|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Apr 6, 2010 17:33:14 GMT -5
|
|
athenac
New Member
I'll be a post-feminist in the post-patriarchy
Posts: 39
|
Post by athenac on Apr 6, 2010 17:56:22 GMT -5
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
I don't see how a woman can run any kind of house without leadership skills.
The man, on the other hand, can float off to his job as assistant file clerk and not have any leadership.
This all seems backwards to me.
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Apr 6, 2010 18:23:50 GMT -5
It is all backwards!! Leadership has nothing to do with gender, and pushing that idea screws over both men and women. I am an outgoing talker who loves ideas, a real go-getter. My husband (and this may change as he gets more healed up from growing up fundie) is a much quieter soul, afraid to take risks and on the lazy side.
Every time I took that lame "woman hold yourself back" advice, disaster would ensue. I finally made the wise decision to just blow off all the marriage teachings, because they didn't make sense. I am much happier for it.
On an aside, I loathe the name Phil Lancaster. My bro-in-law used to name drop that moniker (Phil Lancaster said to me the other day...) and I was blissfully ignorant of who he was. Now my grown nieces and nephew and their children are trapped on the family compound in the mountains of NC, without the skills or the desire (thanks to patriarchal teaching crammed into their brains) to want better for themselves. It is so so sad.
|
|
em
Full Member
Posts: 176
|
Post by em on Apr 6, 2010 20:22:47 GMT -5
Such a good post, Journey. Way to spell it out that it is the fault of these backwards, twisted religious teachings that cause women to never stand up for themselves and end up in terrible situations.
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on Apr 6, 2010 20:31:12 GMT -5
Wow. This had my jaw on the floor: That's right, I'm not capable of running my own home, much less making decisions anywhere else. (I am actually a SAHM, so I do pretty much run the home. I'm not that great at it, but I'm way better than my husband would be!) The Living Sacrifice blog got mentioned in this column, and while I do not wish to spend my NLQ time having a bash-fest on her, I did boggle a bit at her one comment about how she's had her spice rack alphabetized for 4 years and cites this as an improvement in wifeliness. It may be an improvement in obsessive kitchen organization, but I can't see how it affects much else.
|
|
|
Post by lauriemo on Apr 6, 2010 20:56:10 GMT -5
I've got to say, that last quote in particular makes me wonder if this fellow has actually read the advice of King Lemuel's mother to her son in Proverbs 31. That woman she advised him to marry is a spitfire. I don't see that husband micro-managing a thing. He doesn't have to. He trusts his wife, knows she's deserving of his trust, and recognizes her abilities. He lets her run the home, and her various business ventures, as SHE in her wisdom sees fit. And boy does she run them!
|
|
|
Post by kindaconfused on Apr 6, 2010 21:19:13 GMT -5
not knowing who this Phil Lancaster fellow is I googled his name.
I see he used to publish the "Patriarch" magazine out of his home (naturally) but I see that has disbanded.
Does anyone know where he is today?
Please tell me he has retired and is no longer infecting the world with this garbage.
I am a Christian but what I am reading is not Christianity, it's treating women like dirt and making egomaniacs out of men.
I don't really understand how this man, if he is sincere, cannot see the incredible amount of pain his "advice" would cause.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Apr 6, 2010 22:54:06 GMT -5
Awesome post, Journey. And that quote in the end really is jawdropping, no matter how many times I read it. I've quit jobs - jobs where i was an actual subordinate, not a partner - because of being micromanaged. Nobody should have to put up with that.
|
|
|
Post by quivery on Apr 6, 2010 23:47:05 GMT -5
I believe this is truly "pathetic" in the original sense of the word "pathos"--meaning you don't know whether to laugh or cry. The title of this post certainly made me laugh (a lot), but the CONTENT made me cry inside. I guess this is what some call "schizophrenia" ( ) I have chosen "quivery" for my username even though I've never been a part of the Quiverfull movement per se. I did grow up in an increasingly-fundamentalist Christian church and environment, and even went to a fundamentalist Christian university (big mistake. Loved the classes and professors, hated the religious legalism). I can honestly say that I suffered spiritual abuse there, so much so that I eventually wondered if it would be better to "end it all now and go to Hell now" than die later and go to Hell later. "Quivery" signifies my heart, trembling with joy as it fills with love and friendship. It also signifies my state of anxiety and depression, being a lonely single girl with a disability who feels forsaken by those who called her "friend" but were acquaintances. Most of all, it signifies my anticipation at getting to know all of you better! ((((ALL))))
|
|
|
Post by freefromtyranny on Apr 7, 2010 0:10:40 GMT -5
But can't you see the appeal? I don't have to think, it's not my responsibility. And who doesn't like the idea of someone "loving you as christ loved the church" and really looking out for your best interest. That's what is promised. Just let your husband make every decision for you and it'll all work out. Unfortunately, our husbands are human. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The whole dynamic creates in us a warped sense of what is right in a relationship. I, too, have a history of choosing friends that use me. Funny how idiot ...er, husband...could see the abusive behaviors in my friends but not in himself. But that was just one more reason to push them away and demand that we be an island and completely isolated. I never did understand how I was supposed to be this strong leader of my children, jumping on their every infraction while completely ignoring my husband's behavior. Alot of times it was the SAME behaviors!! Great post, Journey.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Apr 7, 2010 0:25:52 GMT -5
Welcome, Quivery! So glad you're here!
Journey, that was an amazing expose' as always. I love the way you turn the teachings back on those who taught them. This especially was mind boggling:
In the morning, before he leaves for work…the father takes a few minutes with the wife (and optionally the children) to go over the assignment for the day. This would included especially the school schedule…also encompass household chores, family projects and other activities planned for the day. . . .
She was not meant to make the big decisions and enforce them… (emphasis mine)
Big decisions? What is he talking about? According to him the wife is not to make any decisions. Not about what "household chores" she is going to do, not about the kids' homework-- all the little decisions are his, too. She's nothing but his slave, with no will of her own at all.
In the first-century Roman and Jewish cultures, the home was considered the woman's domain, and the husband usually deferred to her in domestic matters. I hate the way patriarchalists selectively bring forward from the cultures of the Bible, only those customs which give the man more control over the woman, and remove even the smallest morsel of power that those cultures did give women.
I think I'll go off and barf now.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Apr 7, 2010 4:15:04 GMT -5
But can't you see the appeal? I don't have to think, it's not my responsibility. And who doesn't like the idea of someone "loving you as christ loved the church" and really looking out for your best interest. That's what is promised. Just let your husband make every decision for you and it'll all work out. Unfortunately, our husbands are human. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When I was a teenager, I told my mother I had no intention of ever getting married. She told me that God's plan was for a man to have self-sacrificial love for his wife and that it would be a joy to be obedient and submissive to a man like that. I just stared at her in disbelief, thinking that the problem was the submission, not the husband! I knew women with fantastic husbands and that I could very well end up with one who did treat me 'like a princess.' On the other hand, those same women spent hours every day tormenting themselves that they weren't submitting enough because their husbands didn't give them any orders! It reminded me a bit of the 'good master' argument for slavery. I could like my husband just fine and still be repulsed by servitude.
|
|
|
Post by setfree on Apr 7, 2010 6:10:42 GMT -5
Oh, Journey. My eyes practically bled, reading that. Awesome post again by you - but oh those quotes ... I feel so angry, my head aches.
Manipulative spin bullshit. Arrrrgh!
Well done to everyone who can formulate a more measured and constructive critique than this .... I think I need to go and cool down ....
|
|
|
Post by mickee on Apr 7, 2010 9:55:21 GMT -5
Hi. I have been reading No Longer Quivering for a few weeks now and just now created an account. I became interested in this movement after a friend started listening to and recommending me to listen to Vision Forum. I did listen to a few of their teachings, but my heart leans toward "grace" and I don't think there is this perfect cookie cutter mold for every Christian or every Christian family. Because I didn't "jump on board" with her VF ideas, she basically wrote me off as a friend.
I have a few questions, what does the Patriarchal Teachings say about Esther and Deborah of the Old Testament? And what if a girl/woman in this movement expresses that she wants to be single and serve God wholeheartedly as Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 7? Do they acknowledge these scriptures?
|
|
flah
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by flah on Apr 7, 2010 10:49:30 GMT -5
She's buying a field and having it planted (meaning men worked for her). She's got businesses far and wide. Not only does he not micro-manage, lauriemo, but he's off scratching his ass at the gates with the other elders. My pastor (not patriarchal in the least, btw) says that this is the typical mother-in-law depicting an ideal and certainly not realistic wife to her son, but the woman she pictures is anything but submissive.
I've had a husband that wanted what he wanted when he wanted it, and expected to be head of the household when he didn't do a dang thing. Now I have a partner -- someone who appreciates a strong woman and is happy to share control. Guess which marriage is stronger?
|
|
|
Post by journey on Apr 7, 2010 10:51:52 GMT -5
Welcome mickee (and the many other new names I've been seeing lately). ") There is no "one" answer for Esther or Deborah or the single woman who wants to serve outside the home. I will share below what you will typically find, but the thing to remember about the patriarchy camp is that each leader has their own sort of 'mini-pope' status, and there are many little leaders within the larger movement, therefore you will find a wide variety of viewpoints. The general answer about Esther is that she was the rare exception. Christians for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (a conservative group all wrapped up in gender differences and the need for men to lead women, but not nearly as conservative as Vision Forum) used Esther to explain why it was okay to vote for Sarah Palin. Vision Forum highly disagreed and said that CBMW was compromising. If you can get through this long treatise, you will see Esther and Deborah, etc, mentioned often: www.visionforumministries.org/issues/ballot_box/vfm_responds_to_cbmw_compromis.aspx Basically the same thing here: www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2008/09/4322.aspx They deftly sweep aside Deborah, Esther, and all other women in a quick slight of hand, as you can see. The general top-two answers about Deborah is that either a.) the men were SOOOO horribly bad that a woman had to do the job (like in the case of Balaam, where God will use a donkey if the people aren't listening, so it is with God using a woman if the men won't listen---note how the positive use of a woman in spiritual leadership is compared to the likelihood of a farm animal speaking), or, b.) that Deborah was in sin (since it is the book of judges where bad and weird things happen, and since it never says that God approved of her leadership in the chapter). The general answer from the Vision Forum camp about the single woman who wants to serve outside the home is that it's generally frowned upon, unless she is under like-minded oversight. For example, older daughters going down to Above Rubies to help, is something generally approved of. An older daughter going away to college, is generally (and many times openly discouraged), as is an older daughter living outside of her father's authority and protection (no such thing as moving out, until you get married, etc). Popular VF-esque leaders like the much-lauded Botkins say that single missionary women like Amy Carmichael, Elisabeth Elliot and others may have been well intended, but they were totally wrong for doing what they did. A young adult male could not only go to the mission field with his parents blessing, but would be seen as a shining example to other young men. Whereas, a young woman who wants to go be a missionary had better pray hard for a missionary husband, because that will be the only acceptable way for her to be one herself. She is a woman, and women were designed to need male oversight, protection and leadership, and the best way that is done is by staying under the roof of either father or husband.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Apr 7, 2010 10:58:42 GMT -5
I have a few questions, what does the Patriarchal Teachings say about Esther and Deborah of the Old Testament? And what if a girl/woman in this movement expresses that she wants to be single and serve God wholeheartedly as Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 7? Do they acknowledge these scriptures? Welcome! I am sorry to hear about your friend. I am sure someone will address the more mainstream Quiverfull ideas about this. My church (which was Branhamist/"Message of the Hour") received a lot of this material (Vision Forum, Nancy Campbell) and taught from it, though its founder William Branham took things to even greater extremes. I can speak to the way that scenario played out in practice, though, as I tried to do just that as a teenager. When I told people, from the age of 14-19, that I didn't want to get married, they looked at me like I had three heads. They very hesitantly agreed when I quoted Paul's words to them. The more free-spirited among them thought for a long time and then conceded that God might have another plan for me. However, this was very obviously regarded as an extreme, rare, unsavoury, and potentially rebellious choice. Among believers I knew, a woman's 'highest calling' could not be fulfilled if she never had children. ('Saved in childbearing' implied that the celibate were in some sort of peril. Not childbearing was not really regarded as an option.) There was also extreme fear of a woman living outside the 'headship' of a man - women in my church who were single were expected to obey their fathers perpetually as children until that authority was handed over to a husband. Since I had an unbelieving father whose authority could not be trusted, I had the potential to be a dangerous 'headless' adult woman. (What if the father dies? Authority passes to the nearest male relative or the pastor.) I suspect no one took me seriously when I said I didn't care if I never had sex, either. ;D My aversion to childbearing stripped all the potential libido right out of me! I called myself a 'Message nun,' much to the clucking disapproval of the older women, several of whom seemed to think I was a seductress saying these things to slip under the radar. For the most part, people ignored everything I said with the assumption that I would grow up and get to know better. Sometimes they felt the need to try to change me. One woman told me I needed to gain fat on my hips so I could bear children, and was stunned to speechlessness when I responded that I had no intention of doing either. She is on record for making the Dumbest Comment Ever Made to me. ;D Long story short: it's only really an option for the men. (If they did it, they were praised as exercising supreme self-control at avoiding the wicked womenfolk and their insatiable need for babies.)
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Apr 7, 2010 11:06:02 GMT -5
UGH. That quote... I want to say 1 Timothy 2.15 or so... prolly the most misogynistic pronouncement Paul ever made, at least if taken at face value. >_<
Making the husband a veritable god in the household doesn't always work, obviously - if the guy is barely capable of surviving by himself (this is definitely true in my own case), how capable will he, honestly, be of running a household by himself? I would NEED to have my s/o run the show, because I realize I just ain't capable of doing so myself - and ain't gonna push it since it just isn't to anyone's benefit if I do. This would probably result in some bizarre shifting or even a near-complete reversal of the traditional gender roles in any relationship I'm in, but what must be done must be done. A wife is not meant to be a slave. :@
|
|
jo
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by jo on Apr 7, 2010 11:31:04 GMT -5
I feel the extreme urge to puke now, only because its all so very, sadly, bizarrely true.
In the last year, Dh started emailing me 'lists' of what needed to be accomplished while he was at work. After the 5th or 6th that I ignored, he wanted to know why. I told him if he had a to-do list that involved any of us, he could come DO it when he wasn't working.
But, I was exiting all of this for the last 16 months now. 6 months ago, I had my final insult to my injury and left with a vengence. He didn't even consider leaving until 6 months ago. He got what I was saying and had some sort of a wake-up call--not enough, the marriage is still precarious to this day. He was content in that world, doing what he was doing and leaving me to pick up all the pieces of our lives behind him.
I did NOT follow a list. Had he given me such lists 5 years ago, I sadly would have tried my hardest to do them.
|
|
|
Post by kiery on Apr 7, 2010 11:31:22 GMT -5
I have a few questions, what does the Patriarchal Teachings say about Esther and Deborah of the Old Testament? And what if a girl/woman in this movement expresses that she wants to be single and serve God wholeheartedly as Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 7? Do they acknowledge these scriptures? In my experience (with my parents) whenever I brought up Esther or Deborah they were discounted (because they were O.T., because there were no men, because Deborah shouldn't have been there anyway and just happened to be, because it was Esther's husband and she still was all servy/submitty, because she was put in that situation, because it was an exception, because the guy was a wimp - but in the end, Deborah was still wrong for being there and Esther was just in the right place - besides queens didn't do much.). As far as 1 Cor. 7, my parents always quoted some verse that sort of supported it? I don't remember the reference but "It's better for a man to keep his virgins" or something like that - but in that, it was basically either staying home and helping or leaving for brief periods of time and coming back home and helping. By helping I mean, taking most if not all care of the kids and teaching them, etc. Being independent is a horrible thing in that circle. Having the balls (as a female) to go and want to do something besides have babies is practically a sin. My parents praised my independence towards the world when I was young and then told me that God didn't like or create independent females when I got older and became truly independent (of them). /random because it was along the lines of the girl missionaries being declared evil by VF and the like.
|
|
|
Post by xara on Apr 7, 2010 11:38:30 GMT -5
Welcome to the new folks.
Journey, this is another well written post and I thank you for writing it. The subject matter is vomit-worthy but you handled it well.
I wanted to say that the stories of Esther and Deborah are one of the things that helped me keep from getting too deep in the patriarchal stuff. I read the Bible cover to cover in the 6th grade and those stories made me think that here were two strong women and nobody in their culture seemed to think it odd. The fact that Deborah was a Judge and no one thought it odd helped me to realize that there were political factors in play by the various authors of the bible and to read it more critically.
The church I grew up in pretty much just glossed over those stories. But then I often caught them taking things out of context and twisting the meanings to justify the control of women.
|
|
flah
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by flah on Apr 7, 2010 13:08:14 GMT -5
Hang on, weren't there two female church starters in the New Testament? Phoebe and Lydia?
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Apr 7, 2010 13:16:47 GMT -5
What about Priscilla? Paul seemed to think highly enough of her that half the time he put her name *before* that of her husband (Romans 16.3, 2 Timothy 4.19; see also Acts 18.18, contrast Acts 18.26 and 1 Corinthians 16.19 where Aquila's name precedes hers).
|
|
|
Post by kiery on Apr 7, 2010 13:26:46 GMT -5
yeah, but we skip those parts (seriously, actually, I *barely* remember Pricilla and the others even mentioned...)
|
|
|
Post by whatkindofwoman on Apr 7, 2010 13:38:42 GMT -5
I'm not sure if this is enough on topic, but... I just now read somebody's list of the "unique blessings of homeschooling", and reacted strongly. I think it's false and dumb advertising. We've been a homeschooling family for several years (next year we're doing school). Homeschooling has NOT done for us what this list claims it will do. I'm going to copy and paste it here and add my personal comments in blue... Here's the list, from www.fix.net/~rprewett/hsmarr.html:Unique blessings of homeschooling:
* parents become more family-centered and more home-centered OR, you become more isolated and can't even tell when you start forgetting you used to have a personality. Or, you and your spouse forget what you had in common before you became full-time homeschoolers.* teaching Scripture and doctrine to children causes parents to study more diligently togetherNo, you just HOPE it will. You HOPE you can successfully pressure yourself into greater diligence. Good luck with that. * parents begin enjoying their children moreBecause if your children are in school, you obviously don't enjoy them enough. WHO SAYS? And as a homeschooling mom, I finally realized that I was so busy trying to be a good teacher AND a good parent AND a good wife, that I didn't have any strength left to..........ENJOY my children!!* the attitude of children as blessings often leads to larger families (homeschooling families are statistically significantly larger)
Uh-huh.
*children grow closer to their parents and respect them moreMore than what? More than who? Proven how?
oh and, I went to school with kids who were very close to their parents and greatly respected them...but I guess it was all an illusion. They went to SCHOOL! They couldn't have respected their parents and been close to them. I must have been mistaken.* parents are challenged to live out a godly marriage and life before their children (who are in contact with them far more than they would be if they were in institutional schools)"Challenged" is understatement. So, your "godly" marriage and life has to be on DISPLAY 24/7 in front of your children, and so somehow, being under all that pressure will allow you to behave better and be better?
Not to mention: now, homeschooling your children is a MEANS to improve your marriage and life? So you're USING your children's formative years as a "CHALLENGE" to get you to act more godly? In front of them? All the time?
This isn't about the children! They're just a project!* the shared vision of the parents grows, further uniting themAgain, how is this not USING your children and their education, in an attempt to bring more unity to your marriage? Who is this about?* parents learn to give up selfish and unprofitable expectations and plans, focusing instead on raising/teaching/training the next generation...because all expectations and plans that are not homeschooling, are selfish and unprofitable.
Oh, and again, USING your children and their education as a PROJECT to try to improve your OWN character. "I'm pretty selfish--I know!--I'll homeschool my children! Then I'll stop being selfish!"* in the establishment of a godly household, parents often remove or curtail distracting and harmful influences, replacing them with time spent together as a family Because this is NEVER done by parents who send their children to school! NEVER. And they're not godly either.* parents develop long-range goals, planning a heritage and legacy extending to the next generation and beyond Or, they're so exhausted that it's all they can do to get through the day and watch a little T.V. at night. Maybe even together. To keep up the relationship.
And what if you're too busy and overwhelmed to even set short-term goals together? When will you talk about long-term goals? * parents rarely lack material for interesting conversation a) because ALL parents who send their children to school lack material for interesting conversation.
b) Come ON. You're together all day. You DO run out of interesting things to say. HOW INTERESTING IS THE LAUNDRY? * facing challenges together increases sense of unity and commitment ...because ONLY homeschooling can provide challenges to face together as a family. Too bad for everyone who goes to school--and their families. They don't understand how to face challenges together.* roles within family begin to approximate more closely the Biblical roles...as you begin to forget that your family members are actual real PEOPLE and not just ROLES. ...as you forget what grace is.Okay. I know. I might sound a little negative.
|
|