|
Post by km on Nov 1, 2009 20:24:33 GMT -5
I love this post! And I hope you got yourself some Doc Martens.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 30, 2009 10:47:47 GMT -5
In fact, just thinking about this more... Of the few people I still know who are Quiverfull adherents, all of them actively think of themselves as *anti-racists.* A few of the children have entered into interracial marriages, and another one of the adult children recently adopted some twins from an African country. But I think Kathryn Joyce is right in saying that there's very often a subtext of "white race suicide" in a lot of the QF culture. One of the only secular supporters of the lifestyle said as much in an issue of International Affairs several years ago. Not to mention the cultural imperialism that pervades so much of it ("The rock beat is an African voodoo beat." Fears of witchcraft in non-Western cultures. When I was working in sub-Saharan Africa, I made the mistake of going to a North American English language fellowship, where the QF families prayed for "this dark continent." I was horrified.).
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 30, 2009 10:36:19 GMT -5
This points to the key confusion of the persecuted hegemons. They are unable to distinguish between challenges to their hegemony -- to their privilege -- and threats to their faith itself. Must've posted it before I joined the forum. Anyway, I like it.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 30, 2009 10:33:38 GMT -5
jadehawk: Well, I never implied that it was new. My point was that it's very rarely addressed or talked about by people who were once in Quiverfull.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 28, 2009 12:53:52 GMT -5
Erika: I'm also curious about this Mr. Thompson's strong influence on your family. I mean... How did your parents get to the point that they would allow a stranger such sway over family decisions? From your blog posts, it really sounds as if this happened overnight. One minute, you were leading a normal life in a relatively liberal evangelical church, and the next.... You were forced to give up everything you loved and start wearing the prairie dresses.
Oh, and by the way... *Skirts all the time in Vermont and Pennsylvania??* That's just cruel; those are *cold* states.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 28, 2009 12:22:26 GMT -5
But really, it's everybody's job to get educated about the reality others experience. It's not OK to hand down discrimination to another group just because one has been discriminated against. In fact, it prevents people from uniting in common causes to effectively address discrimination. If we remain in our own little gender/race/religion/ability/etc camps and only look out for our own, we miss a chance to organize on a larger scale. Exactly. And it was precisely what I read your comment as doing. And I thought it was a cheap shot. I think there are enough *good* arguments against this guy that it doesn't even make sense to use his race to trivialize his arguments. There are *substantive* reasons why his argument is crap. I mean, look... What I would see as condescending would be someone saying to me, "Dude, seriously, as a WOMAN, you should *understand and be sympathetic* to my oppression on account of the fact that we're both oppressed." Um, no. That's a non-point. Tell me what's *wrong* with what I said and *how* it's oppressive in an argument. Our disparate oppressions are so disparate as to be pretty meaningless. I don't call it PC. I call it anti-essentialism.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 28, 2009 12:14:20 GMT -5
Lack of tolerance toward fundies. That's hilarious. How much more tolerance would they like? They're allowed to practice their religion as they fit. They can bad mouth whoever they want and get away with it. When they run for public office, they've got built-in support. Their religious institutions are tax exempt. They're allowed to train up their children any way they want. Even if it means lying to them, stunting their potential, and leaving them without the skills necessary to survive in the world at large. They're allowed to discriminate against the women (or anyone else) in their own congregations. They are not held accountable for the tragic results of their belief system. Look at all those faith-healing parents in the news lately. They've killed their children through medical neglect. Fundies do not even have the decency to monitor the results of their belief system for their own sakes. I'd say they have it pretty good. Unfortunately, the bar they've set for themselves is very, very low. margybargy: Your post *cracked me up.* Anyway, in response, one thing that has always astounded me is the fundie persecution complex. Christians practice the dominant religion in North America and yet... And yet... We hear that there's a "War on Christmas" and that soon the American KGB are gonna come for the Christians and all sorts of claptrap... Why? I never understood it.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 28, 2009 12:09:22 GMT -5
And Kisekileia, thanks. You are right, I honestly didn't understand. I see that now. Sorry it seemed like I was jumping on you. Your comments honestly raised some issues I've been thinking about wrt this blog for a while.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 28, 2009 12:06:01 GMT -5
This is all so troubling to me. I need some time to process this. Even thinking about it is just tearing down some of the things I believed about my family and not in a good way. My first feeling is that a different term than racism is needed in discussing this, because at least as far as I've seen it, it's about culture instead of just race - people of color, even if they are Christians, tend to be the "wrong type of Christian" - but no fear, we can turn them into the right type of Christian (including by adoption) and THEN their race doesn't matter. YMMV Can you be clearer about what you mean? Maybe it's a kind of racism that is institutionalized in the movement rather than necessarily being intentional racism? I mean, I think back even to Bill Gothard and the big thing about the "voodoo beat"? Racism seems, to me, to be pretty entrenched.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 28, 2009 12:03:40 GMT -5
Except for this one thing. And that was the thing he wanted to remove from the patriarchal ideal. That's what annoyed me. Not just seeing a black man who was living the quiverfull life. Ah, okay, hadn't thought about it that way. That's a good point.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 14:57:42 GMT -5
It also seems cruel to me to appeal to someone's *actual oppression* in condemning his own bigoted views. As far as I can see, the anti-QF people here have plenty of good arguments that can be upheld without resorting to that kind of race-baiting.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 14:53:02 GMT -5
Hah, I was trying to be brief too, and too how well that turned out.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 14:52:14 GMT -5
Castor: In a way, yes, I do think it's racist to expect someone who is Black to "get it" anymore than anyone else. I'm about to run, but I'll come back to this later...
Or maybe I'm just a little more cynical about humanity than you. I don't tend to expect that one's oppression in any one area means that one is going to be an ally--or compassionate--about my oppressions or anyone else's.
Of course, I don't like the fact that *anyone* is sexist, but I do think--whatever the intent--that pointing out your anger over this because one happens to be Black--has racist undertones and consequences. It sounds very much like what so many white leaders in the gay movement said after Prop 8 passed: "How could the Black community *do this to us* when they're oppressed too?" (Note how the wording nicely elides the fact that there are Black people in the LGBTQ community too.) I think it's racist just 'cause... Members of oppressed groups are people just like the rest of us. Who's to say they're any less likely than anyone else to be bigoted assholes? How can we generalize about any single person based on hir demographic? It seems to me to be a fact of life that bigoted assholes exist in *most* groups, and I'm no more outraged seeing a Black man supporting QF than anyone else.
Furthermore... What has White Feminism done lately for Women of Color? It's not terribly shocking to me when people reject the feminist movement altogether. Dominant, mainstream forms of feminism have historically been unforgivably racist. So, no, it doesn't shock me to hear that anyone--especially someone from another historically oppressed group--is skeptical about it. Not to mention... In between all the shock about there being a Black man in QF, did anyone stop to think about the fact that this board has PoC members? Doesn't all of the noise about how "shocking" it is that there's a Black man in QF sort of exoticize these stories? I wouldn't want to post here if people were going to treat me like some weird novelty: "ZOMG, you're not WHITE. How could you live with QF given the fact that you had *experienced racism.*"
The thing is... Most women have experienced some form of gender-based discrimination over the course of our lives. Does that make us statistically more likely to be compassionate and to get forms of oppression that we don't experience as individuals? No, no it doesn't. I'm glad--and heartened--when I meet people who *have* learned about intersectional oppressions through their own struggles, but it doesn't happen very often. Anyway the point is just... That we've experienced one thing doesn't mean we "get" another, and not by a long shot. I was offensively ignorant about certain types of oppression until I educated myself and entered into communities of people who were not like me, but... That's not because I *don't* want to overturn all oppression, but because I hadn't been sufficiently exposed to different communities. And I've always thought of myself as a intersectional/Third Waver/postcolonial-focused feminist (and it's what I studied and wrote about in graduate school), but that doesn't mean I always "get it" about everything. Neither, I think, does everyone else. And neither do I expect it from someone whose oppression falls along a different axis of oppression from my own.
By the way, I'm not defending his--or anyone's--involvement in QF. I just think it's worth discussing why we tend to get so offended when we don't find people whose oppressions differ from ours to be allies.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 12:25:33 GMT -5
Thanks for your consideration, km. Your input here is a good thing ~ and I want to be able to think about the issues which you have introduced to the various topics. kisekelia said it well: let's strive to be honest and respectful. Sure. To be clear, my discourse *wouldn't* have been considered disrespectful in other communities that I'm involved in. I think it's important to be clear about what it is that's expected in different communities, as they all seem to have different rules. So, it's particularly helpful to me that you've done that.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 12:11:46 GMT -5
Vyckie, obviously you are right that it's a very serious matter when someone feels unsafe like that. But the other side of the issue is that when a person needs direct feedback in order to understand what is going on socially, and they cannot get that feedback, they are not safe and do not feel safe. So people need to strive to be both honest and respectful. Yeah, this is kind of where I was coming from. That being an issue for me, though, I don't tend to expect safety.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 12:10:35 GMT -5
So, I was more than disappointed to check my email Thursday evening after the scuffle on this thread ~ and read that the story has been withdrawn ~ the NLQ member no longer feels the safety which we've worked fairly hard to maintain here and she is no longer willing to openly share her story. That's...really disappointing. I hope she'll read this thread and reconsider. I can't imagine anyone here being harsh or cruel in response to such a story. And you're right, I do tend to expect people to be relatively thick-skinned. I'll try to tone that down. I mostly frequent rather...eh...snarkier forums, so I appreciate your clarity about what is needed here.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 11:59:28 GMT -5
You 'imputed tone' fine enough to launch an attack on her, including uncalled for references to submission and martyrs. You are right about my choice of words. I apologize for that (You're right about the use of "martyr." Honestly, I didn't even think about that as a hot button word at the time, though I admit that I used the word "submission" intentionally. Because I think that culture is what spawns some of this antipathy to honest confrontation. That said, the way that I used it was cruel.). fwiw, I wish she would come back. I think she--and you--probably read much more hostility in my tone than I intended. Certainly, I share some responsibility for the way that my words come across, but to be clear, I never hoped or intended to run anyone out of town. I saw it as a minor disagreement, and I just hoped she would clarify what she was saying. I was annoyed that she was refusing to do that. In retrospect, it's her right to do it, of course--and explain/refuse-to-explain whatever she wants. I like neat closure. I like dealing with things quickly so we can have them out in the open and then move on. I am sorry for pushing too aggressively to have this resolved according to my style. I should have just let it go.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 11:42:01 GMT -5
verklempt: It's impossible to impute actual tone from short messages like that. Given the fact that the author never clarified her meaning to me (and only expressed exasperation), we're going to have to agree to disagree on our differing interpretations.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 11:32:57 GMT -5
verklempt: Maybe, but I think of "upbeat" as kind of lightweight. And I think there's a lot of gravity in what's being discussed here. I agree that it's hopeful, but I don't think everything is all roses and smiles for everyone either. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 11:31:00 GMT -5
kisekileia: Thank you. Exactly. This is, in part, what I'm dealing with as someone with developmental dyspraxia. Thank you for pointing it out.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 11:27:24 GMT -5
verklempt: Sure, it's possible, I guess... Your opinion, of course, but thank you for it.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 11:25:39 GMT -5
P.S. - justflyingin, I know this is a side note, but what would you consider "telling you about our private sex lives"? Thank you for asking this question. When I saw the comment that you're referring to, it sounded *awfully* like the other comment that those of us who are queer so used to hearing: "I'm *tolerant,* but I just wish those gays didn't have to be so *obvious* about everything. Why do *I* have to hear about what goes on in their bedroom???" And the answer to that is: You don't. When I've told you that I'm queer, I haven't given you the *slightest* information about what goes on in my bedroom. When you see members of our communities being affectionate with each other, you *still* haven't learned the slightest information about what goes on in our *individual* bedrooms. Guess what? We all have individual preferences, and we tend to like different things. Generalized comments about "our bedrooms" are just as ridiculous as queer people who assume that straights *only* like missionary. If what you're really looking for is for those of us who are queer to shut up about our experiences of oppression or about what it's like to be queer, then don't count on that. I've spent enough of my damn time trying to make comparatively privileged people feel comfortable in my presence, and I'm over it. That being said... I do share the commenter's concern with the continued use of "mental illness" as a derogatory term. Perhaps for different reasons, but nevertheless...
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 11:16:50 GMT -5
And I continue to be unnerved by the way that "mental illness" continues to be wielded as an insult around here.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 11:13:46 GMT -5
I am as horrified by this family's beliefs as the rest of you, but I have to say that I'm really dismayed by the zero-sum way in which race is being discussed here.
To the first comment addressing it: Just because someone has experienced oppression in one area of hir life does not mean that said person understands oppression in any other. Why are so many of you offended by the fact that Theron Johnson is Black? Blacks are not de facto feminist allies on the basis of having been oppressed along the axis of race. White gays are not necessarily good anti-racist allies because they have experienced oppression as a result of heterosexism. Disabled cis people are not necessarily good trans allies because they have experienced oppression along the axis of disability. This kind of generalizing happens a *lot* wrt race, and I really think it needs to be questioned. As a queer person, I can barely stomach involvement in the mainstream LGBTQ movement in the aftermath of Prop 8, when a bunch of middle class gay whites blamed *Black residents of California* (rather than the Mormons or the Christian Right) for the bill's passage. When the mainstream LGBTQ movement has not *ever* addressed or reached out to the POC in our communities, *why* should we expect de facto support?
Nor do I think zero sum comments such as "how would he feel if a bunch of white supremacists moved to take away his right to vote?" are okay. I don't think it's okay to respond to oppression by using oppressive tools ourselves--even as rhetorical mechanisms.
Finally, if we're going to talk about race here, then let's talk about race.... One reason that it's disconcerting to see a Black man in the QF movement is that the movement is in *many* ways itself a racist movement (particularly when Dominionist politics are factored in). The aim of creating more and more "white babies" to make up God's army has been well-documented among scholars of QF and Christian fundamentalism. And yet... There is very little discussion of race on this blog. I suspect that that has something to do with the fact that most of the people *in* the movement don't know about its white supremacist roots and don't think of *themselves* as racists. That fact--along with the new trend of adopting babies from Africa--allows many QF families to circumvent discussions of racism or of their involvement in a racist movement. That said... It's an important part of all of this, and I hope to see more discussions about that in the future.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 10:37:32 GMT -5
Vyckie: I understand what you're saying, and I regret that that happened. I wasn't actually trying to provoke a fight. If she meant to say I was an asshole, then I just wanted to get it out there and then move on. She was obviously reacting against what she perceived as my overbearing comments. I can see how they came across that way--honestly, I was just struggling to find words to say what I meant to say, not wanting to force you to mindmeld with my politics/feminism/whatever else...
I can respect your request for civility, but I have to be clear that I don't believe that most of us in this world have the privilege of "safety" in most of our communities. Whether because of race privilege, heterosexual privilege, class privilege, or whatever else, "safety" is not something that most of us go into communities expecting to find. It's a privilege for some. That said, I understand that you want this to be a healing environment (For my part, I'm not sure that "healing" is synonymous with "conflict free", but well...).
As an orientationally confrontational person who was damaged by pleas for submission, civility, and White Middle Class Parlor Manners within fundamentalism, I personally find passive aggressive slights and unwillingness to openly disagree patently *unsafe.* I'm fine with being called out, and I never said I couldn't be an asshole sometimes. But then I'm not someone who joins any community expecting safety of any kind. I do, however, appreciate honest and open dialogue that doesn't insult my intelligence (as some of the previous posts absolutely did)--in which people openly say what they mean to say. I'm absolutely fine with being called out/criticized/disagreed with--but I don't like it happening in a backhanded way.
To wit, that's why I made some sarcastic comments about the "karma" system. Seems like a built in system for distinguishing the "cool" people from the "uncool" people and ensuring that criticism happens in a passive way. I can understand how that could be necessary for people who struggle with confrontation and expressing anger (and I know that this is something that QF women are explicitly told *not* to express), but it's... Well, as someone who does *not* struggle with those things, it's a little unnerving.
|
|