Anyway -- what I loved about Under The Banner of Heaven is that it just laid out all the bare facts about Mormonism -- and I mean crazy-go-nutty shit that stretches the boundaries of reason. But the whole point of the book is that Mormonism only seems like poorly written bible fanfiction because the religion started after the modern printing press was around. If Christianity got started around the time of Industrial Revolution, we'd all be able to acknowledge THAT IT'S A FUCKING METAPHOR.(Joesph Campbell is really the go-to guy on how to talk about Christianity as a powerful metaphor that somehow got taken literally somewhere along the way, if you're looking for good reading on that.)
Anyway, theology aside, Fundamentalist Mormonism (FLDS) but also plain ol'Mormonism, interests me because has some of the best out-there-for-all-to-see, gee-shucks, golly-willakers, patriarchy and good ol' woman hating. Twisty Faster, one of my favorite Radical Feminist bloggers, pins the tail on the head when it comes to male hegemony:
“Patriarchy isn’t some vague intellectual conceit invented by radical feminists to pass the time in between trips to the Birkenstock store. It’s an actual humanitarian crisis, and it has actual consequences, even for you, even if you say it doesn’t."
Don't believe me?
A. Shut the fuck up. No, really.
B. Observe the TOTAL SHIT STORM going down on the YFZ (Yearning for Zion) Ranch in Eldorado, Texas. A 16 year-old girl who was left at the "ranch" by her parents was "married" to a 49-year old man who repeatedly sexually assaulted her, beat the shit out of her and kept her pregnant, using her infant as blackmail, called for help on a borrowed cell phone, giving authorities a legal in to make a move . So far, 419 children have been removed, along with 139 women.
The girl who called for help told authorities that "church elders" threatened her that if she tried to escape,"outsiders would hurt her, force her to cut her hair and wear makeup and have sex with lots of men."
Cut her hair.
Wear makeup.
These women live in the dark ages -- and they're kept there by men who use religion, dogma, and sex as weapons. But don't worry! Merrill Jessop, who runs the Yearning For Zion "ranch" and is an Elder in the FLDS, "said that those at the ranch have no Internet or television access and have no way to know what has become of the removed children and women. He expressed concern for their well-being."
First off. Ranch? Look at this place:
Does that look like a ranch to you?
Secondly, I'm open to the fact that these raids are traumatic -- for the women and for the children certainly.
Going from a very strict family structure to a foster-system which will probably split up families and women who are used to relying on each other has to be discombobulating and upsetting. But... But there has to be a better life for women that than this, right?
I hope so.
A word about these photos:
They're taken from the Salt Lake Tribune
which always has a whole section of it's website for covering the FLDS and polygamy. I'm sure there's an argument to be made that these photos are intrusive, probably upsetting to the women and children, and as someone who knows how vulnerable you can feel when your photo is taken without your permission, I should know better.
5 comments:
Absolutely a connection: they are just different areas on the same spectrum.
And speaking of IBTP, there is a great discussion of the "giant baby" phenomenon on the forums:
http://easypersiflage.com/blameforum/index.php?topic=4377.0
It seems to me that we're talking about two separate issues here. In one situation, the patriarchy is represented by a powerful FatherLover that herds his women like cattle. In the other, the ManCub is the immature, under-formed dependent that siphons time and energy while not rewarding any investment made in him. Both scenarios are exploitative, but the power in each dynamic is seated in a different place.
In the former situation (en extremis in the ranch situation, but highly prevalent in most areas of American life to one degree or another), the power is generated by control of tangible assets: money, housing, children, access to information, you name it. This to my mind is the more insidious of the two, because the tools to dismantle the established institutions of power aren't apparent.
In the second situation, the power in most romantic or undefined personal relationships (this side of Utah) comes from less tangible assets, and to my mind is easier to understand and ultimately to change. If you are in a relationship with someone who is always taking things from you (support, be it emotional or financial, sexual satisfaction, time) without ever giving something back, usually (although it's important to note not always) you have the option of ending the relationship. The power someone holds over you in this situation is that there is something about their person or your inter-personal interaction that appeals to you and serves to counter-balance for their dependency or parasitism. It is perhaps not the greatest choice to be offered, between leading a solitary life and being in a relationship with someone who doesn't respect you, or doesn't reciprocate your efforts, but it is a significantly more empowered position to be in than these women in Texas have found themselves.
Let me also say that as a man who is fundamentally opposed to traditional institutions like marriage, I'd like to advise that we all be a little careful when tossing around the old "a man who doesn't give you the level of commitment that you want/expect is necessarily immature/in need of fixing." While I will be the first to admit that there are many, many men out there for whom this paradigm is accurate, it certainly is not so for all of us, and the facility with which this cultural archetype is invoked sometimes makes me a little crazy.
Sorry for rambling.
I know that that altruism (a fear of commitment equals immaturity) is too simple, and also, gets your goat.
I'm not talking about marriage. So let's just take that out of the running. If someone doesn't believe in marriage, like yourself, then that's a stance on a tradition, an institution. That isn't a stance on commitment. One can be totally open to committing to another person, and want nothing to do with marriage.
The "mancub" dynamic of manchild and motherlover is more something I fear in myself because I know it's my own responsibility that is too blame for mistaking dependency for intimacy, and like you point out, I have the agency to end that "relationship" -- whereas these the women caught up in a situation like that in El Dorado, don't.
They're really, really not the same thing in terms of realities lived -- I have independence, agency, access, whereas they obviously don't. (Any comparison of me knowingly dating a jackass, and those women living as indentured servants would be ridiculous and jackassy of myself.)
I think what I got interested in is the "size of patriarchy" -- in the FLDS, it's obvious in that the FatherLover treats women like cattle, the women live sublives, etc. And as you say, in my own more immediate, personal interaction with patriarchy, the power dynamic becomes more complicated -- in part because I empower the patriarchy by wanting to fulfill it's requirements -- I want the validation of knowing I've satisfied all the requirements asked of me, etc.
Not to detract from the serious issues and analysis being raised on this page, but I wanted to share my new favorite story about man-children:
Today as I was driving home from work, I passed two men whiling away their time stuck in traffic by trying to get some geese to eat a urinal cake.
The end.
Damn. And here I thought I'd get to come home from work and enjoy a good headache. Oh well, thinking is better anyway, and it reminds me of various things like a college class, a book Ursula wrote that I keep forgetting to finish, the school I wanted to go to but couldn't, and the people who didn't understand why I wanted to go to such a place instead of the places they thought I should want to go to.
There is unbelievable pressure on men also to be a Man, in all of the stupid glory. It is a system that traps everyone, because everyone is in it. Dealing with it daily just reminds me of the ways I don't fit the mold, and I'm ok with that, it's a mold I don't want to fit. I hate the stupid disgusting stuff that is supposed to be "funny", I'm tired of the endless, grind everyone into the dirt competition and making everything into a competition even when it is totally inappropriate to do so. I just want to tell them bluntly to grow up, and one of the nightmares that wakes me up at night is that they might not be capable of it.
The sad thing is that the system is so ingrained into society that is is hard for people to conceive of a different world, or even a different system; it has a ton of mental inertia for most people. Even getting the idea that such a world might be better than what they know is bloody difficult for most people, much less actually changing how they interact with everyone else, especially when they begin to realize the myriad less obvious ways that the system is intertwined into the web of society. I don't know that we could see such a sea change in our lifetimes, but one can hope. In the meantime, working on it bit by bit keeps one sane in an insane world.
Post a Comment