The Godly Woman 101

[BVS]

Originally posted by nathan1977


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.

Animosity? No animosity, it's just that you have stated things like this before and never really explained, you just kind of talked around them. And where have I judged YOU? I don't know you, and I really don't know exactly where you stand, due to some "drive by" posting. But apparently that's due to your job, and apparently we don't have jobs like you... see that tone can go both ways.

Originally posted by nathan1977


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.

I agree and applaud your thinking that the submitting to each other is equal.

But what do you mean by "Does anyone really not think that the ways that we are built as men and women apply themselves in different ways in the marriage?"

I guess this is really what I take issue with...

Originally posted by nathan1977

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?

Still agree, and it would be nice if all relationships worked this way...

Originally posted by nathan1977

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 m wife and I counsel.

Ok, this was what I was wanting you to answer. The Bible does have many references to "wives should keep the house", "wives should learn quiet", etc...

But I'm glad you all share the duties.

Originally posted by nathan1977

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.

It was neat and convenient when I thought you were avoiding the issue of gender roles. I know many who take the Bible much more literally than you and their wives have to mind everything they say, they have to stay home, etc...

But you have now clear this up.

Originally posted by nathan1977

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?

I really don't think anyone is railing against the women. If anything I think it's irresponsible for a college to offer a class called The role of the Godly woman 101 and perpetuate such inequalities. Just like it would be irresponsible to teach a class to men that taught them how to work long hours, "babysit" their own kids every once in awhile, and not to marry women that want careers.

Originally posted by nathan1977

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?

If the couple wants the wife of husband to be the homemaker, I have no problem with that, as long as the wife or husband is doing this because they want to do this for the family and not doing it begrudgenly...

But I think in order to find true equality the "breadwinner" needs to realize that both are working full time jobs. The "breadwinner" job doesn't end at 5 and the homemaker's continues. I often see this and it's a very destructive way of thinking.

Originally posted by nathan1977

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.

Your father sounds like a good man...

[nathan1977]

Originally posted by anitram

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.

Tell me, do you harbor the same prejudices against institutions of higher learning that offer classes and degrees in skills such as computer programming? Engineering? Nursing? Auto repair? Many colleges exist to give people a skill or a trade when they graduate. Is home management any different?

I'm not trying to be belligerent. I just find comments like these to be rather snide.

[anitram]

What university hands out degrees in auto repair? Nothing wrong with a trade, but it is simply not the sort of program you would find at a university level, not because I'm prejudiced (and you like to point out hostility in people, honestly), but because that is not the best setting to learn such things. Much like apprenticeship is not the best setting to get a PhD in philosophy. Nursing is a professional degree, much like engineering, and we are talking about completely different spheres.

To me, this sort of class is something to take at a community college or equivalent, which might be what this institution is anyway.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by nathan1977


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?

i did say that the class is obviously freely chosen, and so is attendance at this university. so long as things are chosen, i don't really care in the slightest.




[q]Because some students wanted to pursue a curriculum in home management?[/q]

because of the description of this particular vision of home management.



[q]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.[/q]


you're not going to get anywhere with me on this stuff. a combination of gender theory, the history of feminism, and myself being something of a subversive when it comes to gender roles has made the above scene good for a laugh, but really, kind of reductionist and into the whole "boys play with guns, girls play with dolls" attitude.

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

and i think you're taking my entry far too personally -- it really wasn't directed at you, and i pretty much agree with all that you've said. the only point where we disagree are on these essentialist notions of manhood or womanhood or husbandhood or wifehood. but we've had that discussion before when it comes to gay parenting. you know i fully agree that a child doesn't need to have opposite-sexed parents to be raised in what might be deemed an "optimal" environment, nor do i think that opposite-sex pairing is going to provide some kind of magical, synergistic upbringing that's going to be de facto superior than a same-sexed pairing. and i suppose the same thing applies, in my view, to partner duties.

i have two very good friends. he's dying for kids. she has little interest. (and one would think they would have discussed this, but that's another story). if/when they have a baby, i genuinely hope she pumps her breasts and goes to work, and he stays home and raises the kids. because he's way more nurturing and natural with children than she could ever be.

so ... again, it's just this essentialist stuff that i have a problem with, and this course seems to not just be reinforcing that, but giving it a God-stamped seal of approval.

and people are free to do this. and i'm free to crinkle my nose.

[MadelynIris]

What university hands out degrees in auto repair? Nothing wrong with a trade, but it is simply not the sort of program you would find at a university level

Poor nathan. Can't post anything without this kind of stuff.

I'm with Nathan on this. IT'S A BIBLE COLLEGE! I BET THEY TEACH CREATION TOO! WHAT KIND OF UNIVERSITY TEACHES CREATIONISM! A BIBLE COLLEGE DOES!

Get over it. Private institutions teach what they want to teach.

[nathan1977]

Originally posted by Irvine511

the only point where we disagree are on these essentialist notions of manhood or womanhood or husbandhood or wifehood.

I'm not surprised, but you and I land on completely opposite perspectives when it comes to gender. So it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that this fundamental perspective is going to lead to completely divergent views.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by MadelynIris


Poor nathan. Can't post anything without this kind of stuff.

I'm with Nathan on this. IT'S A BIBLE COLLEGE! I BET THEY TEACH CREATION TOO! WHAT KIND OF UNIVERSITY TEACHES CREATIONISM! A BIBLE COLLEGE DOES!

Get over it. Private institutions teach what they want to teach.

and we're free to think they're crazy, and even just a little bit harmful. get over it!

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by nathan1977


I'm not surprised, but you and I land on completely opposite perspectives when it comes to gender. So it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that this fundamental perspective is going to lead to completely divergent views.

fair enough.

when you remove opposite-genders as part of the requirements for a loving partnership, you begin to see just how much of what we come to understand as gender is really just performance.

but that's my experience. and it's not necessarily negative. we're socialized for good reason (it's practical). it's just that there's not only one way to be, that there isn't a Right Way to be.

that's all.

[Bono's shades]

Originally posted by yolland
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 didn't mean to make that literal of a comparison. I think the government in the U.S. or any Western nation is extremely unlikely to ever resemble the scenario you described. It's just that the phrase "glorious inequalities" reminded me of the phrase "freedom is slavery," so that train of thought is out there, even if it is limited to small spheres such as this particular college and the families whose kids go there.

(Edited to add that if Erma Bombeck were still alive and read about what this college is doing, I could see her writing a delightfully snarky piece about it).

[MadelynIris]

Fair enough Irvine.

My trend toward libertarianism lately says we must protect the freedoms of the religious as much as the rights of gays and other misunderstood minorities.

LIVE FREE! lol. I'm stupid tonight. BAKE YOUR DAMN MUFFINS!

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by MadelynIris

LIVE FREE! lol. I'm stupid tonight. BAKE YOUR DAMN MUFFINS!

actually, Memphis is the baker.

i'm the chef.

[nathan1977]

Originally posted by Irvine511

when you remove opposite-genders as part of the requirements for a loving partnership, you begin to see just how much of what we come to understand as gender is really just performance.

You and I would obviously disagree on this as well, but I think this is why sexuality is so often linked with spirituality. If all we are is trained monkeys, then we are simply aping millenia of behaviorism. If, however, we are designed in a certain way, then obviously there's something else at work in terms of the archetypes which drive us.

but that's my experience. and it's not necessarily negative. we're socialized for good reason (it's practical). it's just that there's not only one way to be, that there isn't a Right Way to be.

So are you saying that you could be someone other than who you are?

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by nathan1977


You and I would obviously disagree on this as well, but I think this is why sexuality is so often linked with spirituality. If all we are is trained monkeys, then we are simply aping millenia of behaviorism. If, however, we are designed in a certain way, then obviously there's something else at work in terms of the archetypes which drive us.

well, i wouldn't draw up categories as rigidly as you do. i don't think the biology of sex has anything to do with spirituality, but the experience of sex might. the same thing with behaviors. we might be imitative creatures, but we all experience things in unique ways.

but you're right, i don't believe in a celestial design, an intended purpose, a one right way to be, a single path to follow.

all of that sounds, well, a little communist to me

So are you saying that you could be someone other than who you are?

let me flip this on it's head -- if you were born an 18th century Russian peasant, would you be who you are today?

[A_Wanderer]

Originally posted by nathan1977


You and I would obviously disagree on this as well, but I think this is why sexuality is so often linked with spirituality. If all we are is trained monkeys, then we are simply aping millenia of behaviorism. If, however, we are designed in a certain way, then obviously there's something else at work in terms of the archetypes which drive us.

Firstly, not monkeys.

Secondly your "obvious" assumption drops the mask on a womans place in Gods plan.

Thirdly, sexuality is a rather important piece of biology for plenty of species that lack spirituality.

[yolland]

Originally posted by Irvine511
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.

This is, I think, an unwarranted conclusion to jump to. Yes, the curriculum for this concentration in homemaking clearly assumes that its students believe God is calling them as women to be homemakers. On the other hand the school has female professors and deans, female students do not have to take this curriculum, so clearly even within this particular school, let alone the denomination in general, women are not "required" to be on a "homemaker track." Obviously theirs is not a gender-neutral vision of homemaking, it is a very particular and idealistic 'Biblical' interpretation of it for women who believe in that.

i have two very good friends. he's dying for kids. she has little interest. (and one would think they would have discussed this, but that's another story). if/when they have a baby, i genuinely hope she pumps her breasts and goes to work, and he stays home and raises the kids. because he's way more nurturing and natural with children than she could ever be.

I'm all for homemaker dads, but if one partner really doesn't want kids at all, that's a problem, no matter how much of a 'born nurturer' the other may be. Just like a working father, a working mother is still a parent with all the responsibilities that entails, and it's not likely to make for a happy family future if she manifestly resents those obligations and the presence of children in the household.

Originally posted by anitram
What university hands out degrees in auto repair? Nothing wrong with a trade, but it is simply not the sort of program you would find at a university level, not because I'm prejudiced (and you like to point out hostility in people, honestly), but because that is not the best setting to learn such things. Much like apprenticeship is not the best setting to get a PhD in philosophy. Nursing is a professional degree, much like engineering, and we are talking about completely different spheres.

To me, this sort of class is something to take at a community college or equivalent, which might be what this institution is anyway.

Actually there still are a few universities offering bachelor's through to doctoral degress in 'home ec' and 'shop' (although nowadays they're more likely to be called 'family and consumer science' and 'industrial arts'). At one time both were far more common. I couldn't really tell you who exactly studies those or precisely what they entail, though. My impression is that it's usually on the order of a broad-based introductory overview to topics which would be studied individually and in much more detail at a trade school (e.g., cooking classes involve studying food chemistry as would be done at a culinary institute, not just 'baking muffins,' but not in anything like the depth an actual chef-in-training would learn, where you're writing essays about Maillard reactions etc.).

But in general I agree with you, these things are not comparable to the level of technical proficiency attained in nursing or engineering, and are more like 'community college or equivalent' classes. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary isn't a 'community college'; however, as mentioned earlier, it does only offer BAs in 2 subjects, Humanities (which is the what the Homemaking concentration falls under; that also requires 108 credit hours in philosophy, history, foreign language and theology, beyond the chosen concentration) and Music. So it's not an ordinary college, either--you'd really only go there to prepare yourself for careers in (Southern Baptist) ministry, missions, religious education, etc., most of which are grad degrees anyway.

Originally posted by Bono's shades
(Edited to add that if Erma Bombeck were still alive and read about what this college is doing, I could see her writing a delightfully snarky piece about it).

lol. Yes, that's probably true.

[unico]

okay, has anyone here actually been to the web site?

hi
lar
i
ous

there is a hispanic studies program which is aimed at evangelizing the growing immigrant hispanic population.


...because most of them aren't christian anyway?

[anitram]

Originally posted by unico

there is a hispanic studies program which is aimed at evangelizing the growing immigrant hispanic population.


...because most of them aren't christian anyway?

I'd assume most of them are Catholic.

You know how unacceptable that is.

[yolland]

At least where I grew up (which was mostly Southern Baptist or S.B.-Convention-aligned Baptist), Catholics were definitely seen as in need of evangelizing, i.e. not "saved." I don't know how pervasive or current that particular view is.

[unico]

no it is true. i went to a bible study once in college and these kids were going on and on about how i wasn't saved (catholic).

[sulawesigirl4]

yep. I know this from personal experience. My dad got "saved" out of catholicism.