Updated, April 28
I found an old comment on another post that looks relevant. I nearly forgot about it.
Anonymous said...
to the poor dudes who get sucked into this cult (at last count 5 were left) there is nothing but misery for them Isiah 3:12 it is said"as for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. o my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths " it says it all, persecuted by the kids most of whom aren't even yours and ruled over by the women who are all man haters. wives don't let your men have this kind of misery and if you hate your men so at least get divorced, its better. if you have children they will be turned against you, look to history as an example
May 17, 2009 3:10 PM
After making the realization about how the Spiritual Rights Foundation was said to be created as "a place for women so men can benefit" I made another realization about the founding of this dysfunctional and worthless organization and the phenomenon of "projection".
Now before you start jumping up and down, I know projection is a real behavioral condition recognized by the psychological profession. The term "projection" has been thrown around here there and everywhere from Dr. Phil to "The Real World" whenever someone gets offended. If you listen to the talk show and "reality" show contestants you'd think it's an epidemic.
And if you read the "
response" from the SRF "experts" in "projection" you might start wondering if they were watching too much Dr. Phil, Dr. Laura, Dr. Who, Dr. House or maybe they need a doctor themselves.
So I started thinking about where the "projection" thing came from. The below article was originally posted last year - well before the Spiritual Rights Foundation concocted
the response to this blog from their addled minds.
In it, I pointed out every woman there seems to hold every grudge they ever held against every man they ever knew against every man at the Spiritual Rights Foundation
until every act of this man is submissive and compliant to the iron rule of the fair sex - all with the encouragement of Bill Duby and the women he appointed as leaders.
Now is this an expression of my own prejudices? Am I merely projecting my own inadequacies as a male upon women? Is my observation another in my long line of anti-woman and anti-freedom rantings?
Go back and smoke more of whatever it is you have in that pipe, then come back and ask me again.
If you have read this blog, in fact if you can read at all, you will see I'm speaking from the stance of simple fairness. And fairness goes both ways. I'll treat you with the kind of courtesy, respect, and equality as you are willing to give to myself and those around you. I have a hard time believing that is a projection.
The definition of "projection" psychology-wise has something to do with"the operation of expelling feelings or wishes the individual finds wholly unacceptable—too shameful, too obscene, too dangerous—by attributing them to another."
Freud: A Life for Our Time, page 281.
I'm not at all convinced we ex-members of SRF are projecting our psychological closet of hidden shame by saying Bill Duby was a deranged psychopath (especially since Bill himself boasted of his mental illness). I'm not convinced we are guilty of projection when I and the scores of other ex-members of the Spiritual Rights Foundation recall the incidents we witnessed and the insane and psychotic abuses of the members in exactly the same way.
I think the leaders of the Spiritual Rights Foundation (all women) were set loose to enforce an agenda of mind control, financial abuse and psychological abuse in the guise of spiritual healing and obedience to the founder and pastor of the Spiritual Rights Foundation.
And by bringing out the "projection" topic whenever someone says these empresses have no clothes is clearly an attempt to distract attention and divert the conversation into something else - like away from the evil, vile and abusive practices of the Witches of Ellsworth.
So, if you can believe the women of the Spiritual Rights Foundation are encouraged to unleash their inner, uh, whatever it is onto the SRF men ("don't trust a man if he is breathing" Bill would say) you might understand what warped and bizarre process was dancing around in their coconuts as they wrote their "
response".
And the below article may help you understand the environment at SRF and what happens to a person's mind while you and those around you play a game of dominance and submission that never ends and no one can win.
===========================================
I just realized something.
The founder of the Spiritual Rights Foundation said frequently that SRF was founded "as a place for women for the benefit of men". After hearing that for the umpteenth time, I started to wonder just how we men are benefiting.
The Spiritual Rights Foundation encouraged distrust and conflict with couples. Almost every couple I knew there either wound up in divorce or some other kind of traumatic breakup if not married. Couples were put together by the leader, then torn apart.
A few survived. My wife and I, for example, met in the cult and are together for the long haul. No thanks to SRF, though. They ripped us apart. Then later, after all the
public turmoil over divorces and child custody battles came up, they stayed out of the way. Odd coincidence, huh? Oh, right. There are no coincidences in the universe. Silly me.
Anyway, the church held the view that all men are evil and are liars, cheats, thieves and sex fiends. Women were counseled nearly every day: "you know a man is lying because his lips are moving" or "you can never trust men". The woman's role was to keep the men in line.
The man's role was to say "yes dear", and to be "the head of the woman".
As we interpreted those vague phrases we were to shut up and let the woman do what she wants. While we did that, we had to be the "head of the woman" to reinforce the teachings of the church by living and upright and church-worthy life while demanding your spouse do the same. The advice was to "Keep 'em busy. They'll cause trouble otherwise". So we men were advised to have our spouses go out and work outside the home and make sure their off time was filled with wholesome church activities. Even if they were needed at home for thing like child rearing (or even baby rearing) while you went out to earn a day's pay. Even if the only work they can do is menial, underpaid work. Even if your spouse is trying to educate herself (as mine was and is still).
You had to make her go out and work. And while she worked, she was required (by spiritual law) to give up the tithe to the church. You, as the man had the unenviable job of enforcement.
The women were told to control their men and to force the man to do whatever it is the woman wanted them to do. Even the impossible. I was frequently berated, screamed at, had objects thrown at me because I had fallen ill with heart failure (an illness I still am treated for today) and had a difficult time working a high pressure professional job.The church wanted me to give and give big. My wife wanted me to work hard. Really hard. Hard enough to satisfy her demands (which were considerable with college tuition, basic needs, transportation and car needs as well as her need for entertainment and travel) and hard enough to satisfy the Spiritual Rights Foundation (who, as it turns out, is insatiable).
There was no way I could perform to that impossible level - I had a hard enough time breathing, walking and just trying to live. Many other guys were finding it difficult or impossible to satisfy both SRF and their spouses. Many were struggling. Most were on the brink of financial disaster every day of the week. None thrived.
Yet, they were pressed to do more. Pressed to give more. Pressed to make possible the impossible. And all the while they all tried to do as they were told: be the head of the woman.
Now if that isn't a set up for conflict, what is? Two people battling for control of the other is like the two toughest kids on the block. Sooner or later, they're going to fight.
The women were "counseled" to engage in activities that would maintain control. If the man would make some kind of transgression like not attending all the SRF events or working sufficiently hard at the SRF ranch, the women could withhold affection, withhold sex, withhold time with that man's children, scream, berate and demean him using all of the most vile and hostile methods available - anything to force the man into submitting to the SRF will.
Wives and significant others could argue with their spouse over any small issue as long as that issue would promote the operations and cause of SRF. Like working your ass off at a farm (actually owned by the church leadership - not the church itself) digging holes or pulling weeds for no pay and without even a thin sandwich at the end of the day.
Anyway,
I'm not writing about slave labor. I'm writing about that "so men can benefit" part. Come to think of it, that pretty much devolves into
slave labor too.
How does a man benefit if he has to submit to the SRF will, enforced by the person he is closest to? And what kind of benefit do you receive?
I never figured it out.
Men paid out hundreds, sometimes over a thousand dollars a month to be "in the energy". That money went to classes, "clinic healings", readings, special seminars, recordings. books. And the tithe. Not to mention all the money spent on church owned apartments. The men had to get their spouses to work outside the home, even if they had small children or infants at home, in order to afford all the things the church demanded they pay for. And of course, a working spouse is commanded by the Supreme Being to pay 10% of that hard earned wage to the church.
The men were used for all the physical work. And there was a lot of it. Men had to donate time to perform construction or other physical work on church properties for no compensation. Some of those properties weren't really church properties. The SRF Farm wasn't an SRF Farm - it was owned by Angela Silva and Robin Dumolin. Meals while working were the individual's responsibility. Sometimes, you had to work then attend a "class" for several hours (for which you paid a fair amount - a very fair amount), or do even more work for SRF in other ways.
And after all that, you had the pleasure to go home and say "yes dear" to your spouse while you figure out how to be the head of the woman.
After all the church activities and hard work, most guys were too exhausted and their will too deeply diminished to even try to be keep spouses in control. They were berated as being "eunuchs", "lazy minded" or any one of a number of insults.
To keep your status and stay out of the SRF doghouse (see the "
Pink Prison" entry) you had to keep your head down and do what you are told. That meant total dedication to the whims of SRF and total submission to their will.
And your spouse was the one to enforce that will. If you didn't go along, SRF would be sure you will come home to a cold, distant or even hostile spouse.
I guess that is the benefit. Break the will, break the man. With dysfunctional women (all with a history of bad relationships) in charge, the men are paying for the sins of others.
I'm sure other female-led organizations are well run and stress equality. I'm not indicting any of them. But if you are a woman and are constantly told that you can't trust men and that they are liars, cheats, thieves and sex fiends in severe need of control and must be made submissive, how would you behave towards men? Are those kinds of demeaning statements common in our society? And aren't those kinds of statements universally unacceptable? Not at SRF.
All the women at the Spiritual Rights Foundation believed it, because those statements were made by the male leader of the cult. So, since Bill Duby said it, it must be true.
It's still there. One guy who was thought to be aggressive and had a beef with women in general (because of his child custody dispute with his ex-wife, which is still ongoing years later) was "worked on" to remove his aggression. He later married a church member after being declared to have the "wolves cleansed from his space".
So how about it? Does equal rights for women include punishing a man for sins committed by another who that man never knew? Does the practice of guilt by association used by the Un-American Activities Committee remain acceptable? It it fair to create equality through punishment?
In the SRF world, it is. There is no such thing as fairness. No such thing as equality. No such thing as forgiveness. If you are a man, YOU WILL pay for the sins of your gender.
My ancestors were locked up in a concentration camp for the duration of WWII. Would it be fair if I locked YOU up in a barbed wire compound to live in a tar-paper hut with a wood burning stove for heat and no indoor plumbing because your ancestors imprisoned mine? Should YOU be punished for the racism and hatred your ancestors conducted against mine?
Of course not. You had nothing to do with the sins of your ancestors.
Because we as a nation regard that period of incarceration as a shameful act (well, everyone except Michelle Malkin, I guess), my family and I forgave that treatment long ago. Even now, there are efforts to make amends -
my father has been conferred an honorary degree from the California Polytechnic University because he was sent to an internment camp soon after he started there.
Because of that recognition of responsibility, we decided to move on with our lives despite the past. We did leave the painful past behind. We did let go of invalidation.
Why is it that the Spiritual Rights Foundation can't begin their own process of amends?
The behaviors of one man or one woman can't condemn a whole population. The Witches of Ellsworth want their followers to believe their bad experiences apply to all women and that any person sharing even one of the characteristics of the people who wronged them are as evil as the real perpetrators.
So at the Spiritual Rights Foundation, men must take a submissive role to survive and women take on the same behavior as the people they hated.
4 comments: