I am knocking it.

my friend michele shocked me with this article.

in response to the article, a friend told me that it's how i was designed, i shouldn't have to major in it. not sure if i'm more offended by the article or by my friend's comment.

"A financial course could also teach women how to guide their husbands gently toward wise financial stewardship, which would contribute to a good outcome without violating patriarchy" the article reads. I missed the part where it is wrong to violate a patriarchal society?

Here's my thought: let's offer classes on 1. How to do relationships. 2. How to raise children. All things people can figure out on their own, but in the land of MFT, this is a huge need and the majority of people could use a whole lot of education in this area.

I'm not knocking her ideas on the family as the neediest social institution (hello! I am studying marriage and FAMILY therapy), but seriously, is this necessary? What she's listing for courses within this "home ec" major, I think of as secondary and tertiary. If this major existed, the primary goals should be to know thyself, value thyself and engage thyself (taken from this article). Those are what I think matter. Damn, I am an individualistic American in need of learning more about collectivism.

And does she really think that sex is taboo in Christian circles? I've talked more about sex with my students and at Westmont than ever before. Let's stop saying it's taboo. IT'S NOT. It's talked about ALL THE TIME. Things that actually are taboo in Christian circles: how people spend their money (it's your business, not anyone else's), the high expectation for pastors' families, pastors who have affairs or engage in pornography, female masturbation, the female sex drive (maybe this is the sex she's talking about?), inter-racial relationships (in some families), how you're actually doing, etc etc. How about that for taboo.