|
Post by km on May 28, 2010 11:54:04 GMT -5
Here's my question: Do any of you actually believe that there's a 'right' way for a spouse to respond when a person gets caught up in QF/P beliefs? I don't think I do. This is fair. I can't really say something general about this beyond " fight harder." I'm not even asking for that. I'm asking for Brad to be more transparent about this--and not to claim that his wife or an abstract belief system were solely responsible for what happened. Also, I think the boys who were raised in the church were in something of a different situation. They didn't have a choice about their involvement in the church, just as you didn't. As compassionate as we are here with people who chose this lifestyle-- and, to be clear, I of course think that we should be compassionate--I think adults bear responsibility for the choices they make to become involved... And this is especially true if they become well-known leaders in the movement. If Brad had just been some unknown follower, I don't think I'd be making such a big deal of this.
|
|
|
Post by km on May 28, 2010 11:58:14 GMT -5
Here's my question: Do any of you actually believe that there's a 'right' way for a spouse to respond when a person gets caught up in QF/P beliefs? I don't think I do. This is fair. I can't really say something general about this beyond " fight harder." I'm not even asking for that. I'm asking for Brad to be more transparent about this--and not to claim that his wife or an abstract belief system were solely responsible for what happened. And I guess, to be fair, maybe he's not claiming these things. If not, I really hope he'll correct my interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by km on May 28, 2010 12:03:40 GMT -5
To clarify my example about Cheryl. She and her readers tend to be quite outspoken about how the patriarchy caused her abuse in the QF movement. I don't for one second doubt that this is true. But I also think there's another side to the story... The part in which some people, because they are leaders, experience abuse as QF followers, but become very successful at selling the practice of QF to others. If the Duggars ever get out, they will have been this type of QF family. I mean, I'm all for getting out, but I also think, "Okay, but did the patriarchy force you to become a leader and friend of Dobson and well-known writer/publisher of QF literature? It seems like there must have been some human agency at work there, and I want to hear more about what led to those things."
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on May 28, 2010 12:06:28 GMT -5
Also, a reminder that Brad was a QF leader, not a passive follower. KM, I think you're making a good point, but I thought that Brad is putting the blame on the movement and on the controlling people in the movement, and putting his wife and himself into the same category of being taken in. It doesn't matter a lot to me if the man is appearing to get the power in the relationship if it means that he's being forced into an unwanted role by an external agency. It seems that almost everyone who's chosen to be part of this as an adult has some personal responsibility for hurting their family. And we don't make everyone who writes talk all about their own responsibility. I think that most of us are aware that we've made mistakes in getting involved in QF. And I think that all of us are aware that the movement is very manipulative in how it retains people through social pressure. To me, the personal responsibility is something to acknowledge, but deal with privately. The tactics and lies of the movement are something to expose. Also, don't forget that Vyckie was a QF leader with her newspaper and the family of the year. She's talked a lot about how she got where she was and taken responsibility, but she's also written like 100 articles here. Her first stories didn't start out by saying - this is my fault for choosing to be part of this as an adult - they focused on the abuses of QF. So again, I think that's an appropriate starting point.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on May 28, 2010 12:14:14 GMT -5
For what it's worth ~ I remember being a part of the discussion on the Quiverfull Digest when the idea for Blessed Arrows reversal ministry came up ~ I'm pretty sure it was Dawn who thought of it and discussed it with others on the list and worked to get the ministry started. As I recall ~ Dawn did the majority (possibly ALL) the posting on QF Digest.
So ~ it would have been more accurate for me to say that Dawn was the founder of Blessed Arrows. The thing is, within the QF paradigm, a woman is not to act of her own accord so for Dawn to say, "I have this idea and I want to start this ministry" would have been a little harder to justify than if she did it as a helpmeet to her husband. As such, Brad's name appeared alongside Dawn's in everything she did.
This is not uncommon ~ I would often say, "Warren and I" are doing such and such or "we" think this or that ... it is the only way a QF woman can legitimately get anything done or have an opinion about anything.
Dawn and Brad are both still believers ~ they are questioning their assumptions about Christianity and their practice of it ~ but they are both still fully committed to loving and serving Jesus. I've watched (via following them on facebook) over the past year or so since Dawn first contacted me after stumbling upon NLQ ~ and I have to say that their humility and growth in grace-based faith has been a real encouragement to me.
|
|
|
Post by km on May 28, 2010 12:24:17 GMT -5
Also, a reminder that Brad was a QF leader, not a passive follower. KM, I think you're making a good point, but I thought that Brad is putting the blame on the movement and on the controlling people in the movement, and putting his wife and himself into the same category of being taken in. It doesn't matter a lot to me if the man is appearing to get the power in the relationship if it means that he's being forced into an unwanted role by an external agency. It seems that almost everyone who's chosen to be part of this as an adult has some personal responsibility for hurting their family. And we don't make everyone who writes talk all about their own responsibility. I think that most of us are aware that we've made mistakes in getting involved in QF. And I think that all of us are aware that the movement is very manipulative in how it retains people through social pressure. To me, the personal responsibility is something to acknowledge, but deal with privately. The tactics and lies of the movement are something to expose. Also, don't forget that Vyckie was a QF leader with her newspaper and the family of the year. She's talked a lot about how she got where she was and taken responsibility, but she's also written like 100 articles here. Her first stories didn't start out by saying - this is my fault for choosing to be part of this as an adult - they focused on the abuses of QF. So again, I think that's an appropriate starting point. See, I think people *do* take responsibility for these things on this forum. I constantly see Vyckie setting a great example in this regard--and I see other people following suit. I think the ways in which we've hurt other people with our involvement are just as important as that ways in which we have been personally hurt. The thing that matters about the structure of QF even when a father feels alienated when he gets involved... Is quite simply that the structure of QF is usually such that the man is able to leave. It's easier if there aren't children involved, but it's most often women in QF who are economically disempowered and who don't have the financial means to get up and leave. QF men who are doing what QF men are supposed to do (providing for their family) and who are not kept out of the workforce by a disability (like Warren) always have this. That men are glorified in specific ways--and as the "head" and "provider" part of a family hierarchy--does matter in QF. Why? No matter what, when the father is dissatisfied, the woman is questioned. When the husband seems uninvolved or uncommitted, the woman's submission is doubted. Sure, men get prayed over for watching TV, but it is always going to be true that men have more power to leave simply by virtue of the fact that women relinquish any claims to economic independence in the movement. So, yes, I do think it's important to talk about the ways in which things operate systemically--and as institutions... I don't think it means that this diminishes the alienated father's oppressive experiences, but I definitely think it makes them different. I don't think it's necessarily good or healthy just like I wouldn't say that racism is good or healthy for white people, but... As a white person, I certainly don't experience racist society in a way that is as oppressive for me as it is to people of color. As a woman whose family left Christian patriarchy when she was still young, I have been less oppressed by it than people whose families remained involved into their adulthood. That just...is. I don't think adult men experience patriarchy in a way that it as oppressive to them as it is to women either. Just by virtue of what the rules are and how they operate and who they reward. Nevertheless, I get that this was painful and problematic and hard for Brad. I would like to hear more about that. But I want some distinctions to be made.
|
|
|
Post by km on May 28, 2010 12:25:35 GMT -5
For what it's worth ~ I remember being a part of the discussion on the Quiverfull Digest when the idea for Blessed Arrows reversal ministry came up ~ I'm pretty sure it was Dawn who thought of it and discussed it with others on the list and worked to get the ministry started. As I recall ~ Dawn did the majority (possibly ALL) the posting on QF Digest. So ~ it would have been more accurate for me to say that Dawn was the founder of Blessed Arrows. The thing is, within the QF paradigm, a woman is not to act of her own accord so for Dawn to say, "I have this idea and I want to start this ministry" would have been a little harder to justify than if she did it as a helpmeet to her husband. As such, Brad's name appeared alongside Dawn's in everything she did. This is not uncommon ~ I would often say, "Warren and I" are doing such and such or "we" think this or that ... it is the only way a QF woman can legitimately get anything done or have an opinion about anything. Dawn and Brad are both still believers ~ they are questioning their assumptions about Christianity and their practice of it ~ but they are both still fully committed to loving and serving Jesus. I've watched (via following them on facebook) over the past year or so since Dawn first contacted me after stumbling upon NLQ ~ and I have to say that their humility and growth in grace-based faith has been a real encouragement to me. Okay, well thank you for clarifying this. It actually changes a lot... So, well, yeah... Okay then, so he wasn't a leader? Good to know.
|
|
|
Post by km on May 28, 2010 12:36:15 GMT -5
By the way, I do not intend to disparage Christians at all. I still have some problems with the post, but this has nothing to do with whether or not they are still Christians. Based on the tone of the post, I would be interested in hearing more about what he and Dawn think about this. I felt that I detected a strain of "damned those aggressive overbearing women!" that sounded not unlike QF leaders blaming feminists for the world's problems. In other words, I haven't worked out from the post whether or not the author actually has a problem with QF as such... Or if he just thinks it's another outlet for overbearing women (as is feminism in the QF mindset). So, basically, I'm just saying that I want to hear more, and I really would like to be corrected if my interpretation has been off base.
Seriously, I have nothing against Christianity... But right wing dog whistles bother me quite a lot, as does the Christian Right. And I guess I'd really appreciate some clarification if I just read way to much into the post.
|
|
|
Post by km on May 28, 2010 12:45:14 GMT -5
So, I'll try to be more specific... Let's take this particular passage:
"But I didn’t think that was necessary. It was an outward show of something that, at the time, I didn’t believe was true anyway. These women were not submitted. And besides, I wasn’t looking for a servant. I wanted a help meet, someone to stand by my side. It was funny. To show that she was “submitted to me” she was going to wear the head covering whether I wanted her to or not. It seemed ironic."
I want to know whether or not Brad is saying that the problem is that his wife didn't truly submit--or if the problem is with QF itself (and its unattainable system). Would you have been more okay with it if you felt your wife's submission was more genuine? The word "helpmeet" puts me off too--it's usually used in defense of wifely submission, and I have rarely--if ever--seen it elsewhere. So, what do you mean by it--if not someone who helps you achieve your own potential by submissively serving as a "helpmeet"? Basically... I think that I and the readers here deserve to know whether or not we are reading someone who still supports Christian patriarchy--only in a somewhat tempered/attenuated form. I think there are different degrees of having left QF, and it doesn't strictly boil down to religious ideology for me... I may not share KR's strong faith, but I can have a conversation with her (and most of the other Christians on this forum) because she doesn't bowl me over with Christian-ese. The bit about the "helpmeet" is what I'm referring to as a Right wing dogwhistle, but I'm prepared to accept that it may not be meant in that way, especially among people who are steeped in this kind of rhetoric and newly out of the movement. I just want to know.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on May 28, 2010 13:02:21 GMT -5
The thing that matters about the structure of QF even when a father feels alienated when he gets involved... Is quite simply that the structure of QF is usually such that the man is able to leave. It's easier if there aren't children involved, but it's most often women in QF who are economically disempowered and who don't have the financial means to get up and leave. QF men who are doing what QF men are supposed to do (providing for their family) and who are not kept out of the workforce by a disability (like Warren) always have this. That men are glorified in specific ways--and as the "head" and "provider" part of a family hierarchy--does matter in QF. I feel like that's kind of devaluing emotional and spiritual abuse when it comes to the difficulties of leaving. I recognize that there are special obstacles for women with no job and multiple children to leave. I also recognize that there are special obstacles to those who are physically in fear of their lives. But in my own abusive marriage, I wasn't being physically abused (not in a violent way anyway - there was some physical humiliation, but it was things that a woman could have done to a man). I had a college degree and got a job after I left. I didn't have children - if I did, I don't think it would have mattered if I were male or female in worrying about losing them to an abusive spouse if I left. But because of the spiritual manipulation, I was considering killing myself instead of leaving. I thought that my soul was as real as my body. It would be hurtful to me for someone to say "it was just emotional abuse, you didn't have children and you could work, so don't compare yourself to someone who was REALLY abused".
|
|
|
Post by nikita on May 28, 2010 13:59:56 GMT -5
Okay, I have two points. First is that 'christianese' is going to come up in speaking and writing from pretty much any conservative leaning christian whether or not they are or have ever been involved or even is aware of the QF/P movement. Using biblical language is common, and following certain what are considered biblical teachings is also common. Saying one's wife is one's 'helpmeet' is a biblical thing and not necessarily a patriarchialist thing. The QF/P and Reformed leaders/followers have taken biblical passages and language and amped them up to the most severe and ridiculous degree that is humanly possible. But those who are not part of those movements still use those terms and may interpret and follow those passages to a much more moderate and reasonable degree. But people who have been affected by QF/P and/or Reformed theology are going to hear the more extreme teachings in their heads when they hear people use these words and phrases and I don't know that there's any way to adjust for that other than just being really conscious and aware of it. I also think that a person can still be a christian, even a fairly conservative one, and not come close to falling into the abuses of the QF/P system. For example: There are Mormons and there are fundamentalist groups in that same faith system. They share scriptures and worldview and history and generally look for the same things. But the fundamentalists have taken those scriptures and history and made a deep turn into another way of life and following of scriptures entirely, leading to extreme lifestyles and pervasive physical, emotional, and sexual abuse within their societies. Must someone coming out of fundamentalism need to refute Mormonism entirely in order to heal and gain a better more balanced life for themselves and their children? Do they have to throw out their scriptures or choose a completely new faith or atheism in order to properly refute the abusive fundamentalism they came out from under? Someone from the outside who doesn't share that faith may not like the conservative nature or belief system of even the regular Mormon teachings/society, but it is the people involved themselves who should be making those decisions and valuations for themselves rather than outsiders looking from the outside in. I guess what I'm saying is there are gradations on a scale and people have to decide for themselves what their beliefs are and where they are comfortable on that scale outside of the abusive group. And not everyone is going to be happy with it but I think people deserve the freedom and respect to make these decisions for themselves. Including remaining conservative Christians if that is their faith. The second point has to do with KM's point about leadership. Completely aside from Brad's situation, this point really resonated with me because I am dealing with that right now. In my old group the people who are the most hostile and adamant about how victimized they were are the ones who actually had positions of leadership and authority over the rest of us and were the actual instruments of our abuse. And it really pisses me off. Seriously pisses me off. They are the ones who speak vehemently and hatefully and just shout down anyone who has anything remotely positive to say about anything that happened while there. One of the kids posted on facebook that he really appreciated, as a fatherless little boy, all the men in the group acting as surrogate fathers to him over the years and that that was a wonderful memory for him. And one of the former 'under-leaders' just castigated this young man for saying that he had any good memories at all, didn't he realize that it was bad, etc. etc. That is the reaction everyone gets from these former martinets from our group. Not a single one of these former under-leaders will take one iota of responsibility for their own behavior or what they did to the rest of us, they just pull out the victim card and shout down anyone who dares to question them about it. So I get the irritation, believe me. I just didn't get that vibe at all from Brad. Also, Brad's article was very short. I think we'd need to see a lot more of his story and viewpoint before deciding that we know his entire point of view or what responsibility he takes for whatever his part in all of this was. So that's my point of view on it, for what it's worth.
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on May 28, 2010 14:38:14 GMT -5
To me use of the word "helpmeet" tends to paint one as a King James Only fundie zealot as *well* as a demeaning misogynist.
Obviously that doesn't apply to people here.
|
|
|
Post by km on May 28, 2010 14:48:24 GMT -5
The thing that matters about the structure of QF even when a father feels alienated when he gets involved... Is quite simply that the structure of QF is usually such that the man is able to leave. It's easier if there aren't children involved, but it's most often women in QF who are economically disempowered and who don't have the financial means to get up and leave. QF men who are doing what QF men are supposed to do (providing for their family) and who are not kept out of the workforce by a disability (like Warren) always have this. That men are glorified in specific ways--and as the "head" and "provider" part of a family hierarchy--does matter in QF. I feel like that's kind of devaluing emotional and spiritual abuse when it comes to the difficulties of leaving. I recognize that there are special obstacles for women with no job and multiple children to leave. I also recognize that there are special obstacles to those who are physically in fear of their lives. But in my own abusive marriage, I wasn't being physically abused (not in a violent way anyway - there was some physical humiliation, but it was things that a woman could have done to a man). I had a college degree and got a job after I left. I didn't have children - if I did, I don't think it would have mattered if I were male or female in worrying about losing them to an abusive spouse if I left. But because of the spiritual manipulation, I was considering killing myself instead of leaving. I thought that my soul was as real as my body. It would be hurtful to me for someone to say "it was just emotional abuse, you didn't have children and you could work, so don't compare yourself to someone who was REALLY abused". But I never said it was "just emotional abuse." Brad has not explicitly alleged abuse, for one thing, and in any case... I wasn't even thinking in terms of emotional vs. physical vs. sexual abuse, but as abuse divided more like this: 1. There are abuses that are written into the rulebook, so to speak. These tend to provoke philosophical discussions and existential angst. They have to do with the "essence" of women as delineated by the QF movement--and what it means to be submissive and to be inferior. I think these things are abusive in themselves. They help to comprise an abusive system that specifically targets all women and children--as well as all people who fail to conform in general. They include all the rules about what constitutes "ideal girlhood/boyhood/womanhood/manhood." They are bad for everyone, but they place more rigid restrictions on women. Further, the failures of men are are often attributed to the failings of women because of a theological doctrine that was already part of the system. These kinds of systemic rules give many of us a disadvantage from the beginning. Economic issues, for example. All of these things are skewed against a large percentage of the population when they are designated as inferior, as nothing but "helpmeets" of their husbands who have no individuality to speak of at all. Same with children, when they become servants and mother younger siblings--with no recognition of anything but their utility for the movement. 2. Then there's specific abuse that happens to us all as individuals. This includes everything you're talking about, and what most of us are talking about when we speak of our abuse experiences. The things that happened to us as specifically situated individuals. Some of us are more likely to become marginalized than others because we occupy marginalized societal positions (like disability, for example). This is affected by structural patterns, but we experience it as individuals. I think you read what I wrote out of context. My point is not that structural abuse is worse than individualized abuse (whether emotional or not). But we have to be able to talk about the way in which differences are constructed by institutions/systems and how they reward some people and punish others. And we have to be able to do that without that being interpreted as the suggestion that someone's experiences are invalid/untrue/trivial or anything else. Because I haven't said anything like this. I do feel concerned that the alleged power of aggressive women in the movement may be overstated in this post. I have had experiences with female QF Superstars myself, so I don't doubt that they exist, but it concerns me to see something that I read as, "Hey, wait a minute. The women are just as abusive in this system as the men." Even the heading, "Let the men speak!" seems to suggest a kind of effort (tacit or not) by overly aggressive women to keep men out of the discussion, as if men haven't been welcome at the table all along. I'll be clear: I don't think women in QF have the power to abuse as many people with quite as much severity as men because of the way in which QF is structured around a hierarchy. Certainly, there are many, many individual woman abusers. And I say this not because women are essentially nicer/sweeter/kinder than men (certainly, I don't believe that), but because women do not have the freedom that men often have in the movement to be abusive. Women don't get to lock their husbands in prayer closets, for example. There just aren't as many options available. I don't think they institution of QF allows it. And, yes, I have had experiences abusive women individuals. But they do not run the QF system. Nor are they it's greatest beneficiaries. That's all. I thought that was a pretty uncontroversial point. The people whom they serve get the most perks. And I certainly never made a point about emotional abuse vs. any other kind of abuse at all (I've experienced both, to be honest, but the emotional abuse was always far more intense than the physical abuse. I am not one to make light of emotional abuse or of individual experience.). My point is that the system is stacked against women from the outset, and not necessarily against heterosexual men. The rules are often practiced in ways that become abusive for fathers as well, but my position is that they are not structured as such. I'm not making the claim that one is worse than the other, just that women get both and that the differences in experience need to be acknowledged. ETA: edited for a misplaced phrase.
|
|
|
Post by km on May 28, 2010 15:03:59 GMT -5
Okay, I have two points. First is that 'christianese' is going to come up in speaking and writing from pretty much any conservative leaning christian whether or not they are or have ever been involved or even is aware of the QF/P movement. Using biblical language is common, and following certain what are considered biblical teachings is also common. Saying one's wife is one's 'helpmeet' is a biblical thing and not necessarily a patriarchialist thing. The QF/P and Reformed leaders/followers have taken biblical passages and language and amped them up to the most severe and ridiculous degree that is humanly possible. But those who are not part of those movements still use those terms and may interpret and follow those passages to a much more moderate and reasonable degree. But people who have been affected by QF/P and/or Reformed theology are going to hear the more extreme teachings in their heads when they hear people use these words and phrases and I don't know that there's any way to adjust for that other than just being really conscious and aware of it. I also think that a person can still be a christian, even a fairly conservative one, and not come close to falling into the abuses of the QF/P system. For example: There are Mormons and there are fundamentalist groups in that same faith system. They share scriptures and worldview and history and generally look for the same things. But the fundamentalists have taken those scriptures and history and made a deep turn into another way of life and following of scriptures entirely, leading to extreme lifestyles and pervasive physical, emotional, and sexual abuse within their societies. Must someone coming out of fundamentalism need to refute Mormonism entirely in order to heal and gain a better more balanced life for themselves and their children? Do they have to throw out their scriptures or choose a completely new faith or atheism in order to properly refute the abusive fundamentalism they came out from under? Someone from the outside who doesn't share that faith may not like the conservative nature or belief system of even the regular Mormon teachings/society, but it is the people involved themselves who should be making those decisions and valuations for themselves rather than outsiders looking from the outside in. I guess what I'm saying is there are gradations on a scale and people have to decide for themselves what their beliefs are and where they are comfortable on that scale outside of the abusive group. And not everyone is going to be happy with it but I think people deserve the freedom and respect to make these decisions for themselves. Including remaining conservative Christians if that is their faith. Yes, I am aware that the word "helpmeet" is actually in the Bible. My point is that different kinds of Christians use different kinds of words. Let me know if you've ever been to a single mainline church that used the word helpmeet (except in the reading of, say, the liturgy in Lutheranism or Episcopalianism) in a serious way. It's not used. It's used in patriarchal Christian churches, and despite what QF/P teaches, I firmly believe that some segments of Christianity are not deeply steeped in antiquated patriarchal beliefs. To suggest that this point is asking someone to abandon their "faith" is tantamount to suggesting that Episopalians and members of the United Church of Christ and the PCUSA are not legitimate Christians. That remaining a Christian in any sense of the word requires a literalist interpretation not terribly different in kind from that of QF/P. I completely reject that... And, frankly, I do believe that extremist Christian thought exists on a continuum, and I think patriarchal beliefs tend to exist to differing degrees... But, no, I don't really think that someone who still embraces Christian patriarchy has really abandoned QF, such as it is. I think abandonment of QF entails freedom from these kind of legalistic, oppressive beliefs. And the idea that an abandonment of literalist interpretation necessarily entails a complete abandonment of a faith... That's really, really problematic for people who have left QF/P, but who don't consider themselves to have completely abandoned Christianity. Because we very often *have* reinterpreted some of these Scriptures (And now I sound like a Christian... If anything, though, I do identify culturally with the mainline church. Certainly, I'll defend it when I find that literalist Christianity is being posited as the only kind out there.). I do not believe that Christian patriarchy is as explicit/clear in the Bible as you seem to be suggesting. That means that I disagree about an interpretation of the Bible, not that I think people must leave their entire faith behind in order to leave QF. I do think it is explicitly clear for many QF/ P people and evangelical Christians, but by no means for all Christians.
|
|
|
Post by km on May 28, 2010 15:08:20 GMT -5
Completely aside from Brad's situation, this point really resonated with me because I am dealing with that right now. In my old group the people who are the most hostile and adamant about how victimized they were are the ones who actually had positions of leadership and authority over the rest of us and were the actual instruments of our abuse. And it really pisses me off. Seriously pisses me off. They are the ones who speak vehemently and hatefully and just shout down anyone who has anything remotely positive to say about anything that happened while there. One of the kids posted on facebook that he really appreciated, as a fatherless little boy, all the men in the group acting as surrogate fathers to him over the years and that that was a wonderful memory for him. And one of the former 'under-leaders' just castigated this young man for saying that he had any good memories at all, didn't he realize that it was bad, etc. etc. That is the reaction everyone gets from these former martinets from our group. Not a single one of these former under-leaders will take one iota of responsibility for their own behavior or what they did to the rest of us, they just pull out the victim card and shout down anyone who dares to question them about it. So I get the irritation, believe me. I just didn't get that vibe at all from Brad. Also, Brad's article was very short. I think we'd need to see a lot more of his story and viewpoint before deciding that we know his entire point of view or what responsibility he takes for whatever his part in all of this was. Well, yeah, this is precisely the type of dynamic I'm talking about. And I've seen it over and over again, and yeah, it pisses me off too. I guess Brad might be the only person who can tell us whether or not either of us has interpreted his piece correctly. I agree that it would be helpful to hear more about this story.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on May 28, 2010 15:11:00 GMT -5
But I think that if one insists that the entire gamut of intellectual analysis be brought into every article of an individual's experience in the system then it becomes itself overbearing to the one sharing his/her experiences.
And no one oppresses women more completely and harshly than other women who insist on conformity within the group. They may not be the ones who start the thing, or the ones who most directly benefit from the thing, but they can be the most brutal enforcers of conformity to the thing that other women will ever encounter. That may not be everyone's experience, but it is my experience and what I've seen of the experiences of many others.
There are a number of people who are not 'fundie zealots' who are still fairly conservative Christians and I think a distinction needs to be made. I happen to know quite a few of them who haven't gone the QF/P or Reformed route or alternatively followed the charismtic route either. It may not be everyone here's cup of tea but I don't think it should be lumped in with the abusive patriarchal and legalistic crowd either. That is way too broad a brush IMO.
|
|
|
Post by km on May 28, 2010 15:28:20 GMT -5
But I think that if one insists that the entire gamut of intellectual analysis be brought into every article of an individual's experience in the system then it becomes itself overbearing to the one sharing his/her experiences. But I wasn't doing that. Rather, I thought I saw difference and structural oppression being ignored and/or trivialized in the post. I wouldn't have brought it up if it didn't seem relevant to the post, and I still think it is. I also think men from QF/P may need to be a little more explicit about some of these things than women always have to be because of some of the structural differences. I just do. Because I'm still not sure if I'm reading someone who supports Christian patriarchy at the end of the day. And while that may not be an issue for you, it tells me that said person and me may be at such vastly different places that a lengthy discussion may not be worth my time. I just want people to be honest about where they're coming from. And no one oppresses women more completely and harshly than other women who insist on conformity within the group. They may not be the ones who start the thing, or the ones who most directly benefit from the thing, but they can be the most brutal enforcers of conformity to the thing that other women will ever encounter. That may not be everyone's experience, but it is my experience and what I've seen of the experiences of many others. I have no doubt that this is true. My worst experiences have been with women as well. This does not diminish my point about structural inequality being written into the system. I pointed out previously that I have no illusions about women being essentially "better people" than men. My point was that they have fewer opportunities. Again, I wouldn't have thought that was a controversial point at NLQ. There are a number of people who are not 'fundie zealots' who are still fairly conservative Christians and I think a distinction needs to be made. I happen to know quite a few of them who haven't gone the QF/P or Reformed route or alternatively followed the charismtic route either. It may not be everyone here's cup of tea but I don't think it should be lumped in with the abusive patriarchal and legalistic crowd either. That is way too broad a brush IMO. Well, yes... There are some of them here. But they have left QF/P sufficiently to know how the rest of us talk out in the world. We don't speak about having a "helpmeet," but a "partner" or a "companion." I still see "helpmeet" as a major dogwhistle. And the folks who remain evangelicals don't often come here and expect that "helpmeet" is just a regular everyday part of everyone's vocabulary, just as it was in QF/P. We tend not to use those same words, if only because they can be triggering and upsetting for a number of people on this forum. For me, this isn't about semantics or using the right words. It's about the assumption that everyone here shares the same worldview--when words like "helpmeet" get bandied about, I start to get worried that this is happening. I think it's possible to remain an evangelical while also being respectful of the views and opinions of others...and not speaking in ways that only proponents of Christian patriarchy can really...relate to. Again, I'm still not sure what Brad's intention was, and I hope he'll answer some of my questions. And I approach things in an academic way... It's sometimes the only way I know how. It's not meant to be off-putting. It's my way of best trying to understand what is happening. I don't think I can change that.
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on May 28, 2010 15:30:48 GMT -5
Brad wrote: And now some other man or movement has come along and convinced them to give up their rights, not to their husbands (as they try to make you think), but to the movement.I totally get Brad. Some of these women claim to be submitted to their husbands, but really they are sold out to an ideology. "Submission" becomes a code words and is redefined to mean "SAHM, home schools, no birth control, etc." An example would be a man not wanting his wife to dress like a frump, but wife insisting it's God's way for her to dress. It's submission to the QF ideology, not to the men they actually married. Sometimes it really is like that. My friend who is very QF/prolife has an extremely passive husband. I have often wondered how much of their beliefs and lifestyle were pushed on him by his wife. The no birth-control thing especially. They are deeply in debt, their house is badly in need of maintenance and repair, and yet at no time was the husband really free to say that he didn't want more kids to support. That would be such a heinous sin in his wife's eyes! Nope, it was no sex if you don't want babies. I think that resentment for being forced to be the sole bread winner of a large family (not at gunpoint, mind you, but by social/emotional manipulation) may account for a lot of his subtle abuse towards his wife. Most of his abuse is passive-aggressive abuse- letting his wife down, not keeping his word, not showing affection, not taking care of responsibilities, etc. Emotional abuse is still abuse, and it's extremely painful. Saying that he allowed his wife to be overcome by QF ideology and allowed her to do what she wanted even to the detriment of his life and family is not letting him off the hook. He is still responsible for the choices he made. But it is telling that in some cases, it is the wife who wanted the family to live this way, and the husband trying to please his wife that motivated him to go along. And for the record, the reversal ministry was IMO, the biggest bunch of hideous smelly garbage ever written. P.U. Browbeating people and making them believe they had committed grievous crimes against God when the Bible says no such thing- shame on them! I had these types of literature thrust on me by a QF friend (tubal ligation 1994 and loving the sexual freedom it brings- woot!) and they were poison.
|
|
|
Post by km on May 28, 2010 15:35:09 GMT -5
humbletigger: What you said here is very helpful. And I'm recognizing that I am *extremely* triggered/outraged by passive-aggression in any form... It's one of my pet peeves. So, I will tend to get a little more...uh...impassioned about it than by various other personal tendencies. That all came from somewhere, and not the internets, to be clear. I hesitated to name it as such since I don't know Brad, but I appreciate your assessment since you seem so much more well-informed about this "ministry" than I am.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on May 28, 2010 15:50:10 GMT -5
I'd separate out the two sections but I hate using the quote parentheticals just so much. I really wish there was a quote button here like there is a bold or italics button. It would be so much easier. Anyway, I get the triggering words issue, I really do. I guess my fear is that there is some standard here that if you are a Christian and 'no longer quivering' then the only acceptable denominations to be part of are Unitarian or Episcopalian, etc. That remaining in a more conservative group like evangelicalism means you are still 'the enemy' somehow. So that triggers me! Ah, triggers. Gotta love 'em. I chose Catholicism to work out my faith within when I left my cult oh so many years ago. I'm not sure what side of the situation one would consider that. But my sister and brother in law as well as a number of my old friends are still in the evangelical world and are as free, friendly, smart, and funny a group of people as you are likely to meet, and no where near anything approaching the QF/P or Reformed movement mindset. KJV english is likely to slip out of their mouths however, because that's what we were steeped in for so many years. My male friend is likely to say, 'my wife is my helpmeet' and I can just hear her snark back 'yeah, I'll help you all right!' in a teasing way and it is just a funny little teasing. That is a world away from the hours of intense discussion a Reformed friend would have over how very serious it all is and how steeped in sin we all are and how we must be ever vigilant and get it right and God is not mocked etc. Both are conservative Christians and pretty much literalists so both would be unacceptable to you perhaps. But there is a world of difference between the two. I'm not going to lump them together, is all I'm saying. As for thinking things academically, yeah I get that. There's no need to change that (and I don't say that as though I thought I had a right to ask anyone to change that, just to be clear.) I just want to bring another perspective to the discussion as well, a different take on it. I want anyone who is leaving a QF/P or Reformed or any abusive religious group to feel like they can share and be accepted here without also feeling like they have to prove that they are sufficiently liberal in doctrine or belief to meet some test artificially set up to judge their progress out of the abusive movement. Everyone is at a different place in their journey and not everyone is going to end up in the same place when they are done and I think that is fine. That's all I'm saying. Edited because I typed this way too fast the first time. And because I really can spell.
|
|
|
Post by km on May 28, 2010 16:11:41 GMT -5
nikita: I have to be quick because I have family visiting in a few hours, and I need to clean up! However, please know that I don't think that there are only three legit Christian denominations, or that those included in the "mainline" Christian community are the only ones. I was just responding to your suggestion that abandoning Christian patriarchy means completely abandoning a faith, and I don't share that view. But no, of course, I don't think there are only three legitimate denominations. I mean, hell, I don't even think there's only one legitimate faith, so...
I thought about going to a Catholic church to work out my faith as well because I wanted something less emotion-based and more...impersonal/reverent. But I was troubled by the scandals of the church, as well as its hierarchy, so I'd probably choose something like Episcopalianism instead these days. But I haven't actually been to church in years, so this is kind of a moot point, I suppose.
In any case, I haven't really known people in the QF/P world as open as the friends you describe, so I should be clear about that. Further, I think... The reason I so often get into discussing privilege is that... Well, I'm glad that these people are this way with you, but I doubt they would be that way with me if I were out to them as a bisexual woman. Obviously, I don't know your friends, so I can't really say that with any authority... I grew up in the Bible belt, so most everyone I grew up with is somewhere along the evangelical spectrum. Any time I have ever come out to any evangelical, I've been met with a discussion of how much of a "struggle" this must have been for me (I have not experienced it as a struggle.). I've been told I'd be prayed for, etc. This has happened no matter how open or loving the evangelical had previously been with me--or how open I believed they were. It has shut down friendships and silenced communication--even with people with whom I believed I had long been "agreeing to disagree" about a lot of other issues.
I have heard some of my dearest friends from that world express the fear that "homosexuality" involves a "proclivity for molesting small children." You can bloody well bet that I can't be honest with them, given that they associate my identity with criminality and may assume some kind of danger to their children. People who do not have to hide any part of their identity with evangelical Christians have a kind of privilege that I do not have access to, and that makes me angry when I hear Right-wing Christians vehemently defended as being more rational/reasonable than QF people. A liberal-leaning evangelical might at some point tell me that she thinks the evangelical church has placed too much emphasis on the "sin of homosexuality," in a way that has unfairly marginalized individual people. And I guess that kind of...makes strides toward meeting me halfway... Except that I don't believe it is a sin or struggle with it or feel that being who I am does anything other than enrich my life, so... So, I'm not sure where to begin the discussion.
Okay, I have rambled at length... The point was just that.... I think... Well, the degree of openness among conservative evangelicals often depends on who you are and which identities you claim.
ETA: And the people who most often use these words, in my experiences, are not people who really want to engage me in conversation anyway... So, fwiw, for self-protection, I read them as warnings/red flags and usually turn around and go the other way. You mentioned that you have also become attuned to certain religious dogwhistles. For me, it's the evangelical ones, but I can see how it can become different things depending on one's experiences within the conservative Christian movement.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on May 28, 2010 16:24:39 GMT -5
KM - I completely get what you are saying about your relative place in any evangelical environment. Your experience is bound to be quite different from mine on that level alone. The thing that really popped out for me, though, was 'bible belt'. I hadn't considered that particular variable but now I think about it I'll bet it has much more influence on how we think about this subject than we realize. My entire life has been in either Southern California (born a beach kid always a beach kid!) or more recently in Oregon. There is a much different vibe in California/Oregon than I imagine the south or Texas or the midwest. Societal norms are going to be very different. I think that may be why my experience of evangelicalism for example, would be so different than that born out of the south, for instance. Even at my most conservative cult-following period the southern bible belt attitudes about just about everything struck me as strange and unattractive. So I think that's just such a huge cultural difference there. I was watching a tv show where an old man in Texas was showing his granddaughter the cemetery where their relatives were buried and he pointed one direction and said, 'that's where the negro cemetery behind that wall' and then in another direction, 'and that's where they bury yankees.' Cracked me up (the yankee part) and once again I wondered what planet they were on. That's me: California. Informs all that I am.
|
|
|
Post by km on May 28, 2010 16:29:04 GMT -5
KM - I completely get what you are saying about your relative place in any evangelical environment. Your experience is bound to be quite different from mine on that level alone. The thing that really popped out for me, though, was 'bible belt'. I hadn't considered that particular variable but now I think about it I'll bet it has much more influence on how we think about this subject than we realize. My entire life has been in either Southern California (born a beach kid always a beach kid!) or more recently in Oregon. There is a much different vibe in California/Oregon than I imagine the south or Texas or the midwest. Societal norms are going to be very different. I think that may be why my experience of evangelicalism for example, would be so different than that born out of the south, for instance. Even at my most conservative cult-following period the southern bible belt attitudes about just about everything struck me as strange and unattractive. So I think that's just such a huge cultural difference there. I was watching a tv show where an old man in Texas was showing his granddaughter the cemetery where their relatives were buried and he pointed one direction and said, 'that's where the negro cemetery behind that wall' and then in another direction, 'and that's where they bury yankees.' Cracked me up (the yankee part) and once again I wondered what planet they were on. That's me: California. Informs all that I am. Yes, I definitely think this is an important difference. Definitely... I definitely have problems with seeing people's views of Southerners informed by TV shows that make us all look like bigoted, ignorant fools, but I know that isn't what you meant. But, yes, definitely, this would have shaped our experiences, quite a bit. Anyway, I really do have to run now. Cleaning and stuff... I'll check back later. ETA: For example... So, I grew up in an urban area where this kind of thing wouldn't happen, but my grandparents live about 15 miles away, out in the country... About half a mile from Jesus Saves Blvd. True story, real road. So, yes, absolutely, the dominant worldview where I come from is a kind of evangelicalism. While I agree that I've experienced it at different levels, it's still pretty ubiquitous. *Now* back to cleaning...
|
|
|
Post by nikita on May 28, 2010 17:04:01 GMT -5
Oh, gosh that isn't what I meant at all! I meant that the 'bible belt' has a more pervasive brand of conservative Christianity that seems to just be assumed by society as a whole where the places I am from (California/Oregon) do not have the same pervasive Christian atmosphere. So our particular flavor of evangelicalism is likely to be quite different than that evidenced in the south. And that's just a general thing I noticed over the years. And I realize that there is much diversity in the cities and all. My sister and her husband moved to the south for about ten years and now are in Oregon with me. And they were evangelicals when they went south and are still so -- and they tell me tales. Huge christian culture shock for them. They were very at odds with some of the attitudes they found in churches down there. So there's a difference is all I'm pointing out. So now I am going to stop replying because you need to clean and I'm distracting you. I need to clean too (but I won't).
|
|
brad
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by brad on May 28, 2010 18:35:59 GMT -5
For what it's worth ~ I remember being a part of the discussion on the Quiverfull Digest when the idea for Blessed Arrows reversal ministry came up ~ I'm pretty sure it was Dawn who thought of it and discussed it with others on the list and worked to get the ministry started. As I recall ~ Dawn did the majority (possibly ALL) the posting on QF Digest. So ~ it would have been more accurate for me to say that Dawn was the founder of Blessed Arrows. The thing is, within the QF paradigm, a woman is not to act of her own accord so for Dawn to say, "I have this idea and I want to start this ministry" would have been a little harder to justify than if she did it as a helpmeet to her husband. As such, Brad's name appeared alongside Dawn's in everything she did. This is not uncommon ~ I would often say, "Warren and I" are doing such and such or "we" think this or that ... it is the only way a QF woman can legitimately get anything done or have an opinion about anything. Dawn and Brad are both still believers ~ they are questioning their assumptions about Christianity and their practice of it ~ but they are both still fully committed to loving and serving Jesus. I've watched (via following them on facebook) over the past year or so since Dawn first contacted me after stumbling upon NLQ ~ and I have to say that their humility and growth in grace-based faith has been a real encouragement to me. Okay, well thank you for clarifying this. It actually changes a lot... So, well, yeah... Okay then, so he wasn't a leader? Good to know. Thank you for clarifying that for them. Wow, I didn't know my letter would get so much response. This response is probably unnecessarily long, so I apologize ahead of time. Many times things say the husband's and wife's name because it would be "inappropriate" in those movements for the wife to do it alone. So sometimes husbands kind of rubber stamps things. I personally think Blessed Arrows did a lot of good. My wife worked hard to keep it together and I did a lot of tech support. But I could never totally buy in and often said so. Anyone involved in Blessed Arrows knew that, other than the desire to help those who may have wanted reversals for one reason or another, I stayed out of it. No, I did not so much have a problem with people wanting reversals. I did have a problem with the thought that everyone should get one and those who did were some how less Christian, less godly, less fill-in-the blank. I the same way felt about judging non-homeshooling families, non-head covering families. I didn't think it was the plumb line standard to judge people by as quiverfull often did. Let me clarify a little more and see if it helps. I love my wife. This was not about her, it was more about the movement itself and my own passivity. The regret you may find in the letter is that I didn't speak up until late. I don't resent my wife, I resent my silence. There are so many issues (that remain private) that helped to create an environment like the one we dealt with. When you and your spouse stand diametrically opposed on major points of life, a mutual agreement does not always seem possible. True story (not mine). A man's wife got pregnant. She was in a place in her career where she did not want a child, so she decided to get an abortion. The man, who thought he was pro-choice until that moment, wanted the child. Legally, though, she was allowed to abort the baby. They couldn't come to agreement. They even took it to court. The wife ended up having the abortion, and as you can guess, they're marriage soon fell apart. You can tell these two people how they should have handled it. Tell the man how he should have fought harder to get his opinion heard. But the disagreement was basic and fundamental to their beliefs. It was difficult. It was foundational and structural. That's where we were. Playing passive and silent was bad! But at the time, I didn't see another option and I didn't want another fight or a divorce. That's not on Dawn. That's on me. But tell me, if you please, if your husband or wife says no more children, or the opposite, I want a child! And you have the opposite feelings, how easy will it be to have the discussion? It won't be. You may reach a solution eventually, which is what we should have fought to do. But it won't be easy. Now add the urgency of, God said we shouldn't do anything to stop pregnancy. And your response? Not going to be easy. I'm just saying that there are other men who feel trapped in that same kind of scenario. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it is. We now work from there, not from the hypothetical of what we shouldve done, but from the reality of what we should do now to fix this. And I know now that silence is not the right answer. In fact, I wasn't always silent. But the arguments, reprimands, etc., that would occur after question some foundational QF belief or saying Homeschool isn't the only way, began to wear on me. Have you ever felt you were arguing with more than just the person in front of you? Maybe you suddenly realized that you were arguing with your spouse AND their mother, father, professor, etc. I felt like each discussion was an argument with my wife, her friends, Mary Pride as well as a whole community of like-minded people. But I should have of continued talking, not just become passive. Some questions I wrestled with included: should I have put my foot down or demanded that she do exactly what I say? Say we're not going to do it this way? If so, how did that make me different than some of the other "woman under my thumb" people I knew? And yes, we are still strong believers. My faith is not shaken in the slightest. This wasn't a God thing for me. This was people trying to understand each other and not doing a very good job. But it eventually sent us to our knees which is where the healing began.
|
|