the total masters of our destinies can set us up for disappointment and failure. How many time has any of us thought "if only I had been 5 minutes sooner (or later), "whatever" might (not) have happened." And the reason you were late (early) was that you (didin't) stop(ped) to admire your friend's baby, or buy some flowers for your table. It's life. We live. (stuff) happens. We fix what we can. We deal. Edited to add: We enjoy. (how could I have forgotten that?) That's the healthy attitude as far as I'm concerned
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on May 29, 2009 2:08:11 GMT -5
Sorry, just realized the thread I was looking for was within the FAQ workshop.
|
|
|
Post by Kaderin on May 29, 2009 8:05:46 GMT -5
I'm not sargossea either, but here's my 2 cents:
I vehemently disagree. In my opinion he operates under faulty assumptions about feminism and just who feminism blames for female oppression. Contrary to popular belief, it's not men's fault, but patriarchy's.
Yes, chances are that, since patriarchy favors men, it was "invented" by one, or some. But we can't blame contemporary men for what some tribal elders with penises thought up a couple of thousand years back.
Patriarchy is a social system that affects and warps the mind of people who grow up in it, of both genders
Someone once said to me that if only men were sexist and mysogynist overcoming it would be so much easier. And I think that's true - women hold up their own opression. And to expect otherwise is not to expect women to be equals, but superior - yes, men can be affected by lifelong brainwashing of female worthlessness, but women are supposed to shake it off, otherwise they're inferior? That's not a realistic expactation.
That's why feminists usually have laughing fits about arguments like "I am/have a friend who is a woman and I/she doesn't think this is sexist." Having a vagina does not protect one from holding sexist and discrimatory views. Women don't grow up in a seperate vacuum, they are fed, from birth, the same sexist, demeaning crap as men are. They contribute to, and shape their own oppression.
Ken cannot imagine someone willingly contributing to their own oppression, thus women must have built in some hidden fail saves and power centres! They are not as oppressed as feminists make them out to be! Hooray!
Sorry, faulty conclusion based on wishful thinking. Women really are just that oppressed, and also partially responsible for it. Of course, with society being what it is, just how much can you blame the woman and how much blame fals on the system?
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on May 29, 2009 8:14:36 GMT -5
Sorry, just realized the thread I was looking for was within the FAQ workshop. kisekileia ~ sorry for the confusion. I couldn't decide whether to put the thread under "latest from NLQ" or the "FAQ Workshop" ~ but finally decided on the later just because it's easier to start it out there and leave it rather than move it to the workshop later. Now that I have it in the workshop ~ I can't move it unless I move the entire workshop. Hopefully, most everyone will find the thread by choosing "40 most recent posts."
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on May 29, 2009 8:20:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on May 29, 2009 10:38:23 GMT -5
Well, since you asked I think this Mr. Wilbur is a tool of the highest order. What kind of tool? A tool of the patriarchy. Ah, classic anti-feminist trope: ‘You little ladies need to take responsibility for yourselves and stop being such big old VICTIMS because you’re smart - how could you possibly be oppressed? Don’t be such a sheep to the feminists. You should listen to me – a man, because as a man I am uniquely qualified to expound on women’s matters.’ If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard that crap I’d be hanging my Feminist Lesbian Hippie Hat in Monte Carlo, yo! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ “Patriarchy is a social system that affects and warps the mind of people who grow up in it, of both genders[.]” Yes, yes, Lady Kaderin – although I personally would amend the “genders” to ‘sexes’, but that’s a whole other thing… “There's so much which influences and even "determines" our choices which we only vaguely comprehend, if at all ~ and which we have absolutely no control over.” Yes, especially as women under any kind of patriarchy. This is really what I was trying to get at in the Modest Dress thread – not to mention The What If Game. How much choice is there, really, in anything we (women) do? For example: I may ‘choose’ to wear 2 shirts instead of a bra. I may ’choose’ to wear no underwear (and be thought a loose woman???). I MAY NOT ‘choose’ to wear no shirt at all, as do many, many men during the warm summer months. Most of these shirtless men have breasts and nipples, yet it is socially acceptable for them to choose to have a nice walk in the neighborhood ‘uncovered’. So is it really about breasts, or women’s breasts, or just women? In other words – If I were to do my yard work bare-breasted (as my male neighbor does every Saturday) I would, at best, be arrested by the police, booked on public indecency charges and made to pay a fine/possibly be forced to have a psych evaluation. I do not have the 'choice' my male counterpart does. My male counterpart does not see his barebreastedness as a choice, but as a right. This, I think, neatly illustrates Patriarchal Male Privilege. And, yes, I am aware that I have just trotted out one of the old Feminist Tropes – it’s an oldie but a goodie, too! *Edit to add: 1. bold to quote 2. Glad you're having a good time Vyckie! 3. Geez - now it looks like I go around looking for my name so I can yak my yak
|
|
aimai
Full Member
Posts: 172
|
Post by aimai on May 29, 2009 10:41:16 GMT -5
Kaderin! excellent post.! I agree completely!
aimai
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on May 29, 2009 10:53:22 GMT -5
Okay ~ I understand what you are saying, Kaderin & Sea ~ and forgive my total ignorance here because I really am trying to figure some things out ~ but if we take the stance of oppressed victims ~ does that mean we're doomed ~ powerless to affect any change in the situation? I guess I just make a strong connection between responsibility and authority/power. Thus ~ if I am not responsible for "co-creating" the situation ~ how can I expect to have any power to make choices and do things differently? Is this another no-win situation?
|
|
|
Post by rosa on May 29, 2009 11:06:58 GMT -5
I think you can recognize your own oppression without giving up the power you do have.
You can, simultaneously: *recognize that you have some power *recognize that it is limited *take responsibility for doing the best you can *blame those who were deliberately trying to limit you *recognize that they are also doing the best they can with limited knowledge and resources *work to change what they are doing (or change the effect it has, or change it's affect on you) *realize you probably can't singlehandedly dismantle the patriarchy *apologize for things you have done in the past, and work to rectify them *realize you'll probably still do things wrong at some point.
You probably can't do it all perfectly, at the same time, on the first try, but you can do all of it at some point, sometimes more than one simultaneously.
You're already doing amazing work in your family and with the blog and forums, both on your own and in making connections for other people (I spent three hours last night reading dogemperor's kos diaries and following links inside of them. If I had those resources when I was in high school, I could have been *so much better* as an advocate for friends of mine from these families. I am so glad to know she's out there now.)
|
|
|
Post by AustinAvery on May 29, 2009 11:24:06 GMT -5
Vyckie,
I'm not sure the parenthetic in Sea's quote, below, belongs:
Yes, especially as women under any kind of patriarchy. This is really what I was trying to get at in the Modest Dress thread – not to mention The What If Game. How much choice is there, really, in anything we (women) do?
Certainly women don't have some of the same freedoms men do, but the reverse is true. I can't choose to wear a dress to work (even a really nice one, say with fleure de lis patterns, I've always like those) anymore than woman can choose to do their yard work topless. As a side note, women are more than 50% of the voting population in the U.S., so it can't simply be male oppression that perpetuates the women-can't-go-topless laws.
But that observation does bring me back to your point, which is how much choice do we (people) have? While it bothers me to think I can point to other influences in my life as the culprit for my failings--I should take responsiblity for myself, should I not--I can certainly see Uncle Ron's point.
Growing up I wanted to fit in, I wanted acceptance from my community and my peers, I wanted my parents' love. I was raised by a feminist in the early days of feminism in a college community, so I suspect much of what I "chose" to do and believe was in response to wanting to fit in with and be loved by those people. (I certainly like to think that decades latter I've come to an ability to review my decisions with more objectivity, but that may be open to debate).
But might we posit that a young boy growing up in a patriarchal household having the same desires to fit in--to make his domineering father proud--just with a very different set of parameters for what is good and right.
I am not a determinist, but I can certainly see that idea that we act with so many unidentified pressures pushing each act, that some of the blame for what we do could certainly be shared by social structures and pressures.
I guess I'm saying there are victims, and we can--and perhaps should--see the bad guys not necessarily as "guys" but as social structures. But the very presence of this site, is testament to the fact that there is a "win" scenario.
|
|
|
Post by AustinAvery on May 29, 2009 11:25:19 GMT -5
And one KARMA to Rosa for that last post!
|
|
|
Post by jemand on May 29, 2009 11:29:58 GMT -5
In many places don't you technically, legally, have the right to go shirtless when men can? I personally haven't done it, but my sister went shirtless in Toronto 'cuz she's very independent like that (then again, she was 10) and nothing happened to us. That's not to say you wouldn't have social trouble but I thought the law might be ahead of society here.
Though the police aren't always aware of the law and may arrest you anyway.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on May 29, 2009 12:13:05 GMT -5
"...does that mean we're doomed ~ powerless to affect any change in the situation?" No. Else what are we doing here?
|
|
|
Post by AustinAvery on May 29, 2009 13:44:49 GMT -5
Vyckie,
Actually, I have not read Wise, so I didn't recommend his book. But I have a question.
Aside from his trying to let men off the hook, could his view be seen as an attempt to change the dynamic as a model for moving forward? In other words, women are both intelligent and powerful on the one hand and oppressed by men/society on the other (part of the problem may be in the use of the term "women" when clearly each woman is unique and there is a wide range in how well or poorly any one woman may fit into the broader categorization).
If we, who want to change the dynamic, focus upon the victim aspect of who women are, that does not offer us much to work with. By contrast, if we focus upon the intellect/power aspect of who women are, we focus upon the tools already available for changing the status quo.
I didn't read his book, but that strikes me as a likely thrust of his argument.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 29, 2009 14:41:33 GMT -5
If I can encapsulate the positive message, I think I would say-- knowledge is power. Women and men are both victims of, and assistants in the perpetration of, patriarchal mindsets. And that's what we will continue to be as long as we simply live blindly within the views we were raised with. But-- once we become educated and aware of what's happening, we begin to have the power to make choices to do things differently. By talking about it among ourselves here, we are both learning more about what's happening, and learning how we can counteract it. What I've seen in discussions elsewhere that when it's put in terms of victim-perpetrator, everyone -- males and females alike-- can get defensive. But when it's put in terms of, "here is something we are buying into without realizing it-- so let's realize it, and choose to do something else!" then we are all empowered, and things can really start to change. So the place where I think Wilbur is making his mistake is continuing to couch his message in terms of victim-perpetrator. "Hey, men aren't the only perpetrators!" he is saying. "So women should stop acting like victims!" And then the tendency of the reader is to get defensive. "Am not!" "Are too!" If instead he said, "We all have the power to change this simply by realizing we are doing it, and choosing to stop-- or at least choosing to learn what we're doing, why we do it, and how to begin to stop," then I think he'd really be saying something.
|
|
|
Post by AustinAvery on May 29, 2009 15:27:06 GMT -5
|
|