UK charity "Refuge" gives response to WT article on domestic abuse

by cedars 43 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  cedars

  Hi everyone

  I'm sure by now you are all aware of the Feb 15th, 2012 study edition of the Watchtower, and its outrageous experience depicting domestic violence.

  As you may know, I have been looking into the matter in some detail. I decided to contact the UK domestic abuse charity "Refuge". They indicated their concern towards the article and offered to help in any way they could. I asked them to give a formal response to the offensive Watchtower article, and I received it back today. The response is listed in full on my blog article entitled "Won Without a Word - At What Cost?" over on jwstruggle.com, under the heading "The Outside Perspective".

  I was slightly disappointed that the statement didn't specifically name the Watch Tower Society, or the article, directly. However, I think I understand their reasons for caution over this matter. Also, in their statement they make it very clear that they are dismayed by exactly the sort of approach to domestic violence that the Watch Tower Society has condoned in this latest magazine.

  In researching for my blog article, I uncovered many things that were either unknown to me, or that I hadn't considered:

  • This is the nineteenth experience depicting a husband abusing his wife and subsequently becoming favorable to the "truth" through his wife's example since 1958.
  • In 1979, the Society published an article that actually dissuaded people from contacting the emergency services, claiming that to do so would be a waste of time and resources that could be better deployed elsewhere
  • The Society's approach to domestic abuse is directly linked with its approach to divorce, and the sanctity of marriage. Put simply, the Society is more interested in preserving the sanctity of marriage than they are in preserving human life.
  • There is growing evidence that the Society's naivety on this subject is having a tangible effect on women's lives. One website lists at least 12 experiences of an abusive husband who is dealt with ineffectively (if at all) by the local body of elders. I was also contacted by a member of this forum with a similar experience whilst researching the article.

  All of the above points are discussed at length in my blog.

  I would very much appreciate your thoughts on the Refuge response, my blog article, and what to do moving forward. As you might be able to tell from my article, I get very worked up when I dwell too long on the issue and the blatant injustice of it all. I am currently of a mind to take the Refuge statement, and my blog article, and see what the press will make of it. We REALLY NEED to get the word out on this. I don't think it's over-dramatizing the issue to say that lives are at stake.

  Thoughts?

  Cedars
• 

  insearchoftruth

  Thanks for the post and the blog, have bookmarked your blog for future reading, but the quick review I did of it just once again caused me to get worked up over this issue
• 

  Found Sheep

  I know someone that used to help abused wives. She had one sister that the elders encouraged to go back to the abuse, kill her. She said she had quite a few JW's!!! She helped me leave my ex and not go back
• 

  trailerfitter

  NIce to see you are sharpening the axe whenever possible Cedars!!! Intertesting that you have found many ways to get leverage to show the WT in a bad light. I say this to my wife, time and time again. There are no experts in the writing department in Brooklyn and their best efforts to be literary are bias from their point of view only. Any medical and scientific information is repeated but worded biasly to make jehovah and the WTBTS to look good which is not always in the interst of their members. I don't think, even if the WT interests were in saving human life or making life easier, could word it correctly without contradicting themselves or their doctrines. I still often see and hear in my head a member from the GB on a DVD smile when he said that "persecution is a good thing". It creeped me out This to me never justifies the WT actions or doctrines.
• 

  cedars

  Thanks insearchoftruth - I also struggle when it comes to dwelling on this subject. I often have to walk away from it when it all gets too much, and then return to it once I'm feeling stronger emotionally. However, that luxury isn't available to those who actually suffer from domestic abuse, and it is those that I think we ought to help in any way we can.

  Cedars
• 

  Roski

  If it is not off-topic I would like to comment on the experience of the sister in Korea who stayed with her husband in spite of the abuse and won him over. I can't recall all of the details exactly, but this is an example of the society taking a situation out of context (in this case cultural) and putting their own spin on a situation that may well have had a negative impact on readers who did not understand certain constraints within the society from which they drew this experience.

  Even today Korean women in general (not just JW"s) tend to put up with more spousal abuse due to poor infustructure and outdated ideas re a woman's place in the home and society. This is slowly changing with support groups now more numerous than before, but even so, abuse is not uncommon. It is virtually always linked to two other things - alcohol and women.

  It is very much a part of the culture for men to socialise after work (often necessary to keep a job) and this always involves drinking an prostitutes - in one form or another. To suggest that the husband of the woman in the experience absued her because of her religion is misleading - he would have been doing it anyway. It is also wuite common for Korean women to belong to a church as a social outlet - more so than men - and it probably would not bother the man all that much which church it was - although this cannot be factored into this particular situation - it is a real consideration.

  It is the usual course of events for a lot of such men - when reaching their 'use-by date' which is quite early - to tone down and for the woman to take more control in the house. This would have been the life-stage when the husband decided to lessen his abuse...nothing really unusual here.

  Also - due to poor social infustructure (menatl health etc) there would have been absolutely nowhere for this woman to go and it would have been seen as a neglect of her duty to even attemp to leave. As said - while this is changing, there is still a stong social attittude in gereral that makes change slow - depending on the area/age/education etc.

  Given the amount of women who have suffered needlessly in such a male-dominated society I'm sure the women (and men) who are working to change this would not appreciate such inane examples of social retardation.

  The writers of such nonsense need to look into the other factors that go hand-in-hand with abuse and educate themselves as to the underlying causes.
• 

  JWB

  Cedars, well done on actually trying to inform people outside of the organization about things like this. I think in the UK, like the US, it is easy for the WTS to hide behind the word 'religion' and therefore get the authorities to keep their distance. Unless the WTS said something like, "If a wife is physically abused by her husband then she should pray about it and hope that things will get better in time, but should never seek to end the marriage", then I think there is very little that can be done other than to publicise the way the WTS publications have dealt with this issue over the years.
  
  In my view this is another example of the organization's Pharisee-like thinking, effectively making the marriage certificate (the symbol) more important than the people in the marriage itself (the reality), or put another way "the sanctity of marriage" is more important than "the sanctity of the marriage partners' bodies". We all know what can happen when the symbol of something supercedes the thing that it represents, particularly when it comes to the lives of human beings. It would be extremely sad if even one JW woman with a physically abusive husband (JW or not) saw it as showing respect for "the sanctity of marriage" to continuing living with her spouse on account of an example of 'patience' and 'endurance' found in the pages of one of the publications. There is never any excuse for husbands to be violent towards their wives. Certainly those husbands who claim to be Christians "ought to be loving their wives as their own bodies" (Ephesians 5:28).
  
  You know, I hope the members of the Writing Department who wrote on this subject didn't simply ask themselves, "Now what particular scripture(s) somewhere in the Bible can we find to fit this situation?" I think it would have been good if they had asked themselves something like, "Now, given that we are trying to promote the Christian way of doing things rather than the way of doing things under the old Mosaic law, and being aware of how the scriptures describe the kindly character of Jesus and his genuine concern was for helping the disadvantaged, if he were present with us right now, what do we honestly believe God's Son would advise as being the most important issue here?"
• 

  JWB

  Roski, a very informative post. Thank you.
• 

  cedars

  JWB: Thank you very much for your comments, which reflect that you have given the issue a great deal of thought. You are right to draw parallels with the pharasaic habit of homing in on the minutiae of applying bible laws, and failing entirely to observe their wider objective. In the case of marriage, it is an institution of benefit only to those living - and not to the dead. (Matt 22:29) This does not stop the Governing Body from prioritizing the sanctity of marriage over the preservation of human life in the advice it gives through its literature regarding domestic abuse.

  Roski: it wasn't off topic at all. The Society do indeed fail utterly in their use of experiences by putting their own spin on things.

  Trailerfitter: your observations as someone who isn't even a baptized Witness continue to fly in the face of the Governing Body's assumption that it enjoys a good reputation with "those on the outside", which I actually touch on in the blog. I really hope you will continue to help people on this forum to see how ludicrous the Society's teachings are to an outsider with an unbiased agenda.

  FoundSheep: I'm glad you were helped, and I'm sure that you in turn help many others by your encouraging comments on this forum.
• 

  Mickey mouse

  I think you need to take it to the press. It doesn't surprise meat all that a charity doesn't want to name and shame another 'charity'.