Family Roles and Responsibilities April 2, 2012 Darrell 161 Comments It’s fun to compare the virtues fundies think should be taught to women as opposed to those taught to men… Pictures courtesy of Don’s big envelope of stuff from last years SOTL conference
161 thoughts on “Roles and Responsibilities”
Can it be?
I think the one that depresses me the most is on the list for men, actually – predictably.
Who wants to be romanced by a predictable man?
If I hadn’t been in such a hurry to be first, George might actually have typed “predictability” and not “predictably” 🙄
Who could stick this out for three years?
SOMEbody has to be Handmaid of the Year!
Then the new preacher boy graduates can know where to look for a wife who is a true Prov 31 gal. 🙂
Perhaps they have a secret publication of the 3yr female graduates for the preacher boys to peruse.
***Hey look, this girl likes to fish and she wants 6 boys and 4 girls, plus she like to garden*** Let me get her number.
“Let me get her number.”
No. It should be “Let me get her father’s number and her pastor’s number. 😆
Absolutely right! What was I thinking?
Obviously, I could never have graduated. 😉
4th again! I’m on a roll. 😀
At least “Handmaids” is Biblical… “Saints of the Roundtable”???
Of course they have stolen the Army motto of “Be All You Can Be.” Again we see it is about a set of rules and what you do for the local church. There is this overarching idea that what is done for the church is done for God.
I see these Knights-errent wandering around soul winning, choking down household pets who might distract someone from saying the magic words of salvation, and conquering in the sign of the cross.
Also, “be all you can be” in this kind of context is a nice and simple self-righteousness. It could just as easily be “try hard to be godly just like the pharisees.”
Maybe they’re referring to the Quest for the Holy Grail.
Of course, if I remember right (it’s been many years since I read “La Morte D’Arthur”), only a couple of knights ever saw the Grail, and hardly any of them came back from the Quest.
Samething in Fundie land. The Holy Grail of Fundie existence is “Revival”. Very few have experienced it and once one has experienced it they spend the rest of their lives trying to experience it again. They have a big ol’ emotional experience, attribute the mountaintop experience to a movement of God and when it is over they, like drug addict junkies, try everything in the world to get another fix.
Of course it becomes a legalist orgy after that as to why God is no longer moving in their midst: “There’s sin in the Camp”,”We’re not praying enough”, “We’re not soulwinning enough”, We’re not ________________ enough.
You’ve got a point there, bro. Don. Though there is certainly nothing wrong with genuine revival, or renewal, but, it seems to me, that we are seeking something rather than enjoying and working out that which God has already worked into us, His righteousness. God has already given us all spiritual blessings in the heavenlies in Christ, so we ought to enjoy and live that out by the Spirit’s power. I appreciate what you said bro. Don.
A friend has a shirt with a camouflage pattern and the words “ARMY. Be all you can be: Dead.”
I wonder if hearkening back to a medieval ideal is a good idea considering that everybody was Catholic back then. But then I look at the fruit basket and think, “well, who wouldn’t want a handmaiden bearing delicious fruit?”
Not really opposed to the concept, sorry. Plus, the guys get plate armor which really helps cover up balding.
“…But then I look at the fruit basket and think, “well, who wouldn’t want a handmaiden bearing delicious fruit?”
She does have a nice pair of apples.
She’s also wearing make up and nail polish. I suppose that’s anachronistic, but I don’t mind. I’m hungry.
Not anachronistic if you realize that is their basic student today. Only not up to dress code. (If you noticed it she is wearing too much)
she’s got ‘uge…tracts of land
LOL ❗ I choked on my cereal.
And I’m getting “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum”:
“Everybody ought to have a maid!
Everybody ought to have a working girl. . .”
Ahhh, Scorpio, ever the inspector! 😆 😆
The Medieval idea of knighthood never existed except in the mind of the Church, who tried to whitewash and control things. Works such as **Ivenhoe** provide a rosy, romantic idea, but it contradicts the ideal where knights would seduce virgins and married women. A romp through literature of that period proves my point.
However, this type of campaign is futile. The economics demand that women work outside the home, and it’s a rare woman who goes to college with the idea of finding a husband and staying home. Women have managed to climb the ladder as well, and in most homes I know, both husband and wife share the duties described in the ad. Perhaps the authors are yearning for the day when all women are fired from their jobs and forced to bear children–in the same vein as Margaret Atwood’s ***Handmaid’s Tale***.
BobH, thank you for mentioning ‘Handmaid’s Tale.’ It was recommended to me when I was still very Fundy & I never read it. Lately, I’ve been wanting to check it out, but the title had escaped me. Looking forward to reading about Fundy Utopia. 🙂
That was hardly fundy utopia. There was some disaster, I don’t remember what, maybe nuclear, and many women were not able to bear children. So they’d take in some young woman who the husband was supposed to impregnate, and it was done supposedly Biblically like when Rachel and Leah gave their handmaids to Jacob and the handmaid bore “on their knees.” Only it was some long ceremony and only took place once a month at the girl’s fertile time, and if she became pregnant the baby belonged to the man and his wife. It was a weird story. 🙄
I don’t know what happened to my name I’m still Macushlalondra, not Macushla Londra, though I sort of like it this other way… 😕
I think creepiest for me was that the handmaid had to lay between the wife’s legs while the husband tried to impregnate her. Awkward much? *shudder*
The whole book was eerie … and yeah, quite honestly, I could see parallels between it and fundamentalism.
I only saw the Movie. The society was a matriarchy where powerful political women ran things. If the husband enjoyed the act of “deposit” too much, then the handmaid could be killed by the wife. It was an odd dystopian tale to be sure.
It’s kind of incredible how fundies are so delusional as to think the crusades & crusaders were admirable ideals. I tend to forget there are people that cocksure of themselves & disconnected from any self awareness till I see these posts.
Also, how are there women that don’t realize they should be insulted by this?
My guess is that they are after the senses of chivalry and daringness (real word?) of the knight protector. Maybe someone read Conan Doyle’s The White Company and believed that Sir Nigel was real life.
Look, it’s my duty as a knight to sample as much peril as I can.
So RobM, I, personally, am beyond insult on this to the point of just pro forma eyerolling. HOWEVER, as a hard-core “godless feminist” what I can accept is that there are some women who would choose this happily and willingly. Not all women are the same, just as not all men are the same, and there are plenty of women who would love nothing more than the option to stay home and raise kids, homeschool, and keep house, and be personally fulfilled doing so. If that’s their choice, more power to them, says I. It’s when they don’t choose it, or no longer have the power of choice, that turns me into a whistling b*tch.
The whole idea of complementarianism is the burr under my proverbial saddle, since it defines roles without choice and simply doesn’t account for the differences in *people*. I won’t even discuss the fact that while the church viewed my career as worldly and unfeminine, they sure had no problem biting off their tithe of that filthy feminist money.
I know women who gladly embrace this role because it is the way they have been raised, or because by embracing it they have found something that was missing in their lives seeming to be filled. Their programming has taught them that any contentment they find in life has come from following these lists, and any dissatisfaction about anything negative is sinful and ought to be overcome. So they are content because they don’t realize that the contentment isn’t BECAUSE of the lists but in SPITE of them. (in some cases) I did find contentment in motherhood, and in some parts of being a wife. But I didn’t do either one by the fundy rules. When I tried to was when there was no contentment, only frustration.
I agree, Sims. If you’re not content within that prescribed role, it’s because you’re not doing it right, or your heart’s not right, you’re rebellious, etc etc etc. I’ve seen that too. Sort of a bound choice: you can be our ideal of a Christian Woman, or you can choose hell. Your choice!
But I’m also certain that there are women for whom this fits like a glove. Yay for them. I’m sitting here looking at my monogrammed hardhat wondering if I can find steel-toed work boots to match. That’s the full extent of how I fit into the list given above, but knowing how to accessorize is VITAL, y’all.
Well said, Stony. There are a lot of women who have to work and wish they didn’t have to, they want to stay home and take care of the house and kids and if that’s what they want they should have that choice. But because of economics they can’t. Others are taught by fundies that to be a wife and mom is all they should aspire to and the family suffers because dad’s income isn’t enough to take care of the family comfortably. That’s how we were in the 60’s. My mom was a nurse and gave up her career to get married. 3 children later they were struggling on my dad’s salary and tips as a barber. So she went back to work so her career wouldn’t be wasted and to give our family more money. She only worked part time at first but oh how the church ladies (not fundies at that time but women of the 60’s) looked down on her for going back to work! 🙄
As for the church happily taking the tithe, you sure got that right. 👿
You might be surprised at how many men would like to stay home and take care of house and kids, if they had that option. I know a number of them. They are straight, married men who don’t like being away from their kids all day.
You are so right. There are so many different personalities! I would hate a program like this and am not at all IFB (at heart at least).
I am trying to work my way back to stay at home, homeschooling mother. In my mind, I cannot imagine choosing to work outside the home.
I had a friend who had two children and did not have to work outside the home at all. After a few months she knew that she needed a job or a therapist!
Amazingly enough, I am getting slack from transitioning from my position inside IFB church to homeschooler. In my eyes of my mog, homeschooling is evil. According to him, it’s for people who are too lazy to get up and take their kids to (christian) school.
My husband would rather me stay home but did support the idea of me working outside the home. He also likes the idea of “skirts only” since we’ve been in this church, but in no way makes me wear skirts only. Although during the warm weather (and post-ifb) I will probably continue to wear them because I know it makes him happy. I’m blessed to have a husband who earns my respect and in turn I want to make him happy.
I wonder how long it took them to alliterate all 3 years worth of material, and if they had to cut anything out to make it fit.
Their need to alliterate, especially in the women’s year 3, made for an awkward, non-parallel list. Both years two and three have a strange mix of character traits and issues: “honesty” and “generosity” are virtues, “beauty” and “mobility” are topics, and “anxiety” would be a NEGATIVE character trait.
The English teacher in me is wincing at these lists. If this were an outline, I’d send it back for re-editing!
Oh, I get it! They are graduates of http://www.stufffundieslike.com/2012/03/fwotw-the-center-for-expository-preaching/
They had to stretch some to get the “Faithful Females” and “Real Men” lists to all start with the same letters.
Fragrance? Fishing? Foxes??
Cheer? Combat? Conquering?
I’ll admit that I do like clever and accurate alliteration.
But somehow “Faithful Females” just doesn’t have that attractive ring to it.
Ok, this is beyond weird…the lists seem similar if not identical in some respects but WAY different in others:
1. Year 2 is “Real Men” for men and “Tea Party” for women. *facepalm*
2. Why is “anxiety” listed in year 2 for women. PLEASE tell me that this means “how to deal with anxiety” and that they’re not saying anxiety is good.
3. I’m fairly certain “maturity” is listed for women but not men. Also “generosity”.
4. Also listed for women:
Beauty, Fragrance, and Foxes. WHAT?
“beauty” is almost certain to be a lesson the “meek and quiet spirit”
“foxes” are probably the little foxes from the Song of Solomon which wrote about here: http://www.stufffundieslike.com/2011/08/the-little-foxes/
“Fragrance” I’m not sure on but it’s possible it has to do with Psalm 45:8.
And why in Year 1 do the men learn worship but the women don’t? Women can’t worship? Or it’s not their job?
Beauty? Fragrance? What the what?
Also, in year 1, the lists are nearly identical EXCEPT only the men get ‘worship’. This disturbs me more than the alliteration.
That flipped me out too. I think they chopped it off the end of the women’s list so that all the lists would be the same length on the brochure. (Not that that makes it ok…)
“Fragrance” – How to select and apply deodorant. Shouldn’t this be taught at the beginning? ❓
So…if the men are knights I am sure the king is supposed to be God…then a round table doesn’t work. Because round tables are for equality. And if the “king” is actually the MoG of the church, then you know HE isn’t willing to let the others sit in equality to him…
The Round Table is for the delicious turkey dinner that the handmaiden is preparing in the kitchen. As the Saint of the Round Table, you get to carve the turkey with your Sword of Truth and then eat with your Fork of Fortitude.
That’s a whole lot of exhausting law with no gospel.
but I don’t want all of that…I want to sing!
Can’t get the pictures to show up. Is it just me?
How about now?
So, a Tea Party isn’t real life?
I just viewed the church home page. What is an Ole Fashioned Southern Camp Meeting in the North ?
Is bull fighting involved?
Nope, just bullshitting.
If it’s “ole fashioned” (?), I assume bear-baiting is involved.
Maybe they meant Sven and Ole?
It’s those red-colored fingernails that give her away — Jezebel! 😀
I assumed she was supposed to look pregnant.
We’re knights of the Round Table, we dance whene’er we’re able. We do routines and chorus scenes with footwork impec-cable, We dine well here in Camelot, we eat ham and jam and Spam a lot. / We’re knights of the Round Table, our shows are for-mi-dable. But many times we’re given rhymes that are quite un-sing-able, We’re opera mad in Camelot, we sing from the diaphragm a lot. / In war we’re tough and able, Quite in-de-fa-ti-gable. Between our quests we sequin vests and impersonate Clark Gable / It’s a busy life in Camelot
We like to push the pram a lot.
On second thought, let’s not go to Camelot. ‘Tis a silly place.
I have never ever seen “mobility” listed as a topic in a women’s Bible study group.
I believe the full title for that section is
“Mobility: godly wimmenz avoid morbid obesity”
Two questions. (1) what does mobility have to do with a tea party? Usually people sit down for tea parties. (2) More generally, don’t fundies try to encourage their wimmen to have zero mobility?
It’s a Tea Party on Wheelz.
They get in an RV and drink tea as they zoom down the highway. Whee!
😆 😆 😆
At least her dress looks comfortable. That suit of armor would be awfully hard to move in, and it would take forever to remove it. And it would be torture in the summer, you’d be sweating in it! 😳
The women get to wear comfortable clothes cause we get to go fishing (yr. 3).
Fishing seemed like a very random addition to the list.
Fishing probly is a metaphor for “Soul-winning.” The Fishing day will probably be practice for handing out tracts.
Shining Knight: Harken ye maiden.
Woman: Whoest goes before me.
Shining Kinght: Tis I, Sir Loin
Woman: Thine armor is stiff, or are you just happy to seeth me.
Maid: Is that a “Trojan Rabbit” in you pocket?
No, I’m just happy it’s almost Easter. 🙄
😆 😳 😯
Ever try on any armor? A suit like the one in the picture would weigh more than the knight wearing it. Knights had to be lifted onto their chargers (huge horses, to carry all that armor) with cranes. They could barely move. A duel between two armor-clad knights was like a car crash, or two boulders colliding.
Aaaactually . . . no.
Certain out-of-shape and arthritic old knights had to be lifted onto their horses with cranes, possibly, or maybe this was hyperbole and they just had a burly squire under each armpit. This was later in the Middle Ages when elaborate suits of stiff, heavy armor were produced solely for jousting on horseback and/or riding in parades. Older sets of plate armor from the days when mounted knights actually rode into battle were so well made that a fit younger man could run, jump (not far), turn a somersault, and have a knock-down-drag-out fight on foot, plus get on his own warhorse. The one big drawback was that if you could get an armored knight flat on his back, he would have to struggle to get up again–and you could gang up on him and make sure that he didn’t. The other big drawback was that wearing plate armor for long periods was asking for heat exhaustion.
Another disadvantage to plate armor was that you couldn’t get into or out of it by yourself. You needed your squires to help.
/also SCA geek
I could see some guy getting all strapped in one of those things (however they got into it) and then saying, “I have to go to the bathroom!”
I can just imagine the problems with rust if he keeps missing the bathroom…..
Jenny, you’re thinking of lighter armor.
Look at the picture. That isn’t the “run, jump, and somersault” type, it’s the “immovable object” type. Yes, it was only used later in the Middle Ages (and abandoned after not too many years), and yes, most warriors of old did not have that kind (it was fantastically expensive, for one thing). But when they used it (in jousts, etc.), it was very cumbersome.
I’d request chain mail. Less effective for jousting, but more mobility with the Sword™
I’ll take my kilt, blue paint, and claymore, thanks.
me should not wear skirts
MEN should not wear skirts (Go away George!) Deut 22:5
What do mines have to do with it? (claymore)
Also, has anybody noticed that in all the pictures showing the “knights-in-shining-armour”, not one shows the armour equipped with a cod-piece! (I guess they just had to make sure to “go” before getting suited up…
I wanted to barf. I’ve never seen such stereotyping in my life.
I’m always amazed that people think Christians need to be taught deeds to do to succeed in the Christian life. The Christian life can be summed up in two commandments. Love God, Love your neighbor. End of discussion. The rest should be taught by the Holy Spirit. He is the one that takes the individual from where they are to where He wants them to be, not where some fundamentalist desires them to be.
Year two is a Tea Party. That sounds fun.
It’s not tea! It’s a cookbook!!!
HA! 😆 I LOL’d and woke the dog up. 😆
HA! In year three they have “Fragrance” LOL! Who knew they could have the stones to tell old women they don’t smell good and maybe ought to do something about it. (I assume that is it anyway)
So that’s why some older women wear so much perfume?? I just thought it was a generational thing. 🙂
Believe it or not, at my former fundy church they did a deaf valentines thing where they had an evangelist come in and talk about the “unspeakables” for married couples and he did tell the women to “wash themselves” and keep themselves clean for their husbands, even told them to wash under their breasts I couldn’t believe I was hearing/seeing this in a fundy church, but of course it was only the women who were berrated on the issue, not the men! 😕 And, also the women were told to keep their men sexually current so they would not stray…
I note there’s nothing to suggest that men ought to try for cleanliness – not even the official shave and haircut ordinance.
‘Cause in my experience, it’s us blokes that stink. I have a BIL that thinks that bathing consists of filling a tub full of water and lying in it for half and hour and then getting out without applying soap anywhere. I work with a chap who washes himself but not his clothes – he took off a shoe to adjust a sock and my secretary threw up when she saw the soles of his feet.
In the guys’s one they put Citizenship in year one when clearly it belongs in year two with all the other C words. Pshhhh 🙄
“Bring outcher dead!”
*clops two coconut halves together and skips away, muttering to herself in a fake British accent something about flesh wounds and shrubberies*
Would that be an African swallow or a European swallow?
Perhaps he was dictating…
coconuts are tropical, Erie, PA is in a temperate zone
That is very interesting… and I’m not sure its in a good way…
Ok, so why Sportsmanship in year one? They never let you PLAY any sports. And Fishing in year three? I am sure they must have added that one by mistake. Or maybe they are talking about being “fishers of men” and they are going to FINALLY teach the women how to flirt without hiking their skirt up or leaning over provocatively and showing the collarbones. 😀
To teach “sporting”, silly. (See Genesis 26:8)
Oh, and I caught George trying to change “Fishers of men” into “Fisters of men.” That would have changed it up quite a bit.
That’s in the graduate course, for how to catch the really hard-to-get men.
Lol I see the picture but am wondering where the women get to learn Archery? 🙄
“Food” is only listed under women. I’m wondering if it’s related to dieting or the women cooking for the menfolk. Either way, both sexes need to focus on being healthy and both sexes need to know how to cook. Stooopid double standards…
I think it’s a sad attempt at novelty to attract people into their programs. 😕 Jesus didn’t need to use gimmicks with His disciples. I guess an attempt to keep people in the Dark Ages is easier than trying to reach them in the techno age we live in. 😕
Someone been watching “Game of Thrones” (probably for the nudity)
What’s next “Mad Men” for the lord?
I wonder how “Doctor” Alquist earned his doctorate?
Just like any good fundie Doctor, he preached a sermon about the futility of titles at some Basement Bible Institute. 😉
“Game of Thrones” has nudity?
Why didn’t anybody tell me?
(Going off to check the TV schedule …)
Grace of Calvary Baptist Church finds three adjectives in its church name insufficient, and judges it necessary to append another eleven adjectives to the church’s address at the bottom of the page.
Would any of you Baptists and ex-Baptists care to enlighten me on the difference between “Baptist” and “Baptistic”?
in a connotative sense, “Baptist” refers to adhering to *just-about-all* of the baptist theological norms, and membership in a baptist denomination. “Baptistic” means, “we believe in Believer’s Baptism, but we might be congregationalists or really just about any denomination.”
and “Baptistic” further means, “we believe in believer’s baptism, but we really differ from Baptists on other issues.”
So, Jason, what does it mean when this church announces that it is “Baptist” AND “Baptistic”?
I’m sure it ends up meaning that they’re separated. 🙄
honestly can’t think of what that means in this connotation, other than maybe to them “Baptist” means a whole systematic theological package, and “Baptistic” means specifically their practice of believers baptism
You want the dictionary definition, or the Big “B” Baptist definition? 🙂
The Big B, of course. I already have a dictionary. 😉
From their perspective, “baptistic” means you aren’t really Baptist, but are trying to make Baptists think that you are. In other words, you are a pretender. Jason’s thoughts are pretty good. Seems like one dictionary I looked at once said that it meant “of, or referring to baptists.” As to why this church uses it along with the name Baptist, I do not know. Seems obvious that a Baptist church would be baptistic.
It’s hilarious, and yet so sad.
I just realized that this church is relatively close to me. The Pastor is incredibly right wing, and he weaves his right-wing platform into sermons. Whatever the case, this pastor shows that he knows very little of what really happened in the Medieval Ages apart from the sentimental novels of Sir. Walter Scott.
On a separate note, chivalry never existed as described by this pastor. In fact, we have records of the confessions of people who entered into monastic orders from this period. All repented of reading trashy, pornographic stories about knights who seduced young ladies. If the woman were married, so much the better. Chaucer probably exemplified the best of the corruption in the **Canterbury Tales**. Chaucer’s knight was supposedly the only “nice” guy in the pilgrimage,a but if you accept the thesis of Terry Jones who wrote **Chaucer’s Knight: Portrait of a Medieval Mercinary**, we have a bloodthirsty killer for hire who knew nothing about ethical behavior. Jones points out in his book that all of the crusades that the knight was involved in involved senseless slaughter. The fact that the paintings of the knight show him without armor on demonstrates that he was a man without a country, and the brand on the horse shows that this knight was a member of a group of the most notorious mercinary killers for hire. Terry Jones is also the author of the Monty Python series of films. Perhaps his most famous one is **Monty Python and the Holy Grail**. This idea of knights being very gentlemanly and ladies being very courtly goes back to these saccerine novels like **Ivanhoe**, which sought to give a sugary romanticized portrait of a very ugly era.
What is “followship”?
According to Baptist definition, “followship” means “put up and shut up, especially when your leader is an idiot”. In a nutshell anyway.
I’m just pleased to actually see half-decent graphic design from the uber-fundy community.
Haven’t read the comments yet, but I’m bugged by the fact that Anxiety and Brevity are on the “Handmaids” list and I see no such negative qualities on the “Saints” list. Instead, the men get Confidence and Communication. Awesome. I’m assuming they’re going to teach these young ladies to deal with anxiety, but I feel like the pressure of the rest of the list makes that point a bit…moot. And then, of course, they add Liberty on there for a good dose of irony. **sigh**
They’re just setting people up for disappointment and guilt. What do some of those things mean, anyway? The women’s first year column should read “sinkingship.”
It’s just so interesting to me that they will get their knickers in a twist over a pastor who wears jeans on the platform, yet they will swallow this odd-looking garbage (not to mention the horrendous ‘doctrine’) without a hiccup.
Also, why did they stop with so few adjectives about their church at the bottom? I mean, why did they forget to put all the really important stuff in? Like what kind of music do they listen to, does their pastor wear a suit or not, what Bible color do they believe in, must ladies wear nylons on the platform while singing..come on, ‘Grace of Calvary’ (as if)..if you’re gonna be detailed, let’s not stop at a measly 11 separations. Let’s at least have a good 50 or so on there. If you don’t list everything you separate from, you’re starting on that slippery slope to no convictions at all. 🙄
Sweet, since I’m a girl, I don’t have to learn about Respectability or Integrity. \o/
How Monty Pythonish! Silly English kaaahnigahts!
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. Leave me alone or I will taunt you yet a second time.
“Independent, Fundamental, Bible-believing, KJV, Pre- Millenium, Pre-trib, Baptistic, Conservative, Soul-winning, separated, and local church.”
Wheeew, try saying that one 5 times fast.
Hey,ya might as well cover all your bases!
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways… brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin!
All Knight long!!!!
How appropriate. We just watched “Robin Hood: Men in Tights.”
Notice that the girls curriculum was developed by “Dr. and Mrs. George Alquist” while the boys curriculum was only developed by “Dr. George Alquist.” I’ve noticed this kind of thing about a lot of fundy writings. When it comes to “boys/men only” curriculum, no fundy man would ever allow a woman to have input in the process. After all, what on earth would she know about being masculine? Yet, when it comes to “girls/women only” curriculum, its perfectly acceptable for a man to stick his nose in it.
I guess it really shouldn’t come as any kind of a surprise, given to usual fundy idea that women shouldn’t do anything without male supervision, even writing stuff for other women. I’ve said it before, but no one knows more about what a woman should do, say, think, or how she should act then a fundamentalist man (or so he thinks). 😆 And why should any of the little darlings in his congregation contradict him? What do THEY know about being women? 🙄
I suspect that you are assuming the worst. It could equally be that his wife DID help him with the young man’s curriculum, but he is afraid to say so for fear of rebuke by his fellow pastors – he fears that they would say he is allowing a women to teach men.
From my time in the movement, there is a lot of fear of less of prestige among one’s peers.
I need to say that I know nothing of this church or this pastor; it could be entirely as you say. However, unless there is evidence to the contrary, I’d rather assume that his is not a woman-hater (or -despiser)
It’s easy to assume the worst, especially if he was afraid to say that she helped him out of FEAR of other pastors. Even leaving out that information speaks loud and clear about the misogyny in the IFB. The evidence, is in the LACK of information.
Refusing to give credit to someone based on their gender isn’t any better then refusing their help based on their gender, and doing so out of fear of what others will say doesn’t improve it at all. I really am not trying to pass judgment on this specific church, since I also have not been there (sorry if it comes across that way). I realize I don’t know the specific circumstances of this curriculum being written. Its just as likely that his wife just chose not to help him with the other set for whatever reason.
Those flyers just reminded me of a couple of other gender-specific books/Bible studies/courses from other fundamentalist writers with similar authorship.
BREVITY, can I get an amen??
Not unless it applies to the MOG first.
Who decided on the rules? 😕