?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Who, me? [userpic]

Conservative perversion

May 25th, 2005 (08:48 am)
current mood: disgusted

Extracts from an amazing fundie essay quoted at Irregular Times:

I define courtship as the discovery of a life-partner for a daughter under the direct oversight of the father. Any man seeking to beg, borrow or steal a daughter’s hand without her father’s endorsement is seeking to gain, in unlawful ways, “property” not his own. Daughters are Daddy’s girls in the objective sense, and this particular daughter rejoices in that truth. I am owned by my father. If someone is interested in me, he should see him.

[...] Proud independence is no noble goal for a woman, and the spirit which pursues it is no part of a godly girl’s trousseau.

[...] So I really am “Daddy’s girl.” And no man can approach me as an independent agent because I am not my own, but belong, until my marriage, to my father. At the time of my marriage, my father gives me away to my husband and there is a lawful change of ownership.

This is just sick. I don't know what we could do to wipe out this sort of perversion, though, as long as we're stuck with the mindset that we have to respect all religions.

Comments

Posted by: goldsquare (goldsquare)
Posted at: May 25th, 2005 01:10 pm (UTC)

Apparently you can only free slaves that want to be free. Ick, oh, ick.

Posted by: C. Virtue (cvirtue)
Posted at: May 25th, 2005 01:38 pm (UTC)

Wow.

I sure hope this goes for fundie men, too. Are they their father's posession, as well, or their mother's?

Posted by: Who, me? (metageek)
Posted at: May 25th, 2005 01:42 pm (UTC)

Not according to this writer:

I don’t feel qualified to discuss the role of sons, but it seems clear that there is a peculiar relationship between the father and the daughter. [...] While he must raise his sons to be loving husbands and fathers who make houses possible, he raises his daughters to be submissive, godly wives and wise mothers, to make houses homes. He raises a son to be a provider; he raises a daughter to be provided for.

Posted by: C. Virtue (cvirtue)
Posted at: May 25th, 2005 01:54 pm (UTC)

Keep in mind that by some lights, this writer is already very liberal -- she can read, and write.

Posted by: Pooh Wei (poohwei)
Posted at: May 25th, 2005 01:59 pm (UTC)

a very sobering thought indeed. one can only hope that this woman's daughter rebels against such ideas.

Posted by: metahacker (metahacker)
Posted at: May 25th, 2005 04:43 pm (UTC)
feet

Dunno. Don't see the big deal. People who want to think this way can think this way. She doesn't pitch "You must believe this", just "I am..." "I believe..." etc. It seems like there is a huge class of people who want to be bossed around, owned, etc., and as long as they don't assume everyone feels this way, I have no problem with them, other than mild annoyance.

Still, it's too easy to make fun of. Wonder how she feels about daughters of single moms. Who owns them? And what about test tube babies? Or adoptees? Does the adopted dad own them, or the biological?

Posted by: Who, me? (metageek)
Posted at: May 25th, 2005 04:52 pm (UTC)
The big deal

The big deal is that she's writing for an organization that wants to establish a theocracy.

Posted by: metahacker (metahacker)
Posted at: May 25th, 2005 05:27 pm (UTC)
Re: The big deal
feet

...Hmm. Their mission statement includes "Biblical law cannot be imposed." (Now, of course, people rarely do what they say.)

I agree, it's troubling. But it's not as troubling as if the article were backwards..."I prevented my daughter from marrying Jim, since my husband owns her and he didn't approve."

Posted by: C. Virtue (cvirtue)
Posted at: May 25th, 2005 08:03 pm (UTC)
Re: The big deal
Wedding

I think that course of action (preventing the marriage) is implied by her beliefs.

Posted by: maestrateresa (maestrateresa)
Posted at: May 25th, 2005 06:02 pm (UTC)

The other big deal is that she's going to attempt to instill this same mode of thought on any children she has, and it's that proverbial "slippery slope"...

To paraphrase Simone de Bouvier: women who are taught that they are lesser, internalize the message and come to believe it.

Posted by: C. Virtue (cvirtue)
Posted at: May 25th, 2005 08:02 pm (UTC)

Sure, they can believe what they want. But I am disturbed to see anyone define other intelligent adults as chattel, even in a secular context, and I'm disturbed to see anyone define ideals I hold dear as undeserving of consideration, which is often what "godly" refers to these days; the ungodly are cannon fodder in the Lord's work, and should not have rights.

I suppose it would be less disturbing if I felt there weren't a chance of this thing spreading more out of control than it already is.

Posted by: Pamela Dritt (pamelina)
Posted at: May 26th, 2005 02:03 am (UTC)
Spreading
Beowulf

I think it's always been spread. I remember when we were trying, unsuccessfully, to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. You don't know how frightening that threat to society, multi gender toilets, can be. We in the liberal intelligentsia tend not to realize how numerous the majority, which isn't us, is.

It's far easier for any social changes, like racially integrated military and schools, or genderless employment opportunities, to be found legal by courts rather than legislated by majorities. It's easier to say sorry than to get permission first, after all.

12 Read Comments