Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2011 6:08:04 GMT -5
Stylish- some prople associate it with being fashionable.
|
|
|
Post by emerald on May 19, 2011 7:41:27 GMT -5
Apple has it almost right. Skirts are not necessarily long, hair not necessarily in a bun (but tied back for meetings or worker visits) and stockings not necessarily black. The thing is, we females wear skirts, not trousers, our hair is long enough to tie back or wear up and ask any of my female friends if they consider we have a "look", then they'd say yes. Out shopping in Northern Ireland it becomes more apparent that we have a "look" (albeit one that is shared by some Brethren women) as every female we see with long hair and a skirt is given a second glance in case she is one of "ours". You can't speak for us females kiwi. Almost right doesn't mean right We have long hair up down in pony tales in french twists, we have short hair on those who wish to have not many though but accepted by others. We have dresses short and long, we have skirts long, half calf, above the knee, floppy or skin tight you can take your pick. We have pantyhose in all sorts of patterns and colours, we have tights in all sorts of colours in multi colours. Many of these women would fit in to the people on our streets with out being noticed than the normal. So there sweetie I can speak about the females in this country Ah, you agree with me then. In speaking for the females of NZ, you are simply reiterating what I said about what we females worldwide (Western world at least) consider a "look". You evidently understand that we females can see through the fog of french plaits/french rolls/pony tails/buns etc. and still recognise the "look" of professing women. (Contrary to your male perspective though, we don't accept short hair i.e. too short to put in a pony tail, unless there is a medical reason). That's what I mean when I say in Northern Ireland one can easily mistake strict Brethren women for one of our own as they follow the same dress code, though truth to be told, they tend not to be just so...fashionable. It helps too, if one is shopping with someone from the North as they generally recognise most of the friends when out and about. So we too can blend in with the people on the street and appear "normal" (what's normal?) so long as most in the streets are strict Brethren. It's a curious thing and I'm sure you'll be startled to hear it, but the one woman that did settle in Ireland from NZ shores embraces the ultra conservative look of the professing woman - she is in fact the stereotype as portrayed by "bitter" exes. Long, long hair always in a plait or a bun, no make-up, always in longer than knee-length skirts, no sleeves above the elbow, no "fashionable" shoes. She does look different to those in the street and yes, I'm prepared to bet that she would agree that she was conforming to a "look" and be glad to do so. Of course one swallow doesn't make a summer but she's got a handful of sisters and a good number of her friends have visited. They all subscribe to the same "look". You see kiwi, we females know there is a "look". No-one has said we don't like it. In fact, we look like this because we choose to. We are comfortable, we are modest, we aren't frightening the horses. If we don't want to look like this, we don't. Some, though few, choose not to conform to the "look". Those that tend not to conform to the "look" in time find they don't really want to conform to the other rules of the meetings. In time they'll drift off and leave the meetings or realise they like the meetings, rules, "look" and all. And then they conform. Our "look" tells another woman much about our attitude to the meetings and to authority generally. We know where we stand with them. The "look" has as much to do with social dynamics as it has to do with religious conviction. Like I said, you can't speak for us females. At least not when your head is in the sand.
|
|
will
Senior Member
Posts: 516
|
Post by will on May 19, 2011 8:27:28 GMT -5
So, Emerald, is this what is known as "pride in one's humility?" Sounds like it to me. Being an ex now, when I attend a funeral of one of the f&w and gaze at the sea of bunheads, it makes me cringe. I feel so bad for the pressure my wife experienced to conform to that. And to think how proud some of these females are at their humble look.
|
|
|
Post by emerald on May 19, 2011 8:58:43 GMT -5
I didn't say anything about pride. It's being comfortable with what we are.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on May 19, 2011 10:06:31 GMT -5
...and if you're a woman, and you lose the bun, just listen to all the gossip about how you're "losing out" in sooo many other ways...
|
|
|
Post by apple on May 19, 2011 10:43:49 GMT -5
Sorry to have confused you so.I'll try again to explain myslef. Modesty is indeed a scriptural teaching and while the workers' rules are biblically based they are forced on people.I believe that God gave us free will and that includes free will over dress.It is our choice if we want to obey God by being modest and not for the workers to force modesty on us as rules "which if broken will lead us to hell".When something is forced on someone it's human nature to rebell against it- and that includes worker rules.It is better to choose to obey something willingly than grudging obey something forced on us.Worker rules o modest dress make folks resent modesty, and often when people leave because of stupid rules on clothing, modesty is ditched. I think your information is 30-40 years out of date, or 20 years out of date if in the midwestern USA. How can biblical teachings be out of date?
|
|
|
Post by emerald on May 19, 2011 15:59:17 GMT -5
...and if you're a woman, and you lose the bun, just listen to all the gossip about how you're "losing out" in sooo many other ways... Yep! ;D
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on May 20, 2011 1:23:08 GMT -5
Almost right doesn't mean right We have long hair up down in pony tales in french twists, we have short hair on those who wish to have not many though but accepted by others. We have dresses short and long, we have skirts long, half calf, above the knee, floppy or skin tight you can take your pick. We have pantyhose in all sorts of patterns and colours, we have tights in all sorts of colours in multi colours. Many of these women would fit in to the people on our streets with out being noticed than the normal. So there sweetie I can speak about the females in this country Ah, you agree with me then. In speaking for the females of NZ, you are simply reiterating what I said about what we females worldwide (Western world at least) consider a "look". You evidently understand that we females can see through the fog of french plaits/french rolls/pony tails/buns etc. and still recognise the "look" of professing women. (Contrary to your male perspective though, we don't accept short hair i.e. too short to put in a pony tail, unless there is a medical reason). That's what I mean when I say in Northern Ireland one can easily mistake strict Brethren women for one of our own as they follow the same dress code, though truth to be told, they tend not to be just so...fashionable. It helps too, if one is shopping with someone from the North as they generally recognise most of the friends when out and about. So we too can blend in with the people on the street and appear "normal" (what's normal?) so long as most in the streets are strict Brethren. It's a curious thing and I'm sure you'll be startled to hear it, but the one woman that did settle in Ireland from NZ shores embraces the ultra conservative look of the professing woman - she is in fact the stereotype as portrayed by "bitter" exes. Long, long hair always in a plait or a bun, no make-up, always in longer than knee-length skirts, no sleeves above the elbow, no "fashionable" shoes. She does look different to those in the street and yes, I'm prepared to bet that she would agree that she was conforming to a "look" and be glad to do so. Of course one swallow doesn't make a summer but she's got a handful of sisters and a good number of her friends have visited. They all subscribe to the same "look". You see kiwi, we females know there is a "look". No-one has said we don't like it. In fact, we look like this because we choose to. We are comfortable, we are modest, we aren't frightening the horses. If we don't want to look like this, we don't. Some, though few, choose not to conform to the "look". Those that tend not to conform to the "look" in time find they don't really want to conform to the other rules of the meetings. In time they'll drift off and leave the meetings or realise they like the meetings, rules, "look" and all. And then they conform. Our "look" tells another woman much about our attitude to the meetings and to authority generally. We know where we stand with them. The "look" has as much to do with social dynamics as it has to do with religious conviction. Like I said, you can't speak for us females. At least not when your head is in the sand. Well then according to you then there must be more in the fellowship here than we know about because there are many on the streets who have THE LOOK
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on May 20, 2011 1:26:05 GMT -5
...and if you're a woman, and you lose the bun, just listen to all the gossip about how you're "losing out" in sooo many other ways... Yep! ;D Just like all the ones here who have been losing out for all the years they have been coming because they don't wear a bun?
|
|
|
Post by greatfull2010 on May 20, 2011 3:57:56 GMT -5
Kiwi - too much more of this and you might have to change your name to ostrich or emu. Its not normal for kiwis to have their heads buried in sand My sister suffered from cancer last year and lost all her hair. It was starting to grow when she went to convention.It was short and not in a bun or even long enough for a pony tail. She spent a lot of time in tears each day as a result of being ignored and even worse as a result of being spoken about behind her back but while within earshot. For a serious man kiwi, I really wonder how much you care about the needs and feelings of your own people sometimes and it seems you care more about protecting an image or protecting something - Im not sure what.
|
|
|
Post by emerald on May 20, 2011 5:54:15 GMT -5
Ah, you agree with me then. In speaking for the females of NZ, you are simply reiterating what I said about what we females worldwide (Western world at least) consider a "look". You evidently understand that we females can see through the fog of french plaits/french rolls/pony tails/buns etc. and still recognise the "look" of professing women. (Contrary to your male perspective though, we don't accept short hair i.e. too short to put in a pony tail, unless there is a medical reason). That's what I mean when I say in Northern Ireland one can easily mistake strict Brethren women for one of our own as they follow the same dress code, though truth to be told, they tend not to be just so...fashionable. It helps too, if one is shopping with someone from the North as they generally recognise most of the friends when out and about. So we too can blend in with the people on the street and appear "normal" (what's normal?) so long as most in the streets are strict Brethren. It's a curious thing and I'm sure you'll be startled to hear it, but the one woman that did settle in Ireland from NZ shores embraces the ultra conservative look of the professing woman - she is in fact the stereotype as portrayed by "bitter" exes. Long, long hair always in a plait or a bun, no make-up, always in longer than knee-length skirts, no sleeves above the elbow, no "fashionable" shoes. She does look different to those in the street and yes, I'm prepared to bet that she would agree that she was conforming to a "look" and be glad to do so. Of course one swallow doesn't make a summer but she's got a handful of sisters and a good number of her friends have visited. They all subscribe to the same "look". You see kiwi, we females know there is a "look". No-one has said we don't like it. In fact, we look like this because we choose to. We are comfortable, we are modest, we aren't frightening the horses. If we don't want to look like this, we don't. Some, though few, choose not to conform to the "look". Those that tend not to conform to the "look" in time find they don't really want to conform to the other rules of the meetings. In time they'll drift off and leave the meetings or realise they like the meetings, rules, "look" and all. And then they conform. Our "look" tells another woman much about our attitude to the meetings and to authority generally. We know where we stand with them. The "look" has as much to do with social dynamics as it has to do with religious conviction. Like I said, you can't speak for us females. At least not when your head is in the sand. Well then according to you then there must be more in the fellowship here than we know about because there are many on the streets who have THE LOOK That's not what I said. Read it again with your head out of the sand.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on May 20, 2011 7:10:16 GMT -5
Being an ex now, when I attend a funeral of one of the f&w and gaze at the sea of bunheads, it makes me cringe. I feel so bad for the pressure my wife experienced to conform to that. And to think how proud some of these females are at their humble look. It's honorable to me that you feel protective toward your wife, but it seems somewhat illogical to be angry at everyone who has long hair because your wife's family is dysfunctional.
|
|
will
Senior Member
Posts: 516
|
Post by will on May 20, 2011 8:07:22 GMT -5
Being an ex now, when I attend a funeral of one of the f&w and gaze at the sea of bunheads, it makes me cringe. I feel so bad for the pressure my wife experienced to conform to that. And to think how proud some of these females are at their humble look. It's honorable to me that you feel protective toward your wife, but it seems somewhat illogical to be angry at everyone who has long hair because your wife's family is dysfunctional. I think the whole F&W church is dysfunctional. Just look at the staunch defenders on this board. I rest my case.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on May 20, 2011 8:17:14 GMT -5
Will, most organized religions are kinda dysfunctional IMO.
|
|
will
Senior Member
Posts: 516
|
Post by will on May 20, 2011 8:25:36 GMT -5
Will, most organized religions are kinda dysfunctional IMO. Too true FS. But, seriously, the F&W because of its exclusivity puts huge pressure on families to ensure that their children profess and conform. When we stopped attending meetings, my wife's family was understandably concerned for their daughter's and grandchildren's souls, but amazingly ashamed because of their loss in standing and the dishonor on the family name for having not reared perfect little 'fessin' saints. From what I read here, that's a very typical response.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on May 20, 2011 8:25:40 GMT -5
That's not what I said. Read it again with your head out of the sand. This may be a male/female issue. Some of the social rules are so illogical that men sometimes just don't get it and if you try to explain it to them, their eyes glaze over. ;D
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on May 20, 2011 8:32:06 GMT -5
Will, most organized religions are kinda dysfunctional IMO. Too true FS. But, seriously, the F&W because of its exclusivity puts huge pressure on families to ensure that their children profess and conform. When we stopped attending meetings, my wife's family was understandably concerned for their daughter's and grandchildren's souls, but amazingly ashamed because of their loss in standing and the dishonor on the family name for having not reared perfect little 'fessin' saints. From what I read here, that's a very typical response. Maybe God was trying to teach them to worry more about His opinion and less about what other people thought. Or maybe teach people to "let go and let God." I guess that probably doesn't make it feel any better ( ) but it is safe to rest in God's hand and cling to Him no matter how other people are acting.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on May 20, 2011 8:33:17 GMT -5
This may be a male/female issue. Some of the social rules are so illogical that men sometimes just don't get it and if you try to explain it to them, their eyes glaze over. Yep..... That 'deer in the headlights' look has happened in my house on numerous occasions...... Scott
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on May 20, 2011 9:15:37 GMT -5
Oh....dear, Scott!
I believe that there are more rules/pressures for professing females than for professing males. This could be due to there being more females than males - the bigger the group, the more competition to be noticed by others.
Really, it's too bad that professing women don't support one another more. Professing women, including sister workers, compromise about 65 - 75% of professing folks. If the professing women stood up for themselves (more goats, less sheep as we've been hearing), dress codes and unethical brother worker behavior would be a relic of a long-distant past.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on May 20, 2011 10:53:41 GMT -5
If the professing women stood up for themselves (more goats, less sheep as we've been hearing), dress codes and unethical brother worker behavior would be a relic of a long-distant past. Actually that is happening to some extent. More of the younger (under 40-which to me is 'younger') women are starting to dress more modestly now (definition of modesty meaning not to draw attention to ones self in a normal group of people) and sensibly (wearing appropriate clothing for what you are doing) Also, of the latest 4 workers who were tried/convicted/sentenced for CSA...... 3 of them were reported to the authorities by sister workers, and more of the sister workers have begun to take note of the fact that whenever a worker is removed for sexual improprieties, the better off the work is for the remaining workers. GOOD FOR THEM!!! Funny thing to me is that the men (head of the household/spiritual leader in the home) seem to sit back on their butts and just want to let the overseers deal with the issues and hope they go away. Bunch of candy-asses really. Gotta let the women deal with the crap while they just belly up to the pot-luck table and act all pompous about themselves....... Scott
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on May 20, 2011 11:14:41 GMT -5
On the contrary, Scott, elders that demand that overseers deal correctly with issues are quickly demoted. I, for one, am grateful that there are men and women, professing and exes, that are willing to stand up to all of the corruption.
GOOD ON ALL OF YOU!
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on May 20, 2011 12:58:34 GMT -5
On the contrary, Scott, elders that demand that overseers deal correctly with issues are quickly demoted.Not always. I've known of some elders that speak up and demand action whose voices are heard and heeded. However, in those areas where the overseer is simply an untrustworthy selfish individual who has no concern for the church body that does happen. And they are the ones that are helping convict people of the need to leave the church. And they are not spiritual leaders. And they need to get booted out of their positions and true overseers appointed to take their places. I have found it interesting that the strongest members of the truth fellowship are usually the women when it comes to finally demanding that something be done.. They are the ones that seem to be able to get things dealt with as the men (as a group) seem to be afraid to take action. So much for being the spiritual head of the household huh? Scott
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 20, 2011 13:09:16 GMT -5
Will, most organized religions are kinda dysfunctional IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on May 20, 2011 13:42:29 GMT -5
Also, of the latest 4 workers who were tried/convicted/sentenced for CSA...... 3 of them were reported to the authorities by sister workers, and more of the sister workers have begun to take note of the fact that whenever a worker is removed for sexual improprieties, the better off the work is for the remaining workers. Funny thing to me is that the men (head of the household/spiritual leader in the home) seem to sit back on their butts and just want to let the overseers deal with the issues and hope they go away. These are interesting observations, Scott! I wonder if some men, fearful for their own "authority" in the house, are afraid to challenge other "authority." I often noted in the work that it was sister workers who seemed to get more "worked up" about things that they saw as "wrong," and would sometimes address people directly about it. Sometimes this did come out very negatively, and I certainly wasn't always in agreement with the things they considered to be issues. But I did sense that some of them were frustrated with their relative lack of a "voice." I'm glad if they are now beginning to feel empowered enough to speak up in appropriate places and bring change.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on May 20, 2011 13:52:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on May 20, 2011 14:02:55 GMT -5
Technically it is, but many people (Scott not included), do attempt to "normalize" groups of "others."
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on May 20, 2011 14:05:44 GMT -5
Also, of the latest 4 workers who were tried/convicted/sentenced for CSA...... 3 of them were reported to the authorities by sister workers, and more of the sister workers have begun to take note of the fact that whenever a worker is removed for sexual improprieties, the better off the work is for the remaining workers. Funny thing to me is that the men (head of the household/spiritual leader in the home) seem to sit back on their butts and just want to let the overseers deal with the issues and hope they go away. These are interesting observations, Scott! I wonder if some men, fearful for their own "authority" in the house, are afraid to challenge other "authority." I often noted in the work that it was sister workers who seemed to get more "worked up" about things that they saw as "wrong," and would sometimes address people directly about it. Sometimes this did come out very negatively, and I certainly wasn't always in agreement with the things they considered to be issues. But I did sense that some of them were frustrated with their relative lack of a "voice." I'm glad if they are now beginning to feel empowered enough to speak up in appropriate places and bring change. I have corresponded with several sister workers in the last few years. Some of them did voice their frustrations at not being listened to by brother workers, but others were quick to praise those overseers that have taken positive actions when needed, and have been very thankful that their overseers are willing to listen to what they have to share. As far as speaking up in appropriate places...... when it comes to reporting CSA all it takes is a phone call and perhaps a written account, and your identity is going to remain anonymous normally. There is a list of places to call by state on the WINGS website, and I think that there are links to the various state websites there also for information to a specific state: wingsfortruth.info/resources.htmThis is the link from WINGS: www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/reslist/rl_dsp.cfm?rs_id=5&rate_chno=11-11172I am always heartened by those that who share how the information listed on WINGS has helped them in their healing process. Got this just yesterday from an abuse survivor: I am so thankful for what you all are doing with the wings for truth site. I have received alot of healing from it......Scott
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on May 20, 2011 14:17:58 GMT -5
I have corresponded with several sister workers in the last few years. Some of them did voice their frustrations at not being listened to by brother workers, but others were quick to praise those overseers that have taken positive actions when needed, and have been very thankful that their overseers are willing to listen to what they have to share. As far as speaking up in appropriate places...... when it comes to reporting CSA all it takes is a phone call and perhaps a written account, and your identity is going to remain anonymous normally. Thanks, Scott. I actually have in mind a lot of brother-sister interaction dynamics, particularly at preps and conventions. It of course varies greatly between individuals, but there were some general patterns too, and frankly, I was at times quite baffled by some attitudes toward sister workers. Again, this in no way implies everyone, but if it was someone like the prep "boss" (not sure what the proper term is), it could be quite frustrating for the sister workers. But, like you say, there are overseers and other brothers they greatly appreciate. I'm not specifically referring to CSA issues here, just general dynamics that do enter into the handling of CSA inasmuch as particular individuals have the courage to take it in hand. It probably shouldn't require courage, but the tensions that can exist can also make it very difficult to respond appropriately. These are extremely involved dynamics, and difficult to talk about without writing pages, and likely stirring up some controversy, which I'm not really interested in doing. But some posts bring back memories of tensions I felt, and I think it helps to dig in and "untangle" them a bit. I sense changes, and I'm glad . . .
|
|