Earlier in ISP's thread, someone posted a reprint of a 1952 WT article likening women to cows.
I cut and pasted the whole article to my dad as well as my sister and a jw friend who continues to talk to me despite my being labeled apostate.
I did not change any words, only highlighted or bolded the sentences that I thought were especially outrageous.
I sent the article under the 'guise' of a lighthearted joke to this sister, and telling her she needs to do her wifely duty and bear children to her husband.
A few minutes ago, I received this response from my dad.
Lisa,
I don't understand your purpose in sending me e-mails of a 40-year old article from the Watchtower that I already have access to if I chose to spend the time to look it up. I can sense from your "subject" and the high-lighted portions of the article that your intent was perhaps to riducule the counsel, especially the comparison of a young girl to a cow.
I must say that there is nothing incorrect in the article, even though it may be considered presented in "bad taste" by some, particularly those seeking to discredit JW's. It amazes me that the vast majority of people don't mind being considered "cousins" of cows by adopting the concept of evolution or by even elevating the cow to a sacred position by worshipping it as the Hindu religion calls for. However, they are quick to take offense at some biological comparison as the article mentioned.
Would those same people have been offended by Samson's comparison of the young girl given to him in marriage (who had "plowed" with his 30 groomsmen) as a "young cow" in Judges 14? In fact, the only way that they could have solved his riddle is if they had. Or, how about the comparison of a young man who is going after a woman whose husband is away from home being compared to a "bull rushing to the slaughter" in Proverbs 7? What about the pleasure-seeking women of Samaria being called "cows" in Amos 3? The whole rebellious nation of Israel was compared to a "stubborn cow" in Hosea 4. These are just a few that happen to be "inspired by God".
One of the statements that you highlighted was the "bearing of children is the sole privilege of the female". It didn't say "conceiving", "rearing", "disciplining", "nourishing", "providing", etc., but bearing. Is there any inaccuracy in that statement?
Lisa, my personal opinion is that if you didn't spend so much time looking up information on the internet (much of it from perverted apostates), you would have a much healthier outlook on life and have the time and energy to take care of your wifely, motherly, and financial responsibilities more fully.
Personally, I have asked you more than once not to send me any "information" that you have come across about Jehovah's Witnesses or the Watchtower Society. Even if it does not come from some outside source (internet, apostate literature, etc.), your mind is apparently bent on discrediting the organization for whatever personal reason you may have. Visiting apostate web sites is only serving to entrench you in your determination.
I don't have time for this kind of stuff. I don't want a reply, I don't want any more such "information", and I don't want to hear anything more about it. Your sour attitude about the Witnesses is, in effect, about me and my God. Get off it!!!
I answered him with this email:
Dad,
I am sorry that you are so quick to be offended that you can't even laugh about terminology from 40 years ago. Remember, (my sister's name) means 'cow' and we got much humor out of teasing her about it when we were little. I certainly don't really think she is a cow.
I thought it would cheer you up. I was obvously cracking on #(( by telling her she needs to fulfill her wifely duties and have babies. It was meant to be a joke.
I would venture to say that, this same article would NOT be printed today, regarldless of the 'correct' information it may contain. The light, has, in effect, gotten brighter, no? Even a stopped clock is right two times a day. That doesn't mean you go running back to look at it on the off chance you hit it when it's those two times.
No one, least of all me, is saying that this article is reflective of ANYONE'S thoughts on familial responsibility, at least in view of today's understanding of equal responsibility when it comes to family/sexual relationships.
I viewed it as an indictment of ALL people's messed up thoughts on women in the 60's, but most specifically when people claim to speak for God, and you look at their words only 40 short years later, you can SEE where the mood of the day and the social structure determines the wording of articles, yes, even from Bethel.
Dad, for someone who doesn't mind discrediting other people's religious ideas left and right, you sure are sensitive when you THINK people are trying to discredit yours.
Sorry. Sheesh. It was meant to be funny. And as long as hubby doesn't have any complaints about me caring for ANY of my duties, no one else has room to either.
And while I'm (not) on the subject, good old #*@ @)#*#& at Walkill will be receiving a letter from me. She is NEVER to write (my daughter) again. She did NOT have my permission, I am the parent. Having YOUR permission to write MY daughter is unacceptable. I would not have minded one bit except for her sharing HER views on MY child's religion getting baptised.
NO ONE is allowed to teach my children their views on religion. She is a grown woman who has been at Bethel since 1975, living in a glass house. I have advised her that if she wants to spend her life telling CHILDREN to get baptised, she should have some of her own.
Well?
Obviously, I am acting as thought it were meant to be a joke. But he got the point of it. Advice? Thoughts? Note his stellar examples of circular logic! He has been trained by the best and now he has been ASSIMILATED! I bet we won't talk for weeks.
Lisa
Secretly pleased she is now of the "PERVERTED Apostate Class"