|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Nov 6, 2009 11:41:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by whatkindofwoman on Nov 6, 2009 12:02:00 GMT -5
I can't even figure out what to say right now. You're just such a gift, Vyckie.
|
|
|
Post by whatkindofwoman on Nov 6, 2009 12:10:14 GMT -5
Okay, now I have something to say.
I just skimmed the intro and first chapter of Rachel's book. Oh my. It looks so manipulative. Also looks like amateur theology on the loose. Later when I'm more awake and able to put up my mental defenses, I'll read it more closely. With glass of brandy in hand. Her writing looks dangerous.
Just realized she probably wouldn't believe that I'm Christian, either.
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Nov 6, 2009 12:17:27 GMT -5
Wow! Very interesting. I watched the show and I was a lot puzzled by Rachel's weaselly definition of submission. I went to her website while I was watching and found the stuff you put in your post. Extremely scary and delusional.
I wonder what really goes on in Rachel's house. And I wonder what someone like Doug Phillips would have to say about Rachel.
|
|
|
Post by stampinmama on Nov 6, 2009 13:39:51 GMT -5
I was hoping you'd share on your blog about this. I had read the whole transcript even before you posted about it. I wanted to know what was said. Even reading the transcript had me shaking my head.
Everything you said makes SO much sense. And yet she passes off the rest of us like crazy people.
The woman is psychotic!!
I hope this gets seen.......and did you send a copy to Joy?
|
|
|
Post by alwayslearning on Nov 6, 2009 14:55:47 GMT -5
Thank you so much for your honesty in this post. I agree with you 100%. Rachel Scott is definitely not the face of the Quiverfull movement. Children in public school??? I was shocked. Working part-time??? Unheard of!!! She doesn't sound like any women I knew in my "home fellowship" days (except those "Mainstream Christians"... you know, the ones who we all thought we were better then). You make a very good point regarding the difficulties in finding a Quiverfull wife who would be willing to talk. Speaking for myself, I was too fearful, and by then had lost the little self-confidence that I started with. I couldn't possibly have handled myself in a situation like that. After all, I was used to deferring those types of situations to my husband. I pretty much stayed in the background and kept the kids quiet and well-behaved. Well.... that and baked bread.
|
|
|
Post by whatkindofwoman on Nov 6, 2009 15:23:42 GMT -5
JOYCE: ...there`s a secondary set of motivations that are written in there by the leaders, saying, if several generations of Christians put their fertility in God`s hands, then within a few decades, we`re going to have a vastly increase numbers and we`re going to be able to enact some of the culture war principles that we`re fighting for.
BEHAR: What do you say to that?
SCOTT: Well right now the fastest growing segment of society is Latinos. If you look at the figures, I think it`s one -
Um, that's EVASION! Not answering the question!
|
|
|
Post by jadehawk on Nov 6, 2009 16:34:49 GMT -5
ok, I have a whole bunch of things about this I wanna mention, so I'll split it up a bit so this post doesn't turn into a wall o'text.
1)It really bugs me that a lot of these controversial topics are treated in a "he said, she said" format in the media now. everything is opinion. there's no facts, no evidence presented, there's no confrontation when someone lies. I said that about the Fox 9 story, too. Just interviewing two people with two different points-of-view is not really journalism; you can't get to the bottom of an issue if you just ask people questions and take what they say at face-value. Now, I understand that Joy can't be researching everything for all her shows, but isn't that what the underlings are for? you'd think they'd be able to give her some information and some facts on the people and topics on her show, so she would be able to confront someone when they're blatantly lying and contradicting themselves.
2)When Rachel talks about how feminism resulted in women having too much on their plate, well, she's got a point. I mentioned this in chat, but there was a study recently that said that when a couple moves in together, the man does one hour less housework than before, while the woman does five hours more. the problem is that while women went out into the workforce, the men haven't (yet?) stepped in and taken over their fair share of housework. The solution is not to have women withdraw from the workforce (and it's not even like QF really does this. many women in QF have home-businesses, but they're still working!), but to get guys to do more than just take out the trash and cook an occasional meal.
3)Rachel saying that Quiverful is going mainstream reminded me of something only marginally related: not too long ago I ended up watching a series of Japanese movies. And in all of them, but especially the last one, there was an undertone of a sort of social taboo about large families. the last movie I watched was about this woman who had 4 or 5 children, but left them to fend for themselves while she worked in another city. and every time more than 2 of the kids went somewhere together, the adults would give them looks, and the kids would say things like "she's our niece", or "we're babysitting", or "these are friends of mine". The kids were actively embarrassed by having so many siblings. Now, I have no idea what in Japanese society makes large families embarrassing, but the seeds of such a thing are visible in American & European societies, too. So anyway, I suspect the mainstream in America and Europe is rather moving in that direction in the long term, rather than in the direction of more and more large families.
|
|
|
Post by pandapaws on Nov 6, 2009 16:52:29 GMT -5
In her book, “Raising God’s Mighty Warriors,” Rachel equates unsubmissive women with the Old Testament practitioners of witchcraft, divination, idolatry, and fortune-telling. She goes so far as to suggest that this sin of rebelliousness may be the reason why some women experience infertility.
Oh, so that's my problem! LOL.
Her way of evading questions and not being truthful remind me of the pastor that was interviewed for that fox clip Vyckie posted today. If you believe something stand up for it....don't go bullshitting to the rest of us so you can appear "normal."
I wish Joy had researched her more and could have confronted her with her own words like you have in this post, Vyckie.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Nov 6, 2009 20:44:25 GMT -5
What is her agenda of trying to promote QF ideas as mainstream and hiding the truth of what she says in her book? If she believes all that stuff why isn't she wanting to promote it? It's not like she has some side business that she wants to promote without tarnishing it in some way with wackiness.
I don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Nov 7, 2009 12:53:36 GMT -5
Thank you so much for your honesty in this post. I agree with you 100%. Rachel Scott is definitely not the face of the Quiverfull movement. Children in public school??? I was shocked. Working part-time??? Unheard of!!! She doesn't sound like any women I knew in my "home fellowship" days (except those "Mainstream Christians"... you know, the ones who we all thought we were better then). While Rachel Scott does not typify the evangelical QF movement, she's not the only woman who buys into part of the message (no birth control, god controls family size), while not buying into all of the message (home school, home church, dresses only). Many Catholic families would fall into this category. My question would be whether accepting ANY of QF is harmful, or if it's possible to actually have a lifestyle that's not sheltered or patriarchal while still rejecting birth control. The major problem with Rachel Scott seems to be that she endorses patriarchy, telling other women what to do in an abusive fashion, while she personally does whatever she considers most beneficial to herself- she's a hypocrite in a harmful way- she's like a corrupt televangelist. But minus the hypocritical message... how would you consider a woman who had eight children for religious reasons, but sent them to public school, and worked part time? Would the unlimited children for Jesus qualify that person as QF (and in a bad situation, even if she doesn't realize it), or can a person be anti-family planning and have a healthy life?
|
|
calulu
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by calulu on Nov 7, 2009 13:29:05 GMT -5
I really got the impression that this woman is a wacko that only wanted to promote herself in a 'look at me I'm so so special and perfect'. It was so infuriating. Vyckie you did well in appearing composed and rational in contrast to someone with clear personality disorders.
|
|
|
Post by km on Nov 7, 2009 13:57:48 GMT -5
I have very little time, so this is really superficial commentary. That said, I wanted to point it out... I feel sorry for the poor child she named Leviticus. Wow... Way to mark your child as Coming from a Highly Rule-Oriented Family.
More substantially, the woman's comments made me want to throw things at the televion. Vyckie, I liked your analysis a lot, and I also wish Joy Behar had done more background research. I have watched the videos that are online about the Nov. 10 Secret Lives of Women episode, and it definitely looks like that's more serious journalism with actual fact-checking.
It was the first time I'd watched Joy Behar's show, though I've seen The View. I know she's a comedian and not a journalist by trade, so I wonder if that has something to do with the tone of her show--and the lack of fact-checking?
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Nov 7, 2009 16:38:53 GMT -5
Hi All I am determined to stay away from the computer and just relax this weekend ~ the weather is beautiful here, and after this past super busy week, I really need to chill. John and I had lunch with Mimi this afternoon ~ Wayne came too and he really is not looking so good. All the sudden, he's aging really fast and, as John observed, he seems to have lost his will to fight ~ like he's just waiting to die. That's a lot for Mom to deal with ~ please take a minute to send her a PM of encouragement and support. I did want to put a note here to say that I have never resorted to personal putdowns and ad hominem arguments ~ and since this "Why Did She Do That?" post was very much a name-calling smack down on Rachel Scott ~ I'm going to add a bit of explanation ~ though I have no intention of apologizing or retracting what I have written. The reason I focused on Rachel as a person is because she insisted that we do so on the Joy Behar Show. I would be glad to discuss specific issues with Rachel ~ and in fact, I did provide quotations from her website and book to show how she contradicted her own stated beliefs ~ and then I call her a liar. I believe it is entirely appropriate in this situation to point out specific character traits such as Rachel's abusive style of relating. Joy's bewilderment ~ so evident in the look on her face and the question she asked, So it's not total patriachy like in the preview that I watched? ~ along with Kathryn's dazzed and distracted countenence after the show made it quite plain to me that we were dealing with a crazy-maker and THAT is the central issue here. Those two ladies went into the interview with the idea that we were actually going to talk about Quiverfull and its quirky little particulars ~ patriarchy included. But the idea of logical and rational conversation never entered Rachel's head ~ she was there to talk about her ~ to convice us with her perky voice and big grin that she is extraordinarily happy. Rachel used every trick she had in her big bag of illusions to keep us from actually considering the issues. I stood by with my rationalizations and excuses for way too long while Warren drove Angel over the edge with his overbearing, steamrolling manner ~ and I'm just not willing to put up with those tactics any more. These days, I have labels which enable me to recognize abusive behavior and name it ~ so that's what I did. And, in truth ~ what I wrote on the blog was very much a toned down version of what I might have said if I hadn't waited a few days to cool down before I wrote. I actually left out quite a lot of Rachel's despicable behavior while she was in NYC. I did an "NLQ Chat Room Exclusive" in which I detailed the assault which Rachel and her friend laid on Kathryn and me in the hotel bar after the show. For those who missed it, sorry! It was pretty wicked. And speaking of the chat room ~ I am considering keeping it open. Let me think of some ways to make it work and I'll come up with something by Monday. Until then ~ I'm getting away from the computer and taking it easy. Hope you all have a lovely weekend.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Nov 7, 2009 17:58:53 GMT -5
I stood by with my rationalizations and excuses for way too long while Warren drove Angel over the edge with his overbearing, steamrolling manner ~ and I'm just not willing to put up with those tactics any more. These days, I have labels which enable me to recognize abusive behavior and name it ~ so that's what I did. GOOD FOR YOU! I know it can be hard Vyckie because when you stand up to this stuff you end up being the person not having the pleasant conversation, the hardass, the one being anal about words.. been there, done that, it is all a part of the crazy making way devaluing what you have to say. But who cares.. the point is to no longer be under the steam roller. Thank you for writing the post!! Really I wonder what the heck Rachel thinks is going to happen when she puts herself out there with all this cheery evasion.. because her actual words and ideas are right there in print for everyone to read.
|
|
jlp
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by jlp on Nov 7, 2009 22:17:16 GMT -5
"Instead, I want to say that Rachel Scott did not go on the Joy Behar Show as a representative of the Quiverfull movement ~ she went on the show to represent and promote Rachel Scott."
That happens so much in religious circles.
|
|
|
Post by justflyingin on Nov 8, 2009 9:43:56 GMT -5
"Instead, I want to say that Rachel Scott did not go on the Joy Behar Show as a representative of the Quiverfull movement ~ she went on the show to represent and promote Rachel Scott." That happens so much in religious circles. This happens so much in MOST circles....
|
|
|
Post by aussiemama on Nov 8, 2009 9:46:17 GMT -5
I know a lot of quiverfull women who will try to pretend they are so happy, and they'll tell you so, yet they all look extremely miserable, hardly ever smile, and they bully other women. I think they bully other women to make up for the lack of any kind of control they have in their marriages.
|
|
jeb
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by jeb on Nov 8, 2009 10:47:03 GMT -5
I know a lot of quiverfull women who will try to pretend they are so happy, and they'll tell you so, yet they all look extremely miserable, hardly ever smile, and they bully other women. I think they bully other women to make up for the lack of any kind of control they have in their marriages. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ This comment of yours, aussiemama, hit the nail RIGHT ON THE HEAD with regards to these women bullying other women. I've witnessed this and have been scratching my head trying to figure it out but you called it like it is. Thank you. Y'all treat each other nicely now, eh? John
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Nov 8, 2009 11:41:23 GMT -5
I know a lot of quiverfull women who will try to pretend they are so happy, and they'll tell you so, yet they all look extremely miserable, hardly ever smile, and they bully other women. I think they bully other women to make up for the lack of any kind of control they have in their marriages. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ This comment of yours, aussiemama, hit the nail RIGHT ON THE HEAD with regards to these women bullying other women. I've witnessed this and have been scratching my head trying to figure it out but you called it like it is. Thank you. Y'all treat each other nicely now, eh? John I agree with aussiemama's comment, too. In my experience, there's another manifestation besides bullying other women: it's developing pathologically obsessive relationships with eldest children, especially sons. I've known more than one woman whose eldest son served as a demi-husband with whom the woman felt she could express herself. It allowed her to have some modicum of authority in the relationship, whereas with her actual husband she wasn't allowed to act as anything but his appendage. This meant, unfortunately, a lot of stifled sons who were never given the emotional freedom to leave home - and it meant hell for the young women they liked. I used to always think, when discussions of submission came up in church, that the whole patriarchal model took all the romance out of marriage. It felt like a business model. How could I love someone when I felt like I was to be the subordinate middle-manager of children to his CEO-of-the-household? As someone with the deep need to intellectually and emotionally connect in a relationship, there was just no room for discussion, as discussion is stifled by hierarchy. So I gave the whole thing up and decided I would be a single cat lady forever - until I ultimately threw away the system and found an equal partnership. If I had to choose between patriarchy and cats, though, I'd still be all about the cats. ;D
|
|
|
Post by journey on Nov 8, 2009 12:02:43 GMT -5
I know a lot of quiverfull women who will try to pretend they are so happy, and they'll tell you so, yet they all look extremely miserable, hardly ever smile, and they bully other women. I think they bully other women to make up for the lack of any kind of control they have in their marriages. This described me, then. I tried to talk myself into how happy I was, and I did a good job of convincing others, too. It wasn't an outright lie or a desire to manipulate people. It honestly came from the desire to do things God's way, to not be like Satan who rebelled (and asked *questions*, or so I was taught was his main problem)... I believed that I *had* to be happy or I was in sin, if that makes any sense. I was taught that the way I related to my husband was a direct reflection of the way I thought about and related to God. So if I felt that my husband made me miserable, that meant that I felt *God* made me miserable, etc...(oh no! rebellion! I'm in league with Satan!)... So I worked very hard to MAKE myself be happy. Add to that the fact that outward appearance was *very* important to my husband, the fine art of making everyone think you are great and have it all together, so I think at some point, I got bit by that bug, in that there was also this bit of, "let's look good for everyone" thing too going in my head, because I can look back now at times when I played along with the "look-good" game and the only reason for doing it was to keep people impressed with how great we were...I would measure our relationship by how we looked to others, and therefore thought it truly was amazing....that the bad times were just this weird anomoly that would go away someday, if I could only try harder and do more (since it was somehow my fault)... I was just so afraid of failure and rejection, in general. I got so used to living for the approval of my husband, that soon it morphed into living for the approval of everyone around us. That's such an impossible way to live. I also can look back and see times when I bullied other women and though I didn't believe it then, I quickly nod my head NOW and realize that it was all about needing to be in control of SOMETHING... I actually remember a year when I would go online daily to a Christian women's message board with the sole purpose of finding someone who was doing something (I deemed) wrong and "correcting" her. It gave me such a thrill... It is totally embarrassing now, to think that I did that, but then... The main thing was being "right" in my marriage, was doing everything perfectly (inside and out) and I was trying so desperately to do that for someone who was never actually satisfied, who would never say, "You did it." It was never ever good enough. I think, now, that I took those feelings of powerlessness and hopelessness at ever achieving the desired perfection and found a touch of solace in bullying others (in God's name, of course--groan) and making sure they knew that they weren't perfect, but if they'd only follow my oh-so-wise advice (on things I had no business giving advice about, being that young), they would be.
|
|
|
Post by stampinmama on Nov 8, 2009 12:21:26 GMT -5
I really hate how these QF women think that feminism is about NOT embracing motherhood or that it's an evil thing that has destroyed women.
True feminism is about equality. It's not about superiority.
It has nothing to do with downplaying motherhood.
UGH!
|
|
|
Post by stampinmama on Nov 8, 2009 12:22:05 GMT -5
Vyckie-
i missed the conversation in the chat room about what happened in the bar with Rachel and her friend. I'd really like to hear about what happened if you care to share.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Nov 8, 2009 12:37:24 GMT -5
Since you have more insight into abusive women, does it make you more sympathetic to them?
I read Sierra's post with interest, because my former mother in law had a pathological obsession with my ex-husband... and I was the threat coming between her and him. But even understanding where she might be coming from did not give me an iota more sympathy toward her. Many men who are abusers were abused or witnesses of abuse as children, yet we don't let them off the hook. But when women are abusive, do we give them more leeway because it probably all leads back to some man anyway?
I feel like my ex-MIL's abusive emotional attacks on me and my marriage were just as damaging as if she had physically molested me. And note that I don't equate ALL bullying this way- especially not a situation like Journey bullying women on internet message boards. This woman spent my entire marriage trying to undermine me, trying to make me irrelevant, trying to make me a stranger in my own home... I really don't care what anyone else did to her to make her that way.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Nov 8, 2009 12:54:36 GMT -5
Since you have more insight into abusive women, does it make you more sympathetic to them? I read Sierra's post with interest, because my former mother in law had a pathological obsession with my ex-husband... and I was the threat coming between her and him. But even understanding where she might be coming from did not give me an iota more sympathy toward her. Many men who are abusers were abused or witnesses of abuse as children, yet we don't let them off the hook. But when women are abusive, do we give them more leeway because it probably all leads back to some man anyway? I feel like my ex-MIL's abusive emotional attacks on me and my marriage were just as damaging as if she had physically molested me. And note that I don't equate ALL bullying this way- especially not a situation like Journey bullying women on internet message boards. This woman spent my entire marriage trying to undermine me, trying to make me irrelevant, trying to make me a stranger in my own home... I really don't care what anyone else did to her to make her that way. Oh, atheistBB, I wasn't trying to excuse women like this in any way. I think they are absolutely in control of their own behaviour. I believe that people's actions do result from their experiences but not deterministically so - we can be held accountable not to abuse others even though we may feel the urge to displace the abuse that is thrust upon us. I have made this choice and constantly monitor my own behaviour, so I think others can, too. Some of the absolute worst emotional abuse I faced as a teenager came from this kind of woman. I was in a pseudo-relationship with a church boy for a few years and his mother decided she hated me. We were just friends, really, with some unacknowledged feelings that were probably put there by all the would-be matchmakers in the church. I explicitly resisted this with some horror for years until I began to think I might like him after all - everyone was so sure we were meant to be together. His mother imposed rules for me that did not apply to any other young women - we had to tote around Sven's younger brother as a chaperone whereas other girls she liked got to drive with him wherever they wanted. She used to interpose herself when we talked on AIM and read our chat logs. She made him throw away gifts I gave him, including a $50 leather hat I got him to match the coat she bought him! She talked about other girls to him in my presence constantly. She filled their house with pictures of another family that had a girl she hoped to set him up with (and succeeded, after I left). Worst of all, I spent so much of my life trying to win her affections. I brought her flowers. I cleaned her house (even lint-rolled the lampshades) better than I'd ever cleaned my own (and I'm a neat freak). I baked her cookies. I went out of my way to talk nicely to her so she would finally stop seeing me as a threat. It never worked. Her husband liked me, which broke my heart - he was a sweet, easygoing man who let her do as she pleased. I think she felt he was failing as a patriarch and took out her frustration by clinging to her son and trying to make her husband act more authoritarian. I used to talk to him and share coffee and always wished so hard that he were my father... I still miss him but I will never be able to talk to him again, for obvious reasons. What was her son's role in all this? Well, he was completely passive. He got depressed, almost dropped out of college. He barely scraped through with a history degree and got a job in a restaurant because he couldn't get into grad school anywhere. When I got to college, I had an eye-opening conversation with someone who would become a friend - when I described my situation, he said, "No, you're not in a relationship." I was flabbergasted - I knew I didn't have a boyfriend, but I didn't not have one, either - did I?! It rocked my world and I was quite angry for a few days. Then I felt that rush of liberty. I began to think about how he treated me and realised that it wasn't really that good. I began to realise that his mother dominated his life so much that he wasn't really a whole person. And then one dramatic incident - about which I'll write in my series when I get there - caused me to kick him to the curb. ;D Six months later I met the guy of my dreams - well, actually, he surpassed my dreams. I hadn't been able to dream of anything as good as true equality and respect, since I'd never seen it before.
|
|