Wednesday, October 27, 2010

The Second WAVE..for Mary Kassian

2 comments Posted by Hannah at 7:00 AM

We will move on to Part Three of Mary Kassian's You've Come A Long Way Baby.

Part Two is HERE.  
Part One is HERE

She now gets into what some people consider the roots of the 2nd rave of Feminism.

The Revolution

She continues by speaking of Simone de Beauvoir. In 2009 her book The Second Sex was revised, and released as an anniversary issue. It was revised because there was huge chucks of the book that was mistranslated, and it was not true to what her points were.  Please note: I'm not sure that was available at the time this lecture was given.

In the chapter "Woman: Myth and Reality" of The Second Sex, Beauvoir argued that men had made women the "Other" in society by putting a false aura of "mystery" around them. She argued that men used this as an excuse not to understand women or their problems and not to help them, and that this stereotyping was always done in societies by the group higher in the hierarchy to the group lower in the hierarchy. She wrote that this also happened on the basis of other categories of identity, such as race, class, and religion. But she said that it was nowhere more true than with sex in which men stereotyped women and used it as an excuse to organize society into a patriarchy.

Kassian wants to describe this as:

She argued that in the relationship between men and women, women were the second class and men were the ruling class. They got all the perks. They had the power. They had the authority, and they got to say what the world looked like.

De Beauvoir argued that in order for women to live as full human beings, they needed to demand their rights, collectively rebel against men, and overthrow all of the societal structures that men had constructed to keep women in a state of servitude. Most specifically, de Beauvoir encouraged women to get out of the home and deconstruct the Judeo-Christian ideas about marriage and motherhood and morality.

I may not agree with de Beauvior on every count, but she does not encourage women to deconstruct the Judeo-Christian ideas about marriage, motherhood, and morality as the basic theme of her book. She may not have lived the lifestyle that Christians would consider proper, but again she isn't asking people to live as she did.

I look at this part: not to understand women or their problems and not to help them, and that this stereotyping was always done in societies by the group higher in the hierarchy to the group lower in the hierarchy.

That's history, and that is what has happened all over the world.  This happened to men and women, people of different colors, races, and faiths.  Is that the Judeo-Christian ideal?  If she thinks so we have a different idea of what the bible says.  The bible is very clear about what God feels about those that do not help those they know need help for example. 

Ms. Kassian states the underlying message of Feminism is:
We—women—need and can trust no other authority than our own, personal truth. We need and can trust no other authority than our own, personal truth. 
I understand we can take this one or two ways.   I'm sure Ms. Kassian is coming from the position of God is our true authority.  That's fine!  I agree!  I realize she also is coming from the Complementarian position, and they look to their husbands as the authority as well.

When they speak about trusting 'authority' in the context of what de Beauvior is trying to get across?  She was speaking about 'group higher in the hierarchy to the group lower in the hierarchy.'  We are talking about the 'ruling class' at the time.  That is an entirely different can of worms.

They didn't understand the lower group, nor could they relate to their issues.  The ruling class did make the rules for the society, and did so without the type of 'loving and benevolent' leadership that the Complementary position speaks about.   The ruling class did not care about their 'personal truth' of their lifes, nor did they care to learn about them.  If you look at it that way?  Those men and women of the lower group truly have no incentive to TRUST the higher group in the hierarchy.

Its not a slam - its history!

Monday, October 25, 2010

What is the one thing you can't say in Church?

1 comments Posted by Hannah at 7:00 AM

I was reading an article called, "Why it is so hard to be broken in church?"  When I was looking the title of this blog post?  I'm sure people could up with volumes of items that would not be proper to speak of in church.

Danny Silk said:

For whatever reason, we’ve come to expect that church is a place where there isn’t going to be any sin. It is just not true. If we don’t know how to deal with sin, then we don’t know how to deal with people.

We inevitably create a culture of law in order to keep people from sinning. The message of this culture is, “Contain your sin within yourself. Don’t show it to me; I can’t handle it.” Remember, this was the Pharisees’ line. They were famous for being afraid of sin, largely due to the fact that the only remedy for sin in their day was various degrees of punishments. The fear of punishment ruled their hearts, relationships, and culture.

Jesus, on the other hand, had a group of unlikely companions. They were the thieves, tax collectors, and the hookers of the day. Compared to the other religious leaders at the time, He was like “Jesus of Vegas.” He was not in the least afraid of messes people made in their lives, and of letting them happen around Him. Even the people who spent three years walking personally with Jesus were still making messes the night of His crucifixion. But ultimately, His love and the way He led people empowered them to rise above their mistakes and issues.

What he mentioned does give us something to chew on doesn't it?

I think at times people get so caught up in looking at Laws instead of people.  At times we tend to go to such ridiculous lengths for these laws.   I remember once reading a debate about how a church goer that saw one of their pastors in a restaurant with friends.  This pastor decided to have a beer with his dinner, and you would  have thought all hell broke loose once that beer touched his lips. 

Did this pastor get drunk?  No.  He had a beer with his dinner.  You had people talking about how they never drank, how they were rescued from drink, how his 'behavior' would cause others to stumble, how he should be like them and have the conviction of no went on and on.

The pastor only had ONE beer with his DINNER!

We inevitably create a culture of law in order to keep people from sinning. 

Did the pastor sin with having a beer with dinner?  No.  The attitude in the debate was better never have a beer either - just in case.  If you do?  I swear these people wanted to ride this pastor out on a rail!  Why?  He could have sinned!  The opportunity was there!   I don't drink JUST be make sure that stumbling block isn't an issue.  What is WRONG with you that you can't do the same?  SOMEONE could have SAW you, and what messages does that send?

I don't have an issue with people that don't partake.  Its no skin off my nose if a pastor has a beer with this dinner either.

What is the one thing you can't say in Church?  I had a beer with my dinner.

The author of the article said:

Fear was obviously there. Shame. Rejection. But those feelings were more of the why people didn’t speak up more often.
I was looking for the what.
What did things like poverty and being gay and worship and money and porn and sex and depression and abuse have in common?
One night in December, seven months later, it hit me:
Whether it’s as a result of sin, or fear of the response we’ll get by speaking up about something like politics or relationships or mental health in a broken world, it all boiled down to brokenness.
And if this fracture in whatever part of our lives threatens our reputation, our character or our dignity, we hide.
If something in our spiritual life is broken or is confusing to us, we hide.
If a relationship is broken, we hide.
If there’s an unhealthy habit we fall back on, we hide.
If there’s a controversial political or social issue confronting us, we hide.
We ultimately want to hide what’s broken, whether it occurs individually or in a community. The Bible is filled with broken people, most of whom at some point or another tried to cover up their brokenness. Yet it seems like the people who are the most broken, the most helpless, are the people God often uses the most.

The culture of fear is something that most places of worship will not admit is present.  I'm sure most look to themselves as the hospital for sinners.  On the other hand, some will admit that is present...but not in my church.

There is a facade that is asked to be displayed, and when that happens the 'real sinners' will hide.  You know WHOM  the 'real sinners' are?  ALL of us!  I have held back saying things at times, because of fear of the reaction I would get.

I have read other people's stories, feelings, and circumstances on faith boards online?  I remember thinking to myself, "Oh bother!  HERE is comes!"  Sure enough the lectures came, and what seemed to be missing as tact for one thing. 

When domestic violence within the church comes up?  You get speeches on how you need to 'train' yourself not to do things you know will trigger someone else.  How are to put yourself completely out there, and remember you can't 'control' the other person.

We inevitably create a culture of law in order to keep people from sinning.

If you are dealing with adultery or porn addiction?  They ask if you handed up enough sex to your partner!  When they mention their drive has gone down they are reminded that their bodies do not belong to them.  They ask you HOW you went about making sure your spouse felt loved, honored, and cherished.  If you mention one thing out of honestly that could have been neglected?  Its strange how all other factors are moot from that point on.  They didn't follow the formula, and must take responsibility for part of what happened.

We inevitably create a culture of law in order to keep people from sinning.

Yet it seems like the people who are the most broken, the most helpless, are the people God often uses the most.

Its funny how we never stop long enough to notice huh?

I wonder why people will not acknowledge there are things you can't say in church.  How the 'rules' encourage them not to, and how they seem to wish to control the outcome. 

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Tickle for Tuesday!

0 comments Posted by Hannah at 1:52 PM

I was having a hard time reading the words.

I love it - giggles!
Ephesians 5:22-24

First Picture:

The Bible says, the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.

Second Picture:

So, Basically, you have to treat me like Jesus!

Third Picture:

This is not funny, Rose!

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Counsel of Doctrine instead of Mercy

4 comments Posted by Hannah at 4:08 PM

There are some days I can be so strong, and others times I feel like maybe I just bury myself and give up.

I pray that I never become to so closed minded that I can't see and feel the pain of others.  I hope others will point out when I'm being to non chalet about other people's issues.

Goodness knows when you are dealing with domestic violence within the church - or any faith to be honest it seems - you know and live that pain of being ignored and silenced.

So many men, woman and children have been scarred by this.  So many have left the faith, and others rode out on a rail when they couldn't numb their broken heart. 

I was catching up on my reading, and twittering some articles and such.  I came across some good articles, and those that just broke me up.

I just don't understand WHY people place such huge barriers up to NOT understand a family's pain.  I get so tired of fighting, and yet I feel this is something I have been truly called to do.

I have a real issue with crying, and since my father died I finally gave myself permission to start.  Strange huh?   WELL today it seems a day to just let loose!

I think so many people that live by doctrine must truly feel that is the best way, but they just can't handle the road blocks that doctrine doesn't address.  There is a man that is the 'no remarriage camp' that isn't nasty or unloving as so many others in that area.  He seems to get it to a point when domestic violence and the church tends to lock heads - he stops and thinks.  Then later mercy, grace tend to take a back seat after a while and doctrine prevails.

The key, however, to keep in mind is that he is still her husband. She is to love with a love that always hopes, perseveres and never ends. A love that doesn't record wrongdoings. She is to forgive with a forgiveness that is always open to reconciliation upon true repentance. For this is how she is loved and how she hopes to be forgiven. 

It is easy to create a god who desires happiness above holiness. True happiness, however, true blessedness, comes through holiness. Is the cross of remaining faithful to an unfaithful spouse too much to bear in the 21st century? Is this a cross we are no longer expected to carry? The awesome thing is that we need not carry it alone.
I felt slimed when he spoke of how he seems to think victims of abuse are looking for 'happiness' above holiness.  I hate to admit it, but some days I swear I would love to haul off and just HIT people when I hear that.  I would never do that of course, but BOY is that feeling within me.  I normally have to do a short prayer to calm me down, or take a walk and have these conversations with Jesus before I go on to address such ignorance!

WHO do these people think they are telling victims they are after 'happiness' with that shamed based tone?  Does doctrine indeed ask people to take all logic and common sense and THROW it out the window?  HAPPINESS?  Seriously? 

I wrote a long post to this gentlemen, and after I was done?  I just had to cry my eyes out.  Why is empathy, consideration, and any sort of true MORALITY seem to be missing in the teachings these people seem to be brain washed with?

Where is the human ethic in such teachings?  Do they NOT have any moral standings at all?

They tell people to hold on for dear life because SOME DAY God will turn abusers into prodigal sons!  The bible speaks of those that never turn to God, and yet doctrine people tell you that you must play a different game of  'hope' compared to the one you used when dealing with the abusive person.

They always have HOPE for that person, but never have HOPE for the victims.  They always do it wrong.  You ever notice that?

WHY is it people think victims are after 'happiness' when in truth its called SURVIVAL?   WHY is it people DOUBT their forgiveness when reconciliation didn't happen, or when the abuser HARMS again and it angers you?

GOD when are people going to grasp you are allowed to use COMMON SENSE, and you don't ask us to live in a FANTASY land of 'happily ever after'?  When will they realize how much they are hurting us instead of helping?  How do we show them the struggle they refuse to see, and yet is right in front of them?  When will they see that survivors of abuse are stronger than those that counsel such hurtful garbage?

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Be June Cleaver not Murphy Brown!

5 comments Posted by Hannah at 7:00 AM

I wanted to move to the Next Video from a previous True Women's Conference.  The last portion I spoke about Part One - You've Come a Long Way Baby!

Mary Kassian states that the Leave it to Beaver had been replaced by The Mary Tyler Moore show.

By the late 1960s, the image of June Cleaver being happy at home in her role as wife and mother were gone by the wayside, replaced by the 1970s Mary Tyler Moore image of a pretty, single woman in her 30s pursuing a career at a television station. The show was lauded as a breakthrough because it had the first, independent, attractive career woman as the center.

It discreetly implied that Mary was single. She was on the pill. She was also sexually active, but the focus of the show was on her career, not on her association with men. She truly was on her own, without a recurring father or husband or boyfriend or anyone looking out for her. Every episode, the theme song proudly alluded to her autonomy. “You're gonna make it after all.” Okay? A lot of you women remember that. You remember that. You're shaking your heads.

YES Mary came to Minneapolis after her engagement fell apart, and applied for a Reception position yet was offered a producer job instead.  The theme song for the show was called, Love Is All Around.  If we stop and think about the line 'your going to make it after all'? It makes sense!  I'm sure she came to that town totally broken hearted, and wondered where her life was going to go at that point.

It was upbeat, and truly nothing ominous about it.  I don't mean to be a negative nelly here, but it was a good show at the time.  Its focus wasn't on any of what she mentioned, and I don't understand why she brings this show up for her points.  I mean if the engagement didn't break down?  Maybe she would have been another Mrs. Cleaver.

Murphy Brown

In the 1980s, we're introduced to Murphy Brown, an investigative journalist and news anchor for FYI, a fictional TV news magazine. In contrast to the gentle sweetness of Mary Tyler Moore, this character, Murphy Brown, has a loud mouth, is rash, driven, self-assured, self-absorbed, and highly opinionated. She is a divorcee and a proud atheist, and during the course of the series, Murphy becomes pregnant but chooses not to marry her baby's father. A man would cramp her style. She has the child none-the-less and leaves the baby in the care of a revolving door of nannies so she can pursue her career. The child is merely a side in the plot that revolves around Murphy's self-actualization in the workplace.

There are alot of people in power - and she was powerful - that had that power corrupt them and others.  That's hardly a gender factor if you look at history.  I can understand why she picked this character, because Murphy Brown seems like the character they use to show you how 'feminism' is bad.  The problem comes that most of us don't live the Murphy Brown life.

Being someone that has a loud mouth, is rash, driven, self-assured, self-absorbed, and highly opinionated can be tagged to most of the broken world.  They may or may not be so in your face about it as Murphy was, but these traits for humans were present - and were alive - well before any movement started.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Tickle for Tuesday

0 comments Posted by Hannah at 7:00 AM

Today I wanted to show a TICKLE for Tuesday!

My daughter and her friends video taped my 14 year old Siamese taking on our 6 month old lab puppy at the time.

The cat has no claws in the front, and the puppy thinks its funny when he bats him in the face.

This was one of the rare times the cat HAD enough, and surprised the puppy by nipping him!

The puppy to this day still realizes WHO the top dog is, and it isn't HIM!


Monday, October 11, 2010

We have come a long way BABY!

4 comments Posted by Hannah at 7:00 AM

I was viewing some items on youtube, and came across the video sessions of the Mary Kassian: True Woman '08 Conference, "You've Come A Long Way, Baby!". To me they sprinkled some truth, and then twisted to make it sound good. She mentions she grew up during the time she speaks about. I grew up then as well, and I noticed she doesn't bring up the 'not so great' portions of that era.

I am WOMAN hear me ROAR!

Mary Kassian stated she remembers singing the song, "I am Woman", and I will admit I remembering singing it myself. I guess to say it made me feel a bit empowered at the time would say I swallowed the entire women's movement hook, line and sinker right? I must have gone over to the radical, extreme feminist's view of viewing the world!

Ahem. Wrong!

I was a child back then, and when all this was going on? WELL let me give you a couple of giggles about that:

I wanted to play baseball on the leagues with the boys. I wanted it so bad I could TASTE it! I couldn't because girls don't play baseball. Well they were NOT allowed to play baseball on leagues anyway. You could cheer the boys on, and maybe sell candy! That made me MAD! YEP I wanted to ROAR!

I played in the neighborhood, and was better than some of those boys that were on the baseball teams. I was born GIRL, and that was the only reason I couldn't play baseball with the leagues. My folks were always asking me to TAKE off the baseball cap, and leave my mitt at home. I needed to be 'ladylike'. I hated that TERM!

HEAR ME ROAR AGAIN all to due to being labeled 'GIRL'!

Mom decided one summer she would talk me into short hair! As I look back at the time I knew it was more due to HAIR wars! I had long, thick hair back then. It took FOREVER to get a comb and brush through it, and that was due to activities I liked to participate in. YES baseball was one of them! I'm sure my short hair made my mother's life a bit less stressful!

During that summer after my paper route and chores were done I spent my time at the community POOL! At the time LONG hair caused all kinds of issues with pool maintenance.

Guess what I was thinking?

Remember these ugly things?
WOO HOO no more SWIM CAPS! Heck my hair was shorter than most of the BOYS! Come to find out it didn't matter.

I was GIRL, and GIRLS wore swim caps regardless!

I guess it was just GIRL's hair that caused the issues with the pools? NOPE it was LONG hair they said, but boys with hair down the middle of their back could swim with no caps!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Blog Archive



Blog Of The Day Awards Winner

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Privacy Policy

| Emotional Abuse and Your Faith © 2009. All Rights Reserved | Template by My Blogger Tricks .com |