12.08.2008

The Right to Subjugate as You See Fit

Part of the feminist movement has brought to light a grave concern they have for women in marriages. This break-away group claims that fundamentalist Christian marriages subjugate and demean women, by claiming that men must be the head of household. They point out the more extreme version of this, like the Quiverfull groups who do not allow the wives to make any household decisions, decisions regarding their personal body during pregnancy or the ability to use birth control, or the right to work outside of the home as a continuation of woman abuses held over from older days.

The feminists claim that the only way to stop this type of subjugation of women is to curtail the right to marry for people in fundamentalist Christian religions to others in the same religion, fearing that not only will the women be brainwashed and abused, but that the children of these families will grow up thinking inequality and the demeaning of women where normal and acceptable behaviors.

When asked if they felt this was an attack on rights, they answered:

"They choose to belong to religions that preach this, they made that choice for themselves. And it's not like they can't get married, they just have to marry someone from outside the belief to prevent abusive behavior from becoming acceptable to society, and teaching children that this is OK. We have to protect the sanctity of womenhood."


Although the group and their cause is still rather small, they say they're gathering momentum and hope to put forth a proposition to ban fundamentalist marriages that demean women in the next four years.


In case you were wondering, I made this up. It's just one example I can think of off the top of my head that pertains to the precedent set, and the behaviors encouraged by the force of Prop 8 et al on citizens who are simply living their lives as they see fit.

I wonder how other groups would feel if all of a sudden their way of life was put under a microscope, deemed illegitimate and therefore lacking in equal rights?

**For the record, the Quiverfull sect of fundamental Christianity does, in fact, exist and espouse the virtues of family as I listed above.

15 comments:

Pentad said...

Exactly!!!!

Anok said...

Ha, I'm glad someone got it - I was worried for a minute there :D

roadgurl5 said...

I was quickly forming an opinion on your plot, all the while thinking, "Wow, how freaky!" If people would only put themselves in the shoes of others, maybe they would see the ridiculousness of these kinds of restrictions.

Houseonahill said...

Great point!

Kyt Dotson said...

"Not simply gay rights: human rights."

People who make the bad decision to frame things such as Prop 8 as if it were about the spread of ideas should really take their foots out of their collective mouths. Controlling what boils down to a contract because of what also then boils down to freedom and speech and association is an abomination to liberty.

Thou cannot defend marriage by prohibiting it.

The "protect marriage" bill here in Arizona had huge backing. Giant signs. Thousands of them. Millions of dollars poured into political advertisement. The outcome? Marriage is diminished by the passage of a bill touting to protect it.

I feel like I'm being rhetorical here; but I just cannot frame the sense of injustice that burns in my veins when I realized how many of those signs had been spilled into our streets. How loud the voices of money had shouted at my eyes every day. And on an issue that should be so obvious.

How about some of these giant spenders do something about educating our people. Enlightening the states. Walking with us into the brilliant future where we belong.

David said...

Sounds a bit like one of the sub-plots on last night's Boston Legal.

Christine Vyrnon said...

I don't think I can trust myself to say anything about this post... without getting my panties in a bunch... other than... thank you for writing this! I know you're making it up, and I know you're not making it up... i'm afraid the ideas of "quiverfull" are all too familiar to me... and I must not get started.

Anok said...

I'm sorry I haven't responded - I was side tracked :D

Raodgurl - I laughed when I read your response, that was the kind of reaction I was looking for :D

HouseonaHill - Thank you!

Kyt - Wow! Yes, and yes, and yes.

And yes. You stated it beautifully.

David - LOL!

Christine - please, vent away if you feel you need to. I don't mind, honest. Yes, my post was facetious in content, but it wasn't totally pulled out of nothing, either. Please contribute if you would like to!

Silly Swedish Skier Says So said...

I work for social services and I have been fortunate to work with really great families who just need help getting a handle on life. That said, during training I honestly have had a tough time when faced with what to do with a family who reacts with anger to their child coming out. I'm so liberal that I want to change their value system, but that's not really my job. Its tough. We all think our values are right and best.

Sebastyne said...

What an excellent way of putting it. I was thinking to myself reading that who would ever go for that... But to be honest, I would support that bill over the one really in question...

BTW, I have tagged you to a meme. I don't know if you do them, but there you have it anyway. *you've been served*

JD from Hoeno said...

You know, I wonder how many atheists and agnostics pushed to ban gay marriage. I'm guessing close to 0%. As far as I'm concerned, this is complete mixture of religion and politics. This is not what freedom looks like. Of course people should vote as they wish but this should not have been a vote to begin with. It was motivated by supposed religious ideals, not the ideals of freedom. The government solidified the position of the religious right on this matter and I don't believe they had the right to do it. As a side note for anyone else who read her post-I also hope Melissa Etheridge doesn't pay her taxes...

Anok said...

Silly Swedish Skier - yes, I agree. Although as a social worker, don't you have some control over how parent's treat their children? I mean, if it was abusive you'd have to report it? Obviously, having a hard time, and being abusive are two different things, but I'm sure there is a line.

Sebastyne, thanks - sometimes i do meme's, sometimes not. I'll have to pop on over for a visit :)

JD - what an interesting concept - with holding state taxes until the state decides to equally represent all of it's constituents. I think you've hit on something there....

timethief said...

Well written. I could fill an entire blog with my personal experiences in the evangelical Christian fundamentalist cult prior to my escape but I'd rather not. I know whereof I speak when I say this is a dangerous force of power and control freaks who are intent on driving a wedge into American politics, and that the thin edge of the wedge has already penetrated your governance far more deeply that most recognize.

Anonymous said...

It seems brilliant idea to me is

Anonymous said...

I will not approve on it. I assume precise post. Especially the designation attracted me to be familiar with the whole story.