Big Preacher Says Women Are Getting Too Educated
... Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary president Paige Patterson says families need to be concerned that in America, 60% of college students are female. He predicts that in a few years, men will be increasingly underrepresented among "the intelligentsia" and will gradually cede leadership in many areas to women.
Patterson laments that most of the women ascending to these new roles will maintain a major focus on a career, not on the family and on children. SBC leader: Family suffers when women choose career over children
I've got nothing against women staying home with the kids, and nothing against them going to work. It's none of my business. You want to work: work. Want to stay home: stay home. Do whatever you have to do.
But this guy's concern is a little different from that. He's really complaining about two other things. He's concerned about women taking over "the intelligentsia" (whatever that is in America) and men losing their place as leaders.
So, is the problem that women are getting more intellectual, or that men are getting less so? I can understand if he's concerned about men becoming a bunch of slackers, but, look, I don't enjoy being in the presence of stupid people, male or female -- I really hope he isn't trying to discourage women from being smart.
And who cares if men "cede leadership" to women? I'm trying to figure out why that would matter. How about the best, most qualified people be the leaders?
Patterson warned the more than 3,000 people attending World Congress of Families IV that the traditional family unit is now under attack worldwide. He said this assault was initially focused in Western Europe and North America, but has now spread to other societies that seemed immune to family disintegration.
A biblical model of the family is key to restoring social order in the world, stated the Southern Baptist leader. Although innocents continue to be executed in the womb by their mothers and divorce is "eviscerating family life on every hand," said Patterson, there is still hope for the world.
The "biblical model of the family" -- that's got to be a joke. In the Bible you've got people having sex with their siblings and their parents, you've got guys killing their kids and the kids killing each other, you've got extramarital affairs and huge polygamous harems with wives and concubines and who-knows-what. I mean, wow, has this guy ever opened the Bible and looked in it? He's the president of a major seminary, for crying out loud.
posted by JimK at 8:49 AM
5 Comments:
"I've got nothing against women staying home with the kids"
I think more men should be able to stay home with the kids. Wouldn't that be a natural outcome of women having higher salaries?
rrjr
Robert, my husband would be a fabulous house-dad. His style would be very different from mine, but he is an excellent cook, vacuum cleaner pilot, launderer, and involved dad. He can spot crud behind ears and unbrushed molars with the best of them.
He is also an expert in a field that is much more valued in dollar terms than mine (I have a degree in Early American History) and he is a people guy who thrives on daily contact with lots of other folks. It came as something of a shock to both of us that our lives settled out in such a "traditional" pattern, but there it is.
And speaking of traditional, Jim, the "Biblical" family isn't about who you sleep with or how many wives you have so much as it is about who's in charge. The "traditional family" here is one based on the man being on top. The man is on top intellectually, and his wife accepts his judgment. He is on top financially and his wife is his dependent. He is on top morally and his wife concedes to him in matters of discipline and faith. Or as the Southern Baptist Convention puts it, she "submits gracefully." There seem to be other ways in which a man should always be on top as well, but I think the visual is already there for you so I don't need to put it in words.
Am I the only one who finds these ideas, and statements like Phyllis Schaffley's claim that a women who marries has given blanket consent to sex any time her husband wants it, to be derogatory to men and boys?
Are men so frail in mind and body that they cannot thrive in a world with strong smart women? Are they so unglued from the emotions of those they profess to best love that they cannot look to the needs and desires of their wives in equal measure to the attention they want in return?
I don't think that is the case.
"Am I the only one who finds these ideas, and statements like Phyllis Schaffley's claim that a women who marries has given blanket consent to sex any time her husband wants it, to be derogatory to men and boys?"
I think Schlafley's comments underscore the notion that sex is a "right." I can't imagine thinking that way; sex is an intimate act of exchange between two people, a gift of caring and love. To think that men are unworthy of love and need to demand sex as a right, yes, that's demeaning.
rrjr
I think Schlafley's comments underscore the notion that sex is a "right."
I'd be more explicit. Schlafley thinks sex is a property right. That is, a man has a right to use his sexual property -- his wife -- as he sees fit. And she has no right to object.
Schlafley says nothing about whether women have a right to demand sex from their husbands or whether husbands have a right to refuse their wives.
My guess is that she'd laugh at very idea.
Terrance, Schlafley also says nothing about a man's "duty" to respect his wife, to understand her needs, or to value the reasons she may have for not being at his energy level at any given time.
Wedding vows for many years commonly asked women to "obey," but not always; both men and women were asked to affirm that they would honor their spouses. People now tend to write their own vows, but both partners honoring one another seems to still be on the wedding vow hit parade.
Schlafley has suggested that men can't, won't, or don't need to honor their spouses, and that is very demeaning.
I am the mother of one adult woman and two young boys. Statements like Schafley's, like Patterson's are harmful, even dangerous to women, but in the long run they hurt everyone. We don't build better men by telling boys to dominate women.
You and Robert and I are probably in agreement about this.
Post a Comment
<< Home