jwr
Full Member
Posts: 218
|
Post by jwr on Nov 18, 2009 8:34:28 GMT -5
I just found your website today, and as an intro, here is the review I wrote on Amazon.com of the book "Quiverfull." After the review, I've added a few extra comments.
-------------
A year before marriage, while still in theological college, I read many Christian books on marriage, etc. One of them, Stephen A. Grunlan's MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY: A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE, proposed that Christians should have no ethical concerns about using birth control since, "Christianity is not a fertility cult." Several other authors noted that although humanity is notorious for breaking God's commandments, there is one command that we've totally fulfilled (even over-fulfulled): "Be fruitful and multiply." These authors all rang true to me.
Also, from my own study of Old Testament fertility priorities, including the "quiver full of arrows" verse, I concluded that big families were essential in that ancient near eastern world. First, they needed to increase the strength/size of their tribes. Second: children grew up to work the family's fields and tend their livestock. The more kids you had, the more workers you had; thus more potential for prosperity. But, I reasoned, I don't live in an ancient, agrarian near-eastern society; thus I have no stake in increasing a certain tribe and I don't need 20 kids to work my fields and tend my sheep. Thus the Old Testament fertility emphasis seemed more like a cultural artifact than God's eternal design.
So when I got married in 1987, my bride was on the pill. 23 years later, we have a "quiverfull" of exactly two kids. And in spite of being devout Christians, we felt (and still feel) wary about homeschooling. We wanted our kids to face the real world of social relationships and various ideas, and homeschooling seemed to circumvent that, thus stunting social, emotional and intellectual growth. Thus our kids entered the supposedly evil and threatening world of public schools. And surprise! They're still Christians to this day, and neither of them has joined a street-gang or started his/her own radical Maoist movement.
(But if people, by their own choice, with no coercion, want to have large families, that's great. And if someone lives in a severely substandard school dist., then perhaps homeschooling is a good option. But each family should decide for themselves; not because some authoritarian church leader so dictates).
But a few years into our marriage we met three different families who fit the description of the Quiverfull Patriarchy movement. Birth control was forbidden, homeschooling (especially with materials from Bill Gotthard's org.) was the norm; and the wives were perpetually weary and often abused. These people tried to convince my wife and I that we should do the same, but we thought they were mentally unsound; just plain whacked.
But what I didn't know until hearing of this book is what a large, coordinated movement this is. We thought those families were just plain weird; we didn't know that they were being fed by these organizations. I've read a lot on American fundamentalism and fringe groups, but somehow missed this seemingly large network.
This is the only time I've reviewed a book without first reading it (which is why I only gave it two stars). I'm writing this review because I know people firsthand who are into it; and now perhaps I can finally read something that will fill in the puzzle pieces.
(END OF AMAZON REVIEW)
-----------------
Things didn't go too well for the three Quiverfull families we knew. One wife, after
having seven kids and being perpetually abused physically and emotionally, finally left her "godly" husband. She sank into despair, got re-hooked on heroin after many decades, and nobody's heard from her in years. Another one is still enduring; she's on her 6th or 7th kid now (I can't keep track anymore). And the third one is happily married, her kids grown, and they're not having any more kids. But she confessed to me that homeschooling was an overall failure. Her kids all struggled in college due to all they'd missed. (Had she been a career teacher, I'm sure she would have done great. But she was just a mom trying to do everything all at once and keep her head above water).
To all you women who've enduring this stuff, I as a Christian man apologize to you. I'm so sorry for all the abuse and garbage you went through in the name of God. Those of you with a limited exposure to Christianity (e.g., the only church you attended taught Patriarchy) might be inclined to give up on God all together and join the ranks of the new atheists. But please consider that there are so many other expressions of Christianity (from conservative all the way to liberal) that have never taught these aberrant things, and have no hatred of women. My wife speaks in churches all across the world, in mixed settings (men and women both in attendance). No one shuts her down; on the contrary, they invite her back regularly. When it comes to being well-known, a Google search with her name will bring up multiple pages, while a search on mine will bring up just one or two hits. But I'm fine with that. I'm proud of her and don't feel threatened or diminished at all.
The bottom line: If you utterly give up to the point of atheism, I would be the last person to blame you, although I think it would be a bad mistake. Before going that far, please consider that there are so many churches and Christian men out there who are not oppressive or abusive. You ladies have a great part to play in the church. We'll all be impoverished if you give up.
|
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Nov 18, 2009 9:56:04 GMT -5
Welcome to the forums! And that's a great review, I hope you read the book & update it.
We're a welcoming bunch but just a warning - the women who are or were in quiverfull churches aren't a homogenous group. You'll find women here who have made a lot of different choices here - there's no "you ladies" to speak to, really.
|
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Nov 18, 2009 11:49:00 GMT -5
Hello JWR - But I'm fine with that. I'm proud of her and don't feel threatened or diminished at all. Congratulations - you've come a long way, baby.  |
|
|
|
Post by xara on Nov 18, 2009 12:12:52 GMT -5
Welcome to the forums.
We are a diverse group and the main rule is pretty much "be caring and respectful even when others don't agree."
This is a really special place. And there are a lot of wonderful people here.
|
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Nov 18, 2009 12:28:02 GMT -5
hey welcome! I liked your review and hope you enjoy it here. But... on the subject of the new atheism bit, I think you'll find that for most of us atheists here who once were fundamentalists, while abusive or cruel practices or beliefs in the religion may have been what started us thinking and questioning and doubting... we've already thoroughly examined all our options (or are continuing to do so on our own time) and our ultimate religious decision or lack thereof is based not just on bad experiences, but on long and careful thought as well. Just a friendly note on your very last paragraph though, it's annoying to keep getting messages from random Christians along the lines of "well, keep thinking about it" when it's clearly implied that the only time I'll be "allowed" to stop thinking about it is if I finally start agreeing again. And also... we live in a majority christian culture, and we've heard that message LOTS and LOTS of times before. If you hadn't asked us to "consider liberal churches" or mentioning your opinion we're making a "bad mistake" isn't going to keep us from a reminder or mention that otherwise would have saved us, we've heard it all PLENTY of times Anyway, that's all to say that part of your post was on the "slightly annoying" end of the scale for an atheist, as it kinda makes unfounded assumptions of why I left, and is something I've had to deal with over, and over, and over again. BUT, you're a theist, and you didn't know all that! So... I don't blame you one bit, just figured I'd write all this out so you could see a little more where we atheists are usually coming from and what such Christian messages look like/feel like to us. You can't be responsible for annoying me until I tell you it's annoying! lol. |
|
jwr
Full Member
Posts: 218
|
Post by jwr on Nov 18, 2009 22:51:33 GMT -5
To all of you who responded so far, thank you. One of you cautioned that you're not a homogenous group, so I should be careful about over-generalizing. Perhaps this is because I'm so unfamiliar with the Quiverfull movement as a whole, in spite of knowing those three Quiverfull families. I could list many academic books (humanities dept. religious studies genre) about American evangelicalism/pentecostalism/fundamentalism that I have, and have read, but it would be a waste of space. Suffice it to say that none of them mentioned the Quiverfull ideologies. That's why I might seem to have over-generalized; it really is a new thing to me. Therefore, the author of Quiverfull (in spite of the alleged lack of footnotes) has done a great service and opened a new window into American religiosity.
To the one who mentioned reasons for atheism. Please allow me to clarify: if people become atheists solely due to abusive church experiences, I do think it's a bad mistake. But if someone has rigorously wrestled through theism vs. pantheism vs. panentheism, vs. agnosticism and atheism; and in the process landed in the atheism camp, I'm fine with that. I have a lot of friends who are atheists and some of their points are really challenging.
One final observation here: the aim of the Quiverfull of arrows seems to be the reclaiming of a (mythical, imagined) version of the past Christian America. It makes perfect sense: take over by the force of sheer numbers. But from my limited observation, it might be doing the opposite. Most of the Quiverfull kids I've known were so miserable, had their childhood's robbed by having to be surrogate mothers, were cut off from society and thus couldn't have the normal fun that kids have. Thus, when they came of age and were able to leave, they went wild. Many of them want nothing to do with Christianity or God at all; they're strongly opposed to it. So in reality, this movement might in fact be producing quiverfulls of atheists, agnostics, neo-pagans, and people who are just generally opposed to religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Nov 18, 2009 23:46:31 GMT -5
One final observation here: the aim of the Quiverfull of arrows seems to be the reclaiming of a (mythical, imagined) version of the past Christian America. It makes perfect sense: take over by the force of sheer numbers. But from my limited observation, it might be doing the opposite. Most of the Quiverfull kids I've known were so miserable, had their childhood's robbed by having to be surrogate mothers, were cut off from society and thus couldn't have the normal fun that kids have. Thus, when they came of age and were able to leave, they went wild. Many of them want nothing to do with Christianity or God at all; they're strongly opposed to it. So in reality, this movement might in fact be producing quiverfulls of atheists, agnostics, neo-pagans, and people who are just generally opposed to religion. Yes and it is fear of that I believe that has led to some of the prominent teachers in the movement pushing for more and more isolation, for longer and longer. You may have read by now of the teachings that girls are not allowed to go to college or to leave home until they marry, after a spouse is vetted by their father and a courtship is supervised and chaperoned. Doug Phillips now cautions husband not to allow their wives to read women bloggers (actual thought might occur!) Here's something about where the movement is heading extremist wise from a christian homeschool mom who is firmly outside of this camp: www.thatmom.com/?p=2301 |
|
jwr
Full Member
Posts: 218
|
Post by jwr on Nov 19, 2009 0:11:29 GMT -5
You're serious? No college for girls? Dads have to choose their spouses? I wonder what my daughter would say if I told her she has to drop out of college and stay in her room until I arrange a marriage for her? The idea would almost be funny if it was just theoretical. But if people are really doing that, it's utterly horrifying. My guess is that fathers who exercise such extreme control over their daughters are also quite prone to molesting them. Does anyone know if there's a higher than average sexual abuse rate between Quiverfull dads and their daughters? This stuff is freaking me out more every day. It's starting to remind me of that Fundamentalist Mormon polygamist group that got busted in Texas last year.  |
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Nov 19, 2009 7:17:06 GMT -5
You're serious? No college for girls? Dads have to choose their spouses? I wonder what my daughter would say if I told her she has to drop out of college and stay in her room until I arrange a marriage for her? The idea would almost be funny if it was just theoretical. But if people are really doing that, it's utterly horrifying. My guess is that fathers who exercise such extreme control over their daughters are also quite prone to molesting them. Does anyone know if there's a higher than average sexual abuse rate between Quiverfull dads and their daughters? This stuff is freaking me out more every day. It's starting to remind me of that Fundamentalist Mormon polygamist group that got busted in Texas last year. Welcome, jwr. Thanks for clarifying your position on atheists. I'm an atheist but don't fit the "angry atheist" profile at all, just so you know. Came from a moderate religious background and just didn't buy it. No dramatic story here. I would like to see religious folks take more responsibility for the damage that can result from religious practice. It seems as though you do just that. You also seem fair and open-minded. You seem to practice your religion in a responsible manner. And you are educating yourself about potentially harmful practices. I am freaked out about the same stuff you are, and have the same concern over the creepy father-daughter relationships. *shudder* |
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Nov 19, 2009 10:38:36 GMT -5
about that level of control leading to molestation... last night in the chat someone found a link to one pastor preaching that a man's daughters are supposed to be able to fulfill his "natural desire for younger women" somehow. I was too scared to actually go look/listen to the link but maybe some of the other people who were on still have it? I doubt it was an explicitly sexual allowance, probably more emotional, but still creepy as hell!
It's truly horrifying. While not quiverful, I did know one family that not only didn't like the idea of college for girls, but for boys as well, and chose him an apprentice as a teen. He ran away and joined the army and went to school and they were boiling mad. I don't know what his sisters have done. They only had three children though... I imagine this "apprentice only" idea may become more common among quiverful as more and more the movement backfires, I don't know for sure though.
(btw, thanks for the clarification on what you'd meant by that paragraph about atheists)
|
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Nov 19, 2009 11:30:03 GMT -5
about that level of control leading to molestation... last night in the chat someone found a link to one pastor preaching that a man's daughters are supposed to be able to fulfill his "natural desire for younger women" somehow. I was too scared to actually go look/listen to the link but maybe some of the other people who were on still have it? I doubt it was an explicitly sexual allowance, probably more emotional, but still creepy as hell! Here it is, jemand: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qljgjT2Q4-g ~ particularly between 2:08 – 2:21. I used to love this guy ~ ugh. Warning ~ this'll seriously make you lose your cookies. |
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Nov 19, 2009 13:33:55 GMT -5
about that level of control leading to molestation... last night in the chat someone found a link to one pastor preaching that a man's daughters are supposed to be able to fulfill his "natural desire for younger women" somehow. I was too scared to actually go look/listen to the link but maybe some of the other people who were on still have it? I doubt it was an explicitly sexual allowance, probably more emotional, but still creepy as hell! Here it is, jemand: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qljgjT2Q4-g ~ particularly between 2:08 – 2:21. I used to love this guy ~ ugh. Warning ~ this'll seriously make you lose your cookies. 'Substitute daughters,' huh? Methinks this guy is a tad naive. ;D The 'Greco-Roman myth of love'? This is the first time I've heard that one. Oh, and all the vitriol thrown at boyfriends is really priceless - someone's a tad jealous perhaps. Telling his daughter to keep sitting on his lap so she'll never get a boyfriend and, you know, grow up (not that those two necessarily coincide)? It just seems like another case of infantalising women in evangelical religion: I strongly suspect if there was a 17 year old son who liked to sit in either parent's lap, this man would be blue in the face condemning him for not 'manning up' already. What about those cases (and I know I'm not the only one) where Daddy clung like an emotional leech all the while manipulating and abusing the father-daughter connection from long before puberty well into the daughter's adulthood? What about those cases where the first boyfriend was the only responsible, committed, loving one in the daughter's life? |
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Nov 19, 2009 16:58:00 GMT -5
It's truly horrifying. While not quiverful, I did know one family that not only didn't like the idea of college for girls, but for boys as well, and chose him an apprentice as a teen. He ran away and joined the army and went to school and they were boiling mad. I don't know what his sisters have done. They only had three children though... I imagine this "apprentice only" idea may become more common among quiverful as more and more the movement backfires, I don't know for sure though.) And ya know in some ways this will be the downfall of QF. The intellectual Reform families will always be outnumbered by the masses of folk who can't cope with homeschooling high school level work and suddenly "discover" that it is not God's will to learn all that stuff. I have seen this already, where the kids end up FAR less educated than their parents were.. and then you have those kids homeschooling their own children. What exactly are they going to teach them and are they going to be opting out of academics even earlier? As an aside it also makes it a lot harder for woman to leave her abusive spouse if her education stopped at an 8th grade level and all she learned were the "home arts". And NEVER had a job outside the home. How can she even imagine leaving a husband and having to take her first ever job out in "the world"? It's hard enough trying to get back in the work force after years of child raising, if you never even dipped your toe in the work force it would be pretty overwhelming. |
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Nov 19, 2009 17:18:08 GMT -5
As an aside it also makes it a lot harder for woman to leave her abusive spouse if her education stopped at an 8th grade level and all she learned were the "home arts". And NEVER had a job outside the home. How can she even imagine leaving a husband and having to take her first ever job out in "the world"? It's hard enough trying to get back in the work force after years of child raising, if you never even dipped your toe in the work force it would be pretty overwhelming. I actually think that's part of the point. |
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Nov 19, 2009 17:19:59 GMT -5
Yep.
|
|
jwr
Full Member
Posts: 218
|
Post by jwr on Nov 20, 2009 3:02:59 GMT -5
Regarding the college issue, several years ago (before I'd ever heard of quiverfull), I discovered a new college: Patrick Henry College. It's specifically geared to homeschooled kids, taking them to the next level, emphasizing political science and rhetoric; in the hopes that they will grow up to seize power in America. Fundies who have successfully homeschooled their kids can send them there, and this will finalize their indoctrination and make them true culture-warriors. I read all the info they had posted online, including their student conduct manuel, and it's really creepy. You've got really smart people running the college, but they're smart in a way that I consider evil.
If you do a Google search on "Patrick Henry College" you'll see what I mean, and how they hope to take things to the next level.
|
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Nov 20, 2009 10:44:41 GMT -5
about that level of control leading to molestation... last night in the chat someone found a link to one pastor preaching that a man's daughters are supposed to be able to fulfill his "natural desire for younger women" somehow. I was too scared to actually go look/listen to the link but maybe some of the other people who were on still have it? I doubt it was an explicitly sexual allowance, probably more emotional, but still creepy as hell! Here it is, jemand: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qljgjT2Q4-g ~ particularly between 2:08 – 2:21. I used to love this guy ~ ugh. Warning ~ this'll seriously make you lose your cookies. Yes, that video is extremely creep-tastic. I believe his daughter has a blog, too. (Hope I'm not getting my fundies mixed up.) It's also mighty scary. Here's the link: joyfullyathome.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Nov 20, 2009 11:58:43 GMT -5
about that level of control leading to molestation... last night in the chat someone found a link to one pastor preaching that a man's daughters are supposed to be able to fulfill his "natural desire for younger women" somehow. I was too scared to actually go look/listen to the link but maybe some of the other people who were on still have it? I doubt it was an explicitly sexual allowance, probably more emotional, but still creepy as hell! Here it is, jemand: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qljgjT2Q4-g ~ particularly between 2:08 – 2:21. I used to love this guy ~ ugh. Warning ~ this'll seriously make you lose your cookies. Apparently, there's been enough flap about this video that Voddie felt a need to respond: www.voddiebaucham.org/vbm/Blog/Entries/2009/11/19_November_Question_of_the_MOnth_(Update_Edition).htmlIt is just this sort of legitimatizing that prevented us from really seeing that Warren's obsessing over Angel was truly unhealthy. We had bought into this idea that fathers and daughters are supposed to share a special kind of intimacy ~ and so we did not even have the language to express the problem between Warren and Angel. She could not say, "My dad is smoothering me," because in the "vision" we had in our collective head, that was LOVE ~ that was fatherly concern and protection and caring.  Read Voddie's response and then tell us what you think. |
|
|
|
Post by journey on Nov 20, 2009 13:44:35 GMT -5
Why does he have to get so angry? These are valid questions. Why does he have to get his undies in a wad and pull out the swords and the blades and the big guns? It's exactly what Doug Phillips pulls when he gets questioned. It is so exasperating. What, is no one allowed to ask questions about their teaching? What ever happened to lauding being a Berean?
If anything proves anything, the responses of these men to legitimate questions shows that they're on some kind of a power trip, no matter how well intentioned they may be, thinking themselves above questions and criticisms. This is exactly the kind of thing that is so off-putting about that brand of Christianity. They may not have the pope and think themselves "standing on the Bible alone," but they've become mini-popes themselves, whose authoritative word may not be challenged or contradicted without cries of, "gossip! slander! hateful!"
As for his daughter Jasmine's blog, I would personally ask that we be kind to Jasmine and not trash her blog here. She is 19, she's been indoctrinated, and she's doing the best she can. She may wake up later, she may not, but for now, it seems like we should treat her with compassion and respect for being a strong young woman in a difficult situation, and handling it as best as one can in that kind of world. We owe her our compassion right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Nov 20, 2009 15:22:50 GMT -5
Why does he have to get so angry? These are valid questions. Why does he have to get his undies in a wad and pull out the swords and the blades and the big guns? It's exactly what Doug Phillips pulls when he gets questioned. It is so exasperating. What, is no one allowed to ask questions about their teaching? What ever happened to lauding being a Berean? If anything proves anything, the responses of these men to legitimate questions shows that they're on some kind of a power trip, no matter how well intentioned they may be, thinking themselves above questions and criticisms. This is exactly the kind of thing that is so off-putting about that brand of Christianity. They may not have the pope and think themselves "standing on the Bible alone," but they've become mini-popes themselves, whose authoritative word may not be challenged or contradicted without cries of, "gossip! slander! hateful!" Yes. He plays the victim. Sets up straw-man attackers. Then doesn't even supply links to back up his claims of persecution. Oh well, guess I'll just have to take his word for it. As for his daughter Jasmine's blog, I would personally ask that we be kind to Jasmine and not trash her blog here. She is 19, she's been indoctrinated, and she's doing the best she can. She may wake up later, she may not, but for now, it seems like we should treat her with compassion and respect for being a strong young woman in a difficult situation, and handling it as best as one can in that kind of world. We owe her our compassion right now. Your concern for Jasmine is commendable but I personally have no intention of trashing her. Clearly, she's a victim in all this. However, there are ideas on her blog that deserve to be challenged and criticized. I'm sorry, they just do. Keep in mind, that Jasmine has probably been raised in an echo chamber. I don't think we do her any favors by placing her blog off limits for criticism and analysis. Some straightforward questioning might just plant the seeds of free-thought. For the record, I do find aspects of Jasmine's blog "scary". I would not want my daughter to read it uncritically. However, it's easy enough to honor your request. There are plenty of other things to discuss here besides Jasmine's blog. |
|
jwr
Full Member
Posts: 218
|
Post by jwr on Nov 22, 2009 4:58:12 GMT -5
To Margybargy:
You wrote: "I would like to see religious folks take more responsibility for the damage that can result from religious practice. It seems as though you do just that. You also seem fair and open-minded. You seem to practice your religion in a responsible manner. And you are educating yourself about potentially harmful practices."
Thank you for your encouragement. I teach theology and world religions, mostly across India, but in other countries as well. And I do my best to encourage the practice of religion in "a responsible manner." Anthropologically speaking, religion is an intricate part of culture. The two are intertwined. And throughout history, cultures/religions have been (and are) in a continuous state of flux. In the context of this discussion, this means that religions (whether one of the many Christianities, Buddhisms, Hinduisms, Islams, etc.) have the potential either for progress and reform, or to become more repressive and backwards.
Most of the people who read and contribute to this forum have been victimized by a very repressive form of Christianity. I hope it dies out quickly. The internet is a powerful tool for breaking silence and exposing such abuses. That's why both authoritarian political and religious leaders fear it so much. May many more similar such sites continue to spread, so that trapped people can find a way out, and the dictators who rule them can be deposed.
|
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Nov 23, 2009 23:58:25 GMT -5
Most of the people who read and contribute to this forum have been victimized by a very repressive form of Christianity. I hope it dies out quickly. The internet is a powerful tool for breaking silence and exposing such abuses. That's why both authoritarian political and religious leaders fear it so much. May many more similar such sites continue to spread, so that trapped people can find a way out, and the dictators who rule them can be deposed. Well I was "victimized" by some pretty mainstream Christianity myself. Regular old mainstream non-homeschooling, non-QF, church on the corner, democrat voting Christians. In my opinion many of the tenets Christians hold dear about marriage are the abuse itself. It might be nice for the mainstream Christians to think all the problems like in the extremist camps but that is absolutely not true. |
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Nov 27, 2009 13:45:06 GMT -5
Hello, jwr ~ thanks for the intro. My apologies for not welcoming you to NLQ earlier.
I have been reading with interest your comments and the various responses and discussions ~ and now it's time for me to add my own thoughts and hopefully clarify a few things which I think we're all sensing but so far haven't managed to clearly articulate.
jwr ~ I have to say that your very first post bothered me, and further comments from you have been a mixed bag of insight and irritation which I'm going to attempt to sort out in the hopes that we can come to an understanding of what is and is not acceptable here.
First ~ I wonder what is your purpose for being here? If it is mere curiousity regarding QF and its effects on the women who have been touched by the philosophy and the lifestyle ~ well, frankly, that feels uncomfortably voyeristic to me. We have a blog filled with loads of information and insight into QF which, while still a work in progress, is sufficient already to educate and satisfy the passing curiousity of those who, like yourself, have very limited personal experience with the movement.
That you felt qualified to review Kathryn Joyce's book without even reading it ~ puts me in mind of the all-too-familiar arrogance of my Quiverfull days in which I had no problem rejecting and condemning Darwin, Freud, Neitchze, etc., without ever having read even a sample of their actual works. Now ~ I do agree with your conclusions re: QF ~ but I feel very hesitant about your methods of reaching that conclusion ~ you simply do not know enough about Qf to make an authoratative judgment.
That you jump right in with both feet commenting here on the forums makes me wonder why you are telling *US* that QF is a bad idea. Like, NO FUCK, Sherlock! We already know this. We know in a way that you cannot. You don't need to tell us this.
If you're here seeking acknowlegement that you personally are not a patriarchal asshole ~ we don't feel at all compelled to congratulate you for being a decent human being. In fact, that you are such an anomaly only serves to underscore our collective experience that men in general have used their privilege to oppress and abuse us. And we are also painfully aware of our cooperation and enablement of that oppression and abuse.
Are you here to make the point that not all males are controlling and abusive and not all Christians are ignorant and delusional?
Here's something to think about, jwr:
My best friend IRL is Heather ~ the co-pastor at the Salvation Army church that I attend. We often get together for coffee or lunch and it is not uncommon for me to go on a little rant about all the totally screwed up head trips that I learned as a Christian and from the bible ~ and I talk about how this led to me making some seriously horrifying choices which hurt my children, ruined Warren, and led to the break up of our family and my loss of faith.
Now if every time I started in with my complaints, Heather responded with, "So sorry you went through that, but I hope you realize that I'M NOT LIKE THAT" ~ it wouldn't be long before I would be finding excuses for why I'm just too busy to get together for coffee.
Heather does not need to tell me that her Christian walk of faith is actually a good thing for her and her family. I already know because I watch her ~ I can see her interactions with her husband, her children, her church and her community. There's no need for her to tell me that she doesn't do Christianity the QF way ~ that's already obvious in her words and actions. If she did say, "Well, I don't put up with any crap from my husband" ~ I'm afraid I would feel that she feels superior because she managed to avoid the pitfalls which I totally fell for.
And this:
For about two years, I've been in a relationship with a good man. (JEB here on the forums ~ John IRL.) It is through this relationship that I am learning what it is like to not always be in a power struggle ~ to be mutually supportive, etc.
I don't know how many times he's heard me say something like, "Men are total patriarchal assholes" ~ yet, John does not feel compelled to defend himself ~ to point out that, he personally, is not a patriarchal asshole. Of course he's not an asshole. But if he were to say so ~ I would feel like he's dismissing my complaint ~ negating my experiences ~ and making it all about him. Fortunately, John is secure enough in his egalitarian assumptions that he doesn't need to constantly assure me that he's okay.
In other words, for Heather and John ~ the shoe does not fit, so they do not wear it. (Thanks for that one, Jemand ~ LOL)
They don't have to constantly remind me that they are "not that type" ~ and that tells me that they respect my intelligence enough to assume that I can tell the difference.
NLQ forum is a relatively new place on the web ~ but, we've been here long enough and interacted with one another enough that we do have a history. We would appreciate if you recognize that about us ~ and take the time to acquaint yourself with us and our ongoing conversations rather than jump into the discussion as though nothing has gone on here before you joined us.
We've already discussed the Proverbs 31 woman. And the "Kinder, Gentler Patriarchy" ~ we call that "little p" patriarchy. Your comments would be a welcome, insightful addition to those ongoing discussions.
When Jo posted her "I'm angry" thread ~ IMO, you had no business responding unless and until you had invested yourself in her complaint enough to at least go to the Botkin site and read through the post she made reference to. Those of us here who've been into QF already know all about these sisters and the shit they're promoting. I bought "So Much More" as a birthday gift for Angel ~ so I know ~ and I understand Jo's anger and that makes it appropriate for me to chime in on that thread.
Quite a few NLQ members are like you, jwr, in that they have not personally followed the QF teachings ~ they're here to learn and be supportive ~ and truthfully, we welcome their presence because it is only by being exposed to alternative perspectives (the exact opposite of the QF our-way-is-the-only-right-way mentality) that we can think through and see the fallacies of QF ideas and adjust our thinking accordingly.
Please take note ~ those members who have no direct knowledge of the Botkins would not presume to teach Jo anything or hijack her thread. More likely, they will go to the site ~ read the stuff ~ and respond with a highly appropriate, OMFG, Jo! That shit is totally horrifying ~ I can totally understand your concern for the young women who read that stuff and then are afraid that by voicing their complaints, they are dishonoring not only their fathers, but God himself.
I guess what I'm saying here, jwr is ~ welcome, but please, don't make this forum all about you and how wonderful you are. I'm happy that you are a supportive husband to your wife ~ that you listen to her experiences and empathize with her pain. Good for you. Good for her. We appreciate that and agree it makes the world a better place. But your self-congratulatory tone reminds us of some other "nice" guys in our lives (past and, for some of us, present) ~ and it just pisses us off to have to be dealing with yet another clueless male.
|
|
