Quantcast

«

»

Jan 16 2013

Buehner: Women Should Only Work for Husbands

You may have heard about a lawsuit where a judge ruled that it’s reasonable for a company to fire a woman because the owner finds her “irresistible” sexually. Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner of Generations Radio say this only happened because the woman wasn’t working for her husband as the Bible demands.

Swanson: This is not unusual, unfortunately, and it certainly is going to happen when you have a decrease in family economies. It’s one reason why we push the family economic vision, because the family economy is pretty much the way God set things up. The man and the woman come together not just for sexual union but also to be helpmeets and dominion-takers together as a team, as a lean, mean team in the dominion effort. That’s the way it was designed in the garden when the woman came to the man as the helpmeet for the man in the dominion task.

Buehner: And Kevin, I think that’s key. What we have in some of these business workplaces is a woman who’s not the wife being the helper or the helpmeet of the man and she has taken on the role of the helper…

Swanson: …for the man.

Buehner: And the only thing that’s missing in that relationship is the sexual consummation.

Swanson: Or the polygamy.

Buehner: Right. So remember, when God placed Adam in the garden, he gave him a mandate. He said you need a helper. He told Adam to go out and take some dominion, Adam named the animals, He said, ‘Yeah, this is really hard, you’re gonna need yourself a helper.” So He made Eve for him. It does not say that Eve was created because Adam needed to have a sexual outlet, it was created because Adam needed a helper. Now we take a man and we give him a helper out in the marketplace. He’s in a pseudo-marriage.

Seriously, there’s just no limit to how ridiculous wingnuts can be.

20 comments

1 ping

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    slc1

    Based on this “reasoning”, Mr Buehner would not have objected if Bill Clinton had appointed Hillary as his Secretary of State? Or if Obama appointed Michele as his Secretary of HHS?

  2. 2
    oranje

    “Helpmeets and dominion-takers.”

    The hell? Do they just make up words when they make outrageous sky friend claims?

  3. 3
    Modusoperandi

    Jeez, Ed Brayton, it’s perfectly obvious. God made Adam and put him in The Garden, but He needed someone to do the gardening in Adam’s Garden. Hence, women were made to serve men’s needs.* Now, some people will say “that’s sexist”, but to them I say “don’t worry your pretty little head about it, toots”.
     
    * Men were made to serve their corporate masters. Corporate masters were made to serve the will of the great Job Creator.

  4. 4
    Michael Heath

    As long as conservative Christians discriminate in their churches against females, e.g., not allowing women to teach adult males in Sunday School, preach to adult males, or be a pastor or leader in a denomination, we shouldn’t trust them on their mostly claimed support of equal rights in the workplace. Instead we should conclude they’re mere temporary allies, if that (see Romney on Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009). With real power, their fundamentalist cohorts should easily recruit them back to institutionalized misogyny outside the church just like they maintain dominance within their churches.

    15 years ago I would have argued there is no way conservative Christians would have advocated to create laws which limited access to non-subsidized birth control. Especially given the fact these women also predominately rely on birth control. And yet when conservatives sensed they had a chance of a “permanent majority” in the early-2000s, along with their taking greater control of the GOP since then, we now see such efforts has become a plank in the anti-abortions rights movement. The only political protest in my town this past year by the right was a group who claimed President Obama was against religious freedom given his mandate health insurance companies provide birth control coverage in their policies to all women employees, even those employed by Catholic organizations and other employers who are anti-birth-control.

  5. 5
    Randomfactor

    Did they really acknowledge that god’s preferred Biblical marriage involves polygamy, though?

  6. 6
    fifthdentist

    Didn’t some of Bible-monster’s favorite pets have multiple wives, Randomfactor.
    I’m not saying he prefers polygamy, I’m just asking questions here.

  7. 7
    slc1

    Re fifthdentist @ #6

    Solomon anyone?

  8. 8
    bubba707

    “it was created because Adam needed a helper” It? Really??? IT?

  9. 9
    bobafuct

    Have they read Genesis? It seems that God originally makes the animals as helpmeets, but it turns out they aren’t so good for uh “companionship”, so God has to make something slightly more compatible.

    2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
    2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
    2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

    Nevermind that Genesis 2 tells the story different than Genesis 1, wherein man and woman are created at the same time.

  10. 10
    grumpyoldfart

    I love that story in Genesis 2:18-23. God decides to build a helpmeet for Adam but the clueless bastard didn’t think of a woman – he tried to get Adam interested in latching onto one of the animals “but for Adam there was not found an helpmeet for him.”
    `

    It was only after god had offered Adam all the animals and all the birds; only then did he finally realise that perhaps a human helpmeet might suit Adam best. Just as well eh? I hate to think what we would be doing if Adam had got horny when the camel was paraded before him.

  11. 11
    matty1

    Probably OT but This suggests that helpmeet is a mistunderstanding of the King James Bible. The character God was trying to find for Adam is referred to as a help and the phrase ‘help meet for him’ translates to modern English as ‘help suitable for him’.

  12. 12
    briandavis

    Now we take a man and we give him a helper out in the marketplace. He’s in a pseudo-marriage.

    Does this mean that if I work for a man that I’m in a pseudo-same-sex-marriage?

  13. 13
    John Hinkle

    I read the Federalist Papers for Genesis. It turns out that “dominion” actually means “viagra,” hence Adam’s need for a helpmeet.

  14. 14
    d.c.wilson

    I’m guessing these guys have had a lot of drinks thrown in their faces at bars.

  15. 15
    stace

    it was created because Adam needed a helper” It? Really???

    “It takes the lotion from the basket or else it gets the hose again.”

    From the way these guys talk, they were probably voted by their high school classmates as Most likely to someday keep a woman in a pit in their basement.

  16. 16
    baal

    @ # 14 one of the not so subtle messages in fundy churches is that they will match up unmarried men with the unmarried women in the congregation. These pairs, of course, all work beautifully since the women (not really a person, more of a helpmeet) and the man understand their roles. His inability to act like a decent person to attract a woman becomes entirely beside the point. I’m not sure good what the women get out of this.

  17. 17
    jnorris

    Buehner: Right. So remember, when God placed Adam in the garden, he gave him a mandate.

    God gave Adam a mandate. So God really did mean Adam and Steve!

  18. 18
    Wes

    oranje

    January 16, 2013 at 10:43 am (UTC -5)

    “Helpmeets and dominion-takers.”

    The hell? Do they just make up words when they make outrageous sky friend claims?

    Actually, they didn’t make up those terms. It’s the language of Dominionism, Theonomy and Christian Reconstruction. I don’t know much about these two, but based on their use of terminology like “dominion effort”, their use of “economy” in its old-fashion sense (Greek for “laws of the home”), and the fact that they base it all on a few passages from the first few chapters in Genesis, I’d say they’re probably followers of R J Rushdoony or one of his proteges.

  19. 19
    d.c.wilson

    I’m not sure good what the women get out of this.

    Freedom from ever having to form an opinion of her own?

  20. 20
    frog

    baal@16:

    Well, when you’re living in a small town populated by idiots who won’t hire you because you’re female and not married to them, I imagine marrying a guy for the food and roof over your head starts to look acceptable.

    Why do I suspect that in 20 years my house is going to be a stop on an Underground Railroad for women escaping the Republic of Gilead?

  1. 21
    Married, with Friends

    [...] suspect because the natural way that women and men are to relate to each other is through marriage. Here’s an example of this sort of thinking applied to men and women who work [...]

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site