45 comments:
Anonymous said...
Vyckie: "Vyckie's response: I really appreciate all those who are posting comments about the Christian egalitarian movement. About once a week, I have coffee with Heather, the co-pastor of the Salvation Army church I attend. (The other co-pastor is Heather's husband, Xavier ~ whom we've decided to start referring to as "the pastor's husband" ~ LOL)"
Vyckie, I needed to see this from you pretty much more than anything.
I only needed to know that, as you search for what you really want to believe, that you keep a part of your mind open to egalism.
1000s of years of only men being able to interpret and translate the Bible for themselves and their women and children has slanted common understanding of the Bible into an overwhelmingly male-favoring bias.
From what you say about Heather, she sounds like a functioning egal without a lot understanding of the scholarship that goes behind it. I don't say that as any sort of insult. She's living a good life and being your friend. I'm glad for both of those things and admire her for them.
I just want you to be aware that there is good, sound scholarship to back up egal.
I could start into some of it right now, even taking apart the comment made about a man being head of his "home". But I will decline at this momment and just appreciate your open-mindedness, your Pastor Heather, and your pastor's husband Xavier.
My best,
Mara R.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
lansome68 said...
I think we have to go back more than a 1,000 years, here. Why is the God of the Bible a He to begin with? Why did the Messiah have to be a man? Because the culture in which these stories were conceived was ALREADY patriarchal.
By the way, Vyckie, I attended the U of I and took that wonderful Judeo-Christian Traditions course that shook my faith as well. :-)
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
adventuresinmercy said...
Molly ~ I'm just curious if you (or other readers here) have ever personally known a QF/P family which had a "fully functioning husband." The reason I say this is that when I look back now at the families I knew who were living this lifestyle, even those families where it seemed to be working for them ~ there were some really seriously twisted head-trips going on. I'm going to write more about these (mythical, IMO) families where everyone is a happy camper. My first thought for a title to that post is, "Not all QF/P husbands are abusive ... Yeah right."--Vyckie
Agreed.
Let me clarify.
By a "fully functioning husband," what I should have said was a husband who did not need to dominate or have control over a wife in order to feel like a real man/person. The happy families I have seen have a married couple that, while claiming to agree with the Vision Forum (or whatever group it is they like) ideal, they actually FUNCTION as Christian egalitarians for all practical purposes. The husband has NEVER once ever used the male-leader trump card. He values and respects his wife as his full equal. So while they subscribe to the language of patrairchy and call him the "head of the house," they are in actuality a team of equals.
To me, that indicates that they are both healthy people, which is what I meant by "fully functioning." Heh. I just meant a psychologically and spiritually healthy adult male and female, married and operating as a team of equals.
Love,
Molly
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Edwinda said...
Vyckie, have you ever heard of men leaving the Quiverfull movement? I am just curious.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Coleslaw said...
This topic reminds me of this picture:
icanhascheezburger.com/2009/04/07/funny-pictures-waiting-to-get-out/Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Anonymous said...
Vykie
I see that there is a "Donate" button at the bottom. If I was to donate, what is the money to be used for?
Curious
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
mhlia said...
Okay, let me restart my post.
I was about to go off on the people who insist that you Vyckie, with all that you have experienced, are required to still believe in God/Jesus.
But, instead, I'll just say this. I'm with you on the "if not God, then what?" thing. I have issues of faith and with the leadership of most world religions. And yet, I cannot define myself as an athiest, because I can't fathom that either. So, I guess I'm left as an agnostic?... most of the time, I just try to be the best person that I can be - following the Golden Rule (why does no one mention the Golden Rule any more?) and living the most authentic life I know how. And somehow, I don't think that is a bad thing.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
aimai said...
What's wrong with everybody? I'll bite even though its not my religion. I am very attracted to some forms of Christianity and the Christian egalitarian movement, such as it is, appeals to me as at least trending in the right direction. Its impossible for me to believe in a god of gender or a god who prefers blank authority over the unique moral courage inside each person. However, that being said, this is a struggle within the Christian community over its own readings of scripture and the idea of law and spirit and even what life is for. To that extent when I read long disputatious threads between the "comps" and the "egals" I feel repulsed. Is this what it boils down to? The love of god and of one's fellow man? to an endless stream of judgemental cries of "unbeliever" and "demon spawn" from the comps trying to protect their master/slave relationship and, similarly, cries of "but you don't understand! I'm as good a Christian as you! Why won't you respect me and my egalitarian marriage?"
I guess the reason I get so fed up with it is that as a woman, and as a non Christian, and as a feminist and a liberal and all that I've ceased to want the approval or the recognition of Christians with a Capital "C". I don't mind arguing with people and making fun of them, because I'm kind of mean that way, but I have despaired of getting my essentially humanity recognized by the comps/quiverfuls and most of the far right Christianist sects in this country. The Dominionists, for example, are pretty sure I shouldn't even be considered a citizen. The Southern BAptists as they are today would love to convert me and tell me to sit down and shut up. And so it goes.
I love liberation theology and the works and deeds of many great Christian philosophers and political actors, but the overall argument that either "comps" or "egals" have a lock on what god wants in re marriage strikes me as besides the point. There are conservative and liberal wings of Christianity and they ought to be fighting about a lot more important stuff than marital relations between consenting adults. Its just one of the gazillion things that Comps are extremely bigoted about and wedded to. But its just symptomatic of an entire mindset that rejects other ways of being in the world.
hmmm?
aimai
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Kaderin said...
Ah, the angry feminists bitch comment makes so much more sense now - but it does make me wonder, vicky, what are your views on feminism nowadays?
As for your last comment to anon about this false sense of hearing both sides out - I totally get that! Not because I've indulged in it myself (at least I hope not), but because I see it so often in debates with creationists.
Most have absolutely no idea whatsoever what evolution actually is. It makes me so angry at people like Kent Hovind who go around teaching this "6 kinds of evolution"-crap. They're simply lying about it, setting up strawmen and the poor people who listen to them buy into it... And once they're convinced of their own understanding of the theory they often won't even listen when I try to explain it *sigh*
Which reminds me - you were a biblical literarist, yes? So I guess you were a creationist as well - do you belief evolution is true now or haven't you familiarized yourself with the topic yet?
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Arietty said...
The Comp/Egal stuff just exhausts me. I read all this exegesis trying to prove that the bible really IS both literal and egalitarian and I really feel people are trying to have their cake and eat it too. It was written by patriarchal men to a patriarchal culture. Why try and make it something it isn't? Sure there are some nice egal bits here and there "neither jew nor greek.." but sheer weight of it is patriarchy.
Why such resistance to just throwing out the bad bits? Paul has some interesting things to say and other times he is all about reinforcing the system and that included keeping women in their place. Why do the egals seemingly resist accepting this?
Molly as far as the QF marriages go I agree that it is all about the health of the two people. I have seen one or two nice egal marriages, seemingly, in this camp but I have seen far more marriages where things are seriously unhealthy. Certainly in the US grinding poverty often accompanies being a one income multiple children family and really most any marriage is going to crack under that stress. (Here in Australia the government pretty much pays you to have kids. The poorer you are the more they pay you. In addition to fortnightly payments PER KID you also get 5000.00 as a one off payment each time you have a kid!) I can imagine the spiritual stress is there too, why isn't God blessing the family renting a tiny house with their 10 kids and on WIC, where is their testimony of how God gave the husband the super-job?! As Cheryl Seelhoff pointed out in the Quiverfull book the leaders of the movement all live in big, nice houses but meanwhile there are hundreds living in grinding poverty in substandard conditions. My point (from which I have meandered) is that it is HARD to be happy and healthy and "blessed" when you are under terrific financial stress and just plain poor. So a family that might have been okay and muddled along with just a couple kids can seriously spiral down with these pressures. But *this is never talked about*. Never. Oh you can read between the lines on the Above Rubies and other lists, prayer requests for stressed husbands, recipes to make one pound of hamburger feed 12 people.. but the ones who write these QF books never say to their readers, listen this life is hard. Take your current resources that you are just managing to get by on with your 2 kids and stretch it out to 10 kids. Prepare to live at a subsistence level. Count the cost. This is never said because the picture has to be one of blessing.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
aimai said...
Kaderin and Vyckie,
I also found your explanation of how the phrase "angry feminist bitch" to be very illuminating. I guess what it makes me think is that once you voice your anger--you almost have to ally yourself with the other bitchez and feminists, don't you? Its as though the scariest thing the women in church and the men were saying "whatever you do, don't become an angry feminist bitch!" suddenly becomes the most important thing to be when you realize there is no way to be a righteously angry christian woman. If they'd let you be you, you wouldn't have needed to find a new way to be.
aimai
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Vyckie said...
Kaderin ~ I'm sorry (not really ~ LOL) to say you'll have to keep reading my story to find the answers to your questions here re: my views on feminism and creationism because these are two topics that are pretty integral to my NLQ story.
Patience please ~ I'm writin' as fast I can here ;-)
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
aimai said...
Arietty,
Your post reminds me that when you strip away the vast amount of work and make work associated with large families and poverty you are going to have a situation in which each adult member would really have to examine his or her own life to determine whether they were actually happy. What I mean by that is that homemaking is an art, and many quiverful women see parenting and homemaking as an inherently beautiful (if demanding) thing to be doing. But if you didn't have ten kids, or weren't constantly pregnant, you'd actually have to face the fact that the modern world offered you lots more challenges and chances to make art out of your life and you weren't up to that challenge. Or, conversely, it enables you to make light of the fact that you *aren't* making it in a conventional sense. Because you are just so darned busy with the all important work of raising those kids.
Motherhood, and fatherhood, is one of the great distractors from the modern rat race and the push to succeed.
But I really liked your point that there are "show families" and "real families" and that the cream of the show families lead lives very different from those seeking to emulate them. That is also true of scientology (and I hope writing that word doesn't bring the s's out to get us). Its pretty clear that the top level, "show" scient's like Travolta and the other actors and politicians in the movement don't actually get treated as harshly or as weirdly as regular people in the movement. But their successes and lives are held up as examples of what the religion can do for you. I'm sure that the top level show scients sincerely think they've been put through the same program as some lowly grunt. But I don't think they have. So they can go and testify to how wonderful it all is with a clear conscience. And the same is true for the sucessful stories in the QF movement, I'm sure. We know from reading Vyckie's then voice and her now voice that the pressure was very high for her to publish confirmatory statements only. How would new brides and mothers ever get a real sense of the struggles of real women when their closest confidantes and their mentors and leaders are lying to them about their own lives?
aimai
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Coleslaw said...
Anonymous (first comment) said Vyckie, I needed to see this from you pretty much more than anything.
I only needed to know that, as you search for what you really want to believe, that you keep a part of your mind open to egalism.
I don't mean this as a rhetorical question: why do need this from Vyckie?
What would change for you if she did not keep a part of her mind open to egalism?
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
an atheist in the bible belt said...
Vyckie, I needed to see this from you pretty much more than anything. I only needed to know that, as you search for what you really want to believe, that you keep a part of your mind open to egalism.
I have to say that I find this pretty presumptuous. You NEEDED to see this? You NEEDED to know? It seems like you're only interested in being supportive as long as there's still a chance that Vyckie will come around to your way of thinking. If she decided that she wasn't open to egalism, would you no longer be accepting of her and her story?
If not God, then what?
It's a hard question for those who have recently left religion, especially if your life has been hard and you've felt that the only thing you have to look forward to is heaven or an eternal reward. Look at your own life and think about the things that have made you happy. Maybe you're happy when you have a quiet moment to yourself, and you're happy when you see your children learning, and when you read a book or take a walk in the woods. Can you find that happiness without belief in god? There's no reason why not.
What about the purpose of life? Your old purpose was to raise your children and obey god. If you continued to raise your children as an unbeliever, would that not still be a purpose? An important purpose, one that would ultimately make the world a better place? There are so many ways that you can add value to life. When you help another person, is it not rewarding? Why do you need a god to approve of that?
It may seem that if this is all there is, it's not enough. What if you die tomorrow? What did you accomplish? What are you leaving behind? Some say that the non-Christian has no hope. But look at all the people who have terribly hard lives and then die in their teens or twenties, and if Christianity were true, would then go to hell. Is that a more hopeful situation? The world is full of the purpose that you can find for yourself.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Grimalkin said...
I just want to throw my two cents into the idea that one can be happy in the patriarchy/QF ideology if one has a "fully functioning husband."
I think that, by definition, a "fully functioning husband" would never EVER want to have anything to do with patriarchy. A good man will not want power all to himself. A good man will value his wife, her opinions, her skills, her needs, her desires. The only men who would be attracted to the patriarchy family structure are men with "kick the dog" mentalities - men who want power over another human being.
So I do think that the patriarchy ideology and the well-balanced, "fully functioning" man are mutually exclusive phenomena.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
aimai said...
I have to also take issue with Mara's post. There is something odd, to me, about the insistence that there is some problem with Vyckie looking at the smorgasbord of theories surrounding christian marriage and saying "wow, *none* of these work for me" absent a conviction that its god's will. And it clearly can't be god's will that its both simultaneously. And instead of choosing one as the "winner of vyckie" and the other as the "loser" on the basis of highly tendentious scripture readings I just choose not to choose.
As for being or becoming an atheist and then wondering "then what?" that is a question that only arises, as others have pointed out, when the notion of a spiritual father who watches, guides, curses, blesses, etc... drops out. For those of us raised in atheism, or agnosticism, its just not a problem. I don't get up every day and say "my moral system is up for grabs--today I think I'll be a serial killer!" I have a perfectly good working system of morality and ethics, that I have chosen for myself, and I get up and live my life accordingly. Not being used to communing with god, or with any intercessors, when I come to a "fork in the road" and have to choose between various paths, I submit the question to myself. And, say I to myself say I, I'm extraordinarily well equipped to think through most of my dilemmas. I tend to look at a problem from a utilitarian and moral perspective--what solution works best for all the people concerned? what solution is legal and moral? and then I do as my conscience directs me. If my plan doesn't work out I might revise it next time.
God really doesn't enter into my life, except as a thought experiment when I'm planning a seder or discussing jewish history. And I don't miss him.
aimai
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
a.b.e. said...
Vyckie,
I don't know if you have time to check this blog out but if you do take a look at the following:
blog.cbeinternational.org/2009/04/what-is-the-significance-of-%e2%80%9cyet%e2%80%9d-in-1st-timothy-212/#commentsIt's an example of how the Bible has been mistranslated to support patriarchy. I could show you many other such examples.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Linnea said...
a.b.e, with all due respect, you've linked to that cbe site about half a dozen times so far. Enough is enough.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Anonymous said...
Coleslaw, an athiest in the Bible Belt, and aimai.
Wow.
I feel that you have read way more into my word choice than what I ever intended.
I admit "Need" may not have been the best word choice. Sorry, I was a work and in a hurry. So since it has brought up so much concern among you let me assure you.
I don't really NEED this from Vyckie.
I am just keenly aware of her and Laura's woundedness. It is also my personal conviction that Christianity has within it, the ability to heal souls so it grieves me deeply that others take Christianity and stir in their pet doctines to hurt people, like the patriarchy movement.
It was my desire to add no more hurt to Vyckie than what she already has experienced so I made my comment more personal using "I" statements rather than "you" statements. And with the desire to not come across as preachy and yet to let her know that I appreciate her openness to egal even after all the bad that has happened to her in the name of Christianity, I must have phrased it all wrong to get such a backlash from you.
It was such a small and casual comment from my perspective. Guess I'm still surpised that it raised such an issue.
I'll work on my phrasing. Probably won't post from work in a hurry anymore.
But I'd like to ask that you, in return, please give me the benefit of the doubt. If I'm not clear, ask me what I mean instead of jumping to conclusions among yourselves.
Mara
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Anonymous said...
Mara
Amen to that!!! What a lot of kneejerkedness that goes on here.
Heidi
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
aimai said...
Mara,
I apologize, to you and Heidi, if you took my post as criticism of you. But if you want to be given "the benefit of the doubt" how about giving the same to me (can't speak for the Us of us, we don't know each other and we didn't jump to conclusions among ourselves but rather separtly as a result of a similar interpretation of what you were saying.)
But look, the position of a convinced Christian, of whatever variety (comp/egal/indifferent to this debate) and atheists, agnostics, or people from other religious traditions are going to be different on the topic of whether one really "needs" an accurate translation of various scriptures, or whether one will be helped with one's woundedness by coming to the writer's particular appreciation of a particular god or gods.
I agree that Laura and Vyckie are in a difficult place, and wrestling with some huge issues. I don't have a dog in this hunt as to whether they will be helped or hurt by continuing to look for transcendent meaning within Christianity, or turning to Paganism, or as Vyckie said in her earlier post "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." But I'm pretty sure, though I don't take it as a hard and fast statement for all time, that they have more or less asked not to be witnessed to, or instructed in the "real" and "true" texts that have moved the reader, or lectured to about how if they'd only done the right thing, or listened to the right authorities, they wouldn't have had the problems that they had.
Feel free to skip this comment if you think it doesn't reflect the kind of experience you want to have on the board or with the other commenters. Some of us like to mix it up intellectually and we don't give a priviliged place to Christianity, Christian experience, Salvation, or God in general as a place of authentic knowing for people. So what's a casual comment from the perspective of a deeply religious person seems like a pretty pushy statement from the position of people who aren't religious at all, or who consider themselves past needing to validate Christianity.
I hasten to add that if Vyckie and Laura were both still determined to "be" Christian, or even to be spiritual and non denominational, or were actively soliciting advice on whether to join any particular other religion, I would not post my own comments the way I do. Because I certainly respect christianity (little c) and other religions as ways of approaching moral dilemmas and personal problems and its not my place to tell V and L that they are doing or thinking about things the wrong way.
aimai
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Coleslaw said...
Mara, I did ask you what you meant.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
madame said...
The Comp/Egal stuff just exhausts me. I read all this exegesis trying to prove that the bible really IS both literal and egalitarian and I really feel people are trying to have their cake and eat it too. It was written by patriarchal men to a patriarchal culture. Why try and make it something it isn't? Sure there are some nice egal bits here and there "neither jew nor greek.." but sheer weight of it is patriarchy.
Arietti,
I see what you mean, but I think the meaning of much of it changes once you realize God never gave a direct command to men to be "leaders", to "rule over their wives", and there are enough passages in the Bible that very clearly go against selfishness and using certain passages for one's own advantage.
God allowed polygamy. How many Christians out there would say God's will for marriage was that men marry more than one wife? There are no passages forbidding polygamy, there are enough that encourage and support it!
I think we would do well in concentrating more on the Golden Rule, 1 Corinthians 13 (the better way), Philippians 2 (Christlikeness) and the commandment which sums the law and the prophets. Finally, Jesus said, people will know we are his disciples by the way we love one another.
No, I don't think Egals want to have their cake an eat it too, at least when the talk is about marriage.
I have seen far more marriages where things are seriously unhealthy. Certainly in the US grinding poverty often accompanies being a one income multiple children family and really most any marriage is going to crack under that stress. (Here in Australia the government pretty much pays you to have kids. The poorer you are the more they pay you. In addition to fortnightly payments PER KID you also get 5000.00 as a one off payment each time you have a kid!) I can imagine the spiritual stress is there too, why isn't God blessing the family renting a tiny house with their 10 kids and on WIC, where is their testimony of how God gave the husband the super-job?! As Cheryl Seelhoff pointed out in the Quiverfull book the leaders of the movement all live in big, nice houses but meanwhile there are hundreds living in grinding poverty in substandard conditions. My point (from which I have meandered) is that it is HARD to be happy and healthy and "blessed" when you are under terrific financial stress and just plain poor. So a family that might have been okay and muddled along with just a couple kids can seriously spiral down with these pressures. But *this is never talked about*. Never.
I'm totally with you there! Oh yes...
I was raised in such a family. 10 kids, one income, 4 bedroom flat (less than 100 sq.m, officially cramped)
The most common answer was "we can't afford..." (toys, new shoes,new clothes,trips,after school activities,outings, goint to the dentist, new glasses, meat,etc...) but we weren't allowed to say we were poor. We were rich! We had all that we NEEDED. So, it was freezing cold in winter, well, heating is "unhealthy and a luxury". We couldn't afford to renovate, "renovating is what rich people do".
Now, I think some of this was due to my father's mentality, not just the fact that we just couldn't afford it. Being poor was something to be proud of, just don't call it poverty!
But having little places a lot of strain on the whole family, especially if you have to be joyful.
I remember reading Mary Pride, how they only got pregnant when they prayed and asked God for a child, or her theories on how a woman won't get pregnant if she's undernourished. My mom told me that was all hogwash. She got pregnant while subsisting on a diet of chard, potatoes and the occasional egg. Her teeth (that went untreated for decades for lack of money) tell the story.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Barbara W. said...
Motherhood, and fatherhood, is one of the great distractors from the modern rat race and the push to succeed.
Gee, aimai, you say that like parenting is a bad thing.
Let me tell you why I became a SAHM*. Because I've never heard of anyone saying on hir deathbed, "I wish I hadn't spent so much time with the people I love."
*FTR, I'm nothing like QF. I wanted a maximum of two, but it looks like, barring a miracle, I'm only ever going to have one.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
aimai said...
Actually, BArbara W.
I'm a "SAHM"--I'm an at home mother of two. I stopped working outside the home when I was pregnant with my first daughter. I love being a mother and have greatly enjoyed all the value added parts of being at home--its clearly the case that in the modern world it takes two to earn a good income, but equally it takes at least one adult full time to manage creating a home.
But that being said I think its basically impossible, within the US system, for even middle class people to achieve a good work/life balance. I mean, I love being a mother but realistically, with my two, that phase is coming to a distinct end. I also loved being as scholar and a teacher. And I'd love to feel more financially secure. But getting back to that world, which also has its beauties and rewards, is quite difficult.
There's a class issue here as well--the jobs (some) women are turning their back on are pretty low status and grindingly awful. Who *wouldn't* prefer raising children with dignity and respect to a minimum wage factory job? I know I would have.
aimai
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
eriktrips said...
I've been following your blog for a few days from the RSS feed some kind soul set up on LiveJournal, and I wanted to comment on this:
But to go further, once a person has committed their life to God and the Christian religion ~ it's fairly rare to start asking questions, listen to other points of view, recognize that what you've believed and devoted your life to is not healthy, is not "The Truth" ~ and walk away. What makes our "apostasy" all the more remarkable is that the particular form of Christianity which we were so steeped in is a very narrow and exclusivistic fundamentalism which dehumanizes a person to the point of self-abnegation-as-godliness.
I walked away from fundamentalism at the age of 16, while still living with my fundamentalist family. It is quite a story, and I am still writing it and hope to publish it someday--walking away is not the only surprising thing I've done!
But I just wanted to thank you for starting this blog specifically to talk about your experiences. I try in my own extremely introverted way to spread the word about walkaways and the sorts of abuse that goes on in the name of something called "love," but it seems such slow going in a culture that generally believes that Christianity is largely benign--which maybe it is, but the way we experienced it, and the way many more are still trapped in its extreme versions (whether or not they realize they are in a trap), rarely sees the light of print, and even more rarely is taken seriously.
I'm a freak. You can find that out about me very easily. Only other freaks listen to me--and only some of them! You have the potential to reach a much wider audience, which is one thing I am really excited about. The other is just seeing this sort of discourse go on in the mainstream. It deals another blow to the church ladies in my head who still threaten me with being Left Behind. I am sure I am not the only one who feels an enormous sense of relief when reading your entries, but I wanted to let you know that I do, every day.
Thanks.
Erik
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Coleslaw said...
Let me tell you why I became a SAHM*. Because I've never heard of anyone saying on hir deathbed, "I wish I hadn't spent so much time with the people I love."I've never heard of anyone saying on her deathbed, "I wish I'd spent less time trying to come up with a cure for cancer" or "I wish I'd taught one fewer children to read" or "I wish I hadn't nursed so many post-surgical patients who were in pain" or "I wish I had painted fewer paintings", either, but for all I know, dying people could be saying those things twenty times a day. If there's some blog that reports on the deathbed statements of ordinary people, I haven't found it yet.
And I don't think Aimai meant it as a bad thing, but I could be wrong.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Anonymous said...
KR Wordgazer says:
Quoting Aimai:
But I'm pretty sure, though I don't take it as a hard and fast statement for all time, that they have more or less asked not to be witnessed to, or instructed in the "real" and "true" texts that have moved the reader, or lectured to about how if they'd only done the right thing, or listened to the right authorities, they wouldn't have had the problems that they had.
You make a very valid point, Aimai, but I can also see where people like Mara and Madame are coming from.
For myself, it's not that I want Vyckie and/or Laura to embrace my version of Christianity as if it were the only correct one-- and I'm certain that's not what Mara or Madame meant either. But one thing I can say about the version of Christianity (including egalitarian marriage) that I practice is that it actually works for me (does what it's supposed to do, as in making me happy, giving my live meaning and joy and peace), whereas the version Vyckie and Laura were practicing clearly did not. Based on that criteria, then, I think I can say that my version is more likely to be "real" than QF's or other fundamentalist versions.
And the concern is actually not about wanting Vyckie and/or Laura to reconvert-- it's something similar to what Kaderin was saying when she expressed frustration at people who reject evolution based on a version of it that she thinks is incorrect and a misunderstanding of the nature of the science. I realize that making an analogy between something subjective like faith and something more objective like evolutionary science, is probably not the most apt comparison-- but I really do feel that (based on my version of Christianity actually helping me) that it would be a shame to reject Christianity without full disclosure and information as to what does work.
It's a matter of wanting them to make a fully informed decision, that's all-- and if they have made one (which it is my understanding they'll be telling us more about later), then I for one have no objection.
KR Wordgazer
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Anonymous said...
Wordgazer your logic makes no sense.
To follow your line of thinking you really have to say that EVERY religion is true because there are people who are happy with their marriages in every belief system.
Of course there are also unhappy marriages in every belief system too so that means that they're all false at the same time.
Belief systems don't determine happiness in marriage. My own parents were on the fundie borderline when I was a child and their marriage was never what I would call good. A few years after I moved out they rejected Christianity and their marriage still sucks because my father is verbally and emotionally abusive.
My husband and I don't believe in any gods and we have a wonderful marriage.
Did you examine all the aspects/sects of Islam or Hinduism before you decided that you don't believe in them? I'm sure there are happy marriages in both religions so why would you reject them?
Mary
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Anonymous said...
KR Wordgazer says,
I'm confused. Where did I say happy marriage equals truth in religion?
All I said was that something that works (not just in marriage, but in all of life) -- in terms of doing what it's supposed to do-- is more likely to be real than something that doesn't work, doesn't do what it's supposed to do.
Like a toaster, maybe. If I buy a toaster, and it's a crummy toaster and always burns my bread, and so I toss it out and decide to never buy another toaster because toasters don't work-- and then my friend says, "But I bought this other brand, and it works fine. Maybe the problem is just that particular toaster."
I wasn't saying anything whatsoever about other religions. I don't recall mentioning that I "reject" them. If Islam is working for someone, making them happy and fulfilled and giving their life meaning and purpose, am I going to tell them to switch to my religion? Not likely.
And the only reference I made to marriage in my post was that my egalitarian marriage was part of my version of Christianity. My post wasn't about marriage.
With all respect, Mary-- you're taking my words much further than they were ever meant to go.
KR Wordgazer
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Anonymous said...
" But one thing I can say about the version of Christianity (including egalitarian marriage) that I practice is that it actually works for me (does what it's supposed to do, as in making me happy, giving my live meaning and joy and peace), whereas the version Vyckie and Laura were practicing clearly did not. Based on that criteria, then, I think I can say that my version is more likely to be "real" than QF's or other fundamentalist versions."
Sorry but that quote above certainly sounds like you are using how happy you are in your marriage to gete at least part of your validation of your religion.
You HAVE rejected any religion that you don't believe in by default.
Your toaster analogy fails too.
What you are saying in the post I was responding to would be akin to you buying a specific brand of toaster and it breaking. WHen you tell your friend you'll never buy that brand again she tells you that you need to test every toaster that company has ever made before you decide to not buy from that company again.
Mary
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Anonymous said...
Jeez.
For the past few days I have spent a lot of time talking to atheists here who have tried very hard to explain to me and everyone, why there is no God and why Christianity is false. I really don't see where anything I have said about maybe thinking twice, is so offensive. But apparently it is.
So I'm shutting up now. I want to still stick around and be supportive to Vyckie and Laura in their journey, but I'm done talking about religion.
KR Wordgazer
Friday, April 10, 2009
aimai said...
KR,
Can you please stop complaining that other people find your logic illogical? And confusing that with some grand conclusion about your Christianity? And also that there are "atheists" arguing with you to convince you that your christianity isn't meaningful to you? As I've pointed out before the words atheist, deist, theist, agnostic and even Christian etc... just aren't hard and fast lines really. People move in and out of religions, divisions in religions, belief in a singular supreme being *all the time.* All of Christianity is founded on the notion that people can convert into and out of Christianity more than once in their lifetimes. And there are lots of other religions out there to be explored.
Vyckie and Laura are on one such journey and its nice that you want to "support them" but how about showing the same respect for the other posters--by, for example, not writing another passive aggressive "goodbye cruel world diary" every time one of your pseudo logical arguments gets taken apart.
Your basic arguement-the one that never fails--is the argument ad KR. That is, that what works for KR should work for anyone and, furthermore,that what works for KR is objectively better than what works for (atheists/jews/buddhists/agnostics/pagans/muslims/comps/ etc...) We get that you are a nice happy modern christian woman in a nice marriage. Lots of us are nice women in nice (other) religion marriages, or no religion, or we are on hiatus or thinking about it. The only thing people here have tried to point out to you is that "this works for KR" doesn't mean its going to work for everyone else, or anyone else, and it doesn't even mean its going to work for Vyckie and Laura.
You are like a person who really likes chocolate icecream and has built a large part of their life around chocolate ice cream. You know other people like vanilla, and sometimes vanilla makes them sick, and so you keep saying "you will really like chocolate if you try it!" That's nice. But you keep saying it over and over and over even after the person has said
"you know, I have tried chocolate and I think I'm just allergic to dairy at this point."
I'm a jewish, atheist, agnostic with leanings towards buddhism in a happy marriage with two kids. Deal with the fact that people can be happy with lots of other solutions than the watered down Christianity you are advocating.
aimai
Friday, April 10, 2009
Kaderin said...
KR
Personally, I think you're taking this too personal - we are not arguing against you but against certain opinions you hold. I know it may seem like you're under attack, what with the atheist viewpoints currently outnumbering you, but you're not.
The thing is - we're not even trying to convince you that you're wrong. It's not about you. We, or at least I, am under no delusion that some ingenious argument will make you go "Huh. Never thought about it, I guess you're right, gotta go change my life." That's not what we debate for - we're debating for the sake of the audience.
When I see you put up a comment arguing something, I get the urge to offer an alternate viewpoint to the reader. Not to convince you, but them. Those who are yet undecided will benefit from hearing every side. It goes both ways, which is why your "opponents" begged you to stay in the historical Jesus thread and keep representing a Christian viewpoint that was otherwise lacking.
So I concur with aimai - please stop taking people arguing the point as an insult.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Anonymous said...
KR Wordgazer says,
OK, it was late last night and I was tired, and I shouldn't have posted that-- I need to take a page from Vyckie's book and go away and cool down when someone says something that pushes my buttons.
That said, the only thing I ever said elsewhere was that I really didn't want to debate theism vs. atheism. I said that several times. It was not a "passive-agressive goodbye-cruel-world strategy" -- it was a statement of my preferences. I enjoy discussing ideas, but I don't like debate.
I have not been being a prima donna-- until, I grant, last night. I apologize for that. But please don't read stuff into my words.
Here are my real questions-- the ones I should have just been bold and asked from the beginning, rather than pussy-footing around and getting accused of passive agression:
Vyckie, I am concerned that just as you were convinced by Quiverful fundamentalism, you were convinced by the arguments of your atheist uncle. My question is, did you read any rebuttals or other perspectives on either position before deciding to embrace them? Did you inquire as to any views by more mainstream Christians as to patriarchy and fundamentalism before deciding you agreed with Quiverful? Did you inquire as to any views on atheist arguments other than the ones supplied by fundamentalists, before deciding you agreed with atheism?
If the answer is yes, then terrific. If the answer is no, then it is my opinion that further study might be warranted before deciding for certain.
I do agree with Aimai in this: There is always more to learn, and a thinking person might change her/his beliefs on all sorts of things many times. I certainly have. But I don't think it's unreasonable for me, based on what you have and haven't said so far on this blog, to ask, "are you sure?"
KR Wordgazer
Friday, April 10, 2009
Vyckie said...
KP Wordgazer ~ I am actually very anxious to answer your questions ~ but I don't want to jump ahead and reveal too much of what went through my head as I was corresponding with my uncle before I get to that part of my story.
I am writing ~ but, unfortunately it's going to be a while before I get to the part where I started seriously questioning the bible and Christianity. Sorry!
Have patience please ~ and keep reading ;-)
Friday, April 10, 2009
SargassoSea said...
Molly said:
"The husband has NEVER once ever used the male-leader trump card. He values and respects his wife as his full equal. So while they subscribe to the language of patrairchy and call him the 'head of the house' they are in actuality a team of equals."
Apologies if this has already been addressed –
Molly:
The husband doesn’t have to use his “trump card” – it was issued at birth as a *male* on planet Earth. The Patriarchy exists, inside and outside of religion, period.
So, there can be no subscribing to the “language of patrairchy”[sic]. It is the ONLY language there is.
SargassoSea
Friday, April 10, 2009
Anonymous said...
KR Wordgazer says:
Thank you, Vyckie. I will be patient.
Oh, and I wanted to correct my wording at one point above: what I got from pussy-footing around was that I was being "illogical," not "passive-agressive." The second one had more to do with my posting while in an emotional frame of mind; which I will make every effort to avoid in future.
KR Wordgazer
Friday, April 10, 2009
Linnea said...
Sargasso Sea writes: The Patriarchy exists, inside and outside of religion, period.
Yes, and no.
Every culture we have ever had, as far as I know, has been to some extent patriarchal. But to what extent, and exactly how that patriarchy plays itself out, varies greatly.
In this context, Molly is referring to a specific form of Christian patriarchy, in which a husband always has the final say in private family decisions (that's his "trump card"). Clearly, not all marriages function this way, regardless of how patriarchal the culture around them is.
Friday, April 10, 2009
SargassoSea said...
Linnea –
First I’d like to say that I fully understand what Molly is talking about. I’ve read the entire blog and everyone’s comments – I appreciate where she is in her life and applaud her conviction to do what she needs to do for herself and her children. Also, I understand what a ‘trump card’ is in the context in which Molly uses it.
My point was to call to light the language of patriarchy – and, of course, patriarchy in general - which exists everywhere around us, including your response to me (i.e.: patriarchy “plays itself out”).
So, if I may elaborate:
I certainly agree with you that every culture - that history allows us to know about - has been patriarchal to some extent and that the level of oppression varies.
But, oppression is oppression no matter what its degree – whether it is at the hands of a *fundamentalist* man who, with the backing of his brethren, exercises his privilege as Head or an *egalitarian* or a *secular* man who, with the backing of his community, “…values and respects his wife as his full equal.”
I think it is understood here at this blog that the first example is Patriarchy without any doubt.
The second and third examples are where we find the Other Patriarchy – the one that IS our lives every day - the one that allows the *fundamentalist patriarchy* to even exist in the first place.
A man who values and respects his wife as his full equal.
The language tells us that he is the one who has the power to generously bestow upon his wife (or any other woman) her ‘equality’. That is no equality at all. That is a gift given by the patriarchy to a woman and that is all she can hope for.
Sure, it’s better than being verbally/emotionally/religiously/physically/sexually/procreationally abused
but it is still not having true agency over your own being if you happen to have… non male body parts.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Kaderin said...
Sea
You know, that is a very interesting comment - the way ideology and patriarchy in particular reflects in language is a topic I've been thinking quite a bit about but haven't reached a conclusion yet.
It's easy to conclude from words like "mankind" or when a man refers to a woman as "his" to conclude that language in patriarchal societies reflects patriarchal values and can thus never be used to express egaliterian values.
But I disagree - the crux is that language is an evolving living construct; it's illogical and doesn't necessarily reflect our understanding of things. For example, we say "the sun rises" even though we're fully aware that the sun is immobile and it's the earth's rotation that causes the illusion of the sun rising. Much the same way, we can have a language with patriarchal roots and still be egaliterian.
In language, we relate to each other with posessiveness. My wife. My husband. My children. My friends. Yes, it's easy to conclude from a man calling a woman "his" that he is thinking of her as his posession, an object to posses, which makes language inherently patriarchal and many feminists argue thusly. They fail to take into account that it works both way - just turn on any talk show and you'll have some woman screeching "That's my man!"
Noone who has ever introduced anyone as "my friend" thinks of that friend as his posession.
So the quote you chose to attribute the secular man doesn't reflect a problem inherent to the way we phrase things, but to me the problem seems to be that the man still has to make such statements. It should go without saying that his wife is his equal, but it doesn't, which forces him into the position of "bestowing" her rights upon her by making such a statement. THAT's the problem.
I mean, it's nonsensical for me to say that I, as a white straight woman, would say about white straight women "I choose to respect and treat them as my equals" There's no choice here - we ARE equals. But I do have the straight white's unwarranted privilege of choosing to view and treat gay black women as my equals - precisely because we are not. It's the same for women and men - they can never be equal as long as the man can still choose not to treat her as such.
Wow, I'm rambling. Anyway, very interesting comment
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Jadehawk said...
kaderin, i think the problem Sargasso is pointing out has maybe less to do with the possessive of "his wife" and more with "his equal" rather than "an equal". especially since "his equal" is often used in competitive situations, in sports competitions for example.
English is horrible at being gender neutral in general, since there's for example no way to make sentences with hypothetical persons because there are no non-gendered pronouns, so you end up with sentences like:
"a person must be careful with his/her possessions"
"a person must be careful with their possessions"
"one must be careful with one's possessions"
"people must be careful with their possessions"
i.e. you are either sounding awkward, or you can no longer talk about people in the singular.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Tapati said...
The French author and philosopher Voltaire (1694-1778) once said, “If you can make people believe absurdities, you can make them commit atrocities.”
Octavio Paz (1914-1998) wrote "Believing ourselves to be possessors of absolute truth degrades us: we regard every person whose way of thinking is different from ours as a monster and a threat and by so doing turn our own selves into monsters and threats to our fellows."
I think of quotes like these as antidotes to fundamentalist thinking.
My own time in a fundamentalist Eastern faith every bit as restrictive for women (and to some degree, men as well) causes me to agree that such all-encompassing belief systems that separate us from the world at large tend to lead to abuse.
Article I wrote about Hare Krishna women:
www.uppitywomen.net/hkrsna.htmlConfessions of a Former Fundy:
www.uppitywomen.net/fundy.htmlfriend's article about spiritual abuse and addiction:
de.geocities.com/preciousprabhupada/add/painkillerspirituality.html--Tapati
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Tapati said...
I also wanted to recommend the book "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Banner_of_HeavenExcerpt:
There is a dark side to religious devotion that is too often ignored or denied. As a means of motivating people to be cruel or inhumane--as a means of inciting evil, to borrow the vocabulary of the devout--there may be no more potent force than religion. When the subject of religiously inspired bloodshed comes up, may Americans immediately think of Islamic fundamentalism, which is to be expected in the wake of the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington. But men have been committing heinous acts in the name of God ever since mankind began believing in deities, and extremists exist within all religions. Muhammad is not the only profit whose words have been used to sanction barbarism; history has not lacked for Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and even Buddhists who have been motivated by scripture to butcher innocents. Plenty of these religious extremists have been home-grown, corn-fed Americans.
Faith-based violence was present long before Osama bin Laden, and it will be with us long after his demise. Religious zealots like bin Laden, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Shoko Asahara, and Dan Lafferty are common to every age, just as zealots of other stripes are. In any human endeavor, some fraction of its practitioners will be motivated to pursue that activity with such concentrated focus and unalloyed passion that it will consume them utterly. One has to look no further than individuals who feel compelled to devote their lives to becoming concert pianists, say, or climbing Mount Everest. For some, the province of the extreme holds an allure that's irresistible. And a certain percentage of such fanatics will inevitably fixate on matters of the spirit.
The zealot may be outwardly motivated by the anticipation of a great reward at the other end--wealth, fame, eternal salvation--but the real recompense is probably the obsession itself. This is no less true for the religious fanatic than for the fanatical pianist or fanatical mountain climber. As a result of his (or her) infatuation, existence overflows with purpose. Ambiguity vanishes from the fanatic's worldview; a narcissistic sense of self-assurance displaces all doubt. A delicious rage quickens his pulse, fueled by the sins and shortcomings of lesser mortals, who are soiling the world wherever he looks. His perspective narrows until the last remnants of proportion are shed from his life. Through immoderation, he experiences something akin to rapture.
Although the far territory of the extreme can exert an intoxicating pull on susceptible individuals of all bents, extremism seems to be especially prevalent among those inclined by temperament or upbringing toward religious pursuits. Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a crucial component of spiritual devotion. And when religious fanaticism supplants ratiocination, all bets are suddenly off. Anything can happen. Absolutely anything. Common sense is no match for the voice of God--as the actions of Dan Lafferty vividly attest.
It is the aim of this book to cast some light on Lafferty and his ilk. If trying to understand such people is a daunting exercise, it also seems a useful one--for what it may tell us about the roots of brutality, perhaps, but even more for what might be learned about the nature of faith.
--
Later the author talks about his own thoughts about God:
I don't know what God is, or what God had in mind when the universe was set in motion. In fact, I don't know if God even exists, although I confess that I sometimes find myself praying in times of great fear, or despair, or astonishment at a display of unexpected beauty.
There are some ten thousand extant religious sects--each with its own cosmology, each with its own answer for the meaning of life and death. Most assert that the other 9,999 not only have it completely wrong but are instruments of evil, besides. None of the ten thousand has yet persuaded me to make the requisite leap of faith. In the absence of conviction, I've come to terms with the fact that uncertainty is an inescapable corollary of life. An abundance of mystery is simply part of the bargain--which doesn't strike me as something to lament. Accepting the essential inscrutability of existence, in any case, is surely preferable to its opposite: capitulation to the tyranny of intransigent belief.
And if I remain in the dark about our purpose here, and the meaning of eternity, I have nevertheless arrived at an understanding of a few more modest truths: Most of us fear death. Most of us yearn to comprehend how we got here and why--which is to say, most of us ache to know the love of our creator. And we will no doubt feel that ache, most of us, for as long as we happen to be alive.
Jon Krakauer
January 2003
My own reaction to the book at the time I read it (posted on my forum for ex-Krishna devotees):
There is much here that I felt contributes to our discussion about fundamentalism. The book chronicles the murder of a woman and her daughter based on a revealed prophecy received by Dan Lafferty's brother, Ron, and confirmed mystically to Dan himself on the day they carried it out. Dan and Ron had left the mainline Mormon church to join a splinter fundamentalist Mormon sect. Their brothers had all joined them and thus the women in the family were suddenly subjected to the strict subjugation that is the hallmark of Mormon fundamentalism. The most educated of the wives was Brenda, and she helped Ron's wife leave him when he became to abusive and restrictive. It's interesting, isn't it, how this order from God coincided so neatly with what Ron, in his heart, wished to do: seek revenge against the woman who he saw as taking his wife and kids away from him. Of course the daughter had to be murdered too since she would grow up to be uppity just like her mother.
Along the way we learn a lot about Mormon history, the incredibly fast growth of Mormonism world wide, the number of splinter Fundamentalist groups hidden in the wilderness, are reminded of Elizabeth Smart and her deranged Mormon Fundie captor (and her subsequent brainwashing), and get a new perspective on the current child abuse case in Texas. So far, every politician who has ever moved to stop the abuse of the children and women of these Mormon Fundamentalist groups has later been kicked out of office. I hope the officials in Texas fare better.
I was struck also by how usual it is for fundamentalism and the subjugation of women to go hand in hand. It almost seems like you can't have fundamentalist faith without strictly controlling and suppressing women in every possible way. I began to wonder why that is, why one can't have the fundie women and their men working together as equals in their shared fervor? Would fundamentalism somehow fail if they tried this? Or is fundamentalism an excuse for men who were inclined to do this anyway?
Interestingly, Ron and his wife had a good marriage before his switch to fundamentalism, and he was by all accounts very kind. Then his brothers converted him (his wife had asked him to talk sense into them, but they argued against his mainline views and converted him instead) and he changed overnight into a rigid and angry man who strictly controlled her. She had to go back to her family in Florida to escape.
---------
I think the more that former fundamentalists from a variety of different traditions examine them and our reasons for being attracted to them and for later leaving them, the more we can educate young people about the role of fundamentalism and allow them to make more informed choices. Just like the book about Quiverfull lays it all out in a way that a young woman wouldn't have understood going into it gradually.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009