|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 10:23:12 GMT -5
KM the word accepted and reverenced by QF women is patriarchy. We don't need to rewrite this word. It features in all the literature. I would hope that this forum and blog remains very readable to people within the QF culture. I know, that's one of the points I was making, though in a sort of roundabout and unclear way, I realize.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 10:21:11 GMT -5
I would do a black background with white old school type writer font with No Longer Quivering-Living free and loving it or something concise and upbeat. That seems really dishonest to me. This blog, while hopeful, is not particularly upbeat in its subject matter. It's about suffering and abuse in an oppressive lifestyle.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 10:11:59 GMT -5
It's too familiar ground I'm afraid.. I refused to participate in a lot of things that kept the liberal and/or pagan agenda alive when I was a fundamentalist. I don't really want to go that way again in reaction to patriarchy. The church I loosely associate myself with is a mixed bag, plenty of things I could walk out over and plenty I could get on board with. In my fundy days I would have walked out over their liberal ways.. now that I'm a liberal (in the christian sense) myself I don't wish to walk out over their fundy ways. I speak my mind. I try and be gracious in response to the fundys because, well, it's pretty arrogant not to be when I've been there myself. Not easy though, I'm a loud mouth. I am careful where my money goes and choose to only give to collections that go to charitable endeavors. I try and remember that everyone is on their own path and to find connections with people even if their ideology is anathema to me. This is good for me and is its own kind of healing for the fundamentalist mind set I once embraced. This makes a lot of sense to me--and sounds very healthy and healing. As someone whose livelihood *is* affected by the money that goes into campaigns like "yes on prop 8," by the way, I have a lot of respect for people who are cautious--and compassionate--about where their money goes. The people who just aren't thinking about it when they put their money into the offering plate because they enjoy the style of worship... That's what bothers me.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 24, 2009 10:03:08 GMT -5
I was responding to km - she mentioned people who think they're "leaving the unhealthy at the door" - this indicates to me that they believe that they can ignore or avoid injustices as long as they don't feel that these injustices are personally affecting their marriage or family. It's been my experience that there are many more people who say "Isn't the music great- let's just all be Christians together without letting these little quibbles separate us" than those who say "I recognize that there are traces of patriarchy in the church/denomination and am actively working to eliminate it". I'm unequivocal in my belief that the first group of people semi-unknowningly help to legitimize patriarchy. It's not my place to judge the second type of person. Yes, this is exactly what I was talking about, and this description accurately captures my own experiences, for sure. I don't think your church involvement is being judged here, krwordgazer. You've made it very clear that you're *not* someone who is sitting back and saying, "Can't we all just get past our differences and enjoy the good music?" I'm not good at making change from the inside myself (And nor do I have any commitment to the evangelical church.), but I'm glad for the people who have enough patience and resolve to do so.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 22, 2009 11:34:15 GMT -5
Anyway, Vyckie, apologies for the derail.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 22, 2009 11:29:15 GMT -5
I'm too tired and too busy to argue on the internet. Right, then. You martyr you. *just sloughing off as a Bad Member who will undoubtedly lose karma points!* One who can't understand the Very Important Nature of this blog. It's possible our personalities just clash... Or maybe snark isn't really welcome here. Hmm... Oh, well. I'll shut up then. *goes and smites self just for the hell of it*
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 22, 2009 11:16:29 GMT -5
Sure. If I misread your previous comment as a backhanded slight implying that I was being too overbearing there, then I apologize. I'm not convinced I misread you, but okay then... Moving on.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 22, 2009 10:56:51 GMT -5
I like where you're going with it, though... It just needs fewer words.
And, frankly, you know, I'm fine with negative feedback. Just don't particularly appreciate backhanded slights. And, yeah, I'm talkin' to you, leathercouch. So, feel free to be a little more upfront about any problems you may or may not be having with me.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 22, 2009 10:47:04 GMT -5
Well, obviously. So sorry if I was too "unsubmissive" there for you, leathercouch. I haz thoughts... Vyckie asked about our thoughts. So, there you have it...
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 22, 2009 10:36:49 GMT -5
Sorry for the serial commenting, but... One more thing. I was explicit about "Christian patriarchy" precisely because I think this blog is largely about a certain *kind* of patriarchy. Thinking over it, though, it might have been better to call it "religious patriarchy." And, honestly, I don't buy into Patriarchy as some kind of huge, looming system that oppresses us all as Class Woman in the exact same way. So, I don't like seeing "patriarchy" used in an extremely broad way--or to describe the oppression that All Women Everywhere face. That erases our differences. Put more simply, I just don't buy into the idea of the Radical Feminist Nation or of some kind of "sisterhood." I think sexism happens to us in different social planes--and intersects with oppressions such as racism, heterosexism, cissexism, classism, ableism... I am okay with the use of "patriarchy" as a descriptor for certain kinds of religious fundamentalism. But... But... This blog is also about escaping *religious patriarchy* and losing that focus would be a shame.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 22, 2009 10:16:52 GMT -5
Basically, I think "fundamentalism" is probably the best description--and most inclusive word that could be used here. That said... Because there are forums that deal with fundamentalisms in most faiths, I would be wary of taking away the QF focus. Which is not to say that I object to Tapati's series. Of course I don't. But I don't think it's disrespectful to Tapati--or that it detracts from her series--to be honest about the actual focus of the blog. Her series falls *within* that focus, of course, inasmuch as it tries to point out common ground between women entrenched in various fundamentalist religions.
Also, I keep thinking "What about the men?" Sorry, I know that's considered the *worst* thing for a feminist to do, but I can't help thinking... well, continuing to think that many men are also damaged by movements like QF. I'm heartened by things like the dialogue with Frank Schaeffer, but I also wonder... What about forging partnerships with other male-inclusive organizations that critique the Christian Right, like Ex-Gay Watch or Americans for the Separation of Church and State?
Sorry, I know I'm getting into an annoying meta-discussion about purposes and breadth and goals. And I don't mean to. But I do think that titles and catchphrases and things tend to...delineate those things *for people...* So, it's important to think all of these things through at the outset.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 22, 2009 10:08:37 GMT -5
I know Tapati wasn't, but neither was Tapati in Quiverfull... Nevertheless, the vast majority of the site is about escaping from Quiverfull fundamentalism. It seems to me that it's probably up to Vyckie whether or not things will stay that way... My own worry about seeing this blog begin to critique fundamentalism within *all religions* (as opposed to the QF focus) has to do with racism/ethnocentrism. I'd hate to see a mostly white forum start condemning Islam or Hinduism or any non-Western religion as flat-out "patriarchy." There are fundamentalist sects within most religions, yes, but I'd hate to see a bunch of (mostly) white people take the lead in shining a light on it in, say, the Islamic world. A focus on QF--with some real honesty about the racism within that movement--would, I think, help to circumvent this problem. I would think, at minimum, you'd need something about fundamentalism in there. I'm not a huge fan of the language of "patriarchy" myself. I prefer something a little more...intersectional like, say, kyriarchy: myecdysis.blogspot.com/2008/04/accepting-kyriarchy-not-apologies.htmlThat said, I know that patriarchy in particular is a buzzword within Quiverfull, so I also understand its relationship to this particular blog. It's a value system that is actually *upheld by name* within QF--but not necessarily in many other religious traditions. Oh, Vyckie, I'm sure this makes you *super excited* about the fact that you solicited feedback!
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 22, 2009 9:30:53 GMT -5
finding freedom from fundamentalist Christian patriarchy
(The excessive alliteration was unintended...)
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 22, 2009 9:19:03 GMT -5
Okay, I don't know then... Something simple, maybe, about "surviving fundamentalism" and then rejecting it...
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 22, 2009 8:53:56 GMT -5
Alternatively, most tags I've seen are really straightforward; they'll just say something like, "I support gay marriage." So, why not do something sort of blog-specific... People could have tags that say, "I'm a feminist, and I support No Longer Quivering" or "I'm a Christian, and I support No Longer Quivering." I agree that the language of the current tag sort of undercuts the gravity of what you're trying to do here. Not that it all has to be Very Serious, but I don't really think it's very representative of what you're doing.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 22, 2009 8:33:35 GMT -5
I don't see why you need a catchphrase. Doesn't the title--"No Longer Quivering"--explain what it's all about?
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 21, 2009 21:32:14 GMT -5
kisekileia: My mother and my sister are kinda like what I described in my last paragraph, so I can relate. On one hand, it makes me absolutely furious to think about them putting any money into the offering and *knowing* that that money probably contributes to the anti-gay evangelical Christian machine (I mean, are they *sure* their churches didn't provide money for "yes on Prop 8"??). On the other, they do seem *not* to be as badly affected by evangelicalism as I was. I'm a pretty literal person, and for me, *any* evangelicalism led straight into QF territory. I don't get it, and I do wish they'd examine it more (especially wrt the matter of offering money), but... Well, I don't think it's been as dangerous for them as it was for me.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 21, 2009 18:23:41 GMT -5
When I and my classmates watched the Schaeffer videos, I wasn't allowed to have any non-Christian friends. Most people didn't have internet access yet. My mother even censored the library books that I checked out. The Religious Right was applauded, anti-choice murderers were just "misguided" and although he would not have been an admired figure at my Baptist school, a lot of Rushdoony's beliefs wouldn't have really raised many eyebrows. After all, we were a feeder school for Bob Jones- where at that time, interracial dating was forbidden. So the ability to get and process unbiased information was hard. This makes sense in your context. I guess the kinds of people I find who are intrigued by him nowadays are fairly liberal hipster individuals. Mostly, I'm thinking about my sister and her friends, but bear with me... I don't mean they're hardcore leftists by any means, but certainly at least voted-for-Obama liberals. Not people who are enamored of anti-choice rhetoric. If they're homophobes, they're not out about it and have never suggested as much around me. They don't talk about submission, but they do go to an evangelical church. It just seems like they don't *know* that Schaeffer had these views or connections. And when I try to talk to them about it, they're like, "But L'Abri was so...PEACEFUL." My father was a seminary student around Schaeffer's time. He's no longer an evangelical, but he says now that he knew about the patriarchal views, but that the bits about bombing abortions clinics/violence/theocracy were not included in what most people were reading. You talked about noticing a difference in degree between evangelical and extremist fundie groups, and I'm not sure I completely agree... I'm not a Christian either, but most of the people I know who go to these evangelical churches will say, "I don't agree with everything that they teach. I just go because I like the people there" or "I'm not on board with everything. I just like the style of music that they use." It seems to me that *some* people (And I was never one of them.) are able to engage with this kind of stuff and just...leave the unhealthy stuff at the door. People who end up most comfortable in QF environments seem not to be comfortable with this kind of church environment. As a non-churchgoing person, I myself could not flourish within any environment that upheld patriarchy, however gently. But... Maybe some people can do it.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 21, 2009 10:01:47 GMT -5
I think Tapati's response makes a lot of sense.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 21, 2009 8:11:57 GMT -5
In my experience as a Christian schooler with some friends who loved Francis Schaeffer- I don't believe that any of us as teenagers really knew the extent of his involvement in patriarchy and the Religious Right...The friends who really liked him saw themselves as minor rebels. They didn't want to rebel against Christianity, which they believed in, and Schaeffer-ism seemed like a way to rebel WITHIN Christianity. Admiring Francis Schaeffer made them seem different without being heretical. They framed themselves as the new intellectuals of Christianity. Very hipster. Do you have any idea how this mythology around him is sustained among so many young people? I mean... It's not as if he was ever a *stealth* member of the religious right. Nor is it difficult to find out what he actually believed. One can find any number of videos simply by looking him up on youtube. He was very straightforward about his involvement--so much so that his published works suggest that it's sometimes necessary to bomb abortion clinics. Everything I know about Francis Schaeffer seems not at all rebellious, and yet... In death, he somehow amassed this huge hipster following. I know that Calvinism has always situated itself as the "intellectual" movement within Christianity, but it seems to me that it wouldn't take much outside research or reading for these folks to figure out what they're getting into. It just seems...intellectually lazy to me. And one could say a lot of snide things about "hipster rebellion" among the white middle classes--and not wind up terribly surprised that a right wing reactionary found his way into their lexicon, but... Still, it seems ridiculous to me. Where is the harmless, hippie commune dwelling "rebel" of the mythology? It seems to me to be based on some fabrication... But whose? Who created it? Who thought, "Hey, let's bring Francis Schaeffer into the emergent church movement and turn all the hipsters on to him! I mean, most of 'em have never even *heard* of RJ Rushdoony, so it'll be a piece of cake."
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 20, 2009 17:33:43 GMT -5
sierra: Exactly. Thanks for saying this.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 20, 2009 17:07:54 GMT -5
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. Well, of course not, that's why I said that it's "very often" chosen, not always chosen. Of course an oppressive system can exacerbate mental illness. That doesn't mean it is *itself* mental illness. Why is the distinction I'm making so controversial?
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 20, 2009 17:05:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 20, 2009 16:50:59 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.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 19, 2009 13:18:26 GMT -5
hopewell: Turning this into a debate on whether or not Christianity should be taught in public schools is kind of a huge derail. For the record, other religions are not taught in public schools either. I don't know where this myth comes from among homeschooling families. I graduated from public schools in a Southern--and a conservative--region of this country. I come from a huge family of public school educators who live up and down the East coast. Some are administrators, and some are teachers. World religions are taught in a survey manner, sure... But have you stopped to consider the fact that a "Christian worldview" and "Christian history" dominates virtually the entire curriculum of most Western schools? The school might not *explicitly* teach what the Bible says like they do the Qur'an, but that's probably because Western history/Western thought *is* about Christianity. Not to mention, *it's downright impossible* to exist in the US without knowing *something* about Christian belief/mythology. This kind of claim is precisely as misinformed as the racist who says, "Why can't we have a white history month too!" Because in a state dominated by white people, every month is white history month. Same thing wrt the public school system; in a country dominated by Christianity, virtually *all history courses* are about "Western/Christian history." Sorry to encourage the derail, but I get really tired of hearing that line from homeschoolers. Please get over it. Christianity is *not* being neglected. In fact, it remains as dominant as it ever was in this society.
|
|