Of masculinity & abusive breeding grounds.

Masculinity

I’ve been offline quite a lot the past week. It’s been a busy time at work and in my personal life as well. So I didn’t hear about the recent tragedy in Isla Vista until late Saturday evening, and the more I learn about it, the more sobering it is. Hännah Ettinger captures my feelings rather perfectly in her post from yesterday:

Yesterday’s shooting didn’t leave me as shaken as it should have, like other shooting that happened have. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Aurora. Those haunt me in their very senselessness. The mystery of why. They’re unforgettable because the motives are unknowable.

Yesterday’s shooting made perfect sense

Dianna Anderson further expounds upon it in her essay “On Purity Culture, Violence Against Women, and Disbelief As Patriarchy:”

Men grow up in a culture that simultaneously tells them that “getting the girl” is some manly men do and that manhood is inextricably tied with violent acts. The Men’s Rights Movement, in its extremes, has developed a methodology of treating women as objects who exist either to give men sex or to undermine their deserved right to sex, children, and power. Being an “Alpha Male,” in Men’s Rights terminology, means being the manliest of men – which requires using women for sex, being the provider of the household, and asserting your rightful place at the top.

I’ve often commented to myself, when I read the work of complementarian ministers, especially those talking about manhood, that they sound like MRA’s. Especially in studying purity culture for my forthcoming book, I’ve come across biblical exegesis that sounds very like Men’s Rights discussion simply bathed in “biblical” justification. Owen Strachan’s famous post about “man fails,” for example, could easily be a post on the Men’s Rights subreddit.

In this drive to prove themselves as manly men, women become collateral damage. Three women die each day as the result of domestic violence [PDF]. Many more end up in emergency rooms. Some end up on the news, the victims of men they had rejected previously. This is not an isolated phenomenon. This pattern of violence is the result of a culture that says that only valuable thing about a woman is what she can do for men.

And “Biblical” evangelicals do not escape from this culture. Women in the purity movement serve as vessels for Christian children, as objects that must keep themselves pure for a father, a husband, and a specifically male God. There is no escaping the ways in which evangelical theology defines women solely by their relationships to men, objectifying them first as single women whose worth is determined by their sexual activity and then as wives, whose goodness as wives is determined by whether or not they can keep their virile, manly husband from “straying.”

I can’t help but see what Dianna noted here reflected in the assemblies.

Continue reading

Call for input & entries.

“When you have this motley group of many denominations, this independent environment, and then this distortion of scripture, that’s an environment where abuse can flourish.”  ~Boz Tchividjian

Regarding my absence.

As you can clearly see, I haven’t been nearly as active over here as I initially anticipated. This is due in part to lacking the time needed to regularly update and in part to dealing with a particularly rough season with depression and anxiety. I’m working through things as best as I can, and part of that has looked like a continual meditation on what I want to do with this blog.

Clearly, it’s still very much in its infancy. I’ve been trying to figure out how to go about writing about the movement, my experiences within the movement, and dissecting the problems inherent in the system.

As I’ve said before, I started PBD because as I made my way out and began searching for critical examinations of the open assemblies, I was unable to find any. So I’m trying to create the space that I wanted when I was questioning.

Clarified direction for the blog.

A friend rightly pointed out to me that so far on the blog, I’ve alluded several times to the abusive nature of the Plymouth Brethren without taking the time to establish that they are, in fact, an abusive group. So I’ve been trying to outline why I think they are abusive, then build on the bullet points later in the blog.

And that’s where you come in.

Call for participation.

I want to establish that the ideas, beliefs, and practices in the assemblies are either directly abusive or demonstrably conducive to an abusive environment. So for things like biblical literalism, inerrancy and infallibility, I need to be able to back up that those things are harmful. I think I’m set for things like the dangers of the particularly sexist structure of the movement, but the more theologically-specific problems are things I need more help with since I have never personally tried to find a Christianity outside of the Plymouth Brethren version.

I don’t want this blog to exist in a Dani-sized vacuum. My experiences are not universal. I want to foster a community for the many of us who have left the movement, whether to find a Christianity worth keeping or not. I want to bring light to the darkness that hides far too well in the assemblies, not because we have a vendetta against them but because manipulation and coercion and abuse cannot be addressed, dealt with, and healed from until they are seen for what they are.

The following list is just the beginning of my outline and is thus incomplete. I’ll be updating it as I’m able, but I want your input. Scripture you remember being used to enforce strict authoritarianism, practices you recognize that create environments ripe for abuse and cover-up, patterns you’ve noticed that are damaging. While I am doing a lot of thinking and researching and talking to people, any help or insight you have (former PB or not) is so deeply appreciated! You can add your thoughts in the comments here, or if you’d prefer to talk one on one, you can contact me privately.

Continue reading