Any Elders comments on latest idea about Sisters

by truthlover 51 Replies latest jw friends

  • truthlover

    Along with Timothy there was also 1 Cor 11:3

  • Bobcat

    Numbers chapter 30 shows how Israel understood the 'headship principle' by means of a discussion on vows.

    A husband could annul his wife's vow.

    A father could annul his unmarried daughter's vow.

    But a widow's vows stood on her own choice to make them.

    Her father, the priests, the community elders, etc were unable to annul her vows. Her decisions stood just like any male's.

    This illustrates the gist of the 'headship principle' that Paul would have understood. Of course, a woman (or anyone else for that matter) would have to obey (in relative terms) a priest or other community or national leader. But this did not make that one a 'head' over the woman in the sense that a father or husband was.

    The Society views all baptized males as having headship over females. Thus, a grown sister is supposed to wear a headcovering if her baptized 12 year old son goes on a Bible study with her (and she conducts). And I've seen papertowels and other 'junk' being used - anything as long as the head was covered.

    This is funny because in Paul's day, a woman who went outside without a head covering was basically announcing herself as available. If she was married this sort of conduct would be shameful to the husband or father. (Something comparable in our day, in some areas, might for a woman to be bra-less.) Yet, that same husband in Paul's day would be equally shamed if he found out his grown wife was acting submissively to a child.

    In Paul's day, many of the congregations would meet in a house where a woman would not normally wear a head covering. Yet the meeting was a 'public' occasion, with outsiders - that is others besides a man's family. So it had the 'air' of being in the open public. Thus, Paul's instructions about head-coverings fit that social context.

    In many places today head coverings don't have the same social meaning they had then. Often it is just decoration, or a bad hair day. Meaningless otherwise. The principle of headship remains the same, but the meaning of head coverings not. As usual, the Society exagerates everything way out of proportion and produces a myriad of rules that would be the envy of any Pharisee.

    A lot of this originates with the GB in Brooklyn who used to say that tipping a hat to a woman was an act of giving to much prominence to another human. Yet they have no problem calling themselves "the faithful slave."

  • Billy the Ex-Bethelite
    Billy the Ex-Bethelite

    If an 8 year-old baptized boy is in a field service group of older sisters, guess who is supposed to be in charge?

  • flipper

    The WT Society treats women and children like pieces of $hit. Even $hit gets treated better. At least it gets wiped off into the toilet. I hate the fact I was ever raised in this organization from birth until I finally exited almost 10 years ago in my early 40's. I never treated women or children in a controlling way even as a JW. WT leaders have a lot to answer for being the evil, patriarchal, chauvanistic bastards that they are. I'm so glad I escaped that organization. Peace out, mr. Flipper

  • MrFreeze

    I hate the way the WT (and other religions) view women. Like they are 3/4 of an actual person or something. I never really paid attention to the wedding talks until my mom got married to my stepdad. Pretty much says "know your role".

  • Chariklo

    I have heard that.

    More than that, I had it said to my face by two elders, and also by the elderette pioneer sister who was indoctrinating me.

    That goes for widows, mature divorced women, single sisters....everyone born of the wrong gender without a husband, no matter what that husband does.

    A woman is lower than the youngest boy. Lower than her sons. And unless she knows her place and submits she might as well walk out.

    I have had it said to me by people from other congregations that the local congregation here is unusually strict and reactionary, but in actual fact I think they tell the truth of the WT as it is.

    It's an ugly truth.

  • designs

    Maybe foot binding will make a comeback

  • Broken Promises
    Broken Promises

    You don't have to deal with this crap when you leave this stupid religion.

  • 00DAD

    Listen, Obey and Be Blessed!

  • Mr. Falcon
    Mr. Falcon

    The sad thing is that lots of JW children (including myself) were raised and indoctrinated into this sexist and mysoginist religious culture of Jehovah's Witnesses. And were taught that this "was just the way it is." We were never taught to question the fairness of the treatment of women in this religion. We simply "accepted it". And what's even sadder is that the people indoctrinating us were themselves not really bad people; they were folks who just accepted this arrangement too.

    Oh, the Watchtower literature always attempted to "honor" women in their wording, calling them "compliments" and "helpers" to men. Hell, even lowly women were selected to be among the Annointed!

    But when you unplug yourself mentally from the machine, you see that to the WTBS, you women are just baby-incubating Watchtower magazine dispensers. You're all too dumb to think for yourself, so you must always consult your superior male head, because after all, it was MAN that was made in God's image. If someone rapes you, well, shucks, your rapist can pay your Dad 50 bucks and marry you. Husband beats you? Too bad, maybe you should respect him better and you might be able to "win him over without a word."

    Fack you, Watchtower.

Share this