Friday, August 24, 2007

The Happy Housewife Meets Academia

Feminism, a movement and theory centered on the idea that women should have equal rights to men, has long been a staple in American (and international) politics and culture. There is such a vast array of feminists that it is often difficult to settle on one uniform definition. Therefore, Feminism, like many other social and political ideologies, is comprised of numerous different viewpoints and translations.

The Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, located in Texas, recently introduced a new area of concentration into their curriculum. The new addition is homemaking. Students are able to participate in classes such as “Orientation to Homemaking” and “The Value of a Child.”

Interested students must match one specific criterion; they must be female. Men need not apply. Their applications will only meet with rejection.

There is a large controversy surrounding the idea that the program teaches women that advanced homemaking skills are vital to success and happiness in life. Thus, advocates of this belief agree that women would be less inclined to enroll in studies that would earn a substantial income. Therefore, women remain transfixed on traditional gender roles, failing to advance the political and economic position of women in society.

Other individuals view the new addition to Academia as important to feminism. They base their argument on the idea that feminism seeks to give women the option to choose their own path in life. Homemaking is viewed as an active choice on the part of the female student. Therefore, if a woman chooses to enroll in this particular curriculum, she is actively selecting a future for herself.

I see no problem with a woman wishing to become a housewife. The women that do take on this job are often not met with enough respect. Managing a household, children, and a husband is a difficult task. It is no wonder that so many women suffer from forms of depression and anxiety. If you choose to be a housewife, you are deciding to heave a large amount of responsibility for many years.

If a woman wishes to take courses in homemaking, I support the decision. After all, I, as a feminist, personally believe that a woman should be able to make any decision that leads to her personal fulfillment, unless, of course, that choice is immensely harmful to someone other than herself.

The problem I have with this new line of coursework is that men are not able to participate. Due to this fact, I am worried that the coursework presented by Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary actually is harmful in that it further instills the vitality of traditional gender roles in American culture.

Furthermore, I am worried that this area of study will not allow a woman the ability to acquire a job—with enough income to support her family—should her husband decide to declare divorce. If a woman with this concentration of study does decide to enter the workplace, I am wary to believe that employers will offer her a suitable salary. In addition, many employers may not take the degree seriously, and in return, will not take the woman seriously.

Overall, I would agree that the course does seem like a step backwards, only because it does not allow men the option to enroll. There are plenty of men that would enjoy the curriculum due to their personal desire to become a homemaker. These men are unjustly treated when they are denied access to education simply because they were born male.

I am skeptical that this area of concentration will also be incorporated into state college curriculum. However, I may be incorrect. With more and more women expressing their desire to be skilled in raising a family, capitalism may dictate that this area of concentration become mainstream. I only hope that women choose the courses because they will find happiness and satisfaction. Not because they are trying to desperately live up to the traditional cultural ideal of femine perfection.

NOTE: I open this topic up for debate. If you are my friend, please do not worry about offending my views. I will still respect and appreciate you.

8 comments:

mikster said...

I pretty much agree with your points in the post. Stereo types are slowly breaking down but there is still a way's to go.

Unknown said...

I agree...as women become more powerful in today's work force, men are sometimes the homemakers. From a Bible standpoint, I understand where this school is coming from. From the world's standpoint; it might not be the best idea.

Erina Hart said...

Welcome, Happily Anonymous. You are correct in that more stereotypes are breaking down. Education is slowly dissolving ignorance. However, we do need to dedicate more effort in seeing that the next generation has an easier time distinguishing the many falsities.

Christina, I too understand that from the perspective of the Bible the exclusion of males from the program seems only natural. I don’t see a non-Christian attending this particular school. Most likely, if the Homemaking curriculum spread to other colleges (e.g. state universities) the sex rule would not apply.

By the way, Christina, thank you for mentioning how women are gaining more power and footing in the workforce. I would like to commend you on being one of those women. Your work is quite inspiring.

Magari said...

Good idea.

Stereo types are here to stay, they will only change over time.

I do however, see a future in anyone being able to take this course...

The problem is the ones who have any confidence in their ability probably wont even consider the course.

I see it best suited for brand new families who see their situation as a surprise, yet wish to embrace it.

Anonymous said...

Having grown up in the Christian church, I think it's a dangerous thing to slot people into specific roles, then claim it's God's word. There are just too many instances of God's word changing to fit the times. We're all aware of the interpretation of the Cain/Abel/Ham stories that said coloured people were lesser; the verses about not interbreeding wheat taken to support segregation. Back in the day, the church used to tell people that if God had wanted them to have money, be literate or not have children, He would not let the women get pregnant, and as for higher social status, well they would have been born into it.

On a secular level, I think we like to think we're a lot more enlightened than we are. When it comes to women's rights, it just leaves me shaking my head. A few years back in Canada, they actually made a law that said if a man was really drunk, then he wasn't responsible for raping a woman. And (forgive the earthiness of the following comment) all I could think of was: If he's that drunk that he doesn't know what he's doing, then he'd be too drunk to have any parts of his body standing to attention.

The law was repelled but it still disgusts me that it could even be made. I'm thrilled to see more women going to University and entering "professional" fields. It means the tides are changing and that's a huge relief.

As for the church's classes. Technically, the men could sue for sex discrimination. I think they should offer the classes, but I think it's morally wrong to not allow men (what happens when the woman has a child? Is she expected to clean the house, cook the meals, and nurse the baby)?

Unfortunately, when it comes to issues of religion, those seeking a higher sense of being (sadly) can be the ones most easily manipulated (I'm not thinking of the school, here, I'm thinking more globally) by those who cloak themselves in the mantle of God. CNN has an amazing 3 part series on God's Warriors, and it covers the Islamic, Christian and Jewish religion. It's worth watching.

And I think I've rambled enough. Thanks for the thought provoking debtate.

Erina Hart said...

Ricky, thank you for visiting Into the Inkpot.

Thank you for sharing information about your country. I am not quite sure how Canadian gender politics are constructed. However, I can state that in America many men are also concerned about more women entering colleges and universities. This is because women are often entering into fields that were once considered exclusive to men (i.e. business, medicine, science). The major concern in America is that in most cases, if a woman performs the same job as a man she is not given equal pay. Thus, there is a gender inequality in the workplace.

There is a political group that is comprised of men seeking equal treatment. It is called “masculism.” It is much like every other political ideology. There are conservative views and liberal views. The movement is not very large by comparison to feminism. Personally, I have never met a masculinist. If you are interested, simply perform a search on either Google or Yahoo.

I have found information that claims many feminists work with masculinists to reach fair and equal treatment between both genders.

Also, it is important to note that often times men are feminists.

Erina Hart said...

Magari, I am pleased to meet you.

I understand where you are coming from when you say, “…the ones who have any confidence in their ability probably won’t even consider the course.” Most women that are already skilled in such areas (probably because they were trained by mothers or fathers) will most likely not take the courses.

Thank you for contributing! You are always welcome here.

Erina Hart said...

Hello, Brown. I agree with you that it is dangerous to place people in specific roles based on “God’s word.” As with all literature, religious texts can be interpreted in limitless ways. Therefore, there is never any sure way of knowing the work’s original intent.

I wish I could say that I can’t believe your story about a potential rape law in Canada. Sadly, I have no doubt that such a law would come up. Here in America, domestic abuse laws were not able to sufficiently protect the victim until well into the 1980’s. Feminists (and others) really pushed hard to see that abused women and men could find justice. Even now, there is still a lot of work needed to protect the victims.

I have not heard of the CNN piece that you wrote of. I will be sure to look into it.

Thanks for participating. I’m glad you enjoyed the post.