Hi there Island Woman

by Julie 36 Replies latest jw friends

  • Julie
    Julie

    Greetings Island Woman,

    I see you had some words for me at the time I took a short sabbatical from this board. Thought I'd address a few of your thoughts.

    :Ignorance comes in many forms. One of them is lack of experience. Experience cannot be replaced. A man cannot know what it feels to be a woman and of course the same goes for a woman she cannot fully understand what it feels to be a man.

    While this is true there are experiences that are universal. Oppression can be one, so can abuse. Self-righteousness is not limited to any particular faction or region of the world and neither is self-absorption. Apparently you were ignorant of this.

    :Just as a woman who has never given birth, who has never carried a child to term, has never experienced the pushing forth of a child from her innermost parts, felt the head push forth, felt the shoulders emerge and then the rush of the little body follow; she also cannot "know" what the words "child birth pains" mean.

    Well I have had two babies by c-section, having coached my best friend through a regular delivery probably did a mind over matter thing and decided "ain't no way I am *ever* doing that). Do you think my experience counts as "giving birth" or do I only get like half-points on this???

    :So it is with people who have never walked the walk, have never made the commitment to get baptized and live as a JW. They can never really understand the feeling of trust betrayed. They just did not experience the same thing we did. They cannot really understand.

    I see. So no one other than JWs have had to fear that their every move may be scrutinized or misconstured as something to be reprimanded for? Only JWs know what it is like to suffer such psychological abuse? Puh-leeeezzee!!!!! I could write a book about it. I guess that is more of the ignorance you were referring to, inadvertantly about yourself it seems.

    :Julie, you cannot IMO understand. You can NEVER know what it really felt like. Being a Bible Study, going to meetings etc., is not the same as being one of this little group of people who were willing to give up everything. You did not join, you did not walk the walk.

    While it is true I never joined the cult, I did do the studies for 18 months, every week. It was these studies that made me realize what a mind-control sack of shit this religion was. I was especially disturbed to see when a "respected" elder would come to one of my studies and saw my good friend act so differently when he was there (like a used car salesman his pitch was too btw--really obvious to me).

    But honey let me tell you something. It is not only JWs who wake up one day to see that they are living in a hell that they alone have the power to end. No friend, I too have had the realization that I have let myself be subjected to more psychological abuse than any human should accept and it was me alone who mustered the courage somehow to stand up and say Fuck This, I am better than this and I refuse to stand here and take this anymore.

    So if you don't like that I criticize some former elder or JW for whatever characteristic, tough shit. None of your experiences are limited to your wretched cult that you escaped and furthermore, and most importantly so all your little pals who thought you wrote such a great post should pay attention here, none of the characteristics of the assholes in ANY organization are EXCLUSIVE to that organization. It's called the human experience. Get over it honey. You got a patent on nothing here.

    :You are an outsider in that respect. It is like race or nationality; it is much more palatable if a chicano criticizes his own people than if an outsider does. Why? Because he knows his people and his people know that likely he loves them as his own. Therefore what he has to say is out of love for HIS people.

    Dear, I think you were offended when I ROFLed at Amazing's praise to certain posters *especially Ginny's objectivity*. Ginny knows full well why I did an ROFL at that and Amazing probably doesn't but will after he talks to Ginny. Perhaps I may know things you do not Island Woman, things others would rather you didn't know. Things that have certainly changed (lowered) my opinion of one I once held in high esteem (and no it wasn't Amazing). Objective my eye.....

    :It's like me going to an xCatholic discussion board, sure I can sympathize but no way in hell can I be critical of anyone, who am I to criticize them!

    Your analogy is ridiculous and about as deep as the rest of your post. I always feel sorry when your sort wanders from the wading pool. Distressed in a motherly sort of way you might say, though I am not sure I qualify for the mother thing as I didn't do it the "old fashioned way".

    Julie

  • GinnyTosken
    GinnyTosken

    Julie,

    Dear, I think you were offended when I ROFLed at Amazing's praise to certain posters *especially Ginny's objectivity*. Ginny knows full well why I did an ROFL at that and Amazing probably doesn't but will after he talks to Ginny. Perhaps I may know things you do not Island Woman, things others would rather you didn't know. Things that have certainly changed (lowered) my opinion of one I once held in high esteem (and no it wasn't Amazing). Objective my eye.....
    If you feel I have been a hypocrite, please call me out on it directly and publicly, Julie. I have nothing to hide. Even while I was defending Amazing, he knew that I also had the impression that he was egotistical and dogmatic, especially after my exchange with him shortly after the terrorist attacks in September.

    I also know that my impressions can be wrong, based as they are on limited information from a discussion board. I can see the other side, too, as I thought was demonstrated in the "Farewell to All" thread.

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=18663&site=3&page=4

    Most human beings I know have mixed and often conflicted motivations. Yes, I thought Amazing was egotistical. I also thought he was trying his best to do what he thought was right.

    I thought objectivity was all about letting the evidence speak for itself. You presented one side; I presented the other. People can decide for themselves what they want to believe about Amazing's character now.

    Ginny

  • Julie
    Julie

    Hi Ginny,

    :I thought objectivity was all about letting the evidence speak for itself. You presented one side; I presented the other. People can decide for themselves what they want to believe about Amazing's character now.

    By all means, yes Ginny, it was one good reason for waiting to address this with Island Woman. The storm has passed over ont his whole Amazing thing. I do want everyone to form their own opinion and regarding Amazing, since he has claimed to want to really learn and grow in his communication with others should likely be given a second chance by some who may have been put off by him before.

    I am sorry if I give the impression that *that* was what I wanted to bring into the light here, though mentioned, I was more concerned with pointing out the universal esperiences/feelings that are common to all and exclsuive to none. Pointing at the part regarding you was merely included to take a guess at why Island Woman must have said what she did to me.

    :If you feel I have been a hypocrite, please call me out on it directly and publicly, Julie. I have nothing to hide.

    I do not know really Ginny if you have been a hypocrite, perhaps a shade or two *hypocritical* let's say. Maybe I am wrong, let's see...

    :Even while I was defending Amazing,

    Oops! Wait a minute here now! I thought you were merely tryingto present an *objective* point of view. Was this an objective defense then? That was my view, that you were putting up a defense for him while claiming to be striving for objectivity. I think, could be wrong her, that "objective-defense" might be an oxy-moron here.

    :he knew that I also had the impression that he was egotistical and dogmatic, especially after my exchange with him shortly after the terrorist attacks in September.

    I think we all knew that. On the serious side of it though, it makes one wonder how you could suddenly have this passionate compulsion to defend, no, view objectively, the situation of this man, who you earlier believed to be "egotistical" and "dogmatic". It gets a little confusing keeping up.

    :I also know that my impressions can be wrong, based as they are on limited information from a discussion board. I can see the other side, too, as I thought was demonstrated in the "Farewell to All" thread.

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=18663&site=3&page=4

    Yes, I will take your word for it, didn't re-read thread, vaguely remember it. I am sure you are fully capable of admitting mistakes or misjudgments Ginny, I have long admired your writing, remember? It isn't because of dishonest, slimey operating.

    :Most human beings I know have mixed and often conflicted motivations. Yes, I thought Amazing was egotistical. I also thought he was trying his best to do what he thought was right.

    I thought he was trying his best to come out looking as good as possible but that was just my take as has been explained countless times before, forgive me for not providing links etc.

    Regarding Amazing, I truly believes he took the criticisms he got to heart. I would wager he would sincerely like to be the best person he can be and it is his posts on his religious view changing/realizations that lead me to believe this. We can all grow and change, that is one of the beautiful things about being human.

    My bottom line regarding you Ginny on this matter was I don't believe you were being as objective as you claimed and/or thought. You *were* defending Amazing but claiming otherwise, IMO. It surprised me to see you do that.

    But as my post to Island Woman states, no behavior is really exclusive to one people, and that includes doing things that surprise me, even those who haven't before (and that I don't expect to) can.

    Warm regards,
    Julie

  • GinnyTosken
    GinnyTosken

    Julie,

    :Even while I was defending Amazing,

    Oops! Wait a minute here now! I thought you were merely tryingto present an *objective* point of view. Was this an objective defense then? That was my view, that you were putting up a defense for him while claiming to be striving for objectivity. I think, could be wrong her, that "objective-defense" might be an oxy-moron here.

    I'd have to re-read the threads myself, but I don't think *I* ever claimed to be presenting an objective point of view. I offered my subjective impressions and interpretations of events. The hope is that if we hear evidence from more than one point of view, we'll be able to make a more objective decision than if we heard presentations that were either all damning or all praising.

    The impressions I offered were genuine. At the same time, I could understand why you had formed yours, and I could also see how later events could be interpreted as supporting your point of view. Still, on a discussion board we're deciding based on circumstantial evidence. Only Amazing knows his true motivations.

    I think we all knew that. On the serious side of it though, it makes one wonder how you could suddenly have this passionate compulsion to defend, no, view objectively, the situation of this man, who you earlier believed to be "egotistical" and "dogmatic". It gets a little confusing keeping up.
    If you, Amnesian, Teejay, or Tina had calmly pointed out specific examples of what you considered shoddy behavior on Amazing's part and asked him to answer for them, I probably would not have said a word. I jumped into this fray because I felt Amazing was the object of more than his fair share of harsh and mocking personal criticism.

    Amazing's style often reminds me of my father's. My father often comes across as condescending and dogmatic, but he thinks he is being firm, loving, and kind. I couldn't help but think of how I would feel if my father had been publicly shamed as Amazing was on this board. I thought of how I would feel had I been in Amazing's shoes. It's not easy to accept public criticism, especially when it is mocking and sarcastic and is coming from many people at once. I chose to speak up in defense of Amazing.

    :Most human beings I know have mixed and often conflicted motivations. Yes, I thought Amazing was egotistical. I also thought he was trying his best to do what he thought was right.

    I thought he was trying his best to come out looking as good as possible but that was just my take as has been explained countless times before, forgive me for not providing links etc.

    Time will tell. All of us reveal ourselves in our work. When assessing others, I try to beware of confirmation bias.

    Confirmation Bias
    http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html

    My bottom line regarding you Ginny on this matter was I don't believe you were being as objective as you claimed and/or thought. You *were* defending Amazing but claiming otherwise, IMO. It surprised me to see you do that.
    If you can show me where I claimed to be objective, I will humbly acknowledge and apologize for my mistake.

    A fair and objective discussion is one that presents as many possibilities and interpretations as possible. With Amazing it happened that my initial impressions were nearly opposite yours. I felt that your interpretations made as much sense as mine. Since only Amazing knows his motivations, I felt that this case was a matter of personal judgment. I chose to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    Ginny

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Hi Ginny: I thought about opening a separate thread to you because I don't want Julie to think I am hijecking her issue with IslandWoman. But then, again, maybe it is best stated here. So, I hope this will be okay. You noted:

    Even while I was defending Amazing, he knew that I also had the impression that he was egotistical and dogmatic, especially after my exchange with him shortly after the terrorist attacks in September.

    I couldn't recall the specific thread or exactly what we might have debated. But I think I found it: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=11723&site=3&page=1

    It is interesting to go back and read something that is several months old, now that my emotions have calmed. Yea, I can see where I came across as dogmatic back then, and along with that egotism is an easy conclusion to draw.

    In that thread, I was at the peak of my anger toward terrorists. back in 1979, when Iran took the 44 hostages during the Carter Presidency, I was still a true believing JW. When people at work spewed out anger and vilification toward Iran, I was trying to be calm and objective and instill the idea that only 10% of Persians agree with the Ayatollahs. At the same time, as much as I was trying to take that position, I was not free to vent my own sense of anger toward the religious nuts running Iran.

    When the war with Iraq started in 1991, I was in the middle of my exit process from the JWs, and really had mixed feelings ... I wanted even more to spew out vilification against Saddam Hussien, but still being 'officially' a JW, I had to be careful and restrain myself since a JW worked right next to me.

    Then the 9/11 attack happened there were no JW restraints on my views and feelings. No more requirements of having to put on a happy face. I let it all hang out. In the process, I tried to confine my angst against the terrorists. But, I admit that my emotions also vented dogamatism.

    One of my growth issues since leaving the JWs has been to become more open and assertive. The reason for this is that I was very shy and reluctant to voice my feelings and opinions most of my life ... and this restraint carried over into my JW years ... so when I had certain political views, I could not voice these as a JW. The years since leaving the religion, I have allowed myself more freedom to assertively state my views ... and as any person can, sometimes what seems like simple assertiveness to me, can and does come across as arrogance, or egotism, or dogamatism to others.

    In some of the "Assertiveness" training I have been through in recent years, I have been aware of the importance of setting a limit so that healthy assertiveness does not turn into arrogance and egotism. When the emotions get involved, this is a tough challenge to meet.

    The reasons I made the point to Julie about your "objectivity" is that during our discussions I saw your fairness, balance, and ability to see both sides. Looking back on the thread about the 9/11 events, your comments really expressed the same leve of objectivity, and your views match my own sentiments. But somehow, my emotions were running the show, and I could not seem to step back to a more fair position.

    Likewise, I see your same sense of fairness above in your points to Julie. I don't like coming across as egotistical, dogmatic or present other negative attributes. Few people like to come across negatively. The reason I can accept your observations and honesty is that you have the ability to help me see where I can improve without making me feel like shit. I wanted Julie to see this in you so that maybe she too could step back away from her own dogamatism, or at least what comes across to me as judgmentalism and arrogance, and see that maybe the reason she and I clashed is that it became more of a battle of two egos rather than a fair debate.

    My hat is off to you in high regard for your talent and abilities. Thanks again for bewing part of the process. You have helped me a great deal, and reminded me of my better side.

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Hi Julie: The following are taken from your comments to Ginny followed by my own:

    I thought objectivity was all about letting the evidence speak for itself. You presented one side; I presented the other. People can decide for themselves what they want to believe about Amazing's character now.
    Judging from on and off board comments, most hold the same opinion. This experience was very reassuring to me of the many good and valued friends I have made here.

    By all means, yes Ginny, it was one good reason for waiting to address this with Island Woman. The storm has passed over ont his whole Amazing thing.
    Sometimes that is wise. That is why I backed off and stepped away with a Farewell ... I needed to step away and recalibrate.

    I do want everyone to form their own opinion and regarding Amazing, since he has claimed to want to really learn and grow in his communication with others should likely be given a second chance by some who may have been put off by him before.
    I am put off by your self-righteousness. "Second Chance?" Do you ever think that you need to do some growing?

    I am sorry if I give the impression that *that* was what I wanted to bring into the light here, though mentioned, I was more concerned with pointing out the universal esperiences/feelings that are common to all and exclsuive to none. Pointing at the part regarding you was merely included to take a guess at why Island Woman must have said what she did to me.
    You are ducking the issues with IslandWoman. You seem to be addressing them, but you are playing the classic game of trying to rip into her illustrations and allow yourself to get off the hook. What is the hook? IslandWoman made it clear. You have never been a JW, no matter how many months you studied. Until you spend 10, 20, 30 or more years going door to door as a True Believer of the Watch Tower religion, you can never fully understand. As IslandWoman said, you have not walked the walk. You speak in platitudes about JWs not being the only ones to have this or that problem. No one denied that. But this still misses the point:

    Example: The JWs remarkably resemble the Mormons in organization, some beliefs, and practices. I can go onto the Mormon board and relate very well. I have studied Mormonism indepth and attended Mormon meetings. But no matter how much I claim to understand Mormons, I can never fully comprehend what a True believing Mormon thinks or feels. Recently, a young college student was referred to me because thge person is studying with the Mormons. As much as I can talk about Mormons, I went to the Mormon board to get help ... I want ex-Mormon input because they know best the nuances that drive Mormon thinking and feelings. This is the point that you seem to miss or by-pass that IslandWoman made so very well.

    Ginny: Even while I was defending Amazing, ... Julie, "Oops! Wait a minute here now! I thought you were merely tryingto present an *objective* point of view. Was this an objective defense then? That was my view, that you were putting up a defense for him while claiming to be striving for objectivity. I think, could be wrong her, that "objective-defense" might be an oxy-moron here.
    Ginny was not directly defending me or my views. She was defending against the lack of objectivity toward me. In otherwords, some used self-righteousness, egotism, arrogance, dogmatism, and a host of other qualities to attack me for those same qualities. Ginny saw the conflicting double standard and dealt with it defensively.

    Ginny :he knew that I also had the impression that he was egotistical and dogmatic, especially after my exchange with him shortly after the terrorist attacks in September.

    Julie: "I think we all knew that. On the serious side of it though, ..."

    My greatest error was taking you and Amnesian seriously. I admit I was dense on that for a time. Stepping back, I realized that this was not a serious attack. The avalanche of email I received made it clear that the issues you raised against me were no serious or credible.

    "... it makes one wonder how you could suddenly have this passionate compulsion to defend, no, view objectively, the situation of this man, who you earlier believed to be "egotistical" and "dogmatic". It gets a little confusing keeping up.
    Precisely because Ginny is objective, fair, honest, educated, reasonable she is able to stay off the high horse and take a balanced look at people ... even the likies of little old eveil me.

    Julie "I thought he [Amazing] was trying his best to come out looking as good as possible but that was just my take as has been explained countless times before, forgive me for not providing links etc.
    I was not sure what I wanted. My goal was not to look good, but to try and understand where all the angst came from. I feel that I settled this in my final thread to Amnesian.

    Julie "Regarding Amazing, I truly believes he took the criticisms he got to heart. I would wager he would sincerely like to be the best person he can be and it is his posts on his religious view changing/realizations that lead me to believe this. We can all grow and change, that is one of the beautiful things about being human.
    What I took to heart is not that I am egotistical or dogmatic. No, that is not me to feel or think in such ways. What I did discover, though, is that certain words and phrases can be taken by others, given their own unique "state-of-mine", to mean almost anything. This was not so much a new discovery, as much as another serious reminder. What I now find interesting is how you sit back like a Queen of Judges talking about my growth, when you fail to see the need for your own lack of growth. Ms Julie, the All-American Leader of Experience has now determined that Amazing needs to grow, or has grown, or will grow. You really need to get off of your high horse.

    My bottom line regarding you Ginny on this matter was I don't believe you were being as objective as you claimed and/or thought. You *were* defending Amazing but claiming otherwise, IMO. It surprised me to see you do that.
    No, again, you fail to see that Ginny was defending against imbalance and unfairness. She objectively noted what she feels how I presented myself, and stated so honestly, but without nailing my ass to the cross over it. It takes great objectivity to be able to tell one party how you feel about certain negagtive impressions of them, and also to defend against unfairness toward that same person.

    In reviewing Ginny's short debate with me regarding the 9/11 terrorism attacks, I saw that same balacne she was trying to achieve with me. I admit that I was under the spell of my own emotions during the first few weeks after 9/11. And in that situation, my words and style likely reflected dogamatism because I was pissed at the terrorists and wanted them to melt in hell. But, I am feeling much better now.

    "But as my post to Island Woman states, no behavior is really exclusive to one people, and that includes doing things that surprise me, even those who haven't before (and that I don't expect to) can."
    True, no behavior is exclusive to one people. But in the context of what those people went through, only they can best understand what it was, and how it affected them. That is the point IslandWoman stated so well. Just as being persecuted is not exclusive to the Jews, yet only those Jews who survived the Nazi Concentration camps fully understand their specific set of experiences. No amount of high horse talk by onlookers can ever fully relate.

    Likewise, JWs are not the only cult, and ex-JWs are not the only ex-cult people in the world. But only ex-JWs who have "walked the Walk" as IslandWoman stated can fully relate.

  • Valentine
    Valentine

    well Amazing,
    How convenient of you to dismiss all of Julies salient points by simply dismissing them as,she never was a JW,so couldn't possibly have a good understanding.....blah blah'.
    That makes about as much sense as somebody saying your cardiologist can't understand his heart patients unless he's had a heart attack lol.Quite the facile and weasely one aren't you? lololol But we know where you learned that technique.

    Sorry,As you crow and kiss ass of so-called objectivity,of which I saw little of. Fact is,some of us see what we see,all the excusogetics as to why it 'seemed' that way doesn't erase it.Ego admiration needs are easily spotted,don't have to have a cult background to see these.Just an awareness of them.

    Nothing has or will change my mind that you have certain ego needs once addressed by your position in the WTS,that show thru here loud and clear.

    As for all who wrote you,that was very nice I'm sure. Too bad your sense of self seems to need that to feel 'right' about yourself and much of what you write,and how it is presented. Ever consider what those who didn't write you may think?

    A secure individual doesn't need a cheering section. They will be comfortable with themselves,ideas . They will plod along w/o the ego massages to express individual thought.

    This is all I have to say.You presented your opinion.I present mine. I find it a waste of time to argue such shenannigans like yours. Have a good day/life.
    Tina,finding bloated egos continually boring and loathesome.Now waiting for the ex elder homies to jump in lol.Still a good old boys club at times here.

    Todays Affirmation:
    The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working.

  • Mindchild
    Mindchild

    I was wondering why the weather has been so warm again....

    ....yet another flame war in the works!

    Okay, ignore this go back to pushing each others buttons. You know you guys just can't resist.

    Skipper

  • Valentine
    Valentine

    Mind,Why do you feel it's incumbant on you to define our opinions so pejoritively? Have you been designated board police whilst I was away?If this is how you see it,why make your crack? You add to it by such a comment.T

    Todays Affirmation:
    The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working.

  • Mindchild
    Mindchild

    Valentine asked:

    Mind,Why do you feel it's incumbant on you to define our opinions so pejoritively? Have you been designated board police whilst I was away?If this is how you see it,why make your crack? You add to it by such a comment.
    I'm glad you asked that question. You and others may feel that this is just a personal matter but as it is on a public discussion board that is used also as an online community, flame wars effect all of us. They make many people depressed even though they have no direct part of it. Yes, you can soon learn to ignore different threads but that doesn't keep others from talking about it all the time in chat or seeing people to the point of tears because of how vicious these wars get sometimes.

    I think if people want to fight with each other, do it privately by email instead of having mud fights in public.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't mind people having disagreements and fighting for their opinions. Sometimes when we argue it is in the heat of passion and we step over the line trying to make our points. There is a difference between that though and a name calling match.

    If you guys want to debate things, please try to be civil to each other. There are times when it might be necessary to come down hard on someone who is really trying to hurt someone, but is it always the case?

    Anyway, that is my two cents worth. My reason for interjecting this comment in the first place is to let you know a lot of us are sick and tired of the fighting on here. Again, it is your choice how you do it and if you do it but I would appreciate it if you did it in the outhouse.

    Skipper

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit