|
Post by jemand on Oct 28, 2009 12:02:20 GMT -5
it's just... I think that your points could have gone towards the "faq" pages but most certainly NOT be directed directly towards one woman's story, or generally to the atheist readers here. You shouldn't have posted it here. Your points belonged elsewhere. Pointed at the people who are actually DOING the harm in the first place, not us who've been hurt and left, or written to those who are trying to escape patriarchy and yet still believe in god. Not in this thread, in this subforum.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Oct 28, 2009 11:55:33 GMT -5
note that there are a lot of us have been burned, burned BADLY by preaching at us. And when you say "don't turn away *just* because of the people" you remind all of us of those who are belittling or second guessing our decisions, psychoanalyzing us and telling us our decisions are based on something that they don't believe to be solid-- implying that it IS why we left.
It reminds us of the people who not only say just what you did, but also are implying THAT's why we left. That it WAS just people, that we had no problem with the theology.
Your post pricked, the places apologists and evangelists and ALL the people you rail against have rubbed raw. And yet you're coming and telling ME this, telling me they are wrong, telling me I should second guess my reasoning. Why don't you go find someone ELSE? All those other evangelists and apologists and take it up with THEM before they rub someone else raw? And then that you totally ignore that and come at me in the same place? I don't want to be preached at. Pretty sure other people here don't either.
I left because of the beliefs, the theology. The actions of people just influenced my beliefs with regard to how dangerous and destructive religion is, not that it's false. That I decided before.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Oct 28, 2009 11:21:54 GMT -5
Please do not come here to preach to us. We have our own thoughts, beliefs and actions and "keep searching.... until you think like me" is most assuredly NOT welcome.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Oct 25, 2009 22:03:49 GMT -5
The problem with trying to support the freedom of people in other cultures - whether it's subcultures inside your own country, or trying to act in solidarity with people in other countries - is that it's hard on a practical level to be supportive of people who are trying to change the culture from inside without looking like an outside attacker. It gets even harder when you have resources they don't have - it's like the discussion we had about helping a friend who is getting more and more ideological. How do you do that without, ethically, impinging on her free will - and just as important, how do you do it without causing the family/group of people to close ranks against the threat? very true, but at least I can not choose to *support* the oppressive elements of a culture or family, or to kind of expect that they won't change so *I* can appreciate "cultural diversity." Because honestly, a lot of what I see as western action or speech aimed at supporting "other cultures" either attempts to define that culture itself and then impose those choices onto it, almost a "human zoo" if you will, or entirely ignores other voices FROM that culture that happen to come from the more disadvantaged within. The powerful are more noisy, and it's "easier" when being "culturally relativistic" or "respectful" or whatever, to not spend too much time trying to listen to the quieter voices.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Oct 25, 2009 20:54:28 GMT -5
Most of the "breaking point" for me was actually *after* I had quietly, internally abandoned the belief, but my new beliefs were NOT tolerated in the community I was in at the time.
I would have been an atheist regardless... but the "breaking point" and all the things that people said to me and did to me-- they are what nudged me more towards being the kind of atheist who believes religion is usually actively harmful and dangerous, rather than the kind that just believes religion is illogical and an insufficient basis for building a life.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Oct 25, 2009 20:01:56 GMT -5
chloe soo very true! Abuse against women (children as well-- in assuming and pressuring and forcing the children into following their parent's way) is often seen as just so much more as "part of the culture" and we are supposed to respect it or we are being culturally imperialist. But culture is NEVER due any more respect than the people in it! And I choose to respect the people in the culture, and their right to relate to the various aspects of their culture as they wish, more than I will "respect THE culture" as some anthropologist described it somewhere-- these are people, not elements in some global zoo where accidents of birth are SUPPOSED to determine one's future course because of whatever aspects you got dealt in whatever "culture" (culture as defined by some powerful authority quite apart from the individuals: children/women/homosexuals, whoever's rights we're bartering away for cultural respect in any particular instance) you're parents are a part of. And margybargy, yay lol, what you say is very much true. Though I am encouraged to see a few more deadly "faith healing" episodes being properly investigated and convictions follow recently.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Oct 20, 2009 17:02:30 GMT -5
Thing is, mental illness is not something that people *choose* to have in their lives. Fundamentalism very often is. Literally speaking, of course, it's not a mental illness. Vyckie and others have been very upfront about being attracted to the lifestyle of their own free will. Isn't the fact that it's an oppressive system enough? I just object to seeing something like mental illness used as a literary flourish. I have mixed feelings about the discussion of personality disorders and fundamentalism. I deal with personality disorders in my own family, which is very religious (it's a clergy family) if not fundamentalist... I've often thought not in terms of mental illness, but in terms of abusiveness. One of the reasons that I won't be involved in any form of organized Christianity is that I find the liberal/mainline churches troubling in other ways. In fundie circles, the rules and the system are themselves abusive. But liberal churches attract a number of abusers too, at least in my experience... And I've always thought that had something to do with the "come just as you are" mentality. I tend to think in terms of abusers/non-abusers, as I'm really uncomfortable with casting normative value judgments on something like mental illness. I'm saying this as a non-neurotypical person myself. Well, living under the quiverfull rules pretty much created a mental illness in at least Angel, and likely other children in the movement as well. That it was circumstantial and not genetic and got better in a different environment doesn't make it "not real." And quiverfull children most certainly do NOT freely choose the lifestyle, it is thrust upon them.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Oct 14, 2009 20:41:52 GMT -5
WELL, with so many eyes any complication would probably have meant getting to the doctor, at least.
But I think the entire show is too intrusive. But it gets ratings, and they get money... so they do it.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Oct 10, 2009 13:38:25 GMT -5
I have a fairly high aversion to non-convertive religious traditions too, because it seems a fine line from not wanting anyone new to come in, and vilifying, persecuting, etc. those "born into it" and yet who leave.
I dunno, it's just I don't think it's *possible* to be BORN 'as' some particular religion. I don't know how much sense I'm making here but I do think there is harm done when it's assumed that religion is a matter of *birth* as much as when it is pressed on a local population by rich colonizers.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Oct 7, 2009 19:21:34 GMT -5
But it's difficult to get people on board to raise taxes to care for other people's kids. yeah, because they clearly *choose* which family THEY would be born into I know the attitude, it just strikes me as fabulously stupid. We do need a better system, and if we'd just stop going and killing *other people's* children on the other side of the world we'd be able to do it.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Oct 7, 2009 14:37:39 GMT -5
you would though have to worry about other adults coercing or luring a teen into being dissatisfied with an actually good home situation. I'm not sure what you could do about that.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Oct 5, 2009 21:02:29 GMT -5
They do have an agenda. In fact, Conservapaedia has even noticed some... *gasp* liberal bias in the bible. They are cutting out the "father forgive them" verse as well as the verses in which Jesus saves the woman caught in adultery. They are also working to make a version which is "not emasculated" i.e, no gender inclusion. They are also getting all their pants in a wad over the fact the KJV uses the communist word "comrade" three times more often than the "conservative 'volunteer.'" They also claim "peace" should be updated as it's meaning has changed... conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_ProjectYup, satire died today.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Sept 5, 2009 19:14:56 GMT -5
It's a good way to catch if any of them get pregnant and get them married quick, though. hmmm, I didn't think of that. Ugh.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Sept 5, 2009 9:28:17 GMT -5
well, I suppose your period isn't something dirty or to be ashamed of but still... when my mom suggested I track mine with a marker no one else would know about I never did it because I wanted to be more private about it. With the number of girls they have-- I'm sure at least one of them hates that plan even if the others have no problem with it.
But it's way less of a big deal than the denial of a real education though, I think.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Sept 1, 2009 19:59:19 GMT -5
I'm pro-choice, and that means accepting every woman's decision about her body. I'm pro choice only so far as I believe all women's choices with their fertility should be legal. Says nothing about whether I think they are making stupid choices and hurting their children badly. And.... I'd be rather surprised if any of the girls had more than 4 kids. The boys? Maybe might have more, but short of 10. Anyway, that's my prediction.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Sept 1, 2009 9:42:59 GMT -5
more and more when I think of QF I think of pet hoarding: www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7468-Pet-Health-Examiner~y2009m6d15-Pet-hoarding--A-form-of-animal-abuse-and-crueltyChildren need a lot more attention and care to be psychologically and physically healthy than pets, so while pet hoarding generally occurs with numbers in the 20s or 30s and up, kid hoarding I think could definitely start with fewer. Those hoarding are blind to the harm they are causing to the hoarded, they cannot see what they are denying and think everything is totally fine, and hey, lets get some more! quote from article "More often than not, the pet hoarder is unable to see and recognize that the animals in his/her care are being abused. These hoarders usually believe that they are performing a service to the animals in their care by taking them into their home. Animal hoarders often offer the excuse that any life is better than no life at all and frequently seem incapable of recognizing that the quality of an animal's life is an important factor also."
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Aug 19, 2009 21:48:43 GMT -5
I personally don't doubt the effectiveness of meditation techniques. It has been demonstrated scientifically that there are changes in the brains of those who regularly engage in meditation and compared Buddhist monks to Franciscan nuns. Scientists would say this has no spiritual significance but I guess we'll all find out when we die. I just don't think there needs to be all of this controlling cultural baggage attached to it. well, there are also demonstrated changes to the brains of musicians, or people who lose sight or hearing, or dancers, etc. Pretty much the brain is VERY plastic and will mold to what you do most with it, and if you spend lots of time working on biofeedback control, than yeah, you'll be able to control your breath and heart rate and brainwaves to a greater extent than other people, and the structure of your brain will be different than it otherwise would be. Spiritual significance? Sincerely doubt it, but I do plan to make use of my brain's plasticity to do get what I want out of the life I have here and now. Maybe someday that'll include learning biofeedback and meditative practices.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Aug 10, 2009 20:39:39 GMT -5
I really liked this story. I'm glad you had the opportunity to travel to Africa. Do you think that taste of independence and view of another culture helped you leave when you did?
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Aug 2, 2009 20:57:06 GMT -5
Charis is still a Christian right? I know she managed to get out of the QF lifestyle but without even divorcing.... that possibility is something many QF women might like to know exists... the big "D" word is very scary to them and knowing they have a chance of making it work, even if they may later decide the marriage is too much for them, might be helpful in getting them to start taking action to improve the situation.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jul 25, 2009 10:21:13 GMT -5
it's kinda odd... while I think women most often have migraines, the only people I know in real life suffering from them have been men. Go figure.
And quick environmental note-- it's no longer recommended to flush medication because it gets into the water supply, if you have a cat, it's recommended to put the pills in with the litter as you toss it, if you don't have cats, find something else to put the pills in the trash with so people will not try to use them not knowing what they are and hoping to get high... Oh, and the same method is good with ripped up old bills and such to reduce identity theft...
I can't imagine having week-long migraines, most of the time when I feel pain I try to disassociate "myself" from the point of pain to psychologically downplay it, but that doesn't work with headaches. Do either of you use any sort of meditation practice or focusing practice to reduce feeling pain?
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jul 24, 2009 12:44:00 GMT -5
it loads fine for me... interesting clip.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jul 17, 2009 10:22:46 GMT -5
There is an article on the site run by the Pearls(is it No Greater Joy?) in which the author claims that the day old chicks that he purchased segregated themselves into groups based on gender. ROFLOL!! It is not even POSSIBLE to distinguish the sex of day old chicks yet! Well I suppose you could test DNA but I sincerely doubt he did that.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jul 10, 2009 17:42:35 GMT -5
wow jo, that's really tough. I really do not know.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jul 10, 2009 16:45:01 GMT -5
(And why do we have the term crack whores for women but we don't, that I can readily think of, have a term like that for men, some of whom also prostitute themselves for drugs?) Hmmmmmm. I actually think I've heard of men who prostitute themselves for drugs also called "crack whores." Just throwing that out there... but maybe it's a very rare usage.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jul 10, 2009 9:34:40 GMT -5
hey, but if none of you non-group thinkers use the label "feminism" the only people left who DO claim it will be the group thinkers....
That's one reason I never apologize for calling myself a feminist, even though I don't follow everything... (Mostly what I don't follow is sexual/porn related, like you said, an influx of sex-positivity)
|
|