UK charity "Refuge" gives response to WT article on domestic abuse

by cedars 43 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  soft+gentle

  that was very well put cedars and i have no problem with this as you have included lots of caveats. jehovahs witnesses themselves will obviously draw only the best inferences in addition to the explicit message of the article which is Happiness is Possible in a Divided Household. But I agree that the WTS need to say something in the article about violence (of any kind - even if it is only once) being unacceptable.

  If the newspapers take up your story and decide to publish and if they want a comment from a JW woman who has seen both sides amongst Jehovahs witnesses I would gladly try to share my own mixed view.
• 

  cedars

  Hello soft+gentle - thank you for your comment. I am glad that you have noticed that my article contains many "caveats" that ackowledge the views and observations of people like yourself. I still maintain that, whilst YOU are adamant that you have taken only positive inferences from the experience, many will not (and indeed, have not). As I explain in my article, this is the nineteenth time that the Society has portrayed a scenario in which a wife "wins over" her husband by enduring his violent abuse. When you consider that this is actually a pattern of damaging advice, and not merely a one-off event, you start to realise that there is more to this than meets the eye. The Society's approach to domestic abuse is heavily influenced by the Governing Body's over-estimation of the importance of preserving the marital bond, even at the expense of human life.

  If these experiences are so harmless, then you would find many abusive wives who are encouraged by elders to get out of an abusive relationship for the sake of their well-being, or at the very least to always seek outside assistance. That is NOT what I have found when looking into this subject, and many are coming forward (or have already come forward) with stories of how they have been given very negative treatment by their elders as a direct result of the backwards approach of the Society in relation to domestic abuse.

  Cedars
• 

  Room 215

  " The Society's approach to domestic abuse is directly linked with its approach to divorce, and the sanctity of marriage. Put simply, the Society is more interested in preserving the sanctity of marriage than they are in preserving human life."

  May I suggest also that this approach is a variant of their policies on child molestation; it's another instance whereby the WT seeks to shield the sociological problems ("dirty laundry") of their flock from the gaze of the general public and away from the courts in yet another bid to prop up their claims of being the "happiest people on earth."

  Kudos to you Cedars; nice going.
• 

  cedars

  Hi Room 215 - thanks for your comments.

  I'm not entirely sure there IS a doctrinal link between the Society's approach to child molestation and the issues surrounding domestic abuse, in the same way as there is a definite link between domestic abuse and the sanctity of marriage/divorce. As far as I know the key doctrinal issue that causes so many problems with child molestation is the "two witness" rule - which the Governing Body rigidly applies to all cases of wrongdoing, including chid abuse - which by its very nature is almost never perpetrated in the presence of a witness (or witnesses). This 'loophole' has been highlighted for years now, most notably by the tireless work of Barbara Anderson (who I greatly admire). However, again it seems that the Society are taking a stubborn and mysogynistic stance on this 'loophole' being brought to their attention, because they evidently don't want to be seen as having been reprimanded by a woman. As with domestic abuse, the key losers in all of this are the victims themselves - all because (as you say) the Society are more concerned about their 'image' than protecting their flock.

  Cedars
• 

  Roski

  I had a conversation with a CO a few years ago (the only CO I ever found to be a lateral thinker).

  He told me (as part of our conversation re my separation from my ex husband) about a woman in a smaller city (in Victoria I think) that he had visited in hospital who had survived being stabbed numerous times by her unbelieving husband. He told me that the local elders had told her she had to return to her husband, but he told them that was insanity - a woman doesn't have to die for 'the truth'.

  I wonder what would have happened to her had he not been there at the time.
• 

  AndersonsInfo

  In the early 1990s, Awake! editor, Harry Peloyan, told me that from henceforth at that time no more would there be testimonies from JW women at assemblies or life stories in the magazines about women who stayed with their abusive husbands and saw by their "good conduct" that in time he converted. The reason: Too many women were terribly injured by staying in abusive relationships hoping maybe their husbands would convert too if they put up with his abuse.

  Peloyan said that the Society had settled quite a number of lawsuits out-of-court when victims of domestic abuse or family members of the victims sued Watch Tower because the elders counseled them to go back to an abusive husband and the women were badly injured. For instance, one woman's legs were broken and another almost died at the hands of her husband. Peloyan also said that it was Watch Tower's policy from then on that elders were not to tell women in domestic abuse situations that they can't leave their husbands or tell those who left their husbands to return home and "try to be a better wife."

  But that was nearly twenty years ago and Peloyan as well as other more sensible men have no more clout due to age-related infirmities or have died, and the new administration, including one member of the GB who beat up his former wife (please don't ask me his name), no longer adhere to these policies.

  Barbara
• 

  Mickey mouse

  including one member of the GB who beat up his former wife (please don't ask me his name)
• 

  soft+gentle

  cedars, thanks for taking on board views like mine but one does not need to be a witness to express such views. Much of what I say nowadays stems from immersing myself in critical thinking during this my final year at university - at the moment most of it goes over my head so please bear with me and I welcome dissenting argument.

  I agree that witnesses privilige the sanctity of marriage over life and that the society is misogynistic and naive in how they apply their principles. But from what I have seen most of the truly horrorifying cases of domestic abuse are not recent - by recent I mean in the last 10 years. It seems to me that nowadays couples do call the police and separation is encouraged. Within the congregation both parties are given help and strong counsel where needed. Once the police are involved and if there are children, social services also get involved. I'm really glad about the outside help victims and their children are given.

  What I don't agree with is that couples are still then actively encouraged to try to repair their marriage. Elders want to see couples doing this even after there has been severe violence. This is the advice that comes directly from the GB and some elders take this to extremes in their naive obedience to the GB.
• 

  cedars

  Barbara - thank so much for your insight into this subject. I was interested to hear your take on things. It is fascinating that at least one senior figure at the Watch Tower raised warning flags 20 years ago that the Society was on a wrong course with this issue, but that this person was arrogantly ignored. Peloyan's words to you recognize the fact that there are an inordinate number of experiences depicting the "happily ever after" scenario of spousal abuse in Watchtower literature, and related from convention platforms. It is such a shame that Peloyan's moderating influence is no longer felt. Although the latest material on domestic violence helps to highlight the fact that the Society could not possibly be God's channel, it also potentially puts women in harm's way - and it is for this reason that I genuinely wish it had not been published.

  Roski - you experience is similar to Barbara's, namely your meeting a senior figure who could see the damaging effect that the Society's approach to domestic abuse was having on women. It's such a shame that, in their arrogance, the Governing Body refuses to listen to such individuals.

  soft+gentle - whilst I commend you for your expressed attempts to embrace lateral thinking, I am still a bit confused (and frankly saddened) by your comments, particularly comments like this:

  But from what I have seen most of the truly horrorifying cases of domestic abuse are not recent - by recent I mean in the last 10 years. It seems to me that nowadays couples do call the police and separation is encouraged.

  How could you possibly know the above? Do you have regular interractions with every body of elders around the globe? Do you hold some lofty position within the Society (with oversight of these matters) that I am unaware of? It would really help if you could limit your comments on such a sensitive subject to those that are based on facts rather than sweeping generalizations that you cannot possibly substantiate. Excuse my blunt reaction to your comment, but given the severity of the topic, I think a bit more discretion is called for.

  Cedars
• 

  soft+gentle

  cedars please first apply your reasoning to yourself before you apply it to me. My conclusions are based on experiences shared here on JWN and on my own intereactions within Jehovahs witnesess as a group. Unless you can provide concrete proof to rebut my conclusions I intend to continue to question your conclusions.

  this subject can quickly lead to hysteria and to be quite honest you do sometimes sound quite hystercial yourself as in your recent thread OP "I'm doing more research into domestic violence as part of a response to the notorious "wife beating" article in the Feb 2012 Watchtower".

  Sometimes you sound as naive as JW elders themselves.