You ain't seen nothin' ...

Much thanks to Jay in the comments below for providing a window into the wonderfully askew world of the "Prairie Muffins," the authors and adherents of the "Prairie Muffin Manifesto."

The name Prairie Muffin was chosen:

... in response to those who make snide and derogatory remarks about those of us who choose a quiet life, diligently pursuing our biblical role as women and protecting the innocence of our children. Some women have been caricatured as denim jumper-wearing, Little House on the Prairie-worshiping, baby machines who never trim their hair or wear makeup. ... the name Prairie Muffin is meant to convey the message that we are sticking to our convictions despite the silly labels people try to stick on us.

Sticking to convictions is good, of course, although in this case it's really more a matter of sticking to your husband's convictions, since what these poor folks mean by "our biblical role as women" involves, mainly, doing whatever their husbands command them to do.

Without a husband to whom one can submit, it's impossible to achieve full Prairie-Mufffinhood. Thus, they explain, the intermediate nicknames chosen for single women and children:

Single women aspiring to be Prairie Muffins will be known as "Muffin Mixes" and young children of Prairie Muffins are "Mini Muffins."

I'm hoping eventually they'll sell T-shirts.

That would be funnier if it weren't for the unintentionally horrifying spectacle of a group of people who refer to their young children as "mini muffins."

Yes, yes, I know they're naive innocents from the heartland. They're not familiar with the sophisticated, urbane euphemisms of our over-sexualized Blue-State Babylon. It's purely unintentional and coincidental that they've chosen a term for their reductionist, stunted notion of the role of women that is also a term used as vulgar slang for female genitalia and thus, also, as a reductionist and misogynist metonymy employed by others expressing a different, but parallel, stunted view of the role of women.

Pure coincidence. Just as it's a coincidence that this whole creepy "biblical manhood and womanhood" cult just coincidentally uses terms like "dominance," "submission" and "granting headship" that all sound like the names of some of the kinkier subgroups of an adult usenet forum.

And it's pure coincidence that this particular subgroup, which just happens to have statistically higher rates of all manner of abuses domestic, also just happens to choose a creepily pedophilic-sounding nickname for their youngest children.

Pure coincidence.

Jay notes that the Prairie Muffin worldview also includes the notion that only property-owning males ought to enjoy the right to vote. And, he notes, they base this on their interpretation of the Bible. So maybe, Jay suggests, I should click over there and try to convince them that this isn't a necessary, or good, or accurate way of interpreting the Bible.*

That's a noble calling, which is why I'm a big fan of the exegetical kung fu masters at Christians for Biblical Equality. But CBE can win every debate, every argument, every point of fact and it won't much matter to the kinds of people who are determined to think of their women as submissive muffins. Or to the kind of women who think this is a good idea.

You can try to reach such people with theological scholarship, earnest study or intellectual argument, but those aren't what you're really up against. What you're up against is fear.

To get such people to question their own assumptions about "biblical roles" you have to figure out what it is they're so afraid of -- death, abandonment, failure, sex, dark-skinned people, dark-skinned people having sex, whatever. And then you have to convince them that their fears are groundless or (in the case of death/abandonment/failure) fruitless.

I'm a student of theology, not psychology. I can't help these people.

- - - - - - - - - -

* In every religion, it seems, you'll find a group loudly proclaiming its allegiance and submission to the dictates of scripture -- the Bible, the Koran, the Pentateuch, Dianetics, it doesn't matter which. Their every action, every aspect of their lives, they say, is shaped and determined by the commands of their holy book.

Such sternly obedient believers face an epistemological dilemma. How can they know, with certainty, precisely what it is that their scripture demands? Most of us believer types, in every religion, tend to interpret our holy books through the lenses of reason, tradition and experience. But for these biblicists, reason, tradition and experience must all also "submit" to the dictates of the scripture. The meaning of scripture, therefore, has to be treated as self-evident and unambiguous -- two things which scripture tends self-evidently and unambiguously not to be.

Suggest any form of scholarship, textual, literary or linguistic criticism and the biblicists tend to get angrily defensive. These are all useful and important tools for determining what it is that scripture says and means and requires of its adherents. But the biblicists aren't interested in refining or clarifying their supposedly self-evident interpretations. They reject all such study as a potential threat to their own preferred interpretation.

And that, right there, tells you all you need to know about their supposed allegiance and obedience to their scripture. The scripture is not their true starting point after all. Their starting point is their own preferred interpretation, their own preference. They, and not their supposed Word of God, are the ultimate arbiters of truth, reality and meaning.

That's why whenever you hear someone say that the Bible is "inerrant" and "infallible," what they're really saying is that "My reading of the Bible is inerrant and infallible." What they're really claiming is, "I am inerrant and infallible."

What they're really claiming is, "I am God."

Comments

[Stephen]

Fred,

I owe you a Lost Coast Downtown Brown. Actually, several. And probably a steak dinner or two.

You have a profound gift, one that is called by most of the "spiritual gift assessments" as "discernment." You can see to the heart of a matter, and can express your insight extremely well.

Thank you for sharing this with us.

And God help those about whom you write.

[Mark]

Fred,

Nicely put. I've always said that education destroys fundamentalism, it also destroys fear.

And then there's this from Aerosmith:

Backstroke lover always hidin neath the cover
Still I talked to your daddy he say
He said you aint seen nothing
till youre down on a muffin
Then youre sure to be a-changin your ways

[Roy]

Forget about your urbane slang, I though a Prairie Muffin was what cows leave behind when they've finished grazing.

[Duane]

Great post, Fred.

[Jon]

I believe the Bible is "inerrant" and "infallible". When interpreted correctly.

I also hope that I am interpreting it correctly more often than not, but that isn't something I'd chose to stake my reputation on.

[Lila]

Roy: I think you're thinking of "meadow muffins". Not to be confused with "road apples", which are deposited by horses.

[Jon h]

"In every religion, it seems, you'll find a group loudly proclaiming its allegiance and submission to the dictates of scripture -- the Bible, the Koran, the Pentateuch, Dianetics, it doesn't matter which."

But only the Scientologists have the receipts to prove their allegiance.

[Merlin Missy]

Ah yes. The Prairie Muffins. If nothing else, they always serve as a lovely example whenever someone says in a discussion, "I can't be a misogynist / hold misogynistic beliefs --- I'm female!"

[William Black]

Great post, Fred.

Is it just me, or does the Prairie Muffin Manifesto (Tm'ed by Muffin-corp) sound like the Stepford town charter.

[Angelika]

Probably, it feels somewhat better to be abused by choice. Especially, if there doesn't seem to be much of a chance to evade the abuse, anyways.

[Natros]

this particular subgroup, which just happens to have statistically higher rates of all manner of abuses domestic

Do you have any sources for this assertion? Perhaps its true, but it would be out of character for the "Prairie families" I've known. That's not to say that there aren't other problems there, I'm just a bit sceptical of this particularly damning claim.

[LL]

RE the Muffin link: Wow, that is one of the creepiest things I've ever read. All they need is to throw in some underage plural marriage and they can give those fundamentalist Mormons (not to be confused with the non-plural-marriage Mormons) a run for their money in the creepy religion Olympics.

And FYI to anyone trying to make somthing icky sound better by giving it a cutesy name, it doesn't work, it only makes it ickier.

[Edward Liu]

Um.

"Muffin" is a euphemism for THAT?

I will never be able to hear "The Muffin Man" quite the same way again.

[ninjanun]

Prairie Muffins appreciate godly role models, such as Anne Bradstreet, Elizabeth Prentiss and Elisabeth Elliot. They do not idolize Laura Ingalls Wilder (Little House on the Prairie) or Louisa May Alcott (Little Women); while they may enjoy aspects of home life presented in their books, PMs understand that the latent humanism and feminism in these stories and in the lives of these women is not worthy of emulation.

I wonder if they've considered the godly role models of Deborah the Judge or Jael?

"Most blessed of women is Jael, The wife of Heber the Kenite;
Most blessed is she of women in the tent.
He asked for water and she gave him milk;
In a magnificent bowl she brought him curds
She reached out her hand for the tent peg,
And her right hand for the workmen's hammer.
Then she struck Sisera, she smashed his head;
And she shattered and pierced his temple.
Between her feet he bowed, he fell, he lay;
Between her feet he bowed, he fell;
Where he bowed, there he fell dead."
--Judges 5:24-27

[ninjanun]

In addition, Prairie Muffins are careful not to use their feminine, hormotional weaknesses to excuse sinful attitudes and actions, but learn to depend more and more on God's grace and strength in the midst of any monthly trials.

Err...is hormotional a word? I thought it would be more appropriate to say "hormonal." But never mind. That reference to PMS and menstrual tribulation is followed, I'm sure without a trace of irony, by this statement:

37) Prairie Muffins may go against the flow, but they also know how to roll with the flow.

Heh. Now I have a cute slogan to use when it's that time of the month: rollin' with the flow.

Thanks, Prairie Muffins!

[manalive]

Actually, I don't think education drives out fear. After all the more you know about possibilities of nuclear attack/global warming/quantity of fish in the ocean/etc. the more afraid you're likely to be. What's relevant of course is the groundedness/groundlessness of one's fears. What fears you see as grounded vs. what you see as groundless is likely to come from who you perceive as an authority. For many of us our authority sources are scientists/scholars/etc. while for others it's certain interpreters of Scripture. To convince someone their fears are groundless, one must first confront their sources of authority. This isn't always best done with reason, and certainly isn't best done with insults & accusations of heinous behaviour.

After all--is this post meant to make us afraid of these people's worldview? And is fear the best response?

[PepperjackCandy]

manalive wrote:

After all the more you know about possibilities of nuclear attack/global warming/quantity of fish in the ocean/etc. the more afraid you're likely to be.

But, too, education is the key to (a) weighing sources of information on; and (b) avoiding, or fixing, or otherwise helping with those problems.

[bulbul]

After all the more you know about possibilities of nuclear attack/global warming/quantity of fish in the ocean/etc. the more afraid you're likely to be.
True, true. For example, medical professionals are several times more likely to die from complications after surgery or another heart attack. After all, they know all the things that can go wrong and thus have more reasons to be affraid.
And as for the PMs, I could not help noticing that this slogan "PMs understand that the latent humanism and feminism in these stories" sounds a lot like the slogans of a local right-wing party, denouncing, among other things, "humanrightizm, pacifism, political correctness, affirmative action and other such idiotisms." Praise the Lord they only got 0.25% of the votes in the last elections...

[bulbul]

They reject all such study as a potential threat to their own preferred interpretation.
And also because to engage in such study, they would have to recognize the very obvious - that the Bible was written by human beings in a human language. Consequently, to engage in such study, they would have to try to find out who were those human beings, they would have to learn their language (literally AND metaphorically), to see the world through their eyes, to understand them. To engage in such study, they would have to reach out to people (dead though they may be) and try to empathize with them. And knowing the literalist folk of all religious persuasions, that is the last thing they want to do.
As you said, Fred - it's all about psychology.

[Stephen Frug]

Um, as someone deep in the heart of our "over-sexualized Blue-State Babylon", I must admit I haven't heard of this particular "vulgar slang for female genitalia" before. I'm not even sure precisely which term you mean -- "muffins"? "Prarie muffins"? "Mini muffins"? It's ambiguous from context...

(I hate to pick on a trivial point in such a wonderful post, but I'd also hate to accidentally step in this linguistic 'meadow muffin' (to use another piece of slang new to me...))

[Majromax]

From my linguistic experience, the base colloqualism for female genitalia is "muff" (as in "muff diving" for cunnilingus). "Muffin", being very close to "muff", would probably take some of the same connotation if said in an appropriately suggesting tone.

Also, based on the general shape of the baked-good, "muffin" could probably also make a better-than-average stand-in for breast.

[JPL]

Blue State Babylon would make a great name for a rock band.

[Mike Timonin]

I wonder how the PM's would feel about this: http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2006/07/the_way_of_all_flesh.html

[Mike Timonin]

That didn't post correctly. My url now links to the article properly.

[baf]

Also compare "crumpet".

[Matt McIrvin]

After all the more you know about possibilities of nuclear attack/global warming/quantity of fish in the ocean/etc. the more afraid you're likely to be.

Actually, not necessarily. For instance, while the "global warming skeptics" are generally either cranks or shills, reading the scientists on RealClimate has also kept me from taking too seriously some of the more exaggerated claims about the subject, such as James Lovelock's prediction that human life will become impossible everywhere but the polar regions within a century—or from believing that the earth has crossed some irrevocable line of doom so it is already too late to do anything.

It's possible to exaggerate any threat; the dangers from these things are not infinite, and understanding of the nature of the problem can turn unformed terror into calls for action.

[JS Bangs]

This linguistic argument can go both ways, you know. That is, I have heard the following argument: the submission of women to men is a natural part of the human order. Once that natural arrangement is denied or suppressed, it must reassert itself in other, perverse ways, namely in sexual fetishism and perversion. Hence bondage, submission, dominatrices, etc.

[Luthe]

Once that natural arrangement is denied or suppressed, it must reassert itself in other, perverse ways, namely in sexual fetishism and perversion. Hence bondage, submission, dominatrices, etc.

Dominatrices imply male submission to the female. Which means either that the "perversion" which leads to this is v. v. wrong, or that the "natural order" isn't quite so natural.

Also, if the Prarie Muffin movement was anything like the BDSM scene, then the women would all get safewords.

[Spike]

Apparently slacktivist's oft-touted appreciation for empathy (or, you know, nuanced discussion) goes out the window when he decides to discuss "these people." I am neither a muffin nor a muffin-in-training. I do, however, try to be respectful enough of other women to assume that there are some who have made their decisions with as much thoughtfulness as I try to make mine (often failing miserably). The rush to pathologize everyone with whom we disagree is a tempting, though generally pretty flawed, enterprise.

I suppose I'm sort of a hypocrite because I've given in to plenty of impulses to patronizingly dismiss a group (often something muffin-esque) as reacting in fear or unable to think for themselves. But I'm trying to be better. Count me in as one (the only one?) who didn't find this smugness brilliant and inspirational.

[jr]

That's the best name ever

[Axiomatic]

I have a new favorite word. Humanrightizm

[rob]

I'm afraid i must agree with Spike. I was afraid I'd be the first. I might think things like this but if you're going to say them out loud you ought to have more than a single document to back them up. Just because this woman's manifesto reads like "blah, blah, blah" to us doesn't make us more enlightened.

Sure, we can call these women mysoginists, mock the dubious religious foundations, and assume that they are brainwashed and abused, but what I've read is a list of 44 (44? That's lot of items.) things that make this woman happy. I find this dubious only because the women I know wouldn't enjoy these things, but then, i don't know any prairie muffins.

The other thing is that some women do "escape" from this lifestyle. I have no idea what the numbers are, but since non-muffin types are constantly becoming born-agains, and percentage of those probably eventually become muffins, it might be fair to say the exchange rate negates the suggestion that this is an abusive cult.

I guess I'm saying I see what you're getting at, and that would definitely have been my first reaction, too, but I haven't seen enought to be convinced that's their problem and not just mine.

[rob]

"The women who will have the greatest impact on the world, those who will have the greatest influence on history, are those "well-behaved" women who faithfully serve God in their daily lives, seeking His approval rather than the world's admiration. Prairie Muffins know that while engaging in the kingdom-building work in their homes of loving, training and disciplining their children, the world may not express its approval, but it will be turned upside down."

Also, I'm pretty sure this is an out right falsehood. Even the women of the bible aren't known for their miraculous sweeping and dishwashing skills.

[Scott]

Prarie Muffin, Meadow Muffin, coincidence? I think not.......

Jay notes that the Prairie Muffin worldview also includes the notion that only property-owning males ought to enjoy the right to vote

If it will keep Beth from raising my taxes....... :-)

There is an argument to be made that letting the people who don't pay the bills vote to spend the $$ just makes it easier for the govt to buy votes and power. Why care if a govt program is wasteful if it's not your money being wasted? How can you hold govt accountable for anything if you feel dependent on it for your day-to-day survival ("I'll keep your benefits coming, just ignore the corruption").

[Fernmonkey]

Scott: the logical conclusion of that argument is that nobody in the military, property-owner or otherwise, should be allowed to vote.

[Merlin Missy]

Sure, we can call these women mysoginists, mock the dubious religious foundations, and assume that they are brainwashed and abused, but what I've read is a list of 44 (44? That's lot of items.) things that make this woman happy.

Women. I've seen this manifesto on a number of websites, and I've been to the websites and blogs run by some of the PMs, and it's fascinating in an abstract way, to see this culture inside what is ostensibly my own culture. But it's horrifying when I consider the strong undercurrent: "The world would be a much better place if every other woman did this, too." While I understand that many feminist sites have the same kind of subtext, it's still disheartening to go to places where women choose to use their right to freedom of speech online to say that women shouldn't be speaking online. It's like reading a website run by African Americans who very clearly and passionately think the country should go back to separate drinking fountains and having to sit at the back of the bus, while stating or at least heavily implying that the civil rights movement was and is the greatest threat ever seen to society and the family.

The reason the word "brainwashed" gets tossed around is that there is no chance this list of precepts came about in a vacuum. This is the kind of thing written by women who have spent their entire lives being told men are and should be dominant in their lives, that a woman is incomplete without a husband, that "feminist" is an insult and means "lesbian" (also an insult), that Paul's admonitions to women supercede Jesus' call to Mary and Martha. I grew up Catholic and went to Catholic schools, which meant I saw some of this as part of basic doctrine, though thankfully not to the extent seen here; a close friend was raised in the Church of Christ, which is much closer in many ways to the Muffin lifestyle. Neither of us are there anymore, and we both still struggle with the little voice that says to put our husbands and children first, that men are correct and we shouldn't raise our voices to them, that housekeeping should naturally be our responsibility rather than theirs (even when both spouses are working). Every day, it's a question of what we're doing because we want to and because it needs done, and what we do because we were told from birth that this is what a female is supposed to do. (This, btw, is one of the on-going discussions in feminist circles regarding all aspects of life, from choosing to have children or not to choosing a career path. Nature vs. nurture is a Big Deal for good reason.) I occasionally surf by PM and related sites (the Full Quiver folks are always fun) where there is no such discussion because the women there have taken the nurture, assumed it to be natural, and then wonder why the rest of us don't do the same. I won't bother engaging in or starting arguments on their boards because a) it's impolite, and b) there's no point, but I will modify Distinctive 27 to say "There but for the grace of Gloria Steinem go I."

BTW, it's nice to know that people who rent are automatically drains on society, as well as those of us who own both property and ovaries. Tell me, would there be a requirement to drop trou at the voting booth to prove eligibility? Because I might have to start volunteering at the polls, if only to find out who really is overcompensating.

[LMM]

Ninjanun -- I'm glad you caught that quote. I was just about to post it myself if no one else did.

I think it's rather telling. Contrary to what some of you seem to be implying, these people don't want to just roll back the progress made by the 1970s feminist movement -- they want to roll back the progress made by the 1900s women's rights movement.

After all, who would think that Little Women or Little House on the Prairie is feminist?

[manalive]

Re: education and fear... I do think there is a difference between the sort of fear engendered by (good) education and the sort engendered by the PM community (& I don't mean post-modern :) My point in the earlier post was mainly that I think it's not terribly productive to mock & condemn. That only serves to heighten their fear of the outside world. It seems to me that for many (or at least some) what's more productive is to demonstrate that it is possible to faithfully interpret Scripture, love Jesus, and not take the sort of extreme views & actions that people in the PM community advocate. I think this is true even for the much less radical (!) Dobson, et al followers. The notion that we should restrict voting rights, etc. is deeply disturbing & I think it's right to be outraged. But if we're not careful about how that outrage is expressed, we might only drive some further into their fears and radical views, rather than show them that their fears are, in fact, groundless.

[Lila]

Rob wrote:
"Also, I'm pretty sure this is an out right falsehood. Even the women of the bible aren't known for their miraculous sweeping and dishwashing skills."

There's a good bit in Proverbs about great housekeepers (31:10-31), though the passage suggests they had a lot more financial power than the Prairie Muffin model would appear to endorse. However, excessive concern with "women's work" as the proper sphere for all women does not fare as well in Luke 10:38-42.

[Lila]

Merlin Missy:

"It's like reading a website run by African Americans who very clearly and passionately think the country should go back to separate drinking fountains and having to sit at the back of the bus, while stating or at least heavily implying that the civil rights movement was and is the greatest threat ever seen to society and the family."

Thank you for exactly nailing the icky crawly feeling I got from reading that passage; your comment nicely captures the theme of "we were all fine when we knew our place and stayed in it."

(Side note: I am a graduate of the University of Georgia, and recently watched a TV account of the integration of said university. It was chilling to see footage of crosses burning in a place I'd walked by every day for several years. I knew, of course, that Charlayne Hunter and Hamilton Holmes had had a hard time, but I'd had no idea HOW hard.)

[Colin Toffelmire]

Good post as always Fred (though like some others here I think that some of the psychologizing of this phenomenon might be a little bit reductionist). As for the fascinating hermeneutic applied by fundamentalists of all stripes, I find it ironic that this is essentially an unwitting version of Reader-Response criticism. I wonder how the average "biblical literalist" would feel knowing that he/she is really just a structuralist/post-structuralist who doesn't know it?

[Luthe]

Spike and Rob, I think the undercurrent that you're missing here is that Fred and the commenters on his blog would have no objection to women who choose to become housewives and mothers. What is being objected to is the fact that the Prairie Muffins were raised (and are raising children in) a culture that doesn't encourage them to explore all of their other options in life before choosing their path. It's the denial of the world beyond their own that bothers us, not their occupation.

[bulbul]

It's the denial of the world beyond their own that bothers us
... and how they are (mis)using the biblical text to justify it. That's the part that troubles me the most.

[Cactus Wren]

"Muffin Mixes"? I rather appreciated the notion that these women who celebrate "the wonderful role as homekeeper", "making home a haven for her husband and children" and "keeping busy in her full-time calling as homekeeper" ... make muffins from a mix.

[Lila]

Yeah, Cactus Wren, that struck me as odd too. Perhaps their husbands made up all the names.

I also love the fact that a woman who thinks she's not competent to run her own life, thinks she's competent to direct how other people should live...and that women who believe themselves to be 'helpmeets' aren't eager to use their votes to, in effect, give their husbands an extra vote.

Indeed, I'm beginning to think the whole thing is either a spoof, or wishful thinking written by an insecure teenaged male.

[Bartleby]

I'm a student of theology, not psychology. I can't help these people.

Fred, I'm a student of physics, not psychology ... so I don't think I can help you, either. With your apparently-complete lack of a sense of humor, that is.

[Duane]

... and how they are (mis)using the biblical text to justify it. That's the part that troubles me the most.

How about reducing the Bible to a manual about sex and gender roles? If there's a God, and He had anything to do with the Bible (which I personally doubt), He can't be happy about that.

[Hagsrus]

Just browsing the Prairie Muffin lady's blog and came across this:

"As part of my continuing efforts to wean people from the grip of those tax-funded liberal media centers known as public libraries, I have started a summer reading club for the children at our church."

Oh well. At least they are reading something, though I'd have been interested to see a book list.

[Bugmaster]

The site seems to be a spoof, sort of like that "Landover Baptist" site, but not as funny. I doubt it's real... real crazy people aren't that quaint.

[Garnet]

There is an argument to be made that letting the people who don't pay the bills vote to spend the $$ just makes it easier for the govt to buy votes and power.

I must have missed the rise of the great and power 'homeless and destitute' voting bloc.

Ironically, the ones who pay a lot of bills, ie. the rich, are way worse about sucking up government money through tax shelters, shell corporations, corporate welfare and no-bid contracts. Maybe we should only let the poor vote?