now your daughter can get her mrs. degree for real

now i don't have children yet, but i say bye to adoptive children each fall as they go off to university. i have high hopes for them. college is such a wonderful time for growth personally, socially, and educationally.

disturbed i am that youth will come into this time of growth with the end result of being a housewife.

[in speaking of a humanities course only open to women] such courses are needed to arrest the collapse of the American family and society -- a view held by many conservative Christians in America.
..

Evangelical Christians number about 60 million in America and many see the country's social ills as stemming from the decline of the traditional family with the mother at home and the dad at work -- a family they see as Biblically sanctioned.

ugh..

nothing against the housewives of the world. i respect it tremendously, plus i'll probably be one myself (more on that later), but why pay the college fees for that.. plus, what kind of stigma does that label a young girl with when they meet a man.

boy: "hey, what is your major?"

girl: "i'm in the mrs. degree program."

boy: "that's cool (internal dialogue "runaway, runaway")"

today i was listening to a youth specialties podcast interviewing ginny olson the author of "teenage girls." somethings she said hits this kind of effort on the nail head. 1) girls today are more narrowly defining themselves, and not looking at themselves holistically, ie. their identity is tied into being able to capture or "be" someone's boyfriend over capturing a vision for who they can be. 2) we go after the symptoms of problems without looking towards the real causes.

this class perpetuates both of these root problems, it ties a persons identity with who and how they are in a relationship with and it doesn't really go after the problems to divorce, abuse, etc. which all have something to do with the man.. does the man get a class or two? "daddy degree," that is the next thing

 

there is an interview as to the intent of the class.

Q: What are the reasons for offering it and what are the needs for it now?

... It is a course of study whereby a woman can prepare herself intellectually and in her basic skills to be a better homemaker."

Q: This brings us back to why you see the need for it.

A: "We have rampant divorce in our society, literally hundreds of thousands of children who are bereft of one of their parents. We have abusive situations ... We have women who are trying to make homes without the basic skills they need. We have young women who are going to the ends of the Earth (on foreign missions) for Christ and the church and find themselves in situations where the ability to be a good homemaker is a survival technique."

Q: What would the curriculum involve?

A: "It's a ... four-year program. Two years of classical Latin, two years of classical Greek. It requires them to read almost all of the great books of the Western world. In addition to that they have 23 hours that is directly associated with homemaking enterprise ... this requires a three-hour course in general homemaking.

"In that we are primarily talking about the Biblical backgrounds for the making of a home. We are talking about relationships to husbands and to children. And then there is a three-hour course in clothing design and apparel ... there is a personal family management course which includes how to make and maintain a successful budget."

now the funny part, for this with regards to my family.. i am the one that has the degree from the human environmental sciences college of my uni. in the past it was known as home ec, the building still has that etched on the front. my wife makes more than me, which will probably get exponentially more than me as the years go (the church doesn't usually do regular pay increases). so as i see it, i am the future mom.. sorta..

why can't i go and get my mrs. degree? or does the bible require a female parent at home?

thanks revfife

updated: music city bloggers has picked up this post and put together some links from prior conversations. good stuff all the way around.

Comments

[stacie]

So if we make the woman stay home and run the household, then the divorce rate in this country will go down? Horsepuckey! These days it takes both parents working outside the home just to provide for your children.
And the notion that teenage girls identify themselves as someone's girlfriend is not a new idea; I struggled with this myself as a teen. We're taught this in society, through DVD's, music, magazines and unfortunately we're passing it along to our daughters. I've tried to teach my now teenage daughter that you don't have to depend on a man for anything, that no one person can make you whole.
This whole "Mrs. Degree" thing is just another way of trying to put women "back in their places". That we are good for only one thing and have nothing to contribute to society, to which again I say "HORSEPUCKEY"!
Sorry for the rant, Gavo.

[Tom Jackson]

>>1) girls today are more narrowly defining themselves, and not looking at themselves holistically, ie. their identity is tied into being able to capture or "be" someone's boyfriend over capturing a vision for who they can be.
<<

"Today"?

"I want to be Bobby's girl,
I want to be Bobby's girl,
that's the most important thing to me,
And if I was Bobby's girl,
if I was Bobby's girl,
what a faithful thankful girl I'd be."

-- Marcy Blane, Billboard #3, 1962

[gavin]

thanks tom for the lyrics. i didn't mention, because i didn't feel needed, but the point you bring up warrants it. olson did mention that girls are moving back towards this. no dates were given of when but the conversation lead one to know that there was a movement away from this being a teens identity, but they are moving back

stacie, no problem on the rant. i might agree that there is a point where both parents don't have to work, but it is dependent on spending habits as a family.

[Mary Beth Bernheisel]

My friend Chutney (makingchutney.blogspot.com) blogged about this recently and one of his commenters had a really excellent point. She states that one of the major concerns of third-wave feminism should be the fact that anything considered "women's work" is greatly undervalued in our society. We often make light of "homemaking" because it is traditionally the work of women and therefore not seen as work of great value.

That being said, I of course take issue with the fact that this particular degree is for women alone, and that the seminary claims that it is based on "biblical views of gender roles." But truly, I see nothing wrong with teaching a homemaker how to make and stay within a budget, particularly given the ridiculous amounts of debt in which most Americans find themselves.

And anecdotally, at least, I think he's probably right about making a household work on one budget. Most of the other moms I have communicated with (in person, on messages boards, etc) state that when they sit down and actually crunch the numbers, it's more financially solvent for one person to stay home than for both to work and pay for childcare.

My husband stayed home with Joshua for the first seven months of his (Joshua's) life. Don't be afraid to be the mom, Gavo!

[Ned Williams]

Gavin, all, I have commented (at length) at my blog, but y'all have raised some interesting issues.

[gavin]

mb, i am not at all worried if i were to become a mister mom. that decision is a ways off though.

ned, let me say, i am perfectly supportive of someone choosing to be a homemaker. i am not okay when someone is told they have to be. having mentored many youth over the years, i will tell them that they could be the best mother or father, but they do not need to give up an opportunity to gain a marketable skill in order to support themselves. just in case, one never knows. being taught latin, greek, budgeting, general homemaking, etc. do not ensure that divorce, death, mental health, addiction, unfaithfulness will not rip into a marriage. it happens, it is the risk of love one takes on that the other will seek the best for you in all instances. unfortunate reality is that it does not happen that way in all cases. so..

inherently wrong about this method of thinking, and similar actions, is that it ultimately is an effort placed in the wrong target. it is a claimed effort to save the family, when maybe it is the family that should be teaching things like this. if i were to think of the best person of influence to teach a young girl about budgeting is a mother or father who budgets the family finances, one or two income. cooler would be the ceo mom teaching daughter. the strength of teaching life skills (and for my interests of the spiritual life) all come from the family unit, not the schools or church programming.

the problem with the biblical foundation is how one sets status in the family. you mention yourself that we hold little value to homemaking. i believe it is in the book of romans "women submit to your husbands." if we were to take that literally in all cases then the homemaking wife would submit to the husband in all decisions. for example, we have set the budget, but husband wants the big tv for the manly football game that spends all the montly income. that makes bad sense and has no equality in the marriage. now, that is not to say the bible does not have value in guiding, but if you want to claim that "the bible tells me so" then you are up for trouble in issues like this as gender equality is not a cultural norm within the timeframe of the writing of the scriptures. thus you have gotten many more sensitive translations over the years.

just some more thoughts.

[Art]

HORSEPUCKEY? Gavin, I am astounded by the harsh language you allow on your blog;)

[gavin]

i'm allowing it to get that pg rating. my g rating makes me feel so lame.

[John]

It's nothing new. My grandma had a BA in Home Economics. But those programs have all but disappeared -- as well they should. My wife wants to be a stay-at-home mom, no woman should envision a career from start to finish that is financially dependent upon another person.

[Ned Williams]

That's all well and good, Gavin. But weren't you bothered that this (worthless?) degree was only being offered for women? And who said that these women were being told they "had" to be a homemaker? For a woman who plans to raise a family in a country where you can't buy Lunchables, such a degree could come in handy. And even if it didn't, it's a free country, right?

And whether or not a seminary is the place a person should be learning these things, you can bet that a home led by a graduate with this degree would take seriously all the life skills you reference, don't you think?

Believe you me, I'm committed to the principle that the family (as opposed to schools or churches) is the locus of life instruction, but that seems to cut against your argument that homemaking is a less-than-positive "end result" . . . such instruction is difficult to pull off in the 1 hour between dinner and the beginning of the bedtime routine.

The "wives submit" verse is in Ephesians, right before it says "husbands love your wife as Christ loved the Church." A pretty tall order, but expressive of the relationship between two married persons.

Interesting that you would bring up the culture of the scriptures. When those verses were written, among Gentiles the cultural norm was not male domination or "patriarchy," so it was definitely counter cultural (as it is today) to assert that the man was responsible to be the "head" of a home.

And the New Testament also broke serious religious ground by asserting--particularly within the Jewish tradition, that there was no difference between man and woman, Jew and Gentile, etc. It was rather egalitarian, frankly.

In all candor, I think this subject is rife with caricatures, so it is kind of difficult to have a discussion on it. Nevertheless, I think it is healthy to have such discussions and, as Jesus said, "wisdom is vindicated by all her children."

[gavin]

hey ned, 1) it's late so i tend to ramble. 2) i am guessing you don't stop by here often. most folks who hang here regularly would know my sarcasm with "why can't i go" comment. i honestly care little to actually go. however, if this is so critical to families then it does not make logic sense to keep it exclusive. why not keep it at least available for men who who would do the same.. i'm sure there are a few. i know i was one of three males in my major. a little out of the normal place, but i enjoyed it.

thinking of the scriptures, if you say so. Saint Paul says a lot in the new testament. i did not check my source, just went with the ole' gut. as for the culture of the gentiles, that is a new one to me. something i'll look for later.

it's a fun conversation. in the end it is like most things associated with the faith that i think are misplaced. they will still happen, someone will take part in it and benefit from it in some way. God moves despite us.

[Ned Williams]

Gavin,
No, this is my first visit (via the link at Music City Bloggers); however, based on the views you expressed I was pretty sure you weren't a candidate for a SBC seminary. But as someone who actually majored in home ec, you seemed to be contradicting yourself by saying that this degree wasn't sufficient education to make a woman independent in the event of divorce.

Yes, Saint Paul wrote a lot. And I'd have to say that the problem with going with one's gut, so to speak, is that it isn't really your instincts or impressions or my instincts or impressions that matter in the grand scheme of things. "Rocking the Roles" is a book that can provide some context for the discussion.

I know that it was late when you responded, so some degree of glibness is to be expected. That being said, yes, God does move despite us, but it seems He'd sure rather we didn't interfere with or contradict or shirk Him. Hopefully we can practice (and "preach") the importance of caring about where and how God is moving.

Thanks for hosting this forum.

[Ned Williams]

oops--not sure what I did, but please forgive the multiple posts.