Stacy McDonald on “Domestic Tyrants�

[Burris]

The Ladies Against Feminism site has posted an article by Stacy McDonald concerning domestic abuse. McDonald begins her article by stating she doesn’t really like the term "abuse" because a) it’s applied too broadly, and b) in truth, everyone is an abuser by virtue of our sinful natures.

No, seriously - that's what she says.

In other words, she wants to broaden the term "abuse" to cover every harsh word, every mean act whether isolated or habitual, all while claiming the word is overused. Neat trick!

After reclassifying habitual abusers as “domestic tyrants,†in a baffling semantic exercise that doesn’t seem to serve any purpose beyond offering McDonald a term she likes better than “abuser,†she says this:

We all “abuse†one another when we sin against each other. We love ourselves more than our neighbor and “use†each other for some form of real or perceived personal gain. However, there is another level of sin that is chronic, mean, unrepentant and even calculating – it is evil and consuming. It has nothing to do with “biblical submission,†“patriarchy,†or being “quiverfull,†as some egalitarian opportunists have claimed. It has everything to do with tyranny and sin, and it is no respecter of denomination, lifestyle, or income level.

Some individuals with an egalitarian agenda have used for their platform hand picked families from what they call the “quiverfull†movement. Though tyrants exist in every type of family imaginable, they use only examples from families who appear to subscribe to the lifestyle they disagree with.

Egalitarians recognize abuse exists within all family types. What makes abuse in the Quiverfull community more odious than in general is that the pastoral prescription for a dysfunctional family often seems to be that the wife should ‘submit more.’

They shamelessly exploit families suffering under domestic tyranny and use them to conveniently market their egalitarian position; and, in the process, they slander innocent families who are honestly living out their faith to the glory of God.

…as opposed to fundies, who shamelessly exploit the same families to market more crap about how to be a sweet Titus 2 woman – the sort who, if she follows Linda Dillow’s advice, for example, will greet her husband with a late dinner even after she knows he’s been out fucking another woman all night because, to paraphrase, ‘It’s wrong to meet an insult with an insult’; or Debi Pearl, who in her book Created to Be His Helpmeet, offered an abused woman’s self-abasement as a positive example of female virtue.

This is not only harmful to healthy families; it is a slap in the face to those who truly suffer or have suffered real abuse.

So everyone abuses, and everyone is abused, but to point out how QF offers an unbelievable amount of protection and succor to “domestic tyrants†is somehow a slap in the face of anyone who has suffered real abuse.

However, because abuse is such an emotional hot button, many are easily deceived into believing that a more liberal doctrine where no headship exists would keep everyone “equal†and tyrants would have no power. This is a lie.

That whole statement is a lie.

You see, the problem with tyrants is that they don’t recognize any authority except their own.

Indeed – and in a culture where absolute male headship, that women should submit to their husbands “as unto the Lord,†is preached from the pulpit, those men don’t need to recognize any authority but their own.

They’re prophets, priests, and kings – intercessors between their wives and God. This is driven home to such an extent that in some QF churches, husbands take the elements of communion from their pastors and deliver these to their own wives and children.

Biblical authority requires accountability for all men.

Yes it does. And yet when I asked James McDonald to specify what kind of accountability and punishments are meted to “domestic tyrants†in his own church, he played coy.

[demgirl]

She's gross.

However, your dissection of her grossness is excellent.

[liltwinstar]

Wow, thanks Burris! Your commentary is excellent as always :)

Abuse is not an "authority" problem. It's not like good men hit their wives until someone tells them to stop, you know? Abuse is a respect problem and an anger problem and sometimes an emotional problem.

And I have a big, big problem with classifying all "sins" against another person as "abuse." They are not the same thing at all. When I was 19-20, I was in a relationship with a man who was verbally abusive. When he would berate me for ever perceived flaw, sure, I guess he was sinning, but, more obviously, he was abusing.

Now, my husband (different man, obv) sometimes "sins" against me (I suppose) by being grouchy or short-tempered, but it's a whole different ball of wax there. There is no abuse in my marriage, just normal emotion. Even when he's angry, my husband still respects me and I am never afraid of him. In my prior relationship, there was no respect for me and I was terrified of him and what he would do to me, esp at the end of the relationship when things started to escalate. The two are not the same thing *at all* and I am pissed that she would even say there was. My husband is not an abuser; he's a normal man with normal emotions. A "harsh word" now and then is called "life" when you don't "keep sweet" all the time; it is not abuse. Abuse kills your soul (and sometimes your body too). I know the difference because I've lived it.

[urban explorer]

I read the post on some of Stacy's childhood experiences, thou I do feel sorry for what she had to go through her blog posts make it hard to, how she comes up with most of her “rational thoughts†and people eating it up YIKES

[tehgoobster]

Excellent post, Burris. You'd think that Stacy would be more compassionate towards people who suffer from abuse given her childhood.

[Patsy]

Excellent post, Burris. You'd think that Stacy would be more compassionate towards people who suffer from abuse given her childhood.

Unfortunately, sometimes it makes people less likely to.

[Want More Babies]

When I first read her aricle I thought of you. :) I wanted to hear your take on it.

Two thoughts went through my head. Either she is trying to downplay abusing others by saying everyone abuses, or she is trying to reconcile in her mind that everyone is abused in some way. Either way, she REALLY needs professional help.

[Bookworm]

She does not seem to be capable of acknowledging that she has been abused. It's like it's some dreadful thing to admit. Sure, it's a dreadful fact of life, but it does not reflect on a victim. It only reflects on the abuser. Her childhood sounds horrible and I really wish she could take some time and just admit that things happened to her that were WRONG. Not well-meant mistakes, but EVIL and WRONG. I think she would find a lot of freedom and much more happiness after letting that truth into her consciousness.

[tehgoobster]

She does not seem to be capable of acknowledging that she has been abused. It's like it's some dreadful thing to admit. Sure, it's a dreadful fact of life, but it does not reflect on a victim. It only reflects on the abuser. Her childhood sounds horrible and I really wish she could take some time and just admit that things happened to her that were WRONG. Not well-meant mistakes, but EVIL and WRONG. I think she would find a lot of freedom and much more happiness after letting that truth into her consciousness.

I think you hit the nail on the head with that. I don't know a whole lot about her childhood, but the anecdote I read was pretty heartbreaking. If she loves her parents, she might feel conflicted. I don't know how Stacy feels, but for some people, it can be painful to acknowledge that someone you love did something cruel to you. And yeah, judging from what I read about her getting spanked because she leaked spinal fluid on her sheets after surgery, her mom treated her cruelly. Were there other instances of abuse in her childhood?

[Bookworm]

Were there other instances of abuse in her childhood?

Pretty much all of what I know of her childhood comes from the steadfast daughters website and there is so much tragedy in her childhood. Ever since reading it I've had a lot more compassion for her.

[Burris]

And yeah, judging from what I read about her getting spanked because she leaked spinal fluid on her sheets after surgery, her mom treated her cruelly. Were there other instances of abuse in her childhood?

I think she said her parents thought she'd peed the bed. She didn't correct them, though she couldn't recall why not, and so they spanked her. They apparently felt bad about it and apologized when they learned the liquid was spinal fluid.

I'm not sure why bed-wetting, particularly after surgery, would be a 'spankable offense' anyway.

[tehgoobster]

I think she said her parents thought she'd peed the bed. She didn't correct them, though she couldn't recall why not, and so they spanked her. They apparently felt bad about it and apologized when they learned the liquid was spinal fluid.

I'm not sure why bed-wetting, particularly after surgery, would be a 'spankable offense' anyway.

Yeah, exactly. Even if they thought she peed the bed, it seems cruel to spank an ill child who's recovering from surgery.

[Brainsample]

Stacy had to do something to trash the thesis of Quivering Daughters! Come up with a clever sounding catch phrase, and the masses will believe anything you say.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_uDsi4AWWnN0/R ... button.gif

[emeraldskull]

Ok, so...

1. Everybody is an abuser so nobody is abused.

2. You can't ever blame the abuser for abusing you, because it's mean.

??

Brain. Logic. Cortex. Malfunctioning.

[Brainsample]

Ok, so...

1. Everybody is an abuser so nobody is abused.

2. You can't ever blame the abuser for abusing you, because it's mean.

??

Brain. Logic. Cortex. Malfunctioning.

You're missing the Bill Gothard/neo-Calvinist presumption that everyone is totally depraved, and you don't have any real rights to NOT be abused. Abuse is the norm, because we're all evil and deserve it.

And -

It is your duty to suffer any injustice because all suffering brings glory to God and is a sacrament that improves your character and gives you extra grace points that ward off sin cooties! Abusers and the abused bring glory to God, because both are transformed through abuse. It's God's instrument to make us into whatever the heck they think Christians should be.:animals-chickencatch:

Taken to the convenient extreme that is typical for this group, it almost makes sense. :confusion-seeingstars:

[ems]

The Ladies Against Feminism site has posted an article by Stacy McDonald concerning domestic abuse. McDonald begins her article by stating she doesn’t really like the term "abuse" because a) it’s applied too broadly, and b) in truth, everyone is an abuser by virtue of our sinful natures.

No, seriously - that's what she says.

In other words, she wants to broaden the term "abuse" to cover every harsh word, every mean act whether isolated or habitual, all while claiming the word is overused. Neat trick!

After reclassifying habitual abusers as “domestic tyrants,†in a baffling semantic exercise that doesn’t seem to serve any purpose beyond offering McDonald a term she likes better than “abuser,†she says this:

Egalitarians recognize abuse exists within all family types. What makes abuse in the Quiverfull community more odious than in general is that the pastoral prescription for a dysfunctional family often seems to be that the wife should ‘submit more.’

…as opposed to fundies, who shamelessly exploit the same families to market more crap about how to be a sweet Titus 2 woman – the sort who, if she follows Linda Dillow’s advice, for example, will greet her husband with a late dinner even after she knows he’s been out fucking another woman all night because, to paraphrase, ‘It’s wrong to meet an insult with an insult’; or Debi Pearl, who in her book Created to Be His Helpmeet, offered an abused woman’s self-abasement as a positive example of female virtue.

So everyone abuses, and everyone is abused, but to point out how QF offers an unbelievable amount of protection and succor to “domestic tyrants†is somehow a slap in the face of anyone who has suffered real abuse.

That whole statement is a lie.

Indeed – and in a culture where absolute male headship, that women should submit to their husbands “as unto the Lord,†is preached from the pulpit, those men don’t need to recognize any authority but their own.

They’re prophets, priests, and kings – intercessors between their wives and God. This is driven home to such an extent that in some QF churches, husbands take the elements of communion from their pastors and deliver these to their own wives and children.

Yes it does. And yet when I asked James McDonald to specify what kind of accountability and punishments are meted to “domestic tyrants†in his own church, he played coy.

You know, I will agree with her basic premise that we all abuse one another "on account of our sinful nature." I mean, who, if we are realllllly really honest with ourselves, never hurts the ones we love with harsh words, etc.? For me, that's why it can be hard to define where the line is regarding emotional abuse. That is NOT to say that emotional abuse doesn't exist or that it isn't as serious as physical abuse - just that there can be more shades of gray as we discern whether a regular pattern of abuse exists.

I hate, however, how she goes and takes the "we are all abusers" thing and seems to excuse abuse. As she herself states, accountability is required. And maybe not maintaining power structures ala patriarchy that make it easier for abuse to be perpetuated and sustained. I mean, equality means treating people as, well...equals, which pulls to the light any abuse of your fellow, equal, "brother or sister in Christ."

[gilora]

Here's a particularly pungent paragraph from the blog entry:

Yes, wives are called to submit to their own husbands (Eph. 5:22); but, not blindly and never to the point of sin. A woman who enables a tyrant by submitting to his wild or irrational demands (or standing by while he makes those demands of her children) is not being a good helpmeet to him, and it may be that she is naively participating in his sin.

So you're supposed to submit but if you do you may be enabling your abuser, oops, I mean "domestic tyrant." :twisted:

[liltwinstar]

For me, the line between "being mean occasionally" and "emotional abuse" is pretty clear - when someone berates you more than they are kind to you; when there is no respect for you as an individual; when the language/words used are used for the sole purpose of beating you down and making you feel like crap - that's when it's emotional abuse. When the abuser is trying to control your actions/behavior by bullying, intimidating, and threatening - that's abuse.

For example, my husband and I had a pretty big fight one day (well, for us anyway). It was over something stupid, and we were both pretty heated - he said things like "why can't you do things x way, that's easier/faster/better etc" I said things like "I just want to do it y way, it works better for me, etc." In my former relationship, an argument like that would have turned into an hours-long "conversation" where the man I was dating would have told me how stupid I was, how I shouldn't think for myself any more, how he was better than me, how his way was better and that if I loved him, I shouldn't even have *thoughts* different from him, my family had brainwashed me into thinking I could think for myself, etc etc etc.

So, for me, it's a pretty clear line.

[antifundie]

Wait, so if you're so beaten down (emotionally, physically, whatever) by your abuser that you can't leave or that you "enable" the tyrant's behavior, you've SINNED? Oh great, blame the victim. Again.

Just to be clear, I do believe that victims can enable bad behavior, but I wouldn't call it sinful. According to my reading about co-dependency, enabling is a coping mechanism, although it doesn't really work that well. And no, it's not a good thing, but it happens.

Ugh. Just...ugh.

[tehgoobster]

Here's a particularly pungent paragraph from the blog entry:

Yes, wives are called to submit to their own husbands (Eph. 5:22); but, not blindly and never to the point of sin. A woman who enables a tyrant by submitting to his wild or irrational demands (or standing by while he makes those demands of her children) is not being a good helpmeet to him, and it may be that she is naively participating in his sin.

So you're supposed to submit but if you do you may be enabling your abuser, oops, I mean "domestic tyrant." :twisted:

Here's the thing, though: If you're a fundie daughter who has been conditioned from birth to more or less obey your parents unquestioningly and to submit to and to live for your dad at the expense of your own dreams and desires (with physical punishment often doled out for infractions), then standing up for yourself may be way easier said than done. If you're taught from birth that having independent thoughts apart from your dad's -- and later your husband's -- "vision" is selfish and sinful, then does it really seem surprising that it could be difficult for some abused women to go from being meek, submissive, and obedient to being independent and assertive when they've been conditioned to believe that the latter traits are undesirable in a good, Christian woman?

[Brainsample]

Here's the thing, though: If you're a fundie daughter who has been conditioned from birth to more or less obey your parents unquestioningly and to submit to and to live for your dad at the expense of your own dreams and desires (with physical punishment often doled out for infractions), then standing up for yourself may be way easier said than done. If you're taught from birth that having independent thoughts apart from your dad's -- and later your husband's -- "vision" is selfish and sinful, then does it really seem surprising that it could be difficult for some abused women to go from being meek, submissive, and obedient to being independent and assertive when they've been conditioned to believe that the latter traits are undesirable in a good, Christian woman?

In the anti-cult literature, this is called "bounded choice."

http://undermoregrace.blogspot.com/2009 ... nt-of.html

You appear to have options, but they are really unknown to you, so they aren't really viable. Quivering Daughters especially have been emotionally and spiritually blackmailed to accept this stuff from birth, and it's called the Holy Spirit. Standing up for yourself means sin, withdraw of financial support (no where to live, and no way to make a living -- economic abuse as some call it), and shunning by family and by God who will then be "out to get you." Any alternative ideas have been demonized for them, literally.

It takes a huge amount of faith and some hope for logistic support (someone to take you in and help you pull yourself together). It really is a miracle when women get out of the system. I really think that it's nothing less than a miracle.

And this screed from Stacy is just fancy footwork to legitimize the belief system of patriarchy and as damage control against the threat that all the people who leave patriarchy pose. I understand that this article was taken from the material on her blog that was set up to counter Hillary McFarland's book. It is damage control. And that's good, because that means that the book was a threat.

[Ruby]

When I was going through my divorce, a fundie "friend" asked me how I could ignore my marriage covenant. Hadn't I promised to stay with him until death parted us? I said no, I promised to love, honor and cherish him until death parted us. However, my understanding of a covenant was that each party was obligated to hold up his or her end of the bargain. If they failed to do so, on a consistent basis, the injured party was no longer bound by the terms.

She said, "Well, if that's true, I violate my covenant every day!" I asked her how, and she said by having anger in her heart toward her husband, or thinking she knew better than him, yada yada yada. I was about to explain the difference between doing something rashly that we're sorry for and try not to repeat, and systematic, constant cruelty that bears no resemblence to "love, honor and cherish." Then it occurred to me that if she really believed that the things she was doing were violating her covenant, she had no business trying to counsel me and I had no reason to listen to her.

Then, my ex-husband claimed that by calling him cruel, and saying that his words and behavior didn't demonstrate love or cherishing, I was abusing him. That's why I have a really hard time saying we all abuse each other because of our sinful nature. That's an absolute lie. Its true we all mistreat each other for one reason or another ~ the difference is whether we're willing to aknowledge that we've hurt someone, and then actually do our best not to repeat the behavior. There's also a difference when its an ingrained, frequent occurrence. And if setting reasonable boundaries (e.g. "If you're going to call me names, I'm not going to have this discussion with you") is met with hostility, we're not talking about a random harsh word, we're talking about abuse.