Slim, the offenders believed that if they appealed to my writing partner, he would scold me and make me change my text. That's sexist thinking. It's typical of a certain class of Witness male.
I wish all Witness men were like this ...
by vienne 20 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
vienne
-
Vidiot
Vienne - "I wish all Witness men were like this..."
The WTS doesn't really want men like that, IMO.
-
cofty
That's sexist thinking. It's typical of a certain class of Witness male
It is indeed. The word 'subjection' is central to their ideas about relationships between men and women. In reality they don't just apply it between husband and wife. I wonder if it takes born-in wives some time to get over that indoctrination. Might be a useful thread?
-
neat blue dog
By putting your name out there you could be disfellowshipped at any time. Are you okay with that?
-
vienne
N. Blue,
If you mean me, I would be hard to disfellowship since I'm not and never have been a Witness.
-
slimboyfat
The reason JWs are complaining to Bruce Schulz, who is a baptised JW, about your blog posts is because you have been somewhat critical of Watchtower. They are appealing to him as a JW to maintain orthodoxy, rather that to him as a man to silence a woman. But I guess it is easier to defend against phantom misogyny than it is to tackle head on the complicated (but interesting and important) issues involved in a baptised JW conducting such a project with non-baptised person with some critical views of Watchtower. I guess one way to deal with the tensions involved in that collaboration is to pretend they don’t exist and to label any JW who complains about the blog a misogynist, but I suggest that is not the most productive way of handling the situation.
-
cofty
Who are you to tell Vienne what the motivations are of complainants you have never met and whose emails you have never read?
-
slimboyfat
Bruce himself wrote:
Some Witnesses fear what others may write. They do not like even mild criticism.
That seems like best explanation for the complaints from JWs. And the reason they contacted Bruce is because he is a JW and he controls the blog.
If there was any good evidence of misogyny then it’s strange that neither Bruce nor Rachael have quoted a single comment to that effect. They seem to be relying on the idea that any complaint to Bruce about Rachael is in itself misogyny. But it seems rather obvious that if a JW is disturbed about comments on the blog then they are going to complain to the owner of the blog who is a fellow JW, rather than to someone who is not the owner, not a JW, and the source of the critical comments in the first place.
Gender is a red herring, and a convenient way of avoiding facing the real issue here: that a collaboration between a JW and a non-JW probably involves some compromises that will not please everyone. That they are seem presently unwilling to address this issue without weaponising gender as a diversion hardly inspires confidence.
-
cofty
SBF - Your arrogance is astonishing.
What is your motive for trying to discredit the authors of the blog?
-
slimboyfat
What is astonishing? Rachel offered her view about recent events on her blog, and I am offering a perspective on those events that I hope will be helpful.
What we know is that JWs have complained that Rachel is too critical of Watchtower in recent posts and that they made this complaint to Bruce who is a JW and the owner of the blog. Those are the facts.
Rachel and Bruce have claimed that these comments were motivated by misogyny. We have been provided with zero evidence for this claim other than the fact that Rachel is a woman and the people complaining are men. Other explanations why they complained to Bruce (that he is the owner of the blog and a fellow JW) are not even entertained.
Instead of engaging in a psychological characterisation of the JWs who complained about the blog, wouldn’t it be more fruitful in any case for Rachel and Bruce to actually respond to the substance of the concerns?
These JWs are no doubt concerned that this history blog has veered into offeringing criticisms of Watchtower that they find unpalatable. They probably wish to pressure Bruce to remove criticisms of Watchtower and maintain support for the “truth”.
I enjoy the truth history blog and I think Bruce and Rachel have done excellent work. I have read both of their books (have you?) and most of their blog, and I look forward to the next volume.
I think their work could only be improved by a more frank and open discussion of the difficulties and complexities of a baptised JW working with a non-JW who has some critical views of Watchtower. How it works and how they settle any differences.
As someone who is very familiar with their work and has followed it for years, I think it should be useful to tell Rachel that I don’t find this “misogyny” label on any JWs who have concerns about her blog either convincing or enlightening. What Rachel does with that feedback is up to her.