|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 11:13:46 GMT -5
I am as horrified by this family's beliefs as the rest of you, but I have to say that I'm really dismayed by the zero-sum way in which race is being discussed here.
To the first comment addressing it: Just because someone has experienced oppression in one area of hir life does not mean that said person understands oppression in any other. Why are so many of you offended by the fact that Theron Johnson is Black? Blacks are not de facto feminist allies on the basis of having been oppressed along the axis of race. White gays are not necessarily good anti-racist allies because they have experienced oppression as a result of heterosexism. Disabled cis people are not necessarily good trans allies because they have experienced oppression along the axis of disability. This kind of generalizing happens a *lot* wrt race, and I really think it needs to be questioned. As a queer person, I can barely stomach involvement in the mainstream LGBTQ movement in the aftermath of Prop 8, when a bunch of middle class gay whites blamed *Black residents of California* (rather than the Mormons or the Christian Right) for the bill's passage. When the mainstream LGBTQ movement has not *ever* addressed or reached out to the POC in our communities, *why* should we expect de facto support?
Nor do I think zero sum comments such as "how would he feel if a bunch of white supremacists moved to take away his right to vote?" are okay. I don't think it's okay to respond to oppression by using oppressive tools ourselves--even as rhetorical mechanisms.
Finally, if we're going to talk about race here, then let's talk about race.... One reason that it's disconcerting to see a Black man in the QF movement is that the movement is in *many* ways itself a racist movement (particularly when Dominionist politics are factored in). The aim of creating more and more "white babies" to make up God's army has been well-documented among scholars of QF and Christian fundamentalism. And yet... There is very little discussion of race on this blog. I suspect that that has something to do with the fact that most of the people *in* the movement don't know about its white supremacist roots and don't think of *themselves* as racists. That fact--along with the new trend of adopting babies from Africa--allows many QF families to circumvent discussions of racism or of their involvement in a racist movement. That said... It's an important part of all of this, and I hope to see more discussions about that in the future.
|
|
|
Post by castor on Oct 24, 2009 13:51:30 GMT -5
Km. I'm more than willing to talk about race. I'm also more than willing to explain why I made the comment I made. But reading the forums has made me rather tired today. So I won't do this today, but some other time (In short. I could have made a different comment too, not about Johnson but about his father in law. One that I made to a classmate some days ago. "What do you mean you don't "care" about our gender class? You are a white, heterosexual, middle class, able bodied, cis male living in a western society. You have all the privilege in the world. And you don't care? YOU? You of all people should care. And if I'd made it I would have meant it just as much as this comment. But I didn't make it. Because I was thinking, I understand why the white man is "blind", but not why the black man is. I *know* that blacks are not de facto feminist allies, I actually said that in my comment. But I don't really understand* (I do understand "automatic" sexism. Being sexist because that's what growing up in this society has conditioned you to be, but I don't understand active fighting for a sexist society.). But maybe it says something more about me that I didn't make the first comment and I did make the second, than "but it makes more sense for someone who doesn't fit into the mold of "the ideal" (or even the "real") human being in a patriarchal society? Maybe it's in a way even racist? If that's what you are thinking. Tell me so. And I'm willing to talk Hmm. That wasn't really short * I think my being not the "patriarchal norm" (stupid way of saying this, because more people aren't than are, but I don't know another) has helped me be aware other people's fights for equality too. I don't claim to understand what they are going through. I just know that patriarchy hurts them too. I hope, I expect, I would have also realized this if I had been a heterosexual (white etc etc, just naming the things I'm not now) man. But still, not being a heterosexual man has helped me realize it. And I might not be without for example racist or ableist, or even sexist and homophobic (I say "even" because I am myself a gay woman. Not because I think it's worse to be sexist or homophobic than to be racist or ableist) ideas/feelings, but I'm definitely not fighting for a society in which people who are not like me have less rights while simultaneously trying to make a better society for myself.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 14:52:14 GMT -5
Castor: In a way, yes, I do think it's racist to expect someone who is Black to "get it" anymore than anyone else. I'm about to run, but I'll come back to this later...
Or maybe I'm just a little more cynical about humanity than you. I don't tend to expect that one's oppression in any one area means that one is going to be an ally--or compassionate--about my oppressions or anyone else's.
Of course, I don't like the fact that *anyone* is sexist, but I do think--whatever the intent--that pointing out your anger over this because one happens to be Black--has racist undertones and consequences. It sounds very much like what so many white leaders in the gay movement said after Prop 8 passed: "How could the Black community *do this to us* when they're oppressed too?" (Note how the wording nicely elides the fact that there are Black people in the LGBTQ community too.) I think it's racist just 'cause... Members of oppressed groups are people just like the rest of us. Who's to say they're any less likely than anyone else to be bigoted assholes? How can we generalize about any single person based on hir demographic? It seems to me to be a fact of life that bigoted assholes exist in *most* groups, and I'm no more outraged seeing a Black man supporting QF than anyone else.
Furthermore... What has White Feminism done lately for Women of Color? It's not terribly shocking to me when people reject the feminist movement altogether. Dominant, mainstream forms of feminism have historically been unforgivably racist. So, no, it doesn't shock me to hear that anyone--especially someone from another historically oppressed group--is skeptical about it. Not to mention... In between all the shock about there being a Black man in QF, did anyone stop to think about the fact that this board has PoC members? Doesn't all of the noise about how "shocking" it is that there's a Black man in QF sort of exoticize these stories? I wouldn't want to post here if people were going to treat me like some weird novelty: "ZOMG, you're not WHITE. How could you live with QF given the fact that you had *experienced racism.*"
The thing is... Most women have experienced some form of gender-based discrimination over the course of our lives. Does that make us statistically more likely to be compassionate and to get forms of oppression that we don't experience as individuals? No, no it doesn't. I'm glad--and heartened--when I meet people who *have* learned about intersectional oppressions through their own struggles, but it doesn't happen very often. Anyway the point is just... That we've experienced one thing doesn't mean we "get" another, and not by a long shot. I was offensively ignorant about certain types of oppression until I educated myself and entered into communities of people who were not like me, but... That's not because I *don't* want to overturn all oppression, but because I hadn't been sufficiently exposed to different communities. And I've always thought of myself as a intersectional/Third Waver/postcolonial-focused feminist (and it's what I studied and wrote about in graduate school), but that doesn't mean I always "get it" about everything. Neither, I think, does everyone else. And neither do I expect it from someone whose oppression falls along a different axis of oppression from my own.
By the way, I'm not defending his--or anyone's--involvement in QF. I just think it's worth discussing why we tend to get so offended when we don't find people whose oppressions differ from ours to be allies.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 14:53:02 GMT -5
Hah, I was trying to be brief too, and too how well that turned out.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 14:57:42 GMT -5
It also seems cruel to me to appeal to someone's *actual oppression* in condemning his own bigoted views. As far as I can see, the anti-QF people here have plenty of good arguments that can be upheld without resorting to that kind of race-baiting.
|
|
|
Post by castor on Oct 24, 2009 15:09:48 GMT -5
Km. You make good points in your first post.
I have to say the term "race baiting" in your last post makes me a bit uncomfortable. If someone calls something I say racist, fine. Well not fine. But, thanks for pointing it out, so that I can think about it, and possibly change my thinking. But race-baiting. Ouch. (I reacted to someone talking about wanting more equality for themselves and less for others. Racist maybe probably certainly. But race-baiting?) But maybe you are right. And maybe the reason I'm uncomfortable is that you're right.
Edited to add. And this really doesn't change anything. But I dislike that I forgot my own reasons for writing something, and got them wrong in a later post. I didn't say the "second thing (see my last post) and not the first one because I did get that the white man was "blind" but not the black one. I wrote it because the black man talked about racism and how in an ideal society it would not exist. And I read the rest of the story, realized he was an able bodied man, heterosexual, probably cis, a pilot, he was the ideal person in a patriarchal society. Except for this one thing. And that was the thing he wanted to remove from the patriarchal ideal. That's what annoyed me. Not just seeing a black man who was living the quiverfull life. But I forgot. And I forgot I had read his comments, and I just guessed what I had been thinking when I wrote that earlier statement. Like I said, doesn't really change anything because if I thought that's what I had been thinking it could as well have been what I had been thinking, plus, what I really thought is not that much better. But I don't want to be wrong about my own reasons for something in a later post, so I'm correcting myself.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Oct 24, 2009 18:22:56 GMT -5
The aim of creating more and more "white babies" to make up God's army has been well-documented among scholars of QF and Christian fundamentalism. And yet... There is very little discussion of race on this blog. I suspect that that has something to do with the fact that most of the people *in* the movement don't know about its white supremacist roots and don't think of *themselves* as racists. That fact--along with the new trend of adopting babies from Africa--allows many QF families to circumvent discussions of racism or of their involvement in a racist movement. That said... It's an important part of all of this, and I hope to see more discussions about that in the future. This is all so troubling to me. I need some time to process this. Even thinking about it is just tearing down some of the things I believed about my family and not in a good way. My first feeling is that a different term than racism is needed in discussing this, because at least as far as I've seen it, it's about culture instead of just race - people of color, even if they are Christians, tend to be the "wrong type of Christian" - but no fear, we can turn them into the right type of Christian (including by adoption) and THEN their race doesn't matter. YMMV
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Oct 24, 2009 18:41:00 GMT -5
I think it started as a white movement (and yes there are some supremacists in the dominionist writers) and if it continues for another bunch of decades you will see it spreading to other racial groups. You can see similar dispersion in other christian movements.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Oct 24, 2009 20:12:23 GMT -5
Just read this in the comments section of the Sacramento News & Review article ( www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content?oid=1304920): As to Vickey garrison,yes indeed there some things to say about her testimony. 1.She already ahd a divorce in her twenties? what went wrong? Could there be bitterness about her ideals as to what a family was suppose to be? I think so. 2.Hers IS an example of extreme in ALL areas it seems,yes people sound,godly, biblical principles can be applied to the life in distorted ways,ala; Vickey,sad to say and we do sympothize with her wishing things could have turned out a blessing for her instead.She threw out the babies with the bathwater ie;My experiance with the quiverfull turned out bad therefore it ALL must be wrong for everyone else as well”. 3.Given the fact that she “doesnt regard the bible and she isnt hip to Jesus” proves my previous point,that is she never had the grace of God in her heart & life in the first place,she wasnt a Spirit filled believer and didnt know God.So when a religious but non Spirit filled/saved person tries to obey Gods ways in scripture there lives will always have variable degrees of distortion of Gods truth because it is spiritually discerned,and cannot be with an un converted mind.Think of the Pharisees in the bible,unblieving,religious men who took Gods good laws and made extremes out of them. So,may the Grace of God rule in our hearts by faith seeking His face with all diligence,something which the Johnsons have and thus share the beauty of the Lord in there lives and that which Vickey Garrison never had thus resulting in distorted attempts at what they THINK God wanted for them,miserable ending in personal tragedy,even though she is not outside of Gods redeeming love if she will but repent and believe. Yeah ~ I guess I've heard all of this before, so should be able to just blow it off, huh? ::shakes head::
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Oct 24, 2009 20:50:25 GMT -5
KM, I think castor honestly didn't understand why someone who was familiar with oppression in one context would be totally in favour of it in a different one. It's certainly true that understanding oppression issues in one area doesn't lead to intersectional understanding, but that truth is rather counterintuitive.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Oct 24, 2009 21:03:33 GMT -5
3.Given the fact that she “doesnt regard the bible and she isnt hip to Jesus” proves my previous point,that is she never had the grace of God in her heart & life in the first place,she wasnt a Spirit filled believer and didnt know God. Very sad. But when I see this, I figure that the person saying it is going through some powerful fear about their own spiritual security. After all, if a True (TM) Believer can, through her own decisions and choices, STOP believing then how can anyone be sure that they too will not at some point also stop believing? They thought that God had promised them assurance of salvation, but you seem to contradict that. The only solution is that you never really believed. Else they must recognize that their own faith could be in jeopardy. I think that this is a big contributor to the rules and "works" that you have to adhere to in QF. You or someone else asked in another thread about whether our previous churches truly taught salvation by faith in Jesus alone, or if other rules had to be followed before one was considered saved. When faith in Jesus is the only requirement, there can be a lot of internal confusion. Do I have the right kind of faith, do I have enough faith? But if you recall the parable of the sower, there were seeds that sprang up quickly but didn't take root, and seeds that were choked out by the thorns... how can you both believe that the Word of God can make an appearance and then die out but also that "faith as a mustard seed" (which is not the smallest of all seeds, lol) is enough to move mountains? Finding excuses to have other rules that "prove" that your faith took hold isn't just a way of controlling other people, but of alleviating their own fear about their own salvation. And so they point their fingers at you as one who "never truly believed".
|
|
chloe
New Member
Posts: 37
|
Post by chloe on Oct 25, 2009 14:28:21 GMT -5
I've been away for a while (flu that turned into bronchitis), but I posted a link to this story to one of my facebook accounts, in a thread on teaching about gender on contemporary culture. I noted that it made me angry.
So now the responses have all been about how we must be "tolerant" of such people who are "weird" but who should be allowed to live as they choose. Of course, I'm not advocating interfering with their right to do just that, but my anger at the way their daughters are being raised received exactly zero support.
And I know darn well that these same people are not tolerant of prejudice against race or sexual orientation. Somehow, though, patriarchal traditions that denigrate women get subsumed under the "cultural difference" umbrella much more easily. And that infuriates me.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Oct 25, 2009 14:46:25 GMT -5
I've been away for a while (flu that turned into bronchitis), but I posted a link to this story to one of my facebook accounts, in a thread on teaching about gender on contemporary culture. I noted that it made me angry. So now the responses have all been about how we must be "tolerant" of such people who are "weird" but who should be allowed to live as they choose. Of course, I'm not advocating interfering with their right to do just that, but my anger at the way their daughters are being raised received exactly zero support. And I know darn well that these same people are not tolerant of prejudice against race or sexual orientation. Somehow, though, patriarchal traditions that denigrate women get subsumed under the "cultural difference" umbrella much more easily. And that infuriates me. Hear hear! If I were your facebook friend, I'd call them out on that sexist crap. It pisses me off that in an age where homosexuals are finally beginning to gain a voice and racism is loudly condemned, somehow we're expected to give up the fight on women's equality because it's, what? obsolete? What is our culture smoking? When you've got a movement this large in a place as large as the US that treats women as subhuman incubators for male progeny, you haven't reached equality. Bleghhh... back to reading sexist history articles... can we all just go found a new planet, right now? This one sucks.
|
|
|
Post by castor on Oct 25, 2009 15:23:31 GMT -5
Chloe did you point out to the people who responded that these people who they (the commenters) want to have the right to live as they choose (and I agree with them here. Though like you, I think it's terrible to force this on your children) don't want this for other people? That they want a society in which everyone lives like they do? That they want laws that take away rights of other people to live the way those other people want to live? Laws that take away women's rights to vote for example?
I think it's great to allow other people to live their lives the way they want. But if living their lives the way they want means taking away my rights to live my life the way I want... well, I'm sorry, but no.
Of course there's a big chance that if you told the commenters this they would say these people are just some weirdos without any real influence on society (something I disagree with), and that therefore their ideas aren't a problem (something else I disagree with). And saying, pointing out their very real influence on, their very real power over their daughters apparently doesn't help, because you've already done that, and didn't get support.
Aww Sierra. Let's try to make this one better.
And Kisekileia, thanks. You are right, I honestly didn't understand.
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Oct 25, 2009 16:23:17 GMT -5
I wrote a really profound and insightful comment this morning, but accidentally deleted it. So you'll just have to settle for this one instead. This article really high-lighted what bothers me most about fundies, QF/P, and others of that ilk. It's the sloppy, lazy, egotistical, self-centered thinking. It's the equivalent of crapping in bed, pushing it out with your foot, and expecting someone else to clean up after you. Mr. Johnson's ideal society is one where personal freedom and liberty reign supreme, except for the one half of the adult population that's not allowed to vote, get an education or hold down a job, unless they're Sarah Palin! Whaaaaaat! ? Sorry, that's just what he tells himself. Excuse me, but if he's an airline pilot, he's probably got a girl at every stop! The fundie act probably goes buh-bye when he's out of Mrs. Johnson's sight. Poor Mrs. Johnson was raised to believe this crap. She never had a chance. But, then again, maybe she's not so dumb in the husband-picking arena (at least for a fundie). If you think about it, he's not around most of the time. How do you submit to someone who isn't there? Of course, people do that with God all the time. It's amazing how often God's interests line up with the interests of religion pushers. How do they manage to get it right all the time? Must be that spiritual discernment. Where can I get some of that? Do they sell it at Wal-mart. Wait, I'm getting someting...God says I should never, ever have to pay taxes, ever again. God said it, so there you have it. What? You want evidence? You must be lacking in spiritual discernment, bee-yotch. Blech. The racist angle - good discussion km, castor and all the rest. It is so easy to just expect someone to behave a certain way because of their race (or some other demographic). But people are so much more complicated than that, especially when it comes to religion. Religion can force a person to work against their own interests. At least Mr. Johnson has picked a belief system that puts him almost right at the top of the food chain. He's just one step down from the invisible man. Stupid, he's not! The "No True Scotsman" argument. Aaaarggghhh! Okay, how am I, an atheist-heathen-and-proud-of-it, supposed to know a real Christian from a fake Christian. Could y'all just label yourselves or something? I mean isn't your God is an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful type? Can't he just clarify these things a bit? After all, I'm just pond scum lacking in spiritual discernment. I read the Bible for content and it sounded like a bunch of hooey to me. Maybe your God should tighten that up some. And how in heck will I ever be saved if I keep staggering into the wrong church? Maybe I'd have a chance at salvation if things were clearly labeled. Just sayin'. Lack of tolerance toward fundies. That's hilarious. How much more tolerance would they like? They're allowed to practice their religion as they fit. They can bad mouth whoever they want and get away with it. When they run for public office, they've got built-in support. Their religious institutions are tax exempt. They're allowed to train up their children any way they want. Even if it means lying to them, stunting their potential, and leaving them without the skills necessary to survive in the world at large. They're allowed to discriminate against the women (or anyone else) in their own congregations. They are not held accountable for the tragic results of their belief system. Look at all those faith-healing parents in the news lately. They've killed their children through medical neglect. Fundies do not even have the decency to monitor the results of their belief system for their own sakes. I'd say they have it pretty good. Unfortunately, the bar they've set for themselves is very, very low. Eh, I just read back over this. It reads like I'm just venting my spleen. I guess I am. I feel much better though. Oh well, have a good rest of the day, all.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Oct 25, 2009 20:01:56 GMT -5
chloe soo very true! Abuse against women (children as well-- in assuming and pressuring and forcing the children into following their parent's way) is often seen as just so much more as "part of the culture" and we are supposed to respect it or we are being culturally imperialist. But culture is NEVER due any more respect than the people in it! And I choose to respect the people in the culture, and their right to relate to the various aspects of their culture as they wish, more than I will "respect THE culture" as some anthropologist described it somewhere-- these are people, not elements in some global zoo where accidents of birth are SUPPOSED to determine one's future course because of whatever aspects you got dealt in whatever "culture" (culture as defined by some powerful authority quite apart from the individuals: children/women/homosexuals, whoever's rights we're bartering away for cultural respect in any particular instance) you're parents are a part of. And margybargy, yay lol, what you say is very much true. Though I am encouraged to see a few more deadly "faith healing" episodes being properly investigated and convictions follow recently.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Oct 25, 2009 21:52:51 GMT -5
The problem with trying to support the freedom of people in other cultures - whether it's subcultures inside your own country, or trying to act in solidarity with people in other countries - is that it's hard on a practical level to be supportive of people who are trying to change the culture from inside without looking like an outside attacker. It gets even harder when you have resources they don't have - it's like the discussion we had about helping a friend who is getting more and more ideological. How do you do that without, ethically, impinging on her free will - and just as important, how do you do it without causing the family/group of people to close ranks against the threat?
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Oct 25, 2009 22:03:49 GMT -5
The problem with trying to support the freedom of people in other cultures - whether it's subcultures inside your own country, or trying to act in solidarity with people in other countries - is that it's hard on a practical level to be supportive of people who are trying to change the culture from inside without looking like an outside attacker. It gets even harder when you have resources they don't have - it's like the discussion we had about helping a friend who is getting more and more ideological. How do you do that without, ethically, impinging on her free will - and just as important, how do you do it without causing the family/group of people to close ranks against the threat? very true, but at least I can not choose to *support* the oppressive elements of a culture or family, or to kind of expect that they won't change so *I* can appreciate "cultural diversity." Because honestly, a lot of what I see as western action or speech aimed at supporting "other cultures" either attempts to define that culture itself and then impose those choices onto it, almost a "human zoo" if you will, or entirely ignores other voices FROM that culture that happen to come from the more disadvantaged within. The powerful are more noisy, and it's "easier" when being "culturally relativistic" or "respectful" or whatever, to not spend too much time trying to listen to the quieter voices.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Oct 25, 2009 22:42:46 GMT -5
KM, I wouldn't like to see discussion discounted or discouraged because it doesn't fit some PC formula.
If a man whose ancestors had to fight for the vote in much the same way as women did thinks it's just fine to disenfranchise women now, I'm going to call him on the hypocrisy and I don't think I have to protect him somehow because of his race. That would be condescending. I think he's an adult and can take the very sound criticism. I don't expect him to automatically "get it" but I do expect him to see the parallel if it is pointed out to him.
Sure, people of color don't always draw those conclusions and it's not automatically their job to look out for all other targeted people in our society. They have a hard enough time just dealing with the prejudice and discrimination they face every day.
But really, it's everybody's job to get educated about the reality others experience. It's not OK to hand down discrimination to another group just because one has been discriminated against. In fact, it prevents people from uniting in common causes to effectively address discrimination. If we remain in our own little gender/race/religion/ability/etc camps and only look out for our own, we miss a chance to organize on a larger scale.
It is a valid question: how would this guy react if he read a similar piece of journalism about white men who want to remove his hard fought right to vote? Not very well, I would imagine.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Oct 26, 2009 8:14:38 GMT -5
Just read this in the comments section of the Sacramento News & Review article ( www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content?oid=1304920): As to Vickey garrison,yes indeed there some things to say about her testimony. 1.She already ahd a divorce in her twenties? what went wrong? Could there be bitterness about her ideals as to what a family was suppose to be? I think so. 2.Hers IS an example of extreme in ALL areas it seems,yes people sound,godly, biblical principles can be applied to the life in distorted ways,ala; Vickey,sad to say and we do sympothize with her wishing things could have turned out a blessing for her instead.She threw out the babies with the bathwater ie;My experiance with the quiverfull turned out bad therefore it ALL must be wrong for everyone else as well”. 3.Given the fact that she “doesnt regard the bible and she isnt hip to Jesus” proves my previous point,that is she never had the grace of God in her heart & life in the first place,she wasnt a Spirit filled believer and didnt know God.So when a religious but non Spirit filled/saved person tries to obey Gods ways in scripture there lives will always have variable degrees of distortion of Gods truth because it is spiritually discerned,and cannot be with an un converted mind.Think of the Pharisees in the bible,unblieving,religious men who took Gods good laws and made extremes out of them. So,may the Grace of God rule in our hearts by faith seeking His face with all diligence,something which the Johnsons have and thus share the beauty of the Lord in there lives and that which Vickey Garrison never had thus resulting in distorted attempts at what they THINK God wanted for them,miserable ending in personal tragedy,even though she is not outside of Gods redeeming love if she will but repent and believe. Yeah ~ I guess I've heard all of this before, so should be able to just blow it off, huh? ::shakes head:: That's what the strict fundamentalist Hare Krishnas say about those of us who've left it behind. We must not have been sincere. We must not have truly understood the philosophy. We must have been unable to truly follow it because of our attachment to mundane sense gratification. We are in maya. Etc., etc., etc. It is frustrating to be told something about yourself that is not true. You know you were sincere, you know you were completely convinced, you know you tried to do everything expected of you according to their interpretation of the Bible, and you know what you felt towards Jesus in your heart at the time. These people need to be able to disregard what former members like us say about their path in order to keep doubts at bay themselves. They need to find a reason why we left that makes sense to them and doesn't threaten their world view.
|
|
|
Post by xara on Oct 26, 2009 14:45:22 GMT -5
I want to address the discussion about Theron Johnson not being able to draw the parallels between racism and sexism. I think a lot of the reason that this is upsetting to many is that for some, myself included, having experienced certain forms of oppression has made me more sensitive to it in areas where I am not the victim. But I have a very strong sense of empathy and have always been able to see things from another person's point of view. I don't claim that I am perfect about it or that I never oppress anyone, but if someone points out to me that I am doing so, I do try to think about it and change my actions going forward accordingly. I don't want to hurt anyone else therefore I make an effort not to. But I have noticed that some people feel a need to demean others to feel better about themselves. Or they just don't care about other people who are oppressed in ways that they personally do not feel. I don't think that is a healthy mindset but there is a lot of it out there. I do not understand that mindset and it is difficult for me to relate to. I understand that many people have it though. Can I wish that more people had a stronger sense of empathy toward others? Yes. But wishing doesn't make it so. Instead, I have had to learn to work with and around those who don't get the parallels and who don't have that sense of empathy because unfortunately they may be in the majority.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Oct 26, 2009 15:30:36 GMT -5
I want to address the discussion about Theron Johnson not being able to draw the parallels between racism and sexism. I think a lot of the reason that this is upsetting to many is that for some, myself included, having experienced certain forms of oppression has made me more sensitive to it in areas where I am not the victim. But I have a very strong sense of empathy and have always been able to see things from another person's point of view. I don't claim that I am perfect about it or that I never oppress anyone, but if someone points out to me that I am doing so, I do try to think about it and change my actions going forward accordingly. I don't want to hurt anyone else therefore I make an effort not to. But I have noticed that some people feel a need to demean others to feel better about themselves. Or they just don't care about other people who are oppressed in ways that they personally do not feel. I don't think that is a healthy mindset but there is a lot of it out there. I do not understand that mindset and it is difficult for me to relate to. I understand that many people have it though. Can I wish that more people had a stronger sense of empathy toward others? Yes. But wishing doesn't make it so. Instead, I have had to learn to work with and around those who don't get the parallels and who don't have that sense of empathy because unfortunately they may be in the majority. I agree completely. For my own part, awareness of the discrimination I faced as a woman in fundamentalist circles led to direct thinking about the oppression of racial minorities and the GLBT community. It's no end of frustrating to realise that others can react against their own oppression without making those connections and trying to correct their own prejudices. There may be something to be said for the willingness of oppressed men to seize onto the oppression of women as a means of climbing out of the abyss and linking themselves to the dominant white male ideology in hopes of gaining power. I'd argue this WRT Theron Johnson, though of course there are many enlightened men of all races who do see the parallels and avoid the trap. My fundamentalist church used to pride itself on its racial diversity. (We had people representing 5-10 countries there.) Wm. Branham believed in "keeping the races separate" in terms of relationships and offspring, but did not accept the idea of racial inferiority. Which seems to me like a bargaining chip he played against women. "Hey, guys! Dominate your wives and you can be just like the White Dude in Charge!"
|
|
|
Post by amanda on Oct 26, 2009 15:49:55 GMT -5
Wait, I'm getting someting...God says I should never, ever have to pay taxes, ever again. God said it, so there you have it. What? You want evidence? You must be lacking in spiritual discernment, bee-yotch. Blech. At work so posting quickly, but I just had to say... it's the "bee-yotch" that makes it art. Hee!!!!
|
|
|
Post by castor on Oct 26, 2009 16:56:43 GMT -5
I want to address the discussion about Theron Johnson not being able to draw the parallels between racism and sexism. I think a lot of the reason that this is upsetting to many is that for some, myself included, having experienced certain forms of oppression has made me more sensitive to it in areas where I am not the victim. But I have a very strong sense of empathy and have always been able to see things from another person's point of view. I don't claim that I am perfect about it or that I never oppress anyone, but if someone points out to me that I am doing so, I do try to think about it and change my actions going forward accordingly. I don't want to hurt anyone else therefore I make an effort not to. But I have noticed that some people feel a need to demean others to feel better about themselves. Or they just don't care about other people who are oppressed in ways that they personally do not feel. I don't think that is a healthy mindset but there is a lot of it out there. I do not understand that mindset and it is difficult for me to relate to. I understand that many people have it though. Can I wish that more people had a stronger sense of empathy toward others? Yes. But wishing doesn't make it so. Instead, I have had to learn to work with and around those who don't get the parallels and who don't have that sense of empathy because unfortunately they may be in the majority. I agree completely. For my own part, awareness of the discrimination I faced as a woman in fundamentalist circles led to direct thinking about the oppression of racial minorities and the GLBT community. It's no end of frustrating to realise that others can react against their own oppression without making those connections and trying to correct their own prejudices. There may be something to be said for the willingness of oppressed men to seize onto the oppression of women as a means of climbing out of the abyss and linking themselves to the dominant white male ideology in hopes of gaining power. I'd argue this WRT Theron Johnson, though of course there are many enlightened men of all races who do see the parallels and avoid the trap. My fundamentalist church used to pride itself on its racial diversity. (We had people representing 5-10 countries there.) Wm. Branham believed in "keeping the races separate" in terms of relationships and offspring, but did not accept the idea of racial inferiority. Which seems to me like a bargaining chip he played against women. "Hey, guys! Dominate your wives and you can be just like the White Dude in Charge!" I so very much agree with both of these posts. Which means I'm back to my original view... which, inside my head, I never really left... I don't think it was a bad thing km brought up racism, I think it's good to think about racism, to wonder "is this racist? am I being racist?" (and I might have to think about it a bit more in the context of connection of oppressions). But her race bashing comment... it shocked me. I didn't feel I had been race bashing, but even more than that I didn't want to have done it, and if I had done it, I had done something so very very wrong. Oh my. I had done something so... Well I guess I've learned something about myself now. Some words scare me. Like "you are race bashing". And they stop me from thinking for myself. I didn't want to know that. But now I do. And after refinding my brain, and having thought about it, I still find views like Theron Johnson's upsetting. For the same reasons I found them upsetting before, including the oppression one.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Oct 26, 2009 19:35:37 GMT -5
Just read this in the comments section of the Sacramento News & Review article ( www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content?oid=1304920): As to Vickey garrison,yes indeed there some things to say about her testimony. 1.She already ahd a divorce in her twenties? what went wrong? Could there be bitterness about her ideals as to what a family was suppose to be? I think so. 2.Hers IS an example of extreme in ALL areas it seems,yes people sound,godly, biblical principles can be applied to the life in distorted ways,ala; Vickey,sad to say and we do sympothize with her wishing things could have turned out a blessing for her instead.She threw out the babies with the bathwater ie;My experiance with the quiverfull turned out bad therefore it ALL must be wrong for everyone else as well”. 3.Given the fact that she “doesnt regard the bible and she isnt hip to Jesus” proves my previous point,that is she never had the grace of God in her heart & life in the first place,she wasnt a Spirit filled believer and didnt know God.So when a religious but non Spirit filled/saved person tries to obey Gods ways in scripture there lives will always have variable degrees of distortion of Gods truth because it is spiritually discerned,and cannot be with an un converted mind.Think of the Pharisees in the bible,unblieving,religious men who took Gods good laws and made extremes out of them. So,may the Grace of God rule in our hearts by faith seeking His face with all diligence,something which the Johnsons have and thus share the beauty of the Lord in there lives and that which Vickey Garrison never had thus resulting in distorted attempts at what they THINK God wanted for them,miserable ending in personal tragedy,even though she is not outside of Gods redeeming love if she will but repent and believe. Yeah ~ I guess I've heard all of this before, so should be able to just blow it off, huh? ::shakes head:: That's what the strict fundamentalist Hare Krishnas say about those of us who've left it behind. We must not have been sincere. We must not have truly understood the philosophy. We must have been unable to truly follow it because of our attachment to mundane sense gratification. We are in maya. Etc., etc., etc. It is frustrating to be told something about yourself that is not true. You know you were sincere, you know you were completely convinced, you know you tried to do everything expected of you according to their interpretation of the Bible, and you know what you felt towards Jesus in your heart at the time. These people need to be able to disregard what former members like us say about their path in order to keep doubts at bay themselves. They need to find a reason why we left that makes sense to them and doesn't threaten their world view. Also note how Vyckie's views are labeled "bitterness" because of her first divorce. I've always been aware that I'm forever tainted in the church because of my divorce, anything strongly worded I might say about marriage or men can be labeled "bitterness" and discarded.
|
|