The Boyer Sisters, Part 3

[samurai_sarah]

Carry on from here:

Last post from @Bretta:

Quote

Sorry I misjudged your post then, haha. Didn't mean to come across in a negative way.

@laPapessaGiovanna Okay, read up. Fair enough, I accept your arguments and I do have questions for Gabe as well, since he's so eager to engage here whether to justify his own choices, have a laugh, etc. I don't know.

My issue is with men who marry woman who are vulnerable, especially economically and psychologically. Women who wouldn't have the skills/life experience etc. to stand on their own feet and are dependent in every way. It's not a college qualification at the end of the day; sometimes women from very conservative backgrounds and restricted upbringings have a very limited view of life. They may not be able to make decisions outside of the strict religious construct even if they really needed to ie in an emergency situation. They may not even have the critical thinking skills or confidence to make simple decisions or handle emergencies without their "male headship". I would think that a husband who loves his wife as he loves himself (Eph 5) would seek to empower her, not make her subject to and dependent on himself for selfish reasons ie. so that she will always make him dinner, stick by him even if he's a brute, never leave him even if he molests their children, cheats on her, threatens her life, etc.

This is my little rant... anyway, wouldn't it make sense to make sure that one's wife is able to support herself ie. by encouraging her to have career, skills, and options. Let's say she isn't educated... wouldn't it make a lot of sense to help her get something, anything, so that she could be provided for in your absence. I know talk about "trust in God" comes in at this point, but the world is a messed-up place where suffering exists and tragedy happens. Nothing happens according to plan, so there's nothing wrong with being prepared and not naively expecting everything to fall into place according to our narrow expectations. God doesn't promise that every submissive, stay-at-home wife would always have a husband to provide for her and treat her like she deserves.

I'm not saying, you, Gabe, and your wife Brigid fall into this category as no one outside a marriage can truly know it's dynamics. However, I have read of and know woman of this kind (generally) of background who have been purposefully deprived of an education, a fair chance at life, etc., who are treated like overgrown children and never given a chance to grow up and be a full person. When they get married, they are still basically treated like children, as if to be a woman is to be a sub-man or subhuman, treated without respect and with "honor" that's nothing more than lipservice and condescension and that only enforces her reduced status.

Now I'm going to use the Bible to make my argument because that's the only thing that really speaks to fundies...

There's nothing in the Bible that promotes the idea of "acquiring" a wife so as to get some kind of lifelong indentured servant who will basically meet your needs, birth your children, keep your house, etc. - ie. some applications of complementarianism. Egalitarianism in principle seems like the most logical thing... genitals and hormones don't make one gender more superior than the other, surely?  Doesn't 1 Corinthians 7 say that the wife owns the husband just as much as the husband owns the wife, that the husband is to please his wife as much as a wife is to please her husband? Even Ephesians 5 can be taken to mean that two people give their lives for each other and not as a justification for an unhealthy, unbalanced relationship, that puts all the power in the hands (or pants) of  the husband and leaves women at the mercy of narcissists and abusers. A complementarian relationship sets the stage for an abusive relationship, simply because women are taught to "worship" their husbands and treat them like demigods. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, does it not?

The fundamental principle of Christianity is that God, who is powerful, would humble himself and give himself for humanity. Ie. Jesus teaches that the least shall be the greatest, that Christians are to wash each other's feet and not pay no heed to "rank". Jesus said that the Kings of the gentiles laud it over their subjects, but it never to be so in his kingdom. Why not take these larger, general humanitarian principles and apply them to Christian marriages instead of only obsessing over a few verses. The fact that these few verses about submission,

women's "inferiority" etc. become the central creed in complementarian marriage teachings speaks volumes about the personal priorities. Missing the forest for the trees, maybe?

 

[nickelodeon]

I can't see why you'd want to spend time during your first precious Christmas as a married couple getting in slapfights with strangers on the internet, but you do you Gabe.

[catlady]

2 minutes ago, nickelodeon said:

I can't see why you'd want to spend time during your first precious Christmas as a married couple getting in slapfights with strangers on the internet, but you do you Gabe.

i thought the same thing. i had checked my phone for the time around midday yesterday during some downtime (i had taken my cousin to see his mom at her nursing home, and they were busy admiring each others' gifts), and i hit the Safari icon by mistake.  this thread was at the top of my unread content, so i had a peek; i was genuinely surprised to see that @Gabe has posts timestamped for 2:42pm on Christmas Eve, and 7:55am on Christmas Day.   i couldn't imagine why such a devout man , and a newlywed too, would be here at those times instead of with Mrs. Gabe, family, and in-laws, and/or attending (or preparing to attend) services at these times.  i have to admit i began wondering if @Gabe might be an impostor........it still doesn't make any sense.

[ChunkyBarbie]

I am friends with a couple who believe that biblically the man should be head of household. However, it has been a struggle in their marriage because the husband isn't emotionally and maybe intellectually equipped to be head of household.  He is easily overwhelmed by adulting, puts it on the wife and then they both feel resentful because she is head of household. He then takes over until he puts it back on her and the cycle repeats itself. 

They receive counseling through their church, but obviously need to try a new approach than continuing the cycle. I have watched this happen for eight years now.  I stay out of it, it isn't my business, and my input is not wanted.  I just can't believe that God would want my friend to experience bankruptcy, credit card debt, and end up living in her mom's garage because men should have the final say. Why can't the head of household be the most capable person in the relationship?

Yes, I realize my friends don't represent the norm.  

[Lurky]

1 hour ago, catlady said:

i have to admit i began wondering if @Gabe might be an impostor........it still doesn't make any sense.

I've been thinking that all along, TBH -  in the last thread, there was info on how to get verified, but it doesn't seem to have happened?  But it seems really unlikely to me, too.  Anyway, the usual rule on the internet - just because someone says they're somebody, that doesn't make it true...

[freedom_for_all]

Not sure if I believe @Gabe is real. Maybe he would do us the "honor" of verifying. 

[Destiny]

For the record, he has not reached out to anyone for verification, nor have any of the admins attempted to do any on our own.

Remember the rule: one out of every two people on the internet is an axe murderer, and if it's not you, it's the other guy; behave accordingly.

[Gabe]

I think it's more fun to keep you all guessing

[formergothardite]

Just now, Gabe said:

I think it's more fun to keep you all guessing

How clever and original of you. 

So can you think of any Christian history books off the top of your head that aren't all whitewashed and full of fake history? 

 

[DaisyD]

I actually have no problem believing that a fundie husband would have time to come here on Christmas. What does he have to do when there's no work? It's Brigid's job to make Christmas. Not his.

[Gabe]

1 hour ago, formergothardite said:

How clever and original of you. 

So can you think of any Christian history books off the top of your head that aren't all whitewashed and full of fake history? 

 

Most of them. Honestly, the facts taught are generally non-controversial and the exact same facts I could find in an encyclopedia or one of the secular history books I read. Now there is significant bias in the way things are framed but that's normal, and not at all unique to Christian curriculum in my experience. 

I have read through the 14th edition Encyclopedia Britannica and a complete set of 1960s world book encyclopedias. I don't claim to remember everything I read, but I always cross checked things that fascinated me and can't remember any significant discrepancies. History fascinated me and so I always read encyclopedia articles along side our history curriculum books. When a particular topic was especially interesting I dug deeper into the material with more books and in later years online collections of primary sources.

My own worldview of History has changed significantly. I used to have a more typical neoconservative view of war and foreign relations. One that glorified war and political leaders. I no longer hold those views. One of the reasons I want to write a history series is because I want a history that focuses on the common ordinary people without the caustic socialistic slant of books like Howard Zinn's People's History.

[church_of_dog]

1 minute ago, Gabe said:

Most of them.

I can't help but be reminded (especially since I watched the movie "Game Change" recently) of when Sarah Palin was on the ticket for VP and she was asked what magazines she reads.  And her answer was... "all of them." 

You see, @Gabe, the question wasn't "what proportion of Christian history books do you think aren't whitewashed and full of fake history?"  The question asked you to actually identify the ones (or at least some of the ones) that you think fit that description.

By answering with such a general non-answer, you are deflecting and avoiding the actual conversation -- is that what you actually want?  To not have to address actual questions that people here have about your views?  I thought you were open to discussion and even debate as long as it stayed on you and didn't veer too far toward the Boyers.

If you're not trying to avoid the discussion, then the way to respond to @formergothardite's question is to actually name some books, so that she (or anyone, for that matter) can see whether she agrees that the history presented in those specific books is or isn't whitewashed or fake.

[Gabe]

I have to go home and look before I remember which history course I did. I was always so disappointed by how shallow and sparse the information was. I remember reading through all the Bob Jones history books but they were never my curriculum I just read them for fun. My older siblings went through those. We did Sonlight for a year or two. It was mainly historical fiction and literature if I remember correctly. I know I went through at least 2 other classes but by the time I was 12 I didn't do history curriculum I just focused on a historical time period and put together my own curriculum by ordering books (secular and Christian) and writing book reports.

[freedom_for_all]

3 hours ago, church_of_dog said:

I can't help but be reminded (especially since I watched the movie "Game Change" recently) of when Sarah Palin was on the ticket for VP and she was asked what magazines she reads.  And her answer was... "all of them." 

 

 

Side note: Katie Couric is such a great podcaster, I totally recommend it. According to her Wait Wait Don't Tell Me (another GREAT podcast/radio show) interview she was just filming "B-Roll" when she asked that question and wasn't trying to trip Sarah Palin up. 

5 hours ago, Gabe said:

I think it's more fun to keep you all guessing

I'm guessing that is because it isn't really Gabe here. I'll be taking everything you say with a grain of salt from now on, or a larger grain than before. If you are who you say, how hard is it to verify?

[Destiny]

I think it's more fun to keep you all guessing [emoji6]

Cos that's not at all the behaviour of a troll.

So original. Much clever. Wow.

[formergothardite]

6 hours ago, Gabe said:

Honestly, the facts taught are generally non-controversial and the exact same facts

I'm going to have to disagree with that. Bob Jones teaches that most slaves were very, very well taken care of and that slave owners were nice people with the cruel slave owner being rare. Bob Jones also taught that the KKK was an organization that fought against the decline of morality. A Beka teaches that the idea that the Great Depression was bad is just liberal propaganda. I was also taught things like Washington's prayer at Valley Forge was absolutely positively true. That was presented as rock solid fact, not a story with dubious origins. 

I googled and it is A Beka that teaches that the Trail of Tears was period God used to bring Indians to Christ. 

Liars for Jesus makes it pretty clear how many of these books, especially Christian ones, aren't presenting facts, they are presenting lies. 

[ViolaSebastian]

Well, fantastic. Another history book written by a white, Christian man with an over-inflated ego and no training whatsoever in working with primary source material and research techniques. Just what the world so desperately needs. 

[EmiGirl]

11 minutes ago, ViolaSebastian said:

Well, fantastic. Another history book written by a white, Christian man with an over-inflated ego and no training whatsoever in working with primary source material and research techniques. Just what the world so desperately needs. 

Not to mention no higher education at all. 

[ViolaSebastian]

8 minutes ago, EmiGirl said:

Not to mention no higher education at all. 

I have an undergraduate degree in history and I feel that writing a history work of the scope Gabe is talking about doing would be well beyond my training and abilities. Dunning-Kruger effect in action, I guess. 

[formergothardite]

27 minutes ago, ViolaSebastian said:

Well, fantastic. Another history book written by a white, Christian man with an over-inflated ego and no training whatsoever in working with primary source material and research techniques. Just what the world so desperately needs. 

But he read books and wrote book reports!

 

[ViolaSebastian]

3 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

But he read books and wrote book reports!

 

I also have a feeling that by saying his history will be about "normal, ordinary people" is that he really means white, Protestant penis-holders. With people like this anyone who doesn't fit that definition is therefore abnormal and requires a "special" history, separate from the mainstream one.  Unsurprisingly, most of the time even these "alternate" histories present the non-dominant group in question as present only in relation to the hegemonic "normal, ordinary people." 

I just can't imagine a person like Gabe digging into, say, the history of normal, ordinary Jewish-Americans or normal, ordinary women who worked in the textile mills in New England, or normal, ordinary Native Americans, or normal, ordinary Italian-Americans, or normal, ordinary African-Americans during the Great Migration. People's history, my ass. 

[catlady]

10 hours ago, Gabe said:

I think it's more fun to keep you all guessing

do you really think this kind of game-playing is productive?  if you're the real Gabe, own it.  if you're not, then what the hell is your motive?

[DancingPhalanges]

8 hours ago, Gabe said:

Snip-Bolding by moi

Most of them. Honestly, the facts taught are generally non-controversial and the exact same facts I could find in an encyclopedia or one of the secular history books I read. Now there is significant bias in the way things are framed but that's normal, and not at all unique to Christian curriculum in my experience. 

I have read through the 14th edition Encyclopedia Britannica and a complete set of 1960s world book encyclopedias. 

Snip

 One of the reasons I want to write a history series is because I want a history that focuses on the common ordinary people without the caustic socialistic slant of books like Howard Zinn's People's History.

 

8 hours ago, Gabe said:

I have to go home and look before I remember which history course I did. I was always so disappointed by how shallow and sparse the information was. I remember reading through all the Bob Jones history books but they were never my curriculum I just read them for fun. 

Just to clarify @Gabe because I am genuinely curious. You are suggesting that the Bob Jones history curriculum basically lines up with your encyclopedia reading and is not controversial?

You use strong language against Howard Zinn's book that you referenced but not the Bob Jones history curriculum that you read for fun? I've seen the BJU books and I am having trouble believing you read  them because they in no way line up with any secular history book. You would know this if you read them, it just does not add up. If I have misunderstood, please clarify.

I snipped and bolded your posts so that I don't write a wall of text, not to misrepresent what you said. 

[formergothardite]

11 minutes ago, ViolaSebastian said:

I just can't imagine a person like Gabe digging into, say, the history of normal, ordinary Jewish-Americans or normal, ordinary women who worked in the textile mills in New England, or normal, ordinary Native Americans, or normal, ordinary Italian-Americans, or normal, ordinary African-Americans during the Great Migration. People's history, my ass. 

Or a normal American Muslim person. Or you know all those normal gay people in history.

White Christians weren't exactly the good guys in some parts of history. Terrible things have been done because of things written in the Bible. Is he going to dig into what it was like for people who were persecuted by Christians? 

[Gabe]

1 hour ago, EmiGirl said:

Not to mention no higher education at all. 

You are making a significant assumption based on a lack of evidence.