hrd
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by hrd on Apr 28, 2010 22:10:15 GMT -5
Well, I too left my abusive husband with two children to support. I was only ever homeless WITH HIM. Once I took charge of our lives we always had a roof over our heads and food on the table and medical care--given out by those godless patriarchal folks. Sure, patriarchy exists outside of the overblown religious version. Sure we feminists are still pushing for change. Sure it isn't automatically paradise when one leaves. There are problems to confront and much work to do. But at the end of the day, within the four walls of my home, my children were safe and living in a peaceful environment. No one was being beaten or intimidated or verbally abused. I can't begin to put a price on that. Oh yeah, and that patriarchal society helped me go to school, gave me grants and scholarships and loans, and helped me get out of poverty. Thanks for sharing this, Tapati. I too benefited tremendously from evil secular society. We were on Medicaid when I was a kid. I also benefited from tax-supported public schools. It is thanks to the federal government that I was able to go to college and law school where I learned a lot about working for human rights.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Apr 28, 2010 22:35:56 GMT -5
I think that what would be more helpful than discussing whether secular society is "good" or "evil" (although I don't think a singular moral judgment can be made) would be to promote the ways that women (people) can seek help. I really appreciated Tapati's list.
I read the entire thread and what I'm seeing is that it's easy to get caught up in one's personal experience to the point that it becomes dogmatic. We all have different experiences, and because one person was put in a position where she had to live on the street and another person received wonderful help from academic atheists, that doesn't mean that we have to choose which one is right and which one is wrong. The world isn't just one way or made up of just one type of person.
Lastly, I wish that people would leave their personal grudges outside the discussion when they're not pertinent.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Apr 29, 2010 0:40:54 GMT -5
I was NOT prepared for the reaction that I got from the world. I saw myself as something of a heroine for leaving this abusive father. I thought that protecting my children was doing a huge service to society - the very society that would be containing the kids when they grew up. I felt that I was preventing another generation of character disordered individuals from starting families of their own, wreaking havok wherever they touched. This is not the general reaction I got from the world. I was the suspect, must-be-crazy, lady in the shoe with all these kids. Kids who, I might add, were not acting particularly sweet and obedient because of the family upheaval and abuse that they had recently suffered. I just didn't LOOK good to the world anymore. I looked great before - with my hard-working husband and all my kids standing in a well-scrubbed row. Suddenly, I didn't present that image anymore to the world and my reputation suffered as a result. I'm going to be rambling a bit here because I don't know if I can clearly express the point I'm trying to make. I've snipped a bit of musicmom's comment not because I have anything to say about her particular situation, but because it reminds me of a particularly racist and misogynist attitude I've heard all too often. One of the ways that some politicians try to reduce social spending is by dishonestly portraying single moms as somehow undeserving. They refer to the "welfare queen" who just pops out kids in order to collect more of the hard-earned money that "hard-working folks" pay in taxes. I can't remember all the dog-whistles that imply that the "welfare queen" is non-white, has never been part of a "regular family" and is a part of the "welfare society" who "thinks the world owes them a living." All things being equal, there are likely people who fit that description. However, the majority of women and children who need assistance are the ones who are leaving abusive situations, and most of them work their butts off becoming self-supporting if they possibly can. ETA: The link with musicmom's post is to illustrate that her situation, one of many, doesn't fit the stereotype that all "right-thinking people" can despise. She and so many others have tried to live by the so-called rules and have found what "family values" actually mean to some people.
|
|
|
Post by mommybunny1 on Apr 29, 2010 8:30:32 GMT -5
I think the thing is that for women who have been subsumed by biblical patriarchy, the world is a very scary place. Since the purpose of this forum is to support women in this transition, we need to be gently honest.
It is hard in the 'real' world. But there is hope here. Patriarchy still exists, but there is progress. People have lots of different ideas about things like god and spirituality. Sometimes, it is overwhelming, especially if you have been drilled with the dangers of secular humanism. It must be confusing when secular people show charity and understanding at a time you are so needy. After all, you have been infused with the idea that the devil is very seductive and clever.
It takes some time to get comfortable with the idea that secular people who are good and helpful are simply good and helpful people. No agenda, except to make the world a little bit better by helping others.
And yet, with all of this, you will still be faced with patriarchal thinking. You will still find people and institutions that blame women for their predicament. It is getting better, but it takes time
It is hard out here. but it is better. There is hope. And you do have control over so many parts of your destiny that you never had before.
I know. I have survived abuse, too. And I have had to deal with prejudice and doubt for my decisions. I have been paid less for the same work as a man. I have been criticized for wanting to take time to parent my children and criticized for taking time to go to work. But I have survived and owe no one.
You can do it too.
And yet,
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Apr 29, 2010 8:56:30 GMT -5
Respect?
Let's cut through the B.S. here shall we,
[major snip]
Jane this Will be my last post here...I will be posting this on my blog, Women, have the Right, to hear All sides, Okay, Janedoe ~ I'm in a moderating mood this morning ~ and feeling like it's really passed time to do something about the way you continue to hijack threads and steamroll over members who are are trying to communicate and interact with you in a considerate and constructive manner. You are refusing to heed the message that other women are expressing ~ and so, enough is enough. No ~ I am not banning you from the NLQ forums. I would put you on moderation status or impose a word limit ~ except the administration functionality of proboards is not sophisticated enough to let me put those sorts of restrictions on your posts. So here's what I have decided to do: 1) I'm giving you your very own thread in the member section ~ consider it your platform and feel free to post there to your heart's desire ~ post as much and as long as you want. 2) You are also free to post in all other NLQ forum threads ~ BUT ~ in all threads besides your own, I will be moderating your comments. Your comments must be relevant to the topic and they must respect and comply with the give and take nature of this forum. IOW ~ if you post a comment in which you are apparently oblivious to the content of the thread and the interactions of other members ~ if you ramble on inconsiderately ~ I will delete your post. So ~ there you have it: forum moderation by Vyckie.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Apr 29, 2010 9:17:57 GMT -5
So ~ there you have it: forum moderation by Vyckie. I feel like such a dictator Ack ~ I've become a Patriarch! Help me!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by choiceisgood on Apr 29, 2010 9:28:18 GMT -5
As someone who grew up attending public school in a fairly diverse area, I am having a hard time understanding how families like the Duggars address non-Christian people (Jews, Muslims, etc.) and how they are part of the fabric of this country. I currently live in an ethnically and racially diverse city and my children don't see anything is unusual about encounters with orthodox Jews or Sikhs, etc., in their daily life. In thinking how their TV show sends them to locations such as New York City, how do you think the Duggar children feel about their encounters with those that are different than them? How is this subject discussed in conservative homeschooling households?
|
|
hrd
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by hrd on Apr 29, 2010 10:22:56 GMT -5
As someone who grew up attending public school in a fairly diverse area, I am having a hard time understanding how families like the Duggars address non-Christian people (Jews, Muslims, etc.) and how they are part of the fabric of this country. I currently live in an ethnically and racially diverse city and my children don't see anything is unusual about encounters with orthodox Jews or Sikhs, etc., in their daily life. In thinking how their TV show sends them to locations such as New York City, how do you think the Duggar children feel about their encounters with those that are different than them? How is this subject discussed in conservative homeschooling households? What a great question? I know that when I went to college and was exposed to people who were not religious at all, I was shocked! (Yes I went to public school, but everyone I knew was either a Christian or a practicing Jew) I had always thought that all non-religious people were terribly lost, directionless individuals. It was my exposure to reality that really opened my eyes. If you are told most of the world is going to hell, and then you meat most of the world, and they are generally nice, well-intentioned people, it kind of interferes with your fear of hell. I know that I when I went on youth-group activities, we'd always have to pray beforehand that angles would surround us and protect us from the demonic forces out there in "the world."
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Apr 29, 2010 10:54:01 GMT -5
It just clicked, mb she's being "Mother of the Year" because of how MANY kids she's had, not how well she's been raising (or not) them?
|
|
|
Post by lemons4sale on Apr 29, 2010 13:29:52 GMT -5
I agree that Jill, Jessa, and Jinger should get the mother of the year award Maybe with cousin Amy's influence, Jessa or Jinger could get out of there. I agree that kids should have chores, but they should be age-appropriate. I don't want my 13 yr old daughter thinking she SHOULD be the primary caregiver for a baby (of course, she should help and see how hard it is take take care of one!). Children should not raise children. They need to get themselves together first. In the 30s, my grandmother won a scholarship for math but was told by her father (who was an atheist) that she had to stay behind. She was to be a caregiver because my great grandmother was having another baby. They lived on a farm. My grandma took care of her sister until she was school age and then left for the city. There, she met my grandpa who was Catholic and they had 7 kids post-WWII - and my grandma HATED it! Her inlaws were very judgmental about this NON-CATHOLIC country girl marrying their precious baby of the family so she always had to be perfect. My dad's siblings has very strict chores, they were expected to look perfect, and I think today their upbringing would have been considered emotionally abusive. (My dad breaking my Dutch great grandma's little trinket statues etc did not help lol!) Her oldest daughter went on to be a nun and later earned a PhD - in MATH! Her other two daughters also earned Bachelors degrees and have been quite successful. Both my sister and I were raised in a 1970s/1980s blue collar Catholic household and were really not expected to go to college, not that it was denied to us but we knew we had to pay our own way. I have 2 Masters degrees and my sister finished her 1st Masters. I think that if girls want to get married, be a housewife, and have kids because that is what they want, then great. But, if that is all they know, then they should be exposed to other options. A lot of us in our mid to late 30s are doing that because our generation was a latchkey generation. I think true feminism is the freedom to do what your talents and dreams guide you to do. I predict that Jinger will escape.
|
|
|
Post by meganl on Apr 29, 2010 13:56:47 GMT -5
I read several of the comments above... I am uncomfortable with the criticism of the Duggar family, most of it being centered on Michelle. I do not believe anything of any worth can be accomplished by criticizing Michelle in particular. Some of this has been rather derogatory, one commenter, a female as well, referring to this woman as "a broodmare" - here where we are all in the process of questioning and aligning ourselves against patriarchy in religion and the family, is anything worthy accomplished by criticizing a mother, blaming a mother, making dehumanizing references to another woman ? Criticize Michelle less ... and focus on media and image manipulation more.
Michelle presents a calm and appealing face to the camera for her television audience; she is upholding her role, yet another role mind you, as a television celebrity as valiantly as can be expected- and many celebrities become masterful at hiding the chaos of their personal lives to put a good appearance before the camera. She is doing a masterful job of CONCEALING PERSONAL PRESSURES BEHIND A CHARISMATIC MASK OF CALM, for the benefit of her family image as a celebrity family, and for her audience who have come to expect this of her. She is fulfilling expectations. Yet more expectations. Who among us is to know what hell she is really experiencing? Who among us is feeling self-righteous enough to criticize how she faces this additional pressure? Do we know her well enough as a person to know whether or not she WANTS this celebrity and this pressure in her life, did she want it in the FIRST place, or is she caught up in fulfilling more needs of others? We are right to resent the media-created image of Michelle, presented as being a higher standard of motherhood and womanhood to admire and aspire to. But give some thought to the real person - not "a broodmare" - who is being used to create this image.
I believe instead the criticism would be more constructive if directed at the television presentation of the Duggar family, and the transformation of them into celebrities. If it were not for this celebrity they would not have attracted the attention of the folks who now plan to present Michelle with this award. I am uncomfortable with the continuing identification of this family as part of the Quiverfull Movement, when they have repeatedly stated they are NOT. Considering this, I am uncomfortable with Michelle accepting this award. She has until June or July, I would hope she declines.
|
|
|
Post by zoeygirl on Apr 29, 2010 13:58:33 GMT -5
I also was shocked the first time in college when I heard a girl brag that she wasn't a Christian. I looked around the room to see if everyone else was as shocked as I was. lol
Good post. I'm struggling with this hell business right now myself.
|
|
|
Post by meganl on Apr 29, 2010 14:10:21 GMT -5
Moderator and Administrator, please accept this compliment to your skill, insight and fairness. You have demonstrated supreme "people skills" by acting in the interest of fairness to individual commentors and the of the flow of discussion. Please forgive this off-topic comment, but I am just so impressed at how you have balanced both fairness and future discussions. This is something I seldom see.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Apr 29, 2010 14:27:05 GMT -5
Some of this has been rather derogatory, one commenter, a female as well, referring to this woman as "a broodmare" - here where we are all in the process of questioning and aligning ourselves against patriarchy in religion and the family, is anything worthy accomplished by criticizing a mother, blaming a mother, making dehumanizing references to another woman ? Criticize Michelle less ... and focus on media and image manipulation more. Yes, I am female, and more importantly, I was a daughter growing up in an abusive, patriarchal brand of Christianity. You make a valid point, but I stand by my comment. Michelle is an adult. Despite the pressures of her church, husband, and voyeuristic media, she is still complicit and culpable in the neglect and abuse of her eldest daughters. I do not sympathize with her 'plight' as it is not only self-inflicted, but it is inflicted on her daughters who have no choice. At any time, Michelle can call off the cameras. She can get her tubes tied. She can stop delegating the rearing of her children to her children. Her husband might not recognize her right to do those things, but I'm willing to bet that TLC would cancel the contract if she refused to participate. Her daughters can do none of those things without actively running away from home. Frankly, I think the media tries to make her look better than she is. I blame her, not TLC, for ruining her daughters' lives.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Apr 29, 2010 16:06:03 GMT -5
Meganl – Let me be the first to welcome you to the NLQ forums It’s kind of a custom around here to “Introduce Yourself”: nolongerquivering.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=introI think we’d all appreciate it if you would take a few minutes to do that – I’ve found that a ton of misunderstandings can be avoided that way. That said, I think that broad characterizations (such as: like/as a “brood mare”), if internalized, can be very painful to the person on the receiving end. Anyway, welcome again, and I hope you do take the time to introduce yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Apr 29, 2010 16:47:04 GMT -5
That said, I think that broad characterizations (such as: like/as a “brood mare”), if internalized, can be very painful to the person on the receiving end. Having taken a little time to cool off, I can see how my comments could rankle with mothers who feel guilt over the way that they have leaned too heavily on their daughters while they were 'quivering.' I suppose one could take my vitriol and apply it to all mothers because the system does make it impossible to live the quiverfull life without slave labour on the part of daughters. I certainly don't intend to fling such characterisations at quiverfull women in general. I do, however, feel unbridled rage at Michelle Duggar, Nancy Campbell, et. al. for deliberately promoting the abuse of female children as 'family values.' Michelle Duggar is not an innocent, in my view, because despite her passive presentation she is a 'leader' in this movement. She is every bit as guilty as Bill Gothard, and I don't have enough epithets for either of them.
|
|
|
Post by meganl on Apr 29, 2010 16:53:21 GMT -5
I am not the one who called anyone a broodmare.
|
|
|
Post by meganl on Apr 29, 2010 17:04:49 GMT -5
I think Michelle Duggar has attributes that would have made her a fine Branch Davidian, and therefore I have no vitriol for her. I have vitriol for these types of movements and their leaderships... but the numbers of regular, sane, ordinary, reasonably intelligent people who get sucked into these things and thereafter lead bizarre lives is something to consider.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Apr 29, 2010 17:08:47 GMT -5
I have vitriol for these types of movements and their leaderships... You can have vitriol (or not) for whomever you like, but I reiterate that I see Michelle Duggar as part of the leadership. Hence my vitriol.
|
|
|
Post by meganl on Apr 29, 2010 17:37:52 GMT -5
I thought these movements and families subjugated women? "All the responsibility and none of the decision making power" to paraphrase an earlier comment from someone making a different point somewhere else in this discussion? And did you not yourself refer to her as "a broodmare"? I am a new member, you are a senior member. Page after page of discussion on this thread and it seems my comments are bringing out your worst.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Apr 29, 2010 18:02:02 GMT -5
I do, however, feel unbridled rage at Michelle Duggar, Nancy Campbell, et. al. for deliberately promoting the abuse of female children as 'family values.' Michelle Duggar is not an innocent, in my view, because despite her passive presentation she is a 'leader' in this movement. She is every bit as guilty as Bill Gothard, and I don't have enough epithets for either of them. See, this IMHO is quite true. She is a leader and does bear responsibility for the promotion of use of female children as unpaid work horses and for severely limiting their options in life. She may also be a very nice person, but I am sure her example has resulted in great misery for teenage girls whose moms follow her example of how to run a godly family. It is this great misery and the willing, paid for promotion of such misery as "family values" by Michelle that brings out the vitriol. I do think that use of terms like "brood mare" is unnecessarily degrading of women. Yes I have a lot of kids myself, no I was never a "brood mare" or "breeder" or whatever dehumanizing term I might have been called, I was and am a woman and a mom.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Apr 29, 2010 18:07:33 GMT -5
And to explain a little Meganl.. Sierra has been one of those daughters. When your whole life has been subsumed by your parent's ideology, an ideology for which they are praised and for which you have suffered deeply tv shows and people that promote this form of parenting as an example of family values are very painful. It makes you mad when you know just how much bullshit it is on a very personal level, and how when stuck in the midst of it you are not allowed to say how horrible it is to you because, well, that's SIN. And ingratitude and all kinds of other awful things your parents have been training you to never ever be.
This is why people on this forum can take things very personally that other people just look at and maybe roll their eyes a little.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Apr 29, 2010 18:25:29 GMT -5
I do think that use of terms like "brood mare" is unnecessarily degrading of women. Yes I have a lot of kids myself, no I was never a "brood mare" or "breeder" or whatever dehumanizing term I might have been called, I was and am a woman and a mom. Thanks arietty. I generally do refrain from using the term for this reason and will again refrain with respect to you and sargassosea. I see your point and do not disagree. My disrespect for Michelle Duggar has nothing to do with her choice to have a large family, and everything to do with her shrugging off the responsibilities of actual motherhood onto her daughters without their consent and publicly presenting this as an ideal family model. Meganl, if you have anything to contribute besides policing my language, I'm all ears.
|
|
|
Post by freefromtyranny on Apr 29, 2010 18:36:37 GMT -5
I just don't see how condemning Michelle Duggar is helping her girls or her. Are you women just so far removed from your experience with abusive men/patriarchy that you don't remember how difficult it is to think outside that box/see another way/get out? If you are really concerned about the patriarchal movement and those in it do something productive. Ask one of the girls over for the day and spend time with them. Take one on vacation or to see a show. Befriend the weary mom. Help her clean her kitchen. Take her a meal, just because. Offer to babysit so she can grocery shop alone. Give her a gift when she has her 7th child. Be a listening (non-judging) ear. And then you may be the one that shows her that those outside of her "movement" can be happy too.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Apr 29, 2010 18:56:34 GMT -5
I just don't see how condemning Michelle Duggar is helping her girls or her. I'm under no illusions that NLQ or any other forum will change Michelle's mind about how she raises her daughters. I do hope however that a QF mom reading this, or any mom of many who has bought into ATI/VF or whatever's promotion of what a godly family looks like might read these ideas, and the experiences of daughters who lived it, and question it for their own family. That is why this is useful discussion. Many of us are fairly unformed in our ideas of how our family will function when we have only 3 or 4 little kids at home. The voice we hear speaking the loudest and the most compellingly is the shiny voice, the one we see on tv or arrives on the cover of a christian magazine. I do think reading that there may be another side to these families, another experience unvoiced on the part of the part of the children can be very helpful, a kind of Proceed with Caution as people look around for a christian way to be a family.
|
|