|
Post by grandmalou on Jan 15, 2010 14:14:42 GMT -5
Oh, I get it...kinda like you would train an errant puppy. Officer, huh? Hmmmm. Most DOGS dislike any one in uniform. Maybe Mr. Wilson could teach that bad dog/ woman to "Fetch him his newspaper..." right after she chewed on it, slobbered on it, and then widdled on it! ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Jan 15, 2010 19:32:51 GMT -5
Widdlin's too good for him Grandmalou..!
|
|
|
Post by childerowland on Jan 16, 2010 16:52:23 GMT -5
Great post, Journey. As repulsive and difficult as these teachings are to read, it is important to point out what the respected leaders of the patriarchal/QF/fundamentalist movement are actually advocating in their own words. I get so angry when I hear survivors of abuse being told that they were just 'unlucky' and that what they experienced was not representative of what goes on in the movement as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Jan 17, 2010 17:18:42 GMT -5
Great post, Journey. If you have been reading on TW lately, you may have seen posts by a Michael Mc-something who is going through a divorce and blames his wife for everything. What gives me hope in his story is that the CPA is supporting his wife and the quasi-egalitarian views of the pastor. This guy thinks it's ok to "chastise" his wife . On Charis's blog we were recently discussing whether wives ought to have a "reasonable fear" of repercussions if they don't adequately submit and respect their husbands. Some of what that PT fella had to say made me cringe. Arietty, I remember how she proclaimed that submission would solve any problems you had with your husband and she used an example from her own life, how the most annoying thing in the world about her husband was solved by submission. The most annoying thing in the world was that he would, after washing his hands in the sink, briefly shake them dry in the air so that WATER DROPLETS were on her counters. Even as I was eagerly reading this book I remember thinking "THAT is a problem?!" Meanwhile I was living in hell. This annoys me so much! You read a book in hopes to find real problems talked about and how they were solved, and you find that the often preachy and condescending author never really had to face actual problems like yours. It's most frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by philosophia on Jan 17, 2010 17:43:38 GMT -5
Great post, Journey. If you have been reading on TW lately, you may have seen posts by a Michael Mc-something who is going through a divorce and blames his wife for everything. What gives me hope in his story is that the CPA is supporting his wife and the quasi-egalitarian views of the pastor. This guy thinks it's ok to "chastise" his wife . On Charis's blog we were recently discussing whether wives ought to have a "reasonable fear" of repercussions if they don't adequately submit and respect their husbands. Some of what that PT fella had to say made me cringe. Arietty, I remember how she proclaimed that submission would solve any problems you had with your husband and she used an example from her own life, how the most annoying thing in the world about her husband was solved by submission. The most annoying thing in the world was that he would, after washing his hands in the sink, briefly shake them dry in the air so that WATER DROPLETS were on her counters. Even as I was eagerly reading this book I remember thinking "THAT is a problem?!" Meanwhile I was living in hell. This annoys me so much! You read a book in hopes to find real problems talked about and how they were solved, and you find that the often preachy and condescending author never really had to face actual problems like yours. It's most frustrating. Does anyone really believe that a woman teaching this would describe a serious problem that she had with her husband? Because, after all that would be exposing his flaws to scrutiny, something a Proverbs 31 woman would never do. If she said that he yelled at her and treated her like a child in front of her own children, people would think, "Oh, what an awful guy!" With water droplets, she made the problem entirely something wrong with herself, that she needed to "yield", I'm sure! BTW, my mother has my father dry out the kitchen sink when he is done with it. We are not allowed to set wet glasses on her counter. It is her domain, period. And my great aunt does not allow hand washing in her kitchen sink. Those are tough women, who don't take crap off anyone.
|
|
|
Post by nibor77 on Jan 17, 2010 18:55:18 GMT -5
How timely this post is. I have a few friends caught up in Patriarchy/ quiver full and it just makes me so sad.
Just yesterday one of them posted this on her FB page.
I would never dream anymore of working outside the authority and protection of my husband. His arms are my refuge and my God has fashioned them so.
Some replies: Most wives don't understand the freedom that comes with that.
-and-
Great way of putting it! It is a safe and secure place that gives power to our calling. I've never felt so strong and secure as I now do with my husbands sweet leadership and authority.
This friend has also posted before about how her husband 'screens' her FB and E-mail before she is allowed to access them.
This is abusive. He may never raise a hand to her, but he has robbed her of her own mind and will while claiming it is the 'Godly' way.
How anyone can call not having your own will or mind and being unable to peruse your own hopes and dreams (even to the point of being labeled as selfish for even having hopes and dreams) 'freedom' I'll never know. This poor woman does not even have the freedom to check her own FB and E-mail! Her husband has to 'screen' it like some parents would do for their 12 year old's net pages!
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jan 18, 2010 2:09:57 GMT -5
It is "freedom" in the sense that it is freedom from responsibilty, from adult worries-- it is "freedom" to return to a kind of childhood and just be taken care of.
It's an abdication of adult responsibility. There are times I've wished to return to childhood's nest for a day-- but these women think it's God's calling for them to remain children all their lives, and simply replace their father with their husband.
It's a disservice to their husbands as well as themselves. Emotionally healthy men want equal partners to walk with them through life-- not an older child in the home, with the husband as the sole adult, the sole person shouldering all the responsibility. And it makes emotionally unhealthy men even more unhealthy.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Jan 18, 2010 4:30:04 GMT -5
It is "freedom" in the sense that it is freedom from responsibilty, from adult worries-- it is "freedom" to return to a kind of childhood and just be taken care of. It's an abdication of adult responsibility. There are times I've wished to return to childhood's nest for a day-- but these women think it's God's calling for them to remain children all their lives, and simply replace their father with their husband. It's a disservice to their husbands as well as themselves. Emotionally healthy men want equal partners to walk with them through life-- not an older child in the home, with the husband as the sole adult, the sole person shouldering all the responsibility. And it makes emotionally unhealthy men even more unhealthy. KR Wordgazer, The problem is that these women are not freed from their burden of responsibility. They may picture it that way, but they are only stripped from all authority. Husbands often hold them to an even higher degree of responsibility, having taken from them their autonomy and freedom to choose. For example, a wife is still solely responsible for the children and running the household, but she has to do it all his way. And before the law, even if she tells herself that her hubby is the ultimately responsible one, she still bears full responsibility for her actions and for any enabling she may do. For example, a wife who "submissively" rides in the car that's too small to safely carry the number of children they have. She thinks her obedience and compliance will keep her out of trouble, but if she's caught or gets into an accident, the law would come down on her with all it's weight, right? And wouldn't she be held accountable, even if her husband were driving, for enabling law breaking?
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jan 18, 2010 15:09:34 GMT -5
Good points, Madame. I should have said "the illusion of no responsibility."
|
|
|
Post by madame on Jan 18, 2010 16:15:58 GMT -5
Kr, I like it. "the illusion of no responsibility"
A perfect example of such a marriage, where the wife is submitting to her husband in all things while still carrying most of the burden, is Vyckie's. She did it all, yet she had no authority.
|
|