femininity vs fenminism

[ladypuglover]

Being to feminine is just as bad as being a fem-nazi. Wha?

inashoe.com/2011/08/femininity-feminism/#comments

Could someone help me make sense of what she is trying to say?

[CanadianHippie]

I think what she's saying is if you are being feminine when your authority wants you to do something unfeminine you are not following God's will. Because it's not just that girls have to be girls, it's that girls have to not think for themselves and she needs to be completely obedient. So if you want to bake, and your hubby/father/authority wants you to go out and help build a house, you have to do what he says.

From the fundie point of view it makes perfect sense, just because a girl who would chose baking over her authorities orders is deciding for herself what is best for her. Kind of like a feminist would say "if you want to stay home a bake something instead of doing something you consider too dangerous or something, then stay home, bake those cookies because your man can't make you do something you aren't comfortable with."

[Kaylee]

Essentially, feminism is the desire to be autonomous. It’s the desire to be independent from a man and out from under his authority, ... If muffin making becomes a girl’s priority over serving her father in more urgent or useful ways just because she really, really likes to make muffins, then her motive is really no different from the feminists. It’s selfish at its heart.

From the Botkin quote, being too feminine is bad if you're doing it because you enjoy it and/or it becomes a priority above submitting to your headship authority and serving his needs. They take even good things (by their definition) and say they are bad and selfish if they are done because you want to do them.

I swear, sometimes I think these people do everything they can to suck all of those things Jesus promised believers - joy, peace, rest, fulfillment - right out of Christianity and replace it on a reliance on their ideas and systems instead.

[Joykins]

Being to feminine is just as bad as being a fem-nazi. Wha?

inashoe.com/2011/08/femininity-feminism/#comments

Could someone help me make sense of what she is trying to say?

It sounds like she's saying it's OK to pursue your interests as long as it doesn't interfere with your Electra Complex.

[Patsy]

It sounds like she's saying it's OK to pursue your interests as long as it doesn't interfere with your Electra Complex.

Suh-nap. I think I like you, Joykins.

[libmomj]

Laying the groundwork to OK voting for Bachmann because her headship wants her to be president?

[gilora]

So the almighty gave ambitious women an escape hatch provided they can convince their masters to order them to be masculine?

[tehgoobster]

Laying the groundwork to OK voting for Bachmann because her headship wants her to be president?

I'm not so sure about that. They believe that certain jobs (such as leadership positions) are "men's jobs." They were against Sarah Palin for this reason.

[pomology]

So can I extrapolate from this that because my, um, headship wants me to be an independent women that's the feminine thing to do?

[bananacat]

I think the general message is that no matter what you do as a woman, you're never good enough. You're never worthy of praise, and you are never worthy of the love of your husband or Jesus. No matter how well you behave, you are still doing something wrong. The message is that women should never have any self-esteem so that they continue to make sacrifices in a vain attempt to become acceptable.

[masagoroll]

From the Botkin quote, being too feminine is bad if you're doing it because you enjoy it and/or it becomes a priority above submitting to your headship authority and serving his needs. They take even good things (by their definition) and say they are bad and selfish if they are done because you want to do them.

I swear, sometimes I think these people do everything they can to suck all of those things Jesus promised believers - joy, peace, rest, fulfillment - right out of Christianity and replace it on a reliance on their ideas and systems instead.

They really are! It's like, no, you can't even have fun knitting.

Remind me of the whole Terri Maxwell having to give up Coca Cola thing, only even more ridiculous, since the fundies promote girls doing feminine things.

[Patsy]

Argh. I just looked at this post, and one of the last commenters talks about her views on Biblical submission, respect in marriage, and mentions her idea of 'Biblical feminism', as being separate from secular feminism and holding Biblical truths as the centre, or somesuch. Kim's response is:

...I agree with most of what you say, but I think we need to steer clear of the term feminism, which tries to redefine a woman’s role apart from God. I don’t think feminism can be Biblical any more than humanism can be Biblical.

God has defined our created roles clearly for us and while there is definitely an element of mutual submission, that doesn’t mean that our roles are interchangeable, nor does it negate the headship of the husband and the wife’s duty to obey her own husband....

I absolutely see that she's found something in the comment she disagrees with, and wants to be clear on that, but is it just me or are a lot of these responses quite authoritarian, almost to the point of dictating ANOTHER person's belief? I'm not sure if it's something I see just because a lot of the posts at LiaS DO get my goat, or if there really is something there.

Digging for another example of what I am talking about:

at this post: inashoe.com/2010/02/usuper/

a commenter says:

...I’m conflicted on the Civil War because I’m a huge opponent of slavery but a huge proponent of states rights...

and Perry C responds:

...I am against chattel slavery too...

The original commenter didn't SAY 'chattel slavery', he said slavery. Isn't that implying that the commenter might be okay with other forms, as Perry C is implying about himself? But no, he TOO disagrees with 'chattel slavery', so there you go, that is, in fact, what the original commenter meant.

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

Argh. I just looked at this post, and one of the last commenters talks about her views on Biblical submission, respect in marriage, and mentions her idea of 'Biblical feminism', as being separate from secular feminism and holding Biblical truths as the centre, or somesuch. Kim's response is:

I absolutely see that she's found something in the comment she disagrees with, and wants to be clear on that, but is it just me or are a lot of these responses quite authoritarian, almost to the point of dictating ANOTHER person's belief? I'm not sure if it's something I see just because a lot of the posts at LiaS DO get my goat, or if there really is something there.

Digging for another example of what I am talking about:

at this post: inashoe.com/2010/02/usuper/

a commenter says:

and Perry C responds:

The original commenter didn't SAY 'chattel slavery', he said slavery. Isn't that implying that the commenter might be okay with other forms, as Perry C is implying about himself? But no, he TOO disagrees with 'chattel slavery', so there you go, that is, in fact, what the original commenter meant.

I believe that the really hard-core, Rushdooney-style dominionists believe in the OT form of slavery - like where you can sell yourself to pay off a debt, etc. If I understand correctly, "chattel slavery" refers to owning human beings from birth to death, as they did during the era of slavery in the States. So I would guess that this is the distinction they are making.

[Patsy]

Yeah, but making the distinction in a way that implies that the reader would agree with them, is what I am wondering about. Saying "I TOO disagree with chattel slavery" implies that the commenter specifically disagrees with chattel slavery; in fact they only said it was wrong, and afaik there's no relationship between them so Perry C wouldn't know his opinions on the matter.

Again, I may just be reading into it, but to me it seems to be saying not just "here is my opinion on the matter", or "here is a distinction on the matter", but "here is WHAT YOU BELIEVE" -- stronger than just "here is the TRUTH, and if you disagree, well it's still the truth". Same for the Biblical feminism comment.

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

Yeah, but making the distinction in a way that implies that the reader would agree with them, is what I am wondering about. Saying "I TOO disagree with chattel slavery" implies that the commenter specifically disagrees with chattel slavery; in fact they only said it was wrong, and afaik there's no relationship between them so Perry C wouldn't know his opinions on the matter.

Again, I may just be reading into it, but to me it seems to be saying not just "here is my opinion on the matter", or "here is a distinction on the matter", but "here is WHAT YOU BELIEVE" -- stronger than just "here is the TRUTH, and if you disagree, well it's still the truth". Same for the Biblical feminism comment.

Ah, gotcha. Sort of like, "Yes, I'm against chattel slavery too, because remember, it is only CHATTEL slavery we are against, the Bible says other kinds of slavery are ok." They are asserting that they are on the same (and "correct") ideological page and implying that this is the only way they can actually have a conversation. This sets it up so that if the original commenter was indeed against all types of slavery, they would have to start an argument that would "out" them as being anti-Biblical somehow. Apart from being quite insidious, it's almost an impressive level of subtlety for a fundie, lol.