|
Post by susan on Feb 16, 2010 15:24:39 GMT -5
KM -- DD stands for "dear daughter" DH for "dear husband" also .... DW for "dear wife" DS for "dear son."
|
|
|
Post by cereselle on Feb 16, 2010 16:12:35 GMT -5
Rather than having mandatory interventions, what about a whole bunch of optional community services which families can partake in as they choose?
Given the QF/P terror of involving their children with anything of "the world," I can't imagine that they'd join in with the community for any of these. Not that it's not a great idea-- I'm all for community-building activities. It just seems like it'd be one more thing for QF/P families to fear.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 16, 2010 16:37:11 GMT -5
Rather than having mandatory interventions, what about a whole bunch of optional community services which families can partake in as they choose?
Given the QF/P terror of involving their children with anything of "the world," I can't imagine that they'd join in with the community for any of these. Not that it's not a great idea-- I'm all for community-building activities. It just seems like it'd be one more thing for QF/P families to fear. Yes. That's why I said that it's not an absolute safeguard. I don't think anything is. But do you really think ALL QF/P families would fear having some cooperative dinners in a local neighborhood center with other families? Or fear using public transportation or a neighborhood laundry facility, if these things were cheap enough to be affordable (meaning cheaper than driving or using their own washer and drier)? I ask this because I know some QF/P-leaning moms of large families who have voluntarily chosen to attend church dinners, even though the food was less crunchy than what they'd personally choose, because it was just so nice to get a break from cooking one night a week. I also know at least one family that sometimes voluntarily goes to the laundromat when they get behind on their laundry, so they can do more loads at once. At least, they did this until they installed more washers and driers in their basement . Of course, I suppose a neighborhood center might be more scary to these parents than a church-based center. Hmmm.
|
|
|
Post by runawaybride on Feb 16, 2010 16:47:33 GMT -5
IF they went to a neighborhood center, it would only be to either openly evangelize or to set an example. The first could cause trouble, the second, well hey, whatever floats your boat.
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 16, 2010 17:29:40 GMT -5
Susan: Yes, I think optional services would be fantastic.
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 16, 2010 17:32:27 GMT -5
Rather than having mandatory interventions, what about a whole bunch of optional community services which families can partake in as they choose?
Given the QF/P terror of involving their children with anything of "the world," I can't imagine that they'd join in with the community for any of these. Not that it's not a great idea-- I'm all for community-building activities. It just seems like it'd be one more thing for QF/P families to fear. Yeah, this too. I was about to say something about this issue. But I still think having community options available would be useful. It might also keep people a little more grounded--and less terrified of what's actually out there.
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 16, 2010 17:36:12 GMT -5
Yes. That's why I said that it's not an absolute safeguard. I don't think anything is. But do you really think ALL QF/P families would fear having some cooperative dinners in a local neighborhood center with other families? Or fear using public transportation or a neighborhood laundry facility, if these things were cheap enough to be affordable (meaning cheaper than driving or using their own washer and drier)? I have known families who have sort of...run the gamut of extremism (all cape-dresses and headcoverings a few years ago, but now the kids play soccer in a local league). Maybe the more isolated and lonely some women start to feel in this lifestyle, the more they'd be willing to open up and let some outside influences in. I think it's absolutely crucial to have services available (including free day care services for those who need it).
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Feb 17, 2010 9:18:43 GMT -5
What do dd and dh stand for? dear husband dear daughter It's just interwebs short-hand ETA: doh! susan already answered that.
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Feb 17, 2010 11:26:59 GMT -5
Yes. That's why I said that it's not an absolute safeguard. I don't think anything is. But do you really think ALL QF/P families would fear having some cooperative dinners in a local neighborhood center with other families? Or fear using public transportation or a neighborhood laundry facility, if these things were cheap enough to be affordable (meaning cheaper than driving or using their own washer and drier)? I have known families who have sort of...run the gamut of extremism (all cape-dresses and headcoverings a few years ago, but now the kids play soccer in a local league). Maybe the more isolated and lonely some women start to feel in this lifestyle, the more they'd be willing to open up and let some outside influences in. I think it's absolutely crucial to have services available (including free day care services for those who need it). Yeah. I think a lot of people burn out on it and lighten up. I think its pretty hard to maintain the extreme beliefs and super strict lifestyle. Life gets in the way. I like the ideas about opening up our society more. Me and dh met a bunch of our neighbors when we were installing a new driveway. Putting that dw in forced us to be out front in the evening and on weekends. Tons of neighbors stopped by to chat. Some even helped out, which was awesome! It really made life a whole lot more pleasant and fun. I guess my point is that people really are looking to be more connected, they just don't have many opportunities. I think public transportation would be a huge help in a lot ways. When I had this super long commute, I'd day dream about going to work on a train.
|
|
|
Post by musicmom on Feb 17, 2010 12:14:33 GMT -5
I think a lot of these ideas to open up families to the community are already more commonplace in Europe. Many families don't even have care and we've already talked about the free child-care in many countries there.
In many ways, having families individually responsible for all of their own laundry, cooking and childcare is just a waste of time, money and resources.
IMHO, it is the combination of the isolation and the overwhelming housework/childcare that drives many women over the edge into destructive behavior. For me, the destructive behavior was getting deeper and deeper into the QF lifestyle since I needed the philosophy just to keep me going.
Getting together with other families for common tasks seems great to me. It's all so very unnatural the way we have it set up, I think.
|
|
|
Post by justflyingin on Feb 18, 2010 9:53:30 GMT -5
I didn't mean to be mean-spirited. I just disagree and when you speculate a lot, you lose validity. If that is mean-spirited, I'm really sorry about that. This whole board is quite "spirited" and sometimes, I'm quite surprised how "mean-spirited" it is towards those who are more conservative/disagree. Actually, while I used to enjoy reading here, it's gotten where it really depresses me. It seems like there are lots of exaggerations and complete writing off people--even people who are trying to do right. I thought this is supposed to be a place where people of opposing sides could meet and discuss things. When it becomes all of the same opinion, you lose the interesting facet of opposing views.
Because it has gotten to the place where some attribute everyone who is "extreme" as fundamentalist". That is a disservice to the word--at least in Christianity. Unfortunately, it has gotten to the place where the term "fundamentalist" (when referred to negatively) means, "stricter than I think is right"--with little attention to actual doctrine/Bible teachings.
It historically isn't even close to some sort of definition of child-rearing. It has to do with doctrine--There is no "one way" that "fundamentalist" Christians discipline, feed their kids, do school, etc.
There are "fundamentalist Mormons, fundamentalist Muslims", etc. By calling anyone who is strict a "fundamentalist Christian", it does convey a certain idea in someone's head--even if it isn't the right definition. Many who are true fundamentalists don't even call themselves that anymore because of the distortion of the word.
I wouldn't call most Gothardites "fundamentalist", most Pearl followers "fundamentalists or most Above Rubies followers "fundamentalists". They may be extremists, qf, extreme home schoolers, etc. but to me, the word fundamentalist isn't he right one. According to most on this board, that is not right however. Since communication is supposed to be about exchanging ideas and making sure we all understand, I'll bow out of future references to fundamentalists. I definitely would NEVER call Dobson a fundamentalist, though. My insides almost "scream" at the idea. It is ludicrous to me.
If "fundamentalist" to people here think it means "a person who believes they are right and thus act on it", I'd think we'd all be labeled such.
But if for the sake of this board you want to call anyone who is "strict"--esp. those who spank, etc. as fundamentalists, it is okay (it just isn't the historical meaning of the word).
Why is that ironic? It means that you weren't into a lot of things that the Church at large is into these days- for example some teach that they aren't sure whether Jesus is even God.
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Feb 18, 2010 10:37:25 GMT -5
Well, I found this definition of fundamentalism: www.thefreedictionary.com/fundamentalistAnd I found this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FundamentalismHere's a couple of interesting excerts: and... When I use the term "fundamentalist" or "fundie", I usually have one or more of the following undesirable traits in mind: 1. Isolates oneself and one's family to preserve beliefs. 2. Subscribes to magical thinking. "God will provide." 3. Looks down on others who do not share their belief system. 4. Puts dogma before common sense/common decency (ie. would kick child out of the house for being homosexual, uses abusive tactics to discipline children, faith healing). 5. Seeks to impose their religion on others, often using aggressive tactics (ie. uses threat of social isolation and/or condemnation to prevent people from questioning the beliefs, support politicians who seek to subvert constitution). I do understand that not all people who identify as "fundie" would participate in the activities listed above.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 18, 2010 18:55:24 GMT -5
I tend to see fundamentalism as very similar to authoritarianism. As I've already shared on some thread here, an Atheist friend previously introduced the idea to me of a spectrum, with authoritarianism/fundamentalism at one end, and questing/openmindedness at the other end. She feels that ALL people, whatever their world views (even Atheism), fit somewhere on that spectrum. Some people are at one end or the other, but most of us are somewhere in between. Authoritarians tend to feel a need to be more coercive in their childrearing, because of all the stuff that has to be passed down, and because of the narrow views of right and wrong, wherein any deviance is seen as a major disaster. Questors tend to be more comfortable with their children exploring the world and coming to their own conclusions about things. On a sidenote, I've learned that some of the moms who don't allow their daughters to play with Barbies, are not religious moms, but are actually very strong feminists. I was part of a thread a while back on another forum, where one or two women shared their own experiences growing up with feminist moms who wouldn't let them do the "princess" thing or wear pink, frilly stuff -- which actually caused these women to crave the "girly" stuff even more because it was forbidden fruit. I just wanted to share that as an example of non-religious authoritarianism. With all kinds of authoritarianism, there seems to be a strong distrust of human nature, and a strong feeling that one has to hyper-control one's kids to keep them from totally screwing up their lives. Of course, extreme open-mindedness might be rough for kids growing up, too, if they never know what to expect from their parents.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Feb 18, 2010 19:20:52 GMT -5
I wouldn't call most Gothardites "fundamentalist", most Pearl followers "fundamentalists or most Above Rubies followers "fundamentalists". They may be extremists, qf, extreme home schoolers, etc. but to me, the word fundamentalist isn't he right one. Then how do you explain that these folks would happily call themselves fundamentalists? In my QF day the word was one to be proud of. It seems to me you only want that word used to describe people who aren't scary extremists.
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on Feb 18, 2010 20:03:09 GMT -5
On a sidenote, I've learned that some of the moms who don't allow their daughters to play with Barbies, are not religious moms, but are actually very strong feminists. I was part of a thread a while back on another forum, where one or two women shared their own experiences growing up with feminist moms who wouldn't let them do the "princess" thing or wear pink, frilly stuff -- which actually caused these women to crave the "girly" stuff even more because it was forbidden fruit. I was not allowed to own Barbies growing up; my mom was appalled by consumerist, anti-feminist Barbie. (My parents were known as the ward hippies when I was a wee tot. ;D) I had a Cindi doll and a lot of horses, and sometimes played with Barbies at friends' homes. My daughters are not allowed to have Barbies (and certainly not Bratz, which make Barbie look like Mary Ingalls). They seem to be surviving OK. They do have tons of dress-up clothes, incl. princess outfits, and 18" dolls with many outfits I've sewn. (I must say I think the 18" dolls are much more wholesome and appropriate than Barbie!) I refuse, however, to buy t-shirts that say "Princess" on them--or Juicy or Brat or anything horrible like that. Or Disney/cartoon characters. Hello Kitty is allowed, but only because I had to give somewhere. I don't like my kids to wear ads that I had to pay for. None of that is because of my religious sensibilities, and I can't say that I consider it to be overly controlling or authoritarian. I thought anti-Barbie-hood was pretty much a feminist thing and was a little (though not much) surprised to hear that it's also a fundamentalist thing.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Feb 18, 2010 20:59:33 GMT -5
I love Barbie because she's my big Fuck You to ideology in any flavor.
|
|
|
Post by philosophia on Feb 18, 2010 21:09:04 GMT -5
I love Barbie because she's my big Fuck You to ideology in any flavor. I bought my 4yo the veterinarian Barbie in the mini skirt and boots for Xmas.
|
|
|
Post by philosophia on Feb 18, 2010 21:13:34 GMT -5
I wouldn't call most Gothardites "fundamentalist", most Pearl followers "fundamentalists or most Above Rubies followers "fundamentalists". They may be extremists, qf, extreme home schoolers, etc. but to me, the word fundamentalist isn't he right one. Then how do you explain that these folks would happily call themselves fundamentalists? In my QF day the word was one to be proud of. It seems to me you only want that word used to describe people who aren't scary extremists. I think these people would be more inclined to call themselves Real Christians, True Believers, Godly Christians, etc, rather than Fundamentalists. When I hear Fundamentalist I think Jack Hyles hollering fire and brimstone. Gothardites, Pearls, etc, see themselves as more reasonable and enlightened and less dramatic.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 18, 2010 21:34:19 GMT -5
Dangermom -- to be fair, those moms in that other thread didn't seem so concerned about Barbie specifically -- it seemed to be more about their moms insisting that everything they wore and played with be "gender neutral."
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 18, 2010 21:40:10 GMT -5
Then how do you explain that these folks would happily call themselves fundamentalists? In my QF day the word was one to be proud of. It seems to me you only want that word used to describe people who aren't scary extremists. I think these people would be more inclined to call themselves Real Christians, True Believers, Godly Christians, etc, rather than Fundamentalists. When I hear Fundamentalist I think Jack Hyles hollering fire and brimstone. Gothardites, Pearls, etc, see themselves as more reasonable and enlightened and less dramatic. In a way, though, I think the people who call themselves "the true _______" (fill in the blank with Christians, Muslims, Atheists, or what-have-you), are rather fundamentalist-leaning. In that they have a set of rules and don't seem to perceive other people as capable of self-identifying. Meaning, they're not satisfied with someone else simply saying "I'm a Christian." They may or may not give that person the 3rd degree about their beliefs -- but they won't be satisfied that said person is a "true Christian" until they know more in detail where that person stands theologically.
|
|
|
Post by philosophia on Feb 18, 2010 21:42:36 GMT -5
In a way, though, I think the people who call themselves "the true _______" (fill in the blank with Christians, Muslims, Atheists, or what-have-you), are rather fundamentalist-leaning. In that they have a set of rules and don't seem to perceive other people as capable of self-identifying. Meaning, they're not satisfied with someone else simply saying "I'm a Christian." They may or may not give that person the 3rd degree about their beliefs -- but they won't be satisfied that said person is a "true Christian" until they know more in detail where that person stands theologically. I totally agree. I just don't think they would agree! Ha!
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 18, 2010 21:44:42 GMT -5
In a way, though, I think the people who call themselves "the true _______" (fill in the blank with Christians, Muslims, Atheists, or what-have-you), are rather fundamentalist-leaning. In that they have a set of rules and don't seem to perceive other people as capable of self-identifying. Meaning, they're not satisfied with someone else simply saying "I'm a Christian." They may or may not give that person the 3rd degree about their beliefs -- but they won't be satisfied that said person is a "true Christian" until they know more in detail where that person stands theologically. I totally agree. I just don't think they would agree! Ha! LOL
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on Feb 18, 2010 22:01:07 GMT -5
Dangermom -- to be fair, those moms in that other thread didn't seem so concerned about Barbie specifically -- it seemed to be more about their moms insisting that everything they wore and played with be "gender neutral." Maybe they took the Story of X a little too seriously... (Oddly, we never had that book. My librarian, child-lit expert mom may have felt that it was too preachy. I've still never read Free to be you and me.)
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 18, 2010 22:09:24 GMT -5
To add to my "LOL," Philosophia made me realize how hypocritical it is to try to define fundamentalists -- because I essentially see them as people who think they hold the rulebook. Yet when I define them, aren't I essentially saying that I own the rulebook for what is what? Maybe the main difference (if any) between me and them is that, when I define them, I just see it as me sharing my "perspective, "and I don't see my perspective as "the final word." I don't know. I'm remembering a visit with some other Christian moms, where we were talking about the issue of wanting a family membership, such as at a pool -- but your family doesn't live in the prescribed radius. If your parents live in the prescribed radius, is it okay to put their address as your address to get in? I said I felt that some people feel okay about doing it and some don't -- Here I was thinking of how my parents lived in a condiminium with a pool and tennis courts, and years after my brother and I moved out they continued to put us down as living there, so we got the membership cards every year and could use the pool and tennis courts whenever we wanted. I felt okay about it because my parents never. ever. used the pool or the courts themselves -- and since they paid the fees every year (they had to as part of living there), it made sense that someone from their family made use of it. But ... that's just me. I told the ladies that I didn't have a problem with using my parents' address, but each person should just follow his or her own conscience. Then one woman immediately cut across what I was saying to say, "NO! That's wrong. It's dishonest." -- or something to that effect. It's been a few years so this isn't exactly word for word. Which pretty effectively ended that particular dialog and we changed the subject. Her manner of speaking kind of came across as someone rebuking and refusing to listen to the devil, if that makes sense. I certainly respect the fact that for some people, the rules are the rules and you're sinning if you budge from them -- but I don't think those people exactly return the favor by respecting my point of view. I tend to think in terms of the purpose of the rule, and whether breaking it has the potential to hurt anyone. I.e., if I'm at a park and see a sign that reads, "Don't feed the ducks/geese" -- then I don't feed the ducks/geese because I know there can be a lot of harm done by feeding wild animals. But using Mom's neighborhood pool when she never uses it, never seemed like having any potential for harm since she was paying for the use but just sending others over to use it for her.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Feb 19, 2010 8:33:49 GMT -5
Dangermom -- to be fair, those moms in that other thread didn't seem so concerned about Barbie specifically -- it seemed to be more about their moms insisting that everything they wore and played with be "gender neutral." Barbie's gender neutral, nothing wrong with boys playing with dolls! LOL Seriously though, it IS true.
|
|