This is disturbing.

[velvetpage]

On the one hand, these women have a right to self-determinism, as we all do. On the other, I have to question how much of this extreme submissiveness to God, husband and children is self-determined, and how much is the result of brainwashing from infancy that this is all women can/should do.

http://buriedtreasurebooks.com/PrairieMuffinManifesto.php

Comments

[paka.livejournal.com]

Yike. How'd you find these people?

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Someone posted the link in dark_christian. I think they qualify as fundamentalist, but there were a few points in that manifesto that seemed to negate the dominionist agenda - specifically, minding one's own business. Still, these are the types of families that support a dominionist agenda politically, whether prairie muffins themselves do or not.

[paka.livejournal.com]

Yeah, pretty much. I really hate this religio-politics thing.

"I feel my place is at home, being a good Christian and a good submissive helpmeet to my husband" ought to be just kind of a basic statement and cool with me, but I guess what takes it from being kind of creepy to actively upsetting is that it almost never means they want to be just that, that it's locked up with the whole crappy agenda.

[urban-homestead.livejournal.com]

I wonder how much of it is exactly the opposite: a rebellious, defensive reaction against a society that they perceive as attacking their right to a traditional lifestyle. They seemed aggressive about their submissiveness, like they expected people to be shocked by it. As, indeed, some people apparently are. :)

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

It is definitely aggressive. I wonder how many of them are protesting too much, though. I've been in the position of virulently defending a belief system which, at the back of my mind, I was starting to let go. I needed to break from my youth group at the time before I could let myself admit it. My questions: Is there a similar list of responsibilities for the husbands? What is defined as acceptable boy behaviour to be ignored? Do PMs get to stand up for their personal safety in the event of an abusive situation? What happens to a PM who strays, or outright leaves?

I agree that the jihad wives were scarier, but I find this disturbing.

[urban-homestead.livejournal.com]

I think you're right about protesting too much. Frankly, they didn't seem that submissive to me - more like belligerent!

[kesmun.livejournal.com]

Latent feminism and humanism in Laura Ingalls Wilder and Louisa May Alcott's books? *Blinkblinkblink* Yeeeeeesh!

[mysirensong.livejournal.com]

I'm suddenly doubting my degree because ... well ... I wouldn't even compare these two authors. I don't find a whole lot of feminism in Laura Ingalls Wilder's books, but what is in Alcott's is sure as hell not latent. I mean, ok, I've read Little Women probably 16 times and it's one of the books that inspired me to believe that girls can grow up to be and do whatever they want. But, Wilder? Um, not so much. Maybe I missed something? Maybe if these women are so offended by them I should've been much more inspired. LOL

[kesmun.livejournal.com]

For sure.

[collie13.livejournal.com]

That was rather sad. I found #'s 36 & 40 rather creepy, too. The first seems to basically say the PMs should just accept whatever men dish out to them because that's what god wants... and the second seems a polite form of sour grapes.

Well, I guess the smart girls will escape... I hope?

[mysirensong.livejournal.com]

I had to stop reading halfway through because I'm really tired and this is just TOO GOOD ... I want to give it my full attention. Plus, I'm getting a craving for blueberry muffins and it's just way too late for that. :)

[stress-kitten.livejournal.com]

Y'know... a lot of what she says isn't necessarily terrible, except in the same way that Plato's Republic and every other utopian ideal is flawed. It discounts human nature. What is written there is so wide open to abuse, it is indeed scary. But then, if you're putting your faith in God to only give you what you can deal with...

Of course, I'm a firm believer in the world not giving you more than you can deal with as well... but I'm also a believer in "God helps those who help themselves" and I don't see putting myself in a situation where abuse is so possible as a good thing.

This isn't to say I don't agree with some of the statements, and I was thinking the other day about Frazer and my's relationship. We have a very strong one, with a great deal of communication, discussion and advice shared back and forth. We take each other's opinions, feelings and goals into consideration. But in the end, if Frazer insists on something, I do it. Willingly, I might add, and it rarely gets to the point where he insists because since we are both so concerned about the happiness of the other, we tend to accomodate the other long before any need to insist presents itself.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that while this manifesto places limitations on women, there are implicit limitations on men as well - limitations that are not spelled out, but that are there at a fundamental level. I'm also saying that those statements leave a lot more room for individuality than they might at first appear.

Do I agree with this manifesto? No. Do I think that those that adhere to it are nuts? No. I can think of many instances where such a life could be incredibly fulfilling and healthy. Hell, I can see myself doing it without much trouble - a few choice statements aside. Just not where I live right now. But the fact remains, I don't think its for everyone... and the implication that everyone should follow this path to be most disturbing.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

The only thing I disagree with, in what you've said, is that there are implicit limitations on men as well. There's one point where the manifesto says that the women will not get after their husbands for things that are just "boys will be boys" items. Well, what behaviours exactly are allowed under that clause? If it's watching sports while drinking a beer or two, or leaving dirty socks in the living room, so be it. But it's wide open to interpretation. What if one of the women who claims PM status is using that clause to justify why she hasn't left her abusive husband? Boys will be boys, after all, and boys are sometimes aggressive with women.

That would be my biggest worry with this - that, and the social exclusion that would come about if a woman who had adhered to this creed decided to leave her husband, even for reasons that made that the healthiest thing to do.

[stress-kitten.livejournal.com]

The inherent concept behind this that I was referring to is that the whole family believes strongly in Christian ideals.

This means that while man may be the head of his household, he is also responsible for the healthy, safety and happiness of his family. This includes taking their needs into account, not just doing as he wishes. That is the assumption I believe this is written under, and one that as "modern society" we usually devalue because it is often utopian and we have seen too much of human nature to not believe in the corrupting ability of power on the human condition. If we believe the men involved in this equation to be trying their best to live up to the Christian ideals of faith, hope, charity and fellowship, this is far less disturbing a "manifesto".

Of course, it is still utopian, and therefore flawed, because as we are all aware, the abuse of power is rampant throughout human history. As you mentioned regarding social exclusion, there aren't any checks and balances involved to safeguard those whose power is less overt.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

You're right, but I still see more "outs" from those ideals for men than for women in this manifesto. PMs aren't going to complain about their God-given monthly trials, but their husbands are excused certain behaviours because "boys will be boys" - even if they're all striving to live up to utopian ideals, they've worked in a nice little double standard with that one.

I want to see the Prairie Dawg Manifesto.

[stress-kitten.livejournal.com]

I agree.. seeing the Prairie Dawg Manifesto would be helpful in getting a true understanding of what's expected. It is true that there are more "outs" for men in this manifesto, but that's because this is a manifesto that relates completely to women's duties and obligations. Men's duties are only incidentally addressed and certainly not comprehensive.

And you'll note that women's RIGHTS aren't addressed at all in this. If a Prairie Dawg Manifesto were to be created, it would be interesting to see if it focused as exclusively on their duties and obligations. If it didn't, then the whole shebang loses all credibility, as far as I'm concerned.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Hmm, that's true. It seems to me that in this context, women should have the right to be honoured before all others, physically and in every other way, by their husbands and children à la Proverbs; they should have a right to get back some of that tranquility they're supposed to provide their husbands, in the form of not having to listen to the men's work rants if they don't want to; they should be seen as partners with their husbands in childcare matters, particularly discipline (i.e. no "wait till your father gets home" discipline - what she says goes, just as it does for him) and the right to demand counselling and/or a renegotiation of the marriage, up to and including divorce, for adultery, abuse, or addiction on the part of themselves or their husbands.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Oh, I forgot one: she should have complete control over her own healthcare. She is not her husband's property, and he does not have the right to dictate her healthcare. He has the right to be included in decisions about the reproductive aspect of healthcare, but the decisions should be hers and hers alone.