Editing

I love Reagan's topic because I totally agree. I really like where her paper is going. With a few tweaks, I think she'll have a really compelling argument. Off to a great start--I hope my editing helps somewhat!

Field Study/Intro/Thesis whatever

For women, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you," (Gen. 3:16); Women are “[t]o be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed,” (Tit. 2:5).  According to the Bible, as some would see it, women are supposed to be subservient to their husbands and do their “duties” as wife and mother. Of course some women choose to fill this role in the home and community, but is their choice based on what they were taught or are they just very unique feminists? Those women who grow up in a Protestant church in the Bible Belt, as it is called, are taught that they are to serve men to serve God. Are these rules from an out-dated interpretation of the Bible? Our society has maintained these interpretations from a time when people were trying to create and control civilizations. The idea of how we interpret the Bible varies from region to region, country to country, etc.. People interpret based on their experiences and biases, so no one is totally objective. What I want to address is how these interpretations of the Bible in the Bible Belt have maintained the longevity of these gender roles.

I intend to address not only the issue of how Southern Protestants interpret the Bible to apply these “roles” to women, but also whether these women decide to adhere to this patriarchal society or just believe in its “truth.” In the “Bible Belt” many religious women, based on my own observations and not statistics, are expected to act as the moral compass and caregiver to the family, while the man is the “bread-winner” (for lack of a better phrase) of the family. Some of these women, and men, are raised with this exact belief and never question it. Women learn “their place” while still children in Sunday School, so sometimes, they acquire this mindset before they are old enough to even understand it. Do they ever get a choice in the matter? If they do, how do their beliefs determine their chosen role in society? In the Bible Belt of the American South some Protestants interpret the Bible quite literally by maintaining the “accepted” gender roles established by society and according to their interpretation, including their bias and experience, of the Bible and the degree to which they believe in its divinity. Using various articles and works of literature, I want to analyze how these interpretations were formed, how they are maintained and how they are in some ways countered in today’s society. Hopefully this will bring not only discredit the antiquated ideas and beliefs, but also bring light to a modern society where women can see past someone else’s idea and decide how they want to live their lives without the standards set so long ago.

Let me state that it is impossible for me to read minds, so of course, I will not be trying to determine why certain women decide that they should fill the “standard” role of a woman. That is not my concern. I will, instead, be looking at what influences these decisions be it history, literature, Southern Ideals, etc. There are also similar beliefs in various religious, but this paper will focus on Protestants in the Bible Belt of the American South using only a little information about the history of Christianity, including Catholicism which shares similar beliefs, to explain the origins of these ideas. 

Considering what shaped the “Bible Belt” we have today, we need to look at when the Pope and the Vatican (the Church) and Christianity controlled Europe and when religion was the law. The Church had to maintain order while progressing the continent. Also at this time, the Bible was in Latin, so only the clerics and intellectuals--both groups consisting solely of men--could read and understand the Bible. These men would interpret the Bible and tell the congregations what to believe, think, do, etc. With my own bias and understanding, it would be easier, in my opinion, for these clerics to maintain order by having more power--the more they control, the fewer problems. If men have all the power, then that is half of the population that they cannot worry about. To me, the appeared to have delegated the power to men. The idea was to keep the women occupied with the house and children so they would not be in the way. Also, they assumed that women were not as intelligent as they were, so they used that as a foundation for their ideology. However, modern technology disproves that idea by showing the similarities between the sexes. Not to digress, if people this day in age can disprove some ideas of these “intellectuals,” why can they not disprove others? These assumptions of women were mostly unfounded, so why are women still second to men?

Moving forward in history, John Milton in Paradise Lost touches on the role of women and men in the seventeenth century as established by society and religion. Throughout his twelve-book poem of Genesis, Milton, on several occasions, addresses the role of woman. At several points throughout the poem he explains that since Eve was made from Adam, she is to serve Adam to serve God, whereas Adam only serves God. Milton even implies at some points that God made Eve too weak and vulnerable so she has to rely on Adam. Accepting that this is literature and like the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways according to people’s understanding of the world around them, Milton does reflect the ideas and beliefs of people at this time. I use this as a foundation for the modern-day beliefs of those in the Bible Belt because this is widely accepted as the ways of Milton’s time through many studies. However, it is an interpretation, and therefore, open to any idea, just as religion is.

This idea of spousal authority has not changed over time. Many scholars still debate this topic because those who believe in the divinity of the Bible, whole-heartedly believe what it says about the roles of men and women in society and in relation to each other. John P. Bartkowski explores this in his article “Debating Patriarchy: Discursive Disputes over Spousal Authority among Evangelical Family Commentators.” He notes the harsh criticism from “biblical feminists” toward this patriarchal society where men rule the women. But as aforementioned, the Bible, regardless of beliefs or correctness, does designate the power to men, not women. He further notes that the group most consistent with these “traditional beliefs” is Protestants. Hierarchy has always been a part of the social structure in the American South whether it dealt with whites and blacks or men and women. In my opinion, the South has held on to these ideals far more than any other region in the United States. I find that particularly interesting, too. The reason for this, I am still unsure of, but I think it plays into the romanticized idea of the South with the Trail Maids and such. I could be completely off, but I think that the idea of the “good old days” is still a prevalent ideology in the South, so those people play into it in every way possible.

Taking an alternative view on the longevity of this patriarchal society is Larry R. Peterson and Gregory V. Donnenwerth discuss how certain beliefs can or cannot be maintained by extra-group support or acknowledgement when they are or are not supported or acknowledged by the intra-group. I do believe that an idea can be maintained with extra-group support while lacking the other, but only for so long. Peterson and Donnenwerth believe that these ideas must be sustained by the intra-group or they will not last. I agree. Of course ideas linger in society, but their strength diminishes when is has no real support. 

Looking at these and many more, I will analyze the reasons for these ideas and their hold on society in the twenty-first century. After explaining the longevity of gender roles in the Bible Belt after the Feminist movement I will attempt to not completely discredit the belief system while explaining the strengths and good of knowledge, understanding and choice.

Hermeneutics

I'm really interested in the interpretation of the Bible as applied to gender theory with the Southern Protestants in the Bible Belt. I find it truly fascinating that people can completely dismiss certain aspects of the Bible for various reasons and hold on to others. Women in this group seem to have a role they're supposed to play. They're the home-maker, "child-rear-er", and always second in command. I know that some women willing assume this role of subservience because they want to, but I don't know if it's because they were taught to be that way or that they just like the idea of it. There's a very thin line there. More later...

Interesting...

Through my research I have discovered studies that prove that devoted church-goers tend to be less prejudiced than "social" attendants. Still non-attendants are also less prejudiced. This doesn't surprise me in any way. I'm glad that the "devoted' are more tolerant, but there are more who attend for social rather than religious reasons. So it's difficult to say where ethnic prejudice stands exactly.

More to come on political affiliation/decisions as compared to religious affiliation.

All you need is love

Okay, I feel another rant coming on...
I just can't wrap my mind around the hypocrisy of "religion." Of course it isn't every person or group, but there are enough in the South to give us a bad name. I know that Reagan wrote about this, but it's something that really rubs me the wrong way. I was always taught to treat everyone equally with respect and love. But, similar to what Reagan was saying, I discovered that those people do the exact opposite of what they preach. You hear in church (I did the 4-7 times I went) that you shouldn't judge others, love thy neighbor as thyself, etc., but what do we see when these same people walk out of those holy places? Exactly the opposite of that. They judge others for believing in something different from them, being homosexual, or looking different. I cannot comprehend it. You cannot judge someone for something just because you disagree. Who do people think they are to take the place in what their God has the final say? It's just something I find incredibly disturbing.

Take a look at yourself.

I have lived in the South all my life. Though I love it, I hate it. I love the beauty of the South, I love some ideals of the Southern Culture, but everything isn't always as it seems. I've never been an overly religious person--I suppose I fall into the "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual" category. Of course, as we all know, that's a completely different subject. Though my parents and I never went to church together, I would go with my Southern Baptist grandparents on occasion. They were always pushing me to go to a Baptist church, etc. Unlike most children who sit in church,  I would listen to the sermons. I found what they were preaching ridiculous. I know that's an extreme way of saying it, but I didn't understand how they could hate so many different people and still call themselves Christians. It seemed like a huge contradiction to me.
I was raised to treat everyone equally. I never really understood why people would use religion as a reason to hate someone. I witnessed people from my grandparents church using the Bible to demean African-Americans or hate homosexuals. It's absurd. You can't preach one thing and then go and do the exact opposite. Like we were talking about in class, religions in the South seem to be some of the most close-minded and judgmental. They criticize others for being different from them, and therefore, wrong. Instead of learning to accept people's differences, they hate people for it. I think that if they looked at it objectively, they would understand that despite a few differences most everybody lives by the same "law" of human decency. I know that this hypocrisy isn't central to the Southern Baptists, but I have experienced it most with them. You have to "make the strange familiar and the familiar strange." We have to learn how to understand differences. We don't have to necessarily agree with them, but we don't need to hate them for it either.