Degrees of separation (from reality)

i guess they must figure that if it made martha stewart rich, then it must also work for them.

is it just me or does the dept. of education (or whoever is in charge of certifying educational institutions) a bit lax in their rules as to what can be considered an accredited university?

i've nothing against seminaries, but i don't see how housewifery has anything to do with what they're supposed to be teaching. (and yes, i've read the blurb on their website and don't buy their crap)

[Perfect questions, kermit! You know how we were just talking (in comments) about what is or isn't, or should or shouldn't be called "feminism?" And how maybe it *ought* to be called "humanism" since we're really trying to empower *everyone?* Well the reason they're offering a college degree in being a "good wife" is that they're philosophically committed to keeping women strictly limited to domestic, and subservient, roles relative to men. The way I look at it, it's easy for us to forget that in a lot of the world -- even a lot of the U.S.! -- there are people who don't just think men need anymore empowering since they're already empowered through Divine intervention, they *also* believe women aren't and never should be empowered at all. And countering that is why a lot of people emphasize empowering women in particular -- just to get everyone to agree they should be empowered *at all!* Hope that makes sense. Thanks! --fl]

it makes perfect sense, figleaf.

maybe i am a bit too jaded, but i am very tempted to think that underneath all the hoopla it's all part of a publicity stunt to get people to pay attention to their school or enroll there. for them to be offering a new program (never mind what it is) there has to be a demand for it. while i've never been to that state, i'm having a hard time believing that in that community there's been a lot of uproar about the appalling state of people's homes to the extent that damn, it we need a college to educate these rubes on how to be civilized.

i'm more surprised that no one has complained to the dept. of education. i'm no legal expert, but it doesn't sound very legal to me to start off teaching one thing, obtain a certification that says you're legit, and then add/modify what you're teaching and still be allowed to hold that certification with no review whatsoever.

i mean even home-schooled children have to take government-issued standardized tests to prove that their getting at least as much knowledge as children in public school, for the love of sanity.

[Nope, in this case the new case is completely consistent with their ideological committment to women staying as close to barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen as they can without people laughing right in their faces. And as a private, religious university they're not really subject to any of the regulations you mention. Thanks, kermit. --fl]

A couple years ago, I went to a seminar by a woman who went to school to study engineering, and ended up studying engineering-- she went from being an engineer to being a sociologist and historian, all in the same degree program. She explained that there was once a woman-oriented engineering plan, which began as 'ecology' (but that one was taken) and ended up being 'home economics'. Engineering for the home.
You laugh, because it does sound like the program you mention, but the degree in pseudo-homemaking included courses in nutrition, medicine, electrical engineering, plumbing, everything. I wish it were still around, instead of high school sewing classes and flour babies. It emphasizes the amount of knowledge a woman is expected to have.

[Yup, I was just reading about the origins of "Home Ec" in Ehrenreich's book "For Her Own Good." And yeah, early on the were sometimes almost fiendishly rigorous. But, in fact, there just ain't, no way, no how, any way either economically, socially, or even morally, to justify sequestering that much capability into such an objectively limiting role as maintaining a single, nuclear family unit. I mean, in particular, even at the margin there just isn't and *never has been* that much difference in outcomes between "domestic scientists" with degrees and high-school graduates. (And trust me, as a stay-at-home dad who's both a high-school dropout and a college graduate, I'm not hypothesizing. I'm a very good parent and a pretty good housekeeper but outside of maybe reading a little John Dewey nothing I studied in college has made me a better laundry folder or child comforter.) Thanks, Diatryma. --fl]

Diatryma, I don't mean to sound like a rabble-rouser or to speak about a seminar at which I wasn't present, but when you say that you wish the program was still around, what do you mean exactly?

I agree that sewing classes and flour babies are useless , and consider myself lucky that I didn't have them at the school I attended. (We had the option of choosing nutrition or woodworking class.)

But all of these home-making skills can be learned from the numerous home-oriented television hosts like Martha Stewart and others of her ilk. If that's not enough, there's plenty of non-degree classes and workshops offered by community centers and clubs. Why is it necessary to obtain a four year degree in home-making?

I mean it's not like it'll get you out of calling a plumber or an electrician when something goes wrong. There are some things that you just can't fix around the house because you don't have the equipment to do it. Granted, with that degree you may know what's wrong but that doesn't mean you can fix it.

To put it another way, a lot of people drive cars. Does that mean that there needs to be a university degree program that teaches regular people how to care for them? I don't think so. The basics of car care can be obtained from books or workshops offered by car clubs. When something breaks, you still have to go to the mechanic and let him fix it because you don't have the equipment to do it yourself.

[Or put yet another way, I think it's probably appropriate to have a degree program in domestic activities for the same reason it's ok to have degrees for agriculture -- because it's *not insane* to study how it's done or to fine ways to reduce the time spent doing it, for instance. *But!* This particular college intends the program strictly to indoctrinate women who might have planned to go into college to learn something productive into *being housewives!* Period. End of story. So yeah, not such a great idea. Thanks, kermit --fl]

Ignoring the religious aspect, it seems to me this program is just another opportunity for certain people to learn more about the role and responsibilities they have in their own lives. I do find it disconcerting, however, that it's only for women. There are plenty of men nowadays who fit the "homemaker" role and could benefit from a little education on the subject.

I've been a _________ (fill in your favorite description here - I generally say stay-at-home parent when referring to myself) for nearly 12 years. There really isn't even a good name for what I do, which shows how little it's valued, generally because it's typically seen as a female role.

I am fortunate enough to have a husband who works all day to support me and our kids, and he is fortunate enough to have me do everything else to keep our home and family running smoothly. Why do you suppose we have nearly as much life insurance on me as we do on him?

We made a conscious decision to have one of us quit our job when our first child was born. It was the best thing we ever did for our family. Why is it OK for him to have the ability to earn higher degrees for his work of choice in order to benefit our family but not for me?

If only the "important" subjects are taught at the university level, that's placing a dangerously low value on the importance of the home and raising a family.

[I think it's not so much that homemaking is undervalued if it's not taught at college level, it's that applying one's self to housework with as much rigor as one would to a job or academia just isn't going to have as much benefit *at the margins* as applying an ordinary, say, FlyLady level and reserving the rest for something more involved like getting one's children out of the house as much as possible. (Based on my direct home-making experience, they can't possibly mess up a house they're *not in,* and even in winter they get way more fresh air, exercise, and social, natural, physical, and vestibular stimulation.) Thanks, Totem. --fl]

From the college's own site, the description of the course: "Preparing women to model the characteristics of a Godly woman as outlined in Scripture. This is done through instruction in homemaking skills, developing insights into home and family while continuing to equip women to understand and engage the culture of today. It is unique in that we recognize the need to challenge women both intellectually and practically. It is our mission to equip a woman to impact women and families for Christ."

Two things: it's clearly intended solely for women, and I find it hard to see how this course is an intellectual challenge. It strikes me as more training than education.

Figleaf, another picture to make me smile:) It looks so prim, standing to attention like that. That is, the bits I can see are standing to attention;)

[Yeah, invest one whole human being's entire life into "uplifting" one single household. Sort of makes you realize either how little they value women or how little they respect the men such women are supposed to uplift. Either way it suggests how far they've managed to stray from the actual texts of their religion. Thanks, A. --fl]

I don't know, part of me understands where the rage is coming from. On the other hand, we can go too far. I can see, in that culture, the need for a class in supporting your pastor husband. I mean, at least that shows that the pastor's wife position is an important one too. And, as for classes in homemaking, perhaps some of this generation need them. Just because it's a class in homemaking doesn't mean what they are teaching is that she should do housework in a dress and high heels and freshen up her lipstick before the hubby gets home.

Just to play the devil's advocate...

[The college PR is suggesting that the intention of the program is to model exactly how their denomination believes women should behave, particularly in relation to men. That the denomination continues to insist that women in post-industrial society should conform to standards established in pre-industrial society is as odd to me as it would be if the Pope said that since Jesus selected only Jewish men to be his diciples, only Jewish men could become priests. Thanks, Holly. --fl]

It was never my intent to equate "homemaking" with housework. That is a relatively insignificant part of what I do, and I can pay someone to do it if I choose.

I can also pay someone to raise my children by sending them to daycare, which we have chosen not to do. In my view, my primary responsibility as a stay at home parent is to make sure my children grow up in the best atmosphere possible. We have sacrificed financially so I can do this. A clean house is important, sure, but not nearly as important as a happy, healthy family. I am the one who volunteers at their schools, helps with homework, makes sure they are healthy and have an active social life, travel as much as possible, find hobbies, and generally explore and enjoy their childhood as much as possible in order to prepare them for their adult life.

This, in addition to the part time work I do at home and the very small business I've managed to start to bring in a little money, all keep me very busy. What I do is my job and my kids' job is school, just as my husband has his. Each of us contributes to the success of our family by what we do.

The issue I have with the general negative attitude toward stay at home parents and anything directed at promoting this choice is that it’s the women who do it who get the brunt of the criticism. Men who do it are congratulated on their decision and commended for being such good fathers.

I disagree with the religious aspect of the program at this university and the fact that it is only offered to women, but I have no problem with people in any position seeking to improve their knowledge about the responsibilities they face.

[Yeah, until I got all prickly about it I used to get a lot of "attaboy" sort of attention for being a stay at home dad -- as if my effort was somehow more valid than the millions of other mostly women who never have a choice. I think it's great, and wouldn't want to trade what I've done for anything *but* for all that, the hours spent, say, with an in-arms-age infant, where you absolutely must be there yet moment-to-moment nothing's happening most of the time, are neither virtuous nor noble beyond the virtues of patience, endurance, and love. Instead it's ordinary in the sense that any undamaged human being in similar circumstances, man or woman, would do the same thing. Society just labels it noble because it's unwilling to provide much more in the way of tangible support. And efforts by SBTS and others to fucking *institutionalize* it for *just one gender* is just taking that attempt to impose that "noble-of-you" requirement and institutionalizing it. Anyway, bottom line, I absolutely don't think less of what you and I do, Totem, just because I don't romanticize it. I *do* think less of those who (especially as in the case of SBTS) have *no* experience of it but wish to romanticize it anyway. Thanks! --fl]