Recovering from a patriarchal childhood

[AKDA]

First, I never said I was homeschooled. I actually came throug a private school. I said I was impressed by homeschooers.

Second, by leaving I meant that particular thread.

I fully intend to remain on this forum. Sometimes I'll be bored enough to comment, sometimes I won't. But I've found enough valid info AND ammusement to stay.

Sorry. :-P

as for what I said about vf families being happy, I was merely stating my observations. Sorry if that was offensive. Thoseare my observations. Period.

[formergothardite]

Did you skip my question about your views on patriarchy on purpose? If you haven't been raised in the cult like mindset of VF/ATI, then you have no idea what is going on behind all the smiling faces and happy families. You are trained to present a happy face and repress your feelings from the time you are small. So of couse an outsider is going to think you are happy. That is the point.

[Witsec1]

You know who else was happy? All those darkies on the plantation.

Coming from a movement whose leaders find the "happy darkies on the plantation" apology for the Confederacy intellectually convincing*, and whose followers find those leaders to be intellectual giants... not too convincing.

I have plenty of citations for that, if needed.

As formergothardite pointed out, unhappiness is really not an option in these families. Any member whose unhappiness cannot be properly "managed" gets kicked to the curb.

[AKDA]

Oh sorry. I had ony scanned your question. I missed the part about my views.

Frankly, this is quite a question, since Patrirchy is a very broad and loaded term. I can tell you what I don't believe.

1. I don't believe in the suppression of women

2. I don't believe in little or no education for male or females. (on the other hand, I think the same of parents who baisically force their children into higher education)

3. I don't believe in women serving men head and foot.

4. Indo not believe that awoman working oitsidetye home is going to Hell.

5. I do not believe in a man having more than one wife.

6. I do not believe in abortion.

7. I do not believe in avman being obeyed unquestioned and no matter what.

8. I do not believe in sex out of wedlock.

9. I do not bieve women wearing pants is sin.

Anything else I should clear up? What did I miss

Also, while (as I said in my very first post) I KNOW their are hypocrites, tyrannies and abuses. But, I also know that when you are in close proxymaty for an extended period of time, you can only hide so much so long. Also, there are so many different beliefs in this system, I don't know how anyone can make a blanket statement about this movement.

I have never said that everyone in this movement is happy. I never said everyone should live as these people live. But for gosh sake, if this is how people choose to live, who cares? It's a free country, let them without psyco analizing everything.

[Witsec1]

First, I never said I was homeschooled. I actually came throug a private school.

Your parents should sue to get their money back. Seriously, you should try and use your spell check if your browser supports it. If not, install a browser that supports it. You really need it.

[apple1]

Your parents should sue to get their money back. Seriously, you should try and use your spell check if your browser supports it. If not, install a browser that supports it. You really need it.

FloraPoste: high five.

Let me guess. "Private school" = small church-associated school using ACE curriculum.

Alternatively, open up Word in a separate window. Type your post in Word, spell- and grammar-check it (yes, things can still be missed), then copy and paste it into the forum.

[AKDA]

I'm actually on my touchpad iPod, and the screen doesn't work all the time. While I freely admit my spelling isn't an award winning art, it isn't usually this bad. Between my screen not catching all that I type and the stupid auto correct, it's a bit worse than usual...very irritating.

And apple: that statement was so full of I don't even know what that it doesn't get an answer.

[margiebargie]

Oh sorry. I had ony scanned your question. I missed the part about my views.

Frankly, this is quite a question, since Patrirchy is a very broad and loaded term. I can tell you what I don't believe.

1. I don't believe in the suppression of women

2. I don't believe in little or no education for male or females. (on the other hand, I think the same of parents who baisically force their children into higher education)

3. I don't believe in women serving men head and foot.

4. Indo not believe that awoman working oitsidetye home is going to Hell.

5. I do not believe in a man having more than one wife.

6. I do not believe in abortion.

7. I do not believe in avman being obeyed unquestioned and no matter what.

8. I do not believe in sex out of wedlock.

9. I do not bieve women wearing pants is sin.

Anything else I should clear up? What did I miss

Also, while (as I said in my very first post) I KNOW their are hypocrites, tyrannies and abuses. But, I also know that when you are in close proxymaty for an extended period of time, you can only hide so much so long. Also, there are so many different beliefs in this system, I don't know how anyone can make a blanket statement about this movement.

I have never said that everyone in this movement is happy. I never said everyone should live as these people live. But for gosh sake, if this is how people choose to live, who cares? It's a free country, let them without psyco analizing everything.

Oh so the children who were brought up in this are free to choose? They're exposed to different lifestyles and educated about the merits of each? They can go ahead and make their own [different] choices and the parents don't care at all? No shunning? No yelling? No lectures? It's all good? Really?

The woman who's had enough can just up and leave? No repercussions? Her church community supports her all the way? Helps her out? Encourages her? Really?

The man who would actually prefer an egalitarian marriage can just stand up and say so? There won't be any pushback from his churchie friends? He won't get a talking-to from the pastor? The community won't look down on him? Really?

[formergothardite]

Oh sorry. I had ony scanned your question. I missed the part about my views.

Frankly, this is quite a question, since Patrirchy is a very broad and loaded term. I can tell you what I don't believe.

1. I don't believe in the suppression of women

2. I don't believe in little or no education for male or females. (on the other hand, I think the same of parents who baisically force their children into higher education)

3. I don't believe in women serving men head and foot.

4. Indo not believe that awoman working oitsidetye home is going to Hell.

5. I do not believe in a man having more than one wife.

6. I do not believe in abortion.

7. I do not believe in avman being obeyed unquestioned and no matter what.

8. I do not believe in sex out of wedlock.

9. I do not bieve women wearing pants is sin.

Anything else I should clear up? What did I miss

Also, while (as I said in my very first post) I KNOW their are hypocrites, tyrannies and abuses. But, I also know that when you are in close proxymaty for an extended period of time, you can only hide so much so long. Also, there are so many different beliefs in this system, I don't know how anyone can make a blanket statement about this movement.

I have never said that everyone in this movement is happy. I never said everyone should live as these people live. But for gosh sake, if this is how people choose to live, who cares? It's a free country, let them without psyco analizing everything.

With your first statement you are saying you disagree with patriarchy. It isn't really that broad of of term. Patriarchy is saying that the father is always the head of the household and make the decisions even if he isn't equipped to do so and that the mother can never be the head and make the decisions even if she is better at it. Sure some men might allow their wives to make decisions and do a lot, but he also has been taught that he has the god given power to prevent her from doing those things.

If the parents were saying "Hey we like to live in a dom/sub relationship, but the kids are free to do what they like without fearing the wrath of God." Then nobody here would have a problem, but that isn't what VF teaches.

By the way, I know an former ATI family who we were pretty close to for almost 30 years. They always seemed so happy, I even went on trips with them. It wasn't till recently that I found out all the things they were hiding and how miserable the whole family was. I was really floored to find out some of the things that happened. But that is what the ATI/VF leaders teach families to do; put on a happy face and hide the problems from even the most close friends.

[AKDA]

Well, this has been some good discussion, and I've enjoyed it. I don't think we will ever agree. I am sorry to to hear about your ati friends.

I'm fixing to leave on a trip to Ga in probably about an hour, so I need to go for now.

Peace out.

[formergothardite]

So yet another patriarchy defender who isn't willing to explain how always telling women that they have to be under the authority of their husband isn't suppressing them. Running away is so much easier isn't it? If you could just give me one example of how patriarchy isn't suppressing women, perhaps we could agree.

[Guest Anonymous]

I can't refute anything you people have said because you use things I don't understand like reason, logic, and facts. I'm going to run whimpering away with my tail between my legs so I can pretend that I'm not as much of an idiot as I've been proven to be.

Fuck you very much for stopping by!

[apple1]

And apple: that statement was so full of I don't even know what that it doesn't get an answer.

Translation: I hit the nail on the head.

[Hisey]

I am against everything ATI represents and yet. . .

I think *we* are being close-minded if we can't admit that some VFs/ATI familes are happy.

Look at the Seven Sisters. They seem happy. Meredith seemed happy enough before marriage (after marriage, I don't know). The Duggar children, in the early videos, seemed very happy indeed. Even the Bates kids seem happy. These kids have steady, available parents, and a family hierarchy where they have a place they belong. There is no one telling them it is wrong or oppressive, so they don't know.

It doesn't threaten my beliefs to acknowledge that some VF kids are happy. Actually, I'm glad when kids are happy.

Then again, some of these families seem to have unhappy kids. Life in a Shoe's kids seem stressed and struggling. Kelly's daughter Bria seems very stressed (understandably). ZZ's kids are very young, but I believe their parents are stressing them by teaching them hatred and having them go "soul-winning" around town every damn minute.

[StarrieEyedKat]

Well, this has been some good discussion, and I've enjoyed it. I don't think we will ever agree. I am sorry to to hear about your ati friends.

I'm fixing to leave on a trip to Ga in probably about an hour, so I need to go for now.

Peace out.

You're quite fond of stirring the pot and then flouncing out of the resulting discussion, aren't you? I suppose that's what happens when you you have nothing substantial to back up the crap you spew. :roll:

[tehgoobster]

Frankly, this is quite a question, since Patrirchy is a very broad and loaded term. I can tell you what I don't believe.

1. I don't believe in the suppression of women

I have some questions for you. I guess they're only really applicable if you believe in patriarchy, but I suspect that that may be the case with you. If I'm wrong, feel free to disregard them. Anyway, here goes:

1. How do you define suppression?

2. If a woman wants to go to college or pursue other dreams but her husband does not want her to because he believes she should only be a "keeper at home," would she be required to obey her husband? If she disobeyed him, do you believe that she would be sinning? Why or why not?

3. I used this as an example in Knight's thread, but I'll use it again here. If a girl had an incredible gift for math and science and had the opportunity to go to college to study under a renowned physicist but her dad wanted her to stay at home to help her mom and to do the bookkeeping for his home business, would she be required to submit to her dad, even if it wasn't necessarily in her best interests to do so? Why or why not?

4. Does a woman have to obey her husband if he is being unreasonable, unfair, or unwise? If not, then who gets to determine what is unreasonable, unfair, and unwise?

5. Under what circumstances would a woman or a daughter not be required to submit? From what I've read, many people who believe in patriarchy seem to believe that the line should be drawn when it comes to being asked to say or do something sinful.

6. It seems to me that many people believe in patriarchy based on their interpretation of the Bible. Apart from that, however, do you believe that all men and all women have inherent qualities that make all men natural leaders and all women natural followers with a need to be lead? If so, then can you back this up with science?

Sorry for the thread derail, everyone, but I'm curious about what he or she believes about this.

[bananacat]

That was a really cute flounce. Thanks for entertainment, but don't do it again because it gets stale pretty fast.

[Austin]

I am against everything ATI represents and yet. . .

I think *we* are being close-minded if we can't admit that some VFs/ATI familes are happy.

Look at the Seven Sisters. They seem happy. Meredith seemed happy enough before marriage (after marriage, I don't know). The Duggar children, in the early videos, seemed very happy indeed. Even the Bates kids seem happy. These kids have steady, available parents, and a family hierarchy where they have a place they belong. There is no one telling them it is wrong or oppressive, so they don't know.

It doesn't threaten my beliefs to acknowledge that some VF kids are happy. Actually, I'm glad when kids are happy.

Then again, some of these families seem to have unhappy kids. Life in a Shoe's kids seem stressed and struggling. Kelly's daughter Bria seems very stressed (understandably). ZZ's kids are very young, but I believe their parents are stressing them by teaching them hatred and having them go "soul-winning" around town every damn minute.

I'm not sure if it really matters whether individuals or individual families are "happy". I have no doubt that some are. I'm sure there are some individual women/families who are happy in the Taliban or in Saudi Arabia. It has no bearing on the fact that patriarchal systems are inherently oppressive and dehumanizing.

This is one reason I don't pay much attention to the individual families. There will always be exceptions and anecdotes to the contrary and all that. If anyone is happy in this system, good for them. I would rather they feel happy in this life than not.

[bananacat]

I am against everything ATI represents and yet. . .

I think *we* are being close-minded if we can't admit that some VFs/ATI familes are happy.

Look at the Seven Sisters. They seem happy. Meredith seemed happy enough before marriage (after marriage, I don't know). The Duggar children, in the early videos, seemed very happy indeed. Even the Bates kids seem happy. These kids have steady, available parents, and a family hierarchy where they have a place they belong. There is no one telling them it is wrong or oppressive, so they don't know.

It doesn't threaten my beliefs to acknowledge that some VF kids are happy. Actually, I'm glad when kids are happy.

Then again, some of these families seem to have unhappy kids. Life in a Shoe's kids seem stressed and struggling. Kelly's daughter Bria seems very stressed (understandably). ZZ's kids are very young, but I believe their parents are stressing them by teaching them hatred and having them go "soul-winning" around town every damn minute.

Honestly, I think you are being a little naive. I used to be evangelical, and there is a very strong emphasis on seeming happy no matter what, exactly for the reason of convincing unsuspecting people that living a certain type of life will be just pure bliss. But I'm surprised that anyone could look at the Duggars and believe those kids were genuinely happy. When one of the pregnancies was announced around 17 or 18, the kids said they were happy but just looked so lifeless. I think you'd have to desperately want them to be happy to not see through that act. And there's no way that any person can believe Michelle truly is that happy all the time. There are other times when their acts are more convincing, but it is clearly fake at least some of the time. Even more of it seems fake to me because I've been there.

As for the seven sisters or the Bateses, some of them probably are happy. Some of them probably are faking it. The ones who truly are happy make me the saddest because they'll be perpetual children with no thoughts of their own. If people are happy being brainwashed, does that really justify it? I am most concerned for the seven sisters. I swear, they act like they've all had lobotomies. I doubt that any of them will ever live separately from their parents. I can't see them being independent adults and I can't see them getting married. So what if they're happy? Is that the only thing that matters in life? How happy will they be when their parents die and they've never learned to live on their own?

[Guest Anonymous]

I am against everything ATI represents and yet. . .

I think *we* are being close-minded if we can't admit that some VFs/ATI familes are happy.

Undoubtedly some members of some VF/ATI families are happy. But what AKDA said was:

Let me tell you. 99.99% of then are as happy (most of then happier), as loving (most of them more so), and in general more educated than the average American family.

That I do not buy for one second.

I'm not sure if it really matters whether individuals or individual families are "happy". I have no doubt that some are. I'm sure there are some individual women/families who are happy in the Taliban or in Saudi Arabia. It has no bearing on the fact that patriarchal systems are inherently oppressive and dehumanizing.

Also this - well said, Austin.

*Edited to fix the quote that I messed up.

[Hisey]

Honestly, I think you are being a little naive. I used to be evangelical, and there is a very strong emphasis on seeming happy no matter what, exactly for the reason of convincing unsuspecting people that living a certain type of life will be just pure bliss. But I'm surprised that anyone could look at the Duggars and believe those kids were genuinely happy. When one of the pregnancies was announced around 17 or 18, the kids said they were happy but just looked so lifeless. I think you'd have to desperately want them to be happy to not see through that act. And there's no way that any person can believe Michelle truly is that happy all the time. There are other times when their acts are more convincing, but it is clearly fake at least some of the time. Even more of it seems fake to me because I've been there.

As for the seven sisters or the Bateses, some of them probably are happy. Some of them probably are faking it. The ones who truly are happy make me the saddest because they'll be perpetual children with no thoughts of their own. If people are happy being brainwashed, does that really justify it? I am most concerned for the seven sisters. I swear, they act like they've all had lobotomies. I doubt that any of them will ever live separately from their parents. I can't see them being independent adults and I can't see them getting married. So what if they're happy? Is that the only thing that matters in life? How happy will they be when their parents die and they've never learned to live on their own?

Hi. I was talking about the Duggar children in 14 kids and Pregnant Again. Those kids definitely seemed happy. Watch it and see! After that, the kids do become more and more withdrawn and guarded. Certainly, no one seemed thrilled by Josie's birth announcement. But that was not the early days I was talking about. I was talking about when the Duggars first started with the documentaries, and the kids were about 0-16. Those kids did seem happy.

Children like stability, structure, and having their parents around. It was too soon for Jana to be depressed about not going to college (or whatever is bothering her). It was too soon for Josh to be worrying about having another kids (which I suspect he does). It was way before they starting getting criticized and hate mail, and traveling aroudn the country. It was way before their movements were filmed, and strangers started driving by their property.

Of course, some of the older Bates kids may be faking it. And the Seven Sisters are very childish. But are they happy? Let's just say I have seen other young adults who seemed far more miserable.

Just because some of the kids may be happy, doesn't mean the patriarchial system is wrong. It just means that children and teens -- some of them -- can be happy under it. In the same way, some of these women who marry their best friends--reasonable men who don't put ridiculous demands of them--some of those women seem happy too. It's when you marry a jerk or an abusive nut that patriarchy really seems to fail it's women. It's much easier to live the life if your husband pretty much agrees with whatever you want, and seeks to make you happy.

[FlorenceHamilton]

In my opinion, the fact that some family members in these movements are happy at a given point in time is not the objection. My objection is that there is a difference between a stable system and a rigid system. Patriarchy is a very rigid system. If any single factor changes, the whole thing destablizes. If one of the parents becomes ill, dies, loses their ability to do their very defined jobs, the stability crumbles. If one of the parents is mentally ill, abuses their partner, there is no path to get the family to a safer place. As the children grow up and the challenges change, it can be destablizing.

For true stability, there must also be flexibility. That is why very tall buildings and bridges are made to sway in the wind. If they were built to be too rigid and unmoving, the winds would cause them to break.

Wives and husbands need to be able to do each others' jobs effectively. To that end, boys and girls need to be taught to do the full compliment of grown-up obigations. Child care, financial management, emotional availability,housekeeping, marketable job skills and decision-making skills need to be taught to all young people regardless of gender. It is the insistance of a complete splitting of these roles that makes the family happiness so tenuous.

[margiebargie]

I'm not sure if it really matters whether individuals or individual families are "happy". I have no doubt that some are. I'm sure there are some individual women/families who are happy in the Taliban or in Saudi Arabia. It has no bearing on the fact that patriarchal systems are inherently oppressive and dehumanizing.

This is one reason I don't pay much attention to the individual families. There will always be exceptions and anecdotes to the contrary and all that. If anyone is happy in this system, good for them. I would rather they feel happy in this life than not.

I agree with all of this except for one nitpick. I am absolutely positive that it does not matter if some individuals are "happy". If certain people are happy to live the patriarchal-fundie model, then good for them. They should be free to choose that lifestyle, and if at some point it stops working for them, they should be free to exit that lifestyle. The fact is that road blocks are set up left and right that prevent people, women and children in particular, from leaving. They are sheltered and brainwashed, and their self-confidence is undermined at every opportunity.

I was raised Catholic, flirted with fundie-lite-ism, and have since deconverted completely. I never once had to worry about losing my family or friends. I never once had to worry about how to support myself because I was never prevented from obtaining a good education or holding a job. I never once had to worry about the "scary outside world". Nobody ever filled by head with such silly ideas or prevented me from finding out for myself how "scary" the outside world actually is.

Happy my ass. They better be happy. If they're not happy, what are they gonna do about it? Speak up? Leave?

Btw, my dh was raised evangelical/fundie and he's big on "never being angry" or "never being upset". It just leads to passive-aggressive unhealthiness. Bad, bad, bad. The irony is nothing pisses me off more than passive aggressive tactics, especially the "I'm not mad" gambit. It's better to just address things in a straight forward manner and move on.

ETA. I cross posted with Florence, who makes an excellent point. "Happy" is a transitional state.

[Rosa]

a friend of mine just posted this on her facebook and i thought it was topical:

went trick or treating last night, and contrary to popular belief, satan did not attack! That's right. We never went trick or treating b/c it's the devil's holiday. No offense, Mom, but you probably just made us crazier by denying us Santa and Halloween.

ETA: and her mom ARGUED on the facebook status, and was disagreed with politely, and flounced, complete with comment-deleting. At least I *think* that's what happened based on the blank spots in the discussion.

[Doomed Harlottt]

I think the whole question of whether women are "happy" under patriarchy versus a more egalitarian model is sexist and condescending. I am not saying this with regard to any commenter on this thread, by the way. It's just that this line of discussion reminds me of the many arguments I have seen on fundie sites about how housewives are so "happy" and mean career women and feminists are "unhappy." But people would never say, "Oh, the leaders of the civil rights movement or the labor activists or the American revolutionaries seem so unhappy." Happiness or unhappiness is an irrelevant category when considering any other civil rights movement. I think bringing it up constantly when it comes to women is a form of paternalism (again not referring to people on this thread, but more referring to people who use women's happiness or lack thereof as an argument in favor of patriarchy or against feminism).