syfr
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by syfr on Apr 7, 2010 13:47:18 GMT -5
...about how she's had her spice rack alphabetized for 4 years and cites this as an improvement in wifeliness. This is very, very funny. My sweetie and I (unmarried and living together) decided that the easiest way to find the spices is to alphabetize them. Who knew we were being wifely?
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Apr 7, 2010 13:53:55 GMT -5
yeah, but we skip those parts (seriously, actually, I *barely* remember Pricilla and the others even mentioned...) They justified Priscilla in my church by saying that you were allowed to work with your husband as long as he approved and wanted your help. Priscilla clearly was just playing assistant to Aquila. Oh, and Esther's a pretty easy one... she did nothing to subvert gender roles. She used her looks to impress the king, married him, showed up and risked her life to beg him to do something for her people. It took guts, yes, but it was perfectly acceptable patriarchal behavior. I don't even remember Deborah being mentioned. I forgot to say earlier that this was a great post, journey, as all of yours are. That last quote was totally nauseating. I would nominate it for a 'hall of shame,' but there is so much of this scum floating around that the 'hall of shame' would practically reprint everything on the NLQ blog.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Apr 7, 2010 13:58:24 GMT -5
* parents rarely lack material for interesting conversation a) because ALL parents who send their children to school lack material for interesting conversation.
b) Come ON. You're together all day. You DO run out of interesting things to say. HOW INTERESTING IS THE LAUNDRY? This cracked me up! I totally agree with your assessment, and this from someone who did pretty well homeschooling (creationist science books and horrid math aside). When did homeschooling make it into the ten commandments? Maybe they bumped the one about loving your neighbor to make room.
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on Apr 7, 2010 14:00:59 GMT -5
When I told people, from the age of 14-19, that I didn't want to get married, they looked at me like I had three heads. They very hesitantly agreed when I quoted Paul's words to them. The more free-spirited among them thought for a long time and then conceded that God might have another plan for me. However, this was very obviously regarded as an extreme, rare, unsavoury, and potentially rebellious choice. Among believers I knew, a woman's 'highest calling' could not be fulfilled if she never had children. ('Saved in childbearing' implied that the celibate were in some sort of peril. Not childbearing was not really regarded as an option.) So, question: how many adult women remain single in this kind of environment? Is there any kind of imbalance in the numbers--like, are there a few more single women than men or the other way round? Is an adult woman who does not marry seriously just expected to stay home and care for her parents forever? No job, no education? And then when her parents die she, what, keeps house for her brother? (How Victorian!!) I would think that in that sort of situation, a lot of single women would just leave. What kind of future is that? Or are there just not that many women who don't get married?
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Apr 7, 2010 14:20:01 GMT -5
So, question: how many adult women remain single in this kind of environment? Is there any kind of imbalance in the numbers--like, are there a few more single women than men or the other way round? Is an adult woman who does not marry seriously just expected to stay home and care for her parents forever? No job, no education? And then when her parents die she, what, keeps house for her brother? (How Victorian!!) I would think that in that sort of situation, a lot of single women would just leave. What kind of future is that? Or are there just not that many women who don't get married? Okay, I'll try to answer these in order: 1. No one remains single by choice. There are more single women than men because: 2. There is an imbalance in the numbers - interestingly enough, there are more women than men in Branhamist churches. Thus 'youth camp' in the winter and 'family camp' in the summer are just thinly-veiled speed-courting frenzies where you 'pray' for God to 'show you the one He wants for you' while ensuring that your hair is the pouffiest of all and you are never without someone else's baby on your hip to demonstrate what a great homemaker and mother you'll be. 3. Yes. I knew one single woman, who eventually did leave the fold, who was a startling 22 without any courtship prospects, and stayed home to care for her younger siblings. It was pretty common, though, for women her age to move to other churches (still under Branham's teachings) in hopes of finding a greater concentration of males. 4. Precisely. Jobs were okay as long as they involved service (like waitressing) or working with children. 5. In cases where there was a brother to be taken care of, probably yes. If all the brothers were married, some single women might opt to live with other likeminded women and work as midwives, etc. But they were still instructed to pray for husbands. There was a five-year crisis at my church where everyone kept praying for this poor woman in her 20s (not over 25) to find a husband. There was much rejoicing when a visiting preacher swooped in and took her away.
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Apr 7, 2010 14:26:27 GMT -5
There IS a lot of grasping at straws. I've seen it in KJVO too. They'll go to any length, even to bending their reality, to prove that their way is the One True Way. To an insider it makes perfect sense, but to an outsider they look like lunatics.
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on Apr 7, 2010 14:52:03 GMT -5
Holy cow. Thanks, Sierra, I appreciate the explanation. That is totally wild.
|
|
|
Post by quivery on Apr 7, 2010 17:46:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lodrelhai on Apr 8, 2010 4:52:57 GMT -5
Concerning Deborah, I was taught that she and Barak were co-prophets, and that due to Barak's unwillingness to proceed with out her by his side.
Esther, we were taught, was not only subjective and obedient to her husband, but also following the advise of her uncle who, since her husband was not of the faith, served as her spiritual head.
The Proverbs 31 question was an interesting one for me. Our youth leader at my old church used to recommend it to all of us, often, as the ultimate guide by which to measure our lives and service to God. He'd also tell us about our duty to submit to our fathers now, and to our husbands when we got married. I never asked - and I wish now that I had - but it always bothered me that he'd tell us our first duty was complete submission to our fathers and future husbands, but our primary example did not have one word about obedience or submission or even so much as asking the husband's opinion before making a decision.
|
|
|
Post by setfree on Apr 8, 2010 7:30:34 GMT -5
I don't think you're being negative, WKoW. I think you are asking the kind of critical thinking questions that are a natural intelligent response to dogmatic rhetoric that brooks no dissent. These are sweeping generalisations that go beyond saying, "homeschooling can be a very positive option for some families at certain points in their lives" to insinuating that homeschooling is morally or spiritually superior, with that lovely holier than thou overlay .... puke puke.
These blessings are not 'unique' only to homeschooling families.
We just began hs a couple of weeks ago. We also had our babies at home, and the idea that either of these options are somehow more 'godly' makes me want to swear violently. We certainly didn't choose these options because of some warped, coercive doctrine. We have found that since we started h/s we all seem more close knit and a lot of time pressure is lifted off. I am enjoying the kids more. So - does that make homeschooling superior? No. It means that it's working for us, for now, and the pros outweight the cons for now. That doesn't mean it's the right options for ALL ("godly") families. It's that religious manipulation that really gets me.
The last point irks me most, you nailed it - it's about relationships, not rules and roles, and certainly not the ludicrous polarised gender roles this sicko teaching puts forward as being "biblical".
|
|
maicde
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by maicde on Apr 8, 2010 8:06:04 GMT -5
Good post. I'm fully convinced that this whole patriarchy movement with self-appointed fundie popes like Doug Philips is nothing but a culture that despises women. It legitimizes its loathing and disdain for women by covering itself with the cloak of Christianity/God. What the movement really fears is the innate strength of women. They are terrified of that more than anything else.
Looking back four decades, I remember my aunt (whom we lived with from 1968 to 1981) ending up in a mental hospital in the 70's needing electro-shock therapy because of the immense stress she endured by trying to live the patriarchal way. This was WAAY before the Vision Forum materialized. Seems like Philips and others have figured out how to make a cottage industry of woman hating because there is so much $cha $ching to it. What is really disturbing is that there are women within the culture who brainwash other women to live this way!!! (Hello Mary Pride, Nancy Campbell, Debi Pearl, et al who have also earned blood money on the backs of women who have ended up broken, maimed, disfigured (emotionally, mentally, physically) and/or dead.) They are sell-outs to women and girls as far as I'm able to discern.
My uncle (who would be about 100 years now - he is deceased and so is my aunt) was a very disturbed and mentally ill man. My aunt let herself be abused and manipulated by him because of the same kind of teachings Vision Forum espouses. My uncle tried doing the same to my mom and me. We ended up living with them from the time I was 6 until I was 18 and had graduated high school. The house was often filled with horrendous stress, fighting, no food, utilities shut off, embarrassment of what our house looked like on the outside as I was getting off the bus (weeds grew as tall as an adult person because he didn't want the grass cut). There was always tons of work to be done both inside the house and outside (we had tons of animals to take care of, huge gardens to tend to, etc.) I was verbally and emotionally attacked on almost a daily basis because I refused to be compliant (even as a child). Fortunately, I had another aunt that would take me to her house for weeks at a time and I could get away from all of that. Thank God for public school which not only gave me an education but also a sense of "normalcy" for 6 to 7 hours a day. I should add that it was sometimes the only "normal" meal I had for the day. You never knew what was going to be served for dinner as there was not much money left for food. My aunt who worked two and three restaurant jobs at a time gave her entire paycheck over to my abusive uncle who spent it all on his so-called "business ventures" which were never successful. My mom used her earnings to pay the utilities and other expenses. Thus, there was never much left for food. She also tried to put away as much money as she could so that she could buy her own house some day.
Fortunately, at age 18, my mother purchased a house of her own and we got out of there. Unfortunately for her, one cannot turn back the hands of time by pressing a rewind/replay button and go back to where we started in 1968 (when we moved in with my aunt and uncle) and re-live the years again. Long story there.
Bottom line, I witnessed what these patriarchal teachings do to women and young girls. It is a model/sysem that is intended to break the very spirit that each of us has been born with. It is NOT from God (these restrictions), it is from men who have serious mental dysfunctions (on many levels). They legitimize their mental dysfunctions, hatred, etc. by using the "bible". While I didn't know or understand the term, "patriarchal", while I was living through this mess (from age 6 to age 18), I certainly understood early on how damaging and horrible it was to live in it.
When I read these various stories from different women who came out of this system, it just infuriates me to no end because it re-opens all the suffering and turmoil that we lived through. It's been a long time since we left that abuse (almost 30 years), so things are not fresh in my mind as there has been ample time for healing. Still, it is back in the recesses of the mind and certain things trigger both the memory and the pain.
If this blog and others help just one woman from entering this crazy world of abuse (all legitimized by crazy loons who use the bible to legitimize their women hating), it's worth it. If it helps women to leave it (once they reach their "ah ha" moment), it is worth it too.
Thank you for your post.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Apr 8, 2010 10:56:04 GMT -5
Journey ~ this was especially frustrating for me as I tried so hard to be the woman God created me to be. I so obviously had leadership skills ~ and Warren clearly did not ~ how could we glorify the Lord in our marriage? The answer for me was to focus on Jesus as my example ~ after all, He was God incarnate ~ but He did not excercise that which was essential to His nature during the time that He walked the earth. He set aside His omnisceince, His omnipotence ~ even His will ~ everything that was truly Him was subordinated to the Father's will in order to serve a greater purpose. Philipians 2: 5-11: Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Ugh ~ I should know better than to go looking up bible verses ~ I just gave myself a headache. This is the passage that made me perfectly okay with believing myself to be, in nature, equal to my husband ~ and yet, willing to humble myself and make myself "nothing" ~ trusting that in The End, I would be vindicated just as Jesus was upon His resurrection.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Apr 8, 2010 20:11:29 GMT -5
Oh yes that tension between being the submissive wife and watching your husband make incredibly stupid mistakes. But you can't say anything..
Franky my ex-husband had serious problems with logic, critical thinking, planning, money and even spatial matters. He would try and build things and make them top heavy and they would fall over.. and some under 10 child would explain to him why this happened and he would become enraged..
And yet I was supposed to sit there and compliment and build him up and never correct him even though the failure of whatever he was doing was glaringly obvious. This all contributed to my zombie-ness.. I had to disassociate from everything around me as I couldn't engage emotionally or intellectually without being highly stressed. In the end my only hope was that one day I would be dead and in heaven and none of this would matter so what did it matter if all was a huge disaster today? I wouldn't even remember these disasters when I was in heaven so there was no point engaging with them now!
|
|
|
Post by mickee on Apr 8, 2010 21:11:56 GMT -5
Thanks to everyone who addressed my questions about patriarchy teachings about Esther and Deborah. I see these women as leaders and think God is for women as much as he is men. Uhhh, I don't get it all. I read the New Testament and see much grace not a bunch of legalism and bondage these people are preaching.
|
|
|
Post by justflyingin on Apr 9, 2010 0:55:19 GMT -5
Thanks, Journey, for the post.
I was esp. sickened by the last quote. I'd never heard such things before. I can't imagine my husband running my household. There would be much that he wouldn't even think about doing--we'd be in trouble in a couple of days!
Anyway, where is the idea that he's the president and I'm the vice president. The Pres. doesn't usually micromanage and tell the VP what to do--the VP is the "go-fer" person and the really organized person. A good Pres. will let the VP be the person he /she is supposed to be and do. I've never heard of a Pres. of a company giving such lists to a VP.
At the same time, the VP has the authority to make the necessary decisions to fulfill his/her job. What Pres. wants to be constantly bothered by questions that the VP was hired to decide?
|
|
|
Post by lauriemo on Apr 9, 2010 2:54:21 GMT -5
" Now I have a partner -- someone who appreciates a strong woman and is happy to share control. Guess which marriage is stronger?" Flah, same here. When we got engaged, I had a list of very spiritual-sounding rules for being a good Christian wife. (It sounded very much like something Debi Pearl would have written.) I showed him the list and he told me to throw it away. He didn't want that kind of wife. He treats me with as much respect as he would any man - he's the first man I've ever known who's valued my opinion over anyone else's.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Apr 9, 2010 14:24:03 GMT -5
Thanks, Journey, for the post. I was esp. sickened by the last quote. I'd never heard such things before. I can't imagine my husband running my household. There would be much that he wouldn't even think about doing--we'd be in trouble in a couple of days! Anyway, where is the idea that he's the president and I'm the vice president. The Pres. doesn't usually micromanage and tell the VP what to do--the VP is the "go-fer" person and the really organized person. A good Pres. will let the VP be the person he /she is supposed to be and do. I've never heard of a Pres. of a company giving such lists to a VP. At the same time, the VP has the authority to make the necessary decisions to fulfill his/her job. What Pres. wants to be constantly bothered by questions that the VP was hired to decide? Justflyingin, we tried that President/Vice President thing in my marriage-- in the end, we had to admit that what it meant was, no matter how much respect the Pres has for the VP, and no matter how much latitude the Pres gives the VP, what it comes down to is that the Pres is still the VP's boss. And (to continue to use the business analogy) we came to see that our family and home was healthier when we acted more like a joint venture-- two equal partners with equal status, making decisions together for the benefit of the home and kids, and each deferring to the other's areas of expertise. The patriarchalists say it won't work, but it does.
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Apr 9, 2010 15:01:40 GMT -5
And (to continue to use the business analogy) we came to see that our family and home was healthier when we acted more like a joint venture-- two equal partners with equal status, making decisions together for the benefit of the home and kids, and each deferring to the other's areas of expertise. The patriarchalists say it won't work, but it does. And in fact I think it's the only way that truly does work.
|
|
|
Post by Ex-Adriel on Apr 10, 2010 9:44:49 GMT -5
"two equal partners with equal status... each deferring to the other's areas of expertise. "
Amen.
I love my husband. I want him to be happy and fulfilled and powerful to his fullest extent. I also want myself to be all of the above. We're team-mates - partners - and I want this team to excel. We can't excel if either one of us is unwilling or unable to let the other know that they are making a mistake, or acting in a way that doesn't benefit the team.
Therefore, occasionally I have to tell him that I think he's doing something incredibly stupid. ;D
Now, if I'm nice, I'll wrap that statement in layers of how much I love him, and remind him of all the things that I honestly think he does well. I don't have to do that, but I would like for him to do the same for me, so I do.
There's a balance here. There's a verse that talks about being unequally yoked - usually it's explained as a prohibition against marrying unbelievers.
I think it's referring to the partnership the oxen should have. If one of the oxen just lets herself get dragged along by the stronger (male) and goes wherever with no volition (no pulling power) of her own...
Well, the field will still get plowed, but it's going to take a lot longer, and it will wear out the male ox much faster than it should. He's not designed to drag her dead weight AND the plow. They are supposed to both be contributing equally to accomplish the job.
|
|
|
Post by janedoe on Apr 12, 2010 19:06:27 GMT -5
or she can ask her uncles, brothers, cousins, and State Laws see the reality for thousands, elsewhere and remember, we have Secularists, who love these leaders, who make trade agreements with them [hey it's modernization and free trade baby, let's build some more in Dubai while the Armenian girls-Russian girls are trafficked] and more porn meat, patriarchy, it ain't just about religion, it ain't just about Christianity or Judaism or Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism and a huge percentage of what we BUY AND CONSUME, AID THOSE WHO DO, THINGS LIKE THIS: latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/04/yemen-runaway-child-bride-and-fourth-child-bride-granted-divorce.htmlwhy don't they call it what it is, Honor Killing, right here in good ole US of A and these cases are growing--Why is it important to bring this up? because if we do not, we Normalize butchering women, under Religious laws, as simply a 'moment of rage' by a man, rather than Premeditated Taught Doctrines that not only Normalize these honor killings but eventually, like elsewhere, will provide more Immunity for those who do them, and leaving the Women and girls IN these communities, at Risk. wireupdate.com/local/queens-ny-man-pleads-guilty-after-stabbing-wife-to-death/251 times, stabbed, kind of more than just a crime of passion.d It gets better, while there are Numerous Human Right advocates Fighting these barbaric archaic dark ages B.C. norms on women and girls, there has been fatwas released [that Will effect girls/women here and are in UK in communities and fundamentalisms compliment other fundamentalisms] and well, here ya go...welcome to the Future, of Women's Human Rights.
NU Fatwa Declares Underage Girls Can Marry to Build Family Values Makassar. Taking Islamic law as its guide, leading Muslim organization Nahdlatul Ulama on Friday issued a fatwa declaring underage marriage acceptable as long as the purpose of the union was to build a happy family.
Cholil Nafis, secretary of the committee for religious issues for this past week’s 32nd NU congress, said the gathering had agreed that there should be no age restrictions on marriage because sacred Islamic verses or regulations had not stipulated a minimum age.
“They can get married at any age, even girls who haven’t started menstruating,” he said. “And they can have intimate relationships and intercourse, as long as they are able.”
Cholil said Islamic law only suggested that marriages would be better after a woman had her first period.
“As long as the objectives of the marriage are positive, it is allowed,” Cholil said. “Mind you, we don’t encourage people just to get married to fulfill their desires, no,” he added.
NU was aware that some groups might disagree, he said. While NU looked at the issue from a religious point of view, others might focus on different aspects, such as human rights.
“If people disagree with our fatwa, so be it. We never force people to follow what we say.”
Cholil said an NU report mentioned underage marriages in some regions, but added that they were mostly traditional engagements between families who wanted their offspring to marry.
Under such a marriage, the minors are wed under Islamic law as if they were adults, but live separately with their families until they are judged mature enough to assume adult responsibilities.
Friday’s edict drew immediate criticism from the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI), as well as the nation’s second-largest Islamic group, Muhammadiyah, and the National Commission on Violence Against Women (Komnas Perempuan).
“Girls need mental maturity to be responsible for their husband and children,” MUI chairman Amidhan told the Jakarta Globe. “Based on the 1974 Law on Marriage, girls can only get married after they are 16.”
Yunahar Ilyas, Muhammadiyah’s fatwa committee chairman, said NU should not issue edicts and recommendations based solely on an Islamic perspective.
“They are supposed to see this matter comprehensively. Menstruation is not a measurement of a girl’s maturity,” Yunahar said. read more...
Cleric: Don’t cut too much female genital to avoid sexuality loss A Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) cleric said that circumcision on women was not supposed to cause the loss of their sexuality.
“Don’t cut too much. Just cut the small skin on the tip of the clitoris. Otherwise, a woman would lose her sexuality, and you males don’t like that to happen, do you?” prominent cleric KH Mohammad Masyhuri Naim told a press conference.
Masyhuri, also a member of NU Suriah (lawmaking body), said that a proper female circumcision should not cause any damage to woman genitals. “No bleeding, if you do it properly.”
He suggested that circumcision was conducted on a female baby at the age of 7 days.
One of the topics during commission meetings at NU’s 32nd national congress in Makassar, South Sulawesi on Friday was the Islamic legal perspective on female circumcision.
Masyhuri said the meeting concluded that female circumcision “could be sunnah (recommended) but also could be mandatory.”
“The main point is that it is not haram [forbidden],” he was quoted by The Jakarta Post as saying.
Masyhuri took an example of mass female circumcision in Bandung in the past which had triggered opposition from many Islam communities, some of which then considered female circumcision haram.
“That was not a good example of the way to conduct a female circumcision. The bad thing was that the media had blown the issue out of proportion,” he said.
Although the meeting concluded female circumcision was recommended, Masyhuri said NU would not force all female followers to undergo circumcision. (source) www.nu.or.id/page.php?lang=en
Why important, pay attention to Obama's relations with Indonesia...and the American Muslim Association,
who, has relations with many other Fundamentalist Extremists, in other religions.
Jane
|
|
|
Post by janedoe on Apr 12, 2010 19:13:38 GMT -5
In case you are wondering why I bring these issues here, because the Reason I got involved in writing on them,
was when I realized how many Pedophile supporters/ within the far left/left actually Support these men, cultures, because it will open the door to legalizing
PEDOPHILIA.
FACT, and the debate was [that I got into couple of years ago] in CA, taking their example from Holland, this is why there ARE those alliances, and wasn't it a paradox, to see once proclaimed Feminists whom I worked with,
those who Didn't walk away in disgust [many did], who simply drank the I'm dumb please still like me men kool aid, don't call me a too radical feminist, plaleese, who not only were silent,
they rationalized these horrors, to much of many of us, our dismay.
Young and dumb, who knows, I think it has a lot to do with the whole 'oh it's empowering to be a prostitute culture' or something, who knows,
or just a naive belief that these things can't happen here, but the thing is, they ARE HAPPENING HERE,
AMONG FUNDAMENTALIST 'RELIGIOUS' GROUPS, WITH FULL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROTECTIONS.
Women need to Wake Up, if not for themselves for their Daughters and Granddaughters...
because the danger is real, not imagined, and the more violence and forced subjugation [and forced FGMs now, gee nice] is Normalized,
eventually, it will be normalized everywhere. Is THIS the future we want?
If we Don't Act...today, we handed over our right to complain about it tomorrow.
Jane
|
|
flah
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by flah on Apr 12, 2010 19:50:26 GMT -5
" There's a verse that talks about being unequally yoked - usually it's explained as a prohibition against marrying unbelievers. "
I've also believe it is used by complementarians. We're equally yoked in our respective areas. I have full autonomy over the career decisions, house buying/selling, finances, etc., and you have full autonomy over the dirty dishes. I guess what I'm trying to convey through a bit of bitterness is that while we here on this board may picture two strong oxen doing the same job together and producing a plowed/planted field, others use this to keep women shackled to the mundane. I don't think I'm stating this well.
|
|
|
Post by Ex-Adriel on Apr 15, 2010 18:57:19 GMT -5
It seems pretty clearly stated to me, and I totally agree. I guess I just like having the preferable idea firmly in my head so I can more easily compare it to the reality. Otherwise, it's easy to fall into a false complacency - oh, she's such a happy housewifey mom - she just loves dishes and cooking! It's her sphere after all! Maybe she is! There are homey people out there (Martha Stewart...) but maybe she'd secretly rather start a portrait studio or have a hothouse orchid garden, (or sit on the couch in sweatpants and read romance novels... ) and she's being squelched by the 'yoke' she's under. If I have the ideal in mind, I can see the variations in actuality better, and hopefully see signs of impeding doom before I get my head caught in the net!
|
|
syfr
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by syfr on Apr 28, 2010 11:51:59 GMT -5
Martha Stewart was a stockbroker and then a caterer before she started being "Martha Stewart." She is a very driven, savvy businesswoman who sells the "homey" ideal while having a staff who takes care of doing what she wants. She's one of the last people I'd think of as a stay-at-home, submissive sort!
|
|
|
Post by meganl on Apr 29, 2010 18:29:36 GMT -5
"The Bible says that “Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft…” God WANTS occasional rebellion and there are several Biblical role models for this. God WANTS justice and fairness.
|
|