|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on May 30, 2009 14:43:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by grandmalou on May 30, 2009 15:28:35 GMT -5
Arietty; Thank you for sharing your story with us...you have so exactly described what reactions we get when we divorce, or when we stay (why? to either/ or). So glad you are doing well now! ((HUGS)))
|
|
|
Post by redheadedskeptic on May 30, 2009 20:42:00 GMT -5
No kidding. Women always lose in a Christian setting. We are supposed to suffer, die to ourselves for Christ. What nobody tells you is that dying to yourself means you die: you are no longer effective as a minister for Christ, so what's the point? If you stay, you are a martyr, miserable, and ineffective, but if you leave, you are unsubmissive, looking back after you put your hand to the plough, selfish, etc, etc, etc.
I liked the condemnation reasons listed. I didn't stick with my husband for years: all I had to do was look at the misery of our parents to decide I didn't want a lifetime of that. Since I was so young when we divorced, most people assume I am selfish and just wanted to go my own way when that is NOT what happened.
Excellent post.
|
|
jlp
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by jlp on May 30, 2009 21:18:42 GMT -5
The way the Christian community has treated women is so un-Christ like as to be a travesty. They have used Biblical verses that are mistranslated or taken out of context as a weapon to dominate and control women. This Christ did not do.
|
|
|
Post by philosophia on May 30, 2009 23:22:59 GMT -5
Thanks for the insightful post. But it is sobering to think those questions will still be floating around in another 10 years!
One of the reactions that I am getting is the "that's just the way men are" comment. While these, usually older, women mean well, they are usually speaking of occasional episodes of thoughtlessness by their husbands. How can one explain the cumulative effects of multiple methods of control and emotional and spiritual abuse to someone in the real world?
It is incomprehensible to an outsider that a man would ever attempt to control every aspect of a woman's life to the point she even views herself as chattel. We didn't leave because we didn't see it as an option. Period. We are one flesh! (Yes, it makes my skin crawl, too!) And that's why we kept having the babies. For my part, they were the joy in my life. Someone I could really love. A little present for having to live the life of a slave with an obnoxious master. And with the babies came more of the,, "I can't leave, because I have all these children!" It perpetuates itself. Who knows how many women are out there faking it soley for the sake of the children!
To an insider, though, it is apostasy. Who am I to think I should have my own way in anything! With Christ I am supposed to take up my cross and bear it! "Though he slay me, yet will I trust him!" God put me in this marriage and I am forsaking Christ if I leave it! The inflamatory, condemning, desperate language used by these self-righteous Christians is nauseating. But the vehemence of their rebukes tends to make me think they may not be very happy themselves.
The final question, the one my husband asks, is "why now?" It is closely related to the "why did you stay" but different in a way. Because I realized half my life was over, and I knew I didn't want to live the rest of it this way. So, that makes it a "mid-life crisis". If that's what he wants to call it, fine with me. That way he can blame me for all the problems that I so carefully kept hidden so that I could "do her husband good and not evil all the days of her life". I'll take the blame, just as I have for everything. I covered up for him a lot on the basis of not speaking evil and doing him good, and the thanks I get is:
"If I am so bad, why didn't you talk to the other men about it?" My fault.
"The problem is that you did not set boundaries." I was not allowed to set boundaries. I was required to "submit", which is the opposite of setting boundaries, and when I did argue about something I felt was important, I was "being rebellious." My fault.
"You were the one person I trusted, my only friend, and you are abandoning me." This one galls me. He effectively cut me off from every other adult relationship in my life so that I had no one but him to interact with. AT ALL. And he treated me with contempt. And yes, it's my fault.
I told a friend recently that I'm numb. It is necessary to have a sort of psychological anesthesia under these circumstances. Otherwise, yes, it would hurt too damn much.
|
|
|
Post by grandmalou on May 31, 2009 6:21:28 GMT -5
Philosophia;
(((HUGS))) Thanks for this post...it is good for all to share these hurts and get them out of the system, isn't it? Rather than suffer in silence, as so many of us were told repeatedly 'ad nauseum'.
When I look back at the controllers themselves (and there were many) I see a person desperate, especially at or near the end of a relationship, and I think of a drowning person... arms flailing wildly, grasping at anything and nothing...it's as if that person tries to hold you with one hand, and with the other pushes you away! So you swim out to help, and sometimes the only way you can help is to knock the sucker out before you can pull them to safety. Not that I'm having pity on all the abusers, but yeah, maybe just a little...can't help but wonder what it was/is in their lives that made them that way...
|
|
jlp
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by jlp on May 31, 2009 9:43:39 GMT -5
I am so happy to hear women speaking out about the abuse they were emotionally coerced into accepting by sick Biblical teaching. I am a Christian, and a believer in the Bible. But the way these Christian teachers interpreted scripture makes me sick. I've watched for 35 years now as women have succumbed to this sick teaching because they felt they had no choice.
There are many people promoting this sick gospel of female only submission all across the web. We need stories like this to help women understand what they are getting into when they accept they believe that only they are required to be submissive.
In a healthy marriage, both partners are submissive at times, and both are dominant at times. Submission is not just for the female, and dominance is not just for the male. If it is, it will lead to abuse of the female. And that's what many Christians are refusing to accept - that the gospel of female only submission that they preach is hurting women.
|
|
jlp
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by jlp on May 31, 2009 9:52:48 GMT -5
Arietty,
Someday you need to talk about the worst of the abuse. I know you have kept it hidden. But when you talk about all of it, including the worst, you will help yourself heal. And you will help other women who have been hiding the worst also.
|
|
|
Post by philosophia on May 31, 2009 10:54:06 GMT -5
grandmalou,
I agree what you are saying about pitying the man at the end. I understand that on many levels my husband cannot help who he is. I also see that because of my high need for approval and his narcissism, we were destined for disaster. The bitterness and frustration I feel toward him is more because of his and the church's position that I am obligated to accept living with him despite the fact it was destroying me.
I have read a few books on these personality types, and part of the entire pattern of control and emotional abuse is the abuser's fear of abandonment, which often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because they drive people away with their behavior. The problem with the way patriarchy is taught in Christian circles is that a woman has no recourse until she "snaps" and leaves. Then she is bad for not overlooking transgressions, though that is what she has been attempting to do, sometimes at great cost to her own self worth, for many years.
My husband acknowledges that he has destroyed our relationship. I hope he gets help and finds happiness in his life. But, for my part, until he releases his emotional stranglehold on me I will be frustrated. This board (and my garden) have saved my sanity. It is a relief to see that I'm not alone in this, and to have a place to vent a bit to people who *understand*. It took a counselor 6 months to begin to understand the impact of his personality on me. And the women on these boards understand it completely!
Thank you! Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 31, 2009 11:54:39 GMT -5
Philosophia and Arietty, your stories moved me very deeply. I can hardly imagine how hard all that must have been. I am very fortunate that though I joined a Christian "cult," and my husband and I met and married in that cult, neither of us is a controlling person and we have had a happy and healthy marriage-- especially after we got out. I simply do not understand, though, why Christians hold up the "don't get divorced" idea to the exclusion of all other Bible teachings and all common sense. And so much insensitivity to the real feelings of real people-- so wed to theory that they can't even seem to see what's really happening.
So many people get hurt. It's horrible. You both have my deepest sympathy.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on May 31, 2009 14:27:27 GMT -5
Arietty, I am so glad you left him, and so sorry your decision was challenged so much.
|
|
|
Post by passionfruit on May 31, 2009 23:37:01 GMT -5
Wonderful post.
People who ask women why they stay in abusive relationships really don't know what position they're in. It's easy for people to ask why would someone stay in an abusive relationship.
Also, these kinds of problems are coming off as blaming the woman. There doesn't seem to be any condemnation for what the husband is doing. It's the woman who has to make sure her husband is in line.
No, that's not right.
Thank you for this post.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Jun 2, 2009 8:12:15 GMT -5
Thanks, Arietty. All I will say is that I'm glad your here with us instead of back there.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Jun 2, 2009 8:17:48 GMT -5
Philosophia - those people who say 'that's just the way men are' (inconsiderate, selfish, incompetent with little kids and housework, not thinking things through, not affectionate, blah blah blah) clearly don't think much of men. That reminds me of the argument pro-polygamy people often use: well, it's nice to have a sister-wife because she'll listen to you and help with the kids and do housework. It's the logical end of strict gender roles: a husband is going to make money, rules, and demands. If you want emotional support or practical help, better have a lady friend. Modern marriage (mostly) doesn't work that way - there are plenty of men out there who are involved, emotionally supportive partners and parents. Maybe not plenty, because there clearly aren't enough of them. But they do exist.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Jun 2, 2009 18:19:14 GMT -5
At one point in the marriage I talked to my pastor's wife about my husband's anger problems. She told me what she said to every woman in that church who came to her with marital problems (I know this because some extensive comparing of notes happened after they left that church)..
"Men are very very stressed these days and we must do everything we can to support them."
It's bizarre how men are both simultaneously supposed to be respected and looked upon as authority figures AND they are so infantilized. They are so easily stressed so you have to pander to them, they are dominated by their sexual impulses so you have to be always available to them, their emotional needs have to always come FIRST and if there are any, ANY problems in the marriage it all comes back to the woman.
So if the evidence of "stress" continued.. whether that evidence was drinking, anger, failure to care for the family then obviously this poor poor man was not getting enough support from his wife.
One woman in that church was always having counseling with the pastor's wife. I was in women's bible studies with her and she would often ask for prayer for her failings at being a wife and talk about how rocky their marriage was, how unhappy her husband was because of HER. I never could quite get what these failings were but this was a theme for many years for her. She was chastised by the pastor for talking about her marriage problems at one point because it was seen as undermining her husband. I ran into her some years later. She was divorced. Her husband after years of marriage and quite a few kids came out and told her he was gay and had always been gay. Apparently they get along fine now and co-parent happily. All I could think of was all those years of her trying to fix, under constant pressure to fix, something that was unfixable in that marriage except through the ending of it.
She was also told her husband was "very stressed", LOL!!
|
|
|
Post by lucrezaborgia on Jun 2, 2009 19:16:05 GMT -5
I read this in a pro-patriarchy blog the other day:
"Marriage is to make you holy, not happy."
Does this mean that only men should be happy because their happiness is important for their success in business and life? Is the man's happiness the ultimate barometer of family life and marriage? Does this mean for you Arieitty, that as long as your husband was happy, everything else was OK?
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Jun 2, 2009 19:32:03 GMT -5
What it means is STOP COMPLAINING.
"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." Romans 8:28
The truth is only women agonize over these things and try and mold their unhappiness into holiness, praying for the "refiner's fire" to burn off all the dross. Yes that's a big generalization but I have never heard of a married man applying this thinking to his own unhappiness.
In my experience unhealthy married men deal with their unhappiness by getting angry or developing a secret life (usually porn) or allowing work to take up their whole existence. Sometimes substance abuse too.
|
|
|
Post by lucrezaborgia on Jun 2, 2009 19:37:46 GMT -5
In my experience unhealthy married men deal with their unhappiness by getting angry or developing a secret life (usually porn) or allowing work to take up their whole existence. Sometimes substance abuse too. I think just about everyone does this when they are unhappy, tho your mileage may vary. But since when is a "successful" marriage THE measurement of stability in society? Especially since the early church seemed to advocate total chastity in situations where there was no sex at all, EVER.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Jun 2, 2009 19:52:30 GMT -5
Well my point is that dying to self when unhappy seems to be very attractive to christian women but I have never heard of men twisting themselves into knots to do so. I think men are more likely to act out in a christian marriage in response to unhappiness. Women, perhaps, are constrained by the need to be a good example to the children.
Healthy people deal with unhappiness by talking about it and examining it and seeing what part of themselves and/or their circumstances need adjusting.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Jun 2, 2009 19:59:12 GMT -5
So, to simplify it in response to unhappiness men don't do the whole "die to self" thing that women do. This doesn't seem to be in their vocabulary. There are literally hundreds of christian women's books all about how to die to self.. this is not limited to QF folks, it's straight evangelicalism.
If a christian man is unhappy he either acts out or deals with it in a healthy fashion, same as any man.
If a christian woman is unhappy she is very very likely to go down the dieing to self road. She will be led by the hand down this road by her counselors, her christian magazines, her women's bible studies.
I cannot even imagine a man being counseled in this manner!!
Really, this kind of blows my mind thinking about it.
|
|
jlp
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by jlp on Jun 2, 2009 21:01:25 GMT -5
"Marriage is to make you holy, not happy."
If the purpose of marriage isn't happiness, why get married? You can be made holy by singleness just as well as marriage. After all, didn't the apostle Paul say: 1 Cor 7: 1 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.
Hey, if the apostle Paul encouraged men not to marry, shouldn't men be taking that request more seriously.
|
|
|
Post by charis on Jun 2, 2009 21:44:52 GMT -5
If a christian woman is unhappy she is very very likely to go down the dieing to self road. She will be led by the hand down this road by her counselors, her christian magazines, her women's bible studies. I cannot even imagine a man being counseled in this manner!! Really, this kind of blows my mind thinking about it. Actually, I know of a ministry which counsels men this way and it is very refreshing! Here is a quote from Joel and Kathy Davisson's "Man of Her Dreams, Woman of His": QUOTE:Paul declared that men are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. They are to lay their lives down for their wives as Christ laid His life down for the church. The disciples were no doubt stunned, in shock and in awe. They witnessed the passion of Christ first hand – up close and personal. They watched Jesus get beat to a bloody pulp. They stood by in horror as He carried and then hung on that same cross, naked, unrecognizable and rejected by God. They were eyewitnesses to this love that their beloved Jesus expressed to His bride, the church. They watched Jesus lay His life down for His bride.
I am sure that they reeled with this information, asking in disbelief, “How can we, as mere men, possibly lay our lives down for our wives as completely as Christ laid His life down for the church? This will take a lifetime of dedication to my wife. At best, I will not come close to what I saw Jesus just do because He so loved His bride.”
Jesus did not look up from the ground and say, “If you do not submit to me, I will not die for you.” No. Jesus did not do that. He just died for His bride, regardless of her response. Yes, Jesus had the hope laid before Him that she would respond by loving and serving Him in return, but there were no guarantees. He had to die. First. With no strings attached. This is how a husband is to love his wife. There are no guarantees, but there is a promise, and this promise is that your wife will have a desire for you. (Genesis 3:16) This is a promise you can count on. But, you must die first. You must lay your life down for your wife first.
Do you see why traditional marriage teachings have failed the church? The church has taught for more than an entire generation that the success or failure of a marriage was solely dependent on a wife’s willingness to lay her life down in complete submission and service to her husband. (A generation is 40 years.) Women have been taught that if they will submit completely to their husband and follow his leadership in everything, that God would deal with him and that someday, he would be a good husband. It did not matter if he treated her rudely, yelled at her, called her names, or even treated her worse than his dog. She was simply to submit and pray.
This failed paradigm required a wife to function in the role of the husband, laying her life down for him as Christ laid His life down for the church. The church, for over 45 years, has taught marriage completely backwards! Is there any wonder that we have a 50% plus divorce rate in the church!
I guarantee that never once did an early church husband say to his wife, “You have to submit to me!” What an insult this would have been to the pain, agony and suffering that this husband witnessed Jesus go through for the church. When I hear a man declare, “My wife has to submit to me!” I want to scream at him in righteous anger, “How dare you worry about whether or not your wife is submitting to you? Have you died for her yet? Have you suffered in meeting her needs to the extent that Jesus suffered in dying for you? How dare you insult the blood of Jesus by demanding submission, when you have not yet begun to lay your life down for your wife in loving her, validating her, listening to her feelings, meeting her needs and serving her?” ENDQUOTE
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Jun 2, 2009 22:03:39 GMT -5
jlp: "If the purpose of marriage isn't happiness, why get married? " It seems like, for a lot of people, you get married so you can have sex. Since you're not allowed to, otherwise. And then they're stuck with the person they picked, at 20, for the opportunity to get into their pants. So many of the very religious kids I went to high school with were married by 21 and divorced by 25, it was ridiculous. Other reasons: because you can't think what to do next except get married, for the opportunity to move out of your parents house, to prove you're grown up, because you've gotta do it quick before you get shipped out. And then there are the good Christian men who feel they need a "helpmate" to pick up their dirty socks and help them run their ministry or whatever - people have mentioned that on the boards a couple times.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 2, 2009 22:16:58 GMT -5
Absolutely right, Charis. It isn't the Bible they're teaching-- it's selfishness.
It's helpful to remember that in ancient Greece, two people didn't fall in love and choose to get married, as they do today. The man would more or less purchase a young wife and bring her home to bear his children. It was a radical change in that culture to expect a man to not only love his wife, but sacrificially give himself to and for her. Note that the wife, who usually had no choice in who she married, was not asked to love her husband, but merely to yield to him of her own free will. What the passage was actually meant to do was bring the kind of love Jesus taught, into an ancient form of marriage that was hardly a natural breeding place for such love.
|
|
|
Post by momgodin on Jun 3, 2009 8:29:43 GMT -5
Okay. Got a question bcz I'm disturbed by what appears to be a new (to me) trend. Does this type of dysfunctional relationship (patriocentricity) encourage kinky-ness? I'll be satisfied with a "yes" or "no". I'm hearing a really straight, hyper-submissive woman advocate liberal bedroom rules, including sodomy. In my day, that was considered brutal and humiliating. Am I in the dark ages?
|
|