FABULOUS anti-patriarchy article by Mary Pride!

[Carol in Cal.]

This may be totally irrelevant to this thread, but also perhaps not. I am reading a book called The Red Tent at the moment- halfway through- which is set in Old Testament times and is from the perspective of the women at the time. I am loving it. Of course it is one author's perspective, but it is definitely showing a fairly patriarchal society where women have their own world and there is a lot of beauty and depth to that world that we seem to have lost nowadays (the Red Tent is where the women go to menstruate and rest for 3 days each month, and where stories are told and passed down). Its a lovely book for women, for anyone interested (I am not Christian but it is not really a Christian book- mre historical fiction set in Biblical times with Biblical characters).

 

Peela, I have read this book as well, and it seemed to me to be illustrating a time of transition from a matriarchal to a patriarchal society, with the women's world being in decline, rather than a separate, empowered space. I'm curious whether you will see it that way when you finish it.

 

I read somewhere that the author loosely based it on Jewish midrash, but have not verified this myself. It does not reflect a conservative Jewish or Christian view of the Biblical stories, and is, in fact, inconsistent with the Biblical text in several areas. Very entertaining, though.

 

I do think that a strong women's culture can exist in a mostly patriarchal setting. Have you ever read any books by Sue Bender? You might like "Plain and Simple." It's a good example, and a more accurate one, than "The Red Tent." I return to it over and over.

Regards, Carol

[mrsrevmeg]

I never read her other book. I just read the linked article. Sounded fine to me. Her Star Trek analogy was funny.

 

That part made me lol :lol: because my husband often will say, "Make it so, Number One," when he asks me to do something.

[Danestress]

Maybe "patriarchy" is a poor word to use to describe families that might vary as broadly as your own family and the "some" families she is discussing in which women are waiting for permission to do things as mundane as their chores. I think she was trying to distance herself from those "some" families, which in no way means that she would have a problem with a family like yours, which does not appear to really live within the confines of what some of these new "patriarchy" proponents are apparently advocating.

[angela in ohio]

You know, my mil often spends a lot of time denouncing homeschoolers, and then says, "...but not you guys, those other homeschoolers." She clearly bases her entire view of homeschooling on a few extreme cases she knows, but then claims not to. :001_smile:

 

I'd say that people who have read the book (Ellie, for example) can probably speak more clearly to its tone than those who read something from someone who knew someone who read it. ;) I read it a few years ago, along with All the Way Home. I had never liked Mary Pride (not because of Gentle Spirit, I only partly disagree with what happened there,) but I heard the book referenced often and wanted to form my own opinion. I didn't get patriarchy from it. She herself gives two examples in the article from her book where she disagrees with what she believes are the beliefs of the Patriarchy movement.

[Old Dominion Heather]

She said she was in scouts because she wanted there to be competent, reliable, strong men for her daughters to marry. I have to say I feel the same way about the need for strong, resourceful, confident women for my three sons.

 

Just wanted to say that I feel the same way. I hope my sons will all marry strong, competent women.

[katemary63]

my husband often will say, "Make it so, Number One," when he asks me to do something.

 

:001_smile: That is so cute! Sounds like you guys have fun together.

[Sophia]

This may be totally irrelevant to this thread, but also perhaps not. I am reading a book called The Red Tent at the moment- halfway through- which is set in Old Testament times and is from the perspective of the women at the time. I am loving it. Of course it is one author's perspective, but it is definitely showing a fairly patriarchal society where women have their own world and there is a lot of beauty and depth to that world that we seem to have lost nowadays (the Red Tent is where the women go to menstruate and rest for 3 days each month, and where stories are told and passed down). Its a lovely book for women, for anyone interested (I am not Christian but it is not really a Christian book- more historical fiction set in Biblical times with Biblical characters).

 

I read that book :001_smile:

Loved some parts, hated some parts.

I think the author doesn't like men very much...

[Impish]

I understand this (bolded part.)

As I stated in my previous post, I wish she would have made that clear and not painted all Christian families who recognize the father as the final authority to be part of that extreme movement. (Because, by her given definition, we-my family-do follow the patriarchal model, and we're not extreme.)

 

:iagree:

That part made me lol :lol: because my husband often will say, "Make it so, Number One," when he asks me to do something.

I wish my dh was into STNG. I loved that show!

[TXMomof4]

This may be totally irrelevant to this thread, but also perhaps not. I am reading a book called The Red Tent at the moment- halfway through- which is set in Old Testament times and is from the perspective of the women at the time. I am loving it. Of course it is one author's perspective, but it is definitely showing a fairly patriarchal society where women have their own world and there is a lot of beauty and depth to that world that we seem to have lost nowadays (the Red Tent is where the women go to menstruate and rest for 3 days each month, and where stories are told and passed down). Its a lovely book for women, for anyone interested (I am not Christian but it is not really a Christian book- more historical fiction set in Biblical times with Biblical characters).

 

:iagree: I enjoyed this book a lot. There's another one about Moses' wife - I'll have to google it, but it's the same type of story and REALLY good.

[Quad Shot Academy]

I cannot tell you how disappointed I was to hear about Mary's involvement in that.:glare:

 

Can someone link? All I get is a magazine named Gentle Spirit when I search.

 

I always find it helpful to research past Christian movements like "name it and claim it" to prevent myself from being drawn in current Christian movements. I had a pastor once tell me that he gets really nervous when he hears people coming up with a new understanding of Christianity. He said we should still be discussing the same old debates that have been going on since the beginning and anyone that claims to have suddenly find the answers, makes him run!

[cathmom]

Having known a couple families like this, in my opinion:

 

In the extreme, American, Christian, patriarical family there is no red tent.

There is no traditional rest and bonding time with other women. There is often tiredness, depression, guilt, and doubting God, when life doesn't work out the way it was promised by people who thought they had the answers.

 

 

 

Yes, and don't forget long-term, unexplained illnesses.

 

I understand this (bolded part.)

As I stated in my previous post, I wish she would have made that clear and not painted all Christian families who recognize the father as the final authority to be part of that extreme movement. (Because, by her given definition, we-my family-do follow the patriarchal model, and we're not extreme.)

 

 

 

I think she did make it clear. She explained the model of the wife being the XO and the husband being the captain, and that the captain has final say. That's what she was advocating - apparently, that's how she lives. She is not saying that her family is part of this extreme movement, so obviously not all families who view the father as the final authority are part of extreme patriarchy.

 

Extreme patriarchy does give off the vibe that the wife is nothing. She exists to satisfy the dh's whims. She is the lowly cleaning lady; not the VP of the company. And daughters are taught that they are to stay in their father's home, serving him (NOT helping their mother, although he may tell them to help their mother) until he finds a suitable husbands for them, at which point they will go serve their husbands. I know of families so extreme where grown daughters are never allowed to go out alone so that they are "protected."

[BMW]

I lived extreme patriarchy and it is a nightmare. My mailbox had a lock and I didn't get a key. My phone line was tapped. I had no vehicle and if one of my kids had an emergency, all I could do was call 911 and watch then leave in an ambulance (fortunately that didn't happen). My ex's favorite lines were:

there would be NO abuse if women just submitted

what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine

family business stays in the family, we never discuss what happens in our family with anyone

You are who you are because I have made you who you are

"It's great to be the King"

 

 

And it was all in the name of Christianity.

 

It's about time more and more people started speaking up and giving oppressed women in our own communities some hope...

 

Just because "kinder" patriarchy works in some homes doesn't mean it is spot on... or acceptable, in MY opinion...

[Sophia]

 

 

I think she did make it clear. She explained the model of the wife being the XO and the husband being the captain, and that the captain has final say. That's what she was advocating - apparently, that's how she lives. She is not saying that her family is part of this extreme movement, so obviously not all families who view the father as the final authority are part of extreme patriarchy.

 

 

See, I thought that example was confusing.

She says: As those of you in the military know, it's the XO's job to disagree with the captain when he sees a danger to the ship or the mission. Then, after full and free discussion, the captain has the final word. Unless the captain is absent, incapable of serving, or deliberately sabotaging the mission, in which case the XO takes over.

 

The home, of course, is not a military operation. Dad is not supposed to stand around barking out commands. My point is that Mom is not subservient, but an active partner in the operation, with the ability to take it over if needed. She has to be literally able to take charge of the whole family if required, which cannot be accomplished by those who freeze unless they have instructions.

 

She compares the husband's role to the Captain who has the final word. If someone has the final word, then there is a hierarchy there with someone subordinate to the other, right? But then she says the wife is not subservient. It seems to me she is subservient and an active partner.

 

Yes, I know many know of extreme cases. I'm sad for those families. However, I know of many families who follow what *I* consider a biblical form of patriarchy, and since we're living in modern times, they would be lumped with the modern patriarchal movement.

[sunflowerlady]

I think people sometimes combine the "quiverfull" and "patriarchy" movements. Often they go together, but sometimes not. Mary Pride may not consider herself part of the patriarchy movement, but she is definitely part of the quiverfull movement.

 

I have both of her books "The Way Home" and " All the Way Home". She is definitely legalistic in those books and talks about how a husband and wife should approach intimacy. According to her, some things are of limits to married couples. :glare:

 

I am decluttering this week and I may have thrown those books out. If not, I may dig them out and read them. Or not.

[Sophia]

I lived extreme patriarchy and it is a nightmare. My mailbox had a lock and I didn't get a key. My phone line was tapped. I had no vehicle and if one of my kids had an emergency, all I could do was call 911 and watch then leave in an ambulance (fortunately that didn't happen). My ex's favorite lines were:

there would be NO abuse if women just submitted

what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine

family business stays in the family, we never discuss what happens in our family with anyone

You are who you are because I have made you who you are

"It's great to be the King"

 

 

And it was all in the name of Christianity.

 

It's about time more and more people started speaking up and giving oppressed women in our own communities some hope...

 

Just because "kinder" patriarchy works in some homes doesn't mean it is spot on... or acceptable, in MY opinion...

 

I'm sorry for your experience, and sorrier still that Christ's name would be used to justify abuse. Ugh...this kind of reminds me of how the church abused the poor and took advantage of people in medieval times~all in the name of Jesus. (can you tell we're in year 2 of the history cycle, lol.)

But individuals should be held responsible for their sins, rather than blame a biblical principle that individuals use to their own advantage.

Blessings,

[cathmom]

See, I thought that example was confusing.

She says: As those of you in the military know, it's the XO's job to disagree with the captain when he sees a danger to the ship or the mission. Then, after full and free discussion, the captain has the final word. Unless the captain is absent, incapable of serving, or deliberately sabotaging the mission, in which case the XO takes over.

 

The home, of course, is not a military operation. Dad is not supposed to stand around barking out commands. My point is that Mom is not subservient, but an active partner in the operation, with the ability to take it over if needed. She has to be literally able to take charge of the whole family if required, which cannot be accomplished by those who freeze unless they have instructions.

 

She compares the husband's role to the Captain who has the final word. If someone has the final word, then there is a hierarchy there with someone subordinate to the other, right? But then she says the wife is not subservient. It seems to me she is subservient and an active partner.

 

 

Here's an example. I have a friend whose dh is not good with money. He will spend and spend. When she asked for advice, she was told to give over all the finances to her dh - he was in charge, he was the head, it was all his decision, even if he spent them into homelessness. The wife was powerless to do anything except pray.

 

In Mary Pride's view, the wife, just like the XO, is free to say, "Dh, you are wrong. This is not good, and I'm taking over the finances so that our dc will have a home and food to eat." In extreme patriarchy, the wife has no recourse. None at all. She isn't even allowed to say anything!

[Sophia]

I think people sometimes combine the "quiverfull" and "patriarchy" movements. Often they go together, but sometimes not. Mary Pride may not consider herself part of the patriarchy movement, but she is definitely part of the quiverfull movement.

 

I have both of her books "The Way Home" and " All the Way Home". She is definitely legalistic in those books and talks about how a husband and wife should approach intimacy. According to her, some things are of limits to married couples. :glare:

 

 

:iagree:

I enjoyed her books but there were definitely parts that made me ask "where did she come up with that!"

[Rebecca VA]

I just looked up "subservient" in an online dictionary. It defined it as (among other things): "extreme compliance, adject obedience, obsequiously submissive, cringing, fawning, debased servility, exaggerated deference." There's a HUGE difference between a person who chooses to become a Number Two Person in Charge (freely submitting only to the Number One Person) and a fearful servant.

[Sophia]

Here's an example. I have a friend whose dh is not good with money. He will spend and spend. When she asked for advice, she was told to give over all the finances to her dh - he was in charge, he was the head, it was all his decision, even if he spent them into homelessness. The wife was powerless to do anything except pray.

 

In Mary Pride's view, the wife, just like the XO, is free to say, "Dh, you are wrong. This is not good, and I'm taking over the finances so that our dc will have a home and food to eat." In extreme patriarchy, the wife has no recourse. None at all. She isn't even allowed to say anything!

 

When she wrote "My point is that Mom is not subservient, but an active partner in the operation, with the ability to take it over if needed." I was reading the "ability to take over as needed" as meaning she had the capability whereas now I think Mary Pride was talking more of a coup?

 

It seems to me that in marriages where that becomes necessary, there are larger issues than patriarchy. Like a basic misunderstanding of what it is to live a Christian life. 1 Timothy 5:8 and 1 Peter 3:7 are pretty clear about the husband's duty. Hiding behind a patriarchal sign isn't going to make him less culpable in God's eyes. And an individual's failure in an area of his life does not mean the biblical principle (father's headship in the home/patriarchy) is wrong.

 

Thanks for the discussion...gotta go and get stuff done :001_smile:

[Ellie]

Can someone link? All I get is a magazine named Gentle Spirit when I search.

 

I always find it helpful to research past Christian movements like "name it and claim it" to prevent myself from being drawn in current Christian movements. I had a pastor once tell me that he gets really nervous when he hears people coming up with a new understanding of Christianity. He said we should still be discussing the same old debates that have been going on since the beginning and anyone that claims to have suddenly find the answers, makes him run!

Seelhoff vs Welch: The Truth About Cheryl

Transcripts from the trial

[Sophia]

I just looked up "subservient" in an online dictionary. It defined it as (among other things): "extreme compliance, adject obedience, obsequiously submissive, cringing, fawning, debased servility, exaggerated deference." There's a HUGE difference between a person who chooses to become a Number Two Person in Charge (freely submitting only to the Number One Person) and a fearful servant.

 

Yes, I agree with the bolded part.

 

I found this and was using #1.

 

adj.

 

1. Subordinate in capacity or function.

2. Obsequious; servile.

3. Useful as a means or an instrument; serving to promote an end.

 

I guess people will choose the meaning they want to promote their point <shrug>

[Quad Shot Academy]

I just looked up "subservient" in an online dictionary. It defined it as (among other things): "extreme compliance, adject obedience, obsequiously submissive, cringing, fawning, debased servility, exaggerated deference." There's a HUGE difference between a person who chooses to become a Number Two Person in Charge (freely submitting only to the Number One Person) and a fearful servant.

 

:iagree: In the legalistic movement we were in, the wives were allowed to state their opinion 1 time and were allowed to ask permission to make 1 appeal. Any discussion beyond that was considered a sin.

[cathmom]

I just looked up "subservient" in an online dictionary. It defined it as (among other things): "extreme compliance, adject obedience, obsequiously submissive, cringing, fawning, debased servility, exaggerated deference." There's a HUGE difference between a person who chooses to become a Number Two Person in Charge (freely submitting only to the Number One Person) and a fearful servant.

 

Exactly!

[cathmom]

Yes, I agree with the bolded part.

 

I found this and was using #1.

 

adj.

 

1. Subordinate in capacity or function.

2. Obsequious; servile.

3. Useful as a means or an instrument; serving to promote an end.

 

I guess people will choose the meaning they want to promote their point <shrug>

 

:iagree: Subservient and subordinate are basically synonyms, although I would argue that they have slightly different connotations.

[Ellie]

:iagree: In the legalistic movement we were in, the wives were allowed to state their opinion 1 time and were allowed to ask permission to make 1 appeal. Any discussion beyond that was considered a sin.

A friend spent several years in a similar group, and it was devastating.

[Rebecca VA]

Sophia, I did say that there were a couple of other definitions, and in fact the first one could apply to the XO illustration. However, ALL of the *connotations* (right below the actual definitions) imply fear and deference. When most people think of the word subservient they think of someone in a lowly position.

 

You can be an active partner and still be subordinate. But subservient (in the popularly-understood definition of the word) is a whole other issue.

[Quad Shot Academy]

A friend spent several years in a similar group, and it was devastating.

 

Yes, I know most people can not even imagine the level of control that is happening in some families. Sometimes the husband is even totally unaware. In this movement the husbands were encouraged to go shopping with their wives and daughters to pick out clothes. The wives and daughters were told to buy whatever their husband/father liked, even if they didn't like it. (I am not talking modesty, I am talking simple choices of style and comfort.) Likewise the wives/daughters were told to have the type of hair the husband/father wanted. Since the women only stated their opinion once or twice, many times the husband did not know what their wives even wanted or that they hated their clothes and hair! Imagine waking up a year later in a life you didn't pick for yourself, you hate and your husband is clueless that he was being looked upon as a dictator!

[Renee in NC]

Yes, I know most people can not even imagine the level of control that is happening in some families. Sometimes the husband is even totally unaware. In this movement the husbands were encouraged to go shopping with their wives and daughters to pick out clothes. The wives and daughters were told to buy whatever their husband/father liked, even if they didn't like it. (I am not talking modesty, I am talking simple choices of style and comfort.) Likewise the wives/daughters were told to have the type of hair the husband/father wanted. Since the women only stated their opinion once or twice, many times the husband did not know what their wives even wanted or that they hated their clothes and hair! Imagine waking up a year later in a life you didn't pick for yourself, you hate and your husband is clueless that he was being looked upon as a dictator!

 

That was my marriage 4 years ago. I fell prey to women who insisted that this was the way to be a good Christian wife and that is all I wanted to be.

 

When she wrote "My point is that Mom is not subservient, but an active partner in the operation, with the ability to take it over if needed." I was reading the "ability to take over as needed" as meaning she had the capability whereas now I think Mary Pride was talking more of a coup?

 

It seems to me that in marriages where that becomes necessary, there are larger issues than patriarchy. Like a basic misunderstanding of what it is to live a Christian life. 1 Timothy 5:8 and 1 Peter 3:7 are pretty clear about the husband's duty. Hiding behind a patriarchal sign isn't going to make him less culpable in God's eyes. And an individual's failure in an area of his life does not mean the biblical principle (father's headship in the home/patriarchy) is wrong.

 

Thanks for the discussion...gotta go and get stuff done :001_smile:

 

What about women whose husbands are not even Christian? The idea was that if your dh was not Christian (or not Christian enough) then if you would just be submissive enough then he would "step up." But you had to win him "without a word" or it didn't "work."

 

How does 1 Timothy 5:8 apply anyway? Who gets to decide what "providing for his own means"? For a woman that may have one definition, but say the husband's definition is much different. He wins, so she is stuck. The Bible doesn't say that electricity is required, or a phone, or food other than rice and gravy.

 

I'll give you an example. Back then, my ds smoked in the house throughout the winter. My dc had RSV that winter (and asthma) and he kept smoking in the house. The advice I was given was to take the dc in another room. The idea that I should tell him "Stop smoking in the house you are harming your children!" was a sin. What a moron I was.:glare: This was not an isolated incident - I have seen women counseled to do CRAZY things! (BTW, I think that The Hive's rule about marriage posts is SPOT ON!)

 

It took a year of getting away from this group for me to realize how ridiculous it was. My marriage is 10000% better now than it was then. My dh said to me last night (we were discussing this thread) that no one is "over" the other one - we are partners and we work together for the betterment of our family.

 

Do I defer to him? Yes, much of the time. He defers to me, too. We go out of our way to put the other person first whenever we can. Sure, we can disagree, but if he always gets his way? Not good. Same for me - I shouldn't always get my way either. Neither one of us is always right.:tongue_smilie:

[coffeefreak]

I agree about her book. She is not my favorite author, that's for sure. At one point in the The Way Home she notes that spanking is illegal in Sweden, and then says, "No wonder their suicide rate among teens is so high" like it's a direct correlation.

 

 

 

I felt physically ill when I read that.

 

This was and still is the biggest problem I have with her book. She makes references to things she knows nothing about. For example, she relates EVERY illness known to women to not having kids. I am trying to find the quote, but she basically says that if you leave your fertility up to God you WON'T have the "problems" those of us who "limit" our fertility have. Even if she had read the science of the time and this was the belief, the medical community has discovered that a lot of these "female problems" are what lead to infertility. They're not CAUSED by them. It bothers me that people still read her book and buy into her biased "research."

 

 

I read The Way Home when we started homeschooling and it certainly seemed very patriarchal to me. I'm glad to see that Mary Pride has mellowed over the last 25 years, because that book was pretty over-the-top. In fact, if I had been at all doubtful about homeschooling, it would have pushed me in the institutional school direction. OTOH, it did clue me in on lots of things to avoid if you have to blend in among quiverfull or patriarchal homeschoolers.

 

:iagree:

 

I think the responsible thing for her to do, would be to re-issue her book and make corrections, if she is indeed baffled as to how she received the credit for the Patriarchal/Quiverful movement. Even though her book is oop, there are so many women reading it and quoting her instead of following their Dr's advice. I also think she should take responsibility for her actions beyond her book. It's not just her book that made her the "mother of the movement." It was her magazine, her speaking engagements, and her overall influence on the Homeschooling Community! She rejects Feminism as everything evil, when it is the Feminist movement that gave her the freedom and power to be the influence that she is today!

 

I'm still not impressed.

Dorinda

[OnTheBrink]

But individuals should be held responsible for their sins, rather than blame a biblical principle that individuals use to their own advantage.

 

 

YES! :iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

I get SO TIRED of people saying "I'm not going to be a Christian anymore because of what PEOPLE do who claim to be Christians!" Find out what the Bible actually says, don't rely on fallible people to tell you.

 

Sorry, that was a little OT.

[Geo]

YES! :iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

I get SO TIRED of people saying "I'm not going to be a Christian anymore because of what PEOPLE do who claim to be Christians!" Find out what the Bible actually says, don't rely on fallible people to tell you.

Sorry, that was a little OT.

 

:iagree:...but not so easily executed by a child (or wife, for that matter)...especially in an extreme patriarchal family.

 

Geo

Edited August 26, 2010 by Geo

[Geo]

But individuals should be held responsible for their sins, rather than blame a biblical principle that individuals use to their own advantage.

Blessings,

 

How would you propose they be held responsible? There are church leaders and teachers involved, not just a rogue husband or two. Isn't the balance of the principle "The husband should love his wife the way Christ loves the church, that he lay down his life for her" really being called to the forefront? Remember, the Pharisees used the letter of the law to weigh people down but missed the spirit of the law entirely. Scrutiny can be a cleansing thing.

 

It is no threat to a principle to call out an abuse of that principle, it actually protects it (and people) from corruption and upholds Truth and Righteousness.

Geo

Edited August 26, 2010 by Geo
rephrasing

[Catwoman]

I lived extreme patriarchy and it is a nightmare.

 

:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

 

I'm so sorry to hear that you had to live that way, Bee! It must have been horrible for you, and for anyone else forced to live such a restricted life!

 

Cat

Edited August 26, 2010 by Catwoman

[Oak Knoll Mom]

:iagree: In the legalistic movement we were in, the wives were allowed to state their opinion 1 time and were allowed to ask permission to make 1 appeal. Any discussion beyond that was considered a sin.

 

I'd love to see the chapter and verse on that one. "Thou shalt state thou opinion one time and one time only. If thou thinkest it necessary, thou shalt asketh permission to maketh one appeal and one appeal only. Any time thou speakest afterward shall be sin." Sheesh.

[Quad Shot Academy]

I'd love to see the chapter and verse on that one. "Thou shalt state thou opinion one time and one time only. If thou thinkest it necessary, thou shalt asketh permission to maketh one appeal and one appeal only. Any time thou speakest afterward shall be sin." Sheesh.

 

:lol: Something about a nagging wife pops into my head. ;)

[StaceyinLA]

and for me, the queen of decluttering, that is saying something. I always loved both "The Way Home" and "All The Way Home." I am certainly not a subservient wife, and I didn't get the feeling that she was either. She has always seemed like a pretty strong, intelligent woman to me.

[jewellsmommy]

That part made me lol :lol: because my husband often will say, "Make it so, Number One," when he asks me to do something.

 

Holy cow! Mine too! I always thought we were just weird star trek people!

[Penelope]

I am a Christian but I do not hold to the idea of submissiveness in the way it is defined by fundamentalists.

 

I read the article and it doesn't come across as "anti-patriarchal".

 

I haven't read the book in question but I read her homeschooling book and plenty of her articles. Her writing tends to be...hyperbolic. Maybe people misunderstand her because she is a poor writer and can't get across what she actually does mean?

[mommaduck]

Holy cow! Mine too! I always thought we were just weird star trek people!

No, you're not. Except, I and DS#1 are the trekkies here, not hubby (though he understands the references). I am his #1. He knows I can get things done. There are things that I leave fully in his hands because of stress or because he is better at it. I throw things at him so he can plan for them to be accomplished or to help me accomplish them. We discuss EVERYTHING together (probably why we did not do well in the patriarchal movement). You cannot get my husband to manipulate me, nor can you get me to manipulate him. We are best friends and we are partners in making our marriage work, doing what is best for our family, and making our household run. Yes, he gets "final say" on things technically, but I always get a say. We DISCUSS it. I don't appeal. I don't fuss at him. It's CONVERSATIONAL amoung equals with different roles and coming from different perspectives. It's never "his way" or "my way".

Edited August 27, 2010 by mommaduck

[Joanne]

I was nearly thoroughly indoctrinated by her Way Home.

 

Her ideas about feminism are as skewed as John Rosemond's ideas about attachment parenting.

 

I'm not a Pride fan; this article didn't change that. What she (and others) did to Cheryl Seelhoff was atrocious.

[Joanne]

YES! :iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

I get SO TIRED of people saying "I'm not going to be a Christian anymore because of what PEOPLE do who claim to be Christians!" Find out what the Bible actually says, don't rely on fallible people to tell you.

 

Sorry, that was a little OT.

 

Hey, no fair! I haven't been around to defend myself. :lol::lol:

[StaceyinLA]

I am appalled that those "Christians" did that to another human being. Were they really supposed to be her judge and jury?

 

I remember all of that going down at the time, but never read details. It just sickens me.

 

I'm glad she was able to recoup some damages, though her reputation was forever ruined.

 

Sad.

[Literary Mom]

So I found the author of Gentle Spirit's blog (she uses the pseudonym "Heart") and it would seem that all the abuse pushed her to the other extreme: now she's a feminist lesbian.

 

I really wish I hadn't wasted an hour reading about this whole debacle, because at the end of the day, everyone involved has serious issues, and the original article this thread linked seems like milquetoast. Similar to how I felt when I read Michael Pearl's "anti-partriarchy" article. Yes, there's a spectrum, but they lean heavily to one side, even if not all the way over.

[Donna A.]

So I found the author of Gentle Spirit's blog (she uses the pseudonym "Heart") and it would seem that all the abuse pushed her to the other extreme: now she's a feminist lesbian.

 

 

Did it really, though? Was it the bad behavior of some Christians who pushed her that way, or did she already have a tendency toward a liberal lifestyle before her marriage, homeschooling, and growing popularity in homeschool circles?

 

(And please know that I'm not defending or accusing anyone... I'd never even heard of this until this thread, and am just now reading the links that have been posted, as well as a couple others.)

 

From http://www.homeedmag.com/seelhoffvs.welch/news.html

 

"Gentle Spirit, a small magazine for (mostly) Christian women living the simple life at home and the brainchild of Cheryl Lindsey, was born in 1989, originally finding its way into 23 homes. Cheryl was not, however, "of the classic conservative Christian mold," according to her attorney, Barbara J. Duffy. Cheryl protested the Vietnam War and, in college, was a hippie and a social activist who also worked in the slums of Cincinnati after race riots in the late '60's and '70's. (71)

Still, Cheryl's energy and simple living information, coupled with an appearance on a Focus on the Family radio program in 1990, brought mounting attention to Gentle Spirit.

Cheryl's writing caught Sue Welch's eye, so she asked for permission to reprint one of Cheryl's articles in The Teaching Home in 1991, the same year Cheryl and her family rejoined the Calvary Chapel of Tacoma after a six year absence. In 1993, as Gentle Spirit's popularity increased, Sue Welch asked Cheryl if she could list her growing number of workshop appearances, as well. Cheryl granted permission."

[Laura Corin]

Seelhoff vs Welch: The Truth About Cheryl

Transcripts from the trial

 

Laura

[Donna A.]

Good grief

 

Your point?

[cathmom]

Your point?

 

I think her point was, that for those of us who never heard of this whole thing before this thread, that makes for some pretty horrible reading. To think that a group of Christians would get together and deliberately ruin someone's life over business is quite upsetting.

[Donna A.]

I think her point was, that for those of us who never heard of this whole thing before this thread, that makes for some pretty horrible reading. To think that a group of Christians would get together and deliberately ruin someone's life over business is quite upsetting.

 

Gotcha. In some of the stuff I read, however, it appears to me that initially, it wasn't about attempting to deliberately ruin someone's life over business so much as it was the lifestyle she was keeping secret from the public while claiming to be a Christian. She had no accountability to either a pastor or a dh for a while there, and was attempting to keep her popular public image "clean". Granted, it became a clear opportunity for someone else to profit off her personal trials, and I sympathize with her for that, but that's not the whole story. (It's the only part of the story that could be addressed in a civil court of law, though.)

 

It also seems evident, both from her background AND her choices during the 90's that led up to the business fiasco, that she already had liberal leanings, anyway. Thus, I doubt it was the poor actions of a few Christians that drove her to feminism and lesbianism (as has been implied in some posts). There are many people who use "bad Christians" as an excuse for not serving the Lord themselves. Sadly, my own sister was one of them.

Edited August 28, 2010 by Donna A.

[Sophia]

 

What about women whose husbands are not even Christian? The idea was that if your dh was not Christian (or not Christian enough) then if you would just be submissive enough then he would "step up." But you had to win him "without a word" or it didn't "work." I became a Christian before dh. I didn't "win him," God did but I do believe I used many words.

 

How does 1 Timothy 5:8 apply anyway? Who gets to decide what "providing for his own means"? For a woman that may have one definition, but say the husband's definition is much different. He wins, so she is stuck. The Bible doesn't say that electricity is required, or a phone, or food other than rice and gravy. I guess I thought "providing" means at least basic needs.

I'll give you an example. Back then, my ds smoked in the house throughout the winter. My dc had RSV that winter (and asthma) and he kept smoking in the house. The advice I was given was to take the dc in another room. The idea that I should tell him "Stop smoking in the house you are harming your children!" was a sin. What a moron I was.:glare: This was not an isolated incident - I have seen women counseled to do CRAZY things! (BTW, I think that The Hive's rule about marriage posts is SPOT ON!) Yeah, people are crazy.

 

It took a year of getting away from this group for me to realize how ridiculous it was. My marriage is 10000% better now than it was then. My dh said to me last night (we were discussing this thread) that no one is "over" the other one - we are partners and we work together for the betterment of our family.

 

Do I defer to him? Yes, much of the time. He defers to me, too. We go out of our way to put the other person first whenever we can. Sure, we can disagree, but if he always gets his way? Not good. Same for me - I shouldn't always get my way either. Neither one of us is always right.:tongue_smilie:

 

I'm going to share my own example to see if it helps make my point :001_smile:

 

About 10 years ago, dh's bro and his wife invited me to their church. Dh was out of town at the time, and laughed when I told him I was going because we knew their church was "different."

They had a "visiting prophet" who had the whole church doing hysterical laughing as part of worship :001_huh:

He then focused on me and called me up to the platform.

He proceeded to ask me if I was born again, to which I responded yes, so he told me to start speaking in tongues.

Um, I don't do that. He challenged my salvation, asked the whole church to pray for me, then called an elder to escort me to another room where the elder could continue to pray for me until I started speaking in tongues.

 

The dude was a wack-a-doodle to borrow another poster's word.

 

When I told another friend about this, she was horrified and amazed that I was not bitter, angry, or had left the church.

My turn to be horrified. What does one individual's bad behavior have to do with what Jesus did for me?

That guy was (is) a nut, the church was goofy and I think my bil and sil are kinda out there too, but...I don't think all charismatics are nuts, nor do I think speaking in tongues is not a real gift~I just don't have it.

Likewise, I don't doubt there are people, churches who take an unbiblical view of the father's role in the home. Some legalists in a particular movement does not define the whole movement.

I'm sorry for people who get caught up in legalism. That's something that God has protected me from up to this point (thank you, Lord!)

[Renee in NC]

Gotcha. In some of the stuff I read, however, it appears to me that initially, it wasn't about attempting to deliberately ruin someone's life over business so much as it was the lifestyle she was keeping secret from the public while claiming to be a Christian. She had no accountability to either a pastor or a dh for a while there, and was attempting to keep her popular public image "clean". Granted, it became a clear opportunity for someone else to profit off her personal trials, and I sympathize with her for that, but that's not the whole story. (It's the only part of the story that could be addressed in a civil court of law, though.)

 

It also seems evident, both from her background AND her choices during the 90's that led up to the business fiasco, that she already had liberal leanings, anyway. Thus, I doubt it was the poor actions of a few Christians that drove her to feminism and lesbianism (as has been implied in some posts). There are many people who use "bad Christians" as an excuse for not serving the Lord themselves. Sadly, my own sister was one of them.

 

Ummm, so what (to the bolded.) She had accountability to God the whole time.

 

I'll just have to let this go as I am too emotionally involved, but I am so glad I left that part of my life behind - the part where people think this is an acceptable way to hold others "accountable."