Posts by Oroborus21

97

How do you women feel about acting stupid to please men and the borg?

by Dragonlady76 in

jw
friends

the quote below was part of a talk in the 90's.

i heard this as a child and thought to myself, how can any woman accept such a draconian veiw?

i was not sure if i had understood correctly so, i brought it up to my bible study conductor maggie, i was appalled that she agreed with this veiw, we debated it back and forth, until i got the upper hand, then she told me that i was to "rebellious and strong willed", and that i "should never get married", that i way i would not have to submit to male "headshit" "headship".

Oroborus21

Greetings!

I think it is really funny how often JWs are criticized (rightly it is true) for misquoting scholars and others but I see some of you doing exactly the same thing, even worse.

I don't know how I can plainly write something and then someone can excerpt it and place their own interpretation upon it that is absolutely not what I said. That is hilarious!

Anyways, just to clarify my views for all you "weaker sexes" out there (hee, hee) (you see its not fun cause I can't even be sure that when a person is clearly expressing humour, that they won't be misperceived. oh well, I press on)...

I don't NEED my ego stroked, but I am MAN enough to admit that I LOVE when it and (yes other body parts) are stroked by a woman. I love a woman's attention and humoring of me (even when she is quite evidently superior). I think its great.

I don't think, I know that women are quite superior to me (and other men) in various ways. I also believe that men are superior to women in some ways. I know it isn't politically correct to say or believe so but I believe it to be the truth.

(it hasn't come up yet but it seems implied so I will address it)

As for respecting women, I have a tremendous amount of respect for women. In my opinion, more than many men that I see around, much more actually.

I wouldn't say that I am a feminist but I would say that I am very progressive when it comes to giving women in the organization (and the world) more opportunity and the ability to compete with men on an equal footing. But there are fundamental differences between the sexes that I think for a long time feminists have tried to suppress (to the detriment of women I think) and in my opinion it would be better to just recognize and embrace our differences and let each sex contribute to our overall society to the best of their ability.

-Eduardo

97

How do you women feel about acting stupid to please men and the borg?

by Dragonlady76 in

jw
friends

the quote below was part of a talk in the 90's.

i heard this as a child and thought to myself, how can any woman accept such a draconian veiw?

i was not sure if i had understood correctly so, i brought it up to my bible study conductor maggie, i was appalled that she agreed with this veiw, we debated it back and forth, until i got the upper hand, then she told me that i was to "rebellious and strong willed", and that i "should never get married", that i way i would not have to submit to male "headshit" "headship".

Oroborus21

Hi Jeanniebeanz:

No the two positions are not contradictory.

So long as you subscribe to the bible's viewpoint, I believe there must be a recognition of a spiritual headship.

The bible (Paul) actually clearly delineates both a headship arrangement in a family (married man and woman & children) and within the congregation.

Now please understand that this is talking about "spiritual headship" and not "spiritual leadership" and especially not about non-spiritual things.

I believe that in due time, the Society will begin to use women in "ministerial roles" including becoming deacons/ministerial servants and serving in important administrative capacities "overseer" positions that don't involve direct "teaching" in contrary to Paul.

Since women are part of the "priests and kings" of the anointed class, it really will only then be a small step before the next step is made if ever.

But there can exist a situation where official "spiritual headship" is not violated by women serving in what to the present has been roles and positions solely permitted to men in the Organization. It remains only for the Society to get there eventually.

Considering the family situation, and being married I can understand this well, basically I have two concerns:

On spiritual matters there is not much conflict in my family because my wife is not a JW. But let us say she was, then there may be some times that her and I may not agree on a spiritual matter. I see the bible saying basically establishing that it will break this "spiritual tie-breaker" by deferring to the Man. Sorry it has to be one way or another and we win. (Too bad, write the bible next time!)

The problem is that we (JW) men (and not just us you know lots of people) tend to extend the Bible's viewpoint above to non-spiritual things and that gets us mostly in trouble and cause problems, although really SOMEONE HAS TO BE THE FINAL DECISION MAKER on non-spiritual matters (even if it a coin toss or arm wrestling match or rock/paper/scissors).

That brings me to my own original saying:

"A man's home is his castle, only if his wife crowns him King."

-Eduardo

97

How do you women feel about acting stupid to please men and the borg?

by Dragonlady76 in

jw
friends

the quote below was part of a talk in the 90's.

i heard this as a child and thought to myself, how can any woman accept such a draconian veiw?

i was not sure if i had understood correctly so, i brought it up to my bible study conductor maggie, i was appalled that she agreed with this veiw, we debated it back and forth, until i got the upper hand, then she told me that i was to "rebellious and strong willed", and that i "should never get married", that i way i would not have to submit to male "headshit" "headship".

Oroborus21

AlanF:

I agree there is a systemic problem in the org and that things are disproportionate and inequal. I also agree that much harm, especially in domestic relationships has come from it.

I do recognize, as I understand it, that there is a biblically-base "spiritual headship" (yeah bible written by men, reflective of patriarchal society, yada, yada, yada).

I think and hope and expect that one day there will be a real "happy medium" where the headship arrangement is in place but that women share a much more equal role with respect to power and authority in the organization.

I do further agree that the Society's publishings and slant on the whole issue as been pretty much one-sided. Even the rare "equalvocal" tribute article to women is really just a big joke so long as all the power and authority rests solely in the hands of men.

-Eduardo

97

How do you women feel about acting stupid to please men and the borg?

by Dragonlady76 in

jw
friends

the quote below was part of a talk in the 90's.

i heard this as a child and thought to myself, how can any woman accept such a draconian veiw?

i was not sure if i had understood correctly so, i brought it up to my bible study conductor maggie, i was appalled that she agreed with this veiw, we debated it back and forth, until i got the upper hand, then she told me that i was to "rebellious and strong willed", and that i "should never get married", that i way i would not have to submit to male "headshit" "headship".

Oroborus21

Hi Scully,

No I am not saying that a person/women should pretend to be dumb (in fact I think the thread title is misleading since that isn't what the article quoted is saying). Nor do I think that a person should hide their abilities to some detriment.

But in a situation where there is NO REAL HARM, I don't see why a person of superior ability must show off or show up their friend/partner/mate/husband/wife. Yes this may mean holding back or refraining in some way from "being all that you can be" at that moment.

To me it is like if one person tells a funny joke and the group laughs, there are some that MUST feel like they must tell their funnier joke. Personally, that isn't me. I let the person enjoy their moment.

Now as I said, I am not saying that there are definite and big problems in the Org with gender inequality. I am quite feminist leaning in fact on future reform in that area and believe me I know many a sister that could deliver a better talk, or even be a far better counselor/educator than many elders that I know. But I am not talking about that larger issue. I am talking about the interpersonal relationship "advice" that the Society is reiterating based upon what the Scriptures themselves say.

And yes there is a scriptural basis for a "scriptural headship" arrangement like it or not, explain it as you will.

NOW HAVING SAID ALL OF THAT I WANT TO BE THE APPARENTLY ONLY HONEST MAN ON THIS FORUM THAT IS WILLING TO ADMIT that I have a BIG MALE EGO. My wife and I are very competitive. She is better at me at many many things and the converse is (more) true of me She hates it when I "beat" her at a game or whatever we are playing. I happen to be a much better sport and I think take losing to her more graciously. (Actually she is a very poor loser.) Believe me, even though english isn't her native tongue AND I consider myself a writer and someone who works with language every day, my wife KILLS ME AT SCRABBLE. I live with it but I DON'T LIKE IT. I can't believe that she is better at Scrabble than me but she beats me 99 times out of a 100. She is also better at poker and card games than me. She is better at math, way better and much much better at handling money than me. I freely and graciously admit all of these things but that doesn't mean that it doesn't bruise my male ego.

Hey I am a man. I am not afraid to admit it that I don't like losing or being proven to be less apt at something by a woman or anyone. I recognize that is just life. I am better than someone at some things and they are better than me at some things. Everyone has something they are more capable at being. (At least, I can laugh at myself and admit when I am less apt or beaten.)

If I am in a relationship, I don't think that is is very NICE for the other person to display or show off their capability. It doesn't mean that they aren't who they are and it doesn't mean that they are somehow lesser. If they keep their talents in check and don't show up their partner all that is is being a good Christian and a good person and showing love and consideration towards the other person. Period.

-Eduardo

31

Former JW- new here....

by disillusioned youth in

jw
friends

hi guys and gals....... .

i would just like to extend greetings to all those poor souls who had to endure the torturous childhood of growing up in a strict jw lifestyle as i had.

i didn't know that there were such forums on the net, and i was made aware of this by my sister who is also a member here, i believe.. i find this kind of funny really.

Oroborus21

Hey DY, welcome:

You Said: ....All of the current JW's (including my mother) are off in their own worlds. Still suffering from the euphoric ideals of a glorious life in paradise when all that really awaits them when they die is an eternity of rot and becoming "one with the Earth"

Something that I have been thinking about for some time, (and I have two elderly parents myself who have been in the Truth since 1948 and are very active now) is this:

The "outlook on life" as derived from your post is not particularly life-affirming is it? I mean to look forward to being wormfood doesn't exactly embolden one with hope and encouragement to keep living, especially at an age where health and strength begin to fail.

My view is simply this: EVEN IF I KNOW THE JW BELIEF-PARADIGM to be wrong in certain aspects (or any Christian outlook for that matter) ISN'T THERE VALUE THERE in that it can provide structure and meaning to one's life? I think so.

(That is what all religion is and does after all.) (The alternative extreme which I would judge from your post is what you believe is that we are just animals, products of evolution, there is no Diety or spiritual realm. If that is so, then the evident conclusion for all of us is to enjoy and make the best out of this life cause this time around is all we have.)

I will go one step further, I believe strongly that if the JW BELIEF-PARADIGM (i.e. religion)

CAN BE A BEAUTIFUL AND VERY POSITIVE AND LIFE-AFFIRMING RELIGION (i.e. system or paradigm to structure one's life by). In order for this to happen it need only be STRIPPED of its HARMFUL elements (DF'ng practice/greatly modified, blood-ban, procedural changes (i.e. Megan's Law-type notification for child molesters, harder penalties, more cooperation with authorities, and certain other things) and SHED of all of its SILLY and ARCHAIC elements (like the publishing activities, hierarchal structure, and certain and numerous "rules" and "regulations").

Anyway getting back to my main concern. I say, let your poor mom live out the remainder of her short life that is left to her with whatever comfort and hope that she can derive from being a Witness. I feel the same way about my own parents. In fact anyone that is over 50 in the organization, I do not feel compelled to try and dissuade them or to educate them about the flaws or problems among Jehovah's Witnesses and the Organization. (If they take such initiative on their own that is another matter.) Why and what gives me the right to rob a person of their hope? Nothing.

You might ask why it seems that I would be willing take a different tact with younger ones in the Org. Well, it is situational, and there are some younger ones that I am very close to, including my own nephew and other relatives. But sometimes, you have to just let them start to emerge out of the Matrix (very appropo) on their own before you can or should attempt to do anything.

But secondly, more importantly, I believe that it is the people in the Org beginning with my own generation, and especially the following and younger generations will be the ones that will finally be able to bring about the kind of change (reform) among Jehovah's Witnesses that I sketched above. This is what I call in part the Revolution.

I hope you will join us.

-Eduardo

97

How do you women feel about acting stupid to please men and the borg?

by Dragonlady76 in

jw
friends

the quote below was part of a talk in the 90's.

i heard this as a child and thought to myself, how can any woman accept such a draconian veiw?

i was not sure if i had understood correctly so, i brought it up to my bible study conductor maggie, i was appalled that she agreed with this veiw, we debated it back and forth, until i got the upper hand, then she told me that i was to "rebellious and strong willed", and that i "should never get married", that i way i would not have to submit to male "headshit" "headship".

Oroborus21

Greetings!

Sorry everyone, but Jehovah's Witnesses aside and the unequality of the sexes within the Organization aside, (yes big problems here)

BUT

THE ADVICE IF YOU JUST TAKE IT FOR WHAT IT IS SAYING IS REALLY NOT VERY BAD (IT SHOULD JUST BE UNDERSTOOD TO APPLY TO BOTH SEXES - although frankly WE, MEN generally have a little bit bigger "EGO" and resent it more often when we are shown up by someone we know.)

BASIC PSYCHO-BIOLOGICAL influence just simply translates to the fact that Men want and need and are expected (by themselves and others) to feel better at doing certain things and that Women need, want and are expected to be better at doing certain things in life.

Whenever, these two fields CROSS, especially in our modern culture, it sometimes presents a dissonance. For example, many women present feelings of depression and anxiety, etc. because their male partners (or other female friends) are more "motherly" or better at nurturing their young children than they are. Similarly, many men have similar reactions when their female partner or other men are evidently better at doing "macho" things.

What I am saying is that if you really look at the Society's advice all that it is really saying is that if YOU (the woman) are better at doing something than your partner, YOU DO NOT NEED TO SHOW IT OFF OR SHOW HIM UP.

This isn't to repress women or subjugate them. This is just good advice for getting along. The society means to say the same thing when it says that the man should not "lord over" the wife.

This is GOOD ADVICE for everyone. Consider two people (any two people) who are in a relationship, each with differing abilities. Doesn't it just make sense to say that one who is better at something shouldn't make the other person feel bad for not being as good at the thing?!!

That is all the Society is saying that the Bible is saying.

-Eduardo

26

Rant about the term "WORLDLY"!!!!

by wordlywife in

jw
friends

my husband was talking at the table with his young adult daughter last night.

for those of you that don't know, he is a long time witness, and his children are of course witnesses also.

we were married when he was df'd, and i knew all about him being a witness and wanting to return.

Oroborus21

Greetings!

Since this is your husband and these are your feelings as they pertain to his conduct, you have the right and should tell him about anything that makes you feel uncomfortable. As your husband, he should be considerate of your feelings and even though something may be habitual he ought to make an effort to be more considerate of you.

Notice the above applies to anything.

With regards to Witnesses using the term "worldly" I do have to take the unpopular side here and defend the use of the term "worldly" by Jehovah's Witnesses.

Of course, there MAY be some that overhear witnesses using this term in their conversations or occassionally from the platform and may understand the negative connotations involved; however most people, that is everyone else sitting around the restaurant would not so understand those connotations. In fact, as has already been pointed out, they are likely to perceive it has having positive connotations or at least be confused since among normal non-JW people the term does have positive connotations.

All coherent groups (from the military to lawyers to street gangs) utilize forms and terms of language that are exclusive and shared by the group and helps to separate them from non-group members. One who understands a shares the same symbol-referent system is identifiable as being "in" with the group. Such language behaviour is common and unobjectionable and in fact useful.

As you probably know, JWs use the term "worldly" to describe everything from a non-JW to a JW that is engaging in certain behaviours or possesses certain traits. The opposite of the state of being "worldly" (or of THIS world/physical) is of course to be "spirtual" which represents the ideal. Thus (in theory) JWs strive to be spiritual people and not worldly people.

It is a useful term that used among JWs isn't offensive and is effective in communicating. Rather then being offended you should consider yourself as being welcomed and "in" enough with the group of JWs that they would use such term in your presence, without any kind of deference or making excuses to you. Obviously, they feel comfortable with you.

If you are offended then you should simply assert yourself and say something along the lines of:

I understand you guys are using your language and that you don't really mean any offense to anyone, but as a "worldly" person who knows that the term conveys certain negative connotations, it makes me feel demeaned to hear you use that term right in front of me. Would you please be more considerate in the future? Thank you.

they will get the message and should be happy to be more considerate in the future.

-Eduardo

13

"Confession" to God or to the Elders...

by JH in

.

my parents are catholic, and they had a special meeting for "confession" last night.

this got me thinking about confession in the jw's.. it seems to me that jw's confess their sins to elders rather than to god..... try smoking or playing lotto, and then tell the elders that you done that and asked god for forgiveness.. i think that you'll have to ask the elders for forgiveness too...

Oroborus21

Greetings!

This was a huge and central topic of discussion and dispute in my own judicial committee meetings and meetings with the appeal committee. Ultimately, my case was "reviewed" by a letter sent to Bethel since the Original JC refused to accept the opinion of the appeal commitee (who didn't want to DF me). I met with the JC and Appeal committees in July 2000. I got the final word from Bethel and was DF'd in January 2001.

In a Nutshell:

I had committed fornication over a year or more prior to it coming to their attention. It was a one-time thing and I felt like I had both asked for and obtained the forgiveness of both the girl and from God/Christ - thus as no man is our intermediary between us and God except Jesus as the Scriptures plainly state, I did not believe that I had to seek "forgiveness" from or "make confession" to the Elders.

The (local) elders position was that as they stated: "It is not possible for you (a Witness) to be fully "healed" on your own, without "going to the Elders."

MY CENTRAL CONTENTION WHICH REALLY, REALLY PISSED THEM OFF (AND MADE ONE TO TWO OF THEM THINK) WAS THAT IF THEY INSISTED ON THAT BEING THE CASE THAT IN EFFECT THEY WERE CREATING A PRIESTLY CLASS AND INTERPOSING THEMSELVES AS MEDIATORS INSTEAD OF JESUS. (They also didn't like that I added that it would be very much like Catholics making confession to their priests.)

The brothers at that time were really under the gun because they had no official directive or statement from the Society that said a regular publisher must confess to them. (There are statements in the Flock book that would seem to apply this principle to Elders/MS/Pioneers). So we just went round and round about the interpretation of James, the scripture that says "Is there anyone sick among you? Let him go to the older men and they shall grease him in oil, praying over him, and he may get well." (Needless, to say they DID NOT LIKE that I pointed out to them that the Flock book says regarding this scripture that the Elder's prayers on behalf of the person are only an "aid" but are not what brings "forgiveness". (Forgiveness can only come from God by way of Jesus as the bible clearly shows.)

They pretty much were in a big quandry because there was much disagreement. Actually, the votes (as one elder from the JC confided to me were this way: Original committee: 2 for DF'ng. 1 (he) was not for DF'ng but in his words "had to be and finallly was convinced by the other two" and presumably from the Appellate committee 3 for not DF'ng. Thus it appears that despite only 2 of the 6 Elders that considered my case voting for me to be DF'd, I was.

The "official grounds" were of course, "lack of repentance from committing fornication."

The unofficial grounds were my assertion that one need not make confession to the Elders in order to obtain forgiveness and be "healed" which undermines their hiearchy.

Now I am not saying that it is more than coincidence but approximately 3 or 4 months later the Kingdom Ministry contained a nice little box that EXPLICITLY SPELLED OUT THE NEW UNDERSTANDING and POLICY that one (even a plain old regular publisher with no special privileges) MUST GO TO THE ELDERS in order to be considered as being "fully repentant". This was followed-up with a Quetions from Readers that asked the loaded question along the lines of "Since Christ died for our sins and is our mediator, why is it necessary for a person who commits a gross sin to go to the Elders?" (weak reasoning followed).

Thus the net result is that, without much fanfare or notice of most Jehovah's Witnesses, despite a hundred years of saying there is no clergy-laity class among Jehovah's Witnesses, AS OF 2001 the Society established a "clergy class" (the Elders) who now are instrinsic to a person obtaining "forgiveness" and one who commits a gross sin is REQUIRED to make confession of it to the Elders or they will not be considered has being repentant and having obtained full forgiveness from God.

-Eduardo

18

JW in Canada wins $30k for not wanting to place Christmas decorations

by Dogpatch in

jw
friends

take steps to avoid human rights disasters

in most discrimination cases that go to court, an employee's complaints were ignored: problem may be hidden

marilyn linton

Oroborus21

Hey Cynus/James?!

cool to see you. I agree. Actually, the most frequent bend that I personally always found difficult is to tell a "white lie" for the employer.

For example, it is very common for someone to call and ask for your boss/supervisor, etc. or even a co-worker and it is common that the person will whisper "say I am busy" or "say I am out of the office" (sometimes the boss will just say, "if anyone calls today tell them I am out of the office.")

What is the poor good JW to do?

I agree with you in this situation, what a stupid thing to make a big deal about putting out some poinsettas that took 10 seconds. I think most JWs would not view it as a contradiction of their faith if their boss requested them to do that or even more.

Also consider that JW teaching says that a JW in a business setting or that deals with the public on their job, in the situation where a known disfellowshipped one comes in or calls in etc. or has business -- well the JW must deal with them same as anyone else.

It would then seem that to a reasonable degree of course a JW should be prepared to comply with the employer's wishes even if it means such minor compromises or something they would not choose to do.

Too bad the employer didn't require the employees to say "Happy Holidays" or "Welcome to Wal-Mart and Merry Christmas" to everyone.

You know we could find examples in the Bible..I am especially thinking of the Book of Esther where Nehemiah and Esther were required to do several things that were "worldy" because the king required it. I think even serving as royal cupbearer was questionable. And in Daniel, the three hebrews probably had to use their given babylonian names, Meshach, Shedrach and Abenego which were all contained references to a false god but there is no indication that they refused to be called that or to answer to those names - in fact the opposite is given.

Anyways no need to belabor the point.

The bottom line for me is that this brother was pretty stupid, even if he got 30k out it. I wonder if he still has a job or not?

If he does, You can bet that he will be fired for the first legitimate reason that arises.

If he is still working , You can also bet that the next time the guy wants a favour from his employer, such as time off to attend an assembly for example, that the answer is not going to be favourable.

Some people never learn when to pick their battles.

-Eduardo

18

JW in Canada wins $30k for not wanting to place Christmas decorations

by Dogpatch in

jw
friends

take steps to avoid human rights disasters

in most discrimination cases that go to court, an employee's complaints were ignored: problem may be hidden

marilyn linton

Oroborus21

Xenawarrior: See Legally Establishing and Defending the Good News. JWs believe that in the manner of Paul who "appeale his arrest to Caesar" as was his right as a Roman Citizen under Roman law, so a Christian may make use and benefit from the legal system. JWs have always, in championing their own rights, been leaders in securing civil rights in the area of free exercise of religion and free speech that have benefited everyone. We also pay taxes and drive on the roads, and call 911 in an emergency. Being politically neutral does not mean refusing all forms of the benefits and responsibilites that entailed in living under the "Superior Authorities."

AlanF: Nice hypo. I believe that the court would rule in favour of the JW employer in your hypo. Mostly, because an employee is quite limited with what he or she can AFFIRMATIVELY do on their own volition and initiative. Especially in past cases dealing with decorating your "so-called personal space" (whether with a pin-up calendar or menorah) the courts have basically said YOU HAVE NO PERSONAL SPACE AT WORK. Everying is the employer's property, the phone, computer, desk, cabinet, walls, etc. Thus an employee has no RIGHT to do something on the employer's property without the employer's permission. (But make sure to differ this from situations where a group starts a bible study group or somethng like that and meet in the employer's cafeteria or a meeting room during lunch. in situations lke that the employer has chosen to allow the use of the meeting room and would probably have to be fair and non discriminatory to other groups. - but I digress.)

As I say above, the law usually seems to not permit an employee to do something against an employee's wishes but it does often protect the employee's right NOT TO DO SOMETHING that the employee wishes. (example this case). In these situations the test will be whether there is knowledge/history before hand (not just merely presumption or constructive knowledge but rather actual knowledge and moreover, written policies or rules/guidelines, etc.) and more importantly whether the thing is intrinsic to the business of the employer. More intrinsic the better. More tangential or merely coincidental the less forceful the employer's ability to enforce.

Looking at this case, if I am recalling correctly, (and I am only reading what is here, I haven't read the actual case facts) this was a drugstore that the guy worked at. Putting poinsettas out to decorate the place had nothing to do with the business or only a very slight benefit to the business.

Had this guy worked at a nursery or greenhouse or floral shop, he would have lost the case.f

-Eduardo