|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Feb 23, 2010 9:28:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Feb 23, 2010 17:02:03 GMT -5
Music Mom - This introduction to your new series ( ) sent me right back to those days and I'm struck by the ( apparently) different paths we took when we started at almost the same spot. Instantly, I thought of this 'scene' from my life that I hadn't thought of in years: I remember riding with my mom up to a New Year’s Eve party (which was being held at the home of a ‘fellow’ law student ladyfriend – must have been the last evening of 1981; I was 14) and listening to her ruminate, fantastically, on the efficacy of dosing the state/nation/world’s water supply – guerilla-style - with hormones that would chemically castrate men… And while I’m actively plotting the logistics of such an endeavor, I’m also thinking: Damn! That’s pretty militant, even for you Mom! I thought her extreme in that moment and for a number of years to come. But that was *before* I had one-on-one contact - and a chance to think about those interactions - with boys/men who were not my father. (FTR - I consider myself very, very lucky to have had a father who took an active interest in me that did not include physical/spiritual/sexual abuse.) These days, my mom calls me “radical” and “extreme” and assures me that I will “mellow out” too when I “get to be her age.” That remains to be seen, I guess, but in the meantime I remind her that she did her best feminist work in her 40s and that I’m just trying to carry on the Family Tradition.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 23, 2010 19:30:28 GMT -5
Musicmom -- I find that I identify somewhat with your story, in that I was born in 1964, and I felt jealous because my mother seemed to enjoy herself most when she was conversing with her Avon customers.
I now understand that with a demanding husband, and a mother- in-law who constantly strove to undermine her parenting, it was in her Avon that Mom got her sense of self-worth.
I wouldn't say that Mom has ever been feminist -- she just simply thinks that everyone needs to work really hard, and they're lazy if they don't. She was born in 1925 and lived through the Great Depression -- so it wasn't so much feminism, as a need for financial security.
She sees me as very lazy, and, since I've married and started my family, she's been very critical of me for not working. Though Mom never made me feel bad for being born -- as an adult, I feel like I'm a constant disappointment to her.
I'm so sorry that your mother made you feel so unwanted! (((hug))).
Believe me, you're a very important person and I'm glad you're here.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Feb 23, 2010 22:57:10 GMT -5
music mom,
You mention what I see is much like filling the void that your mom left by her lack because of the feminist stuff.
I identified with needing to fill the void that was created by my mother's depression and just dreadful unhappiness with being a mother. She didn't have much support, and my dad was pretty much a jerk until I was older. She worked and was stressed and bore far more than she should have borne alone without his help. But a little girl can't discern that mom is just blowing off steam when she says she'd never have kids if she could do it over again and that I was a great burden to her that made her miserable.
It does create a vacuum, and I was blessed to have some healing through the Gothardite church I was in. (At the time that I was there, it was vogue to have no more than five kids, though.) I learned about parents that actually took joy in their kids. And the hard core QF bunch didn't want to mingle with me, so I was a little insulated. But it offered me something I didn't get from my family and should have. Needs cry out to be met.
It is sad, because the QF folks offer what seems like a solution to fill a some void, however oversimplified. We have needs and they can meet them. It is like water to the parched. Life is painful and is rife with dilemmas, and they have solutions. It all seems to make perfect sense.
I'm curious to read your next post.
|
|
|
Post by charis on Feb 24, 2010 10:13:39 GMT -5
Great post, musicmom! Thanks! Ramble ramble because your post does hit some nerves.... When I was a teenager, I was a feminist for awhile. What motivated me was that my father was abusive, my mother was victimized and I did not want to be financially dependent on a man like she was. I chose to study engineering because I had the ability and I wanted to prove that a woman could perform in classes filled with men. I felt deceived by feminsm. It was not true that I could do whatever I wanted to and "have it all". I have not been able to use my engineering degree since having children because the demands of an engineering job are incompatible with having enough family time IMO. I wish someone would have sat me down and explained to me that the "traditonal" female jobs have more room for family and should not be disdained just because they are "traditionally" female. I have encouraged my 5 daughters to pursue education for the same reason, so that they can take care of themselves and their children if necessary. BUT, I have encouraged them to consider family time, and choose fields which will be flexible. Both grown daughters are going into medicine which is flexible. The third, who is a college freshman, is unsure of her major but anticipates pursuing a PhD and being a professor, which can also be flexible for family needs. I think the underlying motivation for my becoming QF had to do with self rejection of my own femininity; I believed the lies that women are sub: Sub-ordinate, Sub-human, less valuable, less desirable. So, becoming the ultimate woman, the ultimate mother, somehow would prove my value and worth.... The cure was realizing that I am an equal human, equally precious and valuable AS a woman. I don't have to become a man and compete in a man's world (engineering), and I don't have to spend the rest of my life revolved around my husband and 8 children never pursuing any personal interests/dreams. I can be ME, a human woman of worth. A good mother and wife who also has interests of my own. For my 5 daughters and 3 sons, I really love the new paradigm of the younger generations who embrace shared parenting, a nurturing father (not just a nurturing mother), and dual career. see A Feminsit Friendly Recession
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Feb 24, 2010 11:58:49 GMT -5
Charis – “I felt deceived by feminsm. It was not true that I could do whatever I wanted to and ‘have it all’.” Where did you get the idea that feminism was about “having it all”? Did that come from your *sister* feminists or someplace else? I ask in all sincerity because I have never once in all my years hear a feminist say that feminism is about “having it all”. On the other hand, I have heard possibly thousands of men (millions of men, if you count the fact that they dictate popular culture) say that feminism is about Having It All. And that worked out beautifully for them because having it all meant that not only did women still get to do all of the domestic work, but they got to go out and get a paying job too and figure out how to make all of that work and not have the family suffer in any way either! No wonder you felt deceived. I would have too. And that younger generation paradigm of which you speak? That’s part of what the *sister* feminists have been working for all along – I’m glad you’re pleased and that our work has paid off for your children ETA: Having read the article you linked to I am simply struck by how it is all about what men need in a wife and ain't it cool that they're so liberated as to actively search for a woman who can not only 'help' raise the family but can make money too! This article sounds exactly like the Have It All propagandists are at it again...
|
|
|
Post by charis on Feb 24, 2010 12:12:33 GMT -5
Charis – “I felt deceived by feminsm. It was not true that I could do whatever I wanted to and ‘have it all’.” Where did you get the idea that feminism was about “having it all”? Did that come from your *sister* feminists or someplace else? I ask in all sincerity because I have never once in all my years hear a feminist say that feminism is about “having it all”. Well, I can't put my finger on a "source", and on second thought let me change that from "having it all". My take away was more that it was good for a young woman to challenge the "status quo" and not allow herself to be excluded from a field based on her gender. I was very young, went to college when I was 16, and I felt encouraged by feminism to break new ground and go for engineering even though it was very much a man's world. At a State U NY, I had classes where there were literally hundreds of men to 3 women. I very quickly regretted studying engineering, as soon as I had my first child. There was (and still is) no "part time" engineering. Its salaried, with high time and travel demands. Though I have a masters degree, I am now (at age 50) going back to community college to get an RN so I can work part time for a decent wage, and have time for my children. When my 16 yod in public school was recently taken on a field trip to a local university and given a pink hard hat and hammer and encouraged to consider traditionally male fields, I told her I've BTDT and lived to regret it. Traditionally "female" fields accommodate mothering. (She's the one who is a freshman in college now)
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Feb 24, 2010 12:22:09 GMT -5
Charis, it really struck me reading your post that our experiences are almost the opposite.
I was so pushed to make sure that I had a traditionally female career where I would have the ability to also raise children (even though I knew all along that I never wanted any), that I didn't get to study the things that I wanted to study. The argument, of course, was that I would change my mind and realize that I would want a family and then regret the decisions that I didn't get to make for myself anyway. At my Christian school, if a woman wasn't going to be a SAHM the way she should, it was acceptable for her to be an elementary teacher, a nurse, or a musician in the church.
But as I'm now in engineering, after a change in careers after leaving Fundamentalism, I have to say that I don't see it as a man's world, and I definitely don't feel that I've had to become a man to be part of it. Just like the entire workforce, it's a field that's changing. Colleges go to schools for "women in engineering" days to show girls what their education and careers might be like. Employers are more flexible about working from home or working 4 days/week.
ETA: I see you mentioned girls in school being encouraged to consider traditionally male fields. I think it's a great thing, and I hope that you don't allow your regrets to influence your daughter unduly, because what was wrong for one person might not be wrong for another person. I also disagree that ALL engineering jobs have high time and travel demands. Having a government job might be the way to go if one is wanting to go into engineering and have a family. And it should also not be all the mother's responsibility to be the person who is always there all the time. If the father feels the same way about child-raising, there is no reason that he couldn't be the one to have the more flexible job.
I wish that when I was told to consider family time, I'd had the freedom to say that I didn't want a family. I'm sure that your daughters feel like they could say that to you, but I couldn't say that to my parents. I wish that I could have sat someone down and told them that I didn't need a traditionally female job because I didn't want a traditionally female life.
|
|
|
Post by airlie808 on Feb 24, 2010 12:33:48 GMT -5
My mother was very much the same -- she always told me that she had kids because it was her "duty," and that we were a a lot of trouble to her. She openly despised my father, whom I came to see as a decent man that was beaten down by her in every way possible. She never seemed to enjoy being a mother at all other than the accolades that she got as we got older and began achieving.
I graduated from high school as a new Christian, but deep down I was determined to never marry. So my reaction was not to fight against what I saw, but not to put myself there. There was nothing positive in marriage and childrearing that I could see.
After college I encountered some quiverful famlies and dated several quiverful men, but it wasn't until my 30's that I began to see that there were some happy marriages with children in Christianity, even in so-called conservative circles. I pondered the quiverful families that I knew. The majority of them were unhappy from what I could see, focused on external appearances versus inner peace and harmony. I was becoming more open to marriage, but determined not to marry a quiverful man.
I finally did marry a very balanced man, one who said that we should not have children unless I was 100% sure. In time we had two children that I have always homeschooled, and I have managed to keep up somewhat with my career by working part-time the whole way. So no, not a quiverful family, but a happy family.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Feb 24, 2010 12:37:57 GMT -5
A pink hardhat? Really? You do know that women are still paid only around 76 cents to the man's dollar for the exact same work? (I think that's a whole 3 cents it's come up in 30 years - somebody bust open that Champagne! Maybe this decade we'll get another cent!) And traditionally "female" jobs pay less period, and as more and more women move into fields of traditionally male work (say, construction) looking for better money the overall wages for that field start coming down - every. single. time.? Just rhetorically, I guess: Why is there never any mention of jobs that accommodate fathering?
|
|
|
Post by charis on Feb 24, 2010 13:01:15 GMT -5
Just rhetorically, I guess: Why is there never any mention of jobs that accommodate fathering? ITA and almost added something to that affect about engineering. My hubby is one (presently unemployed). His last job left me a virtual widow, a QF one holding down the fort with 8 children alone. Its as immoral to suck a father so dry there's nothing left for his family as it is to do so to a mother. (But he submitted to it. I gave up the field rather than give up family life.)
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Feb 24, 2010 13:12:18 GMT -5
When my 16 yod in public school was recently taken on a field trip to a local university and given a pink hard hat and hammer and encouraged to consider traditionally male fields, I told her I've BTDT and lived to regret it. Traditionally "female" fields accommodate mothering. (She's the one who is a freshman in college now) My first instinct was to ask, 'Does your daughter want to be a mother?' Like atheistBB, I was forced to constantly work my dreams into a work-from-home scenario in order to have time to raise kids I didn't want for a hypothetical husband who didn't contribute to that effort. One hopes that, as more women enter male-dominated fields (which are becoming rarer in my generation, to say nothing of your daughter's), the fields themselves will change: that they will adjust their policies no longer to assume that there is a full-time SAHM backing up their extraordinary demands on the working husband. Fathers should have access to paternity leave and flexible hours just as much as mothers - and having both fathers and mothers in the workforce is a good way to bring those issues to the table in a corporation. I have to ask you to keep in mind, as my father never did, that you have BTDT in another decade, in which the fields were more gender-skewed and shared parenting was a bit of a pipe dream. Academic jobs, by the way, exist in every degree-granting field, and generally offer flexible hours despite heavy overall demands. MusicMom... it hurt to read your introduction, as this is exactly what I'd be afraid of happening, should I ever have children. I often ask myself, if after sustaining so much damage from my days in fundamentalism, I could raise a child who would not grow up to hate everything I stand for because I am incapable of loving a child adequately. It's a question that haunts me even though I'm under no pressure to have a child... I've never wanted any (nor does my partner), and when I think through the details I still don't, but the nagging sense that I'd raise a militant fundamentalist follows me...
|
|
|
Post by charis on Feb 24, 2010 13:26:59 GMT -5
Thanks for sharing your story. ETA: I see you mentioned girls in school being encouraged to consider traditionally male fields. I think it's a great thing, and I hope that you don't allow your regrets to influence your daughter unduly, because what was wrong for one person might not be wrong for another person. Much as I try, they have minds of their own and I choose to respect that. The career one hasn't been emotionally charged at all. The one that takes the prize for that is that my married children have chosen hormonal forms of bc. According to package inserts one of the mechanisms involves microabortions of my grandchildren. They are all studying medical fields and lectured me me thoroughly that they know better. But I can read package inserts.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Feb 24, 2010 15:08:09 GMT -5
The career one hasn't been emotionally charged at all. The one that takes the prize for that is that my married children have chosen hormonal forms of bc. According to package inserts one of the mechanisms involves microabortions of my grandchildren. They are all studying medical fields and lectured me me thoroughly that they know better. But I can read package inserts. The word 'abortion' does not occur in the package insert for my hormonal birth control, except to advise a woman when she can start taking the pills after a miscarriage/abortion. Your statement is a value-laden interpretation of package inserts, which are written by people with medical training, like your children. The package insert for my hormonal birth control reads: How do C___ pills work? 1. They stop a woman's ovaries releasing eggs. 2. They thicken vaginal fluid so that sperm cannot get to the womb. 3. They change the lining of the womb so that eggs are unable to grow there.If you want the name of the pill, I can give it to you for verification. It's British. The inability of the odd potentially fertilised egg escaping the first two steps to implant in the uterus is what I presume you're talking about. This can occur whether or not a woman is on hormonal birth control. But I find your comment highly disturbing for two reasons: 1. It names fertilised eggs as grandchildren, e.g. autonomous persons, when they consist of two conjoined cells. You would need a microscope to see them - it's absurd to call them 'children.' 2. It introduces the concept of 'microabortion,' which evidently saddles women with the full responsibility of pregnancy the instant of fertilisation, which then makes them responsible for that fertilised egg, whether it succeeds or fails at implanting (and it may very likely fail naturally for a variety of reasons). I am fairly certain that the medical community does not recognize the existence of a 'microabortion,' as a pregnancy is either sustained or aborted (naturally or artificially), no matter what its stage. 3. It makes a possessive statement, emphasising the relationship of that fertilised egg to you - whereas I doubt you are notified when one of your children's eggs fails to implant. It hugely disturbs me to think of my parents sizing up the minute details of what is happening in my uterus as their concern. Then again, my father did 'grieve' inappropriately (involving screaming insults, shunning and the silent treatment) when I told him I wasn't interested in having children of my own and accused me of 'denying him grandchildren.' I wasn't aware I was born with that obligation. (Edited to fix a typo.)
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Feb 24, 2010 15:25:06 GMT -5
The career one hasn't been emotionally charged at all. The one that takes the prize for that is that my married children have chosen hormonal forms of bc. According to package inserts one of the mechanisms involves microabortions of my grandchildren. They are all studying medical fields and lectured me me thoroughly that they know better. But I can read package inserts. The word 'abortion' does not occur in the package insert for my hormonal birth control, except to advise a woman when she can start taking the pills after a miscarriage/abortion. Your statement is a value-laden interpretation of package inserts, which are written by people with medical training, like your children. The package insert for my hormonal birth control reads: How do C___ pills work? 1. They stop a woman's ovaries releasing eggs. 2. They thicken vaginal fluid so that sperm cannot get to the womb. 3. They change the lining of the womb so that eggs are unable to grow there.If you want the name of the pill, I can give it to you for verification. It's British. The inability of the odd potentially fertilised egg escaping the first two steps to implant in the uterus is what I presume you're talking about. This can occur whether or not a woman is on hormonal birth control. But I find your comment highly disturbing for two reasons: 1. It names fertilised eggs as grandchildren, e.g. autonomous persons, when they consist of two conjoined cells. You would need a microscope to see them - it's absurd to call them 'children.' 2. It introduces the concept of 'microabortion,' which evidently saddles women with the full responsibility of pregnancy the instant of fertilisation, which then makes them responsible for that fertilised egg, whether it succeeds or fails at implanting (and it may very likely fail naturally for a variety of reasons). I am fairly certain that the medical community does not recognize the existence of a 'microabortion,' as a pregnancy is either sustained or aborted (naturally or artificially), no matter what its stage. 3. It makes a possessive statement, emphasising the relationship of that fertilised egg to you - whereas I doubt you are notified when one of your children's eggs fails to implant. It hugely disturbs me to think of my parents sizing up the minute details of what is happening in my uterus as their concern. Then again, my father did 'grieve' inappropriately (involving screaming insults, shunning and the silent treatment) when I told him I wasn't interested in having children of my own and accused me of 'denying him grandchildren.' I wasn't aware I was born with that obligation. (Edited to fix a typo.) That post bothered me a great deal as well, charis's possessiveness of her children's choices and bodies bothers me still, and bothered me back when this post was written: nolongerquivering.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=open&thread=322&page=2#4684 when apparently her children's virginity in their TWENTIES is thought to be even REMOTELY her business, and even more so by implying that her pride in them is not insignificantly based in the status of their hymens at marriage. I'm also extremely angry that engineering is deemed a "man's world," and studying engineering is apparently tantamount to getting a sex change. So, you have unresolved issues with your young adulthood, whatever. Stop trying to tell all other women where they shouldn't go because THAT space is for MEN. But yea, maybe I just have some anger issues here, which is why my posting frequency has dropped dramatically. Maybe I'll get over it soon. On the other hand, when I first saw that post, I wasn't actually quite so angry as hilariously amused, until I realized it was meant seriously.
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Feb 24, 2010 15:45:55 GMT -5
Another engineer here. I love it. Can't imagine doing anything else. I've been at it awhile. There's more and more women all the time. I'm no longer alone at the "stick party" if you will.
Someone mentioned flexible hours. Two of my male employees have flexible schedules. The world is changing. I've got one daughter. Her dad pitches in with her as much I do. And I think we all benefit, especially her.
A pink hard hat! Ack. I saw one on the job site the other day. There's actually a color code for hard hats. Yellow = laborer, White = supervisor, Blue = visitor. It's not strict, formal or universal but I wouldn't walk on the job in a yellow hat. It's a non-verbal communication thing. I want my status to be recognized immediately. I don't want someone handing me a shovel. I frown on the pink hard hat because nobody's going to know what to make of it. They already know you're a girl, but are you going to dig a ditch or start shouting orders? I do know one guy that paints his tools pink so nobody steals them.
It's my understanding that women typically earn above the average in a male-dominated field. Don't know if that's true or not. Anyone have any hard numbers?
|
|
|
Post by journey on Feb 24, 2010 16:46:10 GMT -5
That post bothered me a great deal as well, charis's possessiveness of her children's choices and bodies bothers me still, and bothered me back when this post was written: nolongerquivering.proboards.com/i....322&page=2#4684 when apparently her children's virginity in their TWENTIES is thought to be even REMOTELY her business, and even more so by implying that her pride in them is not insignificantly based in the status of their hymens at marriage.
I'm also extremely angry that engineering is deemed a "man's world," and studying engineering is apparently tantamount to getting a sex change. So, you have unresolved issues with your young adulthood, whatever. Stop trying to tell all other women where they shouldn't go because THAT space is for MEN.
But yea, maybe I just have some anger issues here, which is why my posting frequency has dropped dramatically. Maybe I'll get over it soon. On the other hand, when I first saw that post, I wasn't actually quite so angry as hilariously amused, until I realized it was meant seriously. Hey... I would like to point something out here, something that I think is incredibly important on all fronts, given what we are all trying to do here at NLQ. Charis is a woman who has experienced the depth of the "QF Patriarch's Wife" role. She isn't here reading about others who've lived in, peering in from the outside. Nope. She's actually llived it, the "full-meal-deal" kind of lived it (as in, helping and obeying a man who is most likely a severe NPD, if not additional psychological issues, w/ very abusive tendancies). What would living under the thumb of a person like that do to you? I think most of us can only imagine. I was in my marriage for 8 years or so when the lights came on and I began to start questioning, and yet in that amount of time, he was able to almost destroy who *I* was, the deepest parts of me... Abuse is such a destructive destructive thing. Charis, and some others like her, were in their marriages MUCH longer. Every year in that kind of environment sucks away at your soul. Every year. It's not possible to convey the kind of deep damage that is done in that kind of framework. Which is not at all to say that Charis is damaged and her voice doesn't count. That's not what I'm saying.... It's more to say that the time it takes to RECOVER from that kind of environment.... It took years to destroy, and it takes years to clear up the rubble and rebuild, to figure out who *you* are, to figure out that you have a voice, to figure out what *you* think and why, to figure out what in the hell happened back there, to figure out all sorts of things.... It is a PROCESS. Personally, I'd like us to be a *safe* place for women who are processing through their "biblical patriarchy, QF family, etc." experience. This means that disagreements and open discussion are wonderful, but it also means we need to be really careful not to berate women-in-process for not agreeing with Our Thoughts----because that's what their husbands have done for YEARS. I just think there is a way to disagree strongly INSIDE of an atmosphere of gentleness and safety. Ideally, hopefully, many more coming-out-of-biblical-patriarchy women will be joining us here. Are they going to get read the riot act if they don't parrot "The Right Views?" If so, what makes this place any different from life with their husband? How can we contribute to their healing that way? Good quality conversation (which includes disagreement) is, to me, a beautiful thing---and the ability to HAVE good quality thoughtful conversation online certainly played a major role in helping me deconstruct from my former paradigm. Speaking of which, Charis, I think, in part represents the very kind of woman we at NLQ are trying to reach. So this is my plea: Let her (and all like her) be "in process." Let her not feel like she has to participate here with a shield on to gaurd her from the flying tomatoes and rocks. Disagree with her views in a way that respects her right to be a woman in process, a woman in recovery from a very destructive environment. If we can't be a safe place for women to deconstruct and find Thier Own Unique Voice, then we are only a few steps away from the husbands who demanded there be no voice but his. The unique opportunity NLQ has to help these kinds of women, like myself, like Charis, like Sierra, and all the other wives and daughters, is so powerful and exciting... The potential here is literally mind-blowing. So...please, listen to a fellow woman who spent years deconstructing (and has more to go) from what the patriarchal worldview did to my brain, and allow this to be a place that is SAFE to learn how to have a voice again.
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Feb 24, 2010 17:09:36 GMT -5
Whoa. I cross-posted with Sierra and Jemand. Somehow missed the bc comment and started babbling about hard hats. I'm in full agreement with Sierra and Jemand. @charis: "microabortions of my grandchildren" with a crying face? That does come across as accusatory and intrusive. Maybe that's why your medically educated children are "lecturing" you? Maybe they feel like you're crossing boundaries? Also, I'm not sure how your kids are supposed to manage careers in the medical field if they can't reliably prevent conception. How do you hold down any job if you're having kid after kid after kid? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I honestly don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Feb 24, 2010 17:16:32 GMT -5
Sierra's also been there done that...but not by choice at all. She was born into it. A lot of the conflict lately has been between kids of religious parents and moms who have been there. It's not just one side feeling attacked, judged, or pushed around. We're all evolving.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Feb 24, 2010 17:49:15 GMT -5
Good quality conversation (which includes disagreement) is, to me, a beautiful thing---and the ability to HAVE good quality thoughtful conversation online certainly played a major role in helping me deconstruct from my former paradigm. Speaking of which, Charis, I think, in part represents the very kind of woman we at NLQ are trying to reach.
So this is my plea: Let her (and all like her) be "in process."
Let her not feel like she has to participate here with a shield on to gaurd her from the flying tomatoes and rocks. Disagree with her views in a way that respects her right to be a woman in process, a woman in recovery from a very destructive environment.
If we can't be a safe place for women to deconstruct and find Thier Own Unique Voice, then we are only a few steps away from the husbands who demanded there be no voice but his. The unique opportunity NLQ has to help these kinds of women, like myself, like Charis, like Sierra, and all the other wives and daughters, is so powerful and exciting... The potential here is literally mind-blowing. So...please, listen to a fellow woman who spent years deconstructing (and has more to go) from what the patriarchal worldview did to my brain, and allow this to be a place that is SAFE to learn how to have a voice again. Thank you for this, Journey ~ I second everything you've said here. For many, many years, I defined myself as "radically pro-life" ~ and I think that ideal of esteeming children at every stage ~ beginning at conception ~ is a HUGE part of the Quiverfull mindset. It's not something that just instantly disappears. Even after my faith crumpled and the central figure of my life ~ Jesus Christ ~ came into question ~ my views on birth control, abortion, etc. did not really change ~ which is an indication of how deeply the pro-life committment goes for Quiverfull women. Our pro-life views are too tightly entangled with the reason we bore our quiver full of children in the first place. Perhaps understanding this about QFers and even former QFers will help those who have not experienced the mindset to have patience and recognize that NLQ is not the place to "enlighten" those who still hold firmly to an absolute pro-life paradigm. We've already devoted a couple heated threads to the topics of birth control, abortion, etc. ~ let's not get started again here. That said, I also agree with Rosa ~ we're all evolving here ~ moms and daughters actually listening to one another and learning new, healthy ways of relating. We are seeing clearly that best intentions do not prevent serious injury ~ I think that NLQ is all about owning up to that fact.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Feb 24, 2010 18:01:23 GMT -5
In response to Journey's post, I want to say that it can be hard to walk a moderate and understanding line (probably for both sides). Keeping in mind that we're here to support one another can be hard to do when someone says something that triggers us.
On one hand, it's not right for us to criticize each other or attack one another if it can be avoided.
But OTOH, it's also not right for people to feel like they can't disagree or speak out, especially when their disagreement stems from their own experiences.
Charis, I did not mean to attack you, and I am sorry if it came off like that. I just want you to know that the attitude that "traditional female fields are good for women because then they can spend more time mothering" is an attitude that hurt me when it was uniformly applied to ALL women without finding out what that individual's real life goals were. If a child's life goal is to be a mother, then going into a career that's flexible toward parenting is a good choice. But if her life goal is to have a different sort of career, she will have to learn to arrange her own priorities around her own goal, including having children.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Feb 24, 2010 18:18:07 GMT -5
Personally, I'd like us to be a *safe* place for women who are processing through their "biblical patriarchy, QF family, etc." experience. This means that disagreements and open discussion are wonderful, but it also means we need to be really careful not to berate women-in-process for not agreeing with Our Thoughts----because that's what their husbands have done for YEARS. I just think there is a way to disagree strongly INSIDE of an atmosphere of gentleness and safety. Ideally, hopefully, many more coming-out-of-biblical-patriarchy women will be joining us here. Are they going to get read the riot act if they don't parrot "The Right Views?" If so, what makes this place any different from life with their husband? How can we contribute to their healing that way? Good quality conversation (which includes disagreement) is, to me, a beautiful thing---and the ability to HAVE good quality thoughtful conversation online certainly played a major role in helping me deconstruct from my former paradigm. Speaking of which, Charis, I think, in part represents the very kind of woman we at NLQ are trying to reach. So this is my plea: Let her (and all like her) be "in process." Let her not feel like she has to participate here with a shield on to gaurd her from the flying tomatoes and rocks. Disagree with her views in a way that respects her right to be a woman in process, a woman in recovery from a very destructive environment. I COMPLETELY AGREE. Jemand this is not a character assassination of Charis. Why in the world did you go looking for something else you disagreed with her on in the past and post it? Sorry, but I fail to see how this is instructive. Yes I am upset. There WILL be many more women coming out of QF environments posting on this board. They will not have all reworked their thinking to suit the expectations of liberal, college educated, never-QF posters. They don't come here to be told that their views on abortion, evolution, virginity blah blah are wrong. They come here for support on rethinking the abusive system they got sucked or born into. They WILL leave (flee) if they end up corrected every time they say something that contradicts The Right Views. I am worried about this response. If I was posting here when I was just coming out of fundamentalism and someone jumped down my throat about a comment I made on abortion I would have found it very very hard to ever post again. When you are leaving fundamentalism and processing years of trauma you are in a very very fragile place. You have been killing yourself for years under fear of judgment, you don't need to come here and get judged some more by the very ideas that you have been taught to fear.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Feb 24, 2010 18:26:17 GMT -5
yeah, I was trying not so much to refight the pro-choice stance, as to point out that I see some serious boundary violations in Charis's descriptions of her relationship with her adult daughters. Her adult daughter's reproductive organs and what they choose to do with them are NON OF THE MOTHER'S BUSINESS.
One really should not be imposing and nosing into the sex lives of your adult children, you really don't need to know. Journey is right, living for decades in a situation where your boundaries are routinely violated changes you-- and one of those changes may be not to see your violations of the boundaries of people like your daughters.
I know that to the extent there was any vicarious living of the children's lives in my home, it was very hurtful. To the extent that my adult choices were met with guilt trips and morose overreacting that I could possibly think differently than they did, it was extremely harmful. I don't think my mother would ever acknowledge this, I don't even know if she would *listen* to me. But it's possible that to a stranger I can be more open about a dynamic that hurt me. And just *possibly* from a stranger, someone like my mom would listen more than from me. Saying that you've been "thoroughly lectured" from those same daughters, is a pretty clear indicator to me that they want you to back off of their adult sex life. They probably don't want you trumpeting their sex histories to strangers on the internet. They probably don't want you carrying on about hypothetical two celled grandbaby zygotes that you're killing while drinking coffee or going out running. Both things that occasionally can result in losing a blastocyst, probably more often than the evil bc pills, but both things that are quite important to the well being of thousands of women who are trying to live their lives on their own terms, and hormonal birth control is the same thing. And women who are less stressed, who get sufficient excercise, who feel respected and valued even if you disagree with them, while they may lose an extra zygote here and there, are far more prepared to competantly care for your REAL grandchildren when they arrive.
And? While I do recognize that the pressures of a woman abused in a quiverful setting are extreme... in many ways, these women enter as adults. They have a level of choice that is COMPLETELY out of reach of their daughters. I'm not talking about the pro-life debate, I'm talking about the need to recognize and reinstate ALL healthy boundaries in a family, not just the one between husband and wife.
Edited to add, I find it very interesting how this discussion and opinions break down across who was mother, and who was daughter, lines. I feel disrespected as a daughter here, and I think it's hurtful if we decide this forum is ONLY to fix relationships that directly imprison mothers by their husbands. We must ALSO free the daughters. Part of that, is to point out how not to try to live their lives for them.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Feb 24, 2010 18:31:06 GMT -5
For many, many years, I defined myself as "radically pro-life" ~ and I think that ideal of esteeming children at every stage ~ beginning at conception ~ is a HUGE part of the Quiverfull mindset. It's not something that just instantly disappears. Even after my faith crumpled and the central figure of my life ~ Jesus Christ ~ came into question ~ my views on birth control, abortion, etc. did not really change ~ which is an indication of how deeply the pro-life committment goes for Quiverfull women. Our pro-life views are too tightly entangled with the reason we bore our quiver full of children in the first place. Perhaps understanding this about QFers and even former QFers will help those who have not experienced the mindset to have patience and recognize that NLQ is not the place to "enlighten" those who still hold firmly to an absolute pro-life paradigm. I think Rosa has hit upon something - that the quiverfull mindset literally pits daughters against their mothers, including in the recovery process. I don't know how much headway I (or any other daughter) can make getting mothers to see what happened to us and why we tend to turn with such vitriol against what our mothers chose freely. Having it imposed upon us in childhood is so indescribably different from buying into it as an adult that it's as if we're recovering from totally different situations. I can't understand why my mother doesn't care about herself, or why she can't see that not caring about herself hurts me. She doesn't understand that I still identify with her and did for all my life - that she was my blueprint and it seemed to lead to a crucifixion worse than what Christ endured. I often thought I'd rather suffer for six hours, die and get it over with than live the life laid out before me. I grew up watching my mother being systematically devalued, torturing herself over her inability to produce a son and thus "barrenness" (despite my existence). I learned that all I was worth was the sum of my uterus, and that too was easily replaceable. I was a dangerous nuisance to be tolerated for the sake of producing male children. I learned that women must give up literally everything for their children - if they had any activities, interests or work that took time away from their children, they were in rebellion against God and repudiating their highest calling. My mother told me that raising me was her reason for living after the near-death experience of her miscarriage - so I feared that when I finished school at 17, she would die. Motherhood looked like living death. Growing up with this picture of motherhood as self-martyrdom taught me to despise everything associated with maternity: marriage, sex, children themselves, and especially pregnancy. I felt sick looking at pregnant bellies as they represented a hostile takeover of the woman's body. I thought they looked like bee stings - angry, violent swelling. I developed an eating disorder and was overjoyed when my period stopped because for that year, I didn't have to be a woman. All the fearmongering surrounding sex left me with a sense of paranoia that I could spontaneously get pregnant somehow and there was nothing I could do about it. My fate was sealed. I don't know how to stress enough that I grew up without options. Motherhood was not an option. I pictured myself dying before the age of 20 (if the Rapture held off that long) because I would have killed myself rather than give birth. I was raised anti-abortion, of course, but I knew that pregnancy would be the final blow that killed my soul and I was prepared to do anything, including starving myself to death, to avoid it. With those choices laying before me, anti-abortion rhetoric really lost its grip. All of this was the flailing of my desperate mind to find some scrap of human dignity to hold onto, when my church was telling me I was a 'human trash can' that could only redeem itself by everlasting, slavish subjection to husband and sons. So when I hear that possessive anti-abortion language ("microabortions of my grandchildren"), I hear all of those voices all over again howling at me that everyone owns my body and my life except for me. Please tell me somebody understands this.
|
|
|
Post by charis on Feb 24, 2010 19:15:33 GMT -5
Persoinally I find ironic that there is (RIGHTLY!) so much rage about a born child's death ( Lydia's smile could have lit a room), while I am concurrently chastised for caring about the death of my preborn grandchildren. While I appreciate the supportive words from Vyckie and Journey about being "in process", I will NEVER "process" to the point where I can reject the unborn and condone the violation of their boundaries to death. My blogs are not a safe place for processing anymore because my husband told my father who broadcast the addresses to my entire family. Hence I stuck my toe in here again.
|
|