|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Sept 1, 2010 10:42:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by synesthesia on Sept 1, 2010 10:54:46 GMT -5
I don't know.. they do not seem that free to me. Can they wear jeans and stuff? I only watched a bit of the show this weekend on Youtube. I've listened to all kinds of paint peelingly racous music and I've never come away with that messsage of promiscuity...
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Sept 1, 2010 11:28:42 GMT -5
To borrow a phrase from another young lady living a life of blissful patriarchal freedom ( www.carolhurst.com/titles/catherinecalledbirdy.html), this "grumbles my guts." Yes, the Duggar girls are absolutely free to be who they are, if they are little carbon copies of Michelle. God forbid one of them really, deep down in her heart, wants to be independent. What if one of them really wants to be a doctor, or a soldier, or a professor of English literature? Their parents won't be encouraging any of those aspirations. The girls may live free of "worldly" enticements and advertising, but they are missing out on a crucial skill: discernment. A lack of exposure to the less savory messages of the world does not breed the ability to analyze and resist them. It creates adults who cannot make decisions for themselves without consulting the nearest "godly" authority figure. Even if quiverfull itself weren't destructive to the minds and bodies of women, it would at the very least produce the perfect victims for cults and fly-by-nights: adults who are incapable of weighing conflicting opinions and choosing their own. Then again, the author himself seems to have trouble criticizing media messages. His view of teenagers is fed to him as much as the Disney Channel feeds the "goofy parents" stereotype to children. Jamie Keiles at www.teenagerie.com/ would have some serious objections to his depiction of immature, listless public-schooled teens. Only partly as an aside, it's ironic how the groups that lambast feminism for creating a generation of hedonistic, promiscuous youth fail to notice that feminists are the ones lobbying for tighter regulation of the media messages sent to children: video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1993368502337678412#As if "promiscuity" were the worst thing to fear. What about relationship violence? What about the stymied dreams of young girls who throw away their lives either to please violent boyfriends or controlling fathers? What about the message sent by Above Rubies that having babies will bring you fulfillment - no matter who you are or what your position in life? Isn't THAT the message that causes young teens to get pregnant, so that they can share in the picture-perfect picket-fenced romance and apple pies marketed by groups like Vision Forum and whoever produces Beautiful Girlhood? As for the idea that the Duggar girls have carefully considered their alternatives and made an honest decision to live the way they do, I call horseshit. I parroted the same line when I was fourteen, growing up in the Message. "I know other religions think they're right, but I've heard enough to make my own choice." In retrospect, I have no idea where I'd got the opinion that I already knew something of the world outside my bubble. I didn't. All I knew were the stereotypes blasted at me from the pulpit: fornicators, idolaters, unchaste women and greedy men were out there. God, and all goodness, were inside. Where's the choice in that kind of polar thinking?
|
|
|
Post by MoonlitNight on Sept 1, 2010 11:46:01 GMT -5
I haven't watched the show, not having television, but the impression I get from the article is that the Duggar girls *are* refreshingly free of some damaging ideas and behaviours that they would have gotten from mainstream American culture. Mr. Richards does not have to be crazy to notice this or be pleased by it. Western culture is not that healthy or supportive place for teen girls, or teens in general. A few examples of the pressures and constraints on them:
- beauty magazines creating intense pressure to look right and buy lots of product - fashion industry sending clear silent messages that certain body types aren't acceptable - teenage boys -- typically hormone-driven and awkward, but some are also clueless, entitled, or just plain cruel. Often they reinforce most of the rest of this list. - far too much emphasis on celebrities who don't actually do much beyond look pretty, party, and have stupendous amounts of money, giving people a seriously distorted view of the value of work and money and their relationship to eachother. - very mixed messages about sex and what the kind and quantity you have say about you - rape and sexual harassment - a part of your life that you want to spend on equal parts fun and doing something cool and real is regulated by others such that you can't get enough of either.
The Duggar girls have skipped all that stuff, and instead have certain things that are good for you: - real and valuable work to do for people who appreciate their contributions - a clear framework of values and expectations, which gives the world structure and solidity - a large loving family to belong to and be supported by
I think that list is a key to why people join cults and related movements in the first place. I'm not saying cults are good for you...just that they do offer something real and good in the package, and those real and good things are a big part of why people join or stay.
The question is, what damaging "Biblical" ideas or behaviours have been substituted for the damaging mainstream ones? The Duggar girls may be free to be themselves in some ways that many modern American girls aren't, but I'm sure they've paid for it in freedoms that those modern girls take for granted.
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Sept 1, 2010 11:54:16 GMT -5
I agree about the horse chips, Sierra!
These girls are not free to make any decisions about the world, religion, relationships, music, etc. They have been carefully instructed how to think about everything by their parents and their Wisdom books.
Their parents have completely controlled who they would be allowed to meet and get to spend time with and listen to for their entire lives. Even visiting the like-minded household was no doubt parent approved or the girls would not even be there.
Free? Not hardly.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Sept 1, 2010 12:05:35 GMT -5
Bronwyn,
I don't think the Duggar girls are as safe as you think they are from some of the same "worldly" messages buffeting young women outside evangelical Christianity. For instance:
- Instead of beauty magazines, there are publications like Above Rubies constantly holding up an ideal that is "beautiful" - let's face it, most of the highly-praised and popular evangelical Christian girls are stick-thin, too, especially the ones dressed "modestly"
- When you aren't allowed to choose fashions that flatter your own unique body and make you feel attractive, you get the same negative impression of your own worth that the fashion industry and magazines sell you. All the thin girls in my church got married first. There are only so many ways to wear a denim skirt.
- Teenage boys in the church are not only entitled and cruel, but they are given a pass by their fathers and pastors to be domineering, as well. I was told once by a 9 year old boy that he would never allow his future wife to work outside the home, because she needed to be there to raise his children.
- There are quiverfull celebrities put on a pedestal for having money and stupendous amounts of children, and worse yet, such idolization is seen as the "reward" for "godly living"
- Only one message about sex that says it's always wrong unless you're married and you want to get a baby out of it
- Rape and sexual harassment aren't necessarily absent from this world. I knew a fundie boy who sexually assaulted a girl friend of mine. It was swept under the rug rather than dealt with.
"- a part of your life that you want to spend on equal parts fun and doing something cool and real is regulated by others such that you can't get enough of either."
I'm not sure I understand this point. Can you explain it to me?
It's possible to teach children the value of work and responsibility without enslaving them to their parents/younger siblings. I learned this by getting a part-time job when I was 14.
I'm thinking of writing a post soon on the black-and-white thinking promoted by fundie groups, where everything outside is painted as greedmongering, promiscuous and unfulfilling. That's simply a lie. All of the values I retain (kindness, hard work, responsibility) were extraneous to my church. I learned them by watching my mother struggle and struggling a little myself.
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Sept 1, 2010 12:16:30 GMT -5
Okay, these are the kind of stereotypes to which I strongly object! It is exactly the sort of horse hooey repeated in cloistered religious communities to "protect" (i.e. control) girls.
There are many, many secular public school girls who are not obsessed with magazines. Seriously! Girls who are interested in making the world a better place, learning and studying academic subjects, creating art and music that translate the human experience in ways that bring us all together. Shallow, fashion obsessed girls are pretty rare! They are hardly the majority at any public school.
Teenage boys are horrible people?!? Not the teenage boys I know! They are just, honorable people for the most part. Hormone driven? Are you saying home schooled boys have no hormones, or they are not as potent as public schooled hormones? Awkward? What teenage boy is NOT awkward? And how is this a bad thing and how does it reinforce the other things on your list?
Rape and sexual harrassment? Really? You think this is the norm at public schools? Yikes! That is not true at all. Do you really think that all the thousands of parents in your local community would keep sending their children to school to be raped and sexually harrassed? It defies belief that you think so low of all the people in your community that do not home school.
(Personally my experience is that the more patriocentric a man is, the more likely he is to sexually harrass women and girls. After all, he has been taught that merely by baring our arms we are asking for his sexual attention...)
Peer pressure? There is no peer pressure that keeps people from pursuing interests they enjoy regardless of whether those interests are considered "cool" or "lame". I know public school students who are classical pianists, dancers, free runners, mimes- all kinds of "uncool" hobbies and interests. If a child's family supports them in pursuing their interests and being true to themselves (and most families do) then it doesn't matter where they go to school.
The patriarchal home school community has the biggest problems with peer pressure I have ever encountered, but it's the parents complying with it, and the teens only because the parents force it on them, a la the Duggars.
You are correct about the many messages in the world about sexuality found in magazines, tv, movies, etc. That's what parents are for, to help children sort through all these messages and discern the honest truth. But the huge majority of public school parents I know are doing a stellar job in this area too.
In fact, the parents I know who suck at helping their children understand healthy responsible human sexuality have children who are often truant and have not graduated a child from public school yet.
That list was atrocious. Please get out there and meet more people involved in their public schools- educators, parents, the students themselves- and you will see how few students fit your stereotypes.
|
|
|
Post by liltwinstar on Sept 1, 2010 12:19:58 GMT -5
I would agree that "Western Culture" isn't great for teens, either, but neither is sheltering them away from it, because the "sheltering" doesn't work. I was raised similarly to this (only without the bazillion brothers and sisters - I only had one sister), and it caused nothing but problems. I was sexually harassed in church by a teenage boy, so church is not "safe" (and the boy who did this was a "nice, homeschooled boy"). As a teenager, I was definately on the "curvy" end of things, so "modest" clothes looked horrible on me - and I knew it. And, as others have mentioned, discernment was severely lacking. When a creepy guy started paying attention to me, I dated him becuase I didn't know that I didn't have to! I thought that because he was paying attention to me meant that I "owed" him something or that it was a "sign from God." Which, clearly, it wasn't.
I'm sure the Duggar girls are sweet, nice girls and I hope the best for them, I really do. However, teenagers are supposed to go thorough times of testing boundaries, getting angry, and asserting their independence. If you don't do it as a teenager, you'll do it later. For my sister and I, our 20's were awful as we had to do the growing up that we should have done in our teens. It was painful - and we're lucky, becuase we weren't married or with kids at that point. I'm not sure the Duggar girls will be given that opportunity.
|
|
em
Full Member
Posts: 176
|
Post by em on Sept 1, 2010 12:57:46 GMT -5
Sierra already made my point.
Oh yes, the Duggar girls are free to be who they are ... so long as who they are is the perfect little submissive daughter to their parents and someone who cooks, cleans, teaches, runs the house, and raises their parents' (huge number of) kids. Does anybody actually believe that if say Jessa decided what she really wanted to be was an art teacher or Jill decided she wanted to get into social work or something or Jana decided she wanted to be a nun (and thus not get married or have children) that they would be allowed to do that? They're so not free to go get an education, to make choices about what they want to do with their lives. Hell, they're not even free to have any feeling other than the party line.
|
|
|
Post by stampinmama on Sept 1, 2010 13:22:21 GMT -5
- beauty magazines creating intense pressure to look right and buy lots of product - fashion industry sending clear silent messages that certain body types aren't acceptable - far too much emphasis on celebrities who don't actually do much beyond look pretty, party, and have stupendous amounts of money, giving people a seriously distorted view of the value of work and money and their relationship to eachother. - very mixed messages about sex and what the kind and quantity you have say about you For real? ? What about all those magazines that fundies put out like Above Rubies, the former Gentle Spirit, all of the home published magazines that young girls put out (I used to be one of them). All of these "well-meaning, good and godly" magazines have a crap load of fundy products in them for families to buy. There's a model of godly perfection set forth in these mags and the only way to attain to it is to buy all the products that are advertised in them. Don't believe me? Read the articles about cloth diapering and then look at all the ads for SAHM of GF families that are selling cloth diapers. Look at all the fundy families selling their DVDs, CDs at the end of their articles. These mags are rife with creating intense pressure to look right, act right, think right and there's a ton of product advertised in them for you to buy. The QF and fundy community also sends very LOUD (unlike the silent clear messages that you referenced to in the "world") messages as to what's acceptable for dress and often times, body type. If you're fat, you're a glutton. SIN. If you're dressed too form fittingly, you're causing men to stumble. SIN. If you're wearing make up to make your body beautiful, you're desecrating the temple of the Holy Ghost. SIN. And they're not quiet about it. The QF and patriocentric movement puts a LOT of emphasis on its Royalty. Families like the Duggars, Phillips, Lancasters, Lindvalls, Weavers, etc. are put up on a pedestal and gloried for having successful business empires, beautiful homes, lavish weddings for their kids, etc. You don't think that other families following these movements don't worship these people and want to attain their status? Think again. As for mixed messages about sex.....the QF/P movement may tout sex in the context of marriage only, but it's taught as dirty, naughty and promiscuous and sends the wrong message to its youth that eventually have trouble with their own sex lives within their marriages because they don't understand how beautiful it is. Sex is also taught as a means of procreation more than as pleasure between a couple. Many of the youth that come from these movements haven't even been taught anything about sex (other than it's wrong and dirty) and are expected to "figure it out like Adam and Eve did" on their wedding night. I have friends like this. My sister was one of them. My kids are 10 and 11 and in public school. They both know what sex is because WE taught them. We gave them scientific facts and they know that if they have questions, they can always come to us and ask. They're open with us, as are we with them. Even at such a young age, they have a very healthy and realistic understanding of sex. And yes, we've even explained homosexual sex to them because we live in a state that is very open with the LGBT community and we want our kids to understand what it is, rather than not knowing at all and making blatant judgments that they have no right to make or to have someone tell them what it is without fully understanding it. *GASP* We don't tell our kids what to believe about it all....we just give them the facts and as they grow older, they're going to make their own decisions about how they believe about all of it.
|
|
|
Post by stampinmama on Sept 1, 2010 13:25:21 GMT -5
Oh yes, the Duggar girls are free to be who they are ... so long as who they are is the perfect little submissive daughter to their parents and someone who cooks, cleans, teaches, runs the house, and raises their parents' (huge number of) kids. Does anybody actually believe that if say Jessa decided what she really wanted to be was an art teacher or Jill decided she wanted to get into social work or something or Jana decided she wanted to be a nun (and thus not get married or have children) that they would be allowed to do that? They're so not free to go get an education, to make choices about what they want to do with their lives. Hell, they're not even free to have any feeling other than the party line. Can you imagine one of the girls telling their parents that they're going to start wearing pants, that they're going to get a job and that they're going to start going to public school? Or that they no longer want to be a Christian? Or that they're going to go on a date with a guy their parents haven't met yet? Or if one of them asked for condoms for a date so that she didn't get pregnant? Or tell them they're on the pill? Yeah, right. These girls aren't free at all. They might be free from some outside influences, but that's it. And even still, I don't call being forcefully isolated as freedom. They don't have any freedom to make choices outside of what their parents want. None. Nadda. Zip.
|
|
|
Post by synesthesia on Sept 1, 2010 14:14:35 GMT -5
Wait, WHAT? They're supposed to figure it out on their wedding day? That can't be healthy. I don't know. It seems like some of these Quiverfull folks look down on "mainstream society" but it isn't that bad. It's not as if every girl is wearing a tiny skirt and making out with boys every five seconds in between smoking reefer and doing cocaine and it's not as if quiverfull= pure and moral and the like. Things are never that simple. Also if one can't wear pants, how free can they be? No one is forcing me to wear skirts and dresses all the time. No way.
|
|
kathe
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by kathe on Sept 1, 2010 15:25:53 GMT -5
Ok. I've waited a few minutes so I can write a reasonable response here. Thanks Humbletiger for saying a lot of the things that were on my mind. I don't want to rip into anyone for their views of the world outside the bubble of Christian fundamentalism but it angers me when I see how distorted that view usually is. It reminds me of the Communist propoganda from the cold war about the "evil western world".
I raised three beautiful, intelligent, independent minded children IN public school, and IN the real world. My daughter was never enthralled with celebrities, beauty magazines, or any of the other things "worldly" teenage girls are supposedly so caught up by. She is a stunning (I'm not the only one who says so ;D) young woman, a graduate of one of the best art colleges in the country, with a job she loves and her art as a second job. She's married to a wonderful guy that she met and fell in love with on her own.
My son is also a college graduate, with a job that he likes, a nice girlfriend and a good life. He was the most peer influenced of the three, and as a result had the most teenage "angst", but he got past that. He's on his way to a career that he enjoys. He's the most intense and passionate of the three, but he's learning to channel that into avenues that hopefully will improve the world he lives in.
My second son (the third child), after a couple of years going to college part time and deciding where he wants to go in life, is finally ready to do college full time. He'll be leaving in January to pursue a degree he's excited about. He has a lovely girlfriend and is a smart, independent, resourceful guy. He's also not really a Christian, and that's ok with me.
They all love their parents and each other. They've all been exceptionally close to me all their lives, but I have no desire to control their adult lives. For that matter, I didn't try to control their decisions as young people either. They were taught basic values, both at home and at church. I did stop them from doing things that were wrong, and gave them direction when they needed it. My job as a parent was to help them learn to make the right decisions. From a very early age they learned to look critically at WHY they wanted to do things. They weren't always right; they all did stupid things, and at times their Dad and I had to put our feet down and say no. But those times, really, were pretty rare.
I think I was exceptionally blessed with good kids. I also think that one reason they still like to talk to Mom is that they can come to me with ANYTHING. Literally. They have always known that they could ask me anything without fear of lectures or punishment. If one of my children (and frequently their friends when they were teenagers) came to me with a problem they would get a straight, honest answer. Not the parental lecture answer, not the "Christian" answer, just the facts. Sometimes there would be a parental "talk" discussion afterward, sometimes not. They also knew that if they had a valid argument I would listen to them, and I was never afraid to agree with them. I was also never afraid, and I'm still not, to admit when I've been wrong and apologize to my kids when I need to. That means a lot to them. Also they KNOW, beyond any doubt, that I will love and support them in any way I can, whatever they decide to do.
I'm sorry to go off on such a tangent. I was, and am, by no means a perfect parent but I think I've done a pretty good job. I had my husband's help somewhat, but for various reasons he left most of this kind of thing to me. I just get so tired of hearing parents go on about how they have to "shelter" their kids, protect them from the world, etc. How are they ever going to learn to live in the world? And how, as Christians, are they to "go ye into all the world"? If you want to change the world, you won't do it by hiding from it or by trying to have enough babies to take it over.
I refuse to watch the Duggars - I don't watch a lot of TV and I won't waste my time on their show. They're free to live their lives as they choose, but I feel sorry for those families who look up to them and believe that their own lack of faith or obedience is the reason they're not living like the Duggars.
|
|
|
Post by hopewell on Sept 1, 2010 16:48:29 GMT -5
Amen to what the others said. When are these girls free to go anywhere alone? My son is on house arrest and at least has freedom of thought if not action. I don't see that in the Duggar home. Free to be a wife and mother to a Daddy-approved man once Daddy's own kids are raised; free to be a midwife or piano teacher if Daddy and future husband agree. Free to be a Democrat? Not on your life! Free to be a Unitarian or Episcopalian? Over her own dead body would a Duggar girl be "free" to make such a choice. Are the allowed to rely on God to guide their judgment--NO the girls every waking moment [and probably the asleep ones] are accounted for and monitored. For goodness sakes, Jana couldn't even go on a BILL GOTHARD mission trip without her brother! And going on Journey to the Heart, a Gothard retreat, required the whole squad of 4 oldest girls + Anna's sister to be sure they didn't sin somehow.
Free, before marriage, to use their nearly non-existant "spare" time to study a Gothard-sponsored "college level" program in midwifery or something? Probably, as long as Jennifer gets potty trained and Jamesy-bug gets lassoed to the chair long enough to learn the letters "C and D" at least. Remember, MAMA must monitor Josie exclusively, leaving Grandma and the now FIVE oldest girls [poor Joy Anna must have "graduated" to being a "big" girl by getting her visit from Aunt Flo].
Now, are they seeing more of the "world" than they ever could have dreamed of before TLC came calling? ABSOLUTELY. Is this good? ABSOLUTELY. Are they free to find, get to know and decide to marry a guy? Not even if his name is Maxwell or Gates will they just get to "choose" him!
Come on Pond-Man get real!
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 1, 2010 19:10:14 GMT -5
Things that it appears to me the Duggar teens are ACTUALLY free from:
Critical thinking skills to help them see when a magazine article, an advertisement or any form of peer pressure is feeding them a lie.
Experience relating to boys their own age so that they understand them as real people just like themselves, and to see weaknesses and strengths.
Ability to disagree with the status quo.
Independent judgment to see where Dad or Mom might be wrong about something.
Confidence to ask about the Bible, "Is that really what it says?"
Exposure to points of view that might broaden their thinking.
Time to explore who they are and what they actually want out of life.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Sept 1, 2010 19:49:09 GMT -5
Sometimes when you meet homeschooled teens they do seem refreshing and adults are often impressed because they seem more adult in their conversations. One reason for that is they have NO culture of their own generation.. they are just little replicas of their parent's interests and values. Remember whey you were growing up and your music and clothes and movies were all shared by your peers, and how now you get to look back with affection on those days and sometimes laugh about your decade? Well the homeschoolers don't have that, they are completely cut off from the current culture their peers enjoy and express themselves in. I realize being completely cut off from this culture is viewed as a good thing by older people who don't relate to a younger generation and see it as suspect--even though it isn't much different than their own generation.
Cutting your kids off from their own generation and making them into copies of yourself means your own peers find them charming. And their peers find them alien. This works for fundamentalists because they are perpetually viewing the world as a terrifying place that victimizes anyone who dabbles in it.
|
|
|
Post by stampinmama on Sept 1, 2010 20:25:05 GMT -5
Sometimes when you meet homeschooled teens they do seem refreshing and adults are often impressed because they seem more adult in their conversations. One reason for that is they have NO culture of their own generation.. they are just little replicas of their parent's interests and values. Remember whey you were growing up and your music and clothes and movies were all shared by your peers, and how now you get to look back with affection on those days and sometimes laugh about your decade? Well the homeschoolers don't have that, they are completely cut off from the current culture their peers enjoy and express themselves in. I realize being completely cut off from this culture is viewed as a good thing by older people who don't relate to a younger generation and see it as suspect--even though it isn't much different than their own generation. My brother finds this to be so true! His girlfriend keeps mentioning different bands and songs that were all the rage during our time, but my brother is only hearing them for the first time. All the things that she talks about when it comes to culture is completely alien to my brother. He has nothing in common with her in those older years.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Sept 1, 2010 20:45:12 GMT -5
Sierra,
You nailed in an early comment -- there is no critical thinking. Aside from figuring out how to make a meal out of sawdust, soy, and millet, mothers are not encouraged to think critically, so why should daughters be taught this, too? In terms of theology, no one is encouraged to think critically but only to parrot approved sources of wisdom or the latest DVD set. But men, at least, are encouraged to do some thinking. Some men -- if you're the guy writing the micromanagement of the "200 Year Plan."
It has been my experience that many young women do lack critical thinking skills when they leave their quiver (when they don't immediately marry and their ownership and brain is passed on to their husband). Some young women feel so awkward around men that they end up quite spinster-esque, particularly the first born girls. Some swing to the other end of the spectrum and have no discernment whatsoever. Even girls who have been channeled into career training sometimes bail out to run off with some presumed knight in shining armor, leaving school. Often this is just another homeschooled kid who returns back home to dad's compound.
The difficulties faced by those who leave QF are vast and difficult, but they generally boil down to fear of braking the family script and issues that all stem back to critical thinking.
When the great patriarch of the home micromanages, how can these girls expect to learn good problem-solving skills. Cloistering may have some benefits, but it also comes with it's own set of disadvantages, too.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Sept 1, 2010 20:49:08 GMT -5
This emphasizes the whole idea of Christianity (and how patriarchy/QF misses it) -- to place one's trust and faith in a sovereign God despite circumstances.
The system emphasizes and promotes trust in human effort and control of circumstances. It fosters the illusion that man is master of his fate, and that people like daughters can be managed by following lists of rules.
What happened to the Holy Spirit in all this? There is no Holy Spirit, only earning points with God through submission and suffering and keeping the law.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Sept 1, 2010 21:38:31 GMT -5
Sometimes when you meet homeschooled teens they do seem refreshing and adults are often impressed because they seem more adult in their conversations. One reason for that is they have NO culture of their own generation.. they are just little replicas of their parent's interests and values. Remember whey you were growing up and your music and clothes and movies were all shared by your peers, and how now you get to look back with affection on those days and sometimes laugh about your decade? Well the homeschoolers don't have that, they are completely cut off from the current culture their peers enjoy and express themselves in. I realize being completely cut off from this culture is viewed as a good thing by older people who don't relate to a younger generation and see it as suspect--even though it isn't much different than their own generation. My brother finds this to be so true! His girlfriend keeps mentioning different bands and songs that were all the rage during our time, but my brother is only hearing them for the first time. All the things that she talks about when it comes to culture is completely alien to my brother. He has nothing in common with her in those older years. I deliberately spent my time in college "catching up" on the youth I should have had. I listened to all the 80s and 90s pop songs I could find. I Googled every out-of-place comment from my peers to find out the context. I watched all the TV shows my peers talked about. It took me, in the end, three years to learn. But the result is priceless: not having all eyes turn to me in disbelief when I fail to laugh at a cultural reference I don't get, not feeling like an awkward alien unable to read between the lines of a foreign language. Now I can just fake it: pretend the first time I listened to the Barenaked Ladies was in 1998, not 2008. I was already fortunate to be allowed to watch some TV throughout my early childhood, so I knew about shows like Ninja Turtles and Scooby Doo. But I still spent an entire weekend on a Disney marathon when I was 20, so that I'd finally know what people were talking about when they quoted lines from Tarzan and Mulan. There are things I'll never know about, though: high school sports. Prom. Learning to date without believing my entire romantic life hung in the balance. Dumb things, say the people who have experienced them. The point, though, isn't that I particularly want all the details of those experiences. It's not to say I wouldn't have disliked them all strongly. The point is that I wish I had those memories to share with people now. Bad times aren't blights on a person's eternal character: they're funny stories for adulthood. They're points of commonality. I'll never have that. All I have are the pale approximations of fundie life: a not-quite-courtship, family camp, Message music, and fear of absolutely everything.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Sept 1, 2010 21:54:42 GMT -5
There are things I'll never know about, though: high school sports. Prom. Learning to date without believing my entire romantic life hung in the balance. Dumb things, say the people who have experienced them. The point, though, isn't that I particularly want all the details of those experiences. It's not to say I wouldn't have disliked them all strongly. The point is that I wish I had those memories to share with people now. Bad times aren't blights on a person's eternal character: they're funny stories for adulthood. They're points of commonality. I'll never have that. All I have are the pale approximations of fundie life: a not-quite-courtship, family camp, Message music, and fear of absolutely everything. Well said. I think it's important to keep in mind through all this that it's not all or nothing, it's not a zero sum game. At my Christian school, the slippery slope argument was ubiquitous. You couldn't dabble in just a little bit of sin. Of course, now I don't think that most of these behaviors are "sinful", but I can easily see how even beyond the religious aspects, there's something attractive about taking a position on how you are or aren't going to do things. I've said to people when I was younger, we don't watch TV in MY family, and I said it with pride. It wasn't hard to convince myself that since I couldn't have it, not having it made me somehow superior. It certainly had more of a flare to it than saying"I'm only allowed to watch two hours a week". When you don't actually set yourself above something and say that you've totally rejected it, it's true that simple moderation isn't as dramatic and doesn't set you apart.
|
|
|
Post by km on Sept 1, 2010 22:04:11 GMT -5
My brother finds this to be so true! His girlfriend keeps mentioning different bands and songs that were all the rage during our time, but my brother is only hearing them for the first time. All the things that she talks about when it comes to culture is completely alien to my brother. He has nothing in common with her in those older years. I deliberately spent my time in college "catching up" on the youth I should have had. I listened to all the 80s and 90s pop songs I could find. I Googled every out-of-place comment from my peers to find out the context. I watched all the TV shows my peers talked about. It took me, in the end, three years to learn. But the result is priceless: not having all eyes turn to me in disbelief when I fail to laugh at a cultural reference I don't get, not feeling like an awkward alien unable to read between the lines of a foreign language. Now I can just fake it: pretend the first time I listened to the Barenaked Ladies was in 1998, not 2008. I know that I wasn't completely over-sheltered like this for my entire childhood, but certainly I was for some of it. I've gone back and watched some things as an adult, and I always find the experience to be a little...disappointing. When you watch Dirty Dancing as an adult, for example, you feel like all you got was a campy B-movie experience... And Star Wars isn't nearly as thrilling for my twenty-first century eyes as it must have been for my peers who saw it as young children. And pop music from my young childhood... That's what I don't know... Many of my peers have fond memories of rocking out to David Bowie and George Michael and... We listened to Psalty the Singing Songbook records and tapes. Anyone else around here remember one Charity Churchmouse? It's the stuff that people my age remember most nostalgically--the things that were big when they were very young children and adolescents. Those were the things I missed.
|
|
|
Post by charlotteb on Sept 1, 2010 22:21:52 GMT -5
Ugh, wrote a long post, and it got eaten, I think.
Anyway, I just wanted to echo what was said here--being that sheltered SUCKS, you are cut off from your culture, and you spend years learning socialization that you should have learned in kindergarten. You may say that wearing dresses/long sleeves/no makeup whatever is your choice, but if your mom cries and throws a fit because you try to be independent, you DON'T have a choice. And WHAT is so wrong about being a child or a teenager? Why should adults just love talking to you in the first place? It's creepy when the adults think that you're so interesting to talk to, you know?
Um, not that adults shouldn't talk to you from time to time, but yeah--it's creepy when they seek you out. Why on earth should they want to?
ETA: change a verb tense and fix a your/you're mistake
|
|
|
Post by charlotteb on Sept 1, 2010 22:25:32 GMT -5
And pop music from my young childhood... That's what I don't know... Many of my peers have fond memories of rocking out to David Bowie and George Michael and... We listened to Psalty the Singing Songbook records and tapes. Anyone else around here remember one Charity Churchmouse? It's the stuff that people my age remember most nostalgically--the things that were big when they were very young children and adolescents. Those were the things I missed. OMG, Charity Churchmouse and Psalty! I remember that--crazy!
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Sept 1, 2010 22:40:17 GMT -5
I think it's important to keep in mind through all this that it's not all or nothing, it's not a zero sum game. At my Christian school, the slippery slope argument was ubiquitous. You couldn't dabble in just a little bit of sin. Of course, now I don't think that most of these behaviors are "sinful", but I can easily see how even beyond the religious aspects, there's something attractive about taking a position on how you are or aren't going to do things. I've said to people when I was younger, we don't watch TV in MY family, and I said it with pride. It wasn't hard to convince myself that since I couldn't have it, not having it made me somehow superior. It certainly had more of a flare to it than saying"I'm only allowed to watch two hours a week". When you don't actually set yourself above something and say that you've totally rejected it, it's true that simple moderation isn't as dramatic and doesn't set you apart. Good point, Atheist As I was reading your comment, this phrase went though my head which Pastor Jon Shonebarger (the IFB-pastor-from-hell) repeated so often that it's now stuck in my brain: Sin will take you farther than you want to go, keep you longer than you want to stay, and cost you more than you want to pay.Ugh!
|
|