Quote:
Originally Posted by Mysteria
I am not surprised if ex sisters aren't sticking around, if this is the normal climate. Although I know it is usually not intentional, the aggressive, domineering way men are socialized to interact and push a point is often a turn off to women who are looking for space to not have to take care of others, couch everything they say in the most diplomatic terms possible, and pretend to not actually be sure of what they are saying when they are. That is what WE are socialized to do.
And it gets exhausting, especially when you are in need of expressing deep hurts and baggage like everyone else. When this happens enough, women often end up seeking women-only spaces. That is one very likely factor, just if you were wondering.
|
I'm a man and think like a man (which has its plusses and minuses). One thing I occasionally think about is how a movement whose early collective expression and experience was so clearly influnced by women (e.g., Margaret Barber, Jessie Penn-Lewis, Madame Guyon, Mary McDonough) ended up being a place where women had to sit staring at the opposite wall, pretending to be brain-dead?
Here's a quote showing the obvious early influence of women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast
For a variety of reasons, including the anti-Western movement of the 1920s, many Chinese Christian leaders were seeking ways to form indigenous churches that would be free from Western missionary control. Having moved to the International Settlement in Shanghai in 1926, Ni constituted in 1932 a group of “apostolic” co-workers that would lead what became the Little Flock Movement: Wang Peizhen (Peace Wang) and Li Yuanru (Ruth Lee), with Ni himself as supreme. They soon grew from a small household gathering to a network of local churches.
By G. Wright Doyle, Director, Global China Center; English Editor, Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Christianity, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
|
So, what happened?I mean, doesn't anyone see the glaring dis-connect between what the Ni/Li movement once was, and what it became? I wonder how the rank-and-file, especially women, don't see this. It's just too obvious that something's amiss.
90 years ago, Dora Yu could be a lioness of the "early recovery" but today, when women can be President of the USA, they can't speak except "under the covering", i.e. abject servility. . . ? And don't tell me that Barber or Penn-Lewis had some male "covering" - they didn't.
How can an intelligent, college-educated female sit there in the FTTA & not wonder at this? How can anyone not wonder at this?