Pages

Jump to bottom

21 comments

1 freetoken  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:23:07pm
… how is this any different from the very nonsense we criticize the Taliban for?

Except for the veil, it’s not. It’s not much different.

BTW, one of the links in the original is a website that was one of the chorus that criticized Sarah Palin for running for office:

webcache.googleusercontent.com


[…] Since the Garden of Eden, feministic women have valiantly fought for the right to get their own way, and each woman’s only standard is What She Wants –- what is “right in [her] own eyes” (Judges 21:25). […]

Q: Why do you target Sarah Palin, when there are other much more liberal woman leaders in the world, such as Hillary Clinton?

A: We believe Sarah Palin’s example poses a more serious threat to Christian womanhood than more liberal feminist icons such as Hillary Clinton. […]

Sarah Palin’s “conservative” brand of feminism could do far more for the radical-left feminist cause than their own camp. […]

Q: Do you believe God can never work through a woman civil leader?

A: God can “work through” any vessel he appoints for any specific purpose. He has used a variety of women rulers, from Jezebel to Margaret Thatcher, ….

That’ it!! Sarah Palin isn’t the new Esther - she’s the new Jezebel!!

2 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:06:10pm

This is utterly horrifying.

3 SpaceJesus  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:57:09pm

oh no our women folk might start fornicatin’ with them darkies

4 CuriousLurker  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 1:40:06am

Heh, you must’ve missed this last week. It was in reference to the same original article by Gina McGalliard that also appeared on AlterNet.

*wonders if she fell down a rabbit hole and ended up in Qandahar*

5 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 2:40:23am

whatta ya gonna do, people want to be treated like pets, I guess ya let them

6 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 2:41:12am

the beauty of being chattle surrendering independence!

7 theheat  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:01:52am
Oy. I thought this nonsense went out of style decades ago. Guess not

Fundies: they’re the new black. They’re also the face of the GOP.

8 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 6:15:17am

Daddy-daughter stuff is so fucking creepy, I swear to god, just ew.

9 iceweasel  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:01:41am

re: #8 Obdicut

Daddy-daughter stuff is so fucking creepy, I swear to god, just ew.

This is even worse than those creepy Father-Daughter “Purity Balls”.

A purity ball (also known as a father-daughter purity ball[1] or purity wedding[2]) [WTF #$%@! —iceweasel] is a formal ball dance event attended by fathers and their daughters. Purity balls promote virginity until marriage for teenage girls, and are often closely associated with Evangelical Christian churches in the USA. Typically, daughters who attend make a virginity pledge; a pledge to remain sexually abstinent until marriage.[1] Fathers who attend pledge to protect what they view as their young daughters’ “purity of mind, body, and soul.”[3]. Proponents of these events contend that they encourage close and deeply affectionate, but chaste, relationships between fathers and daughters, thereby avoiding the fornication that allegedly results when young women seek love through relationships with men of their own age. Randy Wilson, a clergyman involved in the creation of purity balls, advises fathers to praise their daughters’ physical attractiveness in effusive but polite terms: “I applaud your courage to look your daughter in the eye and tell her how beautiful she is.” Participants are described using the vocabulary of heterosexual romantic partners, and could be mistaken for such in the absence of information about their consanguinity

ICK ICK ICK

10 sffilk  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:47:02am

These are Christians?????

EW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

11 What, me worry?  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:05:51am

re: #5 WindUpBird

whatta ya gonna do, people want to be treated like pets, I guess ya let them

See here’s my problem. They’re being told this by men. Older men, that want to keep them in the house where they know where they are, barefoot and pregnant. It’s horrifying.

I’d be really curious, if left to their own devices, they would come to this on their own. If it wasn’t being preached to them by a bunch of uptight old geezers. It’s fucking brainwashing, is what it is.

I have members of my family who have chosen to be at-home moms, but they have equal partnerships with their husbands. Instead of having nannys raise their kids, they’re doing it themselves, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But this isn’t that. This is the height of misogyny where their fathers (and who knows what other men) have complete control of what they do… unless they want to go “bargain-hunting” I guess. Whoopie.

One day they’ll hit 40 and realize how much of life they missed, when all they have to show for their lives are scars from the abuse.

12 What, me worry?  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:17:50am

re: #1 freetoken

Except for the veil, it’s not. It’s not much different.

BTW, one of the links in the original is a website that was one of the chorus that criticized Sarah Palin for running for office:

[Link: webcache.googleusercontent.com…]

That’ it!! Sarah Palin isn’t the new Esther - she’s the new Jezebel!!

That’s really a freaky assessment, the vitriol against Sarah and yet it seems to go back and forth from praising her to demeaning her.

To be honest, we’re impressed with Sarah Palin. She is a remarkably talented, well-spoken woman. She has many fine policies. And we like her practical, moose-hunting style of femininity. But it is not a day to rejoice when the best man in the room happens to be a woman — Sarah Palin nor is it a cause for cheer when men can’t compete with women in doing their own job. During this year’s unprecedented election, the key players have been strong women and flaky men. This is a sign of judgment. The scenario is reminiscent of Gloria Steinem’s boast, “We are becoming the men we wanted to marry.” Men have been stepping into the background — women are trying to become the men they wish existed. We challenge any young woman to see this as a happy prospect. It’s hard to be inspired by the abdication of real men and the subsequent rise of pseudo-men.

They can’t stand it. They’ve lost control of us. We don’t need men anymore. We can get our sperm from a bottle. We don’t need you for jobs, to buy a home, to drive a car or to screw. We chose you because we want to, not because we have to.

13 Lidane  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:04:13am

re: #11 marjoriemoon

I have members of my family who have chosen to be at-home moms, but they have equal partnerships with their husbands. Instead of having nannys raise their kids, they’re doing it themselves, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But this isn’t that.

Exactly!

I was raised by a stay-at-home mom who gave up a career in teaching when she and my dad started having kids. My best friend stopped working and has been a stay-at-home mom for many years now, but as the kids have gotten older, she’s gone and started pharmacy school, which will enable her to have a career again, but one with reasonably steady hours that still give her time to spend with her family. There is absolutely nothing wrong with or degrading about a woman making a voluntary decision to stay home and raise the kids.

I have a REAL problem with this garbage, though. It’s not voluntary. It’s brainwashing from the time a girl is young to accept what amounts to an abusive, damn near incestuous system where everything about a girl’s life is in the hands of her father, including her love and sexuality. That’s both creepy and wrong. And the whole concept of giving up education is unthinkable. I can’t imagine what kind of man would want a woman who’s been kept intentionally ignorant of the world.

14 sffilk  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:08:45am

re: #11 marjoriemoon

See here’s my problem. They’re being told this by men. Older men, that want to keep them in the house where they know where they are, barefoot and pregnant. It’s horrifying.

I’d be really curious, if left to their own devices, they would come to this on their own. If it wasn’t being preached to them by a bunch of uptight old geezers. It’s fucking brainwashing, is what it is.

I have members of my family who have chosen to be at-home moms, but they have equal partnerships with their husbands. Instead of having nannys raise their kids, they’re doing it themselves, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But this isn’t that. This is the height of misogyny where their fathers (and who knows what other men) have complete control of what they do… unless they want to go “bargain-hunting” I guess. Whoopie.

One day they’ll hit 40 and realize how much of life they missed, when all they have to show for their lives are scars from the abuse.

In actuality, I wouldn’t count on it - they’ll have been so brainwashed…

(emphasis added in original quote)

15 calochortus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 12:15:23pm

Perhaps if these “patriarchs” would actually have some respect for what a housewife does the whole thing wouldn’t be such a big deal? I suspect what we’re really talking about here is owning a woman’s sexuality and reproductive capacity.

I speak as someone who stayed home with the kids and then cared for my mother. Both were excellent choices heartily endorsed by my husband who has always respected what I do. I would never, ever tell another woman (or man) that they have to do that, or that they have to work outside the home. That would fall into the category known as “none of my business”.

16 What, me worry?  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 2:07:34pm

re: #13 Lidane

Exactly!

I was raised by a stay-at-home mom who gave up a career in teaching when she and my dad started having kids. My best friend stopped working and has been a stay-at-home mom for many years now, but as the kids have gotten older, she’s gone and started pharmacy school, which will enable her to have a career again, but one with reasonably steady hours that still give her time to spend with her family. There is absolutely nothing wrong with or degrading about a woman making a voluntary decision to stay home and raise the kids.

I have a REAL problem with this garbage, though. It’s not voluntary. It’s brainwashing from the time a girl is young to accept what amounts to an abusive, damn near incestuous system where everything about a girl’s life is in the hands of her father, including her love and sexuality. That’s both creepy and wrong. And the whole concept of giving up education is unthinkable. I can’t imagine what kind of man would want a woman who’s been kept intentionally ignorant of the world.

Much agreed!

Another aspect…

This is sad, but when my dad was dying, he was in hospice and they made a lot of mistakes with his care. Long story, but they didn’t have a room for him, they didn’t have oxygen or his meds, all this stuff. He died 3 hours after we got him there.

Anyway, I’m running around like a banshee, calling the doctors, getting him the room, getting him on oxygen, all this stuff. After about an hour of this, we finally settle down in his room. He was watching me running about the ward yelling at everyone. So he looks at me and starts laughing. “Kiddo,” he said, “I have no worries about you. You’re a strong, independent woman and you’ll always be able to take care of yourself.”

For many years after that, when I thought of him, I’d think of how proud I made him, just being big mouth me! The independence that he and my mother gave me to deal with life. That’s the biggest pity in all this. The parents won’t always be there and maybe not even the husband. You gotta give your kids tools to live in this world. I had (have) good parents.

17 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 2:55:19pm

Wow. I could write a long screed about this, but how about this nugget:

The worst part of this “submission” system is that it creates a marriage with one adult and one child. One of you must carry the entire weight of the responsibility for a family, and God really intended for families to be two adults and the kids, not one adult, one full-sized child, and the kids.

Check Psalms 31 for more information.

Staying at home means taking full responsibility for childcare and home chores, not becoming a little girl who never leaves home.

18 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 2:57:44pm

re: #17 EmmmieG

Snot. Proverbs 31, not Psalms.

19 CuriousLurker  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:13:05pm

re: #13 Lidane

I have a REAL problem with this garbage, though. It’s not voluntary. It’s brainwashing from the time a girl is young to accept what amounts to an abusive, damn near incestuous system where everything about a girl’s life is in the hands of her father, including her love and sexuality. That’s both creepy and wrong. And the whole concept of giving up education is unthinkable. I can’t imagine what kind of man would want a woman who’s been kept intentionally ignorant of the world.

I’ve been thinking about this since last night and also watched two other videos: one by the “Smiling Sisters”, and one by their brother that also shows the whole family.

According to the other video both sisters entered into this as adults, so it appears the choice was freely made in this case. The one with the brother & parents was interesting as none of the other family members appeared overtly religious (though it certainly doesn’t mean they aren’t).

The thing I keep thinking about is that even if the girls had been indoctrinated at a young age, there wouldn’t really be much anyone could do about it besides dislike it, unless the parents were breaking some law.

Unlike the situation in some other countries, the girls are free to walk away at age 18, or younger if they contact the authorities, presuming they have the courage & presence of mind to do so. And there’s the rub—would they be capable of making that decision if they’d been brainwashed? I don’t know, but because of the Establishment Clause, anything that involves law & religion in this country is bound to be a real sticky wicket.

20 calochortus  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:41:08pm

re: #19 CuriousLurker

So the older of the “Smiling Sisters” was almost a manager in a coffee shop after 10 years. Unless I’m missing something, that doesn’t point to brilliant job performance. So she got tired of it and decided to retire. Where is her health insurance coming from? What happens when her parents are no longer there to support her? Most importantly , what if she never gets married. What will she do with her life? What if she does get married, has kids and her husband gets hit by a bus? Don’t these people think ahead?

So many questions…

21 CuriousLurker  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 5:28:07pm

re: #20 calochortus

I think there are probably a lot of twenty-somethings who don’t think too far into the future. I know I didn’t (and I paid dearly for it later). Being a 40 year-old widow or divorcee with no income & no skills just doesn’t register on their radar. You’d think the parents would be warning them though.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2021-06-05 2:51 pm PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Indigenous Americans Ruled Democratically Long Before the U.S. DidDemocracy: it was older and more widespread than we thought. At the Oconee site, called Cold Springs, artifacts were excavated before the valley became an aquatic playground. Now, new older-than-expected radiocarbon dates for those museum-held finds push back the origin ...
Thanos
2 weeks, 3 days ago
Views: 1,281 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2
Tweets: 3 •