|
Post by BigLoveRocks! on Mar 5, 2010 14:42:26 GMT -5
Okay you two, personal attacks are not allowed at this board. I tried to gear the thread back on topic yesterday and I let it slide because everyone is entitled to their own opinion... I do however think the bantering between you two is getting very obviously personal so now I must say something. I'm not saying you two cannot address each other and discuss your different points of view... Lets just try and tone it down and keep it on a civil level, thats all.
|
|
dsc6
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by dsc6 on Mar 5, 2010 15:34:34 GMT -5
Oh, BLR, I'm not personally attacking, I hope W gets that, and I don't consider myself personally attacked. To me, this is a very interesting discussion and trying to understand how someone else thinks. Maybe my tone got a bit sharp there. I think W has some interesting ideas/concepts/views which he does not clearly explain and I'm trying to figure it out.
This kind of forum allows one to interact with people one would never meet in 'real' life, or, if you did meet, wouldn't probablyhave an opportunity to even talk to...
I tend to be very sincere in my posts and I think my chain is being yanked a bit.
|
|
|
Post by marionj2 on Mar 5, 2010 15:43:52 GMT -5
There's an expression in my business (technology training), "If people don't understand what you're trying to say, it's NOT THEIR FAULT."
I think that happens a lot between men and women in general, and especially between people raised in a culture like FLDS and women living in the western world in general. Their experiences are so far apart that they're talking apples and oranges.
There was a Star Trek episode I remember, where Picard was plopped down on a planet with the leader of the alien group, and left to communicate or die at the claws of a dangerous creature. The problem was that the alien's communication, while it translated fine, was meaningless, because it was a series of references to people and places of their mythology, which meant nothing to Picard.
I think of that a lot around here!
And I always wondered about the great big hole in the Star Trek story - how did they teach them the mythology in the first place??!!
|
|
|
Post by JJ77 on Mar 5, 2010 17:07:05 GMT -5
very telling marionj2 - we now know you're a treky and a techy lol seriously though, I get what you're saying. I also, agree that forums like this (that bring people from all walks and lots of life) are a great opportunity to kind of pick the brains of those you otherwise might not have the chance to even hold an idle chit chat with. The downside is that sometimes tone and intent is hard to read in the written form , or at least hard-er than it is in normal conversation. It's easy for lines to get crossed. dsc6 - I tend to think a lot of what wurks says is a little bit tongue in cheek. So in that sense ,yeah - he is yanking your chain a bit imo. But you both held your own pretty well and the banter was entertaining to read ... even if I didnt have the energy to jump in LOL I could see how some would read the posts as your attacking each other though, so for that / their sake - I'm glad blr addressed it.
|
|
dsc6
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by dsc6 on Mar 5, 2010 17:09:26 GMT -5
Wurks, Of course there is yin/yang. I'm not saying at all that there is no yin/yang. But it is not, ever, nowhere in natural life, all one OR the other. And trying to make it so, or BE one OR the other is, in my opinion, trying to force an unnatural state on one's self or ones reality. I strongly believe, based on my lifetime exposure to all kinds of people, and a high level of empathy, that there does not exist a male who is all yang or a woman who is all yin. Maybe it exists somewhere in the non-human animal kingdom, I don't know. Please answer this clearly, not cryptically. Do not manipulate me by twisting the conversation, please.
I have no idea what you are talking about, when you bring up Kareeza, and then say you are talking about celibacy.
Regarding temple prostitute vs. high priestess: why did you choose to say one vs. the other? I'm trying to have a discussion here, not to be played. Of course it is going to rile me up. Press someone else's buttons if you're playing that game.
I do not hate men. And the word feminist does not define me at all. I am FOR honesty, lovingkindness, trust, flexibility,fairness, grace, acceptance, forgiveness, fun, respect, knowing, endurance, committment, patience, friendship, intimacy of all kinds, exploration, raising children with as much love and common sense as possible, and probably other things, in marriage. I am AGAINST game-playing--in the psychological sense--, coersion, unfairness, fixed power imbalance based on gender, and disrespect. In other words, I am, like everyone, a complex and flawed and gifted person who knows that the other in marriage is also complex and flawed and gifted. I do not tolerate being power-played against my will and because of my gender. I think that both polyandry and polygamy must be more prone to game-playing and fixed power imbalances based on gender. I think that it must be almost impossible to achieve the things I am FOR and avoid the things I am AGAINST in plural marriage of any kind.
We will never really see eye-to-eye because you have as fundamental belief something that I think is wrong and harmful: that men are called by God to be the spiritual and temporal head of the family, society, etc. That men, just because of their maleness, are just that much MORE of something than women are. I think that what men are so much MORE of is driven by testosterone. Giving that free rein via an 'imagined' OK by God is a recipe for bad things to happen. Neither should women be given free rein via an 'imagined' OK by God (which never happens because women, not being driven by testosterone, do not usually set up that kind of heirarchy). That is something that I consider to be a 'fixed power imbalance based on gender' with an OK by God thrown in. There is no man that I think a woman should submit to BECAUSE HE IS A MAN AND SHE IS A WOMAN. And vice versa. Any heirarchy that favors one sex, race, etc., etc., is not from God, in my opinion. (I believe that the Gospel of Christ is clear about that. We should relate in a way that is above and more than that.) I think those religions that are patriarchal in that way are in error and are spiritually immature.
We are called to create the best thing which we can. Every marriage is a different equation, with a different path to evolve and become holy.
One last thing: I believe that power equality is better than power inequality, but I believe that the higher good is laying one's power down and relating entirely differently. THAT is what I think is godly.
An example will help elucidate what I mean: in the Society of Friends, when a group of people were trying to decide what to do, or how to resolve a conflict, there was not one person who had the power to decide, nor did they vote on it. (We all think that democracy is the ideal.) They sought the Spirit of God and waited and endured the conflict until they were guided to consensus. No one was bullied to change his/her mind, nor did the majority rule. Learning about this was an epiphany to me. "Let me show you a more excellent way......"
YMMV
|
|
|
Post by BigLoveRocks! on Mar 5, 2010 17:49:19 GMT -5
As long as everyone is having fun, that is all that matters. I was worried there was offense being taken on both side, not one more than the other. If I'm inferring, please accept my apologies and continue.
|
|
|
Post by wurks on Mar 5, 2010 18:04:41 GMT -5
There's an expression in my business (technology training), "If people don't understand what you're trying to say, it's NOT THEIR FAULT." I think that happens a lot between men and women in general, and especially between people raised in a culture like FLDS and women living in the western world in general. Their experiences are so far apart that they're talking apples and oranges. There was a Star Trek episode I remember, where Picard was plopped down on a planet with the leader of the alien group, and left to communicate or die at the claws of a dangerous creature. The problem was that the alien's communication, while it translated fine, was meaningless, because it was a series of references to people and places of their mythology, which meant nothing to Picard. I think of that a lot around here! And I always wondered about the great big hole in the Star Trek story - how did they teach them the mythology in the first place??!! Wow Marion, this has to be one of your most profound posts ever. I'll admit that we have had our "ups and downs". but I have truly always respected your input. You are a good example, actually, of someone who has taken the time to educate yourself. I'm talking about FLDS (and polygamy) in particular, and although i don't expect you to just abandon all your old ideology, you (anyone who does that) starts to become a little bit less judgmental; not so quick to suck up on all the prejudice. It's a long hard road, I understand that. BLR: Your effort to smooth it over was not lost on me. I just want you to know that. I'm not taking it personal, honestly, I"m not. Nor do I mean anything personal. You have to know that all these arguments are old, very very old. Oh, man.. but I do get this stuff, I really do. I see it coming and going. I"ve been on the inside and on the outside. Give me a little bit of credit for that. I like Medussa, I do, I"m like a candle moth... A succor for smart women which she obviously is. And no matter what she says, I can tell she "gets it" too. Ok, I jabbed her a bit, my apologies. But all this "wtf".. is just part of the smokescreen for pretending not to understand, because understanding can be damn painful sometimes. Ok... let me put it into perspective. What Polygamy and Monogamy do have in common is that they do not condone homosexuality. ALL of these other ramifications are just the threshold to some "alternate lifestyle" which does not share that constraint. That is what makes them "perverse" ( imho) Now.. I'm not saying that I have no tolerance for the choice that people want to make for whatever reason... I don't think they should be discriminated against politically or socially, you just need to understand that difference. But like Marion pointed out here, there is another paradigm. I could be wrong, but I think that I do understand your paradigm a lot better than you understand mine. I've been criticized (extensively) for not being more articulate in trying to explain my pov. But the truth is, unless someone can really figure it out on a more spiritual level, it only gives them more ammunition to try to defend their own pov. That's why I don't do it. It's a process, a process of enlightenment that can not be had in a profound paragraph. I don't know if you (feminists especially) can really appreciate that the social paradigm has changed only recently.. like within the last 10 or so years, NOW age difference really seems to matter, "underage" has turned into a higher felony, and people look at marriage, lifestyle choices, and relationships a lot differently than before. So we all have to adapt. But like Mar says... how did we learn this "mythology" and how much of this will be the mythology of the future? lucky for all of you, this season is almost over, lol very truly yours, wurks
|
|
dsc6
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by dsc6 on Mar 5, 2010 18:27:13 GMT -5
W, I like the link alot and am printing it out as I type. (What the 'Science' area says about prolactin is strange to me, because in my experience, during breastfeeding, prolactin release during let-down is extremely relaxing. I mean: EXTREMELY. And totally chills you out pretty much for the duration of nursing, not just one feeding.) How did the (male) author(s) miss this? It is enlightening. And makes me extremely sorry that I am a (way-younger-than-should-be) widow. I will not pretend to know what is between you and (your?) God. Maybe you are called to live in a marriage a certain way. Maybe the power imbalance is not a hurtful thing. I'll leave it there. God does work in mysterious ways. Maybe you have laid your power down and chosen what I consider to be the better way. Looking for another wife, BTW? Yours very truly, Medusa
|
|
dsc6
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by dsc6 on Mar 5, 2010 18:34:14 GMT -5
I like the Freudian slip/double entendre: succor for sucker.
Hahaha.
Nice
M.
|
|
dsc6
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by dsc6 on Mar 5, 2010 18:38:57 GMT -5
Well, my oldest is coming home from college tonight, and the house is a mess. I wanted to have it nice and clean when she gets home, so I guess I have to pull myself away from this conversation.
<yank/click on X....little sob>
M.
|
|
|
Post by wurks on Mar 5, 2010 19:18:59 GMT -5
W, I like the link alot and am printing it out as I type. (What the 'Science' area says about prolactin is strange to me, because in my experience, during breastfeeding, prolactin release during let-down is extremely relaxing. I mean: EXTREMELY. And totally chills you out pretty much for the duration of nursing, not just one feeding.) How did the (male) author(s) miss this? It is enlightening. And makes me extremely sorry that I am a (way-younger-than-should-be) widow. I will not pretend to know what is between you and (your?) God. Maybe you are called to live in a marriage a certain way. Maybe the power imbalance is not a hurtful thing. I'll leave it there. God does work in mysterious ways. Maybe you have laid your power down and chosen what I consider to be the better way. Looking for another wife, BTW? Yours very truly, Medusa Marnia doesn't say very much about kids and family... probably not really her area of expertice? But that is an excellent point about the nursing. I have almost copied the whole freakin' website.. lol It's research for my own book. Not to be. Honestly.. I am "looking" (for my epiphany at least) But not expecting.. I messed my life up for the very reasons that Marnia talks about... text book. And so I've spent the last dozen years trying to make the most of it... spiritually. But Yep "too soon old and too late smart" I can identify with that. I tried to post this earlier an the damn internet glitched on me: I have no idea what you are talking about, when you bring up Kareeza, and then say you are talking about celibacy. Ok it's not really about celibacy. That's a more personal thing, and only say that because you accused me of "prowess". Not where I meant to go at all. I posted a link that can lead you into Karezza if you want to know. Truth is... I thought I was doing you a favor, because I think it's profound. If only I had known about it 25 years sooner.... kwim? It is a paradigm shift, and I would totally understand why someone might have a problem understanding it. If it were not for my own experience, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't either. I was going to say you could thank me later... but that would have been arrogant... so I deleted it. Regarding temple prostitute vs. high priestess: why did you choose to say one vs. the other? I'm trying to have a discussion here, not to be played. Of course it is going to rile me up. Press someone else's buttons if you're playing that game. Ok that was a bit of a hit... but like JJ says.. it was kinda tongue in cheek. The scary thing to me was that you did take it so personal. We were just fantasizing.. right? Either i did make a big error in judgment, or else it struck a nerve. Either way. I'll take the blame for that. I do not hate men. And the word feminist does not define me at all. Nor is my view of women smarmy. In fact you probably shouldn't dis on the vestal virgins like that. Maybe there was something a lot more profound going on? (speaking of myths) I think that both polyandry and polygamy must be more prone to game-playing and fixed power imbalances based on gender. I think that it must be almost impossible to achieve the things I am FOR and avoid the things I am AGAINST in plural marriage of any kind. That may be completely true for you. But don't try to brand religious fundamentals with your constricted pov. It only shows your lack of understanding. ( I don't like saying FLDS because it only represents a segment of the Mormon Fundamentalists, and it's the one that has actually departed so graphically from the fundamentals.) We will never really see eye-to-eye because you have as fundamental belief something that I think is wrong and harmful: that men are called by God to be the spiritual and temporal head of the family, society, etc. That men, just because of their maleness, are just that much MORE of something than women are. I think that what men are so much MORE of is driven by testosterone. Giving that free rein via an 'imagined' OK by God is a recipe for bad things to happen. Neither should women be given free rein via an 'imagined' OK by God (which never happens because women, not being driven by testosterone, do not usually set up that kind of heirarchy). That is something that I consider to be a 'fixed power imbalance based on gender' with an OK by God thrown in. There is no man that I think a woman should submit to BECAUSE HE IS A MAN AND SHE IS A WOMAN. And vice versa. Any heirarchy that favors one sex, race, etc., etc., is not from God, in my opinion. (I believe that the Gospel of Christ is clear about that. We should relate in a way that is above and more than that.) I think those religions that are patriarchal in that way are in error and are spiritually immature.
We are called to create the best thing which we can. Every marriage is a different equation, with a different path to evolve and become holy.
One last thing: I believe that power equality is better than power inequality, but I believe that the higher good is laying one's power down and relating entirely differently. THAT is what I think is godly. Well, you could always write a book, but I don't see anything really unique here. True enough we do have a few fundamental disagreements. Mostly not even the ones you think though. (but nothing you couldn't be talked out of under the right circumstance... lol the truth will previal ) Like I said, Go start your own religion. lol Best of Luck. And It's not that I'm in total disagreement either. You have some good ideas. This "called of God" thing is way too played up, especially by the media. What you would find out real quick.. (if you tried that approach) is how well it doesn't work. No matter what your initial motivation was, you have to get it get right where it counts... in the real world, with each relationship, "boots on the ground" so to speak. An example will help elucidate what I mean: in the Society of Friends, when a group of people were trying to decide what to do, or how to resolve a conflict, there was not one person who had the power to decide, nor did they vote on it. (We all think that democracy is the ideal.) They sought the Spirit of God and waited and endured the conflict until they were guided to consensus. No one was bullied to change his/her mind, nor did the majority rule. Learning about this was an epiphany to me. "Let me show you a more excellent way.....How could anyone argue with that? Hey, I"m still waiting for my epiphany. lol very truly yours, wurks
|
|
dsc6
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by dsc6 on Mar 5, 2010 20:44:12 GMT -5
W,
My life has been full of epiphanies, and I'm not saying that lightly. But the price was a pretty gruesome start...... In my case it was "the Lord taketh away, and the Lord giveth." , lol. That resulted in a girl reading Wisdom Literature of many religions when she was a preteen and teen, lol. And engaging in my own Comparative Religion course of study, etc., etc., until God literally told me in my 20s to stop studying life and go out and live it--that He would teach me what I needed to know by living it. That was a sort of scary step to take. But I have never doubted His absolute trust-worthiness and grace, so off I went. Those years of immersion in the spiritual seem like light-years ago, but gave me a pretty good foundation. All these years since have given me a great respect for the power of the mundane in spiritual formation, lol. If God said it He would 'grow' me, I have to believe that it is happening. My current life has no outward spiritual trappings nor am I involved in any organized religion. My connection to God was shown to me many years ago to be like an unbreakable steel cable--that there is absolutely nothing I can do to break it so I might as well turn my eyes outward to the world and engage it. I talk to God whenever I feel like it, but it's a very down-to-earth sort of relationship. There is shit to be done here, so I keep my feet on the ground.
There were spiritual graces abounding when my husband was dying--I couldn't have survived without them, but I brought a lot to that table then--I KNOW how to be a nurse and that is a deep way of knowing how to be-with those who are sick and how to be healing and how to lead the dying toward death. I thought I had earlier paid my dues of suffering, right up till my husband developed pancreatic cancer.....
Being an (unwilling) single mom has been an awkward process of being dragged kicking and screaming and loudly complaining through the 5 years since he died. I am not a very good single mom. My work, which I hate HAVING to do full-time, demands a lot of my finite psychic energy. My lacks and faults were counter-balanced nicely by my husband and I find myself dealing with things about myself that I was able to ignor for decades. A PIA, I can tell you. I hate to cook and clean now, and don't do it nearly enough. My home does not have a lovely, settled feel to it--and I really wish someone would come in and create if for us, lol. I am inadequate for our needs, but I'm all we've got now. It sucks.
Anyway, the gifts I have have been deeply honed. Accompanied by a persistant state of being hurt in some ways beyond repair--or what I call, having a limp. PTSD is only a big crisis away.....
My injuries were inflicted by women, not men, so, thankfully, I have never hated God--since in this culture, we all first encounter the concept of God as a male being.
I just wanted to explain the reasons I can say that there have been a number of epiphanies....
And I am NOT yet cleaning...<lacks self-discipline....>
|
|
ladykc
Junior Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by ladykc on Mar 5, 2010 21:25:27 GMT -5
Say, isn't wurks the guy from the old boards who was in a monogamous relationship and wanted to go polygamous, but his wife wasn't going for it?
Or am I thinking for of someone else?
The personal is political. If wurks isn't concerned about how his wife feels about polygamy, is he really that concerned about how other women would feel about it? I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by marionj2 on Mar 5, 2010 21:27:51 GMT -5
An example will help elucidate what I mean: in the Society of Friends, when a group of people were trying to decide what to do, or how to resolve a conflict, there was not one person who had the power to decide, nor did they vote on it. (We all think that democracy is the ideal.) They sought the Spirit of God and waited and endured the conflict until they were guided to consensus. No one was bullied to change his/her mind, nor did the majority rule. Learning about this was an epiphany to me. "Let me show you a more excellent way.....How could anyone argue with that? Hey, I"m still waiting for my epiphany. lol very truly yours, wurks Why the past tense for the Society of Friends, wurks? They (Quakers) are still thriving, and still functioning the same way. I know - my mother was a Quaker, and I went to a Friends' School. And by the way, male and female Friends are completely equal - maybe you should look into them more. :-)
|
|
|
Post by marionj2 on Mar 5, 2010 21:31:28 GMT -5
Say, isn't wurks the guy from the old boards who was in a monogamous relationship and wanted to go polygamous, but his wife wasn't going for it? Or am I thinking for of someone else? The personal is political. If wurks isn't concerned about how his wife feels about polygamy, is he really that concerned about how other women would feel about it? I doubt it. No, that was JH.
|
|