The Godly Woman 101 - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-23-2007, 07:38 AM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 05:11 PM
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.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-23-2007, 08:21 AM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 10:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
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?
__________________

__________________
meegannie is offline  
Old 10-23-2007, 08:26 AM   #33
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 09:11 AM
Why, oh why, can't women have it all? If I can do it, anyone can!
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 10-23-2007, 08:37 AM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 06:11 PM
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.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 10-23-2007, 08:44 AM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:11 PM
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."
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-23-2007, 08:52 AM   #36
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 05:11 PM
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.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 10-23-2007, 10:11 AM   #37
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


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?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-23-2007, 01:45 PM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 05:11 PM
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.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 10-23-2007, 02:53 PM   #39
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 11:11 PM
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.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 10-23-2007, 08:31 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Bono's shades's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 5,038
Local Time: 05:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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.
__________________
Bono's shades is offline  
Old 10-24-2007, 12:17 AM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 05:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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.

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

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 . . .

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

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.

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

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.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-24-2007, 01:10 AM   #42
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 11:11 PM
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.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 10-24-2007, 01:14 AM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 05:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
Ooooh. Good question.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-24-2007, 08:43 AM   #44
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
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.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-24-2007, 08:45 AM   #45
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 05:11 PM
Yep-we've seen evidence of it plenty of times
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com