The Godly Woman 101

[anitram]

I can't imagine why this would be at a university - are they accredited? These schools are places of higher learning to engage students in critical thinking, not to have them sew buttons and mop floors. But then again, I'd never attend such an institution even at the threat of death, so to each his own.

 

[meegannie]

According to their website, this is a 21-hour concentration within a 129-hour Humanities BA program (Southwestern is, of course, a seminary school, not a regular college or university, so it only offers BAs in Humanities and Music to begin with--you don't go there to study math, political science, electrical engineering, pre-law etc.).

While I don't really see the point in having credit-carrying college courses in home meal preparation, home clothesmaking, and home design (the courses in child development, nutrition and Biblical models of family make more sense), it's not like women students are required to take these courses, or for that matter to attend this particular school at all. Frankly, the article seems more mean-spirited than anything else to me.

Where do I sign up?

 

[Angela Harlem]

Why, oh why, can't women have it all? If I can do it, anyone can!

 

[indra]

This article kind of reminds me of a couple of my older cousins who went to college just for their "MRS degree". It seems odd to me to have some of these courses offered in a college setting (they seem more appropriate for finishing or vocational school), but college is where many people meet their future spouses, so I guess I can see the logic there.

I wouldn't take the concentration or any of the courses, but if others want to, it's ok with me.

 

[melon]

Remember, guys, if the Bible "says so," it's "God's will." If the Koran "says so," well, then we must send an army to "liberate them" and demand that they "modernize."

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Well I think when people are talking about the "glorious inequalities of life" and that women were created to be helpers, it implies some sort of inferiority. If they said and taught the same things about men there'd be an equality there. From my viewpoint inequality isn't glorious or ordered by God.

"We must fit into this role. It's so much more important than our own personal happiness."

When the men start saying things like that it will be fine.

 

[BVS]

No. I really don't think he did.

You don't think there's a fear that this type of thinking leads to inequality? This "role assignment" has been abused for centuries, and still is often today. To me his answer, though may be very true, wasn't exactly where the poster he quoted was going. That was my whole point. I just think he conveinently avoided addressing some of the pitfalls of this type of thinking by giving the nice neat "love all" answer.

Which I think is the right answer, but it's similar to the hate the sin, love the sinner answer we often get.

I guess I want someone who still believes in these gender roles to explain how they use these roles in their own lives and if they find them to be truly equal. And then to see how literal do they take them, can the roles be reversed, can they be divided?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Well I think he did, but I await his answer before I reach that definite conclusion. Personally I don't think saying "we're all here to serve each other" is a justification for any mentality that women are here for the purpose of serving men, and certainly not that singular purpose.

 

[yolland]

I guess for me what it comes down to is that (unlike what was the case "for centuries") these women have real alternatives available to them. They do not have to be homemakers, they do not have to follow an interpretation of the Bible that says married women may not work outside the home, they don't even have to leave their own denomination over this, because there's a diversity of opinions within it on this issue. I think they have to be seen as accountable for their own happiness or unhappiness as a result of the view of marriage they've committed to.

As far as what these women's husbands, future husbands, and fellow seminary students not enrolled in this concentration think about men's roles and responsibilities within a marriage, none of us are really in a position to comment, because none of us know anything about what they think and say, or about what's being taught in the Christian life courses all the undergrads take. It could be anything from 'Submit to each other as the Bible says; in return for her running the household you should always put her goals and wishes for it and the children first' to 'You are the Lord and Master and should always tell your servant what to do, not ask her.' My guess is something along the former lines is far more likely, but we really don't know.

I also think any married person will tell you that whatever nominal ideology about marriage you both subscribe to, the reality is that personality, 'attitude,' inherited sensibilities and household labor arrangements peculiar to your own family of birth, and other such 'intangibles' exert a huge if not decisive influence, too. And homemaking, to a large extent, simply is what it is where perceived 'inequality' potential is concerned--if you're a homemaker, then no matter what your gender or reasons for making that choice, the reality is you won't be the one with a paycheck to show for your efforts, you won't get the same kind of specific public-sphere recognition and validation your spouse does for the work you do, and you'll probably be more vulnerable if something happens to your spouse (or they walk out on you) than you would've been if you'd both held paying jobs. That's just the way it is. At least the model of marriage these women are committing to is unambiguous about who's going to be doing most of the childcare and housework--as opposed to the all-too-common situation where both spouses start out saying 'Oh we're gonna do everything fifty-fifty, a woman can do whatever she wants in life, blah blah blah' and then once the actual crying infant is in the house, guess who feels the most pressure to scale back their work responsibilities, even though that wasn't the original (nominal) shared expectation. While I don't personally subscribe to the idea that what follows from this is that women should always be the homemakers (or that there needs to be a stay-at-home parent at all), I don't see choosing to commit oneself to this particular alternative as a "bad" way to go. What matters is that the woman chose it, she believes in it, and she can therefore meaningfully be said to be accountable for its consequences.

 

[Bono's shades]

Well I think when people are talking about the "glorious inequalities of life" and that women were created to be helpers, it implies some sort of inferiority. If they said and taught the same things about men there'd be an equality there. From my viewpoint inequality isn't glorious or ordered by God.

I don't see how anyone could utter the phrase "glorious inequalities" with a straight face. It's downright Orwelian. It creeped me out just reading it.

 

[maycocksean]

You don't think there's a fear that this type of thinking leads to inequality?

The type of thinking that says we're all to serve one another? No. The type of thinking that says and emphasizes "wives submit to your husbands", yes.

This "role assignment" has been abused for centuries, and still is often today. To me his answer, though may be very true, wasn't exactly where the poster he quoted was going. That was my whole point. I just think he conveinently avoided addressing some of the pitfalls of this type of thinking by giving the nice neat "love all" answer.

Yes, I went back and reread both what Mrs. S wrote and what nathan1977 replied and I see what you mean. I confess, perhaps I was being a bit snarky (and if I was I apologize) but I think I was responding to the larger overall dialogue and how his weighing in was treated. As far as I could tell from his larger post, nathan1977 was agreeing that this school's take on women's "roles" is pretty whack and yet, I felt he was attacked anyway (that "why is it you religious people. . ." comment really stuck in my craw because I'm what you might call a religious person and I don't subscribe to ANY of the views held by this school). I felt like he was being criticized based on who he is and his known reputation for taking conservative positions and so it was assumed that deep down he must really agree with the views of this school in Texas. Which I felt was really unfair.

But perhaps I was assuming too much, and that wasn't wise on my part, I admitt. After all, we all know what assuming makes out of you and me . . .

Which I think is the right answer, but it's similar to the hate the sin, love the sinner answer we often get.

Yeah, I've grown increasingly uncomfortable with the actual application of this idea myself.

I guess I want someone who still believes in these gender roles to explain how they use these roles in their own lives and if they find them to be truly equal. And then to see how literal do they take them, can the roles be reversed, can they be divided?

Well, I'm not that someone. But like you, I'd like to hear the answers to these questions too. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's anyone on this thread (yet) who's willing to cop to believing in rigid old-school gender roles.

 

[yolland]

I'm also wondering what people imagine a "truly equal" marriage in which the woman is a homemaker should look like, and how they imagine that to clearly differ from what an "old-school gender roles" marriage looks like.

 

[maycocksean]

I'm also wondering what people imagine a "truly equal" marriage in which the woman is a homemaker should look like, and how they imagine that to clearly differ from what an "old-school gender roles" marriage looks like.

Ooooh. Good question.

 

[martha]

Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's anyone on this thread (yet) who's willing to cop to believing in rigid old-school gender roles.

They post here in FYM, I'm sure; but like you, I doubt they'd admit it in a post.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Yep-we've seen evidence of it plenty of times

 

[BVS]

The type of thinking that says we're all to serve one another? No. The type of thinking that says and emphasizes "wives submit to your husbands", yes.

I was speaking of the "wives submit..." line of thinking.

Yes, I went back and reread both what Mrs. S wrote and what nathan1977 replied and I see what you mean. I confess, perhaps I was being a bit snarky (and if I was I apologize) but I think I was responding to the larger overall dialogue and how his weighing in was treated. As far as I could tell from his larger post, nathan1977 was agreeing that this school's take on women's "roles" is pretty whack and yet, I felt he was attacked anyway (that "why is it you religious people. . ." comment really stuck in my craw because I'm what you might call a religious person and I don't subscribe to ANY of the views held by this school). I felt like he was being criticized based on who he is and his known reputation for taking conservative positions and so it was assumed that deep down he must really agree with the views of this school in Texas. Which I felt was really unfair.

But perhaps I was assuming too much, and that wasn't wise on my part, I admitt. After all, we all know what assuming makes out of you and me . . .

See I didn't get the sense that Nathan neccesarily disagreed with the school, maybe I missed that part. I do understand that Nathan believes in the submitting of both ways like Christ did, but it was the literal take that it still has to be the woman who does this and the man that does this that I was questioning him about. This isn't the first time Nathan has agreed with these rigid boxes and not followed up. So that's where the "why is it that religious people...".

Because I understand the idea of the husband and wife submitting to each other. But it's when it's taken literally from the Bible and the gender roles are defined that way is what I have a problem with...

Well, I'm not that someone. But like you, I'd like to hear the answers to these questions too. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's anyone on this thread (yet) who's willing to cop to believing in rigid old-school gender roles.

Oh they cop to it, but then never come back to explain how or why they implement them in their own lives...

 

[anitram]

Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's anyone on this thread (yet) who's willing to cop to believing in rigid old-school gender roles.

It's a line of thinking that's been expressed on this forum in one way or another several times before. Sexist and patronizing comments are nothing new, and where gender roles are concerned you'll get a more subtle sort of commentary, but really, it takes you back to the same thing.

 

[martha]

Oh they cop to it, but then never come back to explain how or why they implement them in their own lives...

You can only implement that in real life if you're married. Some of the conservative posters here aren't married, and if they are, you'd be hard pressed to find many real life wives who put up with that kind of crap.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think there was something once along the lines of God made women for the purpose of ironing clothes (I take some license for purpose of this thread, if I remember correctly the word God was never used but the rest of the gist was the same).

I have no problem ironing his (not God's, the generic guy) clothes as long as he irons his own and mine (and as long as he doesn't think it's ordained by God that I do so or mandated for any non-religious reason that I find sexist and offensive), but I do know that God didn't create me for that purpose.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm also wondering what people imagine a "truly equal" marriage in which the woman is a homemaker should look like, and how they imagine that to clearly differ from what an "old-school gender roles" marriage looks like.

my guess is that a "truly equal" marriage would probably look different from the one these girls are being prepared for. the "truly equal" marriage doesn't have a gender-determined template and set list of expectations, duties, and check lists that you could prepare for in a college class.

 

[redhotswami]

on a side note: i'm glad to see there is still opportunities for single-sex liberal arts education. i'm not a fan of the curriculum, however the women enrolled are getting the opportunity for a single-sex classroom environment that they can really thrive in.

i mourned with my friend, who is an alumni of RMWC when they went co-ed and tore that school apart.

 

[Hinder]

It's still pretty rampant in churches, though, at least in my - admittedly limited - experience of Southern baptist churches. Women are expected to be these meek, mild, submissive creatures who hobble about on dangerous heels and paint their faces for the pleasure of a man's eye. I'm not going to discuss the hats and the hair. It's enough to make a tomboy stark, raving mad to hear these women yapping about how fulfilled they are - I personally rather doubt it, but, well, okay, if that's what floats your boat, go for it. Just don't be surprised when I eyeball you sidewise as you gossip about the probable sexual orientation of the woman who doesn't go in for all that blarney, and doesn't listen to vapid suggestions on how to apply makeup - which, by the way, I happen to be better at than you are, a fact you would have known if you'd bothered to find out.

But I admit I'm bitterly against gender roles, period - I don't like them, and I won't bow to them, and I most especially will not support them, because they're stupid, and they poison kids against their very selves with their uncomprehending rigidity.

 

[yolland]

the "truly equal" marriage doesn't have a gender-determined template and set list of expectations, duties, and check lists that you could prepare for in a college class.

Of course it's a given with the group we're talking about that the decision as to who will be the homemaker (and that someone will be at all, for that matter) is tied into a belief that God created men and women for different family roles. So, yes, the mutual personal motivations for breaking the roles down in that way are different. What I was asking, though, is how a "truly equal" marriage in which the woman is a homemaker (since it seems everyone claims to believe such things could exist) would look different in practice. If one spouse is a homemaker, after all, then by definition that means they'll be doing most of the childcare and housework right there, no matter what the motivation for that choice was. So how would an "equal" homemaker's life look different from a "sexist and patronizing" one (without getting into unsupported assumptions that a "Godly Woman's" husband by definition thinks his wife is a moron, sex toy, slave or hysteric, etc.)?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

My notion of an equal homemaker's life would include mutual respect, respect from the other that the homemaker is performing work that is real work and is tiring and important and all of that, and still have the other person doing a fair share of the housework and child care and being engaged in what is going on in the household.

I just can't stand that saying that a husband/so "helps around the house", and I have actually heard a time or two that he "babysits"-what the? Even with a stay at home female homemaker, a husband/man is a father and equal parent-not a babysitter. It's that stuff that comes from a notion that certain things are "women's work" that I can't stand. An equal homemaker's life wouldn't include that for me, it's about attitude as well as behavior.

 

[yolland]

My notion of an equal homemaker's life would include mutual respect, respect from the other that the homemaker is performing work that is real work and is tiring and important and all of that, and still have the other person doing a fair share of the housework and child care and being engaged in what is going on in the household.

So does the model of marriage and family described in the article clearly rule those things out? It is inconceivable that these women's husbands/future husbands respect their wives and the work they do, help out with children and chores when they're home, and are engaged in household decisions?

I just wonder if in reacting adversely to the idea of "God-ordained" distinct roles for men and women as spouses and parents, we aren't being a bit too hasty in our assumptions about how the actual people involved understand their choices, themselves and each other. Bono's shades mentioned finding the "glorious inequalities" phrase "Orwellian"--to me it sounded more like Erma Bombeck. An "Orwellian" scenario would be where the government forbids women to work outside the home, imposes a Kinder, Küche, Kirche regimen on them, then tries to paper over the loss of women's liberty to pursue the kinds of social positions they want and believe in with propaganda about "glorious inequalities"--which would likely be a bit more grim-sounding than anecdotes about gripes felt towards one's working husband "while I'm changing diapers and getting poop all over me."

I do of course appreciate that when you have, or recently have had, a society-at-large in which such family role arrangements are an enforced norm, that tends to give rise to perceptions that people of a given sex are categorically less capable of doing the opposite sex's work and can't be trusted with it, compounded by 'in-group,' gender-specific socialization customs that develop in relative isolation over time and further enhance the (convenient) perception that integration is infeasible, as well as lopsided parental leave policies and so forth. So you then get everything from 'glass ceilings' for women in the business world, to suspicious tenure discrepancies along gender lines in universities, to husbands who claim to be thumbs-up for working wives but still expect their own to do the lion's share of housework, to stay-at-home dads who are simultaneously assumed to be weak-willed wimps yet also untrustworthy to supervise other people's little girls. 'Soft' or structural/institutional discrimination of the sort that succeeds the legalized kind, as a sociologist might say.

At the same time, that 'freedom to' which was so critical to second-wave feminism also includes freedom to be a homemaker, including for reasons of personal religious belief (as opposed to being forced to do it, either through direct coercion, or indirectly through ensuring that other avenues of opportunity are cut off). I don't see much evidence that what's described in the article meets either of those 'forced to do it' definitions. Nor do I see much evidence that an 'inferior' status is being ascribed to the work (homemaking) the women in question choose to do--although it's easy enough to project one onto that, since most of the rest of us are accustomed to thinking of 'freedom to' in terms of 'freedom from' the (enforced version of the) model of marriage and family they've chosen...and perhaps even to blaming people who choose to follow it for the kinds of discrimination the rest of us encounter in following other models.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

It doesn't rule those things out and it's not inconceivable, but the impression I get from that article is that it is so lopsided and the women are doing all the sacrificing and the compromising. Nothing about it seems mutual to me, but of course it could be the slant of the article. The best thing for the writer to do would have been to interview the husbands, and if they would have been candid well it would be easier to form an opinion beyond the initial one.

 

[nathan1977]

I was speaking of the "wives submit..." line of thinking.

This isn't the first time Nathan has agreed with these rigid boxes and not followed up.

Some of us don't pore over Interference every hour of the day. (Some of us have jobs that don't allow for endless blue crack procrastination.) I'm genuinely surprised that one post has created such animosity, and sad that such judgmentalism has come from it, particularly from people who make such a virtue of non-judgment.

A couple of thoughts here.

MrsS said: "Personally I don't think saying "we're all here to serve each other" is a justification for any mentality that women are here for the purpose of serving men, and certainly not that singular purpose."

You would have to assume that I somehow put less of a priority on men being here to serve women. And that would be a mistake. For the record, I do think that Christian husbands are called ultimately to serve their wives, and I do think that Christian wives are called to serve their husbands. It's not an either/or, but a both/and. Does anyone really not think that the ways that we are built as men and women apply themselves in different ways in the marriage? Equality does not necessarily mean sameness -- after all, as the old saying goes, we're one, but not the same. If you want to argue otherwise, you've got about 10,000 years (or however long humans have been around) of biological, chemical, emotional (and, for some, spiritual) history going against you. Is everyone going to fit into a box? Of course not -- but there's a principle of servanthood that is at work, which manifest differently in men and women because we are different creatures. That's what the Scriptures exhort for Christian husbands and wives, and that's what I was getting at.

BVS said: "I do understand that Nathan believes in the submitting of both ways like Christ did, but it was the literal take that it still has to be the woman who does this and the man that does this that I was questioning him about."

Do I take the Bible literally when it says that I am supposed to lay down my life for my wife? Yes, I do. Every day, I'm supposed to make sure that her well-being is my primary concern. That's how I submit to my wife -- by putting her needs above my own. I like how our pastor puts it -- "if everyone focuses on everyone else's needs, everyone's needs are met." Nowhere should that be more true than in a marriage relationship. Is it always? No. But is that the principle's fault?

Does the Bible get into the literal ins-and-outs of who does the washing up, who cooks, who cleans? No, and honestly, I don't think God cares who does what. It's the attitude, the principle, that He cares about. ("God looks on the heart," as it says in 1 Samuel.) Each marriage has to sort out the best way for it to work. Sometimes I wash dishes. Sometimes my wife washes dishes. Sometimes my wife cooks. Sometimes I cook (actually, not often -- I'm lousy at it). Sometimes I have managed the household finances. Right now she does, but regardless, we have always made our financial decisions together. Right now, I'm the full-time breadwinner. That means certain things for the family right now, but there have been times where my wife was the full-time breadwinner and I wasn't. That meant something different for the family. You fill in the gaps to make it work, but if you're more interested in your own happiness than in taking care of the people around you, you're in for a rough ride. This is why I get particularly frustrated with husbands who don't reciprocate the servanthood of their wives, and why that's a particular priority of mine in the husband/wife relationships that my wife and I counsel.

BVS said: "I just think he conveinently avoided addressing some of the pitfalls of this type of thinking by giving the nice neat "love all" answer."

It's not convenient at all. It's not neat. And that's kind of where the rubber meets the road, isn't it? A life of servitude -- to your spouse, to your children, to your coworkers, to your employers, to the random homeless guy you meet on the street -- is the most inconvenient of all. I personally think genuine servanthood starts in the home, because the people in your family are the ones closest to you -- and oftentimes the ones hardest to serve.

People are railing against these women because they are volunteering to place a value on certain activities that are important to them -- and, presumably, to someone they would like to marry. Is it important to me that my wife knows how to iron? No, but there are some people for whom it might be. My father-in-law worked for 10 years drilling holes 19 hours a day to provide for his family. He needed someone who could keep the house together. That's not my life, but it's someone's. Who am I to pass judgment on what someone else thinks is important, or how someone else's marriage works? If these women are saying that it's important to them to prepare for that someday, what's the problem in that? Are they wrong for doing so? Who are we to say? Is it easier to judge and make fun of other people who are making their own choices about where their own lives are going and what they want out of their own marriages?

While we're on the topic, I think yolland raised a very good point with the question, "I'm also wondering what people imagine a "truly equal" marriage in which the woman is a homemaker should look like, and how they imagine that to clearly differ from what an "old-school gender roles" marriage looks like." Would someone like to tackle that?

What I hear in this thread that I strongly agree with is that exploitative relationships are wrong, and that Christian husbands who exploit their wives' submission without paying attention to the fact that Paul spends three times as much text talking to husbands about their roles are wrong. (As my father told me growing up, "Your job isn't to make sure you have a Godly wife. Your job is to make sure you are a Godly husband.") All of this I fundamentally agree with.




PS. All I can say is, my respect for yolland grows with each post I read.

 

[Irvine511]

i think all anyone wants is for individuals to be able to make their own choices in life, and for their talents and interests (and plain old sense of obligation to see a job done) to determine how they fufill their roles as partners.

that's all.

and it doesn't seem as if this particular class assumes that there's any choice to begin with. women do one thing, and men do another. yes, it is indeed someone's choice whether or not to take that class, but it's existence blies the existence of the life of rigid, old-school gender roles that are actively preserved by institutions of higher learning. no one's saying that they shouldn't be, but people are perfectly free to level whatever citicisms they want at these attitudes and point out that such notions of gender-determinism has been the source of exploitation for, say, 10,000 years. the idea that "men are like this/women are like that" is not only wrong, but potentially harmful. there's nothing inherently wrong when, say, a women is far more interested in her toddler than her husband, or when a man is far more excited to teach his child to drive than his wife. but it's the notion that such things are timeless, timetested, set-in-stone, and not just eternal, but Blessed and Godly, that it becomes a problem, for if you fail to live up to these notions -- say you're a woman and you don't like babies, say you're a man and you can't fix a sink for shit -- then there's not just something wrong with you, but that you're failing God in some way.

that's all.

 

[anitram]

People are railing against these women because they are volunteering to place a value on certain activities that are important to them -- and, presumably, to someone they would like to marry. I

I'm not railing against them. If they want to sew buttons and set tables, that's their prerogative. I'm just confused about why on earth this is part of the curriculum at an institution of higher learning and the idea it counts towards your degree baffles me as well. But then again I always felt that institutions like that existed to teach the students how to participate in critical thinking, not how to bake muffins.

They can do whatever they want. Not like I'm financing their tuition.

 

[nathan1977]

it doesn't seem as if this particular class assumes that there's any choice to begin with.

I guess I missed the part in the article where the college was forcing women to take this class and excluding them from all others. It's an option. Don't we like giving people choices?

it's existence blies the existence of the life of rigid, old-school gender roles that are actively preserved by institutions of higher learning.

Because some students wanted to pursue a curriculum in home management?

the idea that "men are like this/women are like that" is not only wrong, but potentially harmful.

This reminds me of the conversation in "Life of Brian," which I've quoted before:
Judith: [on Stan's desire to be a mother] Here! I've got an idea: Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb - which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans' - but that he can have the *right* to have babies.
Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother... sister, sorry.
Reg: What's the *point*?
Francis: What?
Reg: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies?
Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.

it's the notion that such things are timeless, timetested, set-in-stone, and not just eternal, but Blessed and Godly, that it becomes a problem, for if you fail to live up to these notions -- say you're a woman and you don't like babies, say you're a man and you can't fix a sink for shit -- then there's not just something wrong with you, but that you're failing God in some way.

I guess I missed the passage of Scripture where God ordered men to fix sinks.