|
Post by jemand on Apr 22, 2010 8:16:26 GMT -5
Thus speaks time cube! (timecube.com) Educators don't teach Cube Truth - for whichthey would be fired! Evil teachers betray students, as ONE is a Death Value. Cube 4x4 voids 1 & God. USA ripe for holocaust. Man evolves from teenager - in cube METAMORPHOSIS but ignores teenager to worship a male mother, guised in woman's garb,churchman called father. Adult god is adult crime upon their own children. a zero value existence - that cancel to naught as an entity. See www.abovegod.com Santa & God DEBASE WOMEN as if non-existing opposites. How evil unto their mothers. while killing innocent WOMEN AND CHILDREN. Keep ignoring me you evil asses and observe the slaughter of your children protecting the oil barons ripping off their families back home. The ENEMY IS BACK HOME, not in foreign lands. Ignore me!! All humans are created and exist between THE OPPOSITES OF MALE AND FEMALE values. Add the opposites together and humans cease to exist. A single God is death and constitutes evil worship. Opposites ARE NOT entities. Earth nor human equal entity. Male/female = zero existence, as in 2 opposite hemispheres. Male+female cancel each out. My Cubic Wisdom debunks 1 sex gods. The male god singularity and same sex trinity equates DENOUNCING MOTHERHOOD with a price of HIV devastating LIFE on Earth. Educators are KILLING US - teaching Death value ONEism. A male God without a female Opposite = Queer Worship. ONEism of a God Is Death. Adults Evolve From Children, not from a Queer deified as a God by Religious/Academic Organized Crime, Swindling Educated Stupid and Gullible. Love for God = Hate for Child. Horrendous HOAX on the Educated!! God Oners must ban all sex with Opposites. Trinity of males degrade female opposites. Sex okay for atheist, but not God Oneists. Opposite hemispheres equate planets to a Giant Brain, that has 4 faces, but no limbs. Adults create baby, baby evolves to adult. No 1 God can create a planet of opposites, which equate to a zero value existence, and cancels to nothing as an entity in death. All hail cube truth!!!
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 22, 2010 7:39:39 GMT -5
Jane, you are really monopolizing the conversation. It's kinda rude. do you think you could contain your points into one post please?
You are talking over everyone else by sheer volume, it isn't really very nice or conducive to sharing experiences. People won't read your "wall of text" so it's not very effective either.
Ome mense hanteer codes in die vertaling deur die heilige GIGO (codes in, codes uit) metode. Ek doen dit nie. Ek wil my vertalings te word kristal helder.
Die ouens
WAT die dinge wat ek vertaal is sakemense te lees
EN HULLE HET NIE DIE ntyd of die geneigdheid om te porie en dink eers oor 'n teks, kyk op woorde in' n Hele woordeboek nie,
hulle wil om te verstaan WAT HULLE DIE EERSTE keer vlugtig te lees deur dit. As hulle dit nie doen nie, die sê "damn die vertaler," nie "damn die outeur." DIE OUENS WQAT DIE goed lees sakemense Ek vertaal is, en hulle het nie die tyd of
die
geneigdheid OM TE PORIE EN dink
eers oor 'n teks, soek om woorde in 'n Hele woordeboek. Al hierdie besigheid van "kristal helder vertaling vir codes oorspronklike" KAN teorie' n bietjie in stryd met goeie vertaling, maar ek is nie oor 'n goeie vertaling teorie hier, ek praat oor' n lewe te verdien. LESERS VAN
besigheid vertalings verwag om te verstaan wat hulle lees, sonder moeite, en ek het 'n gesin te voed. Daarom het ek dit eenvoudig hou. PERFECT RAINAISE.
So ook al my RESEP VIR VERTAAL
teorie
kan wissel van tyd tot tyd, sluit dit altyd 'n goeie SKOOT!
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 21, 2010 14:47:22 GMT -5
I'm still not sure that the problem is with the siblings caring for each other. I mentioned my much younger sister in an earlier post. By the time she was born, I was a teenager and my brother was living with our bio-father (my sister has a different bio-father). My mother strived to "pay" me for my time caring for my sister, mainly by providing things she would have anyway. She didn't want me to "feel like a built in babysitter", but to be honest, we all knew that's exactly what I was. I was the first person my sister called "da da" and as a toddler, it's my bed she'd climb into when she had nightmares. I had the illusion of consent, but really had no choice. If I didn't step up our family would have suffered, and I would have been restricted and punished. One baby for a 13 year old is different in scale from 6 babies, but how much different is it in substance? I'm thinking the problem isn't that quiverfull daughters are in the role of mothering younger siblings, I think the crime is that is ALL they are expected, required and allowed to do. It's not kids raising kids that's the problem, but the whole fundamental brainwashing oppression that goes with it in these families.. I'm sorry badfaerie, but I must disagree. Kids being forced to raise kids *is* the problem. It doesn't matter the scale or the size of the family, it is wrong to bring children into the world just to pass them off to your older children... To make it so that you are so absent in your child's life it feels it's natural primary nurturer and protector and caregiver is a young child as well... Young teens are not ready for that responsibility and it is wrong to organize a family such they *have* to or a child will be left with no love and guidance at all. Whether one or six or ten children. And then there is a difference between "help" and "be responsible for" which has been previously discussed. To "help" is good, to be "responsible" for adult things, like being the main support structure and comforter and nurturer and protector of a child, is not "helping." It is an adult abdicating adult responsibilities and presuming the innate loyalty and goodness of a child will spark them to make far more sacrifices than any child should. There *are* families of 'kids raising kids,' and it's a problem too, the small ones are rather common in aids-hit Africa, because *most* parents who are still around will have enough time and energy to mostly parent one or two younger siblings to a minimally satisfactory level, so it's *usually* not as common a problem in small intact families. HOWEVER, when something like alcoholism or some other factor is taking parents more completely out of the parenting business, you better bet that 'kids raising kids' is just as big a problem and just as damaging and soul crushing with one younger kid than many. Children should not be raising children.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 21, 2010 12:40:53 GMT -5
"As I got older, if I wanted to keep the horses, I had to care for them and then eventually provide for them in my own way which meant helping cut hay for a share of the yield, help out at the vets office in exchange for care and caring for my baby sister in exchange for entry fees for events. The point is, even at a young age, I carried serious responsibilities.
Trade out the horses with additional younger siblings and I don't think it would have been so awful."
But there is a HUGE difference in those two requests! If the child doesn't want to continue the responsibilities of the horses, he or she can give the horses away. They are also an interest the children are involved in and have a say in getting and keeping. Younger children? They are something the parents get with no input from their older children, and then once they are here shove off their parental responsibilities on their teens-- no end, no possibility of saying, you know what? Actually this IS to much for me, this actually ISN'T one of my interests any more, I want to adopt out my horses.
That's not allowed with siblings, instead... ANOTHER one comes along and you're responsible for even MORE!
It works fine as long as the interests line up, but in the case that the older children start to have interests that are different, individual, their own, they are stuck. There is no freedom. Personally, I do think even a lot of non QF families with lots of children fall into this trap. Different parents have different capacities for taking care of and dealing with young children-- but if you go over what you can take care of yourself and be responsible for yourself, I think it's problematic no matter the belief system, you are assuming and presuming you will be able to rely on others to do the work you created, and human nature and family loyalty is such that your older children probably will limit themselves and their futures in order to get it done.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 21, 2010 7:58:29 GMT -5
The idea of hair and the keeping of long hair is just different in different cultures, different associations, different pressures. Like this: www.examiner.com/x-10853-Portland-Humanist-Examiner~y2009m6d29-Native-American-boy-fights-Texas-school-over-hair-cutIt seems less of a way for others to impose external rules on another group of people and more of a personal decision of aesthetics and spirituality and individuality. It's hard to support the idea that "long hair is beautiful/a glory" when you immediately start denigrating it on men and force THEM to remove it. Because in that case it's not about hair, it's about gender roles and staying in your assigned box based on who you were born as.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 19, 2010 11:57:51 GMT -5
I've always loved my hair long, and it's never been a hassle for me. Then again, the reason for this is that I wash it on average about three times a week, and brush it on average about twice a week... It is also long enough for me to literally tie into a bun, which removes the need for any hair ties or other restraints if I happen to start doing an activity I need it out of my face for.
Anyway, I've never had any trouble with this, it looks great, smells great, etc. I think so many people have short hair the social "rules" for what is required to be presentable are made for them, when the hair is more likely to get greasy quickly and doesn't settle into doing it's own thing. Plus, rules for women are often required to be difficult no matter whether it's 'necessary' or not...
I'm fairly certain ALL the guys with long hair never even attempt to hold themselves to the daily wash, brush, dry, simple style routine that everyone assumes women have to heed.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Mar 28, 2010 13:08:11 GMT -5
Jemand, of course there are always going to be idiots. Of course Christianity is an ancient religion that sprang out of a barbaric culture, and itself came from an even more ancient religion that sprang out of an even more barbaric culture. Of course the ancient texts, like all other ancient texts of those periods, are going to reflect the barbaric mentality of those peoples. What I don't see is why that negates the beauty of human communion with the divine through intervention of the divine. There is a message that transcends all cultures. I really think that the main problem today is that many Christians have almost stopped worshiping God in favor of worshiping the scriptures. That's the mistake the Pharisees were making too. Jesus said the scriptures were never intended to do more than point to the divine. I have been in communion with the divine, and it is the single most beautiful thing in my life. I will not toss it out just because groups of people through the ages have entirely missed the point. But where *are* those scriptures of the more barbaric form you believe Christianity arose from, the ones before the Bible? They are *gone* from popular perception. We don't need them anymore. They would do far more harm than good if society considered them inspired in any way. So WHY do we have to keep around and venerate as inspired the barbaric texts Christianity is based on? Can we say that, maybe at this time, there is a need for a *different* spirituality completely, a new break from what came before, where these old texts will stop holding us back still? I know you have an experience with the divine and I don't, and I understand that. What I *don't* understand though, is why you choose to frame your experience in a tradition and paradigm which contains such barbaric thoughts and practices, while admitting you think that your current paradigm came out of a previous even worse paradigm. If that is the case, why not another spiritual paradigm shift for today? I'm not saying it would be a good idea to toss out your divine experience because groups of people throughout the ages caused so much harm, I'm saying it would be a good idea to stop rooting and interpreting that experience in the same texts and ideas which *caused* the harm on the part of so many groups. There are always going to be idiots, so why support ideas that allow those idiots to be more dangerous than they should be?
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Mar 28, 2010 10:51:32 GMT -5
See, KR, I am totally unconvinced by that poll. It says that 45% of Christians believe the bible is the literal word of god, word for word. While a believer, I would definitely have said no to that. I would have said yes to it being "inspired." But I thought all the ideas were divine, human wording, but divine, eternal ideas. Given how *close* that 45% of word for WORD literalism is to 50%, and the fact that, I didn't even get there even *when* I did not believe in much subtext, I really think the majority of Christians do not really care about the cultural context of these texts, at least the vast majority of the texts.
Secondly, you say this view is new. Well, maybe so, but it came about *from* a simplistic, face only reading of the text. Say we fight it back into nothing, say you are right and we get back to the "traditional" view that includes context. Well, guess what, that face only reading is *still there!* In a text that is widely reverenced in society as from a perfect and unchanging god. And in one thousand years, there's going to be another group of idiots who resurrect the fundamentalist simplistic meaning. It's a textual ideological time bomb. There is no way we can get away from this sort of recurrence short of granting that it is actually not the timeless word of god. Actually not from a divine agent that is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Mar 27, 2010 13:12:28 GMT -5
Yes, yes, it is very accommodating to change a culture's dress, festivals, legal system, food, religion, etc. Pretty much everything that makes a culture a culture. But not acceptance of a paradigm of child abuse as necessary for a covenant with the divine. No, not *that* bit, and the genocide bit, and the sexism bit, and the slavery bit oh, *those* bits god couldn't touch.
I'm sorry if that makes me think of your god as a little impotent and pathetic... poor god cannot teach his people how to be nice, but he *can* teach them an entirely new law of diet, or to wear tassels of a certain color on their clothing, or to hold such and such a festival 'just so.' And then supposedly I'm supposed to consider that working *within* the culture??
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Mar 10, 2010 12:50:49 GMT -5
It was estimated in 2007 that the Pornstitution industry, both *legal* and *illegal*, would be bringing in 57 billion dollars. Tell me, Jemand, how many of those dollars do the women end up with? Tell me what percentage of the garment industry profits a factory worker in bangladesh gets? What about an undocumented immigrant of the food industry profits? What about the ratio between the CEO's yearly bonus and the paper pusher's entire pension in: insurance, banking, energy, etc. How is wanting to fix ALL worker abuse somehow an indication I do not care about workers?!? How is seeing a society WIDE problem evidence I do NOT see some specific example of it?!? I do not agree that this is a specific problem that will always crop up in sex work, and that even if we fix all worker abuses in all industries, *this* industry will remain uniquely intractable and keep devolving back when the others no longer do. I don't believe that at all. It is not the simple idea of trading sex for some other material good that we have to fight, it is the *abuse* in our system that we need to fight. I get the feeling that your privilege is blinding you to the reality of prostituted women, girls, and feminized others. I get the feeling that Liberal/Progressive Dude politics are backing up your Utopian Ideal of the Happy Hooker as part “acting, massage, some psychology, etc.”. But, this is not Utopia. Women and children are literally being fucked to death all over this planet so that men can have their dominance, orgasms and profits and it seems like you don’t give a flip for them. Right now. Right this minute – not some far off fantasy land where pornstitution is “having the possibility to be a quite respected profession.” The sex trade is an immediate Human Rights issue, Jemand. Please go read rmott62. Yeah, I'm a minion of Teh Dudes What percentage of those abused women and children is done in pay-for-sex instances, and and how much is in domestically abusive relationships? If you go back far enough in time, the average abuse in a marriage was probably about the same as suffered by sex workers today. Was the solution to eliminate male-female sexual relationships? NO. And good thing, too, because if that was *necessary* to reduce abuse, if that was *necessary* to increase women's legal right as wives, well, we'd never have gotten *anywhere.* Sex is billions of years old, about as old as multicellular creatures, good luck ending it, and good thing we can reduce abuse in "free" relationships without having to resort to that. Similarly, we can reduce and even eliminate abuse in "pay" relationships as well, without eliminating the entire structure. Which is a good thing, as studies show that trading sexual favors for other material or social goods is perhaps as old as complex society itself, being observed in chimps, macaques, and humans, implying it was also practiced by our latest common ancestor. We *can* end the abuse, but can we end the idea that one person can trade something sexual to another person in exchange for something nonsexual the first person wants? Good luck with that.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Mar 10, 2010 8:52:00 GMT -5
Sea, so what you think is, logically, intrinsically to the very basic *idea* of sex and pay, it has to be that way? Sex is totally different than *anything else in human life* and that isn't a function of our societal attitudes, but it is a function of logical necessity?
Is not that magical distinction between sex, and not sex "it's just *different*" from the same place as such damaging OTHER socially constructed false binaries, such as male roles, and female roles, they are "just *different*" and gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because it is magically "different" than straight marriage, and other false binaries such as madonna/whore? There is much abuse in our society. But I believe false binaries are part of the problem. And the idea that sex is intrinsically *so much different* than any other physical service, that sex is *infinitely different* than even selling fantasy in mainstream movies? I don't think that's helpful.
Sex trafficking is real and is a problem, where I have a disagreement, is when people say it is logically intrinsic to the very *idea* of *ever* mixing anything sexual and payment. It doesn't logically follow, there exists abuse in every aspect of human life, sex is not 'special' that way, and sex is not 'special' either that selling it logically requires abuse. We can fight abuse without getting sidetracked by fighting something that is only incidentally connected to it, or only connected through certain social attitudes-- fighting sex work then would be trying to treat the symptom when you have the main disease still eating you out from the inside. It'd be like trying to repaint cracking and melting paint *while the fire's still burning.*
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Mar 8, 2010 22:11:53 GMT -5
Jemand, I honestly wasn't thinking of anyone being stuck with someone they didn't want to have sex with. I mean, I'm 45 and weigh upwards of 200 lbs -- I don't exactly fit into the model of the desirable woman -- but I don't have to settle for, or be stuck with, anyone I don't want to have sex with. I love my husband and he loves me, neither of us is a "perfect 10," but neither of us feels "stuck" or as if we are having to settle for someone we don't have to be with. So, I honestly don't think I'm naive in believing that true love is available to anyone, of any age, and of any appearance. If I weren't married, and wanted to have a sexual relationship without marriage, I have no doubt that even at my size and age and all, I could find a nice man who I was attracted to, who would be happy to have sex with me without me needing to pay him for it. As far as paying a masseusse -- I guess I do have a mental block that keeps me from being able to perceive sex as a service to be bought and sold. I can't get past my belief that it's best expressed as intimacy between 2 people -- and I can't help thinking that prostitution will always result in someone being demeaned and objectified. ... My other mental block is that I can't imagine enjoying sex with someone who didn't really WANT to have sex with me. No matter how desirable the guy was, if I had to pay him to sleep with me that would just ruin the whole dynamic. I like being wined and dined and made a big deal of -- being pursued, not being the pursuer. But just because you are paying for a service does NOT mean the other person doesn't want to give it. A *lot* of people love their jobs! And, for instance, a lot of doctors and nurses go into the medical field because they *want* to help people. That does NOT mean, that, when they help people they shouldn't be paid for it or because they are paid for it, they don't want to. Paying for sex does not mean the other person doesn't *want* to have sex with you any more than paying to watch a movie means the actors must hate their jobs. And personally, the dichotomy of "sex" and "not sex" for work, and life, and whatever, gets way to close to the generators of other social dichotomies, female/male, etc, and confined roles of acceptability. Such a dichotomy bothers me greatly, personally. I don't think your perspective or mine is *more valid* in a relationship, we will get our separate relationships and we will think about them separately and that's perfectly great. But we were talking about what would exist in a free and open and fair society, and I don't think that people who view it my way *won't exist* in a fully free society, and therefore, I don't think that there won't be anyone who in a free society will think of sex as something that can be extremely multifaceted, and in some instances be quite similar to acting and massage. I don't see why those people couldn't be quite happy doing it for pay-- and just because it was for pay doesn't mean they hate their job! And just to prod oh so slightly, you call it "true love" because that's what *you* want lol. I'm not convinced *everyone* quite values it exactly the same way, and I don't think that has to be a bad thing (for instance, my 'true love' would never include being wined and dined and NOT being the pursuer, etc.) Anyway, I just don't see any logical reason why your two "mental blocks" would be shared by 100% of the population in a "caring society" and so I see no reason why a safe form of sex work couldn't exist. If we want to talk demeaning and objectifying, we can talk sports lol. Seriously though, I personally view sex work as having the possibility to be a quite respected profession, combining elements of many service jobs, acting, massage, some psychology, etc. I don't respect sports nearly as much, but others disagree .
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Mar 8, 2010 9:13:01 GMT -5
In my experience, women whose husbands are unwilling for them to quit work and have children are in sort of a reverse-patriarchy situation--it's still patriarchy, but with a different set of ideals, or priorities, or laws. I think of all women these are the saddest--wanting kids and not being allowed. These make me very mad! I think it's important to acknowledge that patriarchy in and of itself is a bad thing, whether or not it has birth/fertility implications alongside. In my marriage, I have always wanted kids more and before my husband. Yet he is patriarchal, and is willing to admit such. I think patriarchy expressed as a refusal to have kids, or an unwillingness to consider the mom at home, is just as evil, and in some ways seems worse to me. [...] I just get mad when men deny their wives the chance to have children during their child-bearing years. This seems as selfish as the other kinds of patriarchy. First, maggieb, welcome to the board! I hope you enjoy it here and I'm sure you'll find lots of interesting people to talk to! Some of the ideas in your post generated a little rant-writing session from me, just know you just sparked it, I'm not trying to direct it at you specifically, I could just have easily ranted in response to a link or something! Anyway, rant below the stars. ************************************ Ok, here's what I think about the "woman should always gets to stay at home if she wants to" meme: You think it's a woman's due to demand, I'm going to quit work and have kids you don't even want and you have to give me money because I'm tired of working anymore? You think that's fair? That's not a partnership. That's not sharing. That's demanding money from one partner to support the other partner doing whatever the heck they want when their partner doesn't even want to be a part of it! Would you support such an ultimatum if it had been anything *other* than children? What if the man wants his wife to keep working to support him and pay all his bills while he quits to, I dunno, attempt to be a rock star, when she doesn't even like rock? Now, if a man leads a woman to believe before marriage they agree on such a plan, and then renegs on it, that's not fair. But a man who isn't interested in being a parent, who makes that clear, who doesn't want to be the sole income earner of two people, especially when the other person wants to spend most of that money pursuing goals he doesn't even share?? Thats the kind of irreconcilable difference that should lead to divorce. It is not fair to foist on someone else the sole duty for paying all your bills, when they *don't want to* and *don't even share your goals!* There is always divorce, and in this disagreement, there wouldn't even be children to consider yet! Anyway, just the assumption that staying at home is the *normal* option really is only for a specific socioeconomic ideal in a particular time period, and the insistence that like it or not, a guy's gunna pick up the tab I think is rather sexist and demeaning. It is ok if *both* partners agree, but it is *perfectly* ok not to agree to such a set up, from *either* party, including the man, without them being a bad person. It is just an honest expression of their life goals, their wishes, etc. And... there is always divorce. And why do I think that in a disagreement, it's best to go with the person who doesn't want children? Because, there aren't any children yet, and I don't think it's really a nice thing to bring children into the world who's parents don't want them. If someone wants kids, and their partner doesn't, the solution is to go find another partner who ALSO wants kids, so the children have two parents who want them, not resent them.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Mar 7, 2010 23:22:03 GMT -5
susan, Well, sometimes my boyfriend gives me a backrub-- that doesn't mean that I'll never go to a spa and pay a masseuse to do it, as well. Why *wouldn't* anyone ever want to pay for an interaction that included sex? Such as, if it involved a third person and a lot of specialized and expensive equipment, why wouldn't a couple pay someone who has experience with being the third in a threesome to make the other two feel comfortable, and be able to pay for the equipment and their lifestyle with payment for using their experience to help the couple have a good time? You're assuming sex is only good, or at least is best, if it's free. And that isn't true, there are many safe fantasies that can be better filled by a facilitator who can help you not be quite so shy or feel weird about it, and why *shouldn't* those facilitators get paid, any less than people who give professional massages are paid? There is no categorical reason why someone getting free sex with one person wouldn't want to get or give sex for pay with another person. Plus, the statement that everyone should be able to find someone to provide sex for free does not even logically follow. There is no logical reason to believe that the women who "can't get sex for free" would necessarily want to sleep with the men who "can't get sex for free", or vice versa. I think you're assuming they would have sex with each other, because they would be "stuck with" that other group. But they are only "stuck" if you assume free sex is the only valid or good sex. In actual fact they are *not* stuck with that other group for free, because for pay, they can sleep with someone they actually *want* to have sex with.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Mar 6, 2010 18:56:25 GMT -5
I also heard a similar story-- it was that the shepherd picked the lamb that was the leader, the troublemaker, the one with the most spirit and the one the other lambs would look up to, but the one that didn't completely follow the shepherd. Then the shepherd broke it's leg, and carefully mended it over several weeks. After that, the lamb grew up to be the mildest most obedient sheep, and kept the rest of the flock in line, because it was also a leader. It was horrifying, but I only heard the story a couple times, as an inspirational children's story or something, on how if you have lots of potential, you can expect god to teach you lessons like that. btw, here are some links to story variants online: www.godfire.net/mybody.htmlteachmedad.wordpress.com/2006/08/08/break-a-leg/latterrainfamilyworshipcenter.blogspot.com/2009/03/good-shepherd.htmlwww.zimbio.com/Jude+Stringfellow+Comedy/articles/1058/Good+Shepherd+Breaks+Their+Legs
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Mar 3, 2010 16:28:29 GMT -5
a quick note on "our" I was just using it to denote a sort of collective responsibility in that our culture and society is set up that way. Sure, we may try to fight against it, but I think that regardless, we are still *in* that society, so I just used 'our.' Besides, I think even when we try to fight it, we can't help but internalize at least *some* of the messages, so we can't really be completely "out" of society.
Anyway, apparently I have misunderstood you, sorry. You are right that I am super pissed women don't have more options of financial support in the world (though not just women, we tend to treat most poor people like shit). And that of the women who *do* have options and who might be interested in sex work as just one aspect of their natural personalities, often choose not to do it because they are scared (and rightly so). Our societal constructions of "value" draw targets for violence and abuse (even death) all over women who do sex work-- and even sometimes their family members. But still, I see the problem as lying 100% in our messed up society, and not at all on the act itself.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Mar 3, 2010 12:32:01 GMT -5
Why is the problem prostitution and not our cruel insistence on sabotaging any true social safety net? Sex workers don't want anyone they loved to have to have sex for pay in order not to starve. Well DUH. But why is the problem the "sex for pay" and not the "society will let you STARVE."
I know very much you despise legal sex work, sea. I just think it's the focus on the absolute wrong end of things. It would be like trying to DENY undocumented immigrants access to work, so they starve, instead of setting up laws mandating safe working conditions, decent pay, safety net for disability or unemployment, etc.
It just seems such a weird approach to me. Currently, some of these women choose between sex work and death. That's awful. Why anyone would see such a situation and say "oh, we should end... SEX WORK!" is beyond me. Lovely, now they have a choice of... 'and death.'
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Feb 27, 2010 17:56:13 GMT -5
kim? Do you want to try to restate your point? Right now you sound like a troll. Did you even read the post? Razing Ruth was LONELY. She wanted to sleep with her brothers. The family had access to better options, but refused to do them. And... just so you know, it isn't ok to abuse and deprive children just because someone else sometime in history somewhere in the world has done worse. That is a really cruel position.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Feb 27, 2010 9:24:17 GMT -5
oh, journey, thank you so much for writing that post It was immensely helpful, actually. I don't feel any disrespect in it, and you did point out some problems with my first hastily written post that I hadn't really seen so well before. The tone in the very first part was definitely predicated upon the fact that I was much gentler before (in the post I linked to)-- and nobody seemed to hear my point, because I had toned it down TOO much (and probably because it was enmeshed in an abortion debate) and I wished to be forceful so people would take the boundary violation it was seriously. It was also that frustration with Charis in particular and feeling like what I've said before has been ignored, or that she just comes and then runs away to her own sandbox without trying to really engage us or reply to problematic things we bring up in dialogue here that was coloring the rest of the post, which was over the top. Sorry everyone, and Charis in particular. ETA, madame, I shall try to keep this short here. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, any more than consent to heavy petting is consent to sex. Or consent to date is consent to sex. That is especially true when strong measures have been made to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy to as small as it presently is possible to make them. When a woman seeks out an abortion, it is tautologically true that she does not consent to pregnancy, and that it doesn't matter the personhood of the fetus-- if a live, full human being attempted to use her reproductive organs against her will, we call it rape and give her the right to attempt to stop it herself, or by calling police to help her. I think there are two separate questions involved, the question of whether someone has the absolute right to terminate the life of a fetus if it could live outside her body and be removed without posing a danger to her (I think no) and whether someone must consent before such things as sex, donation of kidneys,.... AND pregnancy become ethical. (I think yes.) The fact that the present state of technology conflates the two doesn't mean there aren't two questions there, and given that as a society we allow people to refuse organ transplants *after their deaths!* I cannot possibly see why pregnancy is something that should void consent clauses, without seeing that it uniquely removes rights of women.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Feb 26, 2010 22:04:34 GMT -5
Journey, I think there is a difference between civility and what I called before "to peacemake." And, I will concede that "to peacemake" is actually not foundational to fundamentalism-- you've thoroughly convinced me on that. I think civility allows for disagreement, but does so with respect, while "to peacemake" pretends there is no disagreement, or pretends a false consensus. And, in that vein, when the response to stated disagreement is something like "well, in our hearts, in our intentions, etc, we *really* just agree..." I see that as more of what I just called peacemaking, and find it condescending and demeaning. And, since we're kind of talking about communication on NLQ, I think there was a lot of it at the beginning of the atheist/theist thread as well-- coming to a false consensus, a "both extremes are equally bad and aren't we nice here in the middle" in some posts (some of my atheist friends in real life also engage in this, I should have definitely seen that it wasn't fundamentalist, silly me). I think that idea of false balance and that really, deep down, others can't possibly REALLY disagree is actually not part of civil conduct.
But I will say, it seems that fundamentalism doesn't accept any dissent or anger or interpersonal friction within the group, which leads women like Vyckie while in that movement to constantly try to smooth over disputes within the family, by talking motivation of the disputers, pretending underlying agreement, whatever, to make the conflict disappear somehow. That's probably why I connected the "peacemake" vibe to fundamentalism-- but it really is only used in group there, and it is used by many others as well. My bad.
And I STILL think it's weird where we pointed out a disagreement or hurt without attributing negative intent, the reaction seemed to focus more on the intent, which we didn't even talk about, than the real issues we brought up. I'm not sure what that MEANS, really, but maybe what I wrote and what people heard just weren't the same thing at all. Maybe it's not possible to hear "that's bad" without hearing "you meant it to be bad." But I don't see how I can change when people interject such a meaning? Is there a way I could avoid that somehow?
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Feb 26, 2010 20:11:41 GMT -5
KR, she has definitely said such things to her daughters. Her post was
note, they all lectured her thoroughly-- it implies that she has repeatedly brought this up with them, and her focus is on the relationship to HER all the time, HER grandchildren. It's possessive language, and charis has had a history of possessive language and a complete lack of boundaries when discussing her daughters.
And also, given that the thread has branched off into discussing the huge harms that were inflicted on quiverful daughters through innocent intentions, your continued focus on explaining away her reasoning is--- frustrating to me. I think we all KNOW she "didn't mean to."
That doesn't mean it doesn't hurt, and it certainly doesn't invalidate a critique of it. When I or sierra critique an attitude that is harmful to us, it really isn't very nice to say, oh, you just don't understand the motivation well enough, I will explain it to you. You don't know where she's coming from. Etc. What about where WE are coming from? Sierra was forced to validate herself through relating extreme pain. Is it because we AREN'T reactionary or inflammatory or go hide in our little corners that people think we can be offended more because we'll just "take it?"
The bias on this forum is still very much in favor of the person who doesn't point out where something is wrong-- to make things still look good, to focus on intentions rather than actual results. I really don't like that, when someone says, this language is bad and it hurts and your view is seriously violation the boundaries of daughters, that the automatic reaction of SO MANY people is just to double back onto the motivation of the mother. Whatever, that's a DIFFERENT conversation. Can we just talk about results here? Try to actually allow a large fracture of opinion, without reflexively trying to "peacemake" like women in fundamentalism are taught to do all the time?
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Feb 26, 2010 10:12:02 GMT -5
wow, africaturtle, your situation sounds pretty tough. I hope that the future works out well no matter where you land And do not worry even if you fear you will lose your faith, while it is very scary to be in the middle of that loss, the "other side" is emotionally and psychologically safe once you get here-- but if you never do, I hope you can find an emotionally and psychologically safe environment in the context of your religious beliefs as well. As for culture, I'm not sure there ever was a command to reactionarily be against *whatever* the main culture was so that one would stick out, be visible, different, noticeable etc. And I don't think it's fair to really look at Jesus as an example of never speaking of one's own suffering-- maybe he did not actually "speak", but hugely popular books were written all about his suffering, that are believed to be inspired within the Christian mindset ,by god, who Jesus was, that really sounds like talking about your suffering widely to me. Jesus was not ignored and did not suffer in silence like QF women are expected to do-- with nobody ever supposed to learn their stories. Anyway, I hope you enjoy it here!
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Feb 25, 2010 13:12:07 GMT -5
I also am not sure what I want out of this discussion, but one thing I am sure of, is that when a poster insists on possessive language for adult children, we at least do not dump on those posters who react to it in *the exact same way* we ALL would react to a male poster coming on here and starting to use possessive language to own all of his wife's decisions. About how they reflect on him. About how everything she does is all about him, etc.
Also, we are not the ones who are bringing up the "abortion" topic again. We are focusing exclusively on healthy boundaries between mother and daughter, and trying to drop that discussion. That was my intention all along-- I have finished the abortion discussion on this forum, but I DO believe that all posters should be expected to respect their daughters in their posting language. And I don't see how hijacking the discussion to be all about abortion and posting it on your own blog is really helpful to that larger idea of healthy boundaries within families at all.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Feb 24, 2010 18:26:17 GMT -5
yeah, I was trying not so much to refight the pro-choice stance, as to point out that I see some serious boundary violations in Charis's descriptions of her relationship with her adult daughters. Her adult daughter's reproductive organs and what they choose to do with them are NON OF THE MOTHER'S BUSINESS.
One really should not be imposing and nosing into the sex lives of your adult children, you really don't need to know. Journey is right, living for decades in a situation where your boundaries are routinely violated changes you-- and one of those changes may be not to see your violations of the boundaries of people like your daughters.
I know that to the extent there was any vicarious living of the children's lives in my home, it was very hurtful. To the extent that my adult choices were met with guilt trips and morose overreacting that I could possibly think differently than they did, it was extremely harmful. I don't think my mother would ever acknowledge this, I don't even know if she would *listen* to me. But it's possible that to a stranger I can be more open about a dynamic that hurt me. And just *possibly* from a stranger, someone like my mom would listen more than from me. Saying that you've been "thoroughly lectured" from those same daughters, is a pretty clear indicator to me that they want you to back off of their adult sex life. They probably don't want you trumpeting their sex histories to strangers on the internet. They probably don't want you carrying on about hypothetical two celled grandbaby zygotes that you're killing while drinking coffee or going out running. Both things that occasionally can result in losing a blastocyst, probably more often than the evil bc pills, but both things that are quite important to the well being of thousands of women who are trying to live their lives on their own terms, and hormonal birth control is the same thing. And women who are less stressed, who get sufficient excercise, who feel respected and valued even if you disagree with them, while they may lose an extra zygote here and there, are far more prepared to competantly care for your REAL grandchildren when they arrive.
And? While I do recognize that the pressures of a woman abused in a quiverful setting are extreme... in many ways, these women enter as adults. They have a level of choice that is COMPLETELY out of reach of their daughters. I'm not talking about the pro-life debate, I'm talking about the need to recognize and reinstate ALL healthy boundaries in a family, not just the one between husband and wife.
Edited to add, I find it very interesting how this discussion and opinions break down across who was mother, and who was daughter, lines. I feel disrespected as a daughter here, and I think it's hurtful if we decide this forum is ONLY to fix relationships that directly imprison mothers by their husbands. We must ALSO free the daughters. Part of that, is to point out how not to try to live their lives for them.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Feb 24, 2010 15:25:06 GMT -5
The career one hasn't been emotionally charged at all. The one that takes the prize for that is that my married children have chosen hormonal forms of bc. According to package inserts one of the mechanisms involves microabortions of my grandchildren. They are all studying medical fields and lectured me me thoroughly that they know better. But I can read package inserts. The word 'abortion' does not occur in the package insert for my hormonal birth control, except to advise a woman when she can start taking the pills after a miscarriage/abortion. Your statement is a value-laden interpretation of package inserts, which are written by people with medical training, like your children. The package insert for my hormonal birth control reads: How do C___ pills work? 1. They stop a woman's ovaries releasing eggs. 2. They thicken vaginal fluid so that sperm cannot get to the womb. 3. They change the lining of the womb so that eggs are unable to grow there.If you want the name of the pill, I can give it to you for verification. It's British. The inability of the odd potentially fertilised egg escaping the first two steps to implant in the uterus is what I presume you're talking about. This can occur whether or not a woman is on hormonal birth control. But I find your comment highly disturbing for two reasons: 1. It names fertilised eggs as grandchildren, e.g. autonomous persons, when they consist of two conjoined cells. You would need a microscope to see them - it's absurd to call them 'children.' 2. It introduces the concept of 'microabortion,' which evidently saddles women with the full responsibility of pregnancy the instant of fertilisation, which then makes them responsible for that fertilised egg, whether it succeeds or fails at implanting (and it may very likely fail naturally for a variety of reasons). I am fairly certain that the medical community does not recognize the existence of a 'microabortion,' as a pregnancy is either sustained or aborted (naturally or artificially), no matter what its stage. 3. It makes a possessive statement, emphasising the relationship of that fertilised egg to you - whereas I doubt you are notified when one of your children's eggs fails to implant. It hugely disturbs me to think of my parents sizing up the minute details of what is happening in my uterus as their concern. Then again, my father did 'grieve' inappropriately (involving screaming insults, shunning and the silent treatment) when I told him I wasn't interested in having children of my own and accused me of 'denying him grandchildren.' I wasn't aware I was born with that obligation. (Edited to fix a typo.) That post bothered me a great deal as well, charis's possessiveness of her children's choices and bodies bothers me still, and bothered me back when this post was written: nolongerquivering.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=open&thread=322&page=2#4684 when apparently her children's virginity in their TWENTIES is thought to be even REMOTELY her business, and even more so by implying that her pride in them is not insignificantly based in the status of their hymens at marriage. I'm also extremely angry that engineering is deemed a "man's world," and studying engineering is apparently tantamount to getting a sex change. So, you have unresolved issues with your young adulthood, whatever. Stop trying to tell all other women where they shouldn't go because THAT space is for MEN. But yea, maybe I just have some anger issues here, which is why my posting frequency has dropped dramatically. Maybe I'll get over it soon. On the other hand, when I first saw that post, I wasn't actually quite so angry as hilariously amused, until I realized it was meant seriously.
|
|