It's so peculiar
I've been a feminist since the early 70s and that entire time I've heard that "feminists" devalue traditional "women's work" of domestic service and childcare
I've almost never seen any actual feminists do this, mind you, I've only seen anti-feminists insist that feminists do this.
So, you know, I never wanted to be one of those *bad feminists* so I was always very conscious making sure I wasn't *disrespecting* stay-at-home-moms or their work.
I mean, until I was an adolescent I HAD such a mom, right? I didn't want to disrespect my OWN mom.
But also, as a feminist, I SAW that work.
The work of cleaning.
The work of cooking.
The work of childcare.
The work of keeping a household running.
The work of supporting the members of that household in their daily lives.
The work -- domestic work -- didn't seem like it was primarily devalued by ideological feminists.
It was primarily devalued by the people who benefited from it, yet took it entirely for granted, as if it was accomplished by invisible pixies.
It's not that "the world" *scoffs* at domestic labor, it's that the world *exploits* domestic labor.
Taking it for granted.
Not participating.
Not bloody willing to PAY for it.
You can say
"well, the WORLD won't pay you for it, but GOD will reward you"
My dude. You are standing right there. YOU can pay for it, if you value it so much.
Put your money where your God is, so to speak.
Do you donate to the offering plate, to support the work that pleases God?
Well, if you also think domestic work pleases God, PAY UP
Because if your line is "oh, that work is too important to PAY for it, your ONLY reward should be in heaven" that's not value, that's exploitation. You're just trying to get the work for free.
Pay up or shut up.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Reading this, what you see is the inevitable evangelical urge to make sure leavers and critics never get to define themselves, give their own reasons, and have that stand as the narrative.
"They SAY they're leaving for [x] reasons but we don't like those reasons... what if they're just mad at God?"
"To publicly denounce a particular congregation, not to mention a particular denomination (not to mention an entire faith tradition), because of how people behaved is to misunderstand what Christianity is."
But what is Christianity, if it's not made up of Christians?
I'd never heard of this particular dude before, but the overall outlines of this narrative, "I converted to Catholicism as an adult and now think the US should be run as a Catholic theocratic dictatorship" are oddly common thedailybeast.com/new-york-post-…
“My moral opinions were as interchangeable as my clothing styles and musical tastes,” the 36-year-old Ahmari [..] writes in his latest book, The Unbroken Thread: Discovering the Wisdom of Tradition in an Age of Chaos."
Well, guess what, dude, my moral opinions have been pretty solid since I was a little kid, and I'm older than you, and I say "traditional" patriarchal religions can suck it.
BEHOLD MY AWESOME POWER
I AM THE FLAME AND THE DARKNESS
ALL SHALL LOVE ME AND DESPAIR
He's not even wrong, I DO hate all those things, because I know that all those things are examples of patriarchy, and I hate patriarchy.
"Creation order" == patriarchy
"Biblical manhood" == patriarchy
"God-centered family" == patriarchy
This is an absolute pet peeve of mine: the framing of every single thing that happens regarding sex, sex roles, reproduction, etc. as 100% the result of a 100% free choice made by a woman who apparently exists in a frictionless vacuum --
Like, somebody *advocating for the inherent superiority of the 1950s-style patriarchal nuclear family* still acts like there's not a man involved.
Does he even want kids? Does he have a job that would comfortably pay all the family's bills if his wife doesn't work?
How stable is his employment situation? Does his job provide healthcare? Does the couple want to live geographically near one of the sets of grandparents or any other extended family, and how does that affect their job/housing choices?
First, the concept of "sin" -- a vague & slippery concept which has no meaning outside of a religious context.
Because "sin" is more or less *defined* as an offense against God, while "abuse" is an offense against other people, "crime" is an offense against law, etc.
I think Christians -- especially conservative, purity-culture Christians -- often deliberately use "sin" interchangeably with other descriptions of "bad behavior" & it's done for a deceptive, evil purpose --
Well worth reading.
Interesting quote from the Traitor, Franklin Graham, "Christian nationalism doesn’t exist [it's] just another name to throw at Christians. [..] The left is very good at calling people names.”
The same people who claim "America is a Christian nation" claim "Christian nationalism doesn't exist"
“The greatest ethnic dog whistle the right has ever come up with is ‘Christian,’ because it means ‘people like us,’ it means white.”
--Samuel Perry, sociologist at the University of Oklahoma