Feminism and the TV dinner!

Feminism and the TV dinner

I was having a good giggle this morning, and it reminded me of the discussion at hand how organizations use a list of red flags to get across their message.

CBMW does love to use this concept of feminism as their huge threat to the family.  FOOD and feminism was the article that I read, and it showed to me how they don't use any history behind their beliefs.  To me they took the definition of a Yuppie and replaced it with feminist.

What has fast food (whether eating out or pre-packaged) done for the feminism movement?  If you think back to when these TV dinners started really hitting the supermarket shelves (or fast food icons, etc) – it would be in the late 50s and on.  Which came first – the feminism movement of the 60s and 70s or the rise of food?  Is there a correlation – yes, but I don’t think its the driving correlation. 

Now if you read about the history of TV dinners, and YES there is actually articles on this the statement above is false.  No there was no 'correlation'.  The TV dinner was invented due to an over abundance error of Turkey the Swanson company had.

Relying on frozen convenience foods is nothing new -- who actually invented them, however, is a bit more contentious. Though credit is widely given to the Swanson brothers, it took a combination of a stocking error at Swanson, a light bulb idea by Swanson company salesman Gerry Thomas after a visit to Pan American Airways in Pittsburgh and some smart marketing to give rise to the TV dinner.

and

The first TV dinners produced by Swanson were in answer to a problem they had with Thanksgiving turkey leftovers. Not just a few Tupperware containers, either -- we're talking about 260 tons (235 metric tons) of turkey leftovers. So they appealed to their workers to come up with ideas. Gerry Thomas had just seen the airplane-friendly compartmentalized aluminum trays used by Pan American Airways and introduced the idea to the Swanson brothers back home in Nebraska. They packaged turkey, corn bread stuffing, peas and sweet potatoes and hung their advertising campaign on the newest craze to hit the nation: TV. That year, Swanson sold more than 25 million TV dinners to hungry Americans, at 98 cents per package. TV dinners were a hit.

It sounds to me that this idea came along due to an error, and with 260 tons of turkey on the line?  They needed to come up with something fast, or take a huge economic hit when it spoiled.   Did they realize they were starting some ground breaking food source, and it would appeal to all those feminist's that don't like staying at home to take care of the traditional family?  I have to giggle and think that they HOPED it was a hit on some level, because they had 260 tons of turkey to get rid of!  Their abundance of food was the driving force, and not the feminist.  I mean how many single men wouldn't love to snap those up for dinner as well?  Who can blame Swanson?  That's alot of turkey, and I'm sure would have cost the company PLENTY if they didn't think of something FAST!  Their creative idea was a HIT!

Freedom for Christian Women Coalition Part Two

I have to admit it wasn't until I was adult did I ever hear the term, 'headship'.  I think we all heard the term 'head' in the bible, but as far as I know?  No mention of this title some like to use.

The last time I wrote I spoke about Freedom for Christian Women Coalition  , and the letter they had sent to Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

I wanted to take a couple of points, and today I will start
points 2-4 that were listed in the letter.

we are concerned about the sin that evangelical church leaders commit when they deny the love of Christ fully to women simply because they were born female;

we are concerned about the damage this causes to families when husbands and fathers are told that they have Headship over their wives and daughters;

we are concerned about wife abuse, girlfriend abuse, and abuse to female children that takes place in many homes where evangelical men are taught that they have earthly and spiritual authority over women;

I realize there will be screams from the mountain tops that the bible says the man is the head of the wife.  This group isn't looking to be the 'head', but is talking more on how this 'role' is presented.   

The response about taking over the 'head' position is part the attitude that being taught, when in truth they are trying to point to an unChristlike attitude.  To me it almost seems like a brainwashing technique when the response is something along the lines of trying to take over the authority that Christ gave men.   The loving and humble leadership would listen instead of jumping to conclusions.

Freedom for Christian Women Coalition seem to be trying to bring up some concerns they have ran into, and have dealt with the past.

Freedom for Christian Women Coalition Part One

Freedom for Christian Women Coalition as sent a letter to the CMBW after their convention was held in Seneca Falls.


I realize some may feel the approach is to harsh, and if I were a betting person?  I would bet they get blown off completely by CMBW.


I would like to take a couple of their concerns one by one on this blog.  The first one is highlighted below:

We are concerned that men are being taught that they are god-like in their relationship to women within the church and home. As the mothers, wives, and daughters of these men, it is our concern that this doctrine is setting them up for failure as Christian fathers, husbands and sons;

I can understand such a concern, but when this concern does come up it is normally approached as ‘feministic’ banter.

They will acknowledge, ‘In the church, sin inclines men toward a worldly love of power or an abdication of spiritual responsibility, and inclines women to resist limitations on their roles or to neglect the use of their gifts in appropriate ministries.’

It seems to me the Coalition are concerned about the approach of ‘worldly love of power’, because they deal with this ‘god-like’ impression men are at times believing – or have counseled wounded families that this has happened to.  You could even say maybe they feel not enough is being done to address this properly.  CBMW acknowledges this ‘cause’ has an ‘effect’ of what is referred to as ‘neglect of the female role’.

Love is not a feeling! Love is an action!

Love is a verb.  Love is an action word!

How often have you read rebukes to people that struggling in life with the phrase, "Love is not a feeling.  Love is action word!"  They will tell you LOVE is a verb!  I personally believe that, but the way some like to apply it to life?  I do believe the miss the mark!

It seems to me its like the debate over roles!  Are biblical roles God given, or are they a 'feeling' as some describe them ... but say they aren't?!

I was watching a debate between some ladies and gentlemen from both the Egalitarian and the Complementarianism sides of the issue in regards to roles, and of course submission was a very hot topic.  From where I sat there were couples on both sides that have very good marriages.  They respect and love their spouses, but it seems like words like 'leader' makes the whole conversation go into a tailspin!

What is strange is both claim they appreciate differences within couples, and their gifts that they bring to the marriage.  There was a gentleman that admitted he wants his wife to take the lead in some circumstances due to her gifts that she has in that area.  To me he was showing LOVE as an action word!  It showed respect for this gift she had, and he willingly admitted he did not!  They both use their gifts for the benefit of each other.  Then you have a complementary woman that stated she also respected gifts and individuality, but went on some speech about pretty much the opposite.  How she was taking his ROLE as leader, and making herself HEAD.  How can you respect differences, and then rail against them?

ROLES ARE A FEELING!