|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Sept 3, 2009 7:43:28 GMT -5
It seems like there's a wierd family dynamic where everyone is an adult and an infant at the same time. athenac ~ you said it exactly! This is why I started the Kobayashi Maru series ~ QF/P is replete with No-Win Scenarios like this. And yes, I definitely will be making this point in the book. Obvious, fawning adoration aside : Oh Sea ~ do go on ... Religious Patriarchy is really just a sub-set of the patriarchy-at-large except, apparently, they use the promise of salvation to enslave boys and men to do their bidding. As in the feudal system, the more serfs, the more power for the king and his court. Historically, as women (both religious and secular) we’ve been put in the position of supporting men as they tilt at windmills because another one of those ‘rights’ he believes he has is to have a woman – a mother, wife, girlfriend, sister, daughter – cheer him on to something he most likely will never achieve. So, in this sense (as in a great number of pedophilia cases) the abuser is also the abused and can be pitied on that level. Warren can be pitied on that level. Yes ~ exactly. It is frustrating in a way, because there is no absolute bad guy to pin the blame on. this is the fault of a super-capitalist, super-competitive mindset: it praises competition and hierarchy over cooperation and egalitarianism, and it damages everybody who is part of that rat-race. It's actually ironic that many religiously patriarchal groups eschew the materialist patriarchy as evil, and vice versa, when they're in many ways the same thing: slavery for the promise of greater things, and division and alienation from each other of those participating. This is an important point, jadehawk. One of the first books I read after "losing my religion" (LOL) is The Skeptic Feminist ~ I'm pretty sure it was from that book that I got the idea that male-dominated spirituality tends to emphasize hierarchy and power whereas female spirituality is more like a spider's web ~ interconnectedness rather than top-down authoritarianism. When I was studying "intelligent design" with my uncle, I discovered that in the mid-1800s Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations) was popularizing the economic principles of competition ~ the beginnings of capitalism. I was surprised to learn that economic competition was actually the philosophical springboard for Darwin's evolutionary formulation ~ domination and survival of the fittest, etc. Much later, in place of a Darwinian view of progress by competition and strife, a female scientist, Lynn Margulis proposed advancement by cooperation and symbiosis. Organisms in her view aid one another, join forces, and accomplish together what they could not accomplish separately. It would be interesting to investigate what sort of economic system would flow from Margulis' symbiosis model.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Sept 3, 2009 9:11:58 GMT -5
Vyckie, my dad did that (my facts are true and yours are fake!). He's not even blind. He's actually gotten better as he gets older - i have a hypothesis that living with other people is really hard for him, so working alone instead of in an office, and living with just one other person (he's remarried) who doesn't engage in codependent behaviors helped him a lot by letting him relax more and also limiting the amount of it he can do. Though, also I just never challenge what he says anymore. My little brother still tries to figure out what part of what he says is true, but I just don't even care unless it's about me or someone in our family.
p.s. have you read The Year of Living Biblically? It's by/about an OCD guy who tries to follow all of the Old Testament rules, and it's hilarious.
|
|
ruby
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by ruby on Sept 7, 2009 18:55:26 GMT -5
My ex-husband and I had fundamentally different understandings of a lot of words, one of which was "love."
I believe that "love" is an active verb, and the people you love would know you love them by the preponderance of your actions.
He believed (probably still does) that "love" is a feeling you have for someone, and is comprised of wanting, needing, etc, not surprising considering traumas he suffered in his childhood / youth. Understanding that helped me to realize he would probably never be capable of loving me in a mature manner.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Sept 13, 2009 2:56:29 GMT -5
I got tired out and discouraged just remembering this and writing about it ~ I seriously can't believe that we lived with it day in and day out for years and years. We always sat at the table together for every meal ~ three times a day we had to suffer through that dreaded ordeal. I hated it so much that now the only time we all sit at the table for a meal is when we have company and the weather is not nice enough to eat outside ~ and even then, we don't always sit down together. Poor traumatized me. Ha! We have not eaten at a table together in YEARS. My children are completely traumatized at the idea of sitting at a table and eating together thanks to their father. They especially remember the looooooong sermonizing prayers he would give if there was a visitor, all the time making them hold hands. The lectures, the corrections, the fury at a kid not liking something or god forbid spilling something. Once we were in MacDonalds.. we had to all hold hands for grace (total embarrassment) and of course he prayed LONG and LOUD over the hamburgers. As soon as the kids could start eating one of them knocked over his whole drink and his father grabbed him by the throat, lifted him up and in complete fury told him he was going to kill him.. the kid was about 6. Just multiply this scene by 10,000 and that's why no one wants to eat around a table. We eat in front of the computers, in front of the TV (!!!!), in bed.. I literally deliver the dinner to rooms all over the house. The Family Table, I had to hear a little sermon about that the other day in church.. I doubt we'll ever get over it. My second husband had no abuse but he did have endless religious grilling and praying and expectations around The Family Table (thank you Dr. Dobson) and he hates eating at the table too. Just had to have that little spew.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Sept 14, 2009 7:53:58 GMT -5
I came across a discussion of my "Most Twisted Love" post on another forum ~ here's some commentary from a Christian d00d who does patriarchy "the right way": The BIBLE (not just the Pope) says that Woman was made to be a help meet and men are to love their wives and women are to respect their husbands. The BIBLE says these things, not just the Roman Catholic church.
And you have things like this:Quote: There is no love in patriarchy. There is no respect. There is only perpetual immaturity, dependency and frustration for the man who is subjected to the most sophisticated manipulation as his wife gives over control and authority to him ~ and in that move, takes control of God Himself ~ for in response to her obedience, has the Lord not promised to bless her? This is completely false! This person does not understand the Christian role of husband and wife at all. And she doesn't understand true biblical wifely submission. It's not about being a slave. It's about being a follower, as in a dance. (I'm a salsa dancer.) The purpose for a dance (for the guy) is to protect and entertain the follower. (This is a universal truth. Ask any dancer.) But he can't do this if she doesn't follow. If she second guesses his leads she short circuits the moves. She can't be entertained if she takes the lead. She has to submit to his will, but in return she is made special. I've mentioned this before but for those of you who are unfamiliar, the balance, the distinct but equal value of man and woman is expressed this way. The leader gets to make the decisions, but the decisions are for the follower's benefit. The follower doesn't get to make the decisions, but she gets the security to know that her leader's purpose is all about her. You can tell just how much she doesn't understand when you read things like this:Quote: From my perspective today, it’s easy to see that all I was doing was putting a Christian dressing on my old sorcery. I’d always been skilled at witchcraft ~ now I had my magic formula (bible verses) and my incantations (prayers) and all my rituals (my perfect behavior) ~ so how could I go wrong? As I mentioned in my own blog post about how New Age is going to unite the world's religions by confusing methodology with theology, she gets caught up in the method of being a Christian and never quite gets the Theology... the purpose behind the method.
She is absolutely the last person any Christian woman should listen to.So ~ there you have it. The purpose of patriarchy is for the protection and entertainment of the women. If we second guess the men ~ we're screwing up a lovely dance ... Where the heck is that barfing icon when I really need one?
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Sept 14, 2009 10:06:51 GMT -5
As I said before, this is just the No True Scotsman fallacy. If you tried Christianity and found it wanting, then you obviously didn't try it right, because No True Christian woman could ever come to the conclusion that patriarchy sucks.
|
|
|
Post by clodia83 on Sept 16, 2009 10:25:02 GMT -5
Interestingly, the modern understanding of natural selection by evolutionary biologists is not based around an idea of "survival of the fittest," but rather a propagation of the adequate, and a failure of the unfit.
The means of survival and reproduction in a species simply has to be good enough to continue. Changes happen when the insufficient die off and fail to breed and pass on their genes, and the adequate go on. Selective breeding may cause some "fittest" traits to be spread within the population, but the perfectly adequate tend to get along just fine. Evolution is in this way more of a process of elimination rather than promotion. It's not about being the best, it's about being good enough. Hence, in thousands of years of genetic selection, there has yet to be even some regional group of "perfect" (diseaseless, universally attractive, strong, equally disposed to intellegence) humans.
So humans, I guess, having the capacity to desire perfection, or at least superiority, seek it by means they can control. When physical, intellectual, financial superiority over a large group is impossible...well, one can always be superior over one's own family. Or superior to others in one's moral choices.
Think of the beatitudes as they are translated into the bible as we know it. They are beautiful sentiments all, but also can be used as the sort of declaration by the downtrodden fundementalist target audience as a sort of ultimate declaration of fitness, of superiority.
By being the meek, submissive wife, you seek to make yourself superior. You are at competition with the rest of the world. You desire to be "the best," even though the concept is an illusion.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Sept 16, 2009 13:32:56 GMT -5
Interestingly, the modern understanding of natural selection by evolutionary biologists is not based around an idea of "survival of the fittest," but rather a propagation of the adequate, and a failure of the unfit. Again, this is a bit OT, but the misunderstanding and deliberate misrepresentation of the Theory of Evolution is one of the most damaging anti-education/knowledge movements being inflicted on the American public at this time. Today on Pharyngula ( scienceblogs.com/pharyngula), there is a list of books describing evolution to the non-biologist. I've copied the list below since the site can be a bit of a rough go for anyone not used to internet fisticuffs. Read Donald Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. Or Sean Carrol's The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution. Or Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body. Or Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True. These are all eminently readable, and are aimed at an audience that knows next to nothing about biology — they will quickly pull you up to a level at which you can at least ask intelligent questions. We even use Carroll's book here at UMM in our freshman biology course, with the idea that it will introduce them to the concepts they should have gotten in high school, but most didn't.
Now we have another entry in this collection: Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. No matter what your views about creation/evolution are, READ AND UNDERSTAND. If you find yourself disagreeing, then at least you will be disagreeing with the actual theory rather than trotting out moldy arguments that have been thoroughly debunked for decades. Also good resources for home-schooling.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Sept 16, 2009 16:51:33 GMT -5
Vyckie, I understand the initial impulse to avoid a traumatic reminder such as sitting at the table together for a meal. However, when you can, you may (all) find it very healing to do so without Warren and discover how much fun it can be to hear each child talk and laugh and give glimpses into their day. (Especially since they are now not spending each day together but are in different classes.)
I think part of healing is reclaiming and re-framing, after the initial rejection of the past way of doing things. You can have a meeting about it and bring up ways to make it completely DIFFERENT than it was in the past. It's also a good chance to debrief about the past traumas and get it out of the system.
|
|
em
Full Member
Posts: 176
|
Post by em on Sept 16, 2009 22:39:17 GMT -5
Interestingly, the modern understanding of natural selection by evolutionary biologists is not based around an idea of "survival of the fittest," but rather a propagation of the adequate, and a failure of the unfit. The means of survival and reproduction in a species simply has to be good enough to continue. Changes happen when the insufficient die off and fail to breed and pass on their genes, and the adequate go on. Selective breeding may cause some "fittest" traits to be spread within the population, but the perfectly adequate tend to get along just fine. Evolution is in this way more of a process of elimination rather than promotion. It's not about being the best, it's about being good enough. Hence, in thousands of years of genetic selection, there has yet to be even some regional group of "perfect" (diseaseless, universally attractive, strong, equally disposed to intellegence) humans. Where did you learn this? Not to be rude, but I've never heard of such a thing. (I just graduated with my degree in biology two years ago, so it must be pretty new.) (Also, survival of the fittest doesn't mean that the weakest member of a species continually get wiped out, leading to a constant stream of new and improved animals in this species. It just means that the fitter individuals of a species (fitter being whatever trait it is that helps them produce more offspring, attract mates better, gather up more food, survive predators/parasites, etc. better) will out compete the weaker individuals in the end. Being just good enough may work for a while, but when times are rough and food is scarce or habitat is wiped out, the fitter members of the species will prevails. Being just good enough won't do. Sorry, I'm a total nerd. ;D )
|
|
|
Post by grandmalou on Sept 17, 2009 6:51:34 GMT -5
Vyckie, I understand the initial impulse to avoid a traumatic reminder such as sitting at the table together for a meal. However, when you can, you may (all) find it very healing to do so without Warren and discover how much fun it can be to hear each child talk and laugh and give glimpses into their day. (Especially since they are now not spending each day together but are in different classes.) I think part of healing is reclaiming and re-framing, after the initial rejection of the past way of doing things. You can have a meeting about it and bring up ways to make it completely DIFFERENT than it was in the past. It's also a good chance to debrief about the past traumas and get it out of the system. Tapati, I totally agree with this post of yours. I once read a book entitled "Reclaiming Surrendered Ground". It made perfect sense to me. It was for survivors of abuse of any kind...and there are so many areas of our lives where we have given up, given over our very being as humans. Eating together is an excellent way to reconnect and regain old, time-honored family traditions that have fallen by the wayside. When Vyckie and her brother and sister were growing up, we used to strive for at least a once a week "Round Table discussion" time. I think they were fun, at least for me. That was when I did a lot of 'brainstorming' ideas with them. I tried from early on in their lives to gain their input into family decisions. I hope it helped them to some degree, and that someday Jim and Sandy will recall some of this and we can be reunited as a family. I would LOVE to have all of them once again around my table. Right now I am totally overwhelmed, and it would be nice to actually SEE my table.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Sept 17, 2009 14:44:10 GMT -5
Tapati, I totally agree with this post of yours. I once read a book entitled "Reclaiming Surrendered Ground". It made perfect sense to me. It was for survivors of abuse of any kind...and there are so many areas of our lives where we have given up, given over our very being as humans. Eating together is an excellent way to reconnect and regain old, time-honored family traditions that have fallen by the wayside. When Vyckie and her brother and sister were growing up, we used to strive for at least a once a week "Round Table discussion" time. I think they were fun, at least for me. That was when I did a lot of 'brainstorming' ideas with them. I tried from early on in their lives to gain their input into family decisions. I hope it helped them to some degree, and that someday Jim and Sandy will recall some of this and we can be reunited as a family. I would LOVE to have all of them once again around my table. Right now I am totally overwhelmed, and it would be nice to actually SEE my table. I think that if we don't finally get to the point where we can reclaim these things, the abuser has won. I know it's a process that takes time, though. You can ease into it by taking baby steps. I wish I HAD a table. We don't have room anymore. Our desks are in the dining area. We do eat together every night, though.
|
|
|
Post by clodia83 on Sept 17, 2009 15:21:26 GMT -5
Interestingly, the modern understanding of natural selection by evolutionary biologists is not based around an idea of "survival of the fittest," but rather a propagation of the adequate, and a failure of the unfit. The means of survival and reproduction in a species simply has to be good enough to continue. Changes happen when the insufficient die off and fail to breed and pass on their genes, and the adequate go on. Selective breeding may cause some "fittest" traits to be spread within the population, but the perfectly adequate tend to get along just fine. Evolution is in this way more of a process of elimination rather than promotion. It's not about being the best, it's about being good enough. Hence, in thousands of years of genetic selection, there has yet to be even some regional group of "perfect" (diseaseless, universally attractive, strong, equally disposed to intellegence) humans. Where did you learn this? Not to be rude, but I've never heard of such a thing. (I just graduated with my degree in biology two years ago, so it must be pretty new.) (Also, survival of the fittest doesn't mean that the weakest member of a species continually get wiped out, leading to a constant stream of new and improved animals in this species. It just means that the fitter individuals of a species (fitter being whatever trait it is that helps them produce more offspring, attract mates better, gather up more food, survive predators/parasites, etc. better) will out compete the weaker individuals in the end. Being just good enough may work for a while, but when times are rough and food is scarce or habitat is wiped out, the fitter members of the species will prevails. Being just good enough won't do. Sorry, I'm a total nerd. ;D ) I guess I wasn't being clear enough. What I mean to say is that that survival of the fittest doesn't mean that the, say, fastest member of the species automatically gets to spread it's genes around the most, and everyone else is left in the dust. As long as you run fast enough to escape, your genes could go on. I don't mean new species pop up, I mean that inefficiencies in members of a species remain because the species as a whole still does "well enough." The process by which human beings give birth, for instance, is often deadly and woefully inefficient. But it works well enough that humans continue to be born and breed. So there's no massive die off of young being born vaginally, leading gradually to change. Is all I'm saying. Obviously, if a member of a species does not thrive when food becomes scarce, etc, then what was "good enough" before is no longer "good enough," and therefore fitter members of the species survive to breed while others die. What I'm saying is that it's "survival of the fittest" (not the greatest term for it, and definitely not Darwin's term for the process by which species evolve) under the circumstances, not survival of the perfect. But this is way way way way OT.
|
|
|
Post by AustinAvery on Sept 17, 2009 16:07:37 GMT -5
Where did you learn this? Not to be rude, but I've never heard of such a thing. (I just graduated with my degree in biology two years ago, so it must be pretty new.) (Also, survival of the fittest doesn't mean that the weakest member of a species continually get wiped out, leading to a constant stream of new and improved animals in this species. It just means that the fitter individuals of a species (fitter being whatever trait it is that helps them produce more offspring, attract mates better, gather up more food, survive predators/parasites, etc. better) will out compete the weaker individuals in the end. Being just good enough may work for a while, but when times are rough and food is scarce or habitat is wiped out, the fitter members of the species will prevails. Being just good enough won't do. Sorry, I'm a total nerd. ;D ) I guess I wasn't being clear enough. What I mean to say is that that survival of the fittest doesn't mean that the, say, fastest member of the species automatically gets to spread it's genes around the most, and everyone else is left in the dust. As long as you run fast enough to escape, your genes could go on. I don't mean new species pop up, I mean that inefficiencies in members of a species remain because the species as a whole still does "well enough." The process by which human beings give birth, for instance, is often deadly and woefully inefficient. But it works well enough that humans continue to be born and breed. So there's no massive die off of young being born vaginally, leading gradually to change. Is all I'm saying. Obviously, if a member of a species does not thrive when food becomes scarce, etc, then what was "good enough" before is no longer "good enough," and therefore fitter members of the species survive to breed while others die. What I'm saying is that it's "survival of the fittest" (not the greatest term for it, and definitely not Darwin's term for the process by which species evolve) under the circumstances, not survival of the perfect. But this is way way way way OT. You are both right, but you have not defined "fittest." What is fit in one environment is not necessarily fit in another. When food is scarce, smaller may turn out to be more fit. And then there is the overlay of sexual selections. The male peacock, for example, who is ridiculously unfit for all sort of things with all of the plummage, but quite fit for attracting mates. If you're interested, a wonderful book on this subject is The Beak of the Finch. I highly recommend it.
|
|
|
Post by rose31759 on Jan 22, 2010 13:22:35 GMT -5
I read somewhere that love= fusion, in which one takes two different things, puts them together, shakes them up and low and behold, you have new entity that looks nothing like the two things that original made it. I believe that this is what the Christian view of marriage is supposed to be--- however they have forgotten one thing--- differentiation. Without differentiation, the ability for an individual to be a separate entity, there can be no respect. When one is an separate and has the ability to think and act for one's self there can be no respect. Without self identity there can be no self respect and therefore no love.
I can not believe that the Creator, who gave us all unique and individual identities also demands that those of the female persuasion give up there identities in order to put the males on the pedestal and the demand that we respect them, while they (the males) try to control and dominate us and then call it love. I just don't get that kind of thinking at all
|
|