Trad wives - Frilly dress & white supremacy

[Opti]

www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/frilly-dresses-and-white-supremacy-welcome-to-the-weird-frightening-world-of-trad-wives/ar-AA1bVTcY?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=82010a57fa554e13af4a53d8326aa37d&ei=11

Saw this article and think its important to see. I almost think much of this comes from women who were abused growing up in similar situations and are protecting the devil they know. 


“In some more traditional relationships (but not all) the man disciplines the woman either physically (like spanking) or with things like writing lines and standing in the corner,” one woman advises another on the Red Pill Women forum, an online community of rightwing, anti-feminist women.



Welcome to the weird and frightening world of trad wives, where women spurn modern, egalitarian values to dedicate their lives to the service of their husbands. My research into this far-right subculture began during the writing of my book on the far right and reproductive rights. I was curious to learn how the movement, determined to reduce women to reproductive vessels to aid white male supremacy, recruited women to its cause. The answer was a toxic combination of anti-feminism, white supremacy, normalised abuse and a desire to return to an imagined past.

Trad wives can be traced back to the Red Pill Women forum that was set up in 2013. According to research from Julia Ebner in 2020, 30,000 women identified as Red Pill Women or trad wives. As with most far-right trends, most of them appear to be in the US, but due to the networked nature of the modern far right, trends that start stateside don’t remain there.

And, of course, they’re white. One meme I encountered on Telegram during my research summed up a good trad wife as being “knowledgable about her European roots” and who “loves her family, race and culture”. Leading the tribe is far-right influencer Ayla Stewart, who shot to social media fame when her notorious “white baby challenge” went viral after she declared: “As a mother of six, I challenge families to have as many white babies as I have contributed.”

[Opti]

FWIW, I do not see this as traditional but I did not grow up in a cult. This is not biblical at all, but common in certain male dominant cultures.

“In some more traditional relationships (but not all) the man disciplines the woman either physically (like spanking) or with things like writing lines and standing in the corner

[thyme4change]

My sister would agree with some of this - I highly doubt her husband disciplined her - but I also highly doubt she breaks any rules.

[teen persuasion]

Saw a Washington Post story yesterday (gift article, non paywalled) about Christian homeschoolers revolting and sending their kids to *gasp* public school.  The young couple described in the article talked about how these "traditional" families condition the children with corporal punishment (the biblical spare the rod, spoil the child mindset). The girls are taught to desire nothing more than being a wife/mother to as many (white, Christian) babies as God decides to give them (to out reproduce atheists and minorities). A wife working is anathema.

Among conservative Christians, home schooling became a tool for binding children to fundamentalist beliefs they felt were threatened by exposure to other points of view. Rightly educated, those children would grow into what HSLDA founder Michael Farris called a “Joshua Generation” that would seek the political power and cultural influence to reshape America according to biblical principles.

“It’s specifically a system that is set up to hide the abuse, to make them invisible, to strip them of any capability of getting help. And not just in a physical way,” Christina said. “At some point, you become so mentally imprisoned you don’t even realize you need help.”

As a wedding gift, they said, Aaron’s brother and sister-in-law had given them “To Train Up a Child,” by the popular Christian home-schooling authors Michael and Debi Pearl.

The Pearls advocate hitting children with tree branches, belts and other “instruments of love” to instill obedience, and recommend that toddlers who take slowly to potty training be washed outdoors with cold water from a garden hose. Their book advocates “training sessions” in which infants, as soon as they are old enough to crawl, are placed near a desired object and repeatedly struck with a switch if they disobey commands not to touch it.

But she also suspected that Aimee could use the help of professional educators. Just as important, she had learned all her life that it was her duty to obey her husband. She was confounded and angry, at both Aaron and the seeming contradiction his suggestion had exposed.

“I guess I’m just honestly confused and wonder what you think,” she wrote in an email to her father in May 2021. “I’m supposed to submit to Aaron, he wants the kids to go to public school. … You think that’s a sin but it’s also a sin to not listen to your husband so which is it?”

[happyhoix]

I had a coworker years ago who disciplined his infant daughter by first saying’no’ loudly, then flicking her hand hard. By the time I met her, around 8 months old, she burst into tears when anyone around her said the word ‘no’. (I accidentally did it and set her off wailing).

They read some Christian parenting book that if you instill fear of punishment in them as babies they won’t disobey you - ever.

Always wondered what happened to her. She’d be an adult now

[Cheesy FL-Vol]

Jun 2, 2023 7:32:43 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I had a coworker years ago who disciplined his infant daughter by first saying’no’ loudly, then flicking her hand hard. By the time I met her, around 8 months old, she burst into tears when anyone around her said the word ‘no’. (I accidentally did it and set her off wailing).

They read some Christian parenting book that if you instill fear of punishment in them as babies they won’t disobey you - ever.

Always wondered what happened to her. She’d be an adult now

That is horrific!

These "christians" must believe Jesus was beating and reprimanding the children around him in order to ensure their good behavior.   

[Rukh O'Rorke]

Jun 2, 2023 7:32:43 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I had a coworker years ago who disciplined his infant daughter by first saying’no’ loudly, then flicking her hand hard. By the time I met her, around 8 months old, she burst into tears when anyone around her said the word ‘no’. (I accidentally did it and set her off wailing).

They read some Christian parenting book that if you instill fear of punishment in them as babies they won’t disobey you - ever.

Always wondered what happened to her. She’d be an adult now

what exactly could an infant to wrong?? ??


this is so abusive I can't even wrap my head around it.

[teen persuasion]

So they understand some parts of basic behavior modification, but they pick the worse way to do it (negative reinforcement instead of positive). And then they totally warp the whole thing by connecting the reinforcement to the wrong trigger!

That parent was conditioning the infant to fear the word NO, not "to behave".

The couple in the article talked about how the corporal punishment made them fear their parent(s), because of how the anticipation of a blow would feel.

Then there's the connection between the religious beliefs and family and punishment. If god is our heavenly father...

I think I'm beginning to understand why these conservative religious groups seem to espouse so much hate, which is the opposite of Jesus's teachings.

[Opti]

Jun 2, 2023 14:03:29 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

Jun 2, 2023 7:32:43 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I had a coworker years ago who disciplined his infant daughter by first saying’no’ loudly, then flicking her hand hard. By the time I met her, around 8 months old, she burst into tears when anyone around her said the word ‘no’. (I accidentally did it and set her off wailing).

They read some Christian parenting book that if you instill fear of punishment in them as babies they won’t disobey you - ever.

Always wondered what happened to her. She’d be an adult now

what exactly could an infant to wrong?? ??


this is so abusive I can't even wrap my head around it.

I can because I read enough about parents abusing infants and those under 12 months old decades ago. The key is to remember it is never ever about the child. It is always about the insecurity of the parents in these cases. They are so unable to regulate their emotions that they project everything out onto the other.

They can't say No to themselves, but they are more than happy to train up an infant to take and accept that No.
Not sure if I am explaining it well, but its a very narcissistic mindset. Its so far from Jesus and God to be an alternate universe. I think that's why they are so obsessed with the devil. 

[weltschmerz]

These idiots reject feminism and want to go back  to the way things were?
Then they shouldn't be allowed to vote or have their own credit cards or bank accounts.

[Cheesy FL-Vol]

Jun 2, 2023 17:00:32 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

These idiots reject feminism and want to go back  to the way things were?
Then they shouldn't be allowed to vote or have their own credit cards or bank accounts.

I suspect they aren’t allowed any of that.

[Opti]

Jun 2, 2023 17:36:46 GMT -5 Cheesy FL-Vol said:

Jun 2, 2023 17:00:32 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

These idiots reject feminism and want to go back  to the way things were?
Then they shouldn't be allowed to vote or have their own credit cards or bank accounts.

I suspect they aren’t allowed any of that.

Welts research the Duggars to get a feel of a kinder version of what these women are living. They have had no other world. Stop.
Its like you think they've had access to their own money or ever voted.

[weltschmerz]

Jun 2, 2023 17:41:08 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jun 2, 2023 17:36:46 GMT -5 Cheesy FL-Vol said:

I suspect they aren’t allowed any of that.

Welts research the Duggars to get a feel of a kinder version of what these women are living. They have had no other world. Stop.
Its like you think they've had access to their own money or ever voted.

Ugh. I'm quite familiar with the Duggars.

[Opti]

Happens in Canada and America, i.e. crazy ass religious cults started by crazy ass "leaders".


www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/sherwood-park-woman-word-of-life-tabernacle-1.6080424


Phipps and her husband, Peter Phipps, grew up attending the church. They met as children, got married when she was 19, and have had five children together.



Phipps said she and her husband were kicked out of the church in March 2018, after its leadership learned Peter had written a cheque without sufficient funds to cover it, in order to pay his employees before Christmas.



She said they were told they were no longer welcome as the Scripture said not to make fellowship with a wrongdoer.

It sounds YMish, but I think its really about control. Peter was now flagged in financial systems somewhere and his employees might have been aware of his in the red for now status. So he had to go, to not expose the cult leaders etc.


Now 29, Phipps spent the first 26 years of her life as a member of the Word of Life Tabernacle church in Sherwood Park, Alta., just outside Edmonton.

Children, she said, did not attend public or private schools; instead, they attended school on the church grounds. She said owning a TV, getting to know people from outside the community, visiting movie theatres and attending concerts were all off-limits.

[weltschmerz]

Cult in Quebec.

Over time, Thériault's punishments became increasingly extreme and violent, including making members break their own legs with sledgehammers, sit on lit stoves, shoot each other in the shoulders, and eat dead mice and feces. A follower would sometimes be asked to cut off another follower's toes with wire cutters to prove loyalty. The abuse extended to the cult's children, who were sexually abused, held over fires, or nailed to trees while other children threw stones at them. One of Thériault's wives left a newborn child, Eleazar Lavallée, outside to die in freezing temperatures to keep him away from the abuse.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roch_Th%C3%A9riault#Arrest_and_conviction

[djAdvocate]

this is a predictable outcome:  that traditional roles become fetishized when non-traditional roles become common.

[happyhoix]

Jun 2, 2023 7:56:18 GMT -5 Cheesy FL-Vol said:

Jun 2, 2023 7:32:43 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I had a coworker years ago who disciplined his infant daughter by first saying’no’ loudly, then flicking her hand hard. By the time I met her, around 8 months old, she burst into tears when anyone around her said the word ‘no’. (I accidentally did it and set her off wailing).

They read some Christian parenting book that if you instill fear of punishment in them as babies they won’t disobey you - ever.

Always wondered what happened to her. She’d be an adult now

That is horrific!

These "christians" must believe Jesus was beating and reprimanding the children around him in order to ensure their good behavior.   

The way my co worker explained it to me, parents are required to discipline their children to teach them to be completely obedient to their parents so that when they become adults they would be completely obedient to God - and it’s important to start as infants because the older they get the harder it is to train them.

[Opti]

Jun 2, 2023 18:52:57 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is a predictable outcome:  that traditional roles become fetishized when non-traditional roles become common.

In exploring a rabbit hole I found this comment to a book author -


Believe it or not – women also contribute to marital issues. I believe and have seen evidence that a good majority of women have bought, at least partially, into the feminist world view. Mostly this will mean that their husband will come last in the priorities of life.

I hate when men use a false belief about fenimism to complain about *their own issues in their own marriage*. Especially if they are whining because they belief the biblical man is the head of the household thing means to them that the wife always puts him first but he does not have the similar obligation because he was designed as a man this round so ... ( )

Feminism does not say put your man last.
The bible really does not mean that the wife puts the husbands needs first above all else.

[djAdvocate]

this is precisely how the aggrieved privileged see things.

their loss of privilege- their equality with others- means that they are last (when in fact, they are also first, using the same analysis)

[teen persuasion]

Jun 2, 2023 22:58:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is precisely how the aggrieved privileged see things.

their loss of privilege- their equality with others- means that they are last (when in fact, they are also first, using the same analysis)

 Ok, so they are against equality (of women, blacks/other non-whites, LGBTQ+, the poor, immigrants, etc) because their value system revolves around being FIRST. If they are not first, then they by definition join are demoted to the lesser group - there is only hierarchy.  Elevating someone else to be equal to me, lowers me - in their eyes.

I have to figure out how their minds work, to make sense of the things they say/do. There's obviously some sort of formula (can't say logic, because it doesn't follow logic rules), but it's not at all intuitive to my logic. I think that's the biggest problem right now with the divisions between groups - we are using common English words, but parsing them differently based on POV.  We literally are speaking differently coded languages.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 3, 2023 14:22:10 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

Jun 2, 2023 22:58:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is precisely how the aggrieved privileged see things.

their loss of privilege- their equality with others- means that they are last (when in fact, they are also first, using the same analysis)

 Ok, so they are against equality (of women, blacks/other non-whites, LGBTQ+, the poor, immigrants, etc) because their value system revolves around being FIRST. If they are not first, then they by definition join are demoted to the lesser group - there is only hierarchy.  Elevating someone else to be equal to me, lowers me - in their eyes.

I have to figure out how their minds work, to make sense of the things they say/do. There's obviously some sort of formula (can't say logic, because it doesn't follow logic rules), but it's not at all intuitive to my logic. I think that's the biggest problem right now with the divisions between groups - we are using common English words, but parsing them differently based on POV.  We literally are speaking differently coded languages.

yes.  the basic idea is that white people, particularly white men, fear equality- because that means depriving them of the advantages they have had for centuries.  it is sometimes called "loss of status".  

if you boil it down to it's raw essence, white men have had an advantage in the US that dates back to colonial times.  owing to this advantage, they have not had to work as hard as women and non-whites to achieve things.  HALF of where the resentment comes from having to work harder.  the OTHER half comes from not being given advantage as a birthright.  the second half has a racist element to it.  the former is just pure lazy.

[haapai]

Jun 1, 2023 22:02:01 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

Saw a Washington Post story yesterday (gift article, non paywalled) about Christian homeschoolers revolting and sending their kids to *gasp* public school. 

I'm not sure how well the gift article link works since I subscribe to the WaPo.  But the article linked is worth reading (or listening to) multiple times.  It takes amazing courage and clarity of thought to break from what you have been raised to believe. 

Personally, I think that the Bealls only managed to pull it off because

• They had absolutely bucked the odds against them and achieved the financial success that made them independent of their parents and their church family. 
  
• Arron balked at chastising his kids.  This is important.  A lot of people in manipulative relationships will continue to take the pain and nonsense until it comes time for them to inflict the same on others. 
  
• The path that they were being asked to follow just didn't make sense.  Out-numbering the others through reproducing more sounds like a great strategy but it just doesn't work out that well when you have one self-educated person supporting six others.  There's not much left for education after doing that.  Without education, you're not headed for political and cultural power.  You're probably headed for poverty and lousy choices.
  

I may be wrong about how and why they rebelled, but my hat is still off to them. 

[Opti]

Jun 3, 2023 15:05:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 3, 2023 14:22:10 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

 Ok, so they are against equality (of women, blacks/other non-whites, LGBTQ+, the poor, immigrants, etc) because their value system revolves around being FIRST. If they are not first, then they by definition join are demoted to the lesser group - there is only hierarchy.  Elevating someone else to be equal to me, lowers me - in their eyes.

I have to figure out how their minds work, to make sense of the things they say/do. There's obviously some sort of formula (can't say logic, because it doesn't follow logic rules), but it's not at all intuitive to my logic. I think that's the biggest problem right now with the divisions between groups - we are using common English words, but parsing them differently based on POV.  We literally are speaking differently coded languages.

yes.  the basic idea is that white people, particularly white men, fear equality- because that means depriving them of the advantages they have had for centuries.  it is sometimes called "loss of status".  

if you boil it down to it's raw essence, white men have had an advantage in the US that dates back to colonial times.  owing to this advantage, they have not had to work as hard as women and non-whites to achieve things.  HALF of where the resentment comes from having to work harder.  the OTHER half comes from not being given advantage as a birthright.  the second half has a racist element to it.  the former is just pure lazy.

I would like to use the modifier insecure. Some insecure white men and some insecure white women want to stay on top of the food chain because they fear and expect they will not measure up. MO. And like the woman who gave false testimony on Till which got him killed, they are either ashamed of their weakness and say nothing or even worse, they enjoy stomping on their projected lessors. The latter to me is evil. And by stomping I mean killing, physically and mentally assualting , and severely stacking the deck against other human beings that aren't part of their conservative skin color of choice club. (Cuz this crap happens in many societies not just America, England etc. Almost a way of life in India and certain other countries.)

[happyhoix]

Jun 3, 2023 15:05:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 3, 2023 14:22:10 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

 Ok, so they are against equality (of women, blacks/other non-whites, LGBTQ+, the poor, immigrants, etc) because their value system revolves around being FIRST. If they are not first, then they by definition join are demoted to the lesser group - there is only hierarchy.  Elevating someone else to be equal to me, lowers me - in their eyes.

I have to figure out how their minds work, to make sense of the things they say/do. There's obviously some sort of formula (can't say logic, because it doesn't follow logic rules), but it's not at all intuitive to my logic. I think that's the biggest problem right now with the divisions between groups - we are using common English words, but parsing them differently based on POV.  We literally are speaking differently coded languages.

yes.  the basic idea is that white people, particularly white men, fear equality- because that means depriving them of the advantages they have had for centuries.  it is sometimes called "loss of status".  

if you boil it down to it's raw essence, white men have had an advantage in the US that dates back to colonial times.  owing to this advantage, they have not had to work as hard as women and non-whites to achieve things.  HALF of where the resentment comes from having to work harder.  the OTHER half comes from not being given advantage as a birthright.  the second half has a racist element to it.  the former is just pure lazy.

An important element to this is how this gets tied in with religion. White men arrived at the savage North American continent and ultimately seized control of it, forcing the natives and enslaved people into second class citizen roles because God created whites in His image, so whites are the only ones capable of running things. The non white should be grateful they are allowed to live in this great country, and that they had the opportunity to be converted to Christianity and not damned to hell. And of course, Eve was born from Adams’ rib, so a woman claiming equality with men is being sacrilegious. 

So any push back against whites running things isn’t just anti - white, to the subset of white people that believe it. It’s literally going against God’s will. 

I remember a GF who, years ago, packed up her crap and left her husband, and as she drove out of the driveway he came running out of the house in his boxers, waving a Bible at her and yelling that leaving him was going against the will of God and he would punish her for it.  GF said he had never stepped foot into a church since their wedding, and she was amazed he had a Bible and knew where it was in the house. This guy never paid her child support for their three kids, only taking jobs where he got paid under the table so she couldn’t garnish his wages, always insisting she didn’t deserve it because she sinned by divorcing him. Even when he remarried and had another set of kids. 

[Knee Deep in Water Chloe]

Jun 2, 2023 17:54:41 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Jun 2, 2023 17:41:08 GMT -5 Opti said:

Welts research the Duggars to get a feel of a kinder version of what these women are living. They have had no other world. Stop.
Its like you think they've had access to their own money or ever voted.

Ugh. I'm quite familiar with the Duggars.

Some of the older, now adult children are figuring out that the way they were raised was extreme and that they don't have to live that way. Actually, not only that they don't have to live that way but that they won't burn in hell for not living that way. 

[Knee Deep in Water Chloe]

Jun 3, 2023 15:05:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 3, 2023 14:22:10 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

 Ok, so they are against equality (of women, blacks/other non-whites, LGBTQ+, the poor, immigrants, etc) because their value system revolves around being FIRST. If they are not first, then they by definition join are demoted to the lesser group - there is only hierarchy.  Elevating someone else to be equal to me, lowers me - in their eyes.

I have to figure out how their minds work, to make sense of the things they say/do. There's obviously some sort of formula (can't say logic, because it doesn't follow logic rules), but it's not at all intuitive to my logic. I think that's the biggest problem right now with the divisions between groups - we are using common English words, but parsing them differently based on POV.  We literally are speaking differently coded languages.

yes.  the basic idea is that white people, particularly white men, fear equality- because that means depriving them of the advantages they have had for centuries.  it is sometimes called "loss of status".  

if you boil it down to it's raw essence, white men have had an advantage in the US that dates back to colonial times.  owing to this advantage, they have not had to work as hard as women and non-whites to achieve things.  HALF of where the resentment comes from having to work harder.  the OTHER half comes from not being given advantage as a birthright.  the second half has a racist element to it.  the former is just pure lazy.

Just for discussion's sake.
(I am not in anyway including race or sexuality in this facet of the discourse. "Owning" another human being should have been obviously immoral.)

I'm not sure it's actual laziness so much as privilege. I do think there's a difference. 
I do think lots/most of/probably majority (I have no citation nor am I going to look for one) of white males did/do work hard.
Their scale for hard work is just not as wide as people of different races, genders, or sexualities.

So, if my scale (as a white middle class female) for hard work is 1 to 15, to earn X,

and a white middle class male is told his scale of hard work is 1 to 10 to earn X and he does 10

but doesn't he realize my scale is 15 and I did 15: 

He did work hard; he just didn't realize I had to work harder. 

It's taken centuries to turn get him to realize that I have to work to a level 15 to get what he got at a level 10. 
I don't think that makes him inherently lazy. 

[billisonboard]

Jun 4, 2023 9:24:32 GMT -5 Knee Deep in Water Chloe said:

Jun 3, 2023 15:05:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yes.  the basic idea is that white people, particularly white men, fear equality- because that means depriving them of the advantages they have had for centuries.  it is sometimes called "loss of status".  

if you boil it down to it's raw essence, white men have had an advantage in the US that dates back to colonial times.  owing to this advantage, they have not had to work as hard as women and non-whites to achieve things.  HALF of where the resentment comes from having to work harder.  the OTHER half comes from not being given advantage as a birthright.  the second half has a racist element to it.  the former is just pure lazy.

Just for discussion's sake.
(I am not in anyway including race or sexuality in this facet of the discourse. "Owning" another human being should have been obviously immoral.)

I'm not sure it's actual laziness so much as privilege. I do think there's a difference. 
I do think lots/most of/probably majority (I have no citation nor am I going to look for one) of white males did/do work hard.
Their scale for hard work is just not as wide as people of different races, genders, or sexualities.

So, if my scale (as a white middle class female) for hard work is 1 to 15, to earn X,

and a white middle class male is told his scale of hard work is 1 to 10 to earn X and he does 10

but doesn't he realize my scale is 15 and I did 15: 

He did work hard; he just didn't realize I had to work harder. 

It's taken centuries to turn get him to realize that I have to work to a level 15 to get what he got at a level 10. 
I don't think that makes him inherently lazy. 

I generally agree while seeing it somewhat differently. Would love to work with instead of against to get to a shared vision.

I don't think that working "hard" can be in isolation. It is a part of a full package of that, skills, attitudes, etc.

Playing off the above, I think for a man to get and hold a job earning X, he had to be a full package 10. A women (or person of color) had to be a 15. This is being challenged and to some degree changing. Men are being forced to compete not just against 15's but 14-10's as well. This really impacts their ability to get better jobs. Their options are to improve their overall level, accept a lower position, or strike out against the change. I think this is where laziness comes into play. But it could be other factors which prevent increasing their overall level (e.g. health issues).

[Opti]

Jun 4, 2023 8:40:51 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jun 3, 2023 15:05:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yes.  the basic idea is that white people, particularly white men, fear equality- because that means depriving them of the advantages they have had for centuries.  it is sometimes called "loss of status".  

if you boil it down to it's raw essence, white men have had an advantage in the US that dates back to colonial times.  owing to this advantage, they have not had to work as hard as women and non-whites to achieve things.  HALF of where the resentment comes from having to work harder.  the OTHER half comes from not being given advantage as a birthright.  the second half has a racist element to it.  the former is just pure lazy.

An important element to this is how this gets tied in with religion. White men arrived at the savage North American continent and ultimately seized control of it, forcing the natives and enslaved people into second class citizen roles because God created whites in His image, so whites are the only ones capable of running things. The non white should be grateful they are allowed to live in this great country, and that they had the opportunity to be converted to Christianity and not damned to hell. And of course, Eve was born from Adams’ rib, so a woman claiming equality with men is being sacrilegious. 

So any push back against whites running things isn’t just anti - white, to the subset of white people that believe it. It’s literally going against God’s will. 

I remember a GF who, years ago, packed up her crap and left her husband, and as she drove out of the driveway he came running out of the house in his boxers, waving a Bible at her and yelling that leaving him was going against the will of God and he would punish her for it.  GF said he had never stepped foot into a church since their wedding, and she was amazed he had a Bible and knew where it was in the house. This guy never paid her child support for their three kids, only taking jobs where he got paid under the table so she couldn’t garnish his wages, always insisting she didn’t deserve it because she sinned by divorcing him. Even when he remarried and had another set of kids. 

Christianity gets misused across the globe whether it is in America, Africa, England, Russia, etc. Misuse of religion or highlighting one aspect and ignoring ten others is not even just a bad Christian thing. It happens often in Islam and I would expect any religion that has more than a couple humans involved in it.

As a side note allegedly DeSantis signed a Bible. Why, IDK. Its not like he wrote it, follows it, or even knows most of what it says but I guess it was a prop much like to whomever gave it to him to sign.

The guy in the above story has most of it wrong. If he cheated on her and I think there is another exception, she is OK to divorce him at least according to Lutheran dogma. And the usual, its up to God to punish her not him a vengeful bad Christian man. Lastly he of course was going against the will of God by refusing to at least support his children. But I figure you know that, its just people like that make me angry and want to slap them into an alternate universe via a hardcover Bible.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 3, 2023 18:46:54 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jun 3, 2023 15:05:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yes.  the basic idea is that white people, particularly white men, fear equality- because that means depriving them of the advantages they have had for centuries.  it is sometimes called "loss of status".  

if you boil it down to it's raw essence, white men have had an advantage in the US that dates back to colonial times.  owing to this advantage, they have not had to work as hard as women and non-whites to achieve things.  HALF of where the resentment comes from having to work harder.  the OTHER half comes from not being given advantage as a birthright.  the second half has a racist element to it.  the former is just pure lazy.

I would like to use the modifier insecure. Some insecure white men and some insecure white women want to stay on top of the food chain because they fear and expect they will not measure up. MO. And like the woman who gave false testimony on Till which got him killed, they are either ashamed of their weakness and say nothing or even worse, they enjoy stomping on their projected lessors. The latter to me is evil. And by stomping I mean killing, physically and mentally assualting , and severely stacking the deck against other human beings that aren't part of their conservative skin color of choice club. (Cuz this crap happens in many societies not just America, England etc. Almost a way of life in India and certain other countries.)

sure.  i will grant that.  insecure, morbidly lazy, and privileged.  all those work.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 4, 2023 9:24:32 GMT -5 Knee Deep in Water Chloe said:

Jun 3, 2023 15:05:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yes.  the basic idea is that white people, particularly white men, fear equality- because that means depriving them of the advantages they have had for centuries.  it is sometimes called "loss of status".  

if you boil it down to it's raw essence, white men have had an advantage in the US that dates back to colonial times.  owing to this advantage, they have not had to work as hard as women and non-whites to achieve things.  HALF of where the resentment comes from having to work harder.  the OTHER half comes from not being given advantage as a birthright.  the second half has a racist element to it.  the former is just pure lazy.

Just for discussion's sake.
(I am not in anyway including race or sexuality in this facet of the discourse. "Owning" another human being should have been obviously immoral.)

I'm not sure it's actual laziness so much as privilege. . 

i actually said it was either/or (first half/second half above).
it could also be both.   witness Donald J Trump.