Biblical™ Womanhood theology, if consistently applied, is worse news for widowed women, divorced women, not-married(-yet) women, and girls of all ages, than it is for married women.
The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood does not officially say women should live with male relatives, not go to college, not work outside the home, and not be independent. But they are – I will motivate my accusation just now – on a road that logically lead towards the views, by Biblical™ Patriarchy supporters, that I will quote here*:
“And does it really make economic sense to invest tens of thousands of dollars for a woman to get an advanced education (often having to go into debt to finance that education) that she will NOT use if she accepts that her highest calling is to be a wife and mother?” – Brian Abshire, quoted from now-deleted material at the Vision Forum ministries website.
Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner believe parents should not raise daughters who are “going to compete with men in the marketplace,” but should train their daughters to be “a woman who will be a helpmeet to a man so he can compete in the marketplace.” They speak out against female independence.* (more…)
“A man’s world is focused outside the home in work and recreation. A women’s world is strongly focused within the home and on family… Men develop the evidence of their worthiness primarily from their jobs, being respected in business, profession or craft. Women, and especially homemakers, depend primarily on the romantic relationship with their husbands for ego support… the emotional content of a marriage is usually more important to women and why the little tokens of affection are appreciated more by wives, who obtain esteem from these expressions of love and generosity. Women need continual reassurance from their husband that they are loved, needed and valued. … men do not need this kind of reassurance from their wives…
Men do not have as strong a desire and need for stability, security and enduring relationships as women do… Women are usually credited with possessing “mothers intuition” in regard to not just her children but all personal relationships. She may not be able to explain it, but she has a feeling about the situation that the man does not.” – From a piece of bad pop science masquerading as religious teaching on an allegedly Bible-oriented website.
When Daddy is out earning a living and the little ones at school, who do Mommy relate to?
This is a statement that often appear in teachings on gender roles: Men find value in work, women in relationships. Men want to be away from home, women want to be at home.
That is really weird. You see, for a newly wed wife with a husband at work her home is the one place where there are no people to relate to most of the time. Even if he works just 8 hours a day, with a 30 minutes lunch break and 30 minutes to get to work and later 30 minutes to get back, the waking hours with him at home are less than the hours alone.
If she is made to stay at home, and all her potential friends do the same, she can relate to nobody except the occasional plumber or delivery guy, who visits her home in the course of working. And she has to cook, clean, and do other kinds of work even though she don’t find value or pride in her work – unlike men, her self esteem is not influenced by how well she does her work, or the respect others give to it. (more…)
(Continued from part one)
Dave’s first defence (“but complementarians actually envision two sidedness”) is inadequate, as they will certainly be willing to teach submission to a wife whose husband is not present in the class, (or present and not doing his part of the “system”) and tell a woman to do her submit part regardless of what the man does. If the complementarian message was that this is only to be done mutually, and no woman should try it alone, the defence would have had merit.
As for the second part, (more…)
Let’s face it: Most complementarians are not bad people. They are our brothers and sisters in Christ. They want Christian husbands to treat their wives well, and Christian wives to treat their husbands well. Much like we egalitarians do, actually.
They want to be faithful to God and the Bible, like us. If they proclaim that men should treat women well and women should treat men well, if many a soft complementarian marriage looks functionally egalitarian, where is the big difference? Isn’t marriage complementarianism and marriage egalitarianism just semantics? (more…)
In his profile on the Internet dating site, he describes himself as a godly man who wants a godly, feminine, pretty, submissive woman. He is a believer himself, albeit one who struggles with a few things like pornography… (more…)
All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players – William Shakespeare
I have a nature to be compliant. I will (unless God makes me one) probably never be a boss at work. When, in a situation, I cannot follow in good conscience, I am still more likely to go my way alone than to lead. And I used to understand texts like Eph 5:22-33 in a way that will sound very right to complementarians. In fact, I can still envision the remote possibility that egalitarians may be wrong on texts like Eph 5.
It sounds like I am complementarian womanhood material, doesn’t it?
But I will never believe the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. I will never proclaim or follow their ideas on gender roles. I will never support them. They are completely, utterly wrong. (more…)