Latest Awake hypocritically bemoans women being assaulted by partners

by cedars 11 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  cedars

  Hi everyone

  I just thought you might be interested in the opening remarks of the August 2012 Awake!, which has as its headline theme "Will violence ever end?"

  Page 3 opens with the following statement:

  "WHO has not been affected by violence? We see it constantly in news reports. We fear it on the streets and at work, and children face it from bullies at school. Even at home, where people usually feel secure behind locked doors, millions—especially women—feel unsafe. In fact, depending on the country, up to 70 percent of women report that they have been assaulted by an intimate partner." (g2012 August, p.3)

  Of course, this is a far cry from the notorious "Selma and Steve" experience printed only months earlier in the February 15th 2012 Study Edition, which appeared to excuse domestic violence if a believing wife fails to sufficiently show christian love to her unbelieving husband...

  “Selma recalls a lesson she learned from the Witness who studied with her. ‘On one particular day,’ says Selma, ‘I didn’t want to have a Bible study. The night before, Steve had hit me as I had tried to prove a point, and I was feeling sad and sorry for myself. After I told the sister what had happened and how I felt, she asked me to read 1 Corinthians 13:4-7. As I did, I began to reason, ‘Steve never does any of these loving things for me.’ But the sister made me think differently by asking, ‘How many of those acts of love do you show toward your husband?’ My answer was, ‘None, for he is so difficult to live with.’ The sister softly said, ‘Selma, who is trying to be a Christian here? You or Steve?’ Realizing that I needed to adjust my thinking, I prayed to Jehovah to help me be more loving toward Steve. Slowly, things started to change.’ After 17 years, Steve accepted the truth.” (w2012 February 15th, p29)

  The hypocrisy here is breath-taking. The Society are happy to denounce domestic violence in one magazine article, but sympathize with it elsewhere under certain circumstances.

  Many of you will already have read my thoughts on the Society's doctrinal stance towards domestic violence, which I consider highly damaging. For those who have not yet read my article "Won Without A Word - At What Cost?", the link is below:

  http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/won-without-a-word-at-what-cost

  (As always, if you haven't yet had a chance to participate in the JW 2012 survey, please do so!)

  Cedars
• 

  cantleave

  Wow! -The differentiation between the public rags and the kool-aid versions is becoming more and more marked!
• 

  cedars

  Thanks cantleave - it is extraordinary how "double tongued" the Society can be between its public and members-only literature.

  Cedars
• 

  blondie

  I agree that the WTS approaches subjects very differently in the Awake which is for the public as opposed to the Study WT for only jws.
• 

  Glander

  I suppose the two articles could have been written for the two audiences as Blondie said. That would be pretty cunning.

  I think it is a case of the WT spiritual food sausage machine turning out so much gooblygook that they can't keep it straight.
• 

  nugget

  In the Awake magazine it is interesting that although they refer to domestic violence they make no suggestion regarding getting out of the dangerous situation they merely report that it occurs. In the earlier study article they make the inference that by staying in an abusive relationship things will get better. So there is not disconnect between the two that would cause uncertainty in the flock. A worldly person will read it thinking the society is condemnatory of violence in the home and would support the wife leaving. Witnesses will read it thinking domestic violence is regretable and some brothers and sisters are enduring it in the hopes of winning their spouse by their fine conduct. They cleverly allow the reader to make assumptions about how the organisation views how to handle abusive relationships.

  Unless you see the two articles together you could make assumptions that are incorrect, this is bait and switch.
• 

  cedars

  I've also just noticed the use of the term "intimate partner" instead of "husband". Maybe the Society is now okay with couples "living in sin" when it comes to quoting the statistics gleaned from such ones for the purpose of their articles? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it seems they're trying to create a false impression of doctrinal leniency with regard to living out of wedlock, perhaps to suck more recruits in. The Society of old would never have tolerated such sloppiness.

  Cedars
• 

  AK MCGRATH

  When I saw, "intimate partner", I thought they were speaking about the GLBT community. But then I came to my senses and thought, they don't give a shit about any GLBT people. They'd murder us if they could, I am sure of it. Course, they dont really give a crap about anyone that isn't one of the elite, either.
• 

  designs

  They must hope the public never reads both mags together.
• 

  WTWizard

  One story for the public, one for those already trapped inside. And of course, the more damaging version is for those already inside.