Baptists to Women: “Cook something already…”

There are few things we here at Fatlip love more than time travel.

It’s a miraculous thing –  you start in one epoch and then, by virtue of reading the turgid bullshit spewed by Mary Kassian, a “professor” of women’s studies at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (aka NAMBLA), you’re suddenly transported back to an era where women were nothing more than property, irony was something reserved for the French and the most a lady could hope to achieve in her meaningless, uneducated existence is not dying during childbirth.

Let’s take a ride on the ol’ way-back machine, shall we?

[Kassian] said women should regard marriage and child-rearing as central parts of their lives, not ‘peripheral’ activities to achieving career goals. She did say in an interview later that nothing prohibits women from working outside the home under certain circumstances when it doesn’t conflict with family life.

… She cited the movie “Steel Magnolias” as the ideal for women, blending “softness with backbone.”

“Our culture would have us believe that this type of womanly disposition is disdainful, but a closer examination shows us that these qualities are also beautiful,” she said. “I believe women are created with an inclination toward submissiveness, with an inclination to bend, and to softness.” [emphasis added by blogger; excerpt via The C-J]

Take a moment to let this sink in; we’ll get a cappuccino and read Iranian Twitters or something…

… Ready? Now then: While it’d be too easy to chide someone with a doctorate on how dumb it is to uphold living, breathing, three-dimensional human beings to fictional characters in a fucking Hollywood movie — or how that’s really no different from telling women they need to act like fictional characters from an ancient tome of bedtime stories — we’ll simply suggest that Kassian and her ilk build an actual time machine, travel back to the Victorian era and see if anybody lets you get within ten feet of a podium.


  1. Kelly
    Posted June 23, 2009 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    With the SBC in town this week, the average IQ in Jefferson County has gone down a substantial amount. Simply insane.

  2. Daniel
    Posted June 24, 2009 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    Three things:
    1. It’s borderline impossible (from the outside) to understand headship and submission as laid out in the bible. So essentially, this quote is taken out of context. Worldview context, not literary context. The speaker would have needed much more explanation if the audience had been LEO readers.
    2. The bible teaches us that ALL our inclinations are evil, so the natural inclination of women is to desire control not submission. The natural inclination of men is to desire … laziness … instead of leadership. God has called us to follow Jesus, not our inclinations. And, what God calls us to do, he enables us to do. Praise God.
    3. The NAMBLA comment is very unfair. Do you know many seminary students or professors?

  3. jmeador
    Posted June 24, 2009 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

    A ‘trinity,’ if ye will:

    1. Telling anybody they need to act like a character played by Kathy Bates is, no matter the context, generally bad advice; be you an over-educated/pedantic/meth-addicted LEO reader or not, telling women that their natural state is one of “submissiveness” to God or their husbands or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is merely a subjective and, therefore, flawed interpretation of human nature that has no empirical basis in physical reality — save the perception of reality that exists “inside” a religion, of course.

    2. To each their own… but that’s just, like, your opinion, man… I read in Cosmo once that women REALLY CARE about the shoes men wear, but it hasn’t compelled me to blow all of my time and money at Payless, either. (I shop at Fashion Bug, BTW)

    3. Although there aren’t any (intentional) ones to be found in the bible, I was merely attempting something known to secularists as a “joke.” My apologies to the afflicted.

  4. Tyler
    Posted July 13, 2009 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    I really don’t care much for this little debate you have going here, but your logic is intriguing, jmeador.

    A cursory understanding of the history of philosophy would prevent anyone with a decent liberal arts education from making the mistake of arguing:

    a) flawless interpretations of ‘reality’ are only those with an “empirical basis in physical reality.” But clearly, your own ‘roid rage empiricism fails this test.


    b) (to my knowledge, at least) No reputable, influtential Christian philosophers have maintained that true perception exists “inside a religion,” especially the more recent ones. Wouldn’t the transcendental character of theistic accounts of ontology, meaning, etc. exclude this?

    Perhaps you failed PHIL101, though! =)

    Also, I think the Bible has humor up its sleeve…it’s just very subtle.

    P.S. – I thought the joke (though a red herring) was funny.

    Get over yourself, Bertrand.

  5. Lauren
    Posted December 12, 2009 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    Just to clarify, Kathy Bates is not in Steel Magnolias, so that point is moot. You must be thinking of Fried Green Tomatoes.