Broken Daughters

Picking up the shattered glass of fundamentalism

In which we get a mention

5 Comments

We got a mention in one of the fanciest magazines in the world of purity cults: Leslie Ludy’s Set Apart Girl (July/August issue, Article on page 27ff). Well, it’s not actually Leslie writing about this. It’s an “Anonymous Warrior Poet”, which is a Ludy term for a man who resembles King David, I believe.

The fact that this is written by an “anonymous” person is problematic to me. Now, I do not want to point fingers here, but… I read the set apart girl magazine every time a new issue comes out. I read all of Leslie’s articles. I read all of the “Warrior Poet” articles. The styles resemble each other strongly. I do not believe that this series of articles is written by a different person each time. I also think that Leslie’s writing and the Warrior Poet’s articles resemble each other in respect to style. Just throwing that out there.

Anyway. This months’ warrior poet (following “WP”) is concerned, very concerned. Why? Blogs. Let me quote him:

“And now – I have observed – many of my peers, who were once zealous advocates for purity, restraint, holiness, and waiting on God for their future spouse are now throwing in the towel on the whole idea. Numerous blogs have been written by young men and women who “believed the lie” of the whole “purity thing.” They rant to high heaven that all the purity rings and courtship lectures ruined their ability to interact with the opposite sex. They cross their arms in a teenage huff when they hear certain relationship books or authors mentioned. They write blogs expounding their angst and how they “removed their ring” because it was just a fuddy-duddy way of dealing with sexuality, and, with rolling eyes say, “it doesn’t work anyhow.”

What WP is doing here is far from an objective description of the ex-purity cult blogging scene. He uses several ways to label these bloggers as teenagers at mind. Now I don’t know about you, but that’s not a very “loving” thing to do for a christian. Labeling us teenagers is the equivalent of calling us unreasonable and immature – he blames the way we feel on the fact that our hormones are raging and we don’t know what’s good for us anyway. Teenagers! *eyeroll*

I don’t know how well-read you are when it comes to ex-purity cult blogs. Most bloggers are well past their 20s. Many are married and have children. Calling grown adults teenagers degrades us into a position in which we are considered to be unreliable, blabbling out of pure spite. Actually, the quote above denies us that our negative emotions towards the purity cult are reasonable.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t like being called unreasonable in such a flowery way when I complain about serious and real hurt. I don’t think my feelings about this issue come from one single experience.

By the way: Certain books and authors? Who could that be? But let’s move on:

“They make viral youtube videos that accentuate all the ridicoulousness our parents told us about these matters.”

He did it! He’s talking about the parents! What he’s basically doing here is telling all those good, pure girls “Look! These guys are making fun of YOUR parents and the values THEY believe in! You have to honor your parents! If you believe anything they say, you are one of these people who makes fun of YOUR parents!”.

“They say that it ruined their ability to have healthy guy/girl interaction.”

Here, he actually mentions an important aspect: Many feel that the purity teachings ruined their ability to interact with men/women. So far so good. But where is his argument against this? I read the article four times now, and I cannot find a single sentence in which he explains why this isn’t true. Please, go read it yourself and comment if you find it. It kind of feels like WP wants to make sure that his readers know this isn’t so, but he can’t go into detail. Why? Maybe because he himself has very little experience with women. Maybe because he doesn’t know how to relate to them. Maybe because the definition of “healthy” is very subjective – what is normal to me may be weird to you.

“I have a hunch that what is behind all this angst, and all this disgruntled blogging, and all this huffiness is an attitude of self-justification.”

The worst sin of all: Selfishness! Of course that’s what it is. We are selfish. We failed, and because we are selfish, we need a good reason for our selfishness. Everything we say is to justify our failures. Especially in Ludy-ism, selfishness is high up on the sin scale. Basically every sin is in some way based on a person’s selfishness (including, for example, homosexuality, masturbation, physical contact before marriage – I read the books and listened to the sermons).

“My concern, as a Warrior Poet in the making, is that a whole generation of young women will be led into a compromised and self-justifying lifestyle that is based wholly upon the sarcastic cynicism and bad experience of those around them.”

WP is in fact concerned that this pattern of relationships, which can be so convenient for men, will collapse due to women starting to think for themselves. The counter-culture the christian fundamentalists develop stands and falls with the participation of women. Ultimately, it is women who have to give up their entire identity in this pattern. If a woman refuses to become a mere extension of the man’s existence, none of the beliefs and patterns would fall into place anymore. The obsession to fix the problems people have, always have had, by following a certain pattern is very clear in this article.

In the end, I think the fact that our blogs got a mention in such a popular magazine among young conservatives is telling. There obviously has been some effect, some change, just something going on. Are they scared of us? No, probably not, but they feel they need to address the issue in some way, so I guess there is some progress.

Whatever it is, it seems as if the blogging scene is opening up to them as a new battleground for their “war of cultures”. Maybe we will see and hear some interesting articles and speeches about the blogging scene in the future. Let’s wait and see.

5 thoughts on “In which we get a mention

  1. What really struck me about this article was the author’s total lack of ammunition or…facts. Mr. Warrior Poet’s like, I have a hunch that most women raised in this subculture have had a night as gross and emotional incest-laced as the hilariously romanticized fictional account I just described! I presume these young ladies were primarily educated by their mothers in homemaking skills! My guess is that the first thought to enter newly-weds’ heads is that, gee, they really wish they’d felt like property even earlier! If “he” had actually intended to write an article announcing, “This is my subjective opinion and I have absolutely no information to back it up!” I doubt “he” could have done a better job.

    I am not a regular reader of Set Apart Girl, because I’m convinced that a steady diet of it would lead me to be more violent. (Not to say that I don’t do a lot of reading on what’s new in these circles, but–I gotta spread myself around.) Each time, however, I’ve browsed the pages of this magazine, I have noticed several glaring errors–typographical, grammatical, layout fails, etc. (Not to mention immense leaps in logic, RIDICULOUS turns of phrase, and syrupy-sweet awfulness–see the abortion and orphan photography articles later in the same issue.) It’s easily the least-professional “professional” magazine I’ve encountered. But haha, quality takes a backseat sometimes when Jesus is drivin’!

  2. First of all – hooray! They felt the need to address us! And not only that, but this “warrior-poet” absolutely used no logic, no proof, nothing of substance and instead was dismissive and obviously irritated under his “concern.” Who is throwing the teenage tantrum? Could it be that someone who uses a label (warrior-poet) created by a very small and cultish subset of an already small subset of the fundamentalist slice of “real true christianity” is just as guilty of cynicism when engaging with others? Except with the very obvious difference of the fact that most of those he is addressing spent their entire formative years immersed in his culture so they know of what they speak. Just makes me shake my head. The hubris. The male ego. The anonymity. No care to listen to or reach those who are “cynical” or have left. No care to listen. No consideration of anything if you aren’t parroting what they teach.

    That kind of thing will kill itself in the end, and my goal is just to hopefully hasten their demise, keep others from being hurt and to BE THERE for the former jerks when they finally make their way out.

  3. Ugh. I’m in a conversation on another blog with such a type as WP, and she used the exact same argument – you’re WRONG because you’re SELFISH for not looking at OTHERS. No, actually, I’m realizing my own self worth as created in the Image of G-D for the first time since being taught that I was nothing more than an object. Advocating for self does not make a person selfish. –rant over–

    Keep up the good work! Don’t shrink back from your place on the wall🙂

  4. I had missed that. Thanks so much for the post. In a way they should feel threatened because the internet world is powerful, and telling, and word is leaking out. I almost wonder if my mom had raised us if in the internet generation if we would have ever been sucked into the whole purity/Christian patriarchy movement. Because this time our stories are out there.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s