Back from NYC and onto everyone’s favorite game: catch-up. Of which I have a lot to do, because JFK airport didn’t have wifi. Still, absorbing stuff to blog about later is never far from my mind, and Marc and I watched nearly the whole first season of “Mad Men” while waiting for our delayed plane to arrive and take off. Will report later on it, when we’re done.
In the meantime, I’d like to point everyone to this article by Katha Pollitt in The Nation about the national hypocrisy that was evident during recent events, notably the way that people managed to be simultaneously scandalized by FLDS while also kissing some Pope ass, when the difference between the attitudes of Warren Jeffs and Pope Ratz towards women aren’t all that different by objective standards. Okay, to be fair, the Pope believes that any individual man should only be assigned one wife to control in a lifetime, and I doubt he’d be be against making women stay virgins a bit longer in life before they submit to a lifetime of having one baby after another. But the basic principles are the same: Women are for making babies, and should do that extensively and to the exclusion of having a full life of their own. If women don’t volunteer for this—and let’s face it, most won’t, since it’s cruel—they should be coerced through religious threats of burning in hell or ex-communication. In addition to making up mystical punishments for errant women, both the Pope and Warren Jeffs are happy to use physical coercion. Jeffs employed a system where young women barely out of childhood were married to older men, who would rape them into submission if need be. The Pope prefers to rely on state authority to do his dirty work, supporting measures enacted by the state to force childbirth onto women who have shown their unwillingness to go through with it by seeking abortion. And, as Pollitt notes, the Catholic Church uses state and social coercion instead of persuasion in other ways.
If it was up to Benedict, we might be more stylish than the plural wives of the FLDS, but we’d be trapped in marriage and have fifteen children just like them. In the United States the Catholic church has lost some of its moral authority–thank you, pedophile priests–but it has more temporal power than you might think. Around 12 percent of US hospitals are church-affiliated, which entitles them to refuse modern reproductive healthcare to women. The church is the major opponent of the drive to make health insurance plans cover birth control, forcing women to pay up to $600 out of pocket every year for contraceptives. Along with evangelical Protestants, it is the main force behind every attempt to restrict abortion, defeat prochoice politicians, make contraception and the morning-after pill harder to get, promote false and sexist abstinence-only education and discourage the use of condoms to prevent HIV by spreading unfounded doubts about their effectiveness.
Of course, persuasion has the downside of being ineffective. Most American Catholics use contraception, and a hefty percentage also use abortion when necessary. They may or may not feel guilty about this on an individual level, but the result of freedom is clear to them and to the Pope: When people are free, they are likely to take care of themselves and their families, even when under immense pressure not to. So, no wonder the Pope looks to the law to help him accomplish what persuasion cannot. Perversely, it’s because American Catholics are free to disregard the dictates of the church that the nation can be so welcoming to the Pope. His sick attitudes towards women seem harmless because the American government restricts him from employing them. For now. To a lesser degree all the time.
76 Responses to “God’s opinion on women’s rights remains stable”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
In fairness, the Pope also gives women the option of living completely sexless lives. Isn’t that a fair?
Speaking of stylish plural wives, don’t those ladies have the loveliest hairdos?
But the basic principles are the same: Women are for making babies, and should do that extensively and to the exclusion of having a full life of their own. If women don’t volunteer for this—and let’s face it, most won’t, since it’s cruel—they should be coerced through religious threats of burning in hell or ex-communication.
It’s interesting to note the combination of sexist language in the Catechism with sentiments such as:
“1938 There exist also sinful inequalities that affect millions of men and women. These are in open contradiction of the Gospel: Their equal dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions. Excessive economic and social disparity between individuals and peoples of the one human race is a source of scandal and militates against social justice, equity, human dignity, as well as social and international peace.”
Say what you will, but they’ve got some rockin’ rolled bangs there.
http://www.rockabillyhairstyle.com/
“Speaking of stylish plural wives, don’t those ladies have the loveliest hairdos? ”
It seems that on every thread I’ve read regarding this FLDS story someone comments on the women’s hair or clothes. They live in a completely different world, with different standards for physical appearance. If the subject of their hair or dress needs to be brought up, I suggest we look at it critically as an indication of how isolated the women are and how little control they have over their own lives.
Can we please stop criticizing FDLS on aesthetic grounds and start criticizing them for the myriad actual crimes they’re being accused of?
Drifting way the hell OT, I saw the pic at the head of this post and thought about Amanda’s recent picture from NYC. A different hair style and a plain dress? It’s very strange how life can turn out.
Really though, why is that the biblically approved hairstyle?
There’s some stuff in the Bible about not cutting your hair, though I thought it was aimed more at men than women. But seriously, the clothes work as all clothes do, to mark someone’s identity. We don’t wring our hands about how all women of other cultures (hipster, office worker, etc.) dress similarly, do we? The clothes and hair are ugly, and I’m sure if I thought it through, I’d say reflective of the contempt their culture has towards women. But mostly it’s about marking believers as such.
The hairstyle is a close cousin of the tucked-under french braid and waterfall bangs worn by Christian fundamentalists nationwide. I don’t know that it’s Biblically mandated, I think it’s just a cultural thing. When everyone in your social plane wears their hair kind of like that, you start to think it’s perfectly normal.
I think commenting on the aesthetics of the polygamist wives from a perspective of “look how dowdy they are” is a bit unfair–as it is an aspect of their controlling culture, not a personal choice. So the remarks about hairdos and ugly dresses seem a little like kicking the powerless.
I do think noting the homogenity of said hairdos is perfectly fine though–and noting how it is used as a barometer for obedience. It’s probably one of the least oppressions they face, but it can still be personally eroding. It’s like a uniform for them, but they can NEVER take it off without being marked by their community.
I think it’s just long (completely uncut) hair that’s the biblically approved hairstyle for them. But if you’re going to have long hair a bun is the most convenient way to wear it. Often even faster and more convenient than short hair.
They seem to be wearing a wide variety of hairstyles - buns of different types, single or double braids, French braids, etc. The puffed front hair (like a Gibson) seems popular, but not universal.
It would be interesting to find out how the women think of the different hairstyles. It is almost as if, despite the strict regulation of their lives, they’ve found ways to distinguish their individual appearances, in a way invisible to most people with short hair, including, perhaps, the men in the group.
Perhaps a useful conversation opener, for the people helping the girls, for ideas about self-expression?
And as Jon Stewart pointed out, the only reason the Pope can’t force us to act more in line with his wishes is because he no longer has an army of his own.
The FLDS, likewise, has to be sneaky because they no longer can just up and leave for some unpopulated stretch of desert and do their crazy thing in secret.
it must be so humiliating to the Patriarchy, to have to explain themselves and use subterfuge to exert their god-given power over us heathans.
BTW the ‘dowdy fundie woman’ aesthetic is somewhat Biblically oriented. There’s a passage in one of Paul’s epistles (to Timothy?) wherein he talks about how a proper Christian woman should be unadorned so as not to distract Teh Menz. I don’t think denim jumpers or french braids are specifically mentioned.
Opponax -
Braided hair is specifically condemned in both 1 Timothy and 1 Peter. Somehow, these folks seem to read the Bible quite selectively (as if that surprises anyone!)
Not to take away from your (or Pollitt’s) point about the perniciousness of anti-contraceptive assholes, but it’s worth noting that many HMOs carry a standard $50 copay. In other words, our fucked-up health care system is doing their work for them.
Ursula — yeah, that’s one of the many areas subject to the paradox where anything the fundies like in the bible is meant to be taken literally, anything they don’t like is subject to interpretation, and some things are, in an outstanding application of doublethink, meant to be both literal and subjective at the same time.
When Hillary Clinton’s clothes and hair were the focus of the press instead of her policy positions and track record, feminists rightly pointed out that it was a way of treating her as less of a person than the men. How is this different? Where is your criticism of the FDLS men’s clothes and hair? Not exactly what George Clooney sports these days.
These women are either victims - where the uncalled for criticism here is just piling on people who have no voice in their wardrobe. Or they are making the choice to dress and wear their hair this way because they actually have that choice - and in that case they are women expressing their wants through choice and you should be defending their right to do what they like. Or they are being unduly influenced and pressured - with choices still- but feel they can’t express themselves without reprecussions. Any of these do not warrant the hammering they are getting here.
Where is your criticism of the FDLS men’s clothes and hair?
To be fair, the FDLS men have been depicted in the media far less than the women have.
Which is incredibly fucked up, in and of itself.
I’d also guess that the men conform with the acceptable appearance of men in mainstream culture, if a little fusty, whereas, because our society has such a narrow definition of what is “normal” female attire, the women really stand out.
Another comment on their hairstyles -
I frequent a long hair discussion forum online. Whenever these groups get in the news, there are always comments on how lovely their hair is, the intresting styles, etc. Completely the opposite of what you see in regular discussion groups.
I generally have to remind people tha the old-fashioned hair is part of a deliberate attempt to look quaint and harmless, and it is distracting them from the very real oppression it represents.
I suspect the look helps them gain allies in the religious conservative movement - it resonates as being “modest” and otherwise gives the impression that they’re good by religious conservative standards, or that the traditionalism outweighs the abuses.
There also seems to be more hairstyle variation now than what I noticed during the Warren Jeffs trial. At that point, all the women were wearing two french braids, down for the little girls, up in a bun for the grown women. Now, I see single and double braids, plain or french, plain buns, and front hair arranged in different ways (different amounts of puff, waves to the side, etc.) I’m not sure what this tells us about how the dynamics have changed within the community, but perhaps it is a sign of a crack in their authoritarian structure, that can be worked with?
Dr T, I don’t think anyone’s “hammering” them, it’s just the first thing you notice. As Pollitt points out in her piece, it’s part of what makes the story such a spectacle.
I’d also like to add that the idea that one should automatically support anything a woman does from “choosing” to live in a hyper-patriarchal religious cult right down to their wardrobe or on the grounds of “choice” is pretty insane and — as you kind of suggest — certainly attributing to these women agency that they don’t actually have.
To be fair, mothers’ hairstyles and wardrobe choices are among the first two factors listed in the Texas Family Code, Section 149.102, in deciding whether to conduct beyond-fucked up proceedings to make en masse custody decisions.
OK, hate to yank this back toward the topic instead of the FLDS “gibson girl look”, but the issue of Catholic hospitals running our medical system is a huge one.
Chicago’s medical schools are so closely allied with the Catholic hospitals that I doubt anyone here is offered the chance to learn how to perform an abortion unless they enter an OB specialty.
It’s a real problem when your medical personnel aren’t even trained in the procedures. Some of them may not be sure if they want to do that type of surgery, but should they decide it’s warranted, they won’t know how. (Leaving aside the fact that they shouldnt’ be deciding if it’s warranted in the first place.)
Same goes for ERs and EC. The Catholic Church opposes EC mostly on ignorant grounds of not understanding female biology, reproduction, and how EC works.
I really feel that we need laws requiring all hospitals to provide EC upon request and definitely to any suspected rape victim. The default option should be to give it to the woman and let them decide if they don’t want to.
If Catholic hospitals don’t like it, they can get the hell out of the business of providing emergency medical care to the general public.
What good does it do to have a legal right to an abortion if there’s no one who can do the procedure?
And, once more with feeling, until Ratzi sends Law back to Boston and away from his luxurious retirement suite and sinecure, he’s got nothing to say. Kicking out the pedophile priests is one thing; punishing and disciplining the hierarchy that hid the predators and enabled them to further hurt children is another, and in my mind, a more egregious crime.
They’re not getting a hammering here. I think the point that the whole look is like a uniform is a valid one, and one that open for comment. Especially in light of what we (I) know about FLDS, which seems to be about nothing. I have heard basically no news reporting on FDLS that involves direct quotes form any of the members, let alone from any of the women or children.
Show me some pictures of the Men of the FLDS. My superficial search comes up empty. For some reason the men seem to be camera shy. So endless discussions of their dress are a little difficult. (I’ll start it off though- what are they thinking with those pants?)
I’m pretty sure no one here is saying that the women are to blame for being caught up in some version of eXtreme Patriarchy. Amanda has posted here before about how the xtian push for Modest clothing always seems to result in ugly shapeless clothing. As far as I can tell this is a feature, not a bug. I think this most recent tragedy is just further supporting evidence.
As for the actual clothes the women are wearing- if the FLDS are at all like the anabaptists around where I live, they make their own plain clothing. I have no experience sewing dresses but I do know that pleats and darts and whatnot add to the work load and that the dress the women are wearing seem very well done.
the idea that one should automatically support anything a woman does from “choosing” to live in a hyper-patriarchal religious cult right down to their wardrobe or on the grounds of “choice” is pretty insane and — as you kind of suggest — certainly attributing to these women agency that they don’t actually have.
I don’t think anybody here is supporting their choices as feminist choices.
I’m seeing three main arguments about why we should lay off:
1. this seems to be a sort of uniform they seem to have little or no actual choice about.
2. these women are the victims here, let’s try not to dehumanize them any more by mocking their appearances.
3. this may be the only kind of self-expression and freedom these women have, so let’s encourage them in it rather than taking yet another freedom away from them.
There was an interview on NPR with one of the women whose children were taken into custody. I think this is the right link if you want to listen.
She’s pretty evasive throughout the interview, identifying herself as being the mother of five children, the oldest I think she said was 16. But later in the interview she talks about her 20 year-old daughter. When the woman interviewing her caught on, she asked the woman how many children she actually had, and the FLDS member wouldn’t answer, saying only five were caught up in the custody battle. She also kept insisting she had no “direct knowledge” of anything “illegal” going on, when asked if she was aware of cases of rape or abuse.
Clearly this woman knows what the FLDS lifestyle must look like to non-cult members, so she’s likely being evasive to make her situation more identifiable, but the testy semantics and unanswered questions just gave me the heebie jeebies that everything alleged against the Jeffs separatists is likely true. Not that I’m ever inclined to give religious fundamentalists the benefit of the doubt.
Wow, THAT topic drift certainly was toward Teh Shores of Thtupidity.
Clothes. Hair. ::eyeroll::
“If Catholic hospitals don’t like it, they can get the hell out of the business of providing emergency medical care to the general public.”
I agree with this whole-heartedly. When a person needs emergency medical care they are generally not in a position to shop around for a hospital that will provide the care the need/want. Withholding certain services based on religious ideals in an emergency is cruel punishment.
the opoponax:
Dr T:
I’m not sure how else to read that.
I’m not sure how else to read that.
As defending their right to express themselves through their appearance even if we disagree as feminists with what those choices are or why these particular choices were made.
Nobody is saying these women are feminist. Simply that we should be standing up for one of the very narrow forms of agency these women actually have.
I don’t like Brazilian bikini waxes, Hijab, or “Christian Modesty”. But I’m not going to mock the individual women who choose to express themselves in those ways. I don’t think they’re particularly “feminist” for conforming to anti-feminist beauty standards, but I refuse to condemn them individually.
One big distinction: unlike those who leave the FLDS or even the LDS church, those who quit practicing Catholicism are unlikely to be cut off/shunned by their friends and family. So there is scant social penalty for those who decide opposition to abortion and birth control is total bullshit.
And I’m sure Ratzi would protest the comparison, saying “Hey, I didn’t even get one wife!”
Finally, as someone who remembers when nuns wore habits, I’m fine with women who voluntarily choose to wear archaic clothing to show religious devotion.
Emphasis on voluntary.
Those who took the Nazirite vow had to let their hair grow indefinitely. Wikip points to Numbers 6, 1-21
Aman -
It is a matter of degree. This isn’t the full set of choices that feminists want women to have. Their lives are severely restricted, in a lot of twisted ways.
But, if there are areas in their lives where they are used to not having any choice, then that is something in their lives that allows them some self-expression.
This is a useful thing, in terms of helping them learn that they have choices. It may not seem like free choice from the outside, if they are all forced to have long hair. But if they used to all be forced to wear the long hair in the exact same style, and now they have the choice of a (limited range) of styles, they may be enjoying this limited freedom, and may be more open to the idea of change and choices than it first seems. They have seen, in some way, that life can change to give more freedom.
At the very least, if they’ve managed to grab a tiny bit of autonomy out of the life they’ve been trapped in, it is a triumph for them - it can take more courage to whisper a question when the oppression is that stong than it takes for us to shout in defiance.
Also, seeing the differences between them - however slight to outside eyes - helps us see them as individuals, rather than as a hive-mind. If we treat them as if they are interchangable, in the way that they’ve been taught that all women are interchangable reproductive prizes, then we’re making things worse.
When did I argue that anyone was saying they were feminist for gosh sakes? Except I guess when I quoted your response above. The point was that Dr T basically said that if they chose to live this way, then who are we to judge because they are, after all, women exercising choice and shouldn’t we as feminists encourage that because, for some reason, the notion of “choice” trumps all common sense, and that is clearly insane.
I finally had the abortion argument with my reactionary Catholic parents. Went about as I might have expected; they just said I was being crazy and illogical. But my little notion that the “dividing line” between a human life and something that we rightly don’t regard as human is the individual pregnant woman’s choice is something I came with with after a lifetime of being exposed to my parents’ “logic” on the subject, which very quickly boils down to the assertion that the pro-choice movement is a conspiracy of evil people manipulating poor befuddled women.
One highlight–while Dad was trying to persuade me that the essential biological componentes of humanity develop really early, my mother ran upstairs for a “pro-life” pamphlet. she got as far as implantation, and I asked Dad if he woulnd’t object to interventions that simply prevented implantation. When he said, “Of course I would object,” I pointed out ot oMom that that made everything in the pamphlet after that point regarding development irrelevant.
I also wanted to know how exactly they thought that somehow persauindg everyone that abortion could never be an option once fertilization had happened, would lead to a better world in general. “People would respect human life more.” they said.
Early on I pointed out how Dad’s assertion that a new and fully human life existed from the moment of forming a new DNA sequence was a fundamentally theological one.
I guess we were just talking past each other.
But I have no doubt, their beliefs are purely patriarchy in action. And they both say so proudly.
Aman, multiple people have explained to you why it might not be a great idea to judge these women based on their sartorial choices.
You disagree and want to go on whining about how some women who are (I assume) facing circumstances you yourself have never faced and will never face have the nerve not to dress like your idea how a “normal” woman should dress? Go right ahead. You’ll never convince me that that’s the proper feminist approach.
It’s almost as though you’re willfully misunderstanding what I’m saying.
Aman,
Can you try restating it? I’m trying to understand what you’re saying, but it really isn’t making sense to me, beyond that you’re trying to say it is inconsistant to both say it is inappropriate for women to be forced to live this way and to recognize areas within their life where they might have some (inappropriatedly limited) choice.
OK, well then I clearly don’t understand what you’re saying. Either you think their appearances are fair game or you don’t. We’re explaining why they’re not — you seem to be maintaining that they are.
I’m also getting the sense (possibly unfairly) that you think the FDLS women’s sartorial choices are worthy of scorn specifically for feminist reasons. If you want to be ‘that kind’ of feminist, feel free, but please don’t drag me into it.
Well, I’m not interested in their clothes so much as their kids. Over half the underaged girls that were taken were either pregnant or had a child—or children. Boys were severely under represented in the group—there were fifty three underage girls and seventeen boys. Usually these multiple-wife things are about sons and sons and more sons, but the way they dispose of the boys makes it very clear it’s really and truly about making the rape of underaged girls the whole point of this religion.
Re: The FLDS men and clothing - men have it very easy when choosing clothing. There is a basic “Respectable Man” uniform that changes at a glacial pace. You could drop a Respectable Man from the 1950s in downtown NY and he’d fit right in. Women’s clothing requirements are changing much faster, and the rapid change is taking place in an environment that drives towards sexualization (i.e. the sexualization pressure is always there, and the rapid change creates the environment that allows it to gain traction).
I must be the only guy reading feminist blogs who looks at those dresses and thinks they’re rather nice. Plain, simple, functional. It’s when they are part of a uniform that everyone is wearing that they get creepy. Still, they differ from each other by at least as much as any given Respectable Man uniform differs from any other.
Not really sure what my point is here, but I figured I’d speak up for dowdy dresses.
Before you marry in the Catholic faith you have to go through this pre cana ordeal. My friend told me she and her now hubby were forced to do extra sessions with the priest when she answered this question WRONG. “why do you want to get married”. She said to be happy with her husband. WRONG. The proper answer is ‘to have children’. There is no other reason in teh Catholic faith to be married. It’s truly frightening.
My mother has found her (Catholic) faith again and is trying to make me into a baby factory. I just moved in with my boyfriend… that’s it! I don’t even want to get married and she’s b#tchin at me about faith and folic acid. Wacky!
Has anyone else noticed that they appear to not have boobs? I’m sorry but with the amount of children these women are forced to bear i would expect a little boobage. Guess my focus is somewhere else.
Lilly, it’s possible to cut dresses to minimise the bustline, and in these women’s “uniforms” I see broadly-cut shoulders, borderline leg-o-mutton sleeves, loose waistline, and minimal bust darting. Also, many women find their breasts “deflate” after nursing, especially after several times, and if one doesn’t wear a bra they tend to disappear a bit. I suspect both of these are what’s going on here.
Back ON TOPIC now…
kissy, I’d never heard that. That’s horrifying. If you don’t want children, would the Pope rather you just cohabitate? Oh right, Catholic dogma isn’t so hot on dealing with reality…
togolosh, re: the sensibility of the dresses.
They are sensible if you wish to be covered from neck to heels to wrists, want to keep warm, and don’t have to do much physical activity.
Not sensible if it’s hot (they live in Texas for pete’s sake; you wish to run or otherwise desire freedom of movement; you need to pick up heavy things (including children), et cetera. Even in a society where women don’t get out much and work is divided along gender lines, they still do physical work, like toting around baskets of laundry, carrying children, tending kitchen gardens. And as I pointed out above, it’s Texas — I bet it gets pretty hot in those dresses in the summer.
Has anyone else noticed that they appear to not have boobs?
The dresses are designed to de-emphasize the bustline. If you look at the older women, you can tell they’re not all really that flat-chested. The whole idea here is to completely hide the shape of their bodies. It’s not just about ‘baggy’ (a lot of baggy clothes actually accentuate the physical form), but the entire approach of the cut of the clothes.
I’m fine with women who volutarily choose to wear archaic clothing to show religious devotion too, which is why I don’t think “religious devotion” is what the FLDS women and girls are dressed to evince. I’ve seen Amish and Mennonite women in full rig, and while they sure were dowdy, they did not look like this. (Plus which, most of the time they were accompanied by men who were also kitted out in odd garb.)
There are a couple of factors which cause me to question the “religious devotion” explanation for the FLDS female look. The first is that choosing to wear archaic clothing so as to demonstrate religious devotion appears solely to be a female obligation in the FLDS church; these women’s male contemporaries wear contemporary clothes. The second is that it looks (to me) as though the FLDS women are dressed in such a fashion as to render it an impossibility that they could under any circumstances blend into a 21st-century crowd (the type of crowd that might gather, say, at a State Fair or at a swap meet). Amish and Mennonite women stand out too, but their clothes have the property of discouraging notice rather than inviting it.
So: the way these women and girls are dressed seems to perform two functions: first, it sets them apart from men within their own society, and second, it divides them from the larger society within which their own (smaller) society is emplaced. And it divides them from the larger society in a way that FLDS menswear doesn’t impose upon FLDS men.
I’m not going to speculate here about the probable reasons for this, because I think that all of us are bright enough to figure those out for ourselves; I will say, though, that I think it’s a sign of faux-naiveté to say “O let’s not talk about hair and clothes—hair and clothes are just so silly” in cases where hair and clothes have deliberately been made into an issue.
When I saw the picture above, what struck me was their faces. They are all older, determined, no-nonsense-looking women who are about to rip that guy’s face off if he doesn’t give them their babies. I see my own (patriarchal) family in them.
Does this whole situation remind anyone else of Gate to Women’s Country by Sheri Tepper? When they find the religious sect and it’s full of gross old men with dozens of 12 year old rape victims?
In one interview a former FLDS member said the colors of the dresses are meant to differentiate families.
yup, murcielago, you are absolutely right.
meant to differentiate families.
Which is probably useful when so few men father a lot of children with so many women, and all pubescent women are considered fair game regardless of consent. If all you have to remember is “I can rape anyone who isn’t wearing a teal dress”, that makes it all much more convenient than having to sit down and think “Now is it Tasha or Lisa who is my great-grand niece?
Point taken, Hector. I certainly think there’s a legit difference between a cult and a religion, and the Catholic church has gotten a lot better in recent years about shunning non-believers, i.e. they don’t encourage it to nearly the same degree.
Dr. T is a wingnut playing “gotcha”. He has nothing of substance to add. I’m so fucking sick of “gotcha” and regret every time I’ve played it, even when it was funny.
God, oppo, no kidding. I wonder if accidental daughter rape has become a problem? I can’t imagine it’s that far gone, because most people can keep track of about 100 people and interpersonal relationships, but still, there has to be a point where you forget which kids are yours and which aren’t.
http://pixelfish.livejournal.com/370964.html
One disturbing thing which I hadn’t come across in my readings before, but which has apparently come to light in the last year, is the existance of the “Babyland” graveyard in Colorado City. Here are the quick statistics on it:
425 graves
56 entirely unmarked child graves
227 child graves all together for a total of 53% children under 10
A high number of children suffering from strange accidents. A disproportionate number of children who just happened to be “run over”. A number of children who have just “disappeared”. The death rate is particularly high among boy children, ages 11-20.
My wife and I were able to skip the pre cana bit for our wedding but it helped that the priest preforming the ceremony was my wife’s godfather and the Bishop of San Antonio.
Like any vast world spanning bureaucracy, the Catholic Church is a lot easier to maneuver in if you know somebody high up. But on the whole, still kind of a drag if you aren’t down with the patriarchy.
I’m a historical costume fan and I have to admit that those dresses fascinate me from that angle. Ditto the hairstyles. And ask any female reenactor, long full skirts can be hot, but they aren’t really terribly hard to move and work in if you’re used to them (which, presumably, these women and girls would be.)
I would say something on-topic but, really, I haven’t got anything to say on the disconnect between the Vatican and American Catholicism that hasn’t already been said more than once.
I think one of the main reasons I’m not willing to mock them based on their fashion sense is that I think we can all admit to ourselves that if the fashion industry decided this was next season’s hot new look, a HUGE proportion of women would gobble it right up. Within a year it would seem perfectly normal. In a few more years, any woman not wearing prairie sack dresses would be considered as freaky as these women seem to us now.
The men have declined to be photographed as the DNA database will soon be available for all jurisdictions. Child rapists that cross state lines will be able to be prosecuted under the Mann Act and the DNA will be proof. Three ‘wives’ under the age of 16? Life in prison.
These pervs are spinning as fast as they can and leaving the area to avoid prosecution. We may assume women are better (really? Karen Homolka anyone?) but none should avoid time in jail.
Ask yourself. If the state removed my child, would I leave? Even here in Whitest Whitesylvania, any cracker trash family that loses a child to the foster system will wait for years to achieve custody. heck they even give up meth and cigarettes! Tells you how much the rapists care.
I fail at HTML, apparently.
Mold strikes again.
“Dr. T is a wingnut playing “gotcha”. He has nothing of substance to add.”
Never accept criticism for doing something wrong. Instead dismiss those who point out the trangression. How consistnet Amanda.
Why is Dr. T still here, anyway?
ginmar, that’s absolutely chilling. I mean, sometimes we talk about how patriarchy hurts men, too, but we don’t usually mean it quite that literally. I had read about young men being driven out of the communities, but not about them being killed.
In what I’ve read about polygamous sects, back in the days of the Short Creek raid and before, it wasn’t too much more patriarchal than mainstream society - meaning it was pretty patriarchal but the women were marrying at the same age as other women in America, they weren’t marrying close relatives much older than them, they could say yes or no to marrianges, that sort of thing - but in the intervening 50-60 years, between cult of personality and isolation, it got worse and worse and worse to where it really was a rape farm. The older, more powerful men have to dispose of the young men to have more young women available to them. It’s like some inverse version of insect society.
And a plea to all those making fun of their clothes. Just stop, please.
It’s absolutely amazing to me that these people have been allowed to do this for so long without getting caught. As I said, usually these patriarchal cultures are all about son worship, but in Islam, men are forbidden more than four wives, and so that limits the number of children they have. In this culture, the girls are the thing, and the boys are competition for power and the power to rape. I don’t doubt for one second they’re killing off boys in some fashion, deliberately in some cases, by abuse in others. I’ve seen reports that disciplining children in this cult is harsh and horrible. An inordinate number of male children seem to have died as a result of getting run over by cars.
It’s absolutely amazing to me that these people have been allowed to do this for so long without getting caught.
I thought the Austrian case of the father locking his daughter in the basement for 24 years and impregnating her (at least) seven times was weird, sick, and tragic enough, but it is really only the FLDS story in miniature.
Yeah, and the secret of this graveyard—only a few years old and containing the unmarked graves of fifty six children, plus an inordinate number of male adolescent graves—has been known for at least two years! Why aren’t people doing anything about this? This is wholesale murder on top of rape and incest. When the people at those link looked into it they found that the FLDS people were completely outside the usual accountability chain of modern life; home births and home deaths, undocumented by any authority at all.
The unwillingness to intervene goes back, in part, to the Short Creek raid. There was a huge backlash against the authorities when people saw, on their televisions, crying babies literally ripped from their mothers arms, families that looked just like other 1950s American families except for having two to three wives being torn apart, children who had never been abused spending up to two years in foster care.
Religion as a cover for behavior that is otherwise antisocial is part of it, but the other part is that the last time they did a big raid, it blew up in their faces. It’s taken a long time - decades and even generations - to realize that this is something worse, something that needed to be stopped. That is was teenage girls being harmed certainly added to their slowness to realize this merited greater attention, but it’s not the only reason. And it’s not clear they won’t fuck this up so royally that it will inhibit future investigations.
Ok, kissy, just for the record…
At my pre-cana class, the couple leading it told us that the rhythm method doesn’t work, but if you were really interested, they could find you some brochures after class. The husband then made my favorite pronouncement of the whole ordeal:
“If you don’t play the game, you don’t get to make the rules.”
That was an official Catholic Church pre-cana course held at a local church.
Our priest didn’t bother to figure out whether or now we were living together, and just wanted to know that we were “open” to having children.
Not “open” at every opportunity, just open to the possibility, someday. (Boy did we show him! Honeymoon Baby! Aging eggs my ass.)
My friends in Minneapolis had to lie to their priest about living together or else they couldnt’ have gotten married at all.
Again, if you don’t play the game, why are you trying to make the rules?
—-More to topic, I understand that FLDS incorporates its own towns and therefore the authorities–cops, judges, social services–are in on it and declare their loyalty to the Prophet comes before all else. What can be done about this?
There aren’t any autopsies, and these places have crematoria, so that there never can be autopsies. The officials are complicit, but how do you write laws to fix it?
Laws that will protect girls from slavery without violating the Constitution, that is. The fact that the local authorities are in on it is creating an issue for me. I absolutely believe all these people should be locked up, but there’s got to be a way to protect them without having to worry about Short Creek raid nonsense then affecting future prosecutions.
A lot of the male children are pulled out of school at age 12 or 13 and sent out to work as agricultural or construction laborers.
I bet more than a few have died as a result of working as illegal day laborers.
One reason they get away with this is that the nearest state government agencies with power to deal with them are several hundred miles away due to the mountainous terrain of northern Arizona. Not only are they remote, but they can scoot people across the state line in a blink.
It’s taken a long time - decades and even generations - to realize that this is something worse, something that needed to be stopped.
That, or the FLDS has been what it has always been and it’s the zeitgeist that has left them in the dust.
Perversely, it’s because American Catholics are free to disregard the dictates of the church that the nation can be so welcoming to the Pope.
This is a really tragic, and really frustrating, dimension to Catholicism in America. When I meet people who profess to be “Catholic”, I’m always tempted to quiz them on their beliefs and conduct so I can deliver the verdict that, according to the Church, they are no such thing.
I remember a very funny quote in the Boston Globe from a priest who was leading a protest against the Kevin Smith movie “Dogma” when it came out: he was responding to some line from Smith about how he considers himself a Catholic but doesn’t really agree with the Curch or the Pope on a lot of things, yadda yadda. The priest said, “We have a word for people in Mr. Smith’s position. They’re called Protestants.”
I actually think that these cafeteria Catholics are committing a pretty grave offense against history and against the lives and ideals of thousands of people who were killed in wars and purges for their right to disagree with the Pope. If they want to believe in Jebus but not follow the dictates of the Pope, they should get in line with the rest of the Protestants. Trying to have it both ways is perverse and irresponsible, especially because their moral and financial support for the Church makes that kind of freedom impossible for people in countries where the Church is more influential.
Since the pervs incorporate their own towns and municipalities, the state has to cover their enforcement by having competent Federal backups. Monica Goodling, good christian that she was, would not likely prosecute these babble-believing christians.
These are pervs that cross jurisdictions and only the feds can easily follow. The FLDS men have left to hide away. Shame the state is gaining DNA database on them. Makes it easier to prove multiple rape.
“If you don’t play the game, you don’t get to make the rules.”
That was pretty much the official line in my Catholic school sex ed class, too.
Actually, the kind of nice-ish thing about having sex ed in a specifically religious context was that there was no need to pretend that a church/state separation was in place. Which means the teachers felt free to give us all the real information in the world, with the above caveat and liberal reminders that premarital sex was a sin and you would go to hell for it.
Which is a much easier idea to blow holes in than shifty lies about the nature of contraception.
This might be a little off topic, but there are new revelations that some of the boys might have been abused (the young ones, not those who just disappear at 16). Maybe the wingers will finally stop defending these sickos. In the right wing mind, knocking up 15 year-old white women is all part of gods plan, but play with boys….
Hi. I think it’s important to remember that not all Catholic women perceive themselves to have the “choices” that many American Catholic women (rightly) claim for themselves. Where the Catholic Church is experiencing explosive growth and will continue to grow for some time to come is in developing countries - Africa, many Latin American countries, and so on forever. These women have very little to hang onto but their faith and often, the Catholic and other Churches are giving food and medical aid and education etc., but not ever contraception. And contraception, for Catholics, means not just the “pill”, which wouldn’t be available to these women anyways, but also CONDOMS. So, guess what, not only does the Church’s edict force women into unwanted pregnancies, but also into STDs and AIDs. And don’t forget that the Bush admin. won’t give aid money to any agency that facilitates abortion. If you can believe it, they push abstinence programmes in Africa too! This is a crime. It’s a crime a low-down dirty evil crime.