Ex-Mormons should find this horrifyingly familiar.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/26/amy-coney-barrett-faith-group-people-of-praise


Revealed: leaked video shows Amy Coney Barrett’s secretive faith group drove women to tears

https://youtu.be/-OdXQaqg13w



Wife of founder of People of Praise says members ‘were always crying’ during discussions about women’s subservience to men


The People of Praise, a secretive Christian faith group that counts the conservative supreme court justice Amy Coney Barrett as a member, considered women’s obedience and subservience to men as one of its central early teachings, according to leaked remarks and writings of the wife of one of the group’s founders.

A leaked video of a recent private People of Praise event, marking its 50th anniversary, shows Dorothy Ranaghan explaining how some female followers of the faith group cried intensely in reaction to the group’s early teachings on “headship” and the “roles of men and women”, in which men are considered divinely ordained as the “head” of the family and dominant to women.

Asked in an interview during the anniversary event about the years after the group’s members first made a “covenant” to join People of Praise in the early 1970s, Dorothy Ranaghan said: “Some of the women – who are still in my women’s group, as a matter of fact – were wearing sunglasses all the time, because they were always crying and would have to hold on to their chairs every time somebody started teaching, because ‘What are we going to hear this time?’”

She then added, as the audience and her interviewer laughed: “But it all worked out just fine in the end.”

The comment marks the first time a statement about some women’s negative early responses to “headship” teachings has been published. The leaked footage was shared with the Guardian by a source who asked to remain anonymous.

Former members of People of Praise, many of whom are critical of the group’s dominance over members’ lives, have described the group as calling for complete obedience of women to their husbands.



"New Covenant" Article Describing "Holy" Womanhood And Total Submission (PDF)

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22189046/new-covenant-june-1978-1.pdf

In a 1978 article that appeared in New Covenant magazine, called “Fully a Woman”, childbearing is described as a “central reality of womanhood” that “determines our presence in the world”, even for those who “by chance or choice” did not have children.

“The child in the womb expands the mother’s body, changing its dimensions. As her body yields, so do the borders of privacy and selfishness. Her very existence gives to another.” Women who are most admired, she wrote, “are not private persons, but are surrendered and available to care for others”.

“Pregnancy teaches a woman that others have a claim on her very person for the service of life. Rather than annihilating her, pregnancy makes her a new person, radiant and strong: a mother,” she wrote.

Once women gave birth in the People of Praise, work to care for them is divided on gender lines, according to Adrian Reimers, a Catholic theological critic and early member of the People of Praise who was dismissed in 1985 and wrote about his experience.

Reimers’ book critiquing the group, called Not Reliable Guides, states that men in People of Praise “were quietly taught by their heads and leaders not to change or rinse out diapers” and that women’s emotions were “distrusted”. Pastoral problems were often addressed by asking a woman where she was in her menstrual cycle.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/2022 09:25PM by anybody.

Amy Coney Barrett does not strike me as the subservient type.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/amy-coney-barrett-people-of-praise/2020/10/06/5f497d8c-0781-11eb-859b-f9c27abe638d_story.html

A 2010 People of Praise directory states that she held the title of “handmaid,” a leadership position for women in the community, according to a directory excerpt obtained by The Washington Post.

Also, while in law school, Barrett lived at the South Bend home of People of Praise’s influential co-founder Kevin Ranaghan and his wife, Dorothy, who together helped establish the group’s male-dominated hierarchy and view of gender roles. The group was one of many to grow out of the charismatic Christian movement, which sought a more intense and communal religious experience by embracing such practices as shared living, faith healing and speaking in tongues.

She also bore seven children, which suggests two interpretations.

First, that her values are very traditional and hence compatible with atavistic notions of a woman's role in the family.

Second, that she was probably an absentee mother and hence left at least some of her children without the attention and support they needed to grow into well-adjusted adults.

There are cults more abusive than Mormonism. Barret's lifestyle would probably put her in the most extreme tenth or so of the church were she LDS.

As a former Catholic, I consider the People of Praise to be one of the most whack-a-doodle cults that I've heard of within the Catholic church. I was amazed that a member of this cult was nominated to the Supreme Court. I personally would have considered it to be an automatic disqualifier.

She's a woman, opposed to abortion, and ready to overturn constitutional interpretations dating back over a century. That's all today's Republican Party cares about.

In other words, she's a handmade for the men who know better and will do their bidding.

Exactly. That's subservience, IMO.

It boggles my mind that a well-educated woman in 2022 would buy into that claptrap. If someone told me to be subservient, I would tell that person where to shove it. A marriage is a partnership, not a master/slave relationship. There is no man on this planet that I would put onto that kind of pedestal.

Me neither, but it still happens...

https://equippinggodlywomen.com/marriage/strong-christian-women-submission/

“You know she has a stubborn streak, right?”

My soon-to-be husband stared at his soon-to-be father-in-law in bewilderment. “Wait, are you talking about my sweet, quiet Mary? Stubborn??”

Not long after our wedding day, my husband discovered the truth in my dad’s warning. Yes, I do have a stubborn streak. And it makes submitting to my husband a daily challenge.

Can you relate?

If submission doesn’t come naturally to you, you can still learn how to submit to your husband — regardless of your personality.

Let’s learn what true submission means, what the Bible says about it, and what real submission looks like in daily life.

Do you ever wonder, What is God’s plan for my life and my marriage? Am I supposed to just do whatever my husband says? What does following God’s will actually look like in my day-to-day?



https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-men-used-religion-shame-women-submission-103582

As the children raised in these evangelical communities have grown to adulthood, a dark picture has emerged of a movement that has promoted shame and sexual ignorance.

Evangelical women have shared their stories of being shamed. There has been a a television documentary, and a new book explores the impact of those teachings on the everyday lives of young women raised in the culture. Social media has been an important way of connecting with each other for support.

Author Linda Kay Klein, who grew up in this culture herself, interviewed women to document how these teachings led to guilt and shame as well as profound ignorance about sex and sexuality.

Many young adults raised in this subculture have said that they still battle shame and trauma as a result of these teachings, making it difficult to develop healthy adult sexual relations.

The trauma of rape and sexual assault are made worse when women are taught to blame themselves as a result of the crimes against them.
The power of the purity movement

But these teachings serve important social functions in the context in which they persist. As I’ve written in my book “Evangelical Christian Women,” rigid gender norms characterized by women’s submission and male authority are at the very heart of the evangelical subculture. Purity culture reinforces that structure.

Moreover, in evangelicalism, what makes a person a Christian is having had a conversion experience, sometimes called being “born again” or saved. The conversion experience involves experiencing an overwhelming sense of guilt and a strong desire to seek forgiveness for sins.

Many evangelicals then want to protect their own children from the temptations that lead to that very experience of guilt necessary for conversion. Purity culture encourages fundamentally unattainable gender norms and purity requirements: that is, not only must unmarried people abstain from sex, but that merely thinking about sex risks eternal damnation. These rules create a powerful sense of shame and failure by design, even when there is no other “sin” that would seem worthy of hell.

That sense of shame and failure creates the need for exactly what the evangelical tradition provides: salvation.

"The group was one of many to grow out of the charismatic Christian movement, which sought a more intense and communal religious experience..."

I wasn't aware there was anything more intense than charismatic believers.

I cringe when worshippers merely raise their hands "in praise". That's too showy for me. And it always feels like you never know what's going to happen next.

I fit better in the buttoned-down places. Like, sit down, stay seated, keep your hands in your lap and don't sing too loud or call out or do anything at all weird or scary.

I was accidentally in a meeting once where they started speaking in tongues. Fastest I ever moved in my life - to get out of the place asap. That is a couple of steps too far for me.

"...some female followers of the faith group cried intensely in reaction to the group’s early teachings on “headship” and the “roles of men and women”, in which men are considered divinely ordained as the “head” of the family and dominant to women."

The leaders no doubt interpret this to be a rush of the Holy Spirit, which always evokes strong emotional reactions in believers.

The women are thrilled to have the big strong capable males in charge.

So the men say anyway.

They want women to be emotional and crying all the time. You know, the way women were expected to show "hysteria" and helplessness in the past. Certain types of women are conditioned to act exactly this way, both for attention and acceptance among themselves.

What you and DE, just below, say is exactly why I find the idea of polygamy so profoundly invidious. It is a system that forces women to compete with one another for the attention and respect of their shared husband and their community.

There is no surer way to render one gender subordinate to another as well as inexorably and permanently insecure. No parent, and no loving spouse, would ever want to subject a woman to that.

Those sister wives of the Jeffs (many very much younger) - that whole set-up is beyond creepy.

I cannot even comprehend what that would be like. How their whole lives are consumed by the polygamy treadmill.

How can they stand it.

It reminds me of the Sister Wives program where they were always bawling their eyes out -- every -- episode. It sure made you believe they were happy living that way. LOL!

in OPie's world ~



crying women ~



is "breaking news" ~

So the big question is, why would women want to join such a group? Why is church more popular with women than men, if men get to dominate?

Are women just stupid, or do they actually want strong, dominant men, or are there other things they like in such a group?

I mean, we can women are victims, but that would be saying they are weak, which is misogynist. If women are strong, they would just leave a group that is abusing them.

I remember reading about a school shooter in Florida, who was receiving love letters in prison from women. Apparently there is some attraction for a strong male, and perhaps the shooters, many of whom feel marginalized, sense that they'll get admiration from their heinous acts. And of course, the media will oblige and give no-stop coverage, which is good for ratings and money.

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-reg-nikolas-cruz-prison-love-letters-20180327-story.html

quote
Mass murderer Nikolas Cruz is getting stacks of fan mail and love letters sent to the Broward County jail, along with hundreds of dollars in contributions to his commissary account.

Teenage girls, women and even older men are writing to the Parkland school shooter and sending photographs — some suggestive — tucked inside cute greeting cards and attached to notebook paper with offers of friendship and encouragement. Groupies also are joining Facebook communities to talk about how to help the killer.

The South Florida Sun Sentinel obtained copies of some of the letters showing that Cruz, who had few friends in the outside world, is now being showered with attention.

The attraction of women to prison bad boys echoes the fascination with killers like notorious cult leader Charles Manson. Lyle and Erik Menendez, the Beverly Hills brothers convicted in 1994 of murdering their parents, attracted a pair of brides while spending life in prison. So-called "Bundyphiles" sent bags of mail to Ted Bundy, the serial rapist-murderer who was electrocuted on Florida's Death Row in 1989.

So you think what women really want is "strong, dominant men."

Think what that means for you, someone who constantly whines about his lack of success with women and for years trumpeted the incel MGTOW movement. Are we to infer that you are too weak and recessive to attract women? Or could it be that you are so lacking in understanding of women that your opinions are completely unfounded?

You may want to go with the latter.

I think the benefits women get from their subservient roles in the church make it worth it. Controlling women especially have it good. They can sic the Bishop or SP on their husbands to keep them in line. They can control through guilt. They let the church play the heavy.

Where else in town would they find such a deal? Playing the church game is a small price to pay for the security the church offers and the ability to apply community pressure to hubby if needed.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the benefits women get from their
> subservient roles in the church make it worth it.

{{{gag}}}

The short answer is that those women were mentally conditioned to think that way over many years. It's similar to the indoctrination that Mormons get -- how long does it take most people to mentally break free from that?

Women are capable people, and it really doesn't do anyone any good to squash us down. It doesn't do the women any good, and if the men think about it, it doesn't do them any good, either. It keeps women in a childlike role, and shouldn't all children get a chance to grow up at some point? Marriage works best as a partnership, not a parent/child relationship.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2022 06:15AM by summer.

Sometimes what the reality of mormonism is blindsides me. I didn't believe what the real facts are. I knew then that I didn't believe like others did.

I've run into some things about subservience recently. One being that idea that it was my fault my husband cheated and left as I obviously wasn't giving him enough sex. My fault my gay husband cheated. And told any woman whose husband cheats, it is her fault.

But there was something else I saw or heard. That isn't how I wanted to live--subservient. Though I was taught well. I have fought it all the years I've been in relationships--that indoctrination.

I agree with your words 'indoctrination' and 'subservience', cl2.

Below is an interesting (quite short) article that mentions the concepts of indoctrination and brainwashing. It touches on their conclusion that there is more to unequal relationships (understatement) than indoctrination and subservience. In short, the dynamics are complex.

I find it instructive to examine them because understanding is the key to overcoming, in many instances.


Beyond ‘Indoctrination’ and ‘Brainwashing’: Understanding the Transmission of Extreme Beliefs

https://www.leidensecurityandglobalaffairs.nl/articles/beyond-indoctrination-and-brainwashing-understanding-the-transmission-of-extreme-beliefs


Excerpts:

“According to Merriam Webster, brainwashing is defined as the “forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas”. Sociologist Massimo Introvigne (2004) describes how the concept of brainwashing was first introduced in the United States, during the Korean War (1950-1953) and the Cold War (1945-1991). Back then, it served to understand how seemingly ‘normal’ people could convert to putative ‘evil’ ideologies, such as Communism. It was thought that brainwashing could be reversed by so called ‘deprogramming’ methods. The goal of these methods was to rewire the brain of indoctrinated individuals by using excessive force, coercion techniques, and hypnosis. The CIA would frequently use deprogramming techniques on suspected defectors of the American army, who were thought to support Communist movements (Young, 2012).


“At the same time, a strong anti-cult discourse emerged within American society. This was a reaction to all kinds of New Religious Movements that gained popularity in the 1970s. Since many of these movements borrowed and reinterpreted select elements from Hinduism and Buddhism, they were perceived as a potential threat against the Protestant Church and its traditions – religious historian John Gordon Melton (1999) explains. American parents increasingly struggled to understand why their ‘civilized’ children would suddenly convert to these pagan ‘cults’. To them, the concepts of brainwashing and indoctrination provided a welcome rationale.


“…from a scientific perspective, there is little evidence supporting the brainwashing thesis. On the contrary, authors generally point at its lack of scientific validity (Young, 2012). An empirical analysis by Grail and Rudy (1985), for example, showed how the social context of extreme groups (i.e. belonging to a community of likeminded individuals) is very important. This social aspect is largely disregarded by brainwashing theories.


“Moreover, concepts of brainwashing and indoctrination disregard the notion of free will. They thereby ignore the fact that it is possible for people to break away from extreme beliefs on their own, without needing to be ‘deprogrammed’.


“…sectarian, radical and extremist ideas are transmitted from parent to child in various ways. Manipulation, coercion, and exploitation can be part of these processes, but not necessarily so. The role of loyalty, trust and affection in the transmission of extreme beliefs remains overlooked.


“…taking control of the trauma narrative and regaining a sense of agency, is crucial for overcoming and making sense of early-life exposure to extreme beliefs.”


-----

The article states:

"...it is possible for people to break away from extreme beliefs on their own, without needing to be ‘deprogrammed’."

I agree with this if you're thinking only of people leaving such a group that was harming them.

Perhaps one's subconscious activates the 'flight or fight' phenomenon. One may not be able to think past the overwhelming impulse at some point to just get out.

That does not mean that the indoctrination instantly vanishes nor the tendency to be subservient if that is how one was raised and/or expected/pressured to be for a long period of time.

Discussion boards like this are ample evidence that it takes time (often much time) to work through WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED and to essentially 're-program' oneself to a more "normal" way of thinking, understanding, and living.

In my case, being the dope that joined both the JWs and the Mormons at various points in life (they are very, very similar on many fronts or at least I found them so - maybe I just went back to the familiar in an unguarded moment when I met some 'nice' Mormons), I didn't so much as make a considered decision to leave but rather bolted in an instant at a certain point, after feeling uncomfortable for a while with various aspects of the faith as well as experiencing events that didn't sit well with me. (Mostly to do with the more fundamentalist nature of both sects that leaks out despite their attempts to appear mainstream).

Whether leaving abruptly or after a period of reflection I think that for most people it can take time, often much time, to reflect on what was, what is, and what can be in the new future for them.

This doesn't mean they weren't inculcated, indoctrinated, and in the case of females (at least, in the JWs and LDS, and in most cults) trained/expected to be subservient to males.

So, the leaving can be rapid but the thinking and re-evaluation and developing of new thought and behaviour patterns undoubtedly is a slow process for many, perhaps a life-long one, depending on the types of experiences they were subjected to.

That's why we talk about it. Takes time. Effort. Insight. Fellow travellers who absolutely understand.

Of course, leaders and promoters of the various closed groups would be insulted at the word 'brainwashing'.

But the further you're away from it yourself, the easier it is to recognize it.

And if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's not a horse.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2022 05:42PM by Nightingale.

And you don't recognize the indoctrination until you get far enough away from it. I've actually had a few moments recently where the thought has crossed my mind "well maybe if I had kept going to church, then blah blah blah." I hadn't thought that in a long,long time. It doesn't last long. I even have a hard time going to funerals at an LDS church.