Fundies everywhere

[higgledypiggledy]

I just finished several weeks of cross continental travel following the Lewis and Clark trail with my kids. Well, to my dismay and excitement, there wasn't a state we visited without a fundy sighting or multiple sightings. The number of denim skirt wearing mamas with small children orbiting them is amazing--especially in Walmart. We had the grandparents along for parts of the trip and when I would say out of the corner of my mouth, "I bet they are fundies" my parents were confused. They finally confronted me about all this fundie business and I had to confess my fascination and horror. My mom laughed until she thought she would pee her pants. Then she said, "I've noticed more and more of those people in our state too." Anyone know of any research that shows the rate of growth that fundies seem to be enjoying?

As a side note, just to turn fundy ideas about past gender roles on their heads I learned some fascinating stuff at a living history site. When we were at that site and told we would have to wait for the men to finish with rope making before the demonstration on textiles could start I was surprised, but more surprised when the woman said that in their attempt to be authentic to the time and dispell common myths about the era the living history village divided work along gender lines as it was documentented in journals and letters. In the early west (I mean Illinois, Missouri, Iowa etc) the men, yes men fundies who read here, wove the cloth, knitted socks, wove or crocheted shawls for their wives and braided the rugs. Eat that fundy folks. All that sewing and knitted wasn't the exclusive arena for women. MEN made their wives shawls. Not that women didn't also do that but it was more common for the men to do it. Women were more likely to sew garments and linens for the household.

[ladypuglover]

Not only that but real western men knew how to cook, clean and take care other children in a loving manner. Women knew farm, ranch, homestead, plow feilds, castrate animals, butcher a hog ect all on their little own selves. These folks had to because if they lost a partner they would need those skills to survive. I don't think many men would think it was unmanly to do "womens" work like knitting if that knitting kept you sane on the trail or to replace what wore out. No would anyone think it was unfemine of a lady rancher branding her cattle. Things were very, very different out west. Thankfully my ancestors did come out west and they were those hardy stock of people who believed just that.

[bananacat]

I've known about the men knitting for a long time. It used to be a required skill in some countries' militaries so that the soldiers would have socks. In the past, especially the Frontier days of the West, people died pretty frequently and replacements were pretty scarce. If your wife dies, you either cook food an knit socks or you starve and freeze. If your husband dies, you either harvest the food or you starve. Even when the entire family was alive, there was simply way too much work to be done. And instead of sitting around and waiting for the person with the right genitals to do it, for the most part people just got the work done however they could. They didn't have the luxury of sticking to strict roles.

[Antigone]

Yes, yes, and yes! I loved learning about gender roles in my history classes. It blew my head (in a good way ha) when the teacher introduced the native americans' concept of gender. In one tribe, there were THREE- male, female, and what was dubbed "bendarche" - either a male or female living as the opposite sex with a same-sex partner, usually IIRC. I'm not sure if the tribe was in the Southwest or New England area, but the americans who came to the area were horrified, and immediately went to work fixing the "heathens".

And no one wants to be stuck! it still happens in today's society and fortunately, we do have laundromats, take-out and daycares, but it would be pretty expensive for someone to actually conform to that particular concept of gender roles on their own, ESPECIALLY with children. I am fairly sure it wouldn't last long unless they had a lot of money....IMO.

[MamaJunebug]

Shoot, I haven't even had to travel. In an attempt to research Jim Zes I found out that his publishing company was in the same res/commercial complex as a friend's home, and that if I'd been following extremism in '06, I could've met the Browns (not Tyler Perry's, either) in St Louis when I was living there, as Zes's congregation at the time sponsored a VF rally at the Crowne Plaza.

Moreover & most disturbing, as it turns out I might have rubbed elbows with a Friend Of Doug's when I attended a soiree in the Texas Hill Country last year. I am awaiting confirmation & might describe later.

It's roughly the same feeling I have when I watch docus about Hitler & recognize a German landmark that I've visited, on the films. YIKES!!!! too close for comfort!!!

[dawbs]

I will say, this is by FAR not the weirdest church experience I have ever had. And it may not be ‘that bad’ but I still think it was my final straw.

Background: My church has some ‘hiding below the surface’ issues w/ women—I’m not a member because I won’t join while women can’t be elders; I’m not a super- regular attendee because it’s dang hard for me to get there—uses to many ‘spoons’ since Mr. Dawbs works weekends so I’m trying not to exhaust myself getting kiddo and myself out the door on the only day I can sleep in. We’ve been going there 3ish years and I really like the people and have really REALLY liked actually having a church community that’s a part of my little town, I like the pastor and I like a lot of the services they offer to the community.

So, Sunday, I arrive and I immediately know something is weird because Pastor is in a suit. And when I drop the kiddo off at the nursery, a visitor dropping off a kid says something about ‘after the ceremony’. And the ‘cry room’ type area is filled w/ milling people, even after the service starts (well, I assume it was always full, since I got there after the service starts. I was very late :embarrassed:): ).

So, pastor speaks on the bit in Ephesians 5 that includes: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.†32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the churchâ€

Not my favorite area to preach on, but, in the past, even though I disagree w/ Pastor on these issues, he’s actually been fairly reasonable in his handling of them. He speaks on it; I don’t get to stabby (except when he’s referring to the curses in Genesis that was apparently from last week’s sermon—not sorry I missed it). Some of what he said, that being married to/loving/whatever someone is a wonderful illustration of grace—both giving and receiving.

So, he wraps up the sermon quickly and then says that it used to be, before people got obsessed w/ the pageantry of things that weddings were routinely carried out on Sunday morning. So this morning, we were going to have a wedding. Well, actually, the early service HAD a wedding, we were going to have the wedding re-do.

Apparently Pastor has been talking to (implied ‘counseling’) this couple and they were co-habituating (the horrors!) and they were looking at getting married and they all agreed that this would be economical and most of their friends/family would already be in attendance (red flag to me there, to be that enmeshed—especially since, hate to say it, I don’t think I had ever seen them before. Which doesn’t mean much, I’m not that regular in attendance, but, still, for *all* their friends/family to go there rubs me wrong).

Thus far, we were only at mildly weird, then the ceremony started. It was short, sweet, and Pastor dissected it to make it into an object lesson for Christ loving the church, etc. And managed to cram EVERY offensive misogynist wedding bit one could imagine into 15 minutes. (Except Obey. Obey was left out of the vows.)

-She was referred to at least once using the term ‘helpmeet’. There was a strong emphasis of traditional gender roles in the discussion.

-She was walked down the aisle by her dad and then they stopped, with the groom standing elevated w/ Pastor for the Pastor to explain that the man had to make a vow/statement of intent/whatever BEFORE the dad let go of his daughter. And then shake his son-in-law’s hand with the implication of “I will kick your butt if you hurt my little girl†(mom is conspicuously absent from this).

-Only after that, could the bride stand up next to her husband and they then did some version of the vows that didn’t include obey but it was implied.

-There was much talk of him being the spiritual head of the home. With at least 1 comment that implied that she gained salvation through him (I doubt that’s what Pastor meant—he isn’t very precise w/ his wording. But the fact that such a thing could ‘slip’ raised my hackles)

-a “joke†was made about why the best man used to exist to step up—not a funny one and apparently one Pastor does at every wedding. I probably would have ignored it but the guys sitting next to me (very active in the church) had a whispered conversation about why to never be a best-man…unless your buddy’s wife was really someone you liked [implied words not said = hottie]

-introduced as Mr. and Mrs Hisfirst Hislastname. I never like that, but that may be persnickety on my part

-When they exchanged rings, Pastor mentioned that if you held them up, you would assume the larger ring was his, but it was actually hers. This was a small throwaway comment but the bride (who was a bigger girl) blushed and I just wanted to shin-kick the pastor.

I’ve forgotten the other 15-ish things that were on my mental lists of why I would never let Pastor perform a wedding if I could.

But all in all, it was bizarre and I didn’t like it. And I collected kiddo from the nursery and skipped the potluck-surprise-reception.