• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Restore the Patriarchy!

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,007
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Interesting article in the NY Times Magazine about conservative Christian women leading the charge to restore traditional gender roles and power structures.

Housewives of God

Priscilla Shirer’s marriage appears to be just the sort of enlightened partnership that would make feminists cheer. On an average morning in their house in suburban Dallas, Shirer and her husband, Jerry, are up around 6:30, fixing breakfast for their three small boys. While Priscilla, 35, settles in to work at home and care for their 2-year-old, Jerry, 42, shuttles the older two children to school and heads to his office. He spends much of the day negotiating her speaking invitations and her book contracts. In the afternoon it’s often Jerry who collects the boys from school. Back home, Priscilla and Jerry divide chores and child care equally. “He will most often jump in and do the dinner dishes,” Priscilla says. “We don’t have, ‘these are wife tasks and these are husband tasks.’ . . . Kids are not a wife-mommy thing.”

Yet Shirer avoids using words like “feminist” or “career woman” to describe herself. She is an evangelical Bible teacher who makes her living by guiding thousands of women through the study of Scripture in her books, videos and weekend conferences — in which she stresses that in a biblical home and church, the man is the head and the woman must submit. She steers women away from the “feminist activists” who tell women to “do your own thing, make your own decisions and never let a man slow you down,” as she puts it. “Satan will do everything in his power to get us to take the lead in our homes,” she wrote in her book “A Jewel in His Crown: Rediscovering Your Value as a Woman of Excellence.” “He wants to make us resent our husband’s position of authority so that we will begin to usurp it. . . . Women need to pray for God to renew a spirit of submission in their hearts.”

Shirer and many conservative Christians believe that the Bible defines gender as a divinely ordained set of desires and duties inherent in each man and woman since the Garden of Eden. Gender is not an act or a choice, but a nonnegotiable gift. To these Christians, the story of Adam and Eve’s creation granted man authority over woman, and they understand the New Testament teachings of Paul and his comrades — in particular, that wives should submit to their husbands — not as cultural relics of the first century but as universal teachings that Christians apply today.

In an era when sexual liberation has saturated American culture, when women are climbing the corporate ladder and bearing fewer children, and mainline churches are ordaining women and homosexuals, conservative evangelicals are escalating their counteroffensive. Many call themselves complementarians, signaling their belief that God ordained complementary — not identical or flexible — roles for men and women. To critics, “complementarian” is code for sexist patriarchy, a license to keep women muzzled and homebound. Yet spending even five minutes with Priscilla Shirer and her husband suggests that reality is far more complicated — not only at home but also in the new “separate sphere” that this theology has spawned: a subculture of Bible studies, conferences, ministries, religious retreats and literature ranging from Christian fitness books to Christian romance novels, all produced by and for evangelical women.

Conservative Bible teachers like Shirer have built a new paradigm for feminine preaching, an ingenious blend of traditional revivalism, modern therapeutic culture and the gabby intimacy of Oprah. This is the biblical-womanhood-industrial complex: a self-conscious alternative to secular feminism that preaches wifely submission while co-opting some feminist ideas to nurture women like Shirer to take the lead, within limits. This fusion of confinement and uplift may seem like an empowering veneer on the reality of oppression. Or else, if women like Priscilla really are on equal footing with their husbands, it may seem like hypocrisy. Both appraisals overlook the messy interaction between ancient Scripture and modern life. Christians, like believers of all stripes, interpret their holy book in order to make sense of their lived experience. “Biblical womanhood” is a tightrope walk between the fiats of old-time religion and the facts of modern culture, and evangelicals themselves do not know where it might lead.

Do they have a point? Statistics say that women are less happy now than they were 40 years ago.

Is it the feminism that is making them miserable? Are most women actually happier with traditional gender roles and social expectations?

:boxedin:
 
The article nails it here:

This fusion of confinement and uplift may seem like an empowering veneer on the reality of oppression. Or else, if women like Priscilla really are on equal footing with their husbands, it may seem like hypocrisy.
And fails to support this 'on-the-other-hand' argument:

Both appraisals overlook the messy interaction between ancient Scripture and modern life.
Because their argument against it:
Christians, like believers of all stripes, interpret their holy book in order to make sense of their lived experience. “
Is just a nice way of saying they interpret the bible to support what they want to believe.
 
A group of about a two-dozen twenty-somethings left our church earlier this year to form their own. They cited a need for a more "Bible-Based" religion. The most significant feature being a prohibition against women preaching, reading or praying aloud during regular worship services. This is based on First Corinthians 14:33-36 (NIV):
The Apostle Paul said:
"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?"

In their new church, women are allowed to teach Sunday School, but only to infants and toddlers. They may do visitation, but only with other women. They may sing in the choir or play instruments, but not perform any solos ... et cetera ... ad nauseum ...

The women seem to prefer things this way, as it also keeps them out of positions of accountability -- how can they be criticized for voicing apostacy, heresy or any false doctrine if they are not allowed to speak?

God, how I hate religion!
 
A group of about a two-dozen twenty-somethings left our church earlier this year to form their own. They cited a need for a more "Bible-Based" religion. The most significant feature being a prohibition against women preaching, reading or praying aloud during regular worship services. This is based on First Corinthians 14:33-36 (NIV):


In their new church, women are allowed to teach Sunday School, but only to infants and toddlers. They may do visitation, but only with other women. They may sing in the choir or play instruments, but not perform any solos ... et cetera ... ad nauseum ...

The women seem to prefer things this way, as it also keeps them out of positions of accountability -- how can they be criticized for voicing apostacy, heresy or any false doctrine if they are not allowed to speak?

God, how I hate religion!

So I guess they would object to what Mrs. Shirer does for a living. Or would they? The caption on the photo says that she was in a church and she was speaking. :boggled:
 
Interesting article in the NY Times Magazine about conservative Christian women leading the charge to restore traditional gender roles and power structures.

Housewives of God



Do they have a point? Statistics say that women are less happy now than they were 40 years ago.
I thought it was only a few percentage points difference? That and all of the reasons that the authors of the study point out complications in the study make it difficult to make some bold assertions.

Is it the feminism that is making them miserable?
There could be other factors as well. Even with more permissiveness society is not always update to date in supporting what is allowed. Single mothers still receive a lot of negative stigma even if they are doing well by their children and having no problems supporting their family. Generally speaking in the US two incomes are more necessary than previously. The wealth differences could possibly account for women being less happy, while the expectation of women working helps make men happier enough to offset the same effect on men. There is also the bliss of ignorance. Comparing wealthy countries to poor countries the happier people are in the poor countries. Yet people that experience both are generally happier with the wealthier life style. Also, the happiness levels could swing back in a few more decades.


Are most women actually happier with traditional gender roles and social expectations?

:boxedin:
It is possible but really difficult to tell. In the end it should still be a choice, though that choice is often limited by financial restraints. Also consider that women living in traditional gender roles in the US and western Europe today are usually doing so based on choice and likely living in upper middle class lifestyles. Considering these women are still enjoying the benefits of feminism such as voting, public speaking, legal protections, financial security and so on it is not exactly easy to say they are living in traditional gender roles. The woman cited above for instance is a public speaker and author and splits household responsibilities. It is easy to claim subservience to someone who is allowing you to do what you want and sharing equally in the responsibilities. I think that is key here, traditional gender roles as they existed in the earlier 20th century does not exist much in the US any longer.

[anecdote]I think sometimes people end up wtih a cartoonish view of what feminism is. My grandma is a feminist, did her twenties in the sixties type of feminist. She and her circle of friends, mostly hippies, see no problem with homemaker women. To them it is the choice and equal opportunity that defines what feminism is about. She is much happier supporting herself as a software engineer than she was as a homemaker but that is her personal enjoyment. Female friends in my age group tend to shy away from the term feminist, thinking it means man-haters. Those do exist, but most of my female friends who do not consider themselves feminists still live lifestyles that would have been considered radical feminism in the sixties.[/anecdote]

I think I found the actual factor causing happiness level in women to decrease and in men to increase. You see, breast size is increasing. Women are less happy because of the back pain. Men are happier because of the increased breast size. :crowded: = :D
 
Last edited:
Interesting article in the NY Times Magazine about conservative Christian women leading the charge to restore traditional gender roles and power structures.

Housewives of God



Do they have a point? Statistics say that women are less happy now than they were 40 years ago.Is it the feminism that is making them miserable? Are most women actually happier with traditional gender roles and social expectations?

:boxedin:

It's also possible that men are less happy than they were 40 yrs ago. 40 yrs ago I was happier than I am now. Even if I now have more interesting toys to play with. :)
The problem with gender roles being defined by top down biblical or feminist authority is that neither makes allowance for the large number of exceptions to the “rules”.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/may/16/womens-breasts-are-getting-bigger

I couldn't find the counterpart articles about the US in specific or gloabl trend that were free from selling boob enlargement pills, nor could I find the study I saw that wasn't just based on one clothier. I know I saw it somewhere. Still, this article had some interesting information it, especially the descriptions about how this is beyond just obesity rates increasing.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/may/16/womens-breasts-are-getting-bigger

I couldn't find the counterpart articles about the US in specific or gloabl trend that were free from selling boob enlargement pills, nor could I find the study I saw that wasn't just based on one clothier. I know I saw it somewhere. Still, this article had some interesting information it, especially the descriptions about how this is beyond just obesity rates increasing.

Man that's a long article. Skimmed it.

Probably two main factors: increasing body size and breast enhancement surgery.
 
Man that's a long article. Skimmed it.

Probably two main factors: increasing body size and breast enhancement surgery.

You missed an important part.

"There's been a huge growth in the small back, larger cup lady, particularly among young girls," says Julia Mercer, head of fit and technology at M&S's underwear department. "The younger girls just seem to have bigger breasts now."

Sian Porter says that breast sizes are definitely on the up, but that's because of a very simple reason. "We are all much better nourished," she says. "Each generation is getting bigger, taller and stronger because we've eradicated a lot of childhood diseases. So our mothers' generation are bigger than our grandmothers and so on. It's a long-term trend. If you have the capacity to grow to 6ft yet you're malnourished, you'll only reach 5ft8in. If you're well nourished during the period when your secondary sexual characteristics develop, you'll reach your potential. The babyboomers were the first NHS babies and from then on we've been in better health – apart from the current problem with obesity."

That is the surprising part. Even accounting for obesity, breast size is still going up. Larger does not always mean fatter. Even without the fat, people are larger because of better nutrition. So even though people are generally getting fatter, even the skinny girls are getting larger breatss in the pre-surgical enhancement age and even in countries without the common practice.
 
Getting back to the original discussion:

Women in the Netherlands work less, have lesser titles and a big gender pay gap, and they love it.

I've been in the Netherlands for nearly three months now, and I've come to one overwhelming conclusion: Dutch women are not like me. I worry about my career incessantly. I take daily stock of its trajectory and make vicious mental critiques of my endeavors. And I know—based on weekly phone conversations with friends in the United States—that my masochistic drive for success is widely shared among my female friends. Meanwhile, the Dutch women around me take a lackadaisical approach to their careers. They work half days, meet their friends for coffee at 2 p.m., and pity their male colleagues who are stuck in the office all day.

Though the Netherlands is consistently ranked in the top five countries for women, less than 10 percent of women here are employed full-time. And they like it this way. Incentives to nudge women into full-time work have consistently failed. Less than 4 percent of women wish they had more working hours or increased responsibility in the workplace, and most refuse extended hours even when the opportunity for advancement arises. Some women cite the high cost of child care as a major factor in their shorter hours, but 62 percent of women working part time in the Netherlands don't have young children in the house, and mothers rarely increase their working hours even when their children leave home. . . .
 
I've got this radical idea: If a given couple wants to live their life a certain way - traditional, egalitarian etc. - let them do it. It's their business and no one else's. Likewise, the "happiness" index shouldn't be applied to any individuals, since it's a matter of individual choice. Just because most people are happier with one form or the other, has nothing to do with, say, how I and my wife do things or anything to do with how happy we might or might not be. Here's free advice to anyone who wishes to tell me or anyone else how they should live: Mind your own business!
 
Last edited:
Here's my question. Let's say 99% of women prefer "traditional" gender roles (in quotes because, let's face it, there are MANY traditions in marriage). What does that matter for me and my wife? What I mean is, statistics are meaningless to the individual--there's the chance (and given my personality, it's a very good chance) that I'll pick a woman that doesn't like the "traditional" gender roles. Should we still comply with them, because it'll make 99% of the rest of women happy?

I learned gender roles from my grandparents. My grandmother hasn't swept a floor since my mother was born--Grandpa corrected her on it once, and she set the sweeper down and hasn't touched it since. Grandma doesn't cook or clean at the farm (they have a house in town and a farm in the country)--if the dishes need done, Grandpa does them. She takes care of the house in town, and if she's at the farm she, like the rest of us, will do dishes or hoe the garden if it needs done, but mostly all the "woman's work" is left to my grandfather. I also learned a lot from my parents, particularly my mother, who's favorite activity is rough framing.

My point is, how any family is structured is necessarily something that can only be figured out by the individual family. What works for me may not work for you, and certainly won't work for 300,000,000 or more strangers. Sociologically it's interesting to see; practically it's of little to no value.
 

Back
Top Bottom