and further... I believe the answers to wonder's post didn't include the "bashing of veepee... only statements about the ministry... I myself used "the organization"... you however proclaimed a pity party and didn't even invite anyone else...!
quote:Wonder1, thanks for your opinion. Unfortunately, since it doesn't harmonize with the accusitive finger-pointing, perpetually accentuate-everything-evil about TWI mindset of some posters, it really has no value here. Maybe some, put it'll be squashed soon enough.
Hey buddy, don't let the door hit your butt too hard upon your departure.
Other than your post quouted here oldies, the resposnses were all civil and welcoming.
(Posted by Abi....one of these days I will remember to log out and log back in)
OM,
I pray no woman or female child in your life ever goes through what some of the women here have been through. Not just because it is hell in and of itself but because it would be double hell for them after you got done pointing out to them how it was their own fault!
oldiesman, I certainly can not force you to change your mind. If you need to hold those men in high regard in order to protect your learning while a part of twi you will more than likely never change your views regarding them. I have not thrown it all out, I know I have said this once already, but I also know they were dead wrong in some ways. Other than that, I don't think I have any more to add here.
Has anyone heard of Fred Fiedler's workd on Leadership Contingency Theory? He used the phrase Least Perferred Co-Worker. The Way International uses a least preferred christian approach. How about Maslow's theory? Oldies on page two or three of this thread listed several of Maslow's elements in his pyramid. My point is there are several Organizational Behavior practices used by TWI to control people. Of course people were not asked to jump off a cliff literally. However, by repeated Behavioral practices documented on this web site, it is clear that several Organizational Behaviorial Doctorate Degrees could be written.
Once you were Way Corps, you reach the top of Maslow's pyramid.
The level below that was like being an advanced class grad.
Level three was a WOW ambassador or Way Disciple.
Level two was an accepted member of a fellowship.
Level one was the new grad, "just getting by, a babe in the word".
What was LCM's degree in again? He may have been a jock, but look at how well Oldies is fooled into thinking people were not subject to Organizational Behavioral tactics. No offense Oldie, but you are pretty well accepting of the tricks used by the Way if your honest.
We all were, but some of us are now warning others. You seem to be in great denial. I hope you get past this phase sooner than later.
While I completely agree with Long Gone's and Rafael's (and many other posters') assessment of The Way and Victor Wierwille, I don't agree with the assessment of oldiesman. His posts may be unwelcome, but they are not irrelevant, off-topic, or even insensitive. Here's why. In my opinion, the opening post of this thread is beyond an overstatement. Based on my experience in The Way, it presents a sensationalized view of the relationship that existed between leaders and followers. The photographs of the abuse of prisoners at Abu Graib says nothing to me about my involvement in The Way, dysfunctional though it was. It doesn't describe my experience. I think oldiesman's first post on this thread is absolutely correct in the context of Abu Graib.
I think oldiesman has more respect for "victims" than anyone here is giving him credit for. He isn't "blaming the victim." He is saying that in this situation, unlike those folks at Abu Graib, the "victim" had power over her oppressor. The only power Way leaders had was the power we gave them. Very few (if any) of us were starved, beaten, or forced into submission. We complied, foolishly at times, but those mistakes were ours to make.
I wish I were comfortable illustrating this with examples from my own life, but I have a husband who I respect, and children who I love, and my story isn't my own anymore. [Note to Zixar: Is that who or whom? How do I tell the difference between an object and a subject?] What I tell affects others, too, so I'll leave my own experience out of it (for now) and illustrate what I believe oldiesman's point to be with a few other examples.
Victims and bullies. It's so simple to reduce everyone to one or the other category. But doing so gives the power to the bully, and allows him to determine the nature of the relationship. In this model, the only hope for the victim is for the bully to change.
I think the legal profession has done a lot to influence psychology and social trends. An attorney represents her client. It's her job to make someone else responsible for her client's misfortunes, and to seek restitution. If an attorney were to hold her own client responsible for his own actions, it would be a betrayal. And that's as it should be, except that psychologists and other professionals have allowed the legal profession too much influence in their own professions. A psychologist's job is to hold his client responsible for her own problems in life. His job is to discover how his client is contributing to her own unhappiness, and search for solutions. Anything less would be a betrayal.
Example 1: For years, I had a very close friend in The Way. At one Rock of Ages, we left Headquarters and went out to lunch to catch up. I was newly married at the time, and pregnant. Over lunch, he told me about his experience during his first year in the Corps. After he arrived at Emporia, he found out his ex-girlfriend was pregnant. He was advised by his leaders that this was all a trick of the adversary to get him to leave the Corps. He was told to tell his ex-girlfriend to get an abortion, which he did. She refused. He insisted. She refused. He insisted. It went on like that for awhile, until finally she left The Way, moved to NYC, and he never heard from her again. He was telling me this story years after the fact, and at the time he was telling me the story, he had no idea what the outcome was, or whether he had a son or a daughter somewhere in the northeast getting ready to start kindergarten. I was livid. Here was someone I knew and respected, maybe even loved, who was essentially indifferent to the knowledge of whether he had fathered a child. With all my brainwashing, coercion, group think, and everything else (I was still very much active in The Way at that point), I thought he was wrong, no matter what his leaders told him to do, and told him so.
Was he a victim or a bully?
Example 2: During one of my year-long excursions in The Way, I had a roommate who was incapable of refusing a sexual advance. She simply didn't, wouldn't, couldn't say no to any man who approached her. For the first few months, I was sympathetic and supportive. She had had a difficult childhood, and sexual abuse in her past. However, as time went on, her actions began affecting my reputation. The men in her life started assuming they could also be men in my life, and I began to resent her for it. As the year went on, I was involved with one (1) guy in our area, a stable, likable grad who was willing to do just about anything for anyone. And she took full advantage of that. Despite all the men in her life, she was frequently asking him for rides, and money, and favors, and attention. She was solicitous of anyone who was kind to her, and even those who were unkind, and ended up in heartache.
Was she a victim or a bully?
Example 3: In my early years of posting on ex-way boards, a former leader posted here, one who, in my experience with him, represented all that was wrong with The Way. For all the years I knew him, he had a big mouth, and an attitude. He was demanding, demeaning, dictatorial, and abrasive. Others at WayDale loved him. I had to sit on my hands, turn off the computer, vent to my husband (whose opinion of him is even lower than my own), and do everything within my power not to hammer out a response to him. It wasn't easy. I didn't want to contact him privately, publicly, or in any other way, because I had no interest in a relationship with him. I didn't want his apology, his understanding, or even his opinion on any topic. And then one day we were posting on the same thread. And something inexplicable happened. I laughed at one of his posts. It wasn't a spiteful, wicked laugh. He said something undeniably funny. Somehow, from that point on, I was able to read his posts with more humor and forgiveness than I had previously been able to muster. It didn't bother me anymore that others praised him. He had a sense of humor, which I began to appreciate. For me, that was much more healing, than any brief cathartic release I may have experienced by telling him what I really think. What difference would it have made anyway? Nothing we say to each other now is going to change what happened twenty-plus years ago.
Anyway, despite the fact that I do not agree with oldiesman’s assessment of Wierwille, or The Way, I don't think oldiesman is insensitive when he says that "victims" have responsibility for their actions. I think he sees that as a way out of the pain, as a way to take control and help determine the outcome of relationships. It may not be a perspective that is widely accepted here, but it is valid nonetheless. And relevant. And on-topic. In my opinion. For what it's worth.
quote:I think oldiesman has more respect for "victims" than anyone here is giving him credit for. He isn't "blaming the victim." He is saying that in this situation, unlike those folks at Abu Graib, the "victim" had power over her oppressor. The only power Way leaders had was the power we gave them. Very few (if any) of us were starved, beaten, or forced into submission. We complied, foolishly at times, but those mistakes were ours to make.
An oversimplification I think. While we were certainly not held at gunpoint, TWI held a psycological power over many of us that was just as threatening as 12 gauge shotgun.
From the outside looking in it is easy to say that "We complied, foolishly at times, but those mistakes were ours to make". But this fails to address WHY many of us complied to the ungodly and absurd demands (oppression) of TWI and it's leaders.
I think there comes a point where a person can surrender their will over to a group like TWI. It may be a quick conscious decision or may be something that happens over time. I also think that TWI's programs, policies and doctrines were/are designed to this end.
Once this happens, in many cases, the authority and control that the group (TWI in our case) wields upon an individual can be almost total within the scope it's operations. It can be more in some than in others and TWI was good at identifying where individuals should be placed in order to take advantage of them.
It is at this point of surrender that a person will then do almost anything for the furtherance of the group (God's Will). In their mind they are doing the right thing. It could be the "leader" who busted up a family, or a woman who serviced the MOG, or a couple who sells their home to be debt free.
Yes, these things are "foolish" as we look at them now some are even sinful and ungodly, but at the time they seemed like the right things to do many folks. Why? Was the source of the "oppression" our own foolishness? No.
Sure, no one "forced" anyone to make TWI or a MOG their master, but this level of misguided trust and commitment was taught and developed by TWI - and once attained in a person, TWI had as close to "absolute authority" over them as you can get. The person has for all practical purposes lost their "power over their oppressor" in certain areas of their lives.
laleo: It's "whom", in this case. "...a husband whom I love," and "...children whom I love" are correct. (At least you didn't use "that" or "which"--those aren't used when talking about people.)
You can tell an objective pronoun is required in this case because you are the one doing the loving, and the husband is the object of that love, hence, "...a husband whom I love". If it's your husband that's doing the loving, then he's the subject and you're the object--"...a husband who loves me..."
See? :)-->
(added later: I almost forgot the third possibility, predicate nominatives. They always take the subject form, even though it's commonly misused in American English. "That guy is who?" is correct. (simple test: invert the sentence--"who is that guy" is correct, so "that guy is who" is equivalent.)
The most common misuse is typified by sentences like "Is that him?" Since "is" is a form of "to be", it's a predicate nominative situation. The correct usage is "Is that he?" So the common "That's him!" should really be "That's he!"
Of course, when most of the population is completely baffled by something as simple as an apostrophe, the chances of "That's him" and its like disappearing approach zero. --> )
quote:Anyway, despite the fact that I do not agree with oldiesman’s assessment of Wierwille, or The Way, I don't think oldiesman is insensitive when he says that "victims" have responsibility for their actions.
laleo, thanks for your thoughtful assessment, and your realization that what i said isn't, or wasn't meant to be, blame-shifting.
But in causual or informal writing and conversation there is nothing wrong with using "that or which" in regards to people.
I know folks who have managed to go most of their lives without using word "whom" at all. They communicate quite effectively. With some things here are no hard and fast rules.
The last thing I want to do is end up sounding like William F. Buckley when I am talking with m rancher buddies or posting here at GS.
Thanks for you insight. I really appriciate your objective veiw on this matter. Your writing style speaks volumes of mindful intent. I felt that it was well developed without prejudice. Your imput is always welcomed in my life.
I realize that for every opinion,there is a religion. Each is entitled to believe as thy choose. The topic at hand is a tough one. It has complexities that we haven't begun to cover or are not even aware of. I understand though there are no black and white answers just alot of gray. Life is actually lived in the gray zone.
When one posts it is either subjective or objective. I find I post from my experiance (subjective) and find it difficult to see things from a different angle.
Thanks for the way you have handled this topic. I will ponder what you have written. I do know that "each cituation merits its on judgement" and "God only knows what is in the heart of a person" when it comes to intent. The intent of Leadership and those that followed.
Zixar,
Dude...I can hardly spell and you come up with this gramatical stuff. Are you an English Professor?
That was, indeed, a very wise post. Gave us a lot to chew on.
I still think that the culpability of the victim is not relevant when the discussion is centered on the abuse of power and the extent of power. In declaring that the power exercised by some TWI leadership was "absolute," I agree that the original post on this thread went too far. It was not absolute. But it doesn't have to be absolute to be "power." And there was considerable power wielded. As I said, as Goey said, and as others have said, the psychological power wielded by TWI was, in the minds and hearts of some followers, just as intense as the power of a gun pointed at your head.
When a "man of God" tells you that adultery is not wrong, of course you have the right and ability to disagree and to walk away from the situation. But (again, in some cases) at what cost? The targets of this abuse were motivated by deception, fear, manipulation, all imposed by these people who were supposed to be representing God. That's powerful power. So yes, some of the victims wanted to do their best to love God and love their neighbor as themselves, but they were deceived into thinking that adultery could be an expression of that love. Stupid? To me, yes. To you, probably. To someone who is vulnerable and "would rather be loved and wrong than unloved and right," it's less clear. To someone afraid of having their reputation tarnished, someone with few friends or family outside this cult, to someone who has already isolated their friends and family to be a part of TWI, it's less clear.
Let's look at your two examples:
1. A male friend is told by TWI leadership to tell his girlfriend to have an abortion. You and I probably agree that he made the wrong call. He lost his girlfriend and, as you left the story, didn't even know whether he was, in fact, a father. Was this man a victim or bully?
He was a little bit of both: a victim of improper counsel by "men of God;" a bully for trying to get his girlfriend to do something she didn't want to do. In this case you've touched on something important, something that has not been discussed: how do bullies get to be bullies? To some extent, they get to be bullies by being victims first.
Your friend was a victim being trained to be a bully.
2. Your other friend was "incapable of turning down a sexual advance." Laleo, if someone with that characteristic becomes part of a church, the church is responsible to help her overcome it. Do you think TWI would have helped her? Or do you think some leaders would have helped themselves to her? The question on this thread concerns, primarily, leadership and the abuse of power. No one you mention in your example is in a position of leadership, so it's kind of off point.
While I understand what you're trying to say, the point remains that whether leadership was confronted with someone so unwilling that they had to drug her to get her to comply, or someone who was so abused that they were "incapable" of saying no, leadership had a responsibility commensurate with their power (influence) as leaders. And a leader who takes sexual advantage of people has abused his power.
Here's another way to look at it:
If the abuser was not in a position of leadership, would the relationship turn sexual? Would the abuse have been possible?
If the answer to the above question is yes, then the culpability of the woman is relevant. If the answer is no, then it is irrelevant.
That's just my opinion (an oversimplified version, I might add).
Dude...I can hardly spell and you come up with this gramatical stuff. Are you an English Professor?
No, just an incurable wise-a**. ;)--> I'd like to have been a teacher, but computer work pays so much better--and you don't suck in chalk dust all day, either. :)-->
since they are presumably helping people who are willing to be vulnerable and humble to aquire a greater knowledge of God. If you
are approaching someone in a position of spirtual
authority its quite likely because you trust them
(or want to) and its presumed that their advice
and suggestions are to be taken seriously because they reflect an elevated spirtual perspective.
VPW used to use the following verse to underscore the responsibility that church leaders have to the body:
Matthew 18
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
(Note: this verse was later extended to apply
to those contemplating a departure from TWI)
VPW claimed that this verse documented the responsibility that a pastor has for the church
thus he seemed to have knowledge that spirtual leaders are highly accountable for their actions.
Within this context I see that VPW, LCM,
and other way leaders abused their station.
Lots of people trusted them to provide teaching and advice that was targeted to heal and deliver
though we now know that both exploited their
positions to their own personal benefit which
is clearly not acceptable.
By VPW's own teaching a leader is worthy of death for betraying the trust of a believer and causing them to stumble.
I love you Laleo and you write very well making your points.
I love you dearly but I do not agree with your assessment of OM.
To all, this is IMO
For years he has defended Weirwille and I think by now we should all realize this, let him expound and take it with a grain of salt and keep talking about how a cult leading liar made people “feel”. Not just sexually, but also how they felt about their money, their time, people dying in their families or finding out they had an illness under the heartless reign of the basta*rd.
Oldiesman you say has more respect for the victims then for which he is given credit.
I am not going to go back through his arguments and seek exact quotes but most of the people here have read his posturing on these issues and know if I am not “exact” in what I am saying I capture the gist.
Through the years he has a subtle insulting insidious way of victimizing the victim. He has in the past called Weirwille’s seductions, by misuse of the Bible, “affairs” “Slept together” “indiscretions” “adultery”
All of these headings do dismiss the real evil that was perpetrated at TWI by its leaders.
This is not only a simplification of what went on, it is an undercutting of the methodical web woven to get girls in the motor coach. When mentioned that women were given drinks and then felt funny or were unable to fight him off, OM then said he did not really believe it just because John Lynn brought it up or Marsha recorded it in her letter. He said something like he did not know “us” and why should he believe us? Then Val52 came on and he DOES know her. She told of how she was in the coach and how things happened. She was able to leave as was I, but her friend was back there with VP. I do not recall if she said they were offered drinks but I think she did.
OM still refused to budge from his position an inch to put himself into another’s shoes and allow himself to FEEL what the victims felt. Instead that is a highway he wishes not to travel.
Then, Sunesis came on and spoke of the whole sexual thing. We have all told it over and over again because Om and a few others consistently come into these discussions with their insidious swipes at the victims. And here is a revelation, just because someone speaks of their victimization does not mean they are living life as a victim now.
There has been sound advice from pyscologist regarding the seduction of kids who were sexually abused by other authority figures, there have been articles written on sexual seduction by other clergy. Plots came on and said they would never allow someone to do things like VP did and continue to practice from the pulpit. There have been articles presented as VP’s conduct has been criminal. All of these presentations do not dent the thick impenetrable wall OM has built in his mind about Weirwille.
And I have gotten to the point where I have tried to just avoid these threads…. But when OM said
“Originally posted by oldiesman:
"Sometimes I think GS is like a soap opera. You know, like leaving it for months, come back, and one is exactly where they left off. Try it. Come back in 6 months and see if there's any lull in the relentless one-sided condemnation of Wierwille and twi.
Must be something in the nature of man to want to perpetually crush and pulverize a dead horse”
I must concur that one can return in 6 months or a year or 4 years and still there will be an impenetrable wall around OM’s concepts of Weirwille and insidious little blurbs being thrown at his victims. So, it behooves me how he can say such a thing, as a line that some how comes off that he has moved ahead and returns here after 6 months only to see everyone still stuck in their views. When after a 6 month absence he returns, not with a broader understanding or a kinder heart but with the exact same condemning views he has always had.
I can only think that OM has a very limited view of rape, seduction and deceit. I wonder, being as he is blind to sexual sin, if he would be soooo blind and unyielding if perhaps he lost a trust fund to TWI. If it cost OM something. Sex and sexual abuse have a blurred line to him and he will not see it. What about the other boundaries? Does he see them? Or again, does a gun have to be place to someone’s head in order for him to be able to see a “crime?”
Is the line blurred in other areas outside of TWI thinking? Does he think the “Romeo” bandits do anything wrong when they woo an old lady into thinking they are loved to drain their accounts? Again, there was no gun to the head, but does OM have the ability to see “crime” or is his mind so seared to the ability to see right and wrong that it has blinded all his judgments?
I saw am interview with rapists and one of the statements made was chilling, “I want to hurt them. I do not want to terminate their lives… I want to wreck their lives. So everyday they have to live their tattered life that I was able to destroy.
Then Oprah did a thing on sexual predators and she “GETS IT” it is a dance, a seduction of deceit just to use someone and throw them away. Also wrecking their lives. This is what they do. But to use GOD as a dance step in that seduction to wreck a persons’ life is a dark evil. You can look for shades of gray to excuse it, but there is no gray.
It is dismissive to the victim to then call it “adultery”. The word adultery is too shallow and does not hold forth the evil that happens as a result of a sexual predator. Or to say well it was the 70’s and girls were looser then…. Perhaps some girls wore their underpants on their heads and offered their “sex” to anyone. But even THOSE girls, who sought Jesus, should have been told to put their pants back on and go home by a man representing himself as a Man of God (or greater -- THE Moggie)
What kind of Bible would it have been if Jesus saw that Mary had committed adultery and was a harlot for different men and instead of offering her deliverance, he rescued her from a bad situation just to give her too much wine and force himself on her?
I guess with some of the thinking I see on this thread, Jesus could "do" her and it would be okay.... And he was a Moggie! And somehow if he did "do" her it would be the woman's fault.
"From the outside looking in." Come on, Goey. I'm hardly an outsider. If I've oversimplified anything, it's because my posts tend to be too long as it is. Figuring out who is responsible for what is anything but simple.
I had to think for awhile about your question: "Was the source of the 'oppression' our own foolishness?" I agree with you that in absolute terms the answer is "No," but in practical terms, we were involved in a dance, between leaders and followers, with both contributing to the continuance of the dance. So, with that in mind, I would also answer, "Yes." Without a dance partner, the song would have ended.
Anyway, I fully expected to be skewered, so thanks to all for at least considering what I have to say.
Zixar: You make it all sound so simple. The thing that really threw me off was your thread: Whom Do You Trust in the Media? I've been thinking about it ever since. I tend to think in terms of who I trust, rather than whom I trust. I'm not sure how Steve's him and he fits in here. And, besides, what if it's a woman?
I have to admit, though, that I am shocked, stunned, appalled, by this statement: "If it's your husband that's doing the loving . . . " Just exactly what are you suggesting? THAT!?! What are you trying to say about him? Isn't he a who?
Thank you, imbus. I appreciate that. More than you know.
quote:"From the outside looking in." Come on, Goey. I'm hardly an outsider. If I've oversimplified anything, it's because my posts tend to be too long as it is. Figuring out who is responsible for what is anything but simple.
Laleo,
By "outside looking in", I meant now outside of the infulence of TWI, looking back in at our past. I never meant to even remotely suggest that you were an "outsider".
The oversimplification I refered to was mostly in the statement, "We complied, foolishly at times, but those mistakes were ours to make."
True, but it fails to address the WHY of the compliance. How it came to be that Way Leaders had this power over many of us cannot be explained as simply as saying we were foolish and and it was our mistake.
WordWolf: I re-read those pages you suggested. I would sum up the gist of oldiesman's posts by quoting Erica Jong: "You take your life in your own hands, and what happens? A terrible thing: no one to blame."
Raf: I so agree. I really, really do. However, I still have one quibble. I don't think pointing out the role of the victim in a cycle of abuse is at all irrelevant. Cycles of abuse can be interrupted by either a) altering the behavior of the bully, or b) altering the behavior of the victim. I think a disservice is done to victims when they are portrayed as helpless and hopeless, whose prayer for salvation can only be answered by controlling or changing the actions of the bully, else they are doomed.
Dot: I offer no defense of Wierwille. None. I also agree with you that oldiesman completely underestimates the level of intimidation inherent in a minister's sexual advance toward a parishioner, and doesn't even seem to understand typical sexual dynamics in most male/female relationships. I'm not sure I agree that this makes him heartless. I agree with you that "adultery" shouldn't replace the word "rape" or "sexual harassment," when talking about what any reasonable person would conclude is criminal activity among Way "clergy." However, I still think that oldiesman's points can be debated rather than dismissed, because the victim does have a role, whether we want to acknowledge it here or not. In your examples of rapists, and Oprah, and women who meet men who suck their life savings from them -- none of us wants to be that person. Those predators will always exist, not only in The Way, where many of us met people who should have been in prison long before we crossed paths with them, but also outside of The Way. Simply leaving The Way is no more a guarantee for happiness than was being in The Way. At some point, the changes have to come from within.
Anyway, I think very highly of you, too, and it sure isn't my goal to stifle any of your dialogue, or to dismiss your experience.
Okay, Goey. I misunderstood. And you may be right about the "outside looking in." I do often feel removed from what people still in The Way might be experiencing. However, I still think that the "why" of compliance might better be answered by understanding the person who complies rather than the person who elicits compliance.
“A psychologist's job is to hold his client responsible for her own problems in life. His job is to discover how his client is contributing to her own unhappiness, and search for solutions. Anything less would be a betrayal.”
I agree, but oldiesman is not a psychologist, other posters are not his clients, and oldiesman’s intent is not to discover how others contributed to their own unhappiness or to search for solutions. Even if that were his intent, and pursuing that were appropriate in some threads, it would not be appropriate here because that is neither the topic nor the intent of this thread.
”In my opinion, the opening post of this thread is beyond an overstatement. Based on my experience in The Way, it presents a sensationalized view of the relationship that existed between leaders and followers. The photographs of the abuse of prisoners at Abu Graib says nothing to me about my involvement in The Way, dysfunctional though it was. It doesn't describe my experience. I think oldiesman's first post on this thread is absolutely correct in the context of Abu Graib.”
The opening post didn’t compare the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib with anyone’s involvement in The Way. It wasn’t really even about abuse, per se. It didn’t suggest a direct comparison between Abu Ghraib and TWI, regarding any specific abuse, severity of abuse, levels of degradation, means of exercising authority, whether the authority was “real” or “imagined”, whether authority was taken forcibly or ceded without force, etc. It didn’t discuss at all people’s ability (or lack thereof) to refuse to cede authority or submit to claimed authority. It didn’t focus on victimhood at all. It focussed on two factors that a psychologist said foster abuse and sought to consider how those factors may have contributed to a climate of abuse in TWI. It further noted that those two factors could help explain how seemingly well intentioned, good-hearted people became abusive and even sadistic. Certainly there have been many accounts of formerly caring TWI leaders becoming harsh, overbearing, and cruel over time.
This thread wasn’t about decrying or sensationalizing the abuses of TWI leaders. It wasn’t about excusing victims. It wasn’t about victims at all. It also wasn't about "the why of compliance." It was about factors that may have influenced some people to become abusers. Oldiesman managed to derail it.
quote:Ummm those required to service the mogs as their spiritual responsibility weren`t sexually humiliated?
It really would depend on the mind set of the participant involved, but I do question that those engaged in that activity thought it was a requirement to service the mog in that way; I think most freely availed themselves to do it; others were abused, but I would say generally, no, folks who did that sort of thing didn't think it was sexual humiliation at the time (those who thought it might be, or found it distasteful didn't do it, obviously.)
Laleo,
does this reflect an honest acknowledgement that some women's lives were
shredded when they chose not to comply,
and that some were drugged so that they were not able to refuse?
So far, I've seen accounts from women who were drugged, women who felt they
had no choice, women who refused and ran, women who know women who were
traumatized by being in one of the above categories, and a few assorted
variations of same. So far, what I have NOT seen is ONE woman say that, at
the time, she did something with a mog, and she wasn't under duress or any
coercion at the time...I haven't even seen one say she approached the mog
with the intention of a "dalliance". So far, seems that, to some degree,
all of them found it "wrong" or "distasteful" at the time, even when they
were forcing their minds to say it was "right"....
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
27
37
51
28
Popular Days
May 14
43
May 19
40
May 17
39
May 13
38
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 27 posts
Raf 37 posts
oldiesman 51 posts
Tom Strange 28 posts
Popular Days
May 14 2004
43 posts
May 19 2004
40 posts
May 17 2004
39 posts
May 13 2004
38 posts
Tom Strange
and further... I believe the answers to wonder's post didn't include the "bashing of veepee... only statements about the ministry... I myself used "the organization"... you however proclaimed a pity party and didn't even invite anyone else...!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Once again, you are revealed to be full of carp
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheManOfa Thousand ScreenNames
(Posted by Abi....one of these days I will remember to log out and log back in)
OM,
I pray no woman or female child in your life ever goes through what some of the women here have been through. Not just because it is hell in and of itself but because it would be double hell for them after you got done pointing out to them how it was their own fault!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
houseisarockin
oldiesman, I certainly can not force you to change your mind. If you need to hold those men in high regard in order to protect your learning while a part of twi you will more than likely never change your views regarding them. I have not thrown it all out, I know I have said this once already, but I also know they were dead wrong in some ways. Other than that, I don't think I have any more to add here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tumbleweed Kid
Has anyone heard of Fred Fiedler's workd on Leadership Contingency Theory? He used the phrase Least Perferred Co-Worker. The Way International uses a least preferred christian approach. How about Maslow's theory? Oldies on page two or three of this thread listed several of Maslow's elements in his pyramid. My point is there are several Organizational Behavior practices used by TWI to control people. Of course people were not asked to jump off a cliff literally. However, by repeated Behavioral practices documented on this web site, it is clear that several Organizational Behaviorial Doctorate Degrees could be written.
Once you were Way Corps, you reach the top of Maslow's pyramid.
The level below that was like being an advanced class grad.
Level three was a WOW ambassador or Way Disciple.
Level two was an accepted member of a fellowship.
Level one was the new grad, "just getting by, a babe in the word".
What was LCM's degree in again? He may have been a jock, but look at how well Oldies is fooled into thinking people were not subject to Organizational Behavioral tactics. No offense Oldie, but you are pretty well accepting of the tricks used by the Way if your honest.
We all were, but some of us are now warning others. You seem to be in great denial. I hope you get past this phase sooner than later.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
While I completely agree with Long Gone's and Rafael's (and many other posters') assessment of The Way and Victor Wierwille, I don't agree with the assessment of oldiesman. His posts may be unwelcome, but they are not irrelevant, off-topic, or even insensitive. Here's why. In my opinion, the opening post of this thread is beyond an overstatement. Based on my experience in The Way, it presents a sensationalized view of the relationship that existed between leaders and followers. The photographs of the abuse of prisoners at Abu Graib says nothing to me about my involvement in The Way, dysfunctional though it was. It doesn't describe my experience. I think oldiesman's first post on this thread is absolutely correct in the context of Abu Graib.
I think oldiesman has more respect for "victims" than anyone here is giving him credit for. He isn't "blaming the victim." He is saying that in this situation, unlike those folks at Abu Graib, the "victim" had power over her oppressor. The only power Way leaders had was the power we gave them. Very few (if any) of us were starved, beaten, or forced into submission. We complied, foolishly at times, but those mistakes were ours to make.
I wish I were comfortable illustrating this with examples from my own life, but I have a husband who I respect, and children who I love, and my story isn't my own anymore. [Note to Zixar: Is that who or whom? How do I tell the difference between an object and a subject?] What I tell affects others, too, so I'll leave my own experience out of it (for now) and illustrate what I believe oldiesman's point to be with a few other examples.
Victims and bullies. It's so simple to reduce everyone to one or the other category. But doing so gives the power to the bully, and allows him to determine the nature of the relationship. In this model, the only hope for the victim is for the bully to change.
I think the legal profession has done a lot to influence psychology and social trends. An attorney represents her client. It's her job to make someone else responsible for her client's misfortunes, and to seek restitution. If an attorney were to hold her own client responsible for his own actions, it would be a betrayal. And that's as it should be, except that psychologists and other professionals have allowed the legal profession too much influence in their own professions. A psychologist's job is to hold his client responsible for her own problems in life. His job is to discover how his client is contributing to her own unhappiness, and search for solutions. Anything less would be a betrayal.
Example 1: For years, I had a very close friend in The Way. At one Rock of Ages, we left Headquarters and went out to lunch to catch up. I was newly married at the time, and pregnant. Over lunch, he told me about his experience during his first year in the Corps. After he arrived at Emporia, he found out his ex-girlfriend was pregnant. He was advised by his leaders that this was all a trick of the adversary to get him to leave the Corps. He was told to tell his ex-girlfriend to get an abortion, which he did. She refused. He insisted. She refused. He insisted. It went on like that for awhile, until finally she left The Way, moved to NYC, and he never heard from her again. He was telling me this story years after the fact, and at the time he was telling me the story, he had no idea what the outcome was, or whether he had a son or a daughter somewhere in the northeast getting ready to start kindergarten. I was livid. Here was someone I knew and respected, maybe even loved, who was essentially indifferent to the knowledge of whether he had fathered a child. With all my brainwashing, coercion, group think, and everything else (I was still very much active in The Way at that point), I thought he was wrong, no matter what his leaders told him to do, and told him so.
Was he a victim or a bully?
Example 2: During one of my year-long excursions in The Way, I had a roommate who was incapable of refusing a sexual advance. She simply didn't, wouldn't, couldn't say no to any man who approached her. For the first few months, I was sympathetic and supportive. She had had a difficult childhood, and sexual abuse in her past. However, as time went on, her actions began affecting my reputation. The men in her life started assuming they could also be men in my life, and I began to resent her for it. As the year went on, I was involved with one (1) guy in our area, a stable, likable grad who was willing to do just about anything for anyone. And she took full advantage of that. Despite all the men in her life, she was frequently asking him for rides, and money, and favors, and attention. She was solicitous of anyone who was kind to her, and even those who were unkind, and ended up in heartache.
Was she a victim or a bully?
Example 3: In my early years of posting on ex-way boards, a former leader posted here, one who, in my experience with him, represented all that was wrong with The Way. For all the years I knew him, he had a big mouth, and an attitude. He was demanding, demeaning, dictatorial, and abrasive. Others at WayDale loved him. I had to sit on my hands, turn off the computer, vent to my husband (whose opinion of him is even lower than my own), and do everything within my power not to hammer out a response to him. It wasn't easy. I didn't want to contact him privately, publicly, or in any other way, because I had no interest in a relationship with him. I didn't want his apology, his understanding, or even his opinion on any topic. And then one day we were posting on the same thread. And something inexplicable happened. I laughed at one of his posts. It wasn't a spiteful, wicked laugh. He said something undeniably funny. Somehow, from that point on, I was able to read his posts with more humor and forgiveness than I had previously been able to muster. It didn't bother me anymore that others praised him. He had a sense of humor, which I began to appreciate. For me, that was much more healing, than any brief cathartic release I may have experienced by telling him what I really think. What difference would it have made anyway? Nothing we say to each other now is going to change what happened twenty-plus years ago.
Anyway, despite the fact that I do not agree with oldiesman’s assessment of Wierwille, or The Way, I don't think oldiesman is insensitive when he says that "victims" have responsibility for their actions. I think he sees that as a way out of the pain, as a way to take control and help determine the outcome of relationships. It may not be a perspective that is widely accepted here, but it is valid nonetheless. And relevant. And on-topic. In my opinion. For what it's worth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Insightful post Laleo... thank you.
I'll jump in.
Number 1: victim (IMO)
Number 2: not a victim (I don't think bully applies) (IMO)
Sure... it's valid... it's his opinion. It's just disagreed with.Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Laleo,
I might agree with you on the initial post, and even on page one of this
thread. Keep reading. By page 3, the discussion turns into
"I don't think there was any coercion involved-everybody was consensual".
Let me know if you need the exact posts cited or quoted.
Gunpoint is easy to see as coercion, and is an order of magnitude greater
than using psychosocial methods. They don't invalidate the presence of
other modes of control. "Iron bars do not a prison make." That's been
a saying in the world for a long time, and not without reason.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Posteb by Laleo:
An oversimplification I think. While we were certainly not held at gunpoint, TWI held a psycological power over many of us that was just as threatening as 12 gauge shotgun.
From the outside looking in it is easy to say that "We complied, foolishly at times, but those mistakes were ours to make". But this fails to address WHY many of us complied to the ungodly and absurd demands (oppression) of TWI and it's leaders.
I think there comes a point where a person can surrender their will over to a group like TWI. It may be a quick conscious decision or may be something that happens over time. I also think that TWI's programs, policies and doctrines were/are designed to this end.
Once this happens, in many cases, the authority and control that the group (TWI in our case) wields upon an individual can be almost total within the scope it's operations. It can be more in some than in others and TWI was good at identifying where individuals should be placed in order to take advantage of them.
It is at this point of surrender that a person will then do almost anything for the furtherance of the group (God's Will). In their mind they are doing the right thing. It could be the "leader" who busted up a family, or a woman who serviced the MOG, or a couple who sells their home to be debt free.
Yes, these things are "foolish" as we look at them now some are even sinful and ungodly, but at the time they seemed like the right things to do many folks. Why? Was the source of the "oppression" our own foolishness? No.
Sure, no one "forced" anyone to make TWI or a MOG their master, but this level of misguided trust and commitment was taught and developed by TWI - and once attained in a person, TWI had as close to "absolute authority" over them as you can get. The person has for all practical purposes lost their "power over their oppressor" in certain areas of their lives.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
laleo: It's "whom", in this case. "...a husband whom I love," and "...children whom I love" are correct. (At least you didn't use "that" or "which"--those aren't used when talking about people.)
You can tell an objective pronoun is required in this case because you are the one doing the loving, and the husband is the object of that love, hence, "...a husband whom I love". If it's your husband that's doing the loving, then he's the subject and you're the object--"...a husband who loves me..."
See?
:)-->
(added later: I almost forgot the third possibility, predicate nominatives. They always take the subject form, even though it's commonly misused in American English. "That guy is who?" is correct. (simple test: invert the sentence--"who is that guy" is correct, so "that guy is who" is equivalent.)
The most common misuse is typified by sentences like "Is that him?" Since "is" is a form of "to be", it's a predicate nominative situation. The correct usage is "Is that he?" So the common "That's him!" should really be "That's he!"
Of course, when most of the population is completely baffled by something as simple as an apostrophe, the chances of "That's him" and its like disappearing approach zero.
--> )
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Laleo -
The difference between "who" and "whom" can be remembered by applying the difference between "he" and "him".
If you would say "he", you would say "who".
I gave the apple to him. I gave the apple to whom?
He gave me an apple. Who gave me an apple?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
laleo, thanks for your thoughtful assessment, and your realization that what i said isn't, or wasn't meant to be, blame-shifting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Steve's test is the one I use for who and whom.
But in causual or informal writing and conversation there is nothing wrong with using "that or which" in regards to people.
I know folks who have managed to go most of their lives without using word "whom" at all. They communicate quite effectively. With some things here are no hard and fast rules.
The last thing I want to do is end up sounding like William F. Buckley when I am talking with m rancher buddies or posting here at GS.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
imbus
Laleo,
Thanks for you insight. I really appriciate your objective veiw on this matter. Your writing style speaks volumes of mindful intent. I felt that it was well developed without prejudice. Your imput is always welcomed in my life.
I realize that for every opinion,there is a religion. Each is entitled to believe as thy choose. The topic at hand is a tough one. It has complexities that we haven't begun to cover or are not even aware of. I understand though there are no black and white answers just alot of gray. Life is actually lived in the gray zone.
When one posts it is either subjective or objective. I find I post from my experiance (subjective) and find it difficult to see things from a different angle.
Thanks for the way you have handled this topic. I will ponder what you have written. I do know that "each cituation merits its on judgement" and "God only knows what is in the heart of a person" when it comes to intent. The intent of Leadership and those that followed.
Zixar,
Dude...I can hardly spell and you come up with this gramatical stuff. Are you an English Professor?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Laleo,
That was, indeed, a very wise post. Gave us a lot to chew on.
I still think that the culpability of the victim is not relevant when the discussion is centered on the abuse of power and the extent of power. In declaring that the power exercised by some TWI leadership was "absolute," I agree that the original post on this thread went too far. It was not absolute. But it doesn't have to be absolute to be "power." And there was considerable power wielded. As I said, as Goey said, and as others have said, the psychological power wielded by TWI was, in the minds and hearts of some followers, just as intense as the power of a gun pointed at your head.
When a "man of God" tells you that adultery is not wrong, of course you have the right and ability to disagree and to walk away from the situation. But (again, in some cases) at what cost? The targets of this abuse were motivated by deception, fear, manipulation, all imposed by these people who were supposed to be representing God. That's powerful power. So yes, some of the victims wanted to do their best to love God and love their neighbor as themselves, but they were deceived into thinking that adultery could be an expression of that love. Stupid? To me, yes. To you, probably. To someone who is vulnerable and "would rather be loved and wrong than unloved and right," it's less clear. To someone afraid of having their reputation tarnished, someone with few friends or family outside this cult, to someone who has already isolated their friends and family to be a part of TWI, it's less clear.
Let's look at your two examples:
1. A male friend is told by TWI leadership to tell his girlfriend to have an abortion. You and I probably agree that he made the wrong call. He lost his girlfriend and, as you left the story, didn't even know whether he was, in fact, a father. Was this man a victim or bully?
He was a little bit of both: a victim of improper counsel by "men of God;" a bully for trying to get his girlfriend to do something she didn't want to do. In this case you've touched on something important, something that has not been discussed: how do bullies get to be bullies? To some extent, they get to be bullies by being victims first.
Your friend was a victim being trained to be a bully.
2. Your other friend was "incapable of turning down a sexual advance." Laleo, if someone with that characteristic becomes part of a church, the church is responsible to help her overcome it. Do you think TWI would have helped her? Or do you think some leaders would have helped themselves to her? The question on this thread concerns, primarily, leadership and the abuse of power. No one you mention in your example is in a position of leadership, so it's kind of off point.
While I understand what you're trying to say, the point remains that whether leadership was confronted with someone so unwilling that they had to drug her to get her to comply, or someone who was so abused that they were "incapable" of saying no, leadership had a responsibility commensurate with their power (influence) as leaders. And a leader who takes sexual advantage of people has abused his power.
Here's another way to look at it:
If the abuser was not in a position of leadership, would the relationship turn sexual? Would the abuse have been possible?
If the answer to the above question is yes, then the culpability of the woman is relevant. If the answer is no, then it is irrelevant.
That's just my opinion (an oversimplified version, I might add).
Anyway, excellent post. Thank you for writing it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
No, just an incurable wise-a**.
;)--> I'd like to have been a teacher, but computer work pays so much better--and you don't suck in chalk dust all day, either. 
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
For me the situation is based on the idea that
anyone who would be called the "man of god for
our times","the president", or "the teacher"
is held to a higher level of accountability
since they are presumably helping people who are willing to be vulnerable and humble to aquire a greater knowledge of God. If you
are approaching someone in a position of spirtual
authority its quite likely because you trust them
(or want to) and its presumed that their advice
and suggestions are to be taken seriously because they reflect an elevated spirtual perspective.
VPW used to use the following verse to underscore the responsibility that church leaders have to the body:
Matthew 18
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
(Note: this verse was later extended to apply
to those contemplating a departure from TWI)
VPW claimed that this verse documented the responsibility that a pastor has for the church
thus he seemed to have knowledge that spirtual leaders are highly accountable for their actions.
Within this context I see that VPW, LCM,
and other way leaders abused their station.
Lots of people trusted them to provide teaching and advice that was targeted to heal and deliver
though we now know that both exploited their
positions to their own personal benefit which
is clearly not acceptable.
By VPW's own teaching a leader is worthy of death for betraying the trust of a believer and causing them to stumble.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
I love you Laleo and you write very well making your points.
I love you dearly but I do not agree with your assessment of OM.
To all, this is IMO
For years he has defended Weirwille and I think by now we should all realize this, let him expound and take it with a grain of salt and keep talking about how a cult leading liar made people “feel”. Not just sexually, but also how they felt about their money, their time, people dying in their families or finding out they had an illness under the heartless reign of the basta*rd.
Oldiesman you say has more respect for the victims then for which he is given credit.
I am not going to go back through his arguments and seek exact quotes but most of the people here have read his posturing on these issues and know if I am not “exact” in what I am saying I capture the gist.
Through the years he has a subtle insulting insidious way of victimizing the victim. He has in the past called Weirwille’s seductions, by misuse of the Bible, “affairs” “Slept together” “indiscretions” “adultery”
All of these headings do dismiss the real evil that was perpetrated at TWI by its leaders.
This is not only a simplification of what went on, it is an undercutting of the methodical web woven to get girls in the motor coach. When mentioned that women were given drinks and then felt funny or were unable to fight him off, OM then said he did not really believe it just because John Lynn brought it up or Marsha recorded it in her letter. He said something like he did not know “us” and why should he believe us? Then Val52 came on and he DOES know her. She told of how she was in the coach and how things happened. She was able to leave as was I, but her friend was back there with VP. I do not recall if she said they were offered drinks but I think she did.
http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/ltr_marsha.htm
OM still refused to budge from his position an inch to put himself into another’s shoes and allow himself to FEEL what the victims felt. Instead that is a highway he wishes not to travel.
Then, Sunesis came on and spoke of the whole sexual thing. We have all told it over and over again because Om and a few others consistently come into these discussions with their insidious swipes at the victims. And here is a revelation, just because someone speaks of their victimization does not mean they are living life as a victim now.
There has been sound advice from pyscologist regarding the seduction of kids who were sexually abused by other authority figures, there have been articles written on sexual seduction by other clergy. Plots came on and said they would never allow someone to do things like VP did and continue to practice from the pulpit. There have been articles presented as VP’s conduct has been criminal. All of these presentations do not dent the thick impenetrable wall OM has built in his mind about Weirwille.
And I have gotten to the point where I have tried to just avoid these threads…. But when OM said
“Originally posted by oldiesman:
"Sometimes I think GS is like a soap opera. You know, like leaving it for months, come back, and one is exactly where they left off. Try it. Come back in 6 months and see if there's any lull in the relentless one-sided condemnation of Wierwille and twi.
Must be something in the nature of man to want to perpetually crush and pulverize a dead horse”
I must concur that one can return in 6 months or a year or 4 years and still there will be an impenetrable wall around OM’s concepts of Weirwille and insidious little blurbs being thrown at his victims. So, it behooves me how he can say such a thing, as a line that some how comes off that he has moved ahead and returns here after 6 months only to see everyone still stuck in their views. When after a 6 month absence he returns, not with a broader understanding or a kinder heart but with the exact same condemning views he has always had.
I can only think that OM has a very limited view of rape, seduction and deceit. I wonder, being as he is blind to sexual sin, if he would be soooo blind and unyielding if perhaps he lost a trust fund to TWI. If it cost OM something. Sex and sexual abuse have a blurred line to him and he will not see it. What about the other boundaries? Does he see them? Or again, does a gun have to be place to someone’s head in order for him to be able to see a “crime?”
Is the line blurred in other areas outside of TWI thinking? Does he think the “Romeo” bandits do anything wrong when they woo an old lady into thinking they are loved to drain their accounts? Again, there was no gun to the head, but does OM have the ability to see “crime” or is his mind so seared to the ability to see right and wrong that it has blinded all his judgments?
I saw am interview with rapists and one of the statements made was chilling, “I want to hurt them. I do not want to terminate their lives… I want to wreck their lives. So everyday they have to live their tattered life that I was able to destroy.
Then Oprah did a thing on sexual predators and she “GETS IT” it is a dance, a seduction of deceit just to use someone and throw them away. Also wrecking their lives. This is what they do. But to use GOD as a dance step in that seduction to wreck a persons’ life is a dark evil. You can look for shades of gray to excuse it, but there is no gray.
It is dismissive to the victim to then call it “adultery”. The word adultery is too shallow and does not hold forth the evil that happens as a result of a sexual predator. Or to say well it was the 70’s and girls were looser then…. Perhaps some girls wore their underpants on their heads and offered their “sex” to anyone. But even THOSE girls, who sought Jesus, should have been told to put their pants back on and go home by a man representing himself as a Man of God (or greater -- THE Moggie)
What kind of Bible would it have been if Jesus saw that Mary had committed adultery and was a harlot for different men and instead of offering her deliverance, he rescued her from a bad situation just to give her too much wine and force himself on her?
I guess with some of the thinking I see on this thread, Jesus could "do" her and it would be okay.... And he was a Moggie! And somehow if he did "do" her it would be the woman's fault.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Diazbro and Raf
Two fine posts.
Goey - I say Amen to yours as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
"From the outside looking in." Come on, Goey. I'm hardly an outsider. If I've oversimplified anything, it's because my posts tend to be too long as it is. Figuring out who is responsible for what is anything but simple.
I had to think for awhile about your question: "Was the source of the 'oppression' our own foolishness?" I agree with you that in absolute terms the answer is "No," but in practical terms, we were involved in a dance, between leaders and followers, with both contributing to the continuance of the dance. So, with that in mind, I would also answer, "Yes." Without a dance partner, the song would have ended.
Anyway, I fully expected to be skewered, so thanks to all for at least considering what I have to say.
Zixar: You make it all sound so simple. The thing that really threw me off was your thread: Whom Do You Trust in the Media? I've been thinking about it ever since. I tend to think in terms of who I trust, rather than whom I trust. I'm not sure how Steve's him and he fits in here. And, besides, what if it's a woman?
I have to admit, though, that I am shocked, stunned, appalled, by this statement: "If it's your husband that's doing the loving . . . " Just exactly what are you suggesting? THAT!?! What are you trying to say about him? Isn't he a who?
Thank you, imbus. I appreciate that. More than you know.
Dot and Raf. More later.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Laleo,
By "outside looking in", I meant now outside of the infulence of TWI, looking back in at our past. I never meant to even remotely suggest that you were an "outsider".
The oversimplification I refered to was mostly in the statement, "We complied, foolishly at times, but those mistakes were ours to make."
True, but it fails to address the WHY of the compliance. How it came to be that Way Leaders had this power over many of us cannot be explained as simply as saying we were foolish and and it was our mistake.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
WordWolf: I re-read those pages you suggested. I would sum up the gist of oldiesman's posts by quoting Erica Jong: "You take your life in your own hands, and what happens? A terrible thing: no one to blame."
Raf: I so agree. I really, really do. However, I still have one quibble. I don't think pointing out the role of the victim in a cycle of abuse is at all irrelevant. Cycles of abuse can be interrupted by either a) altering the behavior of the bully, or b) altering the behavior of the victim. I think a disservice is done to victims when they are portrayed as helpless and hopeless, whose prayer for salvation can only be answered by controlling or changing the actions of the bully, else they are doomed.
Dot: I offer no defense of Wierwille. None. I also agree with you that oldiesman completely underestimates the level of intimidation inherent in a minister's sexual advance toward a parishioner, and doesn't even seem to understand typical sexual dynamics in most male/female relationships. I'm not sure I agree that this makes him heartless. I agree with you that "adultery" shouldn't replace the word "rape" or "sexual harassment," when talking about what any reasonable person would conclude is criminal activity among Way "clergy." However, I still think that oldiesman's points can be debated rather than dismissed, because the victim does have a role, whether we want to acknowledge it here or not. In your examples of rapists, and Oprah, and women who meet men who suck their life savings from them -- none of us wants to be that person. Those predators will always exist, not only in The Way, where many of us met people who should have been in prison long before we crossed paths with them, but also outside of The Way. Simply leaving The Way is no more a guarantee for happiness than was being in The Way. At some point, the changes have to come from within.
Anyway, I think very highly of you, too, and it sure isn't my goal to stifle any of your dialogue, or to dismiss your experience.
Okay, Goey. I misunderstood. And you may be right about the "outside looking in." I do often feel removed from what people still in The Way might be experiencing. However, I still think that the "why" of compliance might better be answered by understanding the person who complies rather than the person who elicits compliance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Laleo,
“A psychologist's job is to hold his client responsible for her own problems in life. His job is to discover how his client is contributing to her own unhappiness, and search for solutions. Anything less would be a betrayal.”
I agree, but oldiesman is not a psychologist, other posters are not his clients, and oldiesman’s intent is not to discover how others contributed to their own unhappiness or to search for solutions. Even if that were his intent, and pursuing that were appropriate in some threads, it would not be appropriate here because that is neither the topic nor the intent of this thread.
”In my opinion, the opening post of this thread is beyond an overstatement. Based on my experience in The Way, it presents a sensationalized view of the relationship that existed between leaders and followers. The photographs of the abuse of prisoners at Abu Graib says nothing to me about my involvement in The Way, dysfunctional though it was. It doesn't describe my experience. I think oldiesman's first post on this thread is absolutely correct in the context of Abu Graib.”
The opening post didn’t compare the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib with anyone’s involvement in The Way. It wasn’t really even about abuse, per se. It didn’t suggest a direct comparison between Abu Ghraib and TWI, regarding any specific abuse, severity of abuse, levels of degradation, means of exercising authority, whether the authority was “real” or “imagined”, whether authority was taken forcibly or ceded without force, etc. It didn’t discuss at all people’s ability (or lack thereof) to refuse to cede authority or submit to claimed authority. It didn’t focus on victimhood at all. It focussed on two factors that a psychologist said foster abuse and sought to consider how those factors may have contributed to a climate of abuse in TWI. It further noted that those two factors could help explain how seemingly well intentioned, good-hearted people became abusive and even sadistic. Certainly there have been many accounts of formerly caring TWI leaders becoming harsh, overbearing, and cruel over time.
This thread wasn’t about decrying or sensationalizing the abuses of TWI leaders. It wasn’t about excusing victims. It wasn’t about victims at all. It also wasn't about "the why of compliance." It was about factors that may have influenced some people to become abusers. Oldiesman managed to derail it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
pg-3, this thread. 3/10/04, 11:55am.
Laleo,
does this reflect an honest acknowledgement that some women's lives were
shredded when they chose not to comply,
and that some were drugged so that they were not able to refuse?
So far, I've seen accounts from women who were drugged, women who felt they
had no choice, women who refused and ran, women who know women who were
traumatized by being in one of the above categories, and a few assorted
variations of same. So far, what I have NOT seen is ONE woman say that, at
the time, she did something with a mog, and she wasn't under duress or any
coercion at the time...I haven't even seen one say she approached the mog
with the intention of a "dalliance". So far, seems that, to some degree,
all of them found it "wrong" or "distasteful" at the time, even when they
were forcing their minds to say it was "right"....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.