by Vyckie
Okay ~ here’s what I’m doing ~ I am selecting those posts that I’ve wanted to comment on or reply to ~ digging them “Out of the Pile” (OOTP) to focus and prioritize the comments, add my thoughts and continue the discussions.
I’m starting with comments from this post: To Those Who May Be Shocked, Disappointed, and Hurt by the News of My Apostasy …
Victoria Rose said…
You do sound like an angry feminist. You have every right to be angry after all that was done to you, and feminism is nothing more than the idea that women matter just as much as men. But bitch? Absolutely not! You’re so used to being subjugated that you’re not comfortable yet expressing your true opinions. That and right now you’re still reeling, so of course you’re going to sound bitter. It’s only natural. Time and achieving your own self-realization will help take the edge off.
Vyckie’s response: When I said in my letter that I sound like an angry feminist bitch ~ I was thinking about the reaction of those I was addressing ~ those still in the QF/P mindset ~ they will perceive me as an angry feminist bitch ~ a Jezebel. UGH ~ so much of what I did Q.D. was motivated by the fear of being labeled a Jezebel.
NOTE TO READERS: Save your comments about Jezebel ~ I’m going to write a “What It’s All About” post on this topic ~ We didn’t want to be like JEZEBEL.
Arietty said…
Vicki I am very happy to read that you are out of the closet!! LOL.. you might remember me, I wrote to you about my own children’s adjustment once we left the patriarchy on a forum of Cheryl’s. I am just thrilled to read this blog!!
Vyckie’s response: Wow ~ Arietty ~ I just now caught this and made the connection. I remember you from Cheryl’s forum. Cool. I’m so glad you’re here 
Various commenters said …
You need to learn about the Christian egalitarian movement.
Vyckie’s response: I really appreciate all those who are posting comments about the Christian egalitarian movement. About once a week, I have coffee with Heather, the co-pastor of the Salvation Army church I attend. (The other co-pastor is Heather’s husband, Xavier ~ whom we’ve decided to start referring to as “the pastor’s husband” ~ LOL) Our conversation frequently goes back to whether patriarchy is actually what the bible teaches ~ and Heather is adamant that she does “take the bible seriously” (something I’ve accused her of not doing) and yet she and Xavier are enjoying an egalitarian marriage ~ a partnership in which both Heather and Xavier practice mutual submission AND leadership.
I love watching those two together because Heather is anything but the picture of the “meek and quiet” woman whom I have for so many years believed was an essential quality of biblical womanhood ~ if she has an opinion (and she usually does) ~ she’s gonna let everyone know about it ~ and she dang sure isn’t going to seek her husband’s approval before forming those opinions or making decisions. Of course, she talks to Xavier all the time ~ they have a wonderful back-and-forth which helps them to sort things out and make better choices for their church ministry and their family life. They are a young couple ~ and it’s very refreshing to me just to witness their enthusiasm.
I asked Heather once what it means to her that, as Paul says, the man is the head of the home ~ Does that mean Xavier gets to make the final decision whenever you two can’t come to an agreement on a particular issue? “No,” she responded. She paused to think about it for a minute, and then told me, “I guess I don’t really know what it means.” I appreciate her honesty.
For me, at this point ~ it doesn’t really matter to me what the bible says about husband/wife relationship and other family roles. I’ve come to the point of “throwing out the baby with the bath water” ~ in other words, I don’t think the bible should be an authoritative guide to relationships, spirituality, or just about anything else to people living in the 21st century.
Al Barger said…
Miss Vyckie- From this testimony at least, I would take you as a brave and virtuous woman. That’s partly from the long efforts at leading a proper Christian life as you understood it.
But even more so, I salute your bravery and intellectual integrity in ultimately choosing to recognize the stick of harsh reality disproving your deepest convictions. Changing your mind on that level is tough.
Vyckie’s response: My counselor, Deb used to work at the head of the local battered women’s shelter here in town ~ so she has a lot of experience with abusive relationships and just how difficult it is for a woman to leave. I talked to her recently and she was encouraging me to carry on with this blog and book project. She told me that the uniqueness of Laura’s and my perspective is this:
Leaving an abusive relationship is hard enough ~ but leaving one that is based on a biblical/patriarchal model which tells the woman that her relationship with God is dependent upon her maintaining these strict gender roles is just about impossible.
But to go further, once a person has committed their life to God and the Christian religion ~ it’s fairly rare to start asking questions, listen to other points of view, recognize that what you’ve believed and devoted your life to is not healthy, is not “The Truth” ~ and walk away. What makes our “apostasy” all the more remarkable is that the particular form of Christianity which we were so steeped in is a very narrow and exclusivistic fundamentalism which dehumanizes a person to the point of self-abnegation-as-godliness.
For myself, it was all the more unlikely that I would ever be “No Longer Quivering” because I’d been so adamant about promoting Christianity and the QF/P lifestyle in my published articles and my own newspaper ~ which BTW, was our bread and butter ~ so I had to give up my reputation and esteem in that community and our source of finanical stability too. Since my convictions nearly cost me my life on several occasions ~ I really had A LOT invested ~ how likely was it that I wouldn’t keep right on quivering?
It takes a whole lot of courage to wake up and say, “My whole life has been spent on a bunch of crap.”
And then to be willing to talk about the whole experience ~ to walk others through the process of how we got there and how we got out ~ it’s no wonder this blog has caught people’s attention.
Gary Dean Purifory said…
Hi Vyckie,
Your decision to leave quiverfull can only be characterized as a liberation, not an apostasy. Your story is a very interesting and powerful one, and should be told as often as possible. I’d never heard of quiverfull, until I read your article on salon. Best wishes, and much success to you and Laura.
Sincerely,
Gary Purifory
The Investigators Report
Vyckie’s response: Hey ~ maybe someone can contact Gary about featuring Laura & I on his Investigators Report. We’re open to whatever opportunities are available to share our experiences.
Anonymous said…
Don’t be afraid to be an atheist.
Vyckie’s response: While I don’t feel “afraid” to be an atheist, the thought of it does make me wonder ~ so if not God, then what?
Actually, this is something I really want to talk about. I spent almost a year corresponding with my atheist uncle ~ asking so many questions that he could hardly keep up. Now that I’m NLQ ~ I have even more questions for the atheists ~ so be looking for the post I’m writing specifically to atheists ~ it’s coming …
adventuresinmercy said…
Anon,
I agree, in that I think I would probably be a pretty happy camper in the QF/homeschooling system in many respects, had I had a fully functioning husband.
Molly ~ I’m just curious if you (or other readers here) have ever personally known a QF/P family which had a “fully functioning husband.” The reason I say this is that when I look back now at the families I knew who were living this lifestyle, even those families where it seemed to be working for them ~ there were some really seriously twisted head-trips going on. I’m going to write more about these (mythical, IMO) families where everyone is a happy camper. My first thought for a title to that post is, “Not all QF/P husbands are abusive … Yeah right.”
Also from Molly…
Instead of a healthy community that recognizes abuse and helps those who are being abused, the teachings of this community tend to minimize abuse (sometimes even outrightly encouraging it), often denying it altogether.
Vyckie’s response: Good point.
And on the same topic, Anonymous said…
I understand where you are coming from, I really do. I still think it goes back to family dynamics more that QF.
Vyckie’s response: It’s going to come out in my story (some commenters are already picking up on it) that I don’t believe our family would have gone from two young, somewhat confused, new Believers trying their best to make a good life for ourselves and our children to the nightmare which our family life became if we hadn’t gotten into the QF/P materials published by the homeschool curriculum suppliers (particularly Vision Forum). Warren had his problems, yes ~ but his good qualities and sincerity more than made up for that. Guess you all will just have to keep reading to learn what happened, huh? Guess I’d better get to writing!
Anonymous said…
That is why we expose our kids to “both sides” and explain why we believe what we believe but let them make their own decisions.
Vyckie’s response: I would have sworn that’s what I did with my kids too. What I realized though is that we never really looked at both sides. Instead, we read our side’s books which said, “Here’s what the other side says ~ and here’s why they’re wrong.” It wasn’t until I started corresponding with my uncle that I realized I’d never really heard a word that the “other side” had to say ~ I only *thought* I knew what they believed. Even when I took a semester of “The Judeo-Christian Tradition” and aced the course ~ I hadn’t actually heard what “they” were saying.
Okay ~ well it looks like I’ve made it to the place in that comment section in which Jadehawk “hijacked” the thread and turned it into a lengthy, sometimes heated, and quite interesting discussion which needed it’s own place
So I’ll stop here. I’ve had my say ~ can’t wait to hear from all of you.
84 Responses to “OOTP: Christian egalitarianism, The uniqueness of our perspective, Not afraid to be an atheist, Quivering creates tyrants, etc.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
KR Wordgazer says:
Quoting Aimai:
But I’m pretty sure, though I don’t take it as a hard and fast statement for all time, that they have more or less asked not to be witnessed to, or instructed in the “real” and “true” texts that have moved the reader, or lectured to about how if they’d only done the right thing, or listened to the right authorities, they wouldn’t have had the problems that they had.
You make a very valid point, Aimai, but I can also see where people like Mara and Madame are coming from.
For myself, it’s not that I want Vyckie and/or Laura to embrace my version of Christianity as if it were the only correct one– and I’m certain that’s not what Mara or Madame meant either. But one thing I can say about the version of Christianity (including egalitarian marriage) that I practice is that it actually works for me (does what it’s supposed to do, as in making me happy, giving my live meaning and joy and peace), whereas the version Vyckie and Laura were practicing clearly did not. Based on that criteria, then, I think I can say that my version is more likely to be “real” than QF’s or other fundamentalist versions.
And the concern is actually not about wanting Vyckie and/or Laura to reconvert– it’s something similar to what Kaderin was saying when she expressed frustration at people who reject evolution based on a version of it that she thinks is incorrect and a misunderstanding of the nature of the science. I realize that making an analogy between something subjective like faith and something more objective like evolutionary science, is probably not the most apt comparison– but I really do feel that (based on my version of Christianity actually helping me) that it would be a shame to reject Christianity without full disclosure and information as to what does work.
It’s a matter of wanting them to make a fully informed decision, that’s all– and if they have made one (which it is my understanding they’ll be telling us more about later), then I for one have no objection.
KR Wordgazer
KR Wordgazer says:
Quoting Aimai:
But I’m pretty sure, though I don’t take it as a hard and fast statement for all time, that they have more or less asked not to be witnessed to, or instructed in the “real” and “true” texts that have moved the reader, or lectured to about how if they’d only done the right thing, or listened to the right authorities, they wouldn’t have had the problems that they had.
You make a very valid point, Aimai, but I can also see where people like Mara and Madame are coming from.
For myself, it’s not that I want Vyckie and/or Laura to embrace my version of Christianity as if it were the only correct one– and I’m certain that’s not what Mara or Madame meant either. But one thing I can say about the version of Christianity (including egalitarian marriage) that I practice is that it actually works for me (does what it’s supposed to do, as in making me happy, giving my live meaning and joy and peace), whereas the version Vyckie and Laura were practicing clearly did not. Based on that criteria, then, I think I can say that my version is more likely to be “real” than QF’s or other fundamentalist versions.
And the concern is actually not about wanting Vyckie and/or Laura to reconvert– it’s something similar to what Kaderin was saying when she expressed frustration at people who reject evolution based on a version of it that she thinks is incorrect and a misunderstanding of the nature of the science. I realize that making an analogy between something subjective like faith and something more objective like evolutionary science, is probably not the most apt comparison– but I really do feel that (based on my version of Christianity actually helping me) that it would be a shame to reject Christianity without full disclosure and information as to what does work.
It’s a matter of wanting them to make a fully informed decision, that’s all– and if they have made one (which it is my understanding they’ll be telling us more about later), then I for one have no objection.
KR Wordgazer
Wordgazer your logic makes no sense.
To follow your line of thinking you really have to say that EVERY religion is true because there are people who are happy with their marriages in every belief system.
Of course there are also unhappy marriages in every belief system too so that means that they’re all false at the same time.
Belief systems don’t determine happiness in marriage. My own parents were on the fundie borderline when I was a child and their marriage was never what I would call good. A few years after I moved out they rejected Christianity and their marriage still sucks because my father is verbally and emotionally abusive.
My husband and I don’t believe in any gods and we have a wonderful marriage.
Did you examine all the aspects/sects of Islam or Hinduism before you decided that you don’t believe in them? I’m sure there are happy marriages in both religions so why would you reject them?
Mary
Wordgazer your logic makes no sense.
To follow your line of thinking you really have to say that EVERY religion is true because there are people who are happy with their marriages in every belief system.
Of course there are also unhappy marriages in every belief system too so that means that they’re all false at the same time.
Belief systems don’t determine happiness in marriage. My own parents were on the fundie borderline when I was a child and their marriage was never what I would call good. A few years after I moved out they rejected Christianity and their marriage still sucks because my father is verbally and emotionally abusive.
My husband and I don’t believe in any gods and we have a wonderful marriage.
Did you examine all the aspects/sects of Islam or Hinduism before you decided that you don’t believe in them? I’m sure there are happy marriages in both religions so why would you reject them?
Mary
KR Wordgazer says,
I’m confused. Where did I say happy marriage equals truth in religion?
All I said was that something that works (not just in marriage, but in all of life) — in terms of doing what it’s supposed to do– is more likely to be real than something that doesn’t work, doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do.
Like a toaster, maybe. If I buy a toaster, and it’s a crummy toaster and always burns my bread, and so I toss it out and decide to never buy another toaster because toasters don’t work– and then my friend says, “But I bought this other brand, and it works fine. Maybe the problem is just that particular toaster.”
I wasn’t saying anything whatsoever about other religions. I don’t recall mentioning that I “reject” them. If Islam is working for someone, making them happy and fulfilled and giving their life meaning and purpose, am I going to tell them to switch to my religion? Not likely.
And the only reference I made to marriage in my post was that my egalitarian marriage was part of my version of Christianity. My post wasn’t about marriage.
With all respect, Mary– you’re taking my words much further than they were ever meant to go.
KR Wordgazer
KR Wordgazer says,
I’m confused. Where did I say happy marriage equals truth in religion?
All I said was that something that works (not just in marriage, but in all of life) — in terms of doing what it’s supposed to do– is more likely to be real than something that doesn’t work, doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do.
Like a toaster, maybe. If I buy a toaster, and it’s a crummy toaster and always burns my bread, and so I toss it out and decide to never buy another toaster because toasters don’t work– and then my friend says, “But I bought this other brand, and it works fine. Maybe the problem is just that particular toaster.”
I wasn’t saying anything whatsoever about other religions. I don’t recall mentioning that I “reject” them. If Islam is working for someone, making them happy and fulfilled and giving their life meaning and purpose, am I going to tell them to switch to my religion? Not likely.
And the only reference I made to marriage in my post was that my egalitarian marriage was part of my version of Christianity. My post wasn’t about marriage.
With all respect, Mary– you’re taking my words much further than they were ever meant to go.
KR Wordgazer
” But one thing I can say about the version of Christianity (including egalitarian marriage) that I practice is that it actually works for me (does what it’s supposed to do, as in making me happy, giving my live meaning and joy and peace), whereas the version Vyckie and Laura were practicing clearly did not. Based on that criteria, then, I think I can say that my version is more likely to be “real” than QF’s or other fundamentalist versions.”
Sorry but that quote above certainly sounds like you are using how happy you are in your marriage to gete at least part of your validation of your religion.
You HAVE rejected any religion that you don’t believe in by default.
Your toaster analogy fails too.
What you are saying in the post I was responding to would be akin to you buying a specific brand of toaster and it breaking. WHen you tell your friend you’ll never buy that brand again she tells you that you need to test every toaster that company has ever made before you decide to not buy from that company again.
Mary
” But one thing I can say about the version of Christianity (including egalitarian marriage) that I practice is that it actually works for me (does what it’s supposed to do, as in making me happy, giving my live meaning and joy and peace), whereas the version Vyckie and Laura were practicing clearly did not. Based on that criteria, then, I think I can say that my version is more likely to be “real” than QF’s or other fundamentalist versions.”
Sorry but that quote above certainly sounds like you are using how happy you are in your marriage to gete at least part of your validation of your religion.
You HAVE rejected any religion that you don’t believe in by default.
Your toaster analogy fails too.
What you are saying in the post I was responding to would be akin to you buying a specific brand of toaster and it breaking. WHen you tell your friend you’ll never buy that brand again she tells you that you need to test every toaster that company has ever made before you decide to not buy from that company again.
Mary
Jeez.
For the past few days I have spent a lot of time talking to atheists here who have tried very hard to explain to me and everyone, why there is no God and why Christianity is false. I really don’t see where anything I have said about maybe thinking twice, is so offensive. But apparently it is.
So I’m shutting up now. I want to still stick around and be supportive to Vyckie and Laura in their journey, but I’m done talking about religion.
KR Wordgazer
Jeez.
For the past few days I have spent a lot of time talking to atheists here who have tried very hard to explain to me and everyone, why there is no God and why Christianity is false. I really don’t see where anything I have said about maybe thinking twice, is so offensive. But apparently it is.
So I’m shutting up now. I want to still stick around and be supportive to Vyckie and Laura in their journey, but I’m done talking about religion.
KR Wordgazer
KR,
Can you please stop complaining that other people find your logic illogical? And confusing that with some grand conclusion about your Christianity? And also that there are “atheists” arguing with you to convince you that your christianity isn’t meaningful to you? As I’ve pointed out before the words atheist, deist, theist, agnostic and even Christian etc… just aren’t hard and fast lines really. People move in and out of religions, divisions in religions, belief in a singular supreme being *all the time.* All of Christianity is founded on the notion that people can convert into and out of Christianity more than once in their lifetimes. And there are lots of other religions out there to be explored.
Vyckie and Laura are on one such journey and its nice that you want to “support them” but how about showing the same respect for the other posters–by, for example, not writing another passive aggressive “goodbye cruel world diary” every time one of your pseudo logical arguments gets taken apart.
Your basic arguement-the one that never fails–is the argument ad KR. That is, that what works for KR should work for anyone and, furthermore,that what works for KR is objectively better than what works for (atheists/jews/buddhists/agnostics/pagans/muslims/comps/ etc…) We get that you are a nice happy modern christian woman in a nice marriage. Lots of us are nice women in nice (other) religion marriages, or no religion, or we are on hiatus or thinking about it. The only thing people here have tried to point out to you is that “this works for KR” doesn’t mean its going to work for everyone else, or anyone else, and it doesn’t even mean its going to work for Vyckie and Laura.
You are like a person who really likes chocolate icecream and has built a large part of their life around chocolate ice cream. You know other people like vanilla, and sometimes vanilla makes them sick, and so you keep saying “you will really like chocolate if you try it!” That’s nice. But you keep saying it over and over and over even after the person has said
“you know, I have tried chocolate and I think I’m just allergic to dairy at this point.”
I’m a jewish, atheist, agnostic with leanings towards buddhism in a happy marriage with two kids. Deal with the fact that people can be happy with lots of other solutions than the watered down Christianity you are advocating.
aimai
KR,
Can you please stop complaining that other people find your logic illogical? And confusing that with some grand conclusion about your Christianity? And also that there are “atheists” arguing with you to convince you that your christianity isn’t meaningful to you? As I’ve pointed out before the words atheist, deist, theist, agnostic and even Christian etc… just aren’t hard and fast lines really. People move in and out of religions, divisions in religions, belief in a singular supreme being *all the time.* All of Christianity is founded on the notion that people can convert into and out of Christianity more than once in their lifetimes. And there are lots of other religions out there to be explored.
Vyckie and Laura are on one such journey and its nice that you want to “support them” but how about showing the same respect for the other posters–by, for example, not writing another passive aggressive “goodbye cruel world diary” every time one of your pseudo logical arguments gets taken apart.
Your basic arguement-the one that never fails–is the argument ad KR. That is, that what works for KR should work for anyone and, furthermore,that what works for KR is objectively better than what works for (atheists/jews/buddhists/agnostics/pagans/muslims/comps/ etc…) We get that you are a nice happy modern christian woman in a nice marriage. Lots of us are nice women in nice (other) religion marriages, or no religion, or we are on hiatus or thinking about it. The only thing people here have tried to point out to you is that “this works for KR” doesn’t mean its going to work for everyone else, or anyone else, and it doesn’t even mean its going to work for Vyckie and Laura.
You are like a person who really likes chocolate icecream and has built a large part of their life around chocolate ice cream. You know other people like vanilla, and sometimes vanilla makes them sick, and so you keep saying “you will really like chocolate if you try it!” That’s nice. But you keep saying it over and over and over even after the person has said
“you know, I have tried chocolate and I think I’m just allergic to dairy at this point.”
I’m a jewish, atheist, agnostic with leanings towards buddhism in a happy marriage with two kids. Deal with the fact that people can be happy with lots of other solutions than the watered down Christianity you are advocating.
aimai
KR
Personally, I think you’re taking this too personal – we are not arguing against you but against certain opinions you hold. I know it may seem like you’re under attack, what with the atheist viewpoints currently outnumbering you, but you’re not.
The thing is – we’re not even trying to convince you that you’re wrong. It’s not about you. We, or at least I, am under no delusion that some ingenious argument will make you go “Huh. Never thought about it, I guess you’re right, gotta go change my life.” That’s not what we debate for – we’re debating for the sake of the audience.
When I see you put up a comment arguing something, I get the urge to offer an alternate viewpoint to the reader. Not to convince you, but them. Those who are yet undecided will benefit from hearing every side. It goes both ways, which is why your “opponents” begged you to stay in the historical Jesus thread and keep representing a Christian viewpoint that was otherwise lacking.
So I concur with aimai – please stop taking people arguing the point as an insult.
KR
Personally, I think you’re taking this too personal – we are not arguing against you but against certain opinions you hold. I know it may seem like you’re under attack, what with the atheist viewpoints currently outnumbering you, but you’re not.
The thing is – we’re not even trying to convince you that you’re wrong. It’s not about you. We, or at least I, am under no delusion that some ingenious argument will make you go “Huh. Never thought about it, I guess you’re right, gotta go change my life.” That’s not what we debate for – we’re debating for the sake of the audience.
When I see you put up a comment arguing something, I get the urge to offer an alternate viewpoint to the reader. Not to convince you, but them. Those who are yet undecided will benefit from hearing every side. It goes both ways, which is why your “opponents” begged you to stay in the historical Jesus thread and keep representing a Christian viewpoint that was otherwise lacking.
So I concur with aimai – please stop taking people arguing the point as an insult.
KR Wordgazer says,
OK, it was late last night and I was tired, and I shouldn’t have posted that– I need to take a page from Vyckie’s book and go away and cool down when someone says something that pushes my buttons.
That said, the only thing I ever said elsewhere was that I really didn’t want to debate theism vs. atheism. I said that several times. It was not a “passive-agressive goodbye-cruel-world strategy” — it was a statement of my preferences. I enjoy discussing ideas, but I don’t like debate.
I have not been being a prima donna– until, I grant, last night. I apologize for that. But please don’t read stuff into my words.
Here are my real questions– the ones I should have just been bold and asked from the beginning, rather than pussy-footing around and getting accused of passive agression:
Vyckie, I am concerned that just as you were convinced by Quiverful fundamentalism, you were convinced by the arguments of your atheist uncle. My question is, did you read any rebuttals or other perspectives on either position before deciding to embrace them? Did you inquire as to any views by more mainstream Christians as to patriarchy and fundamentalism before deciding you agreed with Quiverful? Did you inquire as to any views on atheist arguments other than the ones supplied by fundamentalists, before deciding you agreed with atheism?
If the answer is yes, then terrific. If the answer is no, then it is my opinion that further study might be warranted before deciding for certain.
I do agree with Aimai in this: There is always more to learn, and a thinking person might change her/his beliefs on all sorts of things many times. I certainly have. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me, based on what you have and haven’t said so far on this blog, to ask, “are you sure?”
KR Wordgazer
KR Wordgazer says,
OK, it was late last night and I was tired, and I shouldn’t have posted that– I need to take a page from Vyckie’s book and go away and cool down when someone says something that pushes my buttons.
That said, the only thing I ever said elsewhere was that I really didn’t want to debate theism vs. atheism. I said that several times. It was not a “passive-agressive goodbye-cruel-world strategy” — it was a statement of my preferences. I enjoy discussing ideas, but I don’t like debate.
I have not been being a prima donna– until, I grant, last night. I apologize for that. But please don’t read stuff into my words.
Here are my real questions– the ones I should have just been bold and asked from the beginning, rather than pussy-footing around and getting accused of passive agression:
Vyckie, I am concerned that just as you were convinced by Quiverful fundamentalism, you were convinced by the arguments of your atheist uncle. My question is, did you read any rebuttals or other perspectives on either position before deciding to embrace them? Did you inquire as to any views by more mainstream Christians as to patriarchy and fundamentalism before deciding you agreed with Quiverful? Did you inquire as to any views on atheist arguments other than the ones supplied by fundamentalists, before deciding you agreed with atheism?
If the answer is yes, then terrific. If the answer is no, then it is my opinion that further study might be warranted before deciding for certain.
I do agree with Aimai in this: There is always more to learn, and a thinking person might change her/his beliefs on all sorts of things many times. I certainly have. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me, based on what you have and haven’t said so far on this blog, to ask, “are you sure?”
KR Wordgazer
KP Wordgazer ~ I am actually very anxious to answer your questions ~ but I don’t want to jump ahead and reveal too much of what went through my head as I was corresponding with my uncle before I get to that part of my story.
I am writing ~ but, unfortunately it’s going to be a while before I get to the part where I started seriously questioning the bible and Christianity. Sorry!
Have patience please ~ and keep reading
KP Wordgazer ~ I am actually very anxious to answer your questions ~ but I don’t want to jump ahead and reveal too much of what went through my head as I was corresponding with my uncle before I get to that part of my story.
I am writing ~ but, unfortunately it’s going to be a while before I get to the part where I started seriously questioning the bible and Christianity. Sorry!
Have patience please ~ and keep reading
Molly said:
“The husband has NEVER once ever used the male-leader trump card. He values and respects his wife as his full equal. So while they subscribe to the language of patrairchy and call him the ‘head of the house’ they are in actuality a team of equals.”
Apologies if this has already been addressed –
Molly:
The husband doesn’t have to use his “trump card” – it was issued at birth as a *male* on planet Earth. The Patriarchy exists, inside and outside of religion, period.
So, there can be no subscribing to the “language of patrairchy”[sic]. It is the ONLY language there is.
SargassoSea
Molly said:
“The husband has NEVER once ever used the male-leader trump card. He values and respects his wife as his full equal. So while they subscribe to the language of patrairchy and call him the ‘head of the house’ they are in actuality a team of equals.”
Apologies if this has already been addressed –
Molly:
The husband doesn’t have to use his “trump card” – it was issued at birth as a *male* on planet Earth. The Patriarchy exists, inside and outside of religion, period.
So, there can be no subscribing to the “language of patrairchy”[sic]. It is the ONLY language there is.
SargassoSea
KR Wordgazer says:
Thank you, Vyckie. I will be patient.
Oh, and I wanted to correct my wording at one point above: what I got from pussy-footing around was that I was being “illogical,” not “passive-agressive.” The second one had more to do with my posting while in an emotional frame of mind; which I will make every effort to avoid in future.
KR Wordgazer
KR Wordgazer says:
Thank you, Vyckie. I will be patient.
Oh, and I wanted to correct my wording at one point above: what I got from pussy-footing around was that I was being “illogical,” not “passive-agressive.” The second one had more to do with my posting while in an emotional frame of mind; which I will make every effort to avoid in future.
KR Wordgazer
Sargasso Sea writes: The Patriarchy exists, inside and outside of religion, period.
Yes, and no.
Every culture we have ever had, as far as I know, has been to some extent patriarchal. But to what extent, and exactly how that patriarchy plays itself out, varies greatly.
In this context, Molly is referring to a specific form of Christian patriarchy, in which a husband always has the final say in private family decisions (that’s his “trump card”). Clearly, not all marriages function this way, regardless of how patriarchal the culture around them is.
Sargasso Sea writes: The Patriarchy exists, inside and outside of religion, period.
Yes, and no.
Every culture we have ever had, as far as I know, has been to some extent patriarchal. But to what extent, and exactly how that patriarchy plays itself out, varies greatly.
In this context, Molly is referring to a specific form of Christian patriarchy, in which a husband always has the final say in private family decisions (that’s his “trump card”). Clearly, not all marriages function this way, regardless of how patriarchal the culture around them is.
Linnea –
First I’d like to say that I fully understand what Molly is talking about. I’ve read the entire blog and everyone’s comments – I appreciate where she is in her life and applaud her conviction to do what she needs to do for herself and her children. Also, I understand what a ‘trump card’ is in the context in which Molly uses it.
My point was to call to light the language of patriarchy – and, of course, patriarchy in general – which exists everywhere around us, including your response to me (i.e.: patriarchy “plays itself out”).
So, if I may elaborate:
I certainly agree with you that every culture – that history allows us to know about – has been patriarchal to some extent and that the level of oppression varies.
But, oppression is oppression no matter what its degree – whether it is at the hands of a *fundamentalist* man who, with the backing of his brethren, exercises his privilege as Head or an *egalitarian* or a *secular* man who, with the backing of his community, “…values and respects his wife as his full equal.”
I think it is understood here at this blog that the first example is Patriarchy without any doubt.
The second and third examples are where we find the Other Patriarchy – the one that IS our lives every day – the one that allows the *fundamentalist patriarchy* to even exist in the first place.
A man who values and respects his wife as his full equal.
The language tells us that he is the one who has the power to generously bestow upon his wife (or any other woman) her ‘equality’. That is no equality at all. That is a gift given by the patriarchy to a woman and that is all she can hope for.
Sure, it’s better than being verbally/emotionally/religiously/physically/sexually/procreationally abused
but it is still not having true agency over your own being if you happen to have… non male body parts.
Linnea –
First I’d like to say that I fully understand what Molly is talking about. I’ve read the entire blog and everyone’s comments – I appreciate where she is in her life and applaud her conviction to do what she needs to do for herself and her children. Also, I understand what a ‘trump card’ is in the context in which Molly uses it.
My point was to call to light the language of patriarchy – and, of course, patriarchy in general – which exists everywhere around us, including your response to me (i.e.: patriarchy “plays itself out”).
So, if I may elaborate:
I certainly agree with you that every culture – that history allows us to know about – has been patriarchal to some extent and that the level of oppression varies.
But, oppression is oppression no matter what its degree – whether it is at the hands of a *fundamentalist* man who, with the backing of his brethren, exercises his privilege as Head or an *egalitarian* or a *secular* man who, with the backing of his community, “…values and respects his wife as his full equal.”
I think it is understood here at this blog that the first example is Patriarchy without any doubt.
The second and third examples are where we find the Other Patriarchy – the one that IS our lives every day – the one that allows the *fundamentalist patriarchy* to even exist in the first place.
A man who values and respects his wife as his full equal.
The language tells us that he is the one who has the power to generously bestow upon his wife (or any other woman) her ‘equality’. That is no equality at all. That is a gift given by the patriarchy to a woman and that is all she can hope for.
Sure, it’s better than being verbally/emotionally/religiously/physically/sexually/procreationally abused
but it is still not having true agency over your own being if you happen to have… non male body parts.
Sea
You know, that is a very interesting comment – the way ideology and patriarchy in particular reflects in language is a topic I’ve been thinking quite a bit about but haven’t reached a conclusion yet.
It’s easy to conclude from words like “mankind” or when a man refers to a woman as “his” to conclude that language in patriarchal societies reflects patriarchal values and can thus never be used to express egaliterian values.
But I disagree – the crux is that language is an evolving living construct; it’s illogical and doesn’t necessarily reflect our understanding of things. For example, we say “the sun rises” even though we’re fully aware that the sun is immobile and it’s the earth’s rotation that causes the illusion of the sun rising. Much the same way, we can have a language with patriarchal roots and still be egaliterian.
In language, we relate to each other with posessiveness. My wife. My husband. My children. My friends. Yes, it’s easy to conclude from a man calling a woman “his” that he is thinking of her as his posession, an object to posses, which makes language inherently patriarchal and many feminists argue thusly. They fail to take into account that it works both way – just turn on any talk show and you’ll have some woman screeching “That’s my man!”
Noone who has ever introduced anyone as “my friend” thinks of that friend as his posession.
So the quote you chose to attribute the secular man doesn’t reflect a problem inherent to the way we phrase things, but to me the problem seems to be that the man still has to make such statements. It should go without saying that his wife is his equal, but it doesn’t, which forces him into the position of “bestowing” her rights upon her by making such a statement. THAT’s the problem.
I mean, it’s nonsensical for me to say that I, as a white straight woman, would say about white straight women “I choose to respect and treat them as my equals” There’s no choice here – we ARE equals. But I do have the straight white’s unwarranted privilege of choosing to view and treat gay black women as my equals – precisely because we are not. It’s the same for women and men – they can never be equal as long as the man can still choose not to treat her as such.
Wow, I’m rambling. Anyway, very interesting comment
Sea
You know, that is a very interesting comment – the way ideology and patriarchy in particular reflects in language is a topic I’ve been thinking quite a bit about but haven’t reached a conclusion yet.
It’s easy to conclude from words like “mankind” or when a man refers to a woman as “his” to conclude that language in patriarchal societies reflects patriarchal values and can thus never be used to express egaliterian values.
But I disagree – the crux is that language is an evolving living construct; it’s illogical and doesn’t necessarily reflect our understanding of things. For example, we say “the sun rises” even though we’re fully aware that the sun is immobile and it’s the earth’s rotation that causes the illusion of the sun rising. Much the same way, we can have a language with patriarchal roots and still be egaliterian.
In language, we relate to each other with posessiveness. My wife. My husband. My children. My friends. Yes, it’s easy to conclude from a man calling a woman “his” that he is thinking of her as his posession, an object to posses, which makes language inherently patriarchal and many feminists argue thusly. They fail to take into account that it works both way – just turn on any talk show and you’ll have some woman screeching “That’s my man!”
Noone who has ever introduced anyone as “my friend” thinks of that friend as his posession.
So the quote you chose to attribute the secular man doesn’t reflect a problem inherent to the way we phrase things, but to me the problem seems to be that the man still has to make such statements. It should go without saying that his wife is his equal, but it doesn’t, which forces him into the position of “bestowing” her rights upon her by making such a statement. THAT’s the problem.
I mean, it’s nonsensical for me to say that I, as a white straight woman, would say about white straight women “I choose to respect and treat them as my equals” There’s no choice here – we ARE equals. But I do have the straight white’s unwarranted privilege of choosing to view and treat gay black women as my equals – precisely because we are not. It’s the same for women and men – they can never be equal as long as the man can still choose not to treat her as such.
Wow, I’m rambling. Anyway, very interesting comment
kaderin, i think the problem Sargasso is pointing out has maybe less to do with the possessive of “his wife” and more with “his equal” rather than “an equal”. especially since “his equal” is often used in competitive situations, in sports competitions for example.
English is horrible at being gender neutral in general, since there’s for example no way to make sentences with hypothetical persons because there are no non-gendered pronouns, so you end up with sentences like:
“a person must be careful with his/her possessions”
“a person must be careful with their possessions”
“one must be careful with one’s possessions”
“people must be careful with their possessions”
i.e. you are either sounding awkward, or you can no longer talk about people in the singular.
kaderin, i think the problem Sargasso is pointing out has maybe less to do with the possessive of “his wife” and more with “his equal” rather than “an equal”. especially since “his equal” is often used in competitive situations, in sports competitions for example.
English is horrible at being gender neutral in general, since there’s for example no way to make sentences with hypothetical persons because there are no non-gendered pronouns, so you end up with sentences like:
“a person must be careful with his/her possessions”
“a person must be careful with their possessions”
“one must be careful with one’s possessions”
“people must be careful with their possessions”
i.e. you are either sounding awkward, or you can no longer talk about people in the singular.
The French author and philosopher Voltaire (1694-1778) once said, “If you can make people believe absurdities, you can make them commit atrocities.”
Octavio Paz (1914-1998) wrote “Believing ourselves to be possessors of absolute truth degrades us: we regard every person whose way of thinking is different from ours as a monster and a threat and by so doing turn our own selves into monsters and threats to our fellows.”
I think of quotes like these as antidotes to fundamentalist thinking.
My own time in a fundamentalist Eastern faith every bit as restrictive for women (and to some degree, men as well) causes me to agree that such all-encompassing belief systems that separate us from the world at large tend to lead to abuse.
Article I wrote about Hare Krishna women:
http://www.uppitywomen.net/hkrsna.html
Confessions of a Former Fundy:
http://www.uppitywomen.net/fundy.html
friend’s article about spiritual abuse and addiction:
http://de.geocities.com/preciousprabhupada/add/painkillerspirituality.html
–Tapati
The French author and philosopher Voltaire (1694-1778) once said, “If you can make people believe absurdities, you can make them commit atrocities.”
Octavio Paz (1914-1998) wrote “Believing ourselves to be possessors of absolute truth degrades us: we regard every person whose way of thinking is different from ours as a monster and a threat and by so doing turn our own selves into monsters and threats to our fellows.”
I think of quotes like these as antidotes to fundamentalist thinking.
My own time in a fundamentalist Eastern faith every bit as restrictive for women (and to some degree, men as well) causes me to agree that such all-encompassing belief systems that separate us from the world at large tend to lead to abuse.
Article I wrote about Hare Krishna women:
http://www.uppitywomen.net/hkrsna.html
Confessions of a Former Fundy:
http://www.uppitywomen.net/fundy.html
friend’s article about spiritual abuse and addiction:
http://de.geocities.com/preciousprabhupada/add/painkillerspirituality.html
–Tapati
I also wanted to recommend the book “Under the Banner of Heaven” by Jon Krakauer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Banner_of_Heaven
Excerpt:
There is a dark side to religious devotion that is too often ignored or denied. As a means of motivating people to be cruel or inhumane–as a means of inciting evil, to borrow the vocabulary of the devout–there may be no more potent force than religion. When the subject of religiously inspired bloodshed comes up, may Americans immediately think of Islamic fundamentalism, which is to be expected in the wake of the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington. But men have been committing heinous acts in the name of God ever since mankind began believing in deities, and extremists exist within all religions. Muhammad is not the only profit whose words have been used to sanction barbarism; history has not lacked for Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and even Buddhists who have been motivated by scripture to butcher innocents. Plenty of these religious extremists have been home-grown, corn-fed Americans.
Faith-based violence was present long before Osama bin Laden, and it will be with us long after his demise. Religious zealots like bin Laden, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Shoko Asahara, and Dan Lafferty are common to every age, just as zealots of other stripes are. In any human endeavor, some fraction of its practitioners will be motivated to pursue that activity with such concentrated focus and unalloyed passion that it will consume them utterly. One has to look no further than individuals who feel compelled to devote their lives to becoming concert pianists, say, or climbing Mount Everest. For some, the province of the extreme holds an allure that’s irresistible. And a certain percentage of such fanatics will inevitably fixate on matters of the spirit.
The zealot may be outwardly motivated by the anticipation of a great reward at the other end–wealth, fame, eternal salvation–but the real recompense is probably the obsession itself. This is no less true for the religious fanatic than for the fanatical pianist or fanatical mountain climber. As a result of his (or her) infatuation, existence overflows with purpose. Ambiguity vanishes from the fanatic’s worldview; a narcissistic sense of self-assurance displaces all doubt. A delicious rage quickens his pulse, fueled by the sins and shortcomings of lesser mortals, who are soiling the world wherever he looks. His perspective narrows until the last remnants of proportion are shed from his life. Through immoderation, he experiences something akin to rapture.
Although the far territory of the extreme can exert an intoxicating pull on susceptible individuals of all bents, extremism seems to be especially prevalent among those inclined by temperament or upbringing toward religious pursuits. Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a crucial component of spiritual devotion. And when religious fanaticism supplants ratiocination, all bets are suddenly off. Anything can happen. Absolutely anything. Common sense is no match for the voice of God–as the actions of Dan Lafferty vividly attest.
It is the aim of this book to cast some light on Lafferty and his ilk. If trying to understand such people is a daunting exercise, it also seems a useful one–for what it may tell us about the roots of brutality, perhaps, but even more for what might be learned about the nature of faith.
–
Later the author talks about his own thoughts about God:
I don’t know what God is, or what God had in mind when the universe was set in motion. In fact, I don’t know if God even exists, although I confess that I sometimes find myself praying in times of great fear, or despair, or astonishment at a display of unexpected beauty.
There are some ten thousand extant religious sects–each with its own cosmology, each with its own answer for the meaning of life and death. Most assert that the other 9,999 not only have it completely wrong but are instruments of evil, besides. None of the ten thousand has yet persuaded me to make the requisite leap of faith. In the absence of conviction, I’ve come to terms with the fact that uncertainty is an inescapable corollary of life. An abundance of mystery is simply part of the bargain–which doesn’t strike me as something to lament. Accepting the essential inscrutability of existence, in any case, is surely preferable to its opposite: capitulation to the tyranny of intransigent belief.
And if I remain in the dark about our purpose here, and the meaning of eternity, I have nevertheless arrived at an understanding of a few more modest truths: Most of us fear death. Most of us yearn to comprehend how we got here and why–which is to say, most of us ache to know the love of our creator. And we will no doubt feel that ache, most of us, for as long as we happen to be alive.
Jon Krakauer
January 2003
My own reaction to the book at the time I read it (posted on my forum for ex-Krishna devotees):
There is much here that I felt contributes to our discussion about fundamentalism. The book chronicles the murder of a woman and her daughter based on a revealed prophecy received by Dan Lafferty’s brother, Ron, and confirmed mystically to Dan himself on the day they carried it out. Dan and Ron had left the mainline Mormon church to join a splinter fundamentalist Mormon sect. Their brothers had all joined them and thus the women in the family were suddenly subjected to the strict subjugation that is the hallmark of Mormon fundamentalism. The most educated of the wives was Brenda, and she helped Ron’s wife leave him when he became to abusive and restrictive. It’s interesting, isn’t it, how this order from God coincided so neatly with what Ron, in his heart, wished to do: seek revenge against the woman who he saw as taking his wife and kids away from him. Of course the daughter had to be murdered too since she would grow up to be uppity just like her mother.
Along the way we learn a lot about Mormon history, the incredibly fast growth of Mormonism world wide, the number of splinter Fundamentalist groups hidden in the wilderness, are reminded of Elizabeth Smart and her deranged Mormon Fundie captor (and her subsequent brainwashing), and get a new perspective on the current child abuse case in Texas. So far, every politician who has ever moved to stop the abuse of the children and women of these Mormon Fundamentalist groups has later been kicked out of office. I hope the officials in Texas fare better.
I was struck also by how usual it is for fundamentalism and the subjugation of women to go hand in hand. It almost seems like you can’t have fundamentalist faith without strictly controlling and suppressing women in every possible way. I began to wonder why that is, why one can’t have the fundie women and their men working together as equals in their shared fervor? Would fundamentalism somehow fail if they tried this? Or is fundamentalism an excuse for men who were inclined to do this anyway?
Interestingly, Ron and his wife had a good marriage before his switch to fundamentalism, and he was by all accounts very kind. Then his brothers converted him (his wife had asked him to talk sense into them, but they argued against his mainline views and converted him instead) and he changed overnight into a rigid and angry man who strictly controlled her. She had to go back to her family in Florida to escape.
———
I think the more that former fundamentalists from a variety of different traditions examine them and our reasons for being attracted to them and for later leaving them, the more we can educate young people about the role of fundamentalism and allow them to make more informed choices. Just like the book about Quiverfull lays it all out in a way that a young woman wouldn’t have understood going into it gradually.
I also wanted to recommend the book “Under the Banner of Heaven” by Jon Krakauer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Banner_of_Heaven
Excerpt:
There is a dark side to religious devotion that is too often ignored or denied. As a means of motivating people to be cruel or inhumane–as a means of inciting evil, to borrow the vocabulary of the devout–there may be no more potent force than religion. When the subject of religiously inspired bloodshed comes up, may Americans immediately think of Islamic fundamentalism, which is to be expected in the wake of the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington. But men have been committing heinous acts in the name of God ever since mankind began believing in deities, and extremists exist within all religions. Muhammad is not the only profit whose words have been used to sanction barbarism; history has not lacked for Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and even Buddhists who have been motivated by scripture to butcher innocents. Plenty of these religious extremists have been home-grown, corn-fed Americans.
Faith-based violence was present long before Osama bin Laden, and it will be with us long after his demise. Religious zealots like bin Laden, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Shoko Asahara, and Dan Lafferty are common to every age, just as zealots of other stripes are. In any human endeavor, some fraction of its practitioners will be motivated to pursue that activity with such concentrated focus and unalloyed passion that it will consume them utterly. One has to look no further than individuals who feel compelled to devote their lives to becoming concert pianists, say, or climbing Mount Everest. For some, the province of the extreme holds an allure that’s irresistible. And a certain percentage of such fanatics will inevitably fixate on matters of the spirit.
The zealot may be outwardly motivated by the anticipation of a great reward at the other end–wealth, fame, eternal salvation–but the real recompense is probably the obsession itself. This is no less true for the religious fanatic than for the fanatical pianist or fanatical mountain climber. As a result of his (or her) infatuation, existence overflows with purpose. Ambiguity vanishes from the fanatic’s worldview; a narcissistic sense of self-assurance displaces all doubt. A delicious rage quickens his pulse, fueled by the sins and shortcomings of lesser mortals, who are soiling the world wherever he looks. His perspective narrows until the last remnants of proportion are shed from his life. Through immoderation, he experiences something akin to rapture.
Although the far territory of the extreme can exert an intoxicating pull on susceptible individuals of all bents, extremism seems to be especially prevalent among those inclined by temperament or upbringing toward religious pursuits. Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a crucial component of spiritual devotion. And when religious fanaticism supplants ratiocination, all bets are suddenly off. Anything can happen. Absolutely anything. Common sense is no match for the voice of God–as the actions of Dan Lafferty vividly attest.
It is the aim of this book to cast some light on Lafferty and his ilk. If trying to understand such people is a daunting exercise, it also seems a useful one–for what it may tell us about the roots of brutality, perhaps, but even more for what might be learned about the nature of faith.
–
Later the author talks about his own thoughts about God:
I don’t know what God is, or what God had in mind when the universe was set in motion. In fact, I don’t know if God even exists, although I confess that I sometimes find myself praying in times of great fear, or despair, or astonishment at a display of unexpected beauty.
There are some ten thousand extant religious sects–each with its own cosmology, each with its own answer for the meaning of life and death. Most assert that the other 9,999 not only have it completely wrong but are instruments of evil, besides. None of the ten thousand has yet persuaded me to make the requisite leap of faith. In the absence of conviction, I’ve come to terms with the fact that uncertainty is an inescapable corollary of life. An abundance of mystery is simply part of the bargain–which doesn’t strike me as something to lament. Accepting the essential inscrutability of existence, in any case, is surely preferable to its opposite: capitulation to the tyranny of intransigent belief.
And if I remain in the dark about our purpose here, and the meaning of eternity, I have nevertheless arrived at an understanding of a few more modest truths: Most of us fear death. Most of us yearn to comprehend how we got here and why–which is to say, most of us ache to know the love of our creator. And we will no doubt feel that ache, most of us, for as long as we happen to be alive.
Jon Krakauer
January 2003
My own reaction to the book at the time I read it (posted on my forum for ex-Krishna devotees):
There is much here that I felt contributes to our discussion about fundamentalism. The book chronicles the murder of a woman and her daughter based on a revealed prophecy received by Dan Lafferty’s brother, Ron, and confirmed mystically to Dan himself on the day they carried it out. Dan and Ron had left the mainline Mormon church to join a splinter fundamentalist Mormon sect. Their brothers had all joined them and thus the women in the family were suddenly subjected to the strict subjugation that is the hallmark of Mormon fundamentalism. The most educated of the wives was Brenda, and she helped Ron’s wife leave him when he became to abusive and restrictive. It’s interesting, isn’t it, how this order from God coincided so neatly with what Ron, in his heart, wished to do: seek revenge against the woman who he saw as taking his wife and kids away from him. Of course the daughter had to be murdered too since she would grow up to be uppity just like her mother.
Along the way we learn a lot about Mormon history, the incredibly fast growth of Mormonism world wide, the number of splinter Fundamentalist groups hidden in the wilderness, are reminded of Elizabeth Smart and her deranged Mormon Fundie captor (and her subsequent brainwashing), and get a new perspective on the current child abuse case in Texas. So far, every politician who has ever moved to stop the abuse of the children and women of these Mormon Fundamentalist groups has later been kicked out of office. I hope the officials in Texas fare better.
I was struck also by how usual it is for fundamentalism and the subjugation of women to go hand in hand. It almost seems like you can’t have fundamentalist faith without strictly controlling and suppressing women in every possible way. I began to wonder why that is, why one can’t have the fundie women and their men working together as equals in their shared fervor? Would fundamentalism somehow fail if they tried this? Or is fundamentalism an excuse for men who were inclined to do this anyway?
Interestingly, Ron and his wife had a good marriage before his switch to fundamentalism, and he was by all accounts very kind. Then his brothers converted him (his wife had asked him to talk sense into them, but they argued against his mainline views and converted him instead) and he changed overnight into a rigid and angry man who strictly controlled her. She had to go back to her family in Florida to escape.
———
I think the more that former fundamentalists from a variety of different traditions examine them and our reasons for being attracted to them and for later leaving them, the more we can educate young people about the role of fundamentalism and allow them to make more informed choices. Just like the book about Quiverfull lays it all out in a way that a young woman wouldn’t have understood going into it gradually.