- Sky
- Blueberry
- Slate
- Blackcurrant
- Watermelon
- Strawberry
- Orange
- Banana
- Apple
- Emerald
- Chocolate
- Charcoal
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'patriarchy'.
Found 53 results
-
We've been discussing the draconian new restrictions on abortion in various threads, so I thought we could have a central thread. Missouri joined the ugly crowd overnight: Before dawn. As if that would not make news.
-
Dessert before dinner is a "good gift from God that’s been perverted"
love2scrap posted a topic in Parenting - Good & Bad
So... Lori linked to this facebook page and I came across one of the usual diatribes against porn. But this analogy takes the cake. Today I learned I'm a pervert for having that tiramisu before my spaghetti last night. -
I scrolled across a public post in my Facebook feed today that I had to share: Their website is nuts. Their t-shirts have the slogan "man leads." I haven't had time to dig too deep, but I knew you all would want to see this. www.rootsofroyals.com
-
Just saw this interesting posting You can boil the reasons down to it basically being that men who buy into the patriarchy bullshit don't have fulfilling lives and relationships with others, especially their spouses.
-
Has anyone else been watching Israel Wayne whine about how he feels like he doesn't belong because he hasn't rejected fundamentalism? Apparently he's getting all judgey on twitter. "Never judge a system by its abuses. Judge it by its tenets and core values." One wonders why his is protesting so much now. . . http://www.familyrenewal.org/i-apologize/
-
I was inspired to start this thread after reading this article on the progressive double standard on Bill Clinton versus Harvey Weinstein or Donald Trump from Jacobin, a democratic socialist magazine: https://jacobinmag.com/2017/10/bill-clinton-harvey-weinstein-sexual-assault However, this is a subject that I have been thinking about ever since Monicagate in the 1990s when I was in high school. I was never comfortable with how mainstream feminists threw Monica Lewinsky under the bus (see the NYT op-ed piece by Gloria Steinem references in the link). I get that from a political perspective, the idea was probably that it was better that sacrifice Lewinsky to prevent Republicans from enacting anti-woman policies, but i hate the idea that some women are considered disposable while others are to be pushed into prominence. In any case, the question that the article raises is very valid: would liberals and progressives be as sanguine about the allegations against Bill Clinton if the subject of these rumors was some other guy (eg Clarence Thomas, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Josh Duggar, Donald Trump)? If we claim to take sexual harassment seriously, shouldn’t that mean doing so even when it may politically hurt us to do so? To me, the underlying problem is patriarchy. It doesn’t matter how one identifies politically or how much money one give to charity or political causes. If a man thinks that women only exist as objects for his gratification and knows he can get away with assault and harassment because of his position, he’ll do it. And the overarching societal system is structured in such a way that discourages people, whether male or female, from standing up to men in authority. I know that talking about patriarchy in public is even less popular than talking about white supremacy, but unless we deal with the underlying causes of these serial abusers, these scandals will just keep happening.
-
I'll confess I grew up in the 1970s and 80s, and so I have found the recent skittering from low-cut jeans that show more panty than line to a sort of puritanical view of fashion I see lately to be exhausting and annoying. By the standards of the people we discuss here, I am not a moderate dresser. I wear spaghetti strap sundresses all summer long, and don't go in much for sleeves in the winter. When I was a teen and young adult, I loved loved low cut backs, or back cut-outs, and now as a middle-aged person, I'm a little disappointed cleavage is not currently in style. It's my main asset these days. ;-) However, I really don't care how anyone else dresses—aside from jeans that always looked on the verge of leaving their owner—as long as they make some effort to clean their shoes, and recognize that some situations call for a bit more effort than others. Extreme reasons for their choices, though, tend to bum me out. https://medium.com/@joelherbert/modest-is-hottest-is-not-in-the-bible-49b58ed1fdf6 I just realized that my sort of wishing for cleavage baring could be seen as a specific desire to look, well, desirable. And then I realized it was ridiculous of me to worry about whether someone else thought that. I just like certain kinds of clothing balance, both formal and informal in the artistic sense, and also I am uncomfortable being too covered up for too long. I'd never enjoy being a nudist, but would fit happily in the land of short, light, loose freedom of dress all year round. I would do well on an island that Joel McCrea found himself stranded on after a boat accident.
-
Having had it up to HERE with the bloviations of the PEOTUS, Geoff Boykin The Duck Scientist, and so many of the Big Important Men we discuss on this forum, I've been self-soothing lately with tales of ordinary women who get by Just Fine in the company of other women: Broadway musicals: The Color Purple, Beautiful, Waitress, The Spitfire Grill (about an abused woman released from prison for manslaughter and finds redemption in a small-town diner) Memoir: The Mighty Queens of Freeville, by Amy Dickinson (about two generations of women who prospered without men in their lives) Novel: The All-Girls' Filling Station's Last Reunion, by Fannie Flagg (about sisters running a gas station and then joining the WASPs--corps of female military aviators--during WWII) And I also take tremendous comfort in the fact that Lourdes Torres is pursuing a university degree in the STEM field! Take THAT, Geoff, you obnoxious gasbag. -
I generally have that fascinated-horror, looking at Fundy women, but I've been wondering about the whole "women shouldn't work, but be SAHMs" thing - and how massively hypocritical the average Fundy shilling this is. I know there are the ones who believe it's ok for women to work inside the home under their headship's stewarding, BUT I wanted to collect a list of jobs that "non-working" women are allowed to do - can you help? And for FJers who've got experience in the Fundy lifestyle, how is this justified? So, jobs "non working women" can do. Teaching other women - public speaking at conferences and such, running courses etc (for filthy lucre) - eg the Duggar women Writing for money - eg Lori Alexander, the Duggar girls, Sarah Maxwell, Marjorie etc Blogging for money - Sweet Modesty etc - with cash for adverts, product placement etc Appearing on TV (even though TV is sinful) - Bateseseses, Duggars, everyone else aspires to this Singing in public for cash - the Boyers, Rodriguii etc Selling CDS - and presumably concerts too? How does Erin Bates sell her stuff? Photography - so many of them Illustration, graphic design (presumably they have to meet clients??) Web design and media work - the Smiths etc Working as a tutor for families that believe women shouldn't work (Tabitha Paine) Un-licensed midwifery (Jill Duggar), Doula etc Selling fashion items on Etsy - and other online shops (thinking of Fresh Modesty and others) Flipping houses and selling cars in a car lot - Duggars - can't work out if doing it or pretending to do it is more hypocritical The weird "live like us" lifestyle promotion for money Working in one's father's business What am I missing? And what's the difference between, eg, web-building at home and, I don't know, copy-editing?
-
This new release documents the lives of a fundie family who lives in total isolation in NYC projects. The children are homeschooled, and their only exposure to the outside world is through secular movies. The father forbids the wife & children to leave the tiny apartment. The Patriarch's form of rebellion against the government is to not work.
-
Princess Cut AKA marriage is the ONLY thing that matters
PartriarchydefyinValkarie posted a topic in Quiverfull of Movies
So a while back, while watching movie trailers, I stumbled across a movie called Princess Cut. The movie immediately screamed to me that it was a Christian film (cue Goodnight Kevin's gag) it is by I believe Watchmen pictures. Unlike GND 1or 2 it stars nobody big named. A girl named Grace (real f-ing original there movie) who believes that this is going to be the night that she gets engaged and a man will give her a princess cut diamond engagement ring thus the title of it. Grace Anderson then finds out her boyfriend is getting engaged but to...dun...dun...DUUUN! Another woman. * to be honest they aren't really clear what the nature of the relationship between grace and this man is so I'm not sure if feel sorry for her or not because we really don't established they went on romantic dates more so that they were just hanging out together. Broken hearted she rushes in a tizzy home and proclaims to her mom and pop "I don't think God wants me to get married!!" Waaah, poor first-world problems me! So, her worldly friend, btw they make this girl act completely horrible compared to Gracey-poo, has her meet for coffee only for Grace to run into the man who was working in a jewlery store we briefly see at the beginning of the movie named (I am not kidding) Jared. Jared, the galleria of jewlery, is a guy who seems genuinely interested in Grace and convinces her to sit and talk with him while on his break as he is now working at that very coffee shop. Overtime, he begins to persue being in a relationship with Grace but.. he wants to...KISS HER!! The horror, the ungodly horror!! I mean that's what you get when you go out with a non church going, raised by a single mom, and then living on his own guy!! I'm serious though, later on Grace confesses to her parents that they kissed at his house as if he took advantage of her. It was more like a scene out of SVU the way they played this. So farmer Joe/her daddy, forgot to mention this whole movie is a huge jerking off to farmers, farming, country-living ect. He gives her a bag of soybean seeds, but in it are words of wisdom and then he says he will lovingly guide her to a guy for marriage through him. Then the next scene, Grace breaks up with Jared and checks out a lot of books (the Botkinettes one gets a huge plug in the montage) before she gets on the 'right' path. A week later, worldly friend is out and about at the coffee shop and texts Grace to get her ass down there there is a a hot man and Grace responds: You can have him. (To which the friend flips out once she finds out Grace is courting him and unfriends her) Through wacky shenanigans, that is the man who will meet the test to begin a courtship with. He's Mr. Christian right. He also moved back to the area and knows how to fix a tractor, (which daddy needed done), saves her little bratty brother (which he really didn't save him and the kid wasn't in real danger), oh and wants to merely start a courtship and only under her parents rules. Isn't he dreamy? Then they have a fall festival to celebrate them being able to harvest their soybeans thanks to Mr. Perfect fixing the tractor, only for Mr. Perfects crazy stalker ex to show up and try to win him back AND Jared to go full supervillian and try to get Grace back by sending Perfect's ex after him and leaving Grace alone in the barn with him where he tries to force her to accept earrings he bought her. Oh and did I mention Jared straight up tries to murder Mr. Perfect? Yeah, with a shovel from the barn they are in. I didn't even mention the stupid shenanigans that her little bother tries to pull throughout the movie, one is a personal ad where he advertises his sister as "Really pretty and cooks amazing Mac and cheese". The directors really must have thought it a laugh riot because the scene goes on for so long of stereotype guy after guy coming to the door. In the end of course, Grace and Mr. P get married, have a little girl, and live happily ever after on their farm. These movies are just so damn funny due to they live in more of a fantasy than Disney Channel movies do like HSM. The acting isn't horrid, except for Grace she overacts pretty hard core in certain scenes. Glad I could sit there through this for free, ahh Youtube gotta love people uploading these. I also saw Old Fashioned and October baby for free too. -
The usual suspects at the "Council on Biblical manhood and Womanhood" (can we say self parody?) have scheduled 2 days and 27 speakers to explain to the unenlightened why women are inferior. It seems like they have rounded up a new crop of submission fetishists, I only recognize a few of the speakers. http://cbmw.org/2016-preconference The topics include such gems as: "Jackie Hill-Perry Testimony: My Journey Out of Lesbianism to Complementarianism" Also check out the twitter hashtag #CBMW16 for pictures and some hilarious smack downs of the speakers. Rachel Held Evens is having a field day with this.
-
Lori Alexander - Still Not Learning A Thing, Part 4
Coconut Flan posted a topic in Lori & Ken Alexander (Always Learning/The Transformed Wife)
Lori and Ken still can not quit the internet and continue to babble about nothing. They have however, scrubbed the internets of their praise of Josh Dugger. Too bad FJ never forgets... Continue you discussion and while you are at it, don't forget to employ some GoogleTactics[tm][/tm]. Part 1: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=26285 Part 2: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=26285 Part 3: http://www.freejinger.org/topic/24215-lori-alexander-still-not-learning-a-thing-part-3/?page=1 -
I was out at the Reconstructionist Theonomists Facebook page (Nathaniel Darnell's group) and ran across Vaughn Ohlman berating Michael Pearl... and why? Because, apparently, in the world of patriarchal marriage and betrothals, Michael Pearl is a wuss and a liberal apostate and probably hell bent because he allowed his 26 year old daughter input into who she would marry. Not at all Biblical, according to this guy. http://letthemmarry.org/articles/general-biblical-issues/the-authority-of-the-father/to-betroth-or-not-to-betroth-a-response-to-michael-pearl-part-i What was charming, to me, is this guy is all over the idea of two fathers liking one another and their children being betrothed with no way to say no from the time the father's say "Let's have them get married." His own son apparently had not seen the girl he was going to marry until after the fathers and he agreed he would be marrying. The comments on this are horrifying and great. Some of it is ssdd . Fewer divorces in arranged marriages than in self selected marriages... yeah, because the subgroups that arrange marriages don't allow for divorce without all kinds of penalties, such as being tossed out of the family, tossed out of your church (aka only social outlet) etc. Women have no say in who they have sex with , their sexuality belongs to their father and then their husband.... The comments section also gave me some serious nuggets of wtf. But the last couple of comments give a basic overview of this conversation. The more I read this, the more I see why the patriarch hates women so much. They don't view them as wholly human, certainly not equal to men on any level. But these attitudes lead to is 1) men are not expected to only have one woman/wife, so having affairs, sexually abusing the help or the choir members, etc is AOK. This is why an inlaw told another inlaw years ago that men could divorce for adultery , but women could not, and why the polygamy group is always on the sidelines of these types of believers. Interestingly enough, this marriage specialist didn't pick up the bits about Michael Pearls rapey honeymoon to preach on, just how he sinned in letting his daughter have a say. This was only part one on Michael Pearl, and I've not read part 2, but these people (the Reconstructionist Theonomists and political patriarchists) scare the crap out of me. As a woman, I can't figure out why any woman would willingly join them, unless brainwashed since birth.
-
Lori and Ken still can not quit the internet and continue to babble about nothing. They have however, scrubbed the internets of their praise of Josh Dugger. Too bad FJ never forgets... Continue you discussion and while you are at it, don't forget to employ some GoogleTactics[tm][/tm]. Part 1: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=26285 Part 2: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=26285 -
To those who know Kevin Swanson from his many many books such as upgrade the 10 best secrets to homeschooling and the second Mayflower. Apparently on his show today which I listen to ,just snark on every day, he has been having to put his own money and his friends money (Dave) into his radio show. He said he has one year before he's going to have to give up on this endeavor because it's putting him into debt (remember he's just like the Duggars in the whole Debt free living). Seems like just yesterday he was bragging about how his radio show was supported only by donations. Maybe it was his hate for Frozen that caused his donations to drop like flies, either way looks like it might be time for him to Let it go..
-
Lori Alexander - Part 2
happy atheist posted a topic in Lori & Ken Alexander (Always Learning/The Transformed Wife)
Part 1: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=25361 I haven't been following this thread lately, so if someone else would like to post a summary it would be appreciated. -
Lori and Ken Alexander's Big Ol' Bucket o' Crazy - Part 2
happy atheist posted a topic in Lori & Ken Alexander (Always Learning/The Transformed Wife)
Here's part 1: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24350 -
Here is a very weird question: Could it be that the Duggars are in fact a matriarchy? The daughters seem to run the household and seem to take part in the decision making. Without them there would have never been a show. the boys seem dull (except for Josiah who is being crushed right now). I have the feeling that JB does pretty much everything the girls want. Jill and Jessa both seem to be the dominant person in their relationships. Anna not so much but she is not a Duggar-Duggar. Michelle...I don't know, it could be both ways. She may have lost her mind to the extent that JB has to be the headship which he otherwise would not be?
-
Hey everyone! First time starting a thread. I'm going to try to turn my incoherent train of thought into a readable post. There are a lot of conflicting perceptions of the Duggar children, especially as they approach adulthood. I think we pretty unanimously view the elementary-aged through teenage children as victims of their parents' choices, and of the destructive fundamentalist culture in general. Seeing someone as a victim reduces the degree to which we seem them as an agent (i.e. capable of independent thoughts and decisions), so even though these kids have the same hateful views as their parents, we excuse them because they don't know better. However, as soon as a Duggar kid moves out of the house, in our eyes they immediately become responsible for their beliefs and actions. There is open criticism towards Josh, Jill, and Jessa about decisions they've made (e.g. no birth control, work for hate group, etc.) and things they've said on social media. There is such an abrupt shift in the way we perceive them, when in reality their maturation has been happening fluidly since they were born. We're angry with who they are now, when the people they are now have been in the making for the past 20+ years. They didn't suddenly gain insight when they got married, so why suddenly hold them accountable for beliefs they've had for years? I think part of what causes this is our victimization of the Duggar kids still living at home. We act as if every one of them is silently wishing they could escape, without realizing that the kids themselves buy into the culture just as much as their parents do. We feel sorry for them because they've never been exposed to a non-Gothard school of thought, but because of that isolation, they don't feel like they're missing out. I know I've always seen Jana as an overworked Cinderella-type character, but the fact is, she probably enthusiastically agrees with all the horrible things her parents stand for. My point is, if we insist that the kids at home are "blameless," then that shouldn't end when they leave the compound. They're still the exact same people with the exact same life experiences, who were taught that critical thinking is off limits. If we insist that they are responsible for their own decisions and opinions when they leave home, then it may be useful to remind ourselves that the kids we currently sympathize with--Josiah, Joy Anna, Jana, Hannie--are also bigoted, sexist, homophobes that swear we're doing the devil's work.
-
I never heard this version before. JB taking the credit for another marriage match for his daughters. Then again, since all men have to go through him anyway I guess he'll take the credit for all of them. http://www.tlc.com/tv-shows/19-kids-and ... courtship/
-
We know that the Duggars are pretty involved in pro life campaigns. But what is pissing me off so much about this is that it is actually patriarchy and everything that belongs to it that is causing abortions. 200 years ago when our ancestors were living in the society the Quiverful folks deem perfect there were women that killed their babies after birth because they were unmarried. And some of these unwed mothers were raped, some of them had a sexual partner who promised them that he will marry them even though he never did, some were just so horny that they lost control. The less extreme patriarchal society is in my oppinion also a society where less women can fit a baby into the lives they want to live because they for example have a harder time to be a mom and to work at the same time. So more women decide against the baby they are pregnant with. The Duggars and their likes are living in their own little world where everything that is wrong (to them) can be easily solved by speaking out against it or by simply forbiding it when in fact the causes of a lot of social phenomenas are far more complex.
-
Lori and Ken: The Big Ball of Crazy -Multiple Merges
FundieWatcher posted a topic in Lori & Ken Alexander (Always Learning/The Transformed Wife)
New business idea from Kenny. Women, and women only do not know how to live without the internet. Answer? Bootcamp. Learn to do housework for 2-3 hours a day- no less, no more. There are big bucks in this. And Everything, no exceptions, is always the females fault. -
I don't have time to review Lori's foolishness today...Christmas cookies to bake and all that. I DO have time to chime in and point out that Aunt Genny has once again taken the Godly Mentor down a peg. Team Aunt Genny. That is all. -
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/the- ... ns-rights/
