Friday Blogging
| October 14th, 2005This post was removed by request of the author.
39 Responses to “Friday Blogging”
Leave a Reply
If you have questions about the moderation policies here, please read this post. Short version: treat other posters with respect.
(Need to know how to create blockquotes and links, i.e., linked text?)
If your submitted comment fails to appear, without even an error or "waiting for moderation" message, then our spam-blocking program may have blocked your comment by mistake. When this happens, please contact the moderators right away so we can rescue your comment!
October 14th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
Hahah that’s priceless. Is this woman for real? I do have to agree on the part about Harriet Miers though - she sure as hell doesn’t represent many women out there that I’m aware of. Then again, lil Jessica seems unaware that it’s not her being a woman that is the focus of many feminists, because unlike Ms. Thang, most feminists actually give a damn about the politics she might well be affecting (other than those politics controlling women’s reproduction, which I suspect quite greatly Jessica would be a raving idiot anti-choice lunatic about anyways).
I almost wonder if she’s a man posing to be a woman. She seems way too much like a Christian fundamentalist man’s ‘ideal’ woman.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
October 14th, 2005 at 4:45 pm
I wonder how thrilled daddy-of-fervently-Christian-Jennie will be at the prospect of paying for her college education, only to have her say that she will not use it to become self-supporting or to support her future family. She’s not much of a marriage prospect without earning power or an inheritance - daddy is going to be stuck with a useless stay-at-home daughter who refuses to work to help pay rent and lights.
About Vox Fundus (voice of the base, ie, a fart in common English): He’s made a pretty good case for use of a sperm bank, and a cooperative housing style arrangement with other young single mothers to spread out childminding and other resources so that most of the single moms in the coop are working, just not all at the same time. Men are for amusement, and when they cease to be amusing, out! At any rate, it sounds like Vox Fundus is one of those 35 year old men still living in their parents’ basement while writing a blog and collecting Star Wars action figures in the original wrapping.
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
October 14th, 2005 at 6:22 pm
Never confuse the masculine desire for conflict avoidance with malleability.
“…the masculine desire for conflict avoidance…”?!? I thought we naturally programed by God and/or evolution to be super-competitive warriors. Where is he getting his gender stereotypes? Or maybe the immutable laws of gender shift with convinience.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
October 14th, 2005 at 6:50 pm
“…the masculine desire for conflict avoidance…”?!? I thought we naturally programed by God and/or evolution to be super-competitive warriors. Where is he getting his gender stereotypes? Or maybe the immutable laws of gender shift with convinience.
Only when it’s convenient for our side of the argument. When it is convenient, we are also nurturing, sensitive, muscular, pot-bellied, loud, quiet, aggressive, violent, rational, logical, emotional, etc.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
October 14th, 2005 at 6:56 pm
Hee. Nerdvana.
This comment was written by Krupskaya.Report this comment to the moderators
October 14th, 2005 at 7:46 pm
Is motherhood instinctive or learned behavior? Both religion and science tell us that it is instinctive . . . But one need only watch the way in which a young girl mothers her stuffed animals to see the maternal instinct at work.
So, what about the MOM at my daycare whose baby is underdeveloped because she and dad only held him until he was six months old? The evil preschool had to tell mom and dad to put him down sometimes, damnit. Shouldn’t instinct tell you that babies need time to wiggle on the floor?
Also, at age 3, I dumped my doll out of her carriage and used it to carry around junk. Perhaps I was exhibiting the feminine instinct for grocery shopping.
This comment was written by batgirl.Report this comment to the moderators
October 14th, 2005 at 7:59 pm
Jennie was pressured to attend college, and went with a chip on her shoulder. Perhaps as a result, she had a negative experience. Her fault isn’t in choosing to stay home, however, but in treating this decision as a requirement for everyone else. And her claim that ‘disobedient women get what they deserve’ is reprehensible ““ especially in light of the fact her speech should be governed by the Law of Kindness (Prov. 31:26).
It isn’t her place to forgive or condemn the acts of others, but rather to order her own life in such as way that it reflects her values. A godly woman in the conservative Christian tradition may instruct people, including her own husband, through good conduct (1 Pet. 3:1). This is how Monica of Hippo, Augustine’s mother, won over her husband Patricious. Older women are also given leave to teach younger ones, assuming both parties are Christian.
But the relationship among believers is different from the one by which believers should deal with non-believers. This is made clear over and over in the Bible. People who don’t believe in the claims of Christianity can be evangelized, but their separation from God ““ their disbelief in the most basic tenets of this religion ““ moves them beyond redemption whether they stay home or work.
So, by foisting a debate about points of doctrine on people who don’t believe *any* of the Bible, Jennie is doing a disservice. And worse, her arrogant insistence she knows what’s best for everyone, and her desire to use the Bible as a club by which to force obedience, turns even the most receptive people away from the overarching message of Christianity.
I allow my hubby to take our head on familial and financial issues for several reasons:
* Because I believe we were brought together by God, who wishes for me to be a helpmeet.
* Because he has certain physical abnormalities that lead some people to treat him as less than he is, it’s my job - both as his helpmeet and as someone who loves him ““ to build him up and fortify him against ‘the world’. I’m the staff he wields.
* Because I think my spouse is better suited to handle certain kinds of stress than me.
I’ve found this kind of attitude makes us both happier, not because I’m some vapid plaything he orders around, but because he knows there’s always someone in his corner. No matter what he says or does, I’ll always love him for who he is.
Those who see submission as a heavy obligation they must inflict on everyone else in order to bear it themselves have the wrong attitude towards being a suitable helper. And I’m completely in the dark as to how Jennie thinks a woman can help a man, rather than merely building his ego, by being sheltered and ignorant. She claims over and over she’s not against education, but that rings hollow when her original point concerns how college ruins girls.
I wouldn’t be able to help my spouse, either emotionally or materially, if I didn’t have marketable skills. He doesn’t want an intelligent pet; he wants a helper suitable. Despite my myriad flaws, I try to be that foremost.
We’re a team. If we don’t work together, and that includes on earning an income, we’ll both suffer greatly ““ as one flesh.
This comment was written by Monkey Testicle.Report this comment to the moderators
October 14th, 2005 at 9:22 pm
Hell and fury and all that
I read this piece of festering garbage over at Alas, A Blog:And a woman foolish enough to wait more than two decades before attempting to have children has no one to blame but herself…And I’m sorry, I know I shouldn’t
This comment was written by Grand Mental Station.Report this comment to the moderators
October 15th, 2005 at 9:08 am
Let me e’splain. no, is too much, let me sum up
Jennie: God will smite you if your heterosexual marriage is not a 24/7 DS relationship with no safewords
AFA: God will smite any dolls that empower girls.
Pretentious wannabe skiffy writer: All women exist to SERVE MY COCK! BOW TO THE COCK! KILL ALL FEMINISTS!
Bitch PhD: Any sucessful woman who isn’t dominated by a man is a threat to the partiarchy. Miers is not tied to a man. Q.E. Fucking D.
Inigo Buttercup is marry’ Humperdinck in a little less than half an hour. So all we have to do is get in, break up the wedding, steal the princess, make our escape… after I kill Count Rugen.
Westley: That doesn’t leave much time for dilly-dallying.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
October 15th, 2005 at 10:13 am
So you don’t go out and meet potential life-partners, IOW. Daddy and/or Jesus and/or the marriage broker can take care of that for you.
Or you do go out and meet them, but tell them from Day One (in the name of honesty) that they can’t even have a peck on the cheek until you get that weddin’ ring. Yeah, that’ll really bring out the cream of the crop for you to choose from, mate-wise all right. And everyone knows that in romantic and/or sexual relations, you either refrain from all contact completely or you have to give it all up on the first date. There’s no possible middle ground there.
Ho hum.
This comment was written by alsis38.Report this comment to the moderators
October 15th, 2005 at 11:16 am
“Don’t engage in casual dating relationships after 18. They’re fun, *and* . . .”
This is bad?
This is also the probable inspiration for the bumper sticker that says “Dear God, please save me from your ‘good people.’”
This comment was written by Kyra.Report this comment to the moderators
October 15th, 2005 at 11:19 am
“But I am wondering if, on the contrary, it might not be the case that an true believer who isn’t a great legal mind”“which is what I suspect Miers is”“might not be far more dangerous, precisely because she will have the power to rule without the intelligence or background to respect either the precedents or the consequences that form the context for her ruling.”
We’ve been through this. It’s called the Bush administration.
This comment was written by Kyra.Report this comment to the moderators
October 15th, 2005 at 1:02 pm
There is something funnyand ironic about what the guy from Vox Popoli said, that “too many women, fearing the wrath of the Sisterhood, secretly wish for them (marriage and children) while publicly and piously professing feminist-approved cant to the contrary”. This is far from the truth! The truth is that young women of today do not ‘publicly’ and ‘piously’ profess ‘feminist-approved cant’; young women of today who would never dream of calling themselves feminists, or indeed, even align themselves with feminism, love their careers. They love being independant, and they delay children and marriage by choice. What’s more, they will never put up with shit relationships as easily either! Just sounds like another anti-feminist creep who’s scared of free, self-defined women to me!
This comment was written by Cho.Report this comment to the moderators
October 15th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Good stuff!
And after dealing with grown men(w/ guns and badges no less!) acting like five-year olds on my blog, or praying for me to be violently attacked, I have a new appreciation for the intelligent folks here, whether I agree with them or not.
Girls, Inc….LOL…too much time on their hands…
Miers….oooooh, my mom’s been ringing me off the hook with concerns about her! But then my mom’s off her Hillary Clinton for president kick, now.
(she still keeps her Bill Clinton wristwatch…sigh..)
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
October 15th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
By all the people here, most of whom are great, that does include you Robert…
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
October 15th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
Harriet Miers can’t be the Christian fundamentalist’s “ideal woman,” since for years and years the eggs that could have turned into babies wept as they were flushed down the toilet with her monthly cycle ….
This comment was written by Sharon.Report this comment to the moderators
October 15th, 2005 at 10:09 pm
This doesn’t really contradict “monkey testicle”’s views, above, but I thought it worth mentioning in the face of others using Scripture to justify patricarchal control: “Ezer B’negdo,” translated as “help meet for” in the Authorized Version of the Bible, might also be rendered as “power complementary to.” I.e. the Lord saw fit to remedy Adam’s solitude by creating for him a counterpart, not an assistant.
This comment was written by Mr Ripley.Report this comment to the moderators
October 15th, 2005 at 10:56 pm
Its azer kinegdo, help-against or help-meet, and I’ve heard it translated as meaning for him when he is doing right, against him when he is going wrong.
Which would give the woman a heck of a lot of power.
Also, a study of the imahot (mothers, Sara, Rivka, Rochel and Leah) will not show weak subordinante women (Neither was Chava weark and subordinate, nor for that matter, Ruth, Devorah, Chana etc. etc. etc.) Avraham was in fact commanded BY G-D to listen to all Sara said. NOT listen to her only concerning Hagar, but ALL that she says.
This comment was written by Rachel Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
October 16th, 2005 at 2:56 am
It’s interesting that Jennie failed to mention Deborah, Huldah, or Rahab. She chose only those woman whose stories seemed to affirm her claims about a ‘proper feminine posture’, and downplayed contradictory evidence as presented in Proverbs 31. Nor did she give consideration to Mary Magdalene, who followed Jesus rather than keeping at home.
I don’t see ‘helpmeet’ as a subordinate role, but as one with a complementary function - a function that means different things in different relationships. In ours, it means balancing my advantage through supporting his decisions. It means that if he makes a mistake, I won’t rub salt in the wound by saying, “I told you so.” It means that, when we’re out in public, I defer without question for the sake of his honor. We don’t argue in front of people, but we do have discussions in private.
I’ve seen both men and women demean their partners, or wrangle for years over honest mistakes. These activities are to the soul as poison is to flesh.
I’m no June Cleaver: I’m not a very good cook, and nor do I scrub the toilet with a glad heart. But when my hubby needs me, I’m there; and when he asks me to do something, I do it.
I’ve read a lot on this subject, and am disturbed by the view that women are suited only for domestic prostitution. And worse still are materials produced by women who adopt a pose of childlike innocence merely to avoid adult responsibilities. They consider female ignorance a badge of piety - a trait worthy of cultivation. Even in his most ‘misogynistic’ passage, however, Paul commands that women *learn*. (1 Timothy 2:11) At various points in the Bible, female learning includes finances, religion, law, and defense.
This comment was written by Monkey Testicle.Report this comment to the moderators
October 16th, 2005 at 4:48 am
It means that, when we’re out in public, I defer without question for the sake of his honor.
does he do the same for you?
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
October 16th, 2005 at 8:44 am
does he do the same for you?
Yes, except it’s very rare that I make a public decision concerning both of us without first talking to him. The point isn’t to look like his doormat: I simply believe my conduct sets the tone for how others treat him. He sometimes picks a more bumpy fork in the road, but I trust him enough to go for the ride.
There’s been but one occasion when he’s chosen a course of action to which I objected morally, and he respected my refusal to participate. But I’ll still be there by his side, and won’t belittle him if he gets flak.
It’s easy for me, I guess, because my hubby’s a good guy not given to rash decisions or illogical courses of action. This relationship is founded on the high value we place in one another - an imperfect representation of the relationship between Christ and the Church.
This comment was written by Monkey Testicle.Report this comment to the moderators
October 16th, 2005 at 1:40 pm
Amusing. What the young Christian woman appears to have overlooked, in her eagerness of conform to (man’s) written Word of God is that this benevolent God created women without a soul; they do not, therefore, count for anything in the great (religious) scheme of things and might just as well go out there and make party while they can. There’s no (biblical) hereafter for you women, live with it!
Pi.
This comment was written by Pi..Report this comment to the moderators
October 16th, 2005 at 7:04 pm
Sounds equal to me.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
October 16th, 2005 at 8:40 pm
Pi:
There’s nothing wrong with questioning the value of Christianity, but at least do it based on claims made in the Bible.
In 1 Peter 3:1-7, scripture refers to women as fellow heirs to the grace of life, and commands they adorn themselves with a quiet spirit. Genesis 1:27 says, “and God made man in his image, in the image of God he made him: male and female he made them.” Galatians 3:28 says all are one in Christ Jesus, making distinctions between slave and free, Jew and Greek, or male and female irrelevant.
This comment was written by Monkey Testicle.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2005 at 9:46 am
Yep, Girl Inc. will turn little girls into ‘aborting Sapphists.’
Now, see, if this is the best argument for non-wingnut sex-ed I’ve ever seen. If these fools had a basic understanding of human sexuality, they’d realize that problem A solves problem B. You can get hot and bothered about one or the other, but you have to choose.
This comment was written by djw.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2005 at 1:04 pm
Methinks Jennie just doesn’t want to get a job and is tired of being embarrassed about it. Her solution: declare her laziness a virtue! God wants us to sit around and be kept by men, and all you working women are defying God’s plan.
This comment was written by Vache Folle.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
It’s my experience that women who work at home generally do more labor than women who work for pay outside the home. Keeping a house and raising children is hard work. I am sure that Jennie has her share of issues, but she would be highly irrational to opt for the homemaker role out of laziness.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2005 at 3:35 pm
It’s my experience that women who work at home generally do more labor than women who work for pay outside the home.
Gee, nothing more endearing than a man who sets out to start another round of the Mommy wars. The “all the women who work outside the home sit on their ass behind a desk for eight hours” trope is just as tired as the “all women who work as homemakers sit on their ass and eat snacks and watch soap operas” trope. Borrrr—innnnngggg! Surely you could come up with better snark?
Jennie isn’t opting for the homemaker role. She’s not married. She has no kids. She has no job. She isn’t attending school. She’s sitting around the house, waiting for what, I don’t know. She’s not apt to meet a future husband that way, and her parents are probably going to pawn her off on any guy who will take her after a few years of supporting her deadbeat ass. Maybe her folks should get her a large set of luggage for Christmas.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2005 at 5:08 pm
The “all the women who work outside the home sit on their ass behind a desk for eight hours” trope is just as tired as the “all women who work as homemakers sit on their ass and eat snacks and watch soap operas” trope. Borrrr…innnnngggg! Surely you could come up with better snark?
I’m sure that I could come up with better snark. However, this is your snark - and you’re right, it’s lame.
I made a mild and positive statement - women who stay at home do a lot of work - more, in my experience, than women who work outside. Having done both, and having known lots of women who did both, I think housework is harder than paid work. I certainly know which I would pick to do, given the choice.
You can view this as an attack on working women if you like; however, it simply adds to the perception that you are not a serious disputant of these issues. To be able to discuss, we must be able to describe. We cannot describe if we must engage in petty battles every time we say something more potentially divisive than “flowers are nice.”
One or the other types of work is likely harder; women do both types of work; therefore, one class of woman is likely working harder than another class. Men, too. I have my opinion as to which class this is; this opinion I hold consistently, with reason, and with the knowledge that it is a general statement that does not hold true for all people at all times. I won’t be bullied out of it because someone with a chip on her shoulder would rather pick fights than discuss issues.
You are correct that Jennie is not deciding to be a homemaker today. However, she is opting for a lifestyle where she views that as her first, best destiny. It is presumably what she is hoping and praying for. To say that someone is hoping to become a homemaker out of laziness is akin to saying that someone hopes to become a rock star because they seek a stable home life. It’s possible for that to be the motivation, but if so it betrays a fundamental lack of rational insight.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
Whoops! This is a P-A thread. I was asked not to comment on P-A threads. Thought this was Nick’s. My bad. Sorry.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2005 at 6:20 pm
“You are correct that Jennie is not deciding to be a homemaker today. However, she is opting for a lifestyle where she views that as her first, best destiny.”
Exactly how does working outside the home today preclude her from choosing to stay at home once she has kids or even simply gets married? Exactly how does the fact that Jennie thinks that college is bad training for her keep her from going out and working as a maid or a child-care-giver? Would these jobs not be good training? Is there something so inherently wrong about a women working outside the home that even spending her days caring for the elderly at a nursing home is less worthy of her time than simply not working?
La Lubu was not the one to accuse Jennie of choosing to be a homemaker out of laziness, she was simply pointing out that you can’t say that she works harder than women who work outside the home* not only because it’s a stupid argument, but because she isn’t a homemaker Maybe I missed something and Jennie is volunteering full time at the local soup kitchen while she waits for Mr. Wonderful to stumble over her, but if she isn’t, then yes, she’s being lazy and selfish.
*I love how this argument conveniently ignores the vast numbers of women who do both and in fact are often expected to do more of the housework and care-giving than their husbands are, even if they work the same hours. :p….
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2005 at 7:12 pm
*I love how this argument conveniently ignores the vast numbers of women who do both and in fact are often expected to do more of the housework and care-giving than their husbands are, even if they work the same hours. :p….
As a matter of fact, this single mother does both! But really, I was just pointing out the inherent classism in the “homemakers work harder” statement; the inference is that housework is more physically active than work outside the home. It is if you’re a bank executive, but it isn’t if you are a waiter/waitress, custodian, nurse, plumber, carpenter, physical therapist, landscaper/gardener, etc. Granted, there are few of us that work in construction, but there are a hell of a lot of folks in other physically demanding jobs—-a damn sight more than have behind-the-desk jobs. For working class folks, housework is most definitely not harder than paid work. Not just physically less demanding, but better working conditions to boot! Screaming toddlers are much easier to deal with than screaming foremen.
Point being? If you grow up in the kind of home where folks have physically demanding jobs and little-to-no power in how their job is performed, not to mention little-to-no status from that job, you’ll view homemaking as both a welcome change and a cakewalk—even though it isn’t given any real status either.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2005 at 8:50 pm
You can view this as an attack on working women if you like; however, it simply adds to the perception that you are not a serious disputant of these issues.
How does her viewing your comment as an attack, rather than as a “mild and positive statement”, detract from her seriousness? You initially presented a view - in this case, that homemakers work harder than those in paid employment - without expanding on it.
Such a statement, devoid of context, carries its own baggage. For example, it could mean, ‘women who work outside the home do so merely to avoid the harder, gender-specific responsibility of caring for family.’
It’s disingenuous of you to plead ignorance as to why your initial post might be taken the wrong way. You’re no wounded rabbit among predators, so quit limping.
This comment was written by Monkey Testicle.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2005 at 8:00 am
Don’t worry, MT. You get used to that from Robert, after a while. Sort of like crummy morning commute weather or slugs in your herb garden. :/
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2005 at 9:34 am
I have a question. How sure are we that this whole thing is real; that this letter writer really exists and this isn’t just some screed put out to stir up the cyberworld? Whenever I see something this far to one side, my bullshit detector starts stirring.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
I went directly to this woman’s site and started reading her letter, but I stopped after the first few paragraphs. She has some serious issues!
1. She was home-schooled for 8 years, and then her parents “made” her go to a school 300 miles away, when she didn’t feel comfortable leaving home (for whatever reason). So she was already looking for ways to hate being there, and she still isn’t over it.
2. After she complained and complained about it, her parents apologized for making her go. So now she has validation for hating the whole experience, plus she has stored up plenty of examples of how awful it was being there. I’m probably making a huge assumption here, but I suspect her roommate(s) were probably the leading characters in her version of “College Sucks.”
3. After graduation, she got a job in media relations, and was astonished that she’s become cynical! Hello, media relations is not the job for you if you want to register low on the Cynic Meter. She loved her job but felt bitter inside - probably still resenting being chucked out of the nest.
4. She finally meets someone who is husband material, moves back home, and sometime during her engagement quits her job. Also, somewhere in here, her father dies. Can you say “guilt trip”?
So now she has made it her life’s mission to save other young women who shouldn’t want to leave their families. Too sad.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2005 at 11:33 pm
La Lubu
Quite true - my sister likely finds taking care of her toddler and infant to be much more physicaly demanding than her old office job, but she may not have felt the same if her previous job had been as a maid. Especially since her current role as homemaker only includes day to day housekeeping - a maid comes in every so often to mop the floors, scrub the toilets, etc.
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2005 at 7:08 am
I’ve worked as a housekeeper, dishwasher, in an office, tutoring, babysitting etc. etc. Had losts of jobs. what gets you most is not so much the physical drain, though that is why I stopped the dishwashing (last job) but the tedium.
And staying at home with a crying baby can get quite tedious if you are the only adult within miles and all your friends are away and everyone looks at you as if you spend the day eating bonbons even if they state otherwise. Really, soemtimes kids, even my beautiful crew, can be bores. Sometimse one just once some quiet. What adds to the aggrevation is no one considers it work if you are flat busted. Then you are suppose to get off you keister and earn money, because you really aren’t working when taking care of your own flesh and blood.
This comment was written by Rachel Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2005 at 2:38 pm
I’d just like to let people in on the secret that stay at home mothers of school age children have a lot of time on their hands. I know because my freelancing allows me to be stay at home a lot and I can’t believe how leisurely life is on those days. After all, we’re not making our own clothes and raising poultry anymore. That’s the real reason for the uptick in homeschooling: bored stay at home moms.
This comment was written by Elena.Report this comment to the moderators