Well I have read this thread for a few days now. Then yesterday I received my own copy of the awake and just finished reading it. I know I will be flayed for it but here I go playing devils advocate...
I will preface my comments by saying that I totally respect the circumstances and pain many here have endured and I hope they have either escaped from or found ways to come to safety and comfort. No person deserves to be mistreated. As far as my own personal views are concerned the punishment should fit the crime - if a coward beats his wife he should be used as a pinata at the next police training school.
First off, the issue of "should she leave him?".
My personal and immediate reaction is "of course!!". But the WTBS cannot come up with what you want Mr Moe - a one size fits all. There can be different severity of abuse (of course none is acceptable). It should be the spouses choice to leave or not to leave. If the WTBS had said ALWAYS leave then would you have criticized them for that too? We all espouse "freedom of thought and freedom of choice". If the rule was to be made that she should ALWAYS leave aren't you taking away the freedom of choice?
Secondly, the Risk Indicators
As cited much later in this thread the risk indicators were not conceived by the WTBS (although when I first started reading this thread Mr Moe's first post mislead myself and from subsequent posts some others into thinking they were). Only much later did we see that the indicators were published by Richard Gelles. what are his credentials?
Richard J. Gelles is Director of the Family Violence Research Program, and a professor of Sociology and Psychology at the University of Rhode Island. He has published extensively on the topics of child abuse, wife abuse, and family violence. His most recent books are: Intimate Violence (Touchstone, 1989); Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptions in 8,145 Families (Transaction Books, 1990); Intimate Violence in Families, (Sage, 1990); and Current Controversies on Family Violence (Sage, 1993).
So while our instincts and own experiences might lead us to disagree with the indicators we should ascertain what lead Mr Gelles to publish them. Are they based on statistics? I don't know. But the WTBS quoted from someone whose credentials would certainly be acceptable as an expert witness in a law court. If you would cast your eyes to the opposite page of the article you can see the context in which the "risk indicators" is placed. Look at the 2 subheadings: "Cultural Influence" and "No Excuse for Battering". If you read the 2 headings you can see the important sentence "The above factors may help to explain spouse abuse, but they do not excuse it." The next sentence: "Put simply, beating one's mate is a gross sin in God's eyes".
The next time I see Mr Moe quote she says:
"OK - take this statement for an example: "Some battered women may need to seek assistance" - SOME? And who defines some?
Or - take this "At times, a point of crisis-such as intervention of the police..." A point of crisis - and what is thier definition of a point of crisis?"
Why do you seek explicit definitions? Again you want the one-size-fits-all? Or are you wanting to remove freedom of choice again?
I do agree with you, Mr Moe, about how pathetic the experience is and how the husband now "allows her to choose what music she listens to". I definitely agree that the WTBS treats women as inferior.
but if one wants to believe in the Bible (which I don't) then one reads about "husbandly owners". Take a look at such verses as Rom 7:2, 1 Pet 3:1, Isa 54:5, Jer 31:32. If you want to believ in the Bible then you probably need to find away explaining away verses like those. I don't believe in the Bible and have no problem seeing woman as equals (ok I confess I love women more than I love men they are greater than men).
If you have been watching the news and seeing how the Taliban treat women it is interesting to note how so many cultures mistreat women. Page 6 of the Awake has many examples of how women are mistreated in different cultures. Religion is the largest suppressor of women on the planet.
Other things I found interesting in the article: the way that they are so lenient on wife-beaters. But then all religion tolerates this crap. I have yet to see one that doesn't. At least the JWs will eventually take action (according to the article - although reality might prove differently) to DF an offender.
grrr....they just showed the clips on TV again of the Taliban treatment of women. I hate religion!!