|
Post by jemand on Feb 20, 2010 18:46:37 GMT -5
journey, oh of course, I agree permissive parenting can cause problems too, and is not a good childraising method. The studies you mention seem to indicate that the psychological damage from severely authoritarian or wildly permissive parenting techniques are about the same. However, that does not take into consideration any physical damage-- and the authoritarian method seems far more conducive to causing both psychological AND physical damage, whereas I have not heard so much of that from permissive parenting styles. So that's why I say while both are bad, I don't really think it's a "just as bad" thing, since one is more likely to result in severe injury or death in childhood.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Feb 20, 2010 17:09:15 GMT -5
I don't want you to think I think the Pearls are right because I don't. But neither are people who let their children run them... Because I have seen that and honestly it is just as bad it leads to the a lot of the same negative behaviors. Is it true that children feel more love when they are disciplined properly? From my own experience I would have rather had proper discipline than the verbal abuse that spewed from my mother for no other reason than she didn't know what else to do! So where is the happy medium of Discipline, Love, and Respect...? I don't think we can say it is "just as bad." Being permissive has a lot of drawbacks, but it isn't going to cause kidney failure by *literally* tenderizing your child's muscle's while still on her like a butcher tenderizes a steak. "Just as bad" is often specious, even if there is a strong societal impulse towards "balance" and "both extremes are just as bad" is a terribly common attitude, I just don't think it's correct here. That's not to say that I believe no parental guidance is good, not at all. Just not as bad as killing them like a steak. And... it is true that I have read from child psychology experts that as spanking becomes less accepted socially, like in some countries which have already banned it, literally screaming at a child becomes the alternative that some parents will use. And you are right, it is severely damaging, parents need to be firm, but kind. And that does not require either beating nor screaming, as both of those behaviors are abuse. However, screaming at a child will not cause it's kidney's to break down.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Feb 19, 2010 8:33:49 GMT -5
Dangermom -- to be fair, those moms in that other thread didn't seem so concerned about Barbie specifically -- it seemed to be more about their moms insisting that everything they wore and played with be "gender neutral." Barbie's gender neutral, nothing wrong with boys playing with dolls! LOL Seriously though, it IS true.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 29, 2010 19:26:07 GMT -5
do men like Jim Bob heed a dr's advice to have no intercourse for x number of weeks after a birth or a procedure? I cannot recall the scripture, but in the OT I believe the abstinence period was 30 days for a son and 60 days for a daughter. QF are usually very particular about these kind of things. I would be willing to bet he follows the scriptural rule. 40 and 80
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 29, 2010 18:40:26 GMT -5
I've been in mainstream evangelical churches with people who pride themselves on being reasonable and not sucked into faith healing beliefs. It is striking to me that these (completely non-QF, probably never heard of it) Christians can accept that people get cancer, don't get cured or healed and die and that people can live with chronic health problems. They don't point to these people and question what they are doing wrong, they accept that ill health and death is a part of life. But STILL the woman who cannot have children can be the subject of whispered spiritual innuendo. She will be encouraged to find some spiritual reason for her barreneness. Not everyone is like this of course but I think it's a deep cultural bias against women that comes out in the church without any real thinking going on. I've had a few animated "discussions" about this topic with Christians in the past and they usually whip out some bible verse to explain why infertility is a spiritual matter but cancer or asthma is not. they do the same thing with mental illness and "demon possession" as well.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 28, 2010 21:48:58 GMT -5
But he rejected outside help many times. We were offered help for things we couldn't afford and that would have made our life more comfortable, and he always turned those offers down, unless he could somehow pay it back. Have any of you read Nietzsche's opinions on gifts? That they are given in a spirit of power play, that to be able to give a gift was proof of being "better" and that to receive a gift was to prove one was inferior. That all gifts had strings, and that one of the necessary strings was to make the receiver feel obligated, to feel demeaned and dismissed. That to give a gift was to display a derisive pity against the receiver. That gifts are an affront to the receiver. It has been several years since I have read Nietzsche, but his discussion of gifts, and his opinions on them, track nearly *exactly* with the attitude I see displayed towards them in the patriarchal mindset.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 28, 2010 21:14:29 GMT -5
Thank you, asteli! I recall reading parts of Nancy Friday's My Mother, My Self several years ago. I think I would enjoy reading more of her writings. About female pole dancers and other women working in the sex industry -- I think you're right that it's misogyny to assume that NO women have a choice, even if they say they do. I certainly don't want to discount the experiences of women like staceyjw. My big concern is this: for the individuals partaking of the various entertainments offered by the sex industry, how can they know for sure that each and every poledancer, stripper, or actress they're being entertained by, is 100% consenting? Presumably a woman or girl who wants to make good tips for her pimp or manager (and doesn't want to be beat up if he's that sort of guy), isn't going to be telling any customer who asks, that she really doesn't want to be there and is being forced into it. She would only speak up about it if she could actually visualize some possibility of getting out and attaining a better life for herself (and her children if she has any). She wouldn't speak up if she'd been so oppressed, from such an early age, that any attempts to get out seemed totally pointless. If the establishment were in a country with a strong social safety net in general and where sex work was legal and yet regulated and inspected, and trafficking or coercion to work were a crime that was taken seriously and pursued seriously when there was evidence for it-- I would think it would be pretty clear that the workers wanted to be there. Also, there are a lot of free-lancers in the sex work industry, people who advertise and work on their own, and again you'd be pretty safe assuming they are happy with their work (again, there's the social safety net aspect of it).
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 27, 2010 0:59:45 GMT -5
You know, jemand, I was just reading tapati's ideas in the thread about Patriarchy in the Bible -- and she got me thinking that maybe I actually do get sexually-excited about the female body -- not in the sense of wanting to be with a woman sexually, but Tapati was talking about how Patriarchal religion projects ALL sexuality -- both male and female sexuality -- onto the woman. And the female form excites me because I think of men being excited by it. So, pretty much my fantasies are about me being the "object" of desire, which actually seems to go along with the Phallus-worship tapati was talking about. Because it's like I'm basing my sexuality on being want-ED by the person with a phallus. When really I feel like sex "should" be about two people loving one another and meeting one another's needs. And of course that's what it IS like between my husband and me. He has NEVER treated me like an object -- he is all about wanting to meet my needs, and being sensitive as to whether or not I am in the mood. But there's this part of me that fantasizes about being treated like an object. And even though I know I would never ever want to be raped, sometimes I fantasize about being raped. Sick, I know. fantasy is never reality, even when you fantasize about losing control, you still have a tremendous amount of control because *you* are the one having the fantasy. It's a single-person sexual response that I don't think you should worry about. I think oftentimes people will work through a hurtful psychological response and twist it into a private enjoyable kink for themselves-- so unless you like the sick feeling after such fantasies (i.e., unless that drives other fantasies of yours, to think you are treading on "forbidden mental territory") I'd say try not to worry about it so much. Basically, it's kind of like the oyster making a pearl out of an irritant, women may take fear of rape or losing control, and twist it into an entirely private and very controlled mental game they enjoy. Even if you decided to move it beyond single person territory into consensual BDSM, you would still, oddly, have control over the situation even while you are pretending you have no control-- fantasy isn't reality. It's like the furries, one might think them *odd* if it isn't your thing, but what consenting adults do isn't wrong, even if what they are doing is *pretending* one of them isn't a consenting adult (i.e., an animal, not consenting, etc.). Though what plays in your own mind is even more completely your own territory. You're master of that domain lol. The first and most freeing thing I ever experienced was after leaving fundamentalism, when I got my own mind back. God wasn't "watching" every thought, every mental scene anymore. God wasn't counting every second wasted on thinking of myself, or my future, or things I liked, that didn't have to do with advancing god's kingdom. I didn't have to think about whether my personal fantasy life and every single imagination and daydream was G-rated. I didn't have to police anger, and fear, and all those other things someone trusting totally on god shouldn't feel. I was SO happy to get my mind back. And so if I want to use it for the occasional 'rape fantasy' completely on my own mental turf and on my own terms, I am NOT apologizing. That is MY mind. Policing my imagination, is something I am totally *DONE* with. Of course, that's my experience, yours may be different.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 26, 2010 22:40:15 GMT -5
And I am heterosexual and I enjoy sex and have what I consider to be a healthy sex-drive -- I just don't seem to be that visually-stimulated. Well, I have seen statistics showing that a third of porn use is actually women watching it... a good number of women are visually stimulated, and even some that are stay away because of societal expectations. Sure, a third isn't equal, definitely, but it certainly isn't trivial either. I haven't seen any statistics for actual club attendance breakdown for men and women, though. I think the uptick in porn usage generally, and female usage particularly, maybe more recent, and perhaps the clubs haven't gotten as far toward equality as the more anonymous media have yet. But I'm wildly speculating here.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 26, 2010 12:37:23 GMT -5
Sea, how exactly is it feminist to deny the reality of a woman's lived experience? There's no reason a woman can't freely choose to work in the sex trade, as Stacey obviously did. I am totally with this, and sea's reply to staceyjw kind of is an example of what's bothering me about this whole thing. It's a way of separating out "sex" from everything else of life, and somehow "sex" is magic and inherently exploitative, while acting *any other role,* being emotionally invested in any other character for a movie or play, is totally fine. I just don't get that. I don't see how or why sex is OBVIOUSLY different, how sex inherently HAS to be exploitative but selling time at a job, or mental power at a job, or emotional investment in an acting job, etc oh, that's not exploitative because that's not sex. It's a double standard that I think hurts women, because, as always, women are still the gatekeepers of this magical and unparalleled sex business (only this time, if they don't fall into line, they are disparaged as "not being in solidarity with other women" and "brainwashed by the patriarchy.").
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 26, 2010 9:21:45 GMT -5
thanks staceyjw for your input. So in your experience, your job was basically just like an acting job? Psychological, play a role, etc? I've always thought that those women who do choose to work in the sex trade probably have jobs there that are very much like the mainstream acting jobs in the movie industry. Have to be able to play a character, show and play emotion in your body language and expressions, etc. Even the fairly high price for the work is similar-- acting, despite what everyone thinks, is certainly not a trivial job and not everyone is good at it (even if they're all stars in their own minds lol ).
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 25, 2010 19:10:36 GMT -5
well, if you take turns, I think you're technically called a "switch" though I think some people may call themselves "dom" or "sub" in the context of a given scene even if they switch between them... I think it's just matter of terminology. Even the relationships in which one person is permanently dominant, and the other submissive, that pattern is not gender linked overall.
About safewords, there is a big push in the BDSM community as such to stay "safe, sane and consensual" which means they always have a safeword. Minor caveat, occasionally I have heard of people in the BDSM community who work out a detailed scene plan, lasting a limited period of time, and then do it without a safeword. They see it as basically no different from getting on a rollercoaster, you know what's going to happen, you want to get on, but you can't stop the coaster in the middle of the ride. Even in this case, they still have a much higher priority of communication throughout, and adjust their behavior according to their own desires, instead of being told which role they have to have.
apparently I have read way to much about this lol
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 25, 2010 18:27:23 GMT -5
susan, so do they not get that in the BDSM world guys can sub and women dom? And that maybe that dominant woman in all the rest of her life might be a dom in a BDSM relationship with a guy as well....
wait. I'm not sure what happened to the posts I was replying too.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 25, 2010 16:24:37 GMT -5
I just edited my last post... and I wonder if maybe we both are starting to interpose our own experiences onto the story, me, from the stories I've seen of fundamentalists nearly always dismissing and ignoring any expression of concern by "unbelievers" as being of the devil (and read the recent comments on razing ruth's own blog, from her family members showing that such stuff does go on in her family, maybe it didn't start then, but...) and your experience with smothering adult children.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 25, 2010 16:17:58 GMT -5
susan, I note that razing ruth said her mother cried when she learned she was pregnant so soon again after her last two... I wonder if her parents could sense this/knew this... when someone's "private reproductive parts" are causing such harm to someone you desperately love, I dunno, telling them to maybe consider doing something else with them doesn't seem so out of line for me.
I can see how parents can be super meddling, and play emotional blackmail with their children, but honestly, I haven't seen any indication of this yet in razing ruth's story. Maybe it's there and I haven't seen it, maybe it was subtext, I don't know. But I do know abusers try to drive wedges between their victims and alternative support structures, and I have a hard time believing that razing ruth's father didn't amplify any concern her grandparents had way beyond reason and used it as a reason to cut them off...
But I should maybe wait until ruth tells more of her story.
ETA, I read again and the crying was written close to the mention of the difficulty of telling her mother again-- so maybe you are right. Then again, sometimes we understand the craziness of our actions more when we're considering how to explain what we're doing to someone who loves us... so I'm not sure whether she was crying because her mother was being unrealistic, or if thinking about telling her mother made her realize maybe this wasn't what she wanted and helped her realize that it was a situation worth crying over.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 25, 2010 14:52:28 GMT -5
I'm actually not sure I see her parents becoming more distant, rather her husband shoving them away and ensuring she doesn't see or speak to them much... Her parents expressed reasonable concerns with respect to her daughter's health, and in response, got completely unreasonable talk of them being agents of the devil and must stay away from his new little family, etc.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 24, 2010 17:10:43 GMT -5
Jemand, Not posting on any forums anymore, only really available to do so here because of illness, I take for granted that I am new here and lots of people here don't know me. (I'm sorry if that makes things more confusing -- not my intent.) After this, I'll probably drift off into blog oblivion again for another year. Madame and I are known to one another from other forums and have exchanged some emails in the past. She's likely heard my ramblings along these lines many times before (yawn!) and knows (or I hope knows) that I hold her in high regard. She's got a great critically thinking mind, and like all the rest of us, we both are working on thinking through the bunk. What I addressed to her specifically applies just as much or more to me as it does to her or anyone coming out of any manipulative religious group. I think, in many ways, after such an experience with this type of abuse, we who are affected will be affected by it always in one way or another. In that respect, it's always good to keep mindful of the basics. I JUST COULDN'T resist this topic, however. The analogy is trenchant and tough, but it pierces to the heart of the issues involved as a result. Excellent for opening up a discussion. Peace, Cindy OH! That makes so much more sense. It just struck me as a kind of assumptive thing to say, and since you have history and know and understand each other well, and there's background info that you don't necessarily have to spell out in such a post, it makes *way* more sense. Sorry!
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 24, 2010 15:33:01 GMT -5
well, you were addressing your remarks to Madame, who is not QF, and her concerns I felt were not well addressed by telling her she was probably thinking too black and white, or being baited by an emotional trap. I'm wondering if you are understanding the point Madame was making?
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 24, 2010 12:00:37 GMT -5
cindy, I think it may be kind of problematic to try to solidly declare another's discomfort or offense is "actually" coming from something other than their stated communication... I think it's problematic to say that taking offense or being uncomfortable is probably coming from not taking in the whole picture or thinking badly, irrationally, or incompletely. I don't think you can or should make that characterization.
my 'problem' with it, I'm not entirely sure whether or not I have what I would label 'problem' without the quotes, is that I haven't yet decided whether this falls too closely under the umbrella of making fun of these women, derisively objectifying them in our analogies and contempt for their "bad thinking" as much as the system we're trying to bring down here.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 23, 2010 0:53:36 GMT -5
I'm a little uncomfortable with the "pole dancers" side of this. There is a great deal of exploitation in the sex trade, but there are women who choose to do sex work and don't feel exploited, and I think that should be respected. yeah... I know you never said you didn't respect sex workers... but I also am slightly uncomfortable, not entirely sure why. Maybe I'm just uncomfortable with sarcasm on such a topic? In which case, it's just me and I should up my sarcasm detector.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Dec 29, 2009 21:51:01 GMT -5
, while not a believer. I have no problem with erecting a fertility symbol tree in my living room, topped with either a glistening star so reminiscent of... something wet and glistening, or an angel, who is invariably female with the tree top rammed up her skirt. I LOVED this. Not sure I'll ever look at christmas trees the same ever again lol!
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Dec 28, 2009 13:41:35 GMT -5
Vyckie, I think women have a lot of internalized fat phobia, and this is evident in the very intro you just directed us to: it is not a sin to not want your belly to fold into rollsHer statement "men aren't blind" leads me to believe that she has thoroughly bought into the notion that fat is ugly and both men and women find it to be so. It's a cultural assumption we are all raised to believe in Western society at this point in history--though it hasn't always been the standard. She appears to be saying that it's bad that these women don't believe they should "take care of their figure" and therefore these men are likely to lust after others. She is clearly writing as if the women should wake up and realize this and break out of their frumpy mindset before it's too late. I'm sure if she means it another way she can correct our impressions. Tapati, I think there is a world of difference between accepting one's roundish shape because you recognize that beauty comes in all shapes and sizes and you are a special person--- and thinking you DESERVE to be ugly and picking your current society's definition of that as what you have too look like or you are vain and sinning. But as a reply to Vyckie's post directly above yours, even good people can come up with posts that are real doozies, and I do think that's what pennygirl did here. That post really... came across badly.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Dec 25, 2009 7:40:32 GMT -5
As to overpopulation I had two more kids AFTER I stopped being QF and a fundie. I had them because I wanted to. I couldn't care less about overpopulation. So sue me. Pretty much, it seems to me, when women have choices and chances and can self-determine their course of life, reproduction averages over the whole population very close to replacement rates, sometimes slightly above, sometimes slightly below. But it doesn't matter, really, because for every woman who wants a few more, there are other women who don't want any kids, and seriously, we *do* need SOME kids, and so the people who are childless by choice ought to be perfectly happy that other people choose differently. It's where birth control is NOT accessible, where ideologies FORCE women to not use it even if it may be accessible, that you have huge population explosions at a rate that is so quickly changing the population numbers that it is hard to adjust to. That can go the other way too, as when China decided to force it's one child rule BEFORE making birth control widely accessible and sex education widely accessible, or attacking social sexism, etc, they also created a population size that is changing so quickly as to probably cause significant social upheaval. So I'll sue the ideologues that try to make it the only choice, but I'll certainly not sue you! The problem comes when it's thought that EVERYBODY should do JUST as I do, instead of trusting people to make decisions that will be good for them, in their individual situations, and enabling them to have as many options to choose from as possible. QF is dangerous with respect to overpopulation because they DO press for EVERYONE to have many children, without options to stop if your personal situation for whatever reason makes it a bad idea to have more children. People who have large families for personal preference, without thinking it's necessary for god's blessing, when averaged over a society which includes many people who'd rather not have kids, are not relevant to overpopulation at all.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Dec 24, 2009 14:02:45 GMT -5
Jane doe, you are still not concise but you managed to anger me greatly. lets take political Islam, for instance who Also, demand large numbers of children, a.k.a. nationalism Explain then why Iran has a lower per capita fertility rate than the US. It's pure stereotyping and racism to be terrified more of islam than christianity (both are pretty scary though, just I cannot abide by people who apparently think I should be more scared of the one all those brown scary middle easterners follow than my neighbors. nope.) But that wasn't what got me boiling scathing MAD!! That was this: because the truth is, the major percentage of environmental damage and pillaging of the mother earth's resources was and still is done by the INVENTIONS OF MEN yes Because there has NEVER been a smart woman. Because no, it's not at ALL possible that WOMEN might invent anything. Oh, no, all WOMEN are is slaves to their biology. Technological advance is driven only by men. Thank you so very much, but NO THANKS. It is the advance of science and technology which has, and will continue, to increase our standards of living. And NO a thousand TIMES no, it has NOT been the sole domain of men. In fact, in majority of countries where women have many children, its not the Children or the poor who exploit the resources, its the Wealthy white rich, who have two children, who exploit resources and who Demand more from resources, than all the poor children in the lands of Africa...because they Consume more Take a WILD stab in the dark here, why do you think they might consume less? Do you think it might *possibly* have something to do with their lack of access to health care? How about their lack of access to education. Hmmm, maybe it has something to do with their lack of access to food? Let me guess.... someone starving with her 8 kids in Africa... why might she be consuming less than someone who has access to more? Maybe because hmmm... She CANT? Heck, she doesn't even have ACCESS to birth control, thanks to powerful governments who don't think she ought to be able to choose THAT either. Nope, having lots of kids just because you have no other option, and then not consuming very many resources because you're fucking starving because hmmm, you don't have fucking ACCESS to them is not even in the same UNIVERSE as an environmental success story. You apparently are against science and technology, including fertilizer (which, yes, I suppose it does pollute, and it does use up fossil fuels) but do you have ANY CLUE what the carrying capacity of humans on our planet is, WITHOUT fertilizers? It's about 2 billion or so. How many people do we have on the planet today? Pretty soon, we'll be crossing 9 billion. Do YOU want to watch 7 billion die? I sure as HELL don't!!! Our ONLY HOPE is to continue to pursue technologies, better, more efficient, less polluting, better distributed, etc. You know, I think I'm going to stop reading your posts. I used to think you must have had a few good points interspersed with unreadable walls of text, but the more I venture into the word salad the madder I get, so I think I'll just spare myself.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Dec 17, 2009 18:52:36 GMT -5
jane, do you think it possible to try to be concise? it is very hard to try to read that much on the internet.
|
|