|
Post by coleslaw on Aug 13, 2010 18:54:59 GMT -5
Well, to be fair, the survey was initiated by two teen girls who wrote in and asked the boys opinion about what was modest and what wasn't, but that could have been because they just wanted the issue settled for once and for all so they could get dressed without having to worry about what those idiot guys were thinking. There's a really good column here: pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/01/23/cover-up-those-overalls-with-a-tent-before-you-make-the-men-go-on-a-rampagewhich includes some of the pictures that were used when they were taking the survey. I love the one that's captioned "Nothing says 'modesty' like the 'we almost took this shot right up her skirt.' "
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Aug 13, 2010 19:33:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Aug 13, 2010 20:04:33 GMT -5
The excuse for forcing women into headcoverings in Christianity is an interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Aug 13, 2010 20:05:35 GMT -5
I'm not sure if I've read that exact material before, but I probably have. At any rate, here is what Branham had to say about Bathsheba ("The Message of Grace," August 27, 1961):
Look at David. How could he have done... One jumped into a pit and killed a lion. How could David take Uriah's wife, the beautiful Bathsheba, when he had five hundred of his own? But seen her taking a bath, and there's the negligence. Now, she just forgot to pull the shades down when she was taking her bath, and knowed that king made a trip there, by there, every day, down over that wall. That's what's the matter. I don't think women today so neglect or so, well, they just simply go out naked (That's all.) in the streets, little old clothes on. It's a disgrace, and then wonder why men blow and whistle. Why, they do that to make them whistle and carry on. They know that; they got sense enough to know that. They do it just because they want to. It's in their heart. You tell them they're immoral; they might dispute that. But they might not be immoral; they might be as pure as a lily, when it comes sexually. But remember, there's a spirit on them that's anointing of the Devil, sending some man's soul to hell. Remember, the Bible said, "Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her in his heart already." And remember, sister, you'll answer for committing adultery though you never done it actually in all your life, but that sinner that looked at you the way you dressed, be guilty of adultery. You'll answer at the day of judgment for committing adultery. When he has to say...
He say here; He has wrote on His Book, "Committing adultery." "With who?" "Mrs. John Doe." "Then, Mrs. John Doe, what about that?" "I'll swear I... You know my record; I never lived with another man but my own husband." "But you dressed yourself till you caused this man to commit adultery. And you're guilty of adultery with him. That's who's doing it. You are to blame; you was the one presented yourself."
Bathsheba done wrong just like Eve done wrong, but Adam was included in it. I think we're always hollering about women too. You sons of God, men, I know you're the stronger bunch (That's right.), the stronger sex. You're over the women; that's true; so act like it. Don't overpower them, try to take some little girl and ruin her life. But be a son of God; tell her she's in the wrong, and stand like a son of God. She's your sister. Yes, sir. What we try to do, what so-called sons of God today, belong to churches, take every little girl out they can. Remember, because that there's a immoral woman made because some married man ruined her too. So the pot can't call kettle black; so just remember, it's sin that does it all. And we're all subject to death and should die for it.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Aug 13, 2010 20:15:12 GMT -5
I'd like to extend a word of caution, too, regarding Branham's ignorance/lack of education. I don't believe he was stupid, though he did have just a 7th grade education. He was clever in a way - one might say he had pretty high emotional intelligence in order to relate to people such that his lack of education was no barrier. The man attracted crowds by the thousands. He was part of a charismatic movement that produced names like Oral Roberts and Billy Graham (Branham was known to both). His style of preaching and relating to the "everyday folks" (without inaccessible or "heady" language) was an outgrowth of Pentecostalism's rejection of formality and "starch." It was a charismatic, emotional, personal gospel.
The "signs and wonders" following his message were the primary draw. People believed they were getting healed of terminal illnesses. Perhaps some of them really did get better. People did not come to Branham because he preached misogyny. They came to him because they believed the healing was evidence of God's presence with the man, and they swallowed the hard doctrines because they believed that God blessed his teachings, that they were unpleasant truths. And they learned to love the Message because they believed that they had found God there.
I don't want this to turn into a "how could people be so stupid as to listen to this man?" show. That's just how my father reacted, and that pushed my mother farther and farther into the Message. He lost all respect for her (if he ever had it) when she joined the church, and she interpreted that hostility as persecution. Branham taught that the truth would be persecuted and looked down upon, and I don't think it's helpful to paint his followers as ignorant, hapless fools - because that's just how the Message wants the world to react.
My mother entered the Message when she was seeking a real encounter with a tangible God - one who worked supernaturally. She wanted a personal God to see her through her painful miscarriage and abusive marriage. She found that, but what I am trying to expose here is the poisonous baggage that came along with that discovery.
Branham's followers were not stupid. They were baited and caged.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 20:26:12 GMT -5
Branham's followers were not stupid. They were baited and caged. I think this is a really important point.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Aug 13, 2010 20:56:57 GMT -5
I'd like to extend a word of caution, too, regarding Branham's ignorance/lack of education. I don't believe he was stupid, though he did have just a 7th grade education. He was clever in a way - one might say he had pretty high emotional intelligence in order to relate to people such that his lack of education was no barrier. The man attracted crowds by the thousands. He was part of a charismatic movement that produced names like Oral Roberts and Billy Graham (Branham was known to both). His style of preaching and relating to the "everyday folks" (without inaccessible or "heady" language) was an outgrowth of Pentecostalism's rejection of formality and "starch." It was a charismatic, emotional, personal gospel. The "signs and wonders" following his message were the primary draw. People believed they were getting healed of terminal illnesses. Perhaps some of them really did get better. People did not come to Branham because he preached misogyny. They came to him because they believed the healing was evidence of God's presence with the man, and they swallowed the hard doctrines because they believed that God blessed his teachings, that they were unpleasant truths. And they learned to love the Message because they believed that they had found God there. I don't want this to turn into a "how could people be so stupid as to listen to this man?" show. That's just how my father reacted, and that pushed my mother farther and farther into the Message. He lost all respect for her (if he ever had it) when she joined the church, and she interpreted that hostility as persecution. Branham taught that the truth would be persecuted and looked down upon, and I don't think it's helpful to paint his followers as ignorant, hapless fools - because that's just how the Message wants the world to react. My mother entered the Message when she was seeking a real encounter with a tangible God - one who worked supernaturally. She wanted a personal God to see her through her painful miscarriage and abusive marriage. She found that, but what I am trying to expose here is the poisonous baggage that came along with that discovery. Branham's followers were not stupid. They were baited and caged. I want to second this. Lack of formal education and plain country speaking are not synonymous with stupidity. Some of the smartest people I've met have lacked formal education and some of the stupidest have degrees after their names. What Branham did was impressive. It's wrong and hurtful but it's impressive. You know, like Hitler was charismatic and impressive. Uber-evil, but impressive. I read the Bathsheba letter just now and it's hard not to look for the parody disclaimer that surely must be on there somewhere. My personal favorite was this one: "I cannot emphasize this too much, or insist upon it too strongly. A woman--especially a woman who is large in the bust-must understand, must take a man's word for it, that the sight of her bust may take away a man's heart in a moment.If she would please her God and help her brother in this fight against sin, she must dress in such a way as to hide and conceal the form of her breasts. She must therefore wear loose-fitting blouses of woven (not stretchy or knit) material. If she wishes to wear a sweater for warmth, she can easily wear a loose cotton blouse over(not under it), and be warmer yet. True this would not be stylish, but no matter about that. I am writing for godly women..."And this: "For this reason you should also learn to avoid provocative positions and postures. By this I mean any position which makes your bust prominent, or stretches your clothing tight over it-such as standing with your hands on your hips and your elbows thrown back, or yawning and stretching with your back arched...Again I tell you, I am a man, and know very well what it is to be tempted by such sights--and it may take only a moment's involuntary sight to turn a man's heart into the wrong channels."And this: "You can scarcely be too careful here, for there is no part of a woman's body so alluring to a man as her breasts, and when a man sees a woman with the top two or three of her buttons open, he will probably conclude it is her intention to tempt and tantalize men." Now, I have the kind of breasts that nowadays would be presumed to be augmented but they are naturally mine and frankly it's a pain to deal with. Even when you're slim they make clothes fit weird and anything that isn't skin tight just makes you look fat. If I were to follow this gentleman's advice I would basically be left sitting in a corner in a muumuu trying not to stretch or yawn provocatively for fear of luring poor helpless men along the path of perdition. We could be wearing hijab and these men would find our eyes too alluring and sinful. I guess that's what happened in Afghanistan, since eyes are covered there as well as the entire body and head. Bad bad womens' sexy eyes. Speaking of sinful eyes, I think we should counter their poor sinful tempted stumbling blocked selves with the scripture, 'If thy eye offend thee, pluck it out.' I mean, it's their eyes that are causing the problem in the first place, looking at us sitting here being all female and all. Yep, it can't be helped. If the men want to get to heaven then the eyes have to go! The bible says so.
|
|
|
Post by fabucat on Aug 13, 2010 21:21:57 GMT -5
I am dealing with a situation with my daughter's choice of clothing. A mom came to me and said they were playing a game and my daughter bent over and cleavage was revealed. She was fine standing up it was just when she bent over. This mom said she wanted to protect her man. My problem is why is it always a women's fault? What about the man who was looking with lust. Shouldn't he be rebuked for looking and lusting? Wow!!! It's well-known that even older guys are creepy. I've seen grown men around here ogling the cheerleaders @ the high school across the street. Yeah, real solid citizens. I do think, however, that there's a midpoint between Britney Spears costumes and frumpy "modest" garb. I don't think that cheerleading uniforms are particularly immodest. Also, I don't think that the girl in question was copying Britny. The mom in question might have reason to think that her husband ogles her daughter's friends, however, and it has nothing to do with anything this young girl did. I might tell a daughter to beware of her friend's creepy dad.
|
|
|
Post by fabucat on Aug 13, 2010 21:28:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fabucat on Aug 13, 2010 21:34:17 GMT -5
I'd like to extend a word of caution, too, regarding Branham's ignorance/lack of education. I don't believe he was stupid, though he did have just a 7th grade education. I so agree with this. A lot of so-called educated people have joined cults like Scientology, and The Unification Church. I think that any one of us has been vulnerable enough at one time to have been sucked into some cult or another. Their leaders know what they are doing and they're not stupid. I can be pretty arrogant, but I'm not arrogant enough to assert that I couldn't have joined some sort of a cult.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Aug 13, 2010 21:54:50 GMT -5
Annnndddd.... she also kinda had to take a bath. The first five books of the Bible, carry some pretty strong purity laws, which include requiring women to bathe twice during their monthly cycle-- on the 3rd and 7th day after it begins I believe (haven't looked it up in awhile.) Bathsheba's story makes it clear that's what she was doing-- fulfilling all of her religious obligations, while also narratively pointing out that the resulting pregnancy couldn't possibly have been her husband's. Sure, she wasn't required to bathe on the roof, but she was required to bathe, and given the relative height of most houses, and the fact they had to have a "parapet" around them (another law smashed somewhere in those early books), and the number of people living in a given house then... honestly, the roof might have been the most SECLUDED place she had available!
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Aug 13, 2010 23:13:28 GMT -5
It might have been where the water was, too, if they had a cistern.
|
|
|
Post by dragonfly on Aug 14, 2010 0:27:20 GMT -5
Hey Sierra,
My kids and I are escapees from QF/patriarchal fundamentalism. During her childhood, my 17 year old daughter shared a lot of your anxieties about her approaching womanhood. A couple of years ago, during what blew out to be a months-long starvation episode, Anorexia Nervosa developed. My girl was hospitalised for months on an NG tube in order to save her life.
Current thought about AN is that it is a genetically predisposed psychiatric illness brought about by an organic cause - a severe and prolonged starvation episode - which results in the stripping of the brain of lipids. The rigid and peculiar thinking that typifies AN is a result of the absence of fats surrounding nerve pathways in the brain. Until fat coverage is restored, thinking such as dysmorphic ideation (believing you are fat when you are stick thin) cannot change.
While it would not be true to say that AN is *caused* by environmental factors, in my view they certainly play a part - particularly in providing a trauma which typically precedes the food restriction episode...which then may lead to the onset of the disease.
My gal is weight restored now and gaining ground on the AN daily. She and I talk a lot about these kinds of things but we haven't fully canvassed the impact of our family's religious beliefs on the onset of AN. I hope that the weller she gets the better able she will be to analyse the various factors that played a part.
I'm not sure whether you had the misfortune to end with AN or not but as you mentioned restricting your food intake and weight loss, I thought I'd throw that into the mix. Thank you for making yourself vulnerable in telling your story. I'm sure there are many, many others who can relate and appreciate your courage in doing so.
|
|
|
Post by lg61820 on Aug 14, 2010 11:55:38 GMT -5
Oh, Sierra, your writing is powerful to show what we sometimes forget. Adult messages aren't meant for children even if they are "Christian" or moral messages, even if their intention is to teach, inspire and edify. I'm not familiar with the particular brand of Pentecostalism you were exposed to. I am familiar with a somewhat less offensive version.
I'm so sorry that you were exposed to this man, that your mother needed this in her grief. I'm sorry that your mother couldn't just be happy she still had you. You are a worthwhile person who deserved more than your mother was able to give you. I have sympathy for her too. I don't think you have said what her current situation is, but I expect she's living in regret if she's still living.
I'm glad you have survived and trust that you are now thriving. I look forward to hearing more from you. LG
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Aug 14, 2010 17:35:56 GMT -5
Oh, Sierra, your writing is powerful to show what we sometimes forget. Adult messages aren't meant for children even if they are "Christian" or moral messages, even if their intention is to teach, inspire and edify. I'm not familiar with the particular brand of Pentecostalism you were exposed to. I am familiar with a somewhat less offensive version. I'm so sorry that you were exposed to this man, that your mother needed this in her grief. I'm sorry that your mother couldn't just be happy she still had you. You are a worthwhile person who deserved more than your mother was able to give you. I have sympathy for her too. I don't think you have said what her current situation is, but I expect she's living in regret if she's still living. I'm glad you have survived and trust that you are now thriving. I look forward to hearing more from you. LG Thank you for this. I've recently been thinking about the ways in which a "mainstream" upbringing would have inoculated my mother and other adults against the total destruction of selfhood that the fundamentalist doctrines wrought on us children. Adults with healthy self-esteem can sometimes stand to be reminded not to act selfishly, but children who are raised with such admonitions have no insulation against the message that they are worthless compared to others. It's a remedy for a disease we didn't have yet. Of course, the misogyny in Branham's message was healthy for no one. But some of the other messages were just extreme interpretations of "don't be a jerk to the people around you."
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Aug 15, 2010 1:07:18 GMT -5
Branham was sick, sick, sick. He deserves to go to the hell he wished on everyone else.
That's strong, but it comes out of total outrage for the pain of the little girl that Sierra once was. As a mother myself with a girl who just went through puberty, I could hardly stand to read it.
And all this blaming of the woman is turning Jesus' actual message upside down. He said, "He who looks on a woman in order to lust after her [the Greek word there implies intent, not just an accidental glance], has committed adultery in HIS heart." It was the one who lusted who committed adultery in his heart-- nothing whatsover is said about the woman's heart.
Rabinnical teaching of the time was full of blaming women for men's lust. Jesus put the responsibilty right back where it belonged, on the men who looked with intent to lust, turning women from people into objects. Jesus' teachings were in defense of women. Anyone who twists them into an attack on women is going against his teachings.
|
|
|
Post by calluna on Aug 15, 2010 11:26:45 GMT -5
Sierrea, the more I hear your story, the more I want to puke! I am so sorry you went through this crap.
|
|
|
Post by calluna on Aug 15, 2010 11:30:05 GMT -5
And all this blaming of the woman is turning Jesus' actual message upside down. He said, "He who looks on a woman in order to lust after her [the Greek word there implies intent, not just an accidental glance], has committed adultery in HIS heart." It was the one who lusted who committed adultery in his heart-- nothing whatsover is said about the woman's heart. Rabinnical teaching of the time was full of blaming women for men's lust. Jesus put the responsibilty right back where it belonged, on the men who looked with intent to lust, turning women from people into objects. Jesus' teachings were in defense of women. Anyone who twists them into an attack on women is going against his teachings. You know Krwordgazer, I posted a picture of a woman in a dress on my facebook profile and a man looking at her rear. I stated, "proof that wearing a dress keeps men's eyes from straying." A man quoted on my profile that "could of been" my father in law (He was trying to set me up with his son) He said, "the difference is that when a man looks at a woman in pant's she commits adultery *with* her. If he looks at her that way in a skirt it is his fault. So if women wear pants, she is responsible for the adultery. If she wears skirts it's the man's! Crazy! Sierra's story sort of reminded me of of that dude that told me that. Only her "pastor's" teaching was worse for sure!
|
|
|
Post by calluna on Aug 15, 2010 11:35:34 GMT -5
I actually found that at my In Law's house a read it in print form. My In laws are strict IFB. When I read that, I was very upset, and "preached" to my Father in law about the dumbness of it. He didn't even know his wife had it...and listened with an open mind about it. His wife, acquired it (don't know how) and I guess she was thinking that it was *all* true.
|
|
phatchick
Junior Member
Medicated for Your Protection
Posts: 80
|
Post by phatchick on Aug 15, 2010 13:17:50 GMT -5
My favorite quote, "In their view, men are biologically hardwired so they have no self control. Show a man a little skin, and he goes crazy–he can’t help himself. All men are just animals, and a man who attacks an immodestly dressed woman is no more to blame than a grizzly who attacks a camper who foolishly keeps a raw steak in her bedroll in bear country." IMO, that pretty much sums up fundy attitudes towards sex and male/female relationships. Not a very flattering view of themselves, is it?
|
|
|
Post by asteli on Aug 15, 2010 16:56:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ex-Adriel on Aug 15, 2010 19:03:16 GMT -5
This exactly - while you're there, you're focused on the healing and the signs and wonders, and only later when you're not physically AT church, do you think about the verbal portion of the messages delivered.
I just am in shock that Branham's verbal messages were so unabashedly strict and hostile. It's just a hard pill to swallow, and it really underlines how desperately the people listening wanted to feel close to God, and to feel they had reached a haven and a solace.
It's just sad that there are charismatic people who can do that to people, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by angieantitheist on Aug 20, 2010 14:47:43 GMT -5
"I told myself I wanted to find something real. Maybe all this chaos meant that Jesus was trying to get my attention – maybe he would save me from the horror that was myself."
I too developed an eating disorder to escape being a grown woman, because of what my faith taught me. I hated my "flesh nature" with all its horrible needs. Surely starvation, er "fasting" was a way of honoring god?
So glad I'm out and you, too!
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Aug 20, 2010 15:43:50 GMT -5
dragonfly - I am so sorry that I failed to respond to your post earlier. Thank you for sharing what you and your daughter have been through; I'm glad to know that she is recovering and that the two of you are capable of talking through things together. I was never actually diagnosed with anorexia - in part, perhaps, because Branhamism is a faith-healing cult and nobody knew how to respond. My pastor didn't go so far as to preach against doctors, but he lambasted counselors every few weeks. Mental diseases were simply not believed to exist in my cult.
I certainly fit the personality profile generally associated with anorexia at the time: perfectionistic, high-strung, insecure, afraid of abandonment, anxious to perform and to prove my worth. I was an A student but felt stupid. I learned to associate all of my flaws with fat and thought I could starve them away. The number of calories I consumed also fit the bill.
I'm not sure exactly what stopped me from becoming hospitalized. It may have been that my self-destruction spiral was halted when I entered community college and suddenly found a support network. I know it's not that easy (if "easy" can even begin to enter this discussion) for other sufferers, though, and I can't say I'm "over" my eating disorder by any means. I am managing it better, but the self-loathing hasn't left.
Angie - thank you, too, for sharing. What you describe is exactly how I felt. The "flesh" was the enemy, and fasting did away with all kinds of immorality: sexual urges being at the top of the list. I had no idea that anyone else had experienced extremist religion as a trigger for eating disorders, too! I feel better knowing that my reaction was not all that unusual.
|
|
|
Post by amyrose on Aug 21, 2010 12:31:49 GMT -5
I have long wondered if religious extremism has ever been documented as a trigger for eating disorders. When I worked in the "Christian" school, there was not a single girl with an ounce of body fat in the entire high school. We regularly found laxatives left in the girls' bathroom and when my classroom was next to it, I heard vomiting sounds in there quite frequently, especially after lunch time, class parties, etc...
As far as I could tell, eating disorders were absolutely rampant in that school, most visible in girls from the more extreme churches represented in the community. Any teacher or other adult who tried to address it (and I did numerous times) with parents, administrators or counselors were told there was not a problem. One principal told me that "our girls are just naturally thin and beautiful. It's the glow of knowing Jesus".
I left there ten years ago. Since then, I have met up with former students who have told me they and/or their classmates had the glow of bulimia, not Jesus.
|
|