|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Jun 22, 2010 9:15:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by francescateresa on Jun 22, 2010 9:28:04 GMT -5
Wow...I need to read this book! Thanks Vickie!
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 22, 2010 13:14:35 GMT -5
Ok this post definitely caught my interest.
“The domination men are encouraged to practice in the home over women and children becomes a reflection of the domination they are taught to endure outside of the home.”
Sixteen years ago my now ex husband dragged the family to a Christian Identity camp hosted by a group called Scriptures for America. He used to listen to their programs on the short wave radio, and he also subscribed to their tape "ministry" and then forced the family to listen to it on Sundays for home "church". The "pastor" (and I use the term loosely) is Peter J. Peters. These people believe that the anglo saxon, scandinavian, germanic peoples are the "lost" tribes of Israel and that the Jews are imposters and not the OT covenant people of God. Anyhow, they are big in the Patriot Movement, were following a lot of conspiracy stuff about Ruby Ridge, the Waco incident with David Koresh, and any number of other conspiracy type things.
There was a lot of figurative chest beating by the men at this camp with Peters calling all men who weren't willing to lead their famiies "steers" with the obvious implication.
The same sort of glorification and romanticism of motherhood, apple pie, aprons, housewifery, homeschooling, and submissive wives having tea together was upheld. (And I love tea with my friends, but I am beginning to loathe the idea of ladies in hats sipping tea from china cups around lace-draped tables ala Stacey MacDonald's style.)
As for the facism part of what Hedges is saying, I haven't read his book, but there was a tremendous amount of anti-Semitism present with some people wearling hats with esoteric symbols reminiscent of the Nazi's. In addition, some of the people there were so radically against interacial marriage that they considered people of color to be subhuman! One of the speakers, who was there to talk about how wonderful women are and how the men there should cherish and love them went on to take a second "sister wife" and to promote polygamy as a biblical way of loving more women I guess.
And of course, in order to prove their masculinity and headship, it was necessary for the wives and children to be seen as obedient and orderly.
Man when I think back to what I put up with...
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Jun 22, 2010 13:16:02 GMT -5
It’s always interesting to look at why “emasculation” - a subject men seem to care quite a lot about - is So Terrible!
A man can be less-of-a-man (for whatever hierarchical *reason*) and this renders him wretched and, well, just less.
So: What is less than a man?
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 22, 2010 13:54:41 GMT -5
[quote author=sargassosea board=emasculation thread=1158 post=16096 time=1277230562
So: What is less than a man?[/quote]
A: A steer, apparently. ;D
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Jun 22, 2010 14:06:31 GMT -5
Cherylhannah, there was anti-semitism and people who think nonwhite people are subhuman there because Christian Identity is primarily a white supremecist group.
I'm actually shocked your husband got there via any sort of Christian community referral, I've never even seen them mentioned except in relation to white supremecist and reactionary militia groups.
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on Jun 22, 2010 14:32:38 GMT -5
Yowza.
I sometimes wonder when these homeschooling perfect-housekeeping wives are sitting around sipping tea together. I get together with my friends, but my house is a shambles. (Book club is tonight and I baked a cake because there's a birthday. But the house...we just won't discuss it.)
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 22, 2010 15:01:37 GMT -5
I've been thinking about this a little more and one of the things that I noticed about the many men who were really big about wifely submission, headcovering, Stepford children, etc., were also the same men who had issues with authority elsewhere. They were forever asking us to pray for them at work because of the "persecution" they were undergoing as Christians, when, truth be told, they didn't like anyone telling them what to do, not even a boss. They also frequently lost jobs or switched employment because they were difficult to get along with or no one saw them for what they were worth.
My husband refused to submit to anyone and having a home church meant he could be top dog with no accountability and no one to stop him.
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Jun 22, 2010 16:49:40 GMT -5
I've been thinking about this a little more and one of the things that I noticed about the many men who were really big about wifely submission, headcovering, Stepford children, etc., were also the same men who had issues with authority elsewhere. They were forever asking us to pray for them at work because of the "persecution" they were undergoing as Christians, when, truth be told, they didn't like anyone telling them what to do, not even a boss. They also frequently lost jobs or switched employment because they were difficult to get along with or no one saw them for what they were worth. My husband refused to submit to anyone and having a home church meant he could be top dog with no accountability and no one to stop him. Interesting observation. It's like they don't feel okay if they're not top dog. The problem is we all answer to somebody.
|
|
|
Post by bananacat on Jun 22, 2010 19:41:52 GMT -5
Feminists have a saying "Patriarchy hurts men too", and I think this is a perfect example of it. Men get to be men and women get to be women, but nobody gets to be a complete, individual person. Nobody enjoys being forced into a role; even the most naturally feminine woman might want to wear pants sometimes and the most masculine man will want to bond with his infant child.
|
|
maicde
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by maicde on Jun 23, 2010 2:13:57 GMT -5
"Fundamentalist religious imagery portrays Jesus as “a man with muscles” and His male followers must be powerful warriors. The story of Christ and Christianity is related in terms of warfare, conflict and the will to conquer God’s enemies. Real men, godly men, must endure physical pain and suffering without complaint. “Jesus, like God, has to be a real man, a man who dominates through force.”
Oh, that's rich! Whenever I need to feel that my life is "normal", all I have to do is come here and read this sort of stuff, and voila! - all of a sudden, I thank God for my life - a life these doesn't include - THEM!! Sure, I grew up in poverty and a somewhat dysfunctional family, but this is beyond crazy. Do these men have small wee wees or what? Do they have to compensate by turning Jesus into some sort of Rambo? Come on! I have a feeling that these "men" can't make it anywhere because they're pains in the butt - period. They need to go back to their mamas' basements and turn on their Nintendo, X-Box, Game Cube, and/or their internet porn, grab a beer and a bag of pork rinds, scratch themselves with their free hand while alternating between the beer and the pork rinds with the other - and leave the rest of us alone. Maybe Mama can throw them down a frozen dinner or toaster strudel once in a while for good measure. The world has enough problems and challenges to address - REAL problems - like war, disease, poverty, starvation, etc., without having to deal with their self-manufactured "persecution" delusions.
While the rest of the world is out there trying to make their life work, helping others, etc., they're out there going, "Look Ma! Look at me, look at me! I'm being persecuted, I'm being emasculated", yada, yada, yada. Really, now. I'd like to have a talk with "Ma" and "Pa" and ask them why they raised a spoiled, self-centered brat/bully who thinks that the world revolves around him and why their little brat can't get along with the rest of the world.
And someone, please, pretty please, get them an inflatable doll for Christmas so that they're not alone when their wife leaves them. Any woman that inadvertently gets hooked up with them will eventually leave (in order to preserve what's left of her sanity) and you know they will blame someone for that. God knows that they'll never blame themselves or take accountability for the fact that their life stinks because no one can stand being near them for long. No, it's always someone else "doing it to them." They're just innocent pawns and the world is out to get them and "emasculate them." The world is doing it's best to ignore them is more like it, but they just won't go away. They're like some annoying pest that you have to spray for or set traps to get rid of. They're like some weed in your yard that refuses to die no matter how much you've sprayed it with Round-Up or pulled it out by its roots.
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Jun 23, 2010 5:19:44 GMT -5
Maicde, lol.
I do a fair amount of hiring. If someone shows the slightest inclination of having a persecution complex I won't touch 'em with a 10 foot pole. I've found its impossible to work with that sort of person. Can't imagine being married to one. What a nightmare!
A persecution complex seems to go hand in hand with an overblown sense of entitlement.
|
|
maicde
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by maicde on Jun 23, 2010 10:20:07 GMT -5
Maicde, lol. I do a fair amount of hiring. If someone shows the slightest inclination of having a persecution complex I won't touch 'em with a 10 foot pole. I've found its impossible to work with that sort of person. Can't imagine being married to one. What a nightmare! A persecution complex seems to go hand in hand with an overblown sense of entitlement. Oh, yes, I agree. I am familiar with this "phenomenon", this "persecutation complex" (not that I'm a mental health professional, but because I've personally dealt with these kinds of people and have been burned by them, both professionally and personally). I call these sorts of people, "professional victims", because that's what they are. You got it exactly right with your last sentence. I dealt with a woman that was in business with me (around 2004), who absolutely ruined our business trip. She ruined what was left of it (about two days) because of her persecution complex. She had actually been in therapy for years at that time (her father and mother divorced when she was a young child), and she's been using that as a crutch to alienate everyone in her family, including her own children who all eventually left her.) She makes everyone's life miserable at times. Other times, she is fine. Well, she made a big scene over nothing at our business trip, caused so much stress for me, personally. I went back to my hotel shaking and sobbing in tears. I developed some sort of twitch the morning I was supposed to get on the plane to travel some 1,800 miles back home. The twitch continued for about three weeks once I got back home. I didn't need that at all. I had 7 children at home that can cause enough drama; I certainly didn't need a 45+ year-old woman acting like a spoiled child adding more drama and stress. After that incident, I refuse to deal with these sorts of people in business (for certain) and try very hard to stay away from their on a personal level too. None of us are perfect, but these people are toxic. They're toxic to themselves and they're toxic to others. Life is just too short. I haven't checked on her in almost 6 years; I hope that she is doing okay. I wish her well but I don't want to associate with her. She caused that much pain to everyone. She's an RN at a large hospital. Her nurse friends often have to "cover" for her by doing her duties at times so that she doesn't get in trouble and "written up." I think that most are sick of her and her antics, but there are a few friends that just enable her, plus she is protected by a union, and unless she actually is actually negligent, she still has a job. She has been written up plenty of times, and subsequently blames the "hospital administration." It's the same old, "everyone is out to get me." You are a wise person for spotting that persecution complex before it invades your company/business like a cancer and starts spreading to bring disease to your employees, company, morale, etc. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Jun 23, 2010 11:08:06 GMT -5
C.A.H. (not picking on you, but thanking you for the spring-board!) "So: What is less than a man? [/quote] A: A steer, apparently.[/i] ;D "[/blockquote] ****** I do, of course, get the joke (it’s actually a very popular slur, too, as you know) yet it’s also illustrative as to my original question: What is less than a man? Okay, so a steer is *less than* a bull by virtue of having had his testicles removed against his will for someone higher up the hierarchy’s convenience and/or profit - i.e. no dominate-male-positioning within the herd, less segregation necessary for the safety of the cows and calves, etc. A steer can do all of the same things a bull can do: eat, sleep, poop, hang with the herd-at-large, moo; the only thing he CAN’T do is screw the cows like the *chosen*, *dominate* bull. ****** Obviously, human men are not routinely physically castrated for convenience and/or profit; not even for the safety of human women and children, so a human man’s idea of castration is purely psychic - he only feels like he is *missing out on something*. He feels like he is missing out on the power that comes with screwing the cows, thus he's lost all male rank and is more like a cow than a bull. And that’s what’s So Terrible! Catherine McKinnon put it in plain English: “Man fucks woman; subject verb object.” So, what the *joke* (admonition) is saying is: do you want to be a Subject like a Man or a Bull, or an object like a woman or a cow? Ya wanna dish it out, or do ya wanna take it? ****** “What is less than a man?” A woman.
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Jun 23, 2010 11:36:59 GMT -5
I am going to go in another direction here, because my husband is an MK/PK. I want to point out that he had no choice in the matter!
He had no choice about what to believe about anything! He didn't choose to grow up with a sense of male entitlement. It was absorbed by him without choice or intention either one.
It is a difficult path for him to become who he wants to be. He didn't start out in our married life abusive or domineering, but the ended up there by societal conditioning (fundamentalist society) and by being dominated himself growing up without respite and without anyone saying "that ain't right!".
He is coming to terms with all that, not wanting to be the abusive a**hole he had become yet not knowing why/how he got there or why/how to get out of it. He is working on all that now- in therapy, reading books that can help, trying hard to heal and be a healing person to his family.
The blanket male-bashing of fundamentalist men, at least as far as this male person goes, is unfair.
Men are victims of patriarchy too. It sucks for him.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 23, 2010 12:38:55 GMT -5
Sixteen years ago my now ex husband dragged the family to a Christian Identity camp hosted by a group called Scriptures for America. He used to listen to their programs on the short wave radio, and he also subscribed to their tape "ministry" and then forced the family to listen to it on Sundays for home "church". The "pastor" (and I use the term loosely) is Peter J. Peters. These people believe that the anglo saxon, scandinavian, germanic peoples are the "lost" tribes of Israel and that the Jews are imposters and not the OT covenant people of God. Anyhow, they are big in the Patriot Movement, were following a lot of conspiracy stuff about Ruby Ridge, the Waco incident with David Koresh, and any number of other conspiracy type things. Cherylannhannah: Christian Identity is a phrase that stands in for White Identity. What you're describing here is a Neo-Nazi group, so I'm not surprised that you found racism and anti-Semitism there. I have often wondered how much QF culture overlaps with White Identity movements. I hadn't heard anyone mention direct experience with it until you brought this up. It's unsurprising that there is some overlap, though, particularly as many early Dominionists were well-known anti-Semites and racists (RJ Rushdoony, most notoriously). ETA: I don't know your husband, and I don't mean to come down harshly... But it does sound like you and your family have changed a lot since then. I just... I sorta hope your husband is now disgusted with the fact that he brought the family into a hate group back then. I don't mean to condemn you personally, and I'm wondering if this is something of a regional difference. If you were from the US South, as I am, you couldn't possibly have ever been as uneducated as you were about the group your family got involved with. But when I have lived in Canada and even in the US Northeast, I have run into this often: people who don't know the basic buzzwords that identify White Identity hate groups. I know I'm having almost a personal reaction to it: "Homeschooled the children so they would be sheltered and then introduced them to a bunch of damned Neo-Nazis!" The involvement of any Christians in this is utterly shameful (I don't mean you--I know you're not in it now). I tend not to draw a lot of boundaries around faith since I'm not a very orthodox Christian myself, but I'll be damned; I have to say, I think white supremacy makes people Not-Actually-Christians. ETA again: Argh, sorry, looks like rosa already explained this.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 23, 2010 13:05:14 GMT -5
humbletigger: I get where you're coming from, and I basically agree with you. However, SargassoSea identifies as a radical feminist and quotes people like MacKinnon and Dworkin. These kinds of generalizations are sort of par for the course in this kind of feminism.
Sea, not wanting to sound patronizing here. It's just that I knew from the time you identified as a radical feminist here that there would be things that I (as another kind of feminist) would disagree with. The tendency to make sweeping generalizations about patriarchy is one of them.
On the whole, I've avoided conflict with you because I just know that I'm not going to be swayed around to the radical feminist perspective on this forum by you, and your mind won't be changed by me... So, I haven't seen the point in arguing. Plus, I know, I've not exactly been conflict-free on these boards, so I'm...avoiding conflict for the indeterminate future. I'm not arguing here either. I'm mostly just stating that... Yeah, I know we differ on a lot of issues, even to the point that many radical feminists would be uncomfortable calling me a feminist. Possibly you, possibly not.
In any case, for people who are not as familiar with the various schools of US feminism, I mostly thought it would be helpful to explain this. Me, I'm a third wave feminist.
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 23, 2010 13:41:48 GMT -5
Cherylannhannah: Christian Identity is a phrase that stands in for White Identity. What you're describing here is a Neo-Nazi group, so I'm not surprised that you found racism and anti-Semitism there. I have often wondered how much QF culture overlaps with White Identity movements. I hadn't heard anyone mention direct experience with it until you brought this up. It's unsurprising that there is some overlap, though, particularly as many early Dominionists were well-known anti-Semites and racists (RJ Rushdoony, most notoriously). ETA: I don't know your husband, and I don't mean to come down harshly... But it does sound like you and your family have changed a lot since then. I just... I sorta hope your husband is now disgusted with the fact that he brought the family into a hate group back then. I don't mean to condemn you personally, and I'm wondering if this is something of a regional difference. If you were from the US South, as I am, you couldn't possibly have ever been as uneducated as you were about the group your family got involved with. But when I have lived in Canada and even in the US Northeast, I have run into this often: people who don't know the basic buzzwords that identify White Identity hate groups. I know I'm having almost a personal reaction to it: "Homeschooled the children so they would be sheltered and then introduced them to a bunch of damned Neo-Nazis!" The involvement of any Christians in this is utterly shameful (I don't mean you--I know you're not in it now). I tend not to draw a lot of boundaries around faith since I'm not a very orthodox Christian myself, but I'll be damned; I have to say, I think white supremacy makes people Not-Actually-Christians. ETA again: Argh, sorry, looks like rosa already explained this. My husband is now my ex-husband and as far as I know, he hasn't changed his views of this at all. The fact that we were QF was co-incidental to his being involved with CI. I never bought into those views at any time and it was a source of great conflict in our home because I could not let some of the serious Scripture twisting that took place go by without comment. I didn't want my children listening to this stuff uncritically so whenever something was brought up that was glaringly wrong, I would speak up, even in the middle of a taped "sermon" during our family worship time. This usually resulted in me being dragged into the office by my husband while the children were left to sit in the living room waiting. I would then be haranged for several hours about how I was a rebellious wife, it was my fault my kids were rebellious, etc., etc. Looking back now, I think it probably qualifies for a form of religious persecution that I was subjected to. My ex-husband's views that he was the head of the home and therefore the one to set the spiritual tone for all that took place there was to place himself as a mediator between me and God and between the children and God. I wouldn't accept it. He wouldn't accept that I had a right to my own conscience and that he was not the Lord of it. The marriage might have lasted longer if he had learned to live and let live, but patriarchal views of family leadership blasted that out of the water. Can't say I'm sorry that it happened and in many ways I wish it had happened sooner. My family *has* changed, but it happened because I finally left him when his abusive ways continued and escalated things with the children. I had six children leave home before the age of 18 thanks to him and was on the verge of losing another one and having social services intervene in the family yet again. Regarding anti-Semitism, I can't recall anything specifically by Rushdoony that suggested he was anti-Semitic. I know a great many Dominionists are post-millenial and look forward to the restoration of Israel and they are not anti-Semitic though they do deplore some of the unrighteous things that Israel is doing to the Palestinians. There is fault on both sides of that particular situation, if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Jun 23, 2010 14:19:35 GMT -5
KM - You don’t sound patronizing at all. You sound rather level-headed and thoughtful to me. Thank you for respecting me by not assuming that I’m trying to *convert* you. (You aren’t trying to *convert* me though, are you?! OMG!) ****** Humbletigger - “Men are victims of patriarchy too. It sucks for him.” Precisely. It sucks for a whole lot of men. Here’s another quote I especially like (from a speech given by Andrea Dworkin for a mostly male audience in 1983 - full text here: www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIIE.html:“Have you ever wondered why we [women] are not just in armed combat against you [men]? It's not because there's a shortage of kitchen knives in this country. It is because we believe in your humanity, against all the evidence.” ****** A reminder: as an older, mysteriously busy and privileged white woman, the views I express here (and everywhere) are my personal take on certain subjects - you’ll notice that I don’t wax endlessly on religious issues - and are only meticulously crafted to (!) inspire thought or to make me look like a fool. Or both. It’s entirely up to you.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 23, 2010 14:22:09 GMT -5
I too am uncomfortable with man-bashing as a generality. For me it's one thing to oppose an abusive religion or movement, to object strenuously to the leaders and preachers in that movement, to disdain particular men who have shown themselves to be worthy of disdain, and quite another to simply dismiss all men of fundamentalism as having 'tiny wee-wees' and insulting their intelligence and mental stability.
QF/P and it's lesser cousins in fundamentalism (of all religions, not just Christianity) embraces a philosophy in which men are given more value, more power, and more control than women. The abuses that derive from that position are legion. Some men take to it like ducks to water (Cheryl's husband comes to mind based on her statements here) and others find it much more difficult to fit into although they are taught that it is the only correct and scriptural stand they can take as men and 'heads' of their homes. Men can be deceived too, and struggle to come to terms with a religious worldview that they may not relish embracing but have been taught they must in order to be pleasing to God.
We are all capable of taking that kind of power and mandate and running with it. I am reminded of the studies where students were divided into arbitrary 'good/powerful' and 'bad/powerless' sides by virtue of the color of their eyes and how quickly the 'blue-eyed' children dominated and abused the 'brown-eyed' children, and how the 'brown-eyed' children believed their lesser status so quickly and became depressed. They didn't fight it, they became depressed and just accepted the designation as 'lesser than'. Or the study where college students were divided into fake jailers versus fake prisoners and how quickly that turned into an abusive environment even thought they all knew it wasn't even real.
It's human nature at work and we are all capable, on some level, of being the aggressor, the abuser, the one who accepts and mishandles power over other human beings. That is what makes the Patriarchal movement (and its counterparts in other religions) so dangerous to all of its adherents. Abuse is almost guaranteed to flow from it.
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Jun 23, 2010 14:28:30 GMT -5
I am going to go in another direction here, because my husband is an MK/PK. I want to point out that he had no choice in the matter! He had no choice about what to believe about anything! He didn't choose to grow up with a sense of male entitlement. It was absorbed by him without choice or intention either one. It is a difficult path for him to become who he wants to be. He didn't start out in our married life abusive or domineering, but the ended up there by societal conditioning (fundamentalist society) and by being dominated himself growing up without respite and without anyone saying "that ain't right!". He is coming to terms with all that, not wanting to be the abusive a**hole he had become yet not knowing why/how he got there or why/how to get out of it. He is working on all that now- in therapy, reading books that can help, trying hard to heal and be a healing person to his family. The blanket male-bashing of fundamentalist men, at least as far as this male person goes, is unfair. Men are victims of patriarchy too. It sucks for him. You're husband deserves a lot of credit. My hat is off. I'll agree that men are victims, too. But that doesn't mean they're above criticism.
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Jun 23, 2010 14:33:55 GMT -5
You are a wise person for spotting that persecution complex before it invades your company/business like a cancer and starts spreading to bring disease to your employees, company, morale, etc. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, that's for sure. I learned the hard way, too. I actually had to have an employee carted off by the police. Now I'm on hyper-alert for a "poor me" attitude.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 23, 2010 14:41:24 GMT -5
That brought to mind a situation where I used to work. Such a 'poor me' employee was called in to her supervisor's office for what she knew was going to be an unfavorable review and she refused to go in. Instead, she called 911! To report her supervisor for 'harrassing' her by asking her to come in for her employment review. The police were so miffed by this misuse of 911 that they arrested the employee and took her away in handcuffs. That was a fun day.
|
|
maicde
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by maicde on Jun 23, 2010 15:23:23 GMT -5
I too am uncomfortable with man-bashing as a generality. For me it's one thing to oppose an abusive religion or movement, to object strenuously to the leaders and preachers in that movement, to disdain particular men who have shown themselves to be worthy of disdain, and quite another to simply dismiss all men of fundamentalism as having 'tiny wee-wees' and insulting their intelligence and mental stability. QF/P and it's lesser cousins in fundamentalism (of all religions, not just Christianity) embraces a philosophy in which men are given more value, more power, and more control than women. The abuses that derive from that position are legion. Some men take to it like ducks to water (Cheryl's husband comes to mind based on her statements here) and others find it much more difficult to fit into although they are taught that it is the only correct and scriptural stand they can take as men and 'heads' of their homes. Men can be deceived too, and struggle to come to terms with a religious worldview that they may not relish embracing but have been taught they must in order to be pleasing to God. We are all capable of taking that kind of power and mandate and running with it. I am reminded of the studies where students were divided into arbitrary 'good/powerful' and 'bad/powerless' sides by virtue of the color of their eyes and how quickly the 'blue-eyed' children dominated and abused the 'brown-eyed' children, and how the 'brown-eyed' children believed their lesser status so quickly and became depressed. They didn't fight it, they became depressed and just accepted the designation as 'lesser than'. Or the study where college students were divided into fake jailers versus fake prisoners and how quickly that turned into an abusive environment even thought they all knew it wasn't even real. It's human nature at work and we are all capable, on some level, of being the aggressor, the abuser, the one who accepts and mishandles power over other human beings. That is what makes the Patriarchal movement (and its counterparts in other religions) so dangerous to all of its adherents. Abuse is almost guaranteed to flow from it. If you're referring to my post in which I mentioned "men with small wee wees wanting to compensate by joining these patriarchal religions and pushing the "we are persecuted and emasculated" card, I hope that you know that it's sort of a joke. I am a mother of five sons (two that are adults and fine men), and I am NOT into "male-bashing". However, I will "bash" when bashing is due as it pertains to these "patriarchs" who insist that the world is out to get them. I'm not going to hold back to please you or anyone else because they're certainly not "holding back" or singing Kum Ba Ya. Chill out, some of you people and quit reading things into things that aren't really there. If some of these patriarch men want to play the "we're persecuted" card, then they're going to get what's due them. End of story. If someone doesn't like it, then it's too bad. Obviously, MOST men are good, responsible, and loving men. But when we talk about Bill Gothard, Doug Philips, and the Botkins guy, then that's a different story. There are too many men in these religions who destroy a woman and their children, take every one of their rights as a human being away, and that's who I'm referring to. I lump these people into the same group as the "Christians" who are "persecuted" each year at Christmas time, because people say, "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." Who cares. We live in a polytheistic society. We are talking about self-manufactured, "persecuted, emasculated" men, NOT all men in general. That's what the post is about because that's what the article is about. I stand by what they said. I fight fire with fire, if necessary, because I'm tired of playing patty cake with these patriarchal type men who could care less about your rights as a human being; they are perfectly content walking right on top of you as if you were their doormat. Uh-uh, not going to happen on my watch. I'm too old for that and ornery for that. Sorry, if this doesn't sit well with some people, but that's how the cookie crumbles.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 23, 2010 15:34:56 GMT -5
Far be it from me to find 'meaning' in what you wrote. I was simply expressing my own views as well.
|
|