The Boyer Sisters: Part 4

[Palimpsest]

@Kariina, love that argument!  You nailed it!

So, @Gabe, how would you like to respond?

[Kariina]

5 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

@Kariina, love that argument!  You nailed it!

So, @Gabe, how would you like to respond?

Heh! Shucks. Just came out of a ranty convo with my brother, and of course I immediately logged it to I need to write that down on FJ soon...

It frustrates me that to even get to that point of discussion, one has to operate on a completely heteronormative axiom and pretend intersex, transgender, agender, and basically everyone else but cishet people don't exist. If you actually think those people are valid humans, too, the complementarianism thing falls apart even faster. Obviously. People are complicated!! Trying to force them into arbitrary molds is (IMHO) abusive to the human spirit.

Did any of the girls/women at that party dress up as male characters? I already know the vice-versa answer is no...

[Coconut Flan]

43 minutes ago, Kariina said:

@Coconut Flan, your avatar is giving me nervous giggles.

It's making me give my own account the side eye.

[Lurky]

@Coconut Flan laughing out loud that you might have creeped yourself out!

[DancingPhalanges]

4 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

It's making me give my own account the side eye.

At least Mr. Boyer's face is less scary than the Orange Cheeto. 

[Coy Koi]

1 hour ago, Coconut Flan said:

I have to ask - you honestly expected otherwise?

Well, not really, but I mean, even a Trump rally has that crazy "Blacks for Trump" guy...

[Palimpsest]

2 hours ago, Coy Koi said:

Well, not really, but I mean, even a Trump rally has that crazy "Blacks for Trump" guy...

And all I can say to that "blacks for Trump" guy is the shortest sentence in the Bible:

 Jesus wept.

[dramallama]

Speaking of Cheeto Benito, it's interesting how people so focused on "modesty" and weeding out their "thought gardens" saw fit to not only vote for but enthusiastically support Mr. "Grab them by the pussy".  I know, looking for logical consistency from fundies is a losing game, but it still boggles my mind.

[JermajestyDuggar]

1 hour ago, dramallama said:

Speaking of Cheeto Benito, it's interesting how people so focused on "modesty" and weeding out their "thought gardens" saw fit to not only vote for but enthusiastically support Mr. "Grab them by the pussy".  I know, looking for logical consistency from fundies is a losing game, but it still boggles my mind.

You'll never figure it out. It's the same thinking that gives us Michelle and Boob humping on a putt putt course and blurring out Michelle's knees....

[DancingPhalanges]

Cheeto Benito. Another new name to call him. 

What really turned me away from Gabe was his "I can't be bothered/If I can be bothered" comments. I was trying to at least be fair when he popped in but his condescending tone was too much. He needs to drop the idea he's doing FJ a favor.

He ignored our questions because they were thoughtful and insightful, he doesn't realize that but it's the truth. He can't hang with us because we think independent of a man's desired role for us. 

[dramallama]

11 minutes ago, DancingPhalanges said:

Cheeto Benito. Another new name to call him. 

I also like Mango Mussolini.  And John Oliver is always creative about it:

 

[DancingPhalanges]

8 minutes ago, dramallama said:

I also like Mango Mussolini.  And John Oliver is always creative about it:

 

No words for how funny that was! Sharing on my FB account. 

[DutchMommy]

3 hours ago, dramallama said:

I also like Mango Mussolini.  And John Oliver is always creative about it:

 

I love John Oliver, he's brilliant!!

[JillyO]

11 hours ago, Coy Koi said:

This party is whiter than a polar bear in a snowstorm.

Ah, but @Gabe doesn't see race, dontcha know?

[Scrabblemaster]

13 hours ago, Lurky said:

Which Darcy?  Because I'm cackling, imagining the Colin Firth BBC version, where he's just come out of the lake - you chucking a bucket of water over your husb every time it looked like he was drying out...

You really made my day. This Image! I will have it in my mind until weekend begins. And I think you chose my film for the evening for me. Mr. Scrabblemaster might disagree, but as long as I am not his helpmeet, well... . 

[nastyhobbitses]

8 hours ago, dramallama said:

Speaking of Cheeto Benito, it's interesting how people so focused on "modesty" and weeding out their "thought gardens" saw fit to not only vote for but enthusiastically support Mr. "Grab them by the pussy".  I know, looking for logical consistency from fundies is a losing game, but it still boggles my mind.

I think the vote was really for Mike "Electrocuting Gay People and Causing AIDS Epidemics" Pence and to prevent a woman from becoming president. I know that a bunch of fundies (the one off the top of my head is Zach Bates) said that they didn't like that Trump wasn't an especially devout Christian and is on Wife #3 (and it's public knowledge that he cheated on her and bragged about sexually assaulting women basically right after he married and impregnated her), but they wouldn't vote for Hillary, and they like Mike Pence.

[formergothardite]

3 hours ago, JillyO said:

Ah, but @Gabe doesn't see race, dontcha know?

Probably because all the white he is surrounded with has blinded him. 

[DancingPhalanges]

@formergothardite I have "Liars for Jesus" in my stack of books now. Thank you, my middle child has it but it's next for me when he's finished. 

 Someone (I can't remember) suggested "Touching My Father's Soul" by Jamling Tenzing Norgay and it was beautifully written. You would enjoy it I think. Whoever suggested it on the Boyer threads, thank you!

[SoybeanQueen]

On 3/1/2017 at 7:09 PM, JermajestyDuggar said:

I laughed so loud when I saw Daddy Boyer's face. 

Mr. Boyer, you are a gem. I hope you never change your family photo expressions. They are truly delightful.

I like the costumes, too. I'm definitely the sort of person who would throw a birthday ball. My husband would 100% look at me like Mr. Boyer is looking in this pic. Opposites attract, apparently.

Mr. SoybeanQueen took our littlest to a dinosaur exhibit at a museum last weekend. I asked him to take photos, because I knew the smallest Soybean would love it. I suggested he should try to take some selfies. They did. He came home and showed me his phone - they both looked like someone had just kicked a puppy. My husband said, "we failed at selfies." Yes, yes you did. The photo expressions may be genetic....

19 hours ago, nickelodeon said:

IIRC the Boyer modesty rules are a little different: skinny jeans can be modest (if you're thin, because curvy bodies are inherently immodest, which is a can o' worms for another day) and so on. A lot of the commenters on their blog are more gung-ho long-skirts long-sleeves types but not the sisters themselves.

Any jeans that fit me are skinny jeans, because I'm curvy, and non-skinny jeans would fall off. So, I can wear skinny jeans while curvy and be immodest, or have my pants fall off. I know which one my husband would choose, but I doubt it's a terribly modest choice.

[usedbicycle]

17 hours ago, Kariina said:

The answer to my rhetorical questions are, of course, because "complementarianism" is rigged in favor of men having decision-making and political power, and women serving them. It's in the Bible, it's in fundamentalist rhetoric. The entire concept of a "helpmeet" is not a complementarian one, it's a subservient one. Fundies need to admit that and stop pretending the umbrella model is one of balance -- it's one of subjugation and control.

I love this observation. The "complementarity" theory comes from men being afraid of and wanting to control women's sexuality (and their own, to some degree). It's certainly all about control.

They think that if women aren't tied up at home with a gaggle of little kids, they'll be roaming the streets, gossiping, cheating, and acting brash and emasculating. God designed marriage to perfect women, suppress their natural tendencies towards laziness and selfishness, by giving them a needy husband and many babies to serve at all times. --> How convenient for the men: subservient women, kept safe at home so they're never tempted to cheat or leave, doing all the housework and giving sex on demand. 

In order to justify ownership and control over their "domestic" women, the men will swear absolute faithfulness to them and provide all the income. (Some guys can get away with cheating and/or not providing, but if all men did that the system would implode.) Religious men are very afraid of their own sexuality. You would be too if you were taught masturbation was a sin, but did it anyway because you couldn't help it. You would think you were sinful and wicked in nature. So God designed marriage for men to learn self-control and not lust after other women, but they still believe the natural tendency of man is to want to jump any female they see. 

So I don't think this form of patriarchy says men are inherently strong and women soft - more so it attempts to "man up" the men and "tone down" the women, as part of God's commands for how he wants us to live.

What was interesting to me after leaving this form of faith, is that the world isn't just a huge Sodom and Gomorrah. People naturally tend to pair up and choose to have families and be faithful, without any God ordaining them to do so. Sure, many choose to stay single and sow their wild oats, but those people shouldn't be married in the first place (hint hint Josh D.). Relationships really do work without this absurd control over women's bodies and men constantly fearing temptation. 

Sorry for the long off-topic rant, Boyer Sister fans... Just trying to make sense of some ongoing thoughts...

 

 

 

[Kariina]

50 minutes ago, usedbicycle said:

I love this observation. The "complementarity" theory comes from men being afraid of and wanting to control women's sexuality (and their own, to some degree). It's certainly all about control.

They think that if women aren't tied up at home with a gaggle of little kids, they'll be roaming the streets, gossiping, cheating, and acting brash and emasculating. God designed marriage to perfect women, suppress their natural tendencies towards laziness and selfishness, by giving them a needy husband and many babies to serve at all times. --> How convenient for the men: subservient women, kept safe at home so they're never tempted to cheat or leave, doing all the housework and giving sex on demand. 

In order to justify ownership and control over their "domestic" women, the men will swear absolute faithfulness to them and provide all the income. (Some guys can get away with cheating and/or not providing, but if all men did that the system would implode.) Religious men are very afraid of their own sexuality. You would be too if you were taught masturbation was a sin, but did it anyway because you couldn't help it. You would think you were sinful and wicked in nature. So God designed marriage for men to learn self-control and not lust after other women, but they still believe the natural tendency of man is to want to jump any female they see. 

So I don't think this form of patriarchy says men are inherently strong and women soft - more so it attempts to "man up" the men and "tone down" the women, as part of God's commands for how he wants us to live.

What was interesting to me after leaving this form of faith, is that the world isn't just a huge Sodom and Gomorrah. People naturally tend to pair up and choose to have families and be faithful, without any God ordaining them to do so. Sure, many choose to stay single and sow their wild oats, but those people shouldn't be married in the first place (hint hint Josh D.). Relationships really do work without this absurd control over women's bodies and men constantly fearing temptation. 

Sorry for the long off-topic rant, Boyer Sister fans... Just trying to make sense of some ongoing thoughts...

Exactly that. That's what the "complementarian" thing boils down to.

Every relationship, in its own way, is complementary. People come together because they bring one another joy, they help, encourage, and support one another. Friendship, romantic relationships, marriage, domestic partnerships, inter-generational relative relationships, polyamory...any kind of human connection. Even relationships that later break apart. But every relationship also looks completely unique because the parties therein are themselves unique.

Complementarianism in marriage isn't really about complementary roles, it's just about pretending there are only two shapes of human puzzle piece that can ever be put together, and oh, look, it happens to favor the masculine male in power dynamics and the men get to shrug and say don't look at us, we're just telling it like God says it...

If misogynistic patriarchy was a sentient being, I would picture it having asked, "What's the biggest chunk of humanity I can possibly subjugate in one go?" Convincing an entire group of people -- let's face it, people who have a certain type of genitalia -- that they're supposed to be indentured to you by Heavenly Design -- what a way to take out competition in the work place, in politics, in relationships, in as big a way as possible! Echo, @usedbicycle: How convenient for the men.

Of course, I don't believe misogyny is always consciously calculated. In some aspects, yes, I think misogynistic patriarchy is deliberate. But overall this "men are bigger and more powerful and stronger and more go-getting than women and women are meek and soft and submissive and here only to help the men" attitude is a sociological tumor that has grown via diverse factors, not limited to Christianity. It just sucks.

I really appreciate your observations, @usedbicycle. Of course you obviously have a much better position to talk about this stuff than I do to merely project -- I was friends with a lot of ATI and Mormon homeschooler types but I was personally raised irreligiously.

5 hours ago, formergothardite said:

Probably because all the white he is surrounded with has blinded him. 

Oh, god, the retina burn!!

[Chocolatedefrauded]

 usedbicycle, don't you also find most people are good and law-abiding as well as non-cheating just because it is part of living a decent life? As we all want. Otherwise the world would be chaos. I'm not snarking at all. I feel people mostly live honorable lives because they want to, not because they are afraid of sin and going to hell. It is an interesting subject. People seem to have inherent knowledge of fairness and right and wrong.

[catlady]

35 minutes ago, Chocolatedefrauded said:

 usedbicycle, don't you also find most people are good and law-abiding as well as non-cheating just because it is part of living a decent life? As we all want. Otherwise the world would be chaos. I'm not snarking at all. I feel people mostly live honorable lives because they want to, not because they are afraid of sin and going to hell. It is an interesting subject. People seem to have inherent knowledge of fairness and right and wrong.

i know i do.  as an atheist, i have no fear of sin or hell or damnation.  but i choose to live as you describe because i have no desire to hurt other people or otherwise damage the world around me.  not because i have to, but because i want to and choose to of my own free will.  yes, i have bad days and have my faults, but i have never been arrested/committed a crime (traffic violations excepted), cheated on a partner, caused injury, disparaged my family...you get the idea.  

[EmiGirl]

4 hours ago, usedbicycle said:

God designed marriage to perfect women, suppress their natural tendencies towards laziness and selfishness, by giving them a needy husband and many babies to serve at all times. -

What gets me is that God designed marriage not for woman, but because Adam was lonely. He saw Adam by himself and decided that it wasn't good that MAN wasn't alone, that he needed a companion - not a slave, maid, broodmare, etc.. He needed someone to SHARE life's responsibilities, trials, and joys with. One thing I have always heard is that God didn't take woman from a man's back to walk behind him, or from his front to walk ahead, but from his side to walk beside him. Now, I'm not one for literalism when it comes to the Creation, but I believe that his was given to us as a model of what it's supposed to be like between a man and a woman - walking together through life side by side as equal partners in life.

[katilac]

Thought weeds that climax and spread their seed? She has got to be trolling.