15 8

Why do women allow these ministers to quote the bible stating that they are inferior to men and that they should support their men and be good housewifes.

I just read where many ministers especially in the south are counselling women who are experiencing domestic violence to go home and submit to their husbands wishes. These are women who came to them with even broken limbs from past beatings.They assume that the women deserved these beatings in some way.These ministers should be placed in jail.

Marine 8 May 1

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


I'm fucked if I know. woman are at least our equals as far as I'm concerned.


"Allow" implies consent!!!!!!! FEAR and the realization that No help will be forthcoming is what keeps a woman in this situation...and further, if she resorts to self-help, like trying to kill the bastard, one of 2 things will happen: if she fails to kill him, he can then most likely kill her with impunity, leaving her children to be raised by him & the family that formed him...or she will "simply" receive many, many more beatings as a result of her attempt. OR, she will succeed in killing him, and spend her life in jail, leaving her children in the loving care of the family that formed him.
When I was a 19 year old battered wife in Alabama, this is how it went: cops called by neighbors, not because they cared, because of the noise. Cops enter....obviously drunken hubby, baby screaming, me bleeding, glasses smashed, furniture awry. Cop: "now honey, try to get along with him a little better"
To him: "kinda keep it down, okay?" Exeunt. Now I get another whole beating, plus another one later in the week, solely on account of the cops came and interrupted his perogative.
The only reason I got out was, he made the error of beating me when I had the grocery money for the monthly shopping trip to the big city. And I left when he left for work...years later I read that highly-paid "researchers" had determined that leaving is the Most dangerous time as it is a direct challenge to their power and authority. Yeah, no kidding. The reason they did the research is because they did not believe us, the victims, when we told them that, for years we were just perceived as "weak", asshats, we were scared to death. Literally!
Tracy Thurman's successful lawsuit changed a lot!
This all happened to me 50 years ago...I still flinch at a sudden movement in my vicinity, my horrible nightmares of him killing my entire family only ended after his death. Every time apply make up I see/feel the scars around my left eye....never stops reminding me.
Imagine if I had had a person who tells me gawd loves me also telling me I should stay!


With agency comes responsibility. Some people don't want the latter, so they give up the former.

Laying all the responsibility and all the blame on people who are basically suffering from stockholm syndrome AND in very real danger when they try to leave is both callous and unrealistic .

@Blindbird I said "some", and I meant it. People from all walks of life cede agency every day, in every conceivable way: to religion, to the American two-party political system, to the college-career-white-picket-fence-2.5-kids dream, etc. In any population you will find a fraction of people willing to trade the liberty of agency for security of not being responsible for their own actions. No population is immune.

I did not mean to present an axiomatic explanation for the entire phenomenon; I simply illuminated this fraction of the calculus. I don't know how big it is--maybe not very--but I refuse to believe it's 0%.

@stinkeye_a "believe" is the operating word there. You are basing your ideas about the world on your own biases and not the facts as they are. Arent we better than that? Is that not the point of being atheist/agnostic, to function according to what IS rather than our irrational wishes and beliefs?

@Blindbird So, are you saying people don't cede agency? Are you saying there are populations that are 100% immune from this phenomenon? I think that would be an "irrational belief".

People cede agency. It happens. I don't "believe" that--I see it. Every day. I understand doing so is an innate human phenomenon. Nothing irrational about that.

From what I have observed of the penetration and distribution of this phenomenon, I cannot "believe" that any population is wholly immune from it. I say "believe" because I am not a psychologist, sociologist, or statistician, and therefore unlikely to conduct such research myself--and have (as of yet) not sought out studies to back my claims. I "believe" what I am saying because I have reasoned it intuitively through oberservation and analysis, and cannot (yet) cite any measured, recorded data. That is not irrational. That is layman's prerogative. I stand behind my observations, my analysis, and my carefully considered use of the word "believe".

I brought this up in the first place because it's a) it's a counterpoint to the 90% "brainwashing, psychological abuse" answers that I knew everyone else in this thread would offer, and I like to offer something different--preferrably contrarian--if and when I can; and b) this particular situation provides what I believe makes for an interesting lens to focus the ceding agency phenomenon.

And, I'm glad I brought it up, because now--in response to your comment--I have the opportunity to say c) whitewashing and canonizing victims doesn't help them. It erodes honest, unflinchingly critical dialogue, which is what is needed.

Brainwashed or not, Stockholm syndrome or not, some of these women are fully, vociferously complicit in their psychosocial bondage. That is the piece that interests me. I suspect some are glad they don't have to make decisions for themselves, and thus cling to the established order--in much the same way that many people vote for their party's candidate without a thought, rather than look into the issues and platforms themselves.

I'm talking about a fraction--because it's there, because it's an interesting counterpoint to the larger phenomenon at play in this discussion, and because it's a fascinating psychological case study in its own right.

@stinkeye_a cetainly some cede agency but where do you get the authority or knowledge to decide that it is somehow "voluntary" despite a lifetime of brainwashing? Again I see you offering no facts, no evidence ,simply assertions that because you WANT reality to work a certain way, it must.

I understand that the idea that our thoughts, actions and volition are not entirely(arguably mostly not) products of our will but have been shaped for us by circumstance is alarming and abhorent to many. The FACTS, however point to that being the case.

Furthermore you see people answering that victims of domestic violence are brainwashed, because.they.are. it is an integral part of the system that makes domestic violence possible. Your irritation with the same answers makes as much sense as being angry that everyone answers "2" when you ask what 1+1 is.

By all means believe what you will. Don't ask others to join you in your baseless beliefs and expect to be called out when your lack of understanding makes life unnecessarily difficult for others.

Ignorance is ignorance is ignorance and no one will ever learn anything by making baseless assertions and defending them loudly.

As a battered woman who got herself out on her own, I cannot help but find your comment Extremely demeaning and condescending!

@AnneWimsey I certainly understand, however I feel no responsibility for your identification with that statement. I made a very general statement about agency and responsibility; I respect your freedom to interpret it as you wish, and I'll thank you to attrtibute responsibility for your interpretation accordingly.

@Blindbird You have brought the heat and the noise. I have have brought even-keeled, dispassionate objectivity and a commitment to rigorous intellectual honesty in a highly emotionally-charged area.

I said "some", you supplied "all"; I made a general statement about an observable phenomenon (with any specific language directing at the population in question!), you supplied "blame"; I supplied mentioning a counterpoint to the discussion at hand, you supplied "irritation with facts"; I cooly defended myself to your floridly imaginative misinterpretations/misrepresentstions of my position; you supplied "asking others to join"; I have refrained from ad hominems and general unpleasantness, kept my tone neutral and my discussion focused on the issues, you have...not so much.

Nowhere did I say "blame the victims." Nowhere did I say "don't take victims seriously, don't have compassion for them.". Nowhere did I say "most" victims of psychological abuse are complicit in their oppression, or even "many". I said some people will give up agency because they don't want responsibility.

This has a place in the discussion. Not on the front page, and not taking up a majority of the time. I'm not a "callous" moron: I wouldn't make such a statement in a support group for victims of such abuse. But in a randomly-initiated discussion thread on a website for a community of people (ostensibly) devoted to logic and reason? You're damn straight I'm going to point out a contrasting facet that enriches the entire picture, in a spirit of intellectual honesty and rigor..

If that makes me a villain, so be it. I'd rather be such a villain than an echo-chamber patsy. Glossing over (or completely ignoring) contrasting details at the margins of an issue is not only a intellectually lazy and dishonest, it can be downright dangerous.


Or better yet, someone should beat the daylights out of the ministers who made such ignorant statements. Beat em' like a damn pinata, and tell them it was the will of their god to have them beaten like that, and see what they say afterwards.


The rule of thumb


The good news I feel it's that..."the times, they are a changin'".

A majority of the youth today don't hold any of the same antiquated, archaic views of their dipshit parents.


They been conditioned since birth to be submissive. Adding to that are the church teachings. Finally, fear of losing their family, church friends, jobs, kids, and possibly their life if they try to leave. They may have no emotional, physical,or monetary support.

CS60 Level 7 May 1, 2018

Because they've been raised in a society that indoctrinates them to put up with abuse - this is true of men too, who are indoctrinated to put up with abuse from more powerful men... and that is why ending the patriarchy will benefit us all.

Jnei Level 8 May 1, 2018

Because they've been emotionally abused for years or decades.


Women are indoctrinated from day one to be submissive, know their place, get married, have babies, never contradict her husband, and take whatever he hands out. I was raised in a fundamentalist christian family, and although, I have several family members with good marriages, and, for the most part are nearly equal partners, when it comes down to it, men are the head of the family, no matter what.


Christian fundamentalists are not completely uniform here but there's a general tendency to teach a concept that they share with Islam and Judaism called "complementarianism". This states that men and women have different, complimentary roles. Also, there is a hierarchical structure, with men under god, women under men, children under their parents. In their belief-system, this is how authority flows from god to various members of the family unit.

This is highly compatible with patriarchal notions obviously; in this system, men are accountable only to god as head of the household. Even a less than virtuous / godly man. God's blessing magically flows to women who submit to their husbands, even husbands that mistreat them.

In fairness, some pastors / denominations draw the line at domestic violence, substance abuse and the like, but many -- possibly most -- do not. These rigid notions of lines of authority become a way to sweep inconvenient truths under the carpet.

It was my experience in fundamentalism that the doctrine of sanctification -- the notion that when you become a Christian, you are progressively made more virtuous and good through the power of god -- always had primacy and this notion was protected at all costs. So long as a man attends church and provides for his family (for some given value of "provide" ), he's often given a free pass. Women, on the other hand, are not to be "uppity", are to quietly keep home and nurture the children.

I agree you've stated this in a clear manner.

a sad state of affairs


I agree wholeheartedly!


Its part of the domestic violence cycle. Its ALWAYS blame the victim in these situations. The reason women "allow" it is because they've been brainwashed by their families, churches and partners to accept the blame their whole lives. "Woman is by nature sinful" etc.

It's hard to next to impossible to break an entire lifetime of training to be victimized. The better question is why those who know better aren't doing more to intervene.


Hell if I know.


Where is this happening?

apparently all over the place . mind boggling really in century 21

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:71090
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.