F**k You Kirk Cameron

[Cleopatra7]

15 minutes ago, Howl said:

In a nutshell.....

To clarify, this would be one night a year, during the Christmas season, because who doesn't like surprises at Christmas?

A better idea would be to buy her a dishwasher so she doesn't have to wash dishes period (#hatewashingdishes).

[nastyhobbitses]

1 hour ago, Howl said:

In a nutshell.....

To clarify, this would be one night a year, during the Christmas season, because who doesn't like surprises at Christmas?

Now I'm getting flashbacks to the insult to cinematography, screenwriting, acting, and storytelling that was Saving Christmas. Though given enough booze to drink surreptitiously, I would totally spend Christmas at Kirk Cameron's house just out of bile fascination.

[refugee]

12 hours ago, refugee said:

No. Women "deserve what they get"--no matter what, it's their fault.

They weren't perfect enough.

The house wasn't clean enough.

The kids weren't respectful enough, or quiet enough.

She asked him to do something twice, because he ignored her or blew it off the first time she asked, and it's not something she can just suck it up and do it herself, and it really needs to be done -- she's nagging! 

He's tired after working hard all day. (She isn't?) 

She disagreed with him on something -- it's disrespectful of her! 

Husbands who are emotionally abusive are "just joking" and why can't she just lighten up? 

It's horrible.

To be fair, you can take an average guy and turn him into the picture above by following the Ephesians 5:22 checklist, which includes things like:

- agreeing with him in everything: if it's minor, it's not worth disagreeing, and if it's major, well, he has to answer to god in the end so it's not on the wife if it all goes wrong, and she can bask in the righteousness of having continued to respect her husband through thick and thin

- making sure he has all the best, and making a point of it in front of the children, so they learn well the ways of patriarchy. He gets the biggest piece of dessert, the biggest helping of ice cream, the best of whatever is on offer

- not bothering him about "little things" but trying to handle everything that you can. This might work out, in practical ways, to the wife and kids doing all the household stuff, including taking out the trash, weeding the garden, car maintenance, even mowing the lawn (despite the fact that the wife has an irrational fear of the gas lawnmower)

- not interrupting him when he's in the middle of something, whether work or leisure (like reading political blogs on the Internet), but having to maintain a positive, pleasant, attentive attitude when he interrupts anyone else in the family lower in the pecking order. (He's the Patriarch, sweetheart, that means *everyone* else.)

- instilling immediate, cheerful obedience in the children, and backing him up when he finds fault in them (That's where I always fell short; I tended to defend the children, instead of ganging up on the kids "being on the same side" with the husband. I know parents are supposed to agree on discipline and standards and stuff, but honest-to-goodness, sometimes children are children and can't help being noisy or energetic or even have a bad day and need a little grace.)

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture. The formula for patriarchy is the same as the formula for creating a monster.

[Emilycharlotte]

That is definitely a checklist for creating a monster, and the saddest thing of all is that, of course, it's man-made crap about how to apply what they think Ephesians  says.  Because apparently, they can't tell the difference between what they actually read and their own interpretation/understanding/application of it.

I'm not a theologian or a Bible scholar, but I'd like to point out that that particular passage starts out by telling both husbands and wives to "submit to EACH OTHER out of reverence for Christ." In the following verses the actual word "submit" is only used to describe the wife's attitude towards her husband.  Apparently this causes  some people to think that verse about mutual submission is null and void.

Although it doesn't use the word submit, it sure sounds like mutual submission to me when it talks about how the husband should love his wife.  I don't understand how anyone reads this and comes away with a picture of marriage in which one person is treated like a king and the other like a subservient drone.   

Of course,  I've heard the explanation that loving your wife like Christ loves the Church means that the Manly Man is required to die to save his wife in the unlikely event he ever needs to; thus, he is entitled to call all the shots on everything else, forever.  And by the way, his (theoretical, probably not gonna happen) role of literally laying down his life is soooo much harder than the wife's job of submitting to his every whim, etc.  And that is just. so. frustrating.

Jesus didn't just show his love for the Church by making one grand gesture of allowing himself to be crucified; his example was of loving, humble service on a daily basis.  He certainly didn't put himself first, or treat his followers with disrespect.  

It seems to me, if you take the passage as a whole--including the initial instruction to "submit to each other"---that both husband and wife are being required to live sacrificially by always putting the other person first, and always treating each other with respect. 

(Speech over, sorry!)

[Jana814]

He is an ass. I have to agree with an above poster he is trying to stay relevant. 

[moodygirl86]

16 hours ago, mango_fandango said:

"Kunt Cameron (on-purpose typo and it stays)" 

HEE.

LOL at Kunt Cameron!

[BobTheWalrus]

2 hours ago, Emilycharlotte said:

That is definitely a checklist for creating a monster, and the saddest thing of all is that, of course, it's man-made crap about how to apply what they think Ephesians  says.  Because apparently, they can't tell the difference between what they actually read and their own interpretation/understanding/application of it.

I'm not a theologian or a Bible scholar, but I'd like to point out that that particular passage starts out by telling both husbands and wives to "submit to EACH OTHER out of reverence for Christ." In the following verses the actual word "submit" is only used to describe the wife's attitude towards her husband.  Apparently this causes  some people to think that verse about mutual submission is null and void.

Although it doesn't use the word submit, it sure sounds like mutual submission to me when it talks about how the husband should love his wife.  I don't understand how anyone reads this and comes away with a picture of marriage in which one person is treated like a king and the other like a subservient drone.   

Of course,  I've heard the explanation that loving your wife like Christ loves the Church means that the Manly Man is required to die to save his wife in the unlikely event he ever needs to; thus, he is entitled to call all the shots on everything else, forever.  And by the way, his (theoretical, probably not gonna happen) role of literally laying down his life is soooo much harder than the wife's job of submitting to his every whim, etc.  And that is just. so. frustrating.

Jesus didn't just show his love for the Church by making one grand gesture of allowing himself to be crucified; his example was of loving, humble service on a daily basis.  He certainly didn't put himself first, or treat his followers with disrespect.  

It seems to me, if you take the passage as a whole--including the initial instruction to "submit to each other"---that both husband and wife are being required to live sacrificially by always putting the other person first, and always treating each other with respect. 

(Speech over, sorry!)

Yes, this! This is what I find so frustrating about fundiedom - they seem to take verses that support what they already think, and use those verses to manipulate and control people. Which is exactly the opposite of how things should be if you read the bible as a whole in its correct context.  There's a verse I love which speaks about just living up to what God has convinced you of.  So yeah, try and convince others, but also CHILL OUT, you can't argue or nag people into doing what you want.

[nastyhobbitses]

2 hours ago, Emilycharlotte said:

That is definitely a checklist for creating a monster, and the saddest thing of all is that, of course, it's man-made crap about how to apply what they think Ephesians  says.  Because apparently, they can't tell the difference between what they actually read and their own interpretation/understanding/application of it.

I'm not a theologian or a Bible scholar, but I'd like to point out that that particular passage starts out by telling both husbands and wives to "submit to EACH OTHER out of reverence for Christ." In the following verses the actual word "submit" is only used to describe the wife's attitude towards her husband.  Apparently this causes  some people to think that verse about mutual submission is null and void.

Although it doesn't use the word submit, it sure sounds like mutual submission to me when it talks about how the husband should love his wife.  I don't understand how anyone reads this and comes away with a picture of marriage in which one person is treated like a king and the other like a subservient drone.   

Of course,  I've heard the explanation that loving your wife like Christ loves the Church means that the Manly Man is required to die to save his wife in the unlikely event he ever needs to; thus, he is entitled to call all the shots on everything else, forever.  And by the way, his (theoretical, probably not gonna happen) role of literally laying down his life is soooo much harder than the wife's job of submitting to his every whim, etc.  And that is just. so. frustrating.

Jesus didn't just show his love for the Church by making one grand gesture of allowing himself to be crucified; his example was of loving, humble service on a daily basis.  He certainly didn't put himself first, or treat his followers with disrespect.  

It seems to me, if you take the passage as a whole--including the initial instruction to "submit to each other"---that both husband and wife are being required to live sacrificially by always putting the other person first, and always treating each other with respect. 

(Speech over, sorry!)

Bolding mine -- YES!

And furthermore, the passage says to love your wife like you love Jesus. If my interpretation of a Christian's relationship with Jesus and His teachings are correct, that would involve listening carefully to what your wife has to say, putting her before yourself, and honoring the sacrifices she makes for you by making sacrifices of your own. (Am I a horrible, blasphemous person for imagining Jim Bob constantly railing Jesus and furiously making out with Him in public?)

[Granwych]

I SEVERELY hope that I am watching the View if and when Whoopi does a "What the shit?" to Candace Cameron Bure.

[CyborgKin]

18 hours ago, doggie said:

unless your marriage was arranged with no choice who you married and for making stronger relations with another family  usually for monetary or political gain then you are not practicing biblical marriage.  the bible tried to make a marriage to someone you had no choice about better. but it was always in a position as a wife who was almost property. 

Is that meant to be satirical?

[Terrie]

This model of marriage reminds me of something.... Oh, yeah, it's basically the relationship between me and my dog. Seriously, they should just get a pet.

[Toothfairy]

Well Cameron submits to her husband. But she's less of an asshole their Kirk. 

And is it okay to question Kirks sexuality? The way he turned to religion speaks for itself. 

[Cleopatra7]

18 minutes ago, Toothfairy said:

Well Cameron submits to her husband. But she's less of an asshole their Kirk. 

And is it okay to question Kirks sexuality? The way he turned to religion speaks for itself. 

As I recall from the E! True Hollywood story on Growing Pains, Kirk claims to have found "god" (or something) because the life of a teen idol felt shallow and meaningless. However, I think Kirk has simply traded in being a secular pin-up to being a fundie equivalent of the same. He's still quasi-famous and has people squeeing over him, albeit for different reasons. Given how open Kirk has been about his fundieness and his horrible movies, I think if he was living a side life of any sort, someone would have stepped forward about it by now or we'd at least have heard rumors like with John Travolta, Kevin Spacey, or even Josh Duggar. Not saying I know anything either way about those two, but both Travolta and Spacey have been dogged with rumors for so long that many people assume they're true, rightly or wrongly. Instead, I think Kirk buys into his own hype and is simply a priggish jerk. Besides, Candace is also fundie, albeit more fundie lite, and it seems like her conversion was just as sudden as Kirk's, even if she wasn't a total jerk about it.

[paganbaby]

19 minutes ago, Cleopatra7 said:

As I recall from the E! True Hollywood story on Growing Pains, Kirk claims to have found "god" (or something) because the life of a teen idol felt shallow and meaningless. However, I think Kirk has simply traded in being a secular pin-up to being a fundie equivalent of the same. He's still quasi-famous and has people squeeing over him, albeit for different reasons. Given how open Kirk has been about his fundieness and his horrible movies, I think if he was living a side life of any sort, someone would have stepped forward about it by now or we'd at least have heard rumors like with John Travolta, Kevin Spacey, or even Josh Duggar. Not saying I know anything either way about those two, but both Travolta and Spacey have been dogged with rumors for so long that many people assume they're true, rightly or wrongly. Instead, I think Kirk buys into his own hype and is simply a priggish jerk. Besides, Candace is also fundie, albeit more fundie lite, and it seems like her conversion was just as sudden as Kirk's, even if she wasn't a total jerk about it.

I have read rumors about Kirk for years, and most of them are pretty specific. I think they're not as well known because he doesn't have the star power of Travolta or Spacey and gets less press in general.

Of course, the rumors may not be true and my awareness of them may say more about the blogs I frequent than Kirk's actual behavior.

[catlady]

i just read a post on FB from one of Mr. CL's relatives.  She's an evangelical Christian, quite conservative, and posts some annoying stuff sometimes.  but we're FB friends due to the family connection (she lives several hundred miles away from me and Mr.).

anyway, she was all excited yesterday because she saw Kirk "Dick" Cameron in her local Apple Blossom parade and posted a photo.  the comments were from her local friends and all of them were gushing about how wonderful he and his family are.  one of them calls him a great role model.  WTF!!!!!!

[sea_gale]

I watched Fireproof for shits and giggles years ago. Kirk Cameron is not a good actor. At all. The one bit of his performance which was at all convincing was when he was screaming in his wife's face. That seemed horribly as though it might be inadvertently drawn from his real life reactions. Gave me the fucking shivers.

[nastyhobbitses]

10 minutes ago, sea_gale said:

I watched Fireproof for shits and giggles years ago. Kirk Cameron is not a good actor. At all. The one bit of his performance which was at all convincing was when he was screaming in his wife's face. That seemed horribly as though it might be inadvertently drawn from his real life reactions. Gave me the fucking shivers.

I listened to God Awful Movies' three-part takedown of the Left Behind movies, so I just had to watch to see if they were making any of what they said up (spoilers: they weren't). Kirk Cameron couldn't act his way out of a paper bag if there was a clearly marked exit.

[Dandruff]

Wonder if there's a chance that Joshley could get a part, perhaps as a redeemed sinner, in a KC and/or Kendrick movie.  Would the fundie population be more or less willing to tolerate him than the general population?

[freehannie]

Not to defend Kirk Cameron at all since he is a major jerk but I did go to his marriage seminar at a local megachurch a few years ago (for research purposes only).  While he made a few comments about wives, the vast majority of it was focused on changing the husband's behavior.  I suspect he puts quotes like these out in order to make men think they are going to reform their wives and then he launches into the husbands.  I'm sure he does believe wives should submit but that isn't the focus of the seminar.  While I found the whole thing ridiculous and couldn't stand his gigantic ego, there was an alter call at the end with at least a dozen sobbing men regretting their bad behavior.  I found myself wondering if any of these men changed in the long term.  But they were at least willing to be shamed  publicly over their selfishness and anger.

In short, Kirk Cameron is an entitled fundamentalist jerk with all kinds of sexist ideas I do not condone but at the very minimum he does call out the bad behavior of fundamentalist men towards their wives and children.  Of course he would never recommend making structural changes that would prevent these behaviors though.

[Coy Koi]

5 minutes ago, freehannie said:

Not to defend Kirk Cameron at all since he is a major jerk but I did go to his marriage seminar at a local megachurch a few years ago (for research purposes only).

That is interesting. How many people attended this nonsense? How much did it cost?

That's good, I guess, that he focused on the men. I would bet money that it didn't do any long term good for the overwhelming majority or all of them though.  A deep sense of entitlement is almost impossible to get over, and I'd say it pretty much never happens when there's no consequence for not changing. Their wives can't divorce them regardless, so they won't be motivated to make real changes.

[Shiny]

Was the wife in Fireproof submissive? I thought she laid out an ultimatum for Kirk's character and he changed. I might not remember correctly though. 

 

[47of74]

Kirk Cameron is someone who has obviously never been told to get over himself.

[CoveredInBees]

Wow. I've obviously being doing marriage wrong the whole time.......

Oh well, it's too late to do anything about it now *shrugs* never mind

[47of74]

There was a priest where I live who had a great sermon on that passage from Ephesians.  He said the original meaning got lost over the centuries as the bible was translated over and over.  I wish he was still alive, I'd email him and ask him about that passage.

[formergothardite]

18 hours ago, freehannie said:

I found myself wondering if any of these men changed in the long term.  But they were at least willing to be shamed  publicly over their selfishness and anger.

Probably not. I've never seen any of those sorts of events truly make a lasting difference and one of the problems is that, yeah, they might hand slap the men, but they are still telling them that they rule the women and the women are in the wrong if they aren't submitting to the men.