Ms. Haman's position revealed a huge problem....that homemaking and motherhood have come to be seen as activities that require no skill. It's why women who choose to be at home with their children are afforded little respect.

According to Ms. Haman, a woman must venture into the corporate world in order to be valued and feel fulfilled. She made it clear that she doesn't value what it takes to organize a well run home with well cared for children.

One has to wonder if Ms. Haman is fully cognizant of all of the problems stemming from homes that lack the skills of a homemaker. If she were, she'd be elevating the role of homemaker rather than relegating it to something that can be picked up through osmosis.

I think it's obvious from all the comments that have been posted so far that this interview was poorly done.  I, too, was disappointed by the way Ms. Hamman and Ann Curry treated the Focus on the Family gentleman (and I say gentleman because he surely was a gentleman during the interview).  For goodness' sake, LET HIM TALK!  Obviously the women were biased, but they didn't have to be so pushy about their points of view.  I also was amused by Ms. Hamman's comment about not learning a homemaker's job in a book or in a class - only on-the-job training was necessary.  Would she advise that we take budding psychologists, teachers, CEOs, accountants, etc. and give them only "on-the-job" training?  Of course not, but that's exactly what a mom is, and why not give her some useful training?  Give me a break!  I, too, have no problem with men taking this or a similar course, but I really don't think that's the issue.  Honestly, I don't see any issue here.

If I had only paid attention!  I went to a private college where i took the first class in "Domestic Engineering".  I was in the class because the one I really wanted wasnot available.  I wish I had paid attention.  The course, had I continued in it, taught time management, budget skills, child development, housekeeping skills, cooking, nutrition.  I am now a parent who does not know many of these things.  I just hide in the fact that I have a career and do not have the "time" to shop wisely or clean my house.  My husband passed away and all the responsability now falls on my shoulders.  I wish that I had continued taking the course and maybe I would be able to better manage my home.  This does not mean that I would not also work outside the home.  It sad that some women feel threatened by those women who excell at "domestic Engineering".

Ms. Hamman is out in left field!  If you think about it, the point she made is true with ANY job or career.  The things you learn in the classroom are nearly always different than day-to-day life when you are actually working in that field.  That doesn't mean the information you learned in the classroom isn't valuable!!  

I agree with so many of the other comments, Ann did not moderate this segment well at all.

Get a grip, if this is just one class/semester that only allows women, so what.

Also in the classes of "cooking" and "sewing" so many of the skills you learn translate into other jobs. For instance, there is a lot of math in sewing, especially quilting, I know because I quilt and guess what, I do contruction tiling which is a lot like quilting only with a different media and tiling happens to be a field dominate by men.

Request, next time Ann do a better job moderating on this kind of "controversial" segment.

Women know what they want, if this class exists, it is because there was a demand for it. If men want this kind of class there will be a demand and money for it and they will have it too. I thought the real controversy was that it was women only class, not the content of the class. This insulted my and it appears a lot of other people's intelligence.

Staying at home is not a career choice. If you don't receive monetary compensation for what you do, it's not a job, just as volunteer positions are not considered "careers." Women and men should both share equal responsibility working around the house while earning money to support their families. The outside world is a wonderful place. Both genders have much to gain by working outside the home and exposing themselves to new experiences and people. Staying within four walls and teaching girls how to be domesticated just perpetuates an endless cycle of subservient, uninteresting women.

I was very disappointed in Rachel and Ann for the way they constantly interrupted the man from Focus on the Family, Ann mostly since as a reporter she should report the news or interview from a neutral perspective as well as maintain control of the interview, I don’t  think he was able to complete more than a sentence or two without being interrupted.

I see nothing wrong with having a degree in homemaking for young women who "CHOOSE" to take it. How many young women today have a mom that stayed at home to teach them about meal planning and preparation? Or how to design and make designer original clothing? Or how to shop sensibly?

I do not know what the entire curriculum teaches but if it has something on conflict resolution that has to be a help with the husband and wife relationship not to mention helping the children resolve their disagreements.

Rachel may be a homemaker but she seems to have the attitude of so many others of today that it takes very little intelligence or expertise to be a successful wife and mother in the home. Anyone can hand their children over to others to raise and buy their clothes and food pre-made, and bring home a paycheck but not many can inspire their husbands and children to great things.

It would be nice to offer a separate class for men and if the demand is great enough maybe there will be one in the future.

With the help of TIVO, I have had the opportunity to rewatch the video from this morning's interview regarding a homemaker degree for women.  My initial reactions have held true and I have several layers of concern.
  As a thirty-something male, it concerns me that there are still those who believe that homemaking is a women's-only position, and thus would provide a degree in homemaking only to women.  Now inasmuch as I believe that the degree at SBTS is a great idea (because it affords the opportunity to truly study family economics, child psycology, etc.), I do believe that men should have equal status in the program.  Outwardly, the only aspect of this program that I believe is inherently flawed is that it caters solely to women, as though men do not have a nurturing soul in their body.  Inasmuch as my wife and I both work outside of the home, several of our friends are stay-at-home parents (both moms and a dad).  Their position is that they want to truly focus on their children by choice, not because of any submissive or even religious concern.  
    A second layer of concern that I have with this morning's interview is Kim Grady's statement that this degree is being put forth into the curriculum because this idea is some type of conspiracy to get women out of the workplace.  Holy cow!  This was perhaps a contemporary issue in the 60's and 70's, but in today's parenting circles, is just not an issue.  I work each and every day with both men and women, and I cannot begin to imagine the workplace as a fraternal organization void of women.  Now that would be a foray back to the 1950's!  (By the way, I have heard the statistic that the unemployment rate is driven ever-higher by the number of women in the workforce.  25 years ago, the unemployment rate was 9.7%, and today it is 4.8%.  Women obviously have not had a derrogatory impact upon employment).
    My final concern with this interview has to do with the interview itself.  Neither interviewee seemed to be in touch with contemporary society.  If one wants to have a truly good discussion about reconstructing the family, we need to start by not involving someone from focus on the family -- their views are so old and backward that their views were likely never relevent to real life.  Second, we need to not involve someone who never left the feminist movement for their value systems, although relevent at one time, no longer apply to the way things really are today.  
    The twenty and thirty-somethings of today have been raised predominently by the feminists of yesterday and are sadly lacking the skills necessary to raise a family and run a household simply because our models were often outside of the home trying to prove the previous generation wrong.  Consequently, a degree in homemaking has to be a good thing (provided that men have equal status and equal opportunity for involvement) because it would help individuals to acquire a deeper, and more contemporaneus knowledge that would undoubtly strengthen families at their very core.

As a new stay-at-home mom, I am suprised by the reation to this course. If a woman can get collage credit for learning something that she my actually use in the future, thats great. When I think back to my high school Home Ec. class the only thing we(girls and boys) learned was how to make pudding and sew a pillow. Not a useful skill now.                I think a real homemaking course should be offerd in high school to girls and boys. If kids knew what running a house and raising children was really like, there might less teen pregnancy and more appreciation for their parents.
As for the interview, I think it was very one sided and they always seem to run out of time and cut people off.

After watching the segment this morning, I have to agree with Ms. Hamman.  Having educational curriculum pertaining to a formal Degree in Homemaking, I believe, does nothing but suppresses the role of women, and places a socioeconomic label on an individual, thus defining their being.  Growing up in the 70’s and 80’s, educational curriculum in the high school setting allowed individuals to take Home Economics, or Shop Class as an elective.  This is the millennium, and as the baby boomers phase out and the Gen X phase into society, this conservative mindset will succumb to the liberalism of Gen X ideologies.  Additionally, I believe that individuals are a product of their environment.  With the economics of the world today, single parents and dual-income families both have shared responsibilities in maintaining the family dynamic, to include their homestead.  The social, political, and cultural landscapes of our country and the world have changed.  It’s time to adapt.

The interview didn't deal with one aspect of this degree.  Southwestern Seminary, a Southen Baptist school, was taken over by fundamentalists some years back.  They officially are against women having any "authority" over men, whether preaching or teaching or whatever.  The president of Southwestern Seminary fired one woman professor last year because he didn't think a women should teach men theology or Scripture.  Is there anything wrong with women working in the home or learning to do certain things in the home?  Absolutely not.  In theory, for a school to offer a degree in home economics (or whatever else it might be called) is not wrong.  But when you understand this particular school, that it is officially against women being equal to men in all ways, that it has in fact fired a woman for being in too much of an "authoritative" position with men, and that this degree is not open to men, that changes things.  At this particular school, this particular degree is sexist and is a reflection of a view that women should be subordinate to men and SHOULD be homemakers.  At any other school that is otherwise not exclusive in its approach to women or men, this kind of degree would be fine, but at this school, because of where they are coming from, this is in fact a sexist degree.  If women want to take it, fine, but at this school, it is a sexist degree.

OH MY! I have a degree in Home Economics Education, I have taught in high school both boys and girls. When we think about homemaking everyone thinks cooking, cleaning, sewing, what about running a household with a budget of $45,000.00 or $150.000.00 or more:this is part of teaching. Child development should be mandetory for all high school students as many will become parents, this week alone major stories in the news about a child placed in the dryer because of the stress a young man could not handle and the rest of his life is in jeopardy. Please do not make light of Homemaking, it should be a skill that all people have. Will our homes look exactly alike? NO! We need skills and support in our lives for every area. I have run  several businesses since I was a Home Economics teacher, what I learned to receive my degree helped me to be successful.

This course offering by Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary may be a bit out of the ordinary for a seminary, but it is certainly one that could benefit those who complete the course. Homemaking must be taught just like any other skill and often, using our contemporary society as evidence, mothers may not be equipped to teach their daughters this useful skill.  I applaud SWBTS for stepping out and offering this course to interested women.  I would venture to say that SWBTS will "see the light" and open it up to male students in the future.      

I would like to thank Jimmie,from Cleburne for providing the link to the school. I learned that the woman who teaches at least one of the courses does not believe in birth control.
  I thought that the man should have been given a chance to voice his side of the question,even though it is something with which I do not agree. I also think that men should be permitted to take the courses. Not allowing men tells us that this is "women's work" and not important enough for the man to be bothered with. On the other hand, I think it is a good idea to at least offer the courses. Skills that were once learned in the home are often not taught there anymore as homelife is changing.
 Ann, please let the people you are interviewing have more of the time and you take less. I noticed that even "Harry Potter" did not get to talk as much as you did. I am still one of your fans anyway.  

As an Family and Consumer Sciences Extension Educator employed by Penn State Univeristy, I have a career in "Homemaking". Much of my day is spent answering questions about home related skills such as nutrition and food preparation, safe handling of food, clothing care, cleaning and health. Our organization also employs  para professionals who teach food shopping, selection and preparation to low income families through the EFNEP and FSNEP programs. We also provide informaiton about family strengths, child care and family finance.

Managing a home requires many skills.  Today's families may not have these needed skills because their parents may not have passed them along to their children. Many schools are dropping FCS (Home Economics) programs (which do include both male and female students), adding to the problem. It is interesting that schools are dropping the subject while the number of television segments and magazines are featuring these topics is increasing.

Even if they do a good job with these features, it does not provide the consistant basic education a course of study would offer. Both men and women contribute to home life and need skills to successfully manage a family.

Perhaps being a “great” parent is no longer a goal to which we as a society ascribe. Perhaps “good” is just good enough. But in my case, I approach parenting and homemaking like I have every other challenge in my life be it professional or academic. I strive for greatness. To condemn any one, man or woman, for taking steps to achieve that, in my opinion, is just as archaic as the idea that women are only meant to fulfill one role in their lives.

I'm greatly offended that someone would equate an educational pursuit to throwing money down a garbage disposal, especially one that serves only to enable an individual to become a better homemaker. Education is a gift, a wonderful opportunity to expand our minds and achieve our goals. As women in the United States we have more rights and opportunities than many of the women in the world, yet we waste time debating the “correctness” of providing a course that teaches fundamental skills.  I personally love learning and fully support the openness of education, and my life is a testimony to that fact. I have an IQ of 178, so I believe women are equally as smart and capable as men. I have two bachelor’s degrees with three interdisciplinary minors including courses in home economics and family studies. Just as I believe that education and freedom of knowledge is essential, I also believe that women should have every opportunity to succeed in whatever profession they choose. I myself have worked as a journalist in both print and online, managed a multi-media production company, and been in positions that required my skills as a technical writer and editor. I’ve been president of numerous professional organizations, worked for an international journalism committee, and been coordinator for a publisher’s advertising and marketing department. Of all these jobs, not one is as difficult as the work I do now in my home with three children, nor do any equal its importance. I gained a great deal from my college education, but the knowledge that I utilize daily is not Physical Cosmology, Shakespearean Literature or News Writing 101, it is the courses in child development, home economics and life management.

You see, I think that it is insulting for anyone to say that a person should just “get” how to be a parent or homemaker. That really makes no sense whatsoever. The very notion that the most important and most demanding pursuit of one’s life is not something that we should prepare for beforehand is simply ridiculous. Seriously, how many professions do we just “get” into with no formal training – and if by chance it occurs, how many times is that successful. In my lifetime I haven’t seen it occur too many times. After all, if we as a society believe that women or men are just supposed to acquire these skills through on-the-job experience, aren’t we somehow saying that this work is less challenging than others? Isn’t there an implication that preparation isn’t necessary – a “just do it” mentality? Aren’t we implying that it’s just that easy and that anyone who encounters difficulties is just substandard in their abilities?

Early on, I remember facing feelings of inadequacy that I had never faced before as a result of that exact mindset – because I didn’t want to admit that I wasn’t “getting” something that was supposed to be in my “nature.” Now I know that is simply not true. Of course you have to work, study and learn to become a homemaker just as you would in any other field. In actuality, the belief that “hands on experience” is sufficient to provide training for a position of this magnitude and scope is illogical. The problem of today’s discussion is not that women are being defined by their role in the home, but that the position of homemaker is not considered an official job that requires skill and preparation in order to succeed. Perhaps it’s because we don’t have Mommy Emmy’s with red carpet galas, gold statues and lights. Perhaps it is because in the past women were so limited to that role that they are quite hesitant to extol it as legitimate, equally-valid career choice. Perhaps it’s just because we scrub toilets. In any case, it is against the tenants of our belief system to restrict another’s choice or to limit the blessings of liberty for others. Anyone interested in this course should have the right and opportunity to attend it, and schools should not be vilified for answering the needs and wants of their students.

Ms. Hamman mentioned learning from other women, a method which has been utilized throughout documented history. However, what many people fail to realize is that there are many women who don’t have a support structure to help them learn how to achieve the skills of being a homemaker and parent. In the past, the structure of our families, and our society made this a very good way to learn how to be a homemaker, but that was a different time. Just as we have seen in statistical studies again, and again, our environment has changed the way we live and how we prepare to live out our lives. There is a clear trend in the way we have fractionalized, as a society through transportation and the natural dilution of cultural influences. It’s not limited to gender, it’s just a matter of fact – statistically we have seen that many men are affected in much the same way by a lack of a support base as he takes on the responsibilities of husband and father, with results that are quite detrimental to children and families. In addition, our society is changing so rapidly that one generation deals with quite different challenges and technologies than the next. The generational passing-on of homemaking knowledge is simply no longer sufficient.

And as to the “sexist” bent of the course being offered, I think that there is educational value in offering this material in this format. If making this course for women only makes the learning environment more user-friendly for the students, then I support that. Personally, I would feel more open to sharing my difficulties and asking revealing questions if men were not present in a class such as this. When I’m with my girl friends I feel more like sharing my concerns openly. I believe that feeling would apply even more in this case because I feel men often have perception that women should “know” these things already. For me, that’s judgmental and a bit distracting to my learning process. Likewise, women who had grown up with more homemaking responsibilities might make male students feel intimidated and impede their progress. Therefore, I believe that offering a similar course of equivalent nature for men would be excellent and most appropriate. Men definitely need to have these skills just as women do. By having two courses, it would be an indication that the university is not endorsing a particular life role for women, but merely providing the educational material in the most effective format and comfortable environment for the students.

As to the interview itself, this live format is so very difficult to evaluate – I mean, the length of time available in and of itself creates a sound-bite quality type interview. It’s difficult to guide an interview that contains two such charged opposing opinions within such a limited time frame. Your interviewee’s have to be succinct in their responses, and it’s the interviewer’s responsibility to be neutral and see that the information gets covered while vital points are addressed by both parties. Sometimes people aren’t prepared. Sometimes people get rushed. Sometimes people have agendas. Regardless, the interrupting is just rude and adults should know better. My 3-year-old who was playing in the living room floor as I watched the interview said so.

I am a freshman in college. I believe that if women chose to be a homemaker we should praise them. Women who stay at home to take care of their children are showing their kids just how important they are to them. I know that some women need or want to go into the work force others do both. Both are great and I am not saying that if a women works that she is not showing her kids that they mean alot to her, but there are so many kids that do not get the attention they need or the love they need at home when their parents work all day. Alot of the way a child acts is based on what is seen and how they are treated. If a young girl does not feel loved by her parents most of the time she turns to some boy to get the love she needs and usually not in good ways. I know it is not always that way but look at the world today so many young teens are getting pregnant and then have to raise that child. This course could help teach moms or future moms how to be better moms when they are home. I think we all should learn more about what the course has in it so we can know if it is only a course to make women into homemakers. Men I am not saying that you cannot learn to help out in the home. Personally, I applaud you for stepping up to help out your women and kids. Thank-you for your time.

Southwestern Theological Seminary is a PRIVATE College.  You CHOOSE to go there.  Your tax money is not paying for it!  If they want to provide a program like this, than great, because they are PRIVATE!  The Amish women practice these lessons daily, but you don't see the Today Show degrading them publicly for their actions.  Nothing destructive to civilization can come from these courses, in fact it's right the opposite.  Hopefully, stronger families are built from these classes.  This was a low blow from the Today Show, because it does not affect them in any way.  Instead of beating up on the positives in this world, why don't you try promoting them, because this world has enough negatives on its own.

Unfortunately, I was only able to watch the introduction to this story before being sidetracked by a 6 year old getting ready for gymnastics camp, a four year old who had just woken up and wanted his breakfast and a 2 year old who wanted to go outside to swing.  But, in those brief few moments I became, one again, frustrated by this belief that women shouldn't be allowed to choose their own path.  

Unbelieveably, this is not coming from men in power who want to keep us out of the workplace, but from women who feel the right to choose is only delegated to those who want to choose what their field is outside the home.  

I graduated from college with a degree in Marketing and Finance. I found a job in my field, was respected for the work I did and was rewarded accordingly.  After 2 years of marriage, my husband and I decided to start a family.  I always thought I would be the working mom - I wanted to rise up the coporate ladder and have my husband raise the kids.  My boss at the time, also a woman, tried to stear me in that direction.  But when the dream of having children became a reality, I chose to follow in my mother's footsteps.  She chose to stay home after college and raise her children.  In the last few years of being at home, I have come to respect and admire her in more ways than ever.

Whose right is it to choose for others?  If women at this University choose to major in Homemaking, let them - it is their choice.  The choice to work outside or inside the home is the choice all women should have the right to make without fear of criticism or censure.

Ann, maybe you should have a look back at the tape and decide whether you were actually moderating this discussion, because it seemed very one-sided to me.

Wanting to be a better parent and Homemaker is not a throwback to the fifties.  I see this a common goal of parents today, whether they work inside or outside of the home.  This degree program should be offered to anyone who is interested, women and men as well.

I value my choice to be a Homemaker, but I face challenges everyday.  Advice from family and friends isn't always helpful or available.  I would love to have the opportunity to take some of the courses available in the Homemaking degree program.  

As I watched the interview this morning, I was disgusted at the rudeness of Rachel Hamman and her determination that only her point of view be represented. Ann did little provide an opportunity for expression by Glenn Williams.  Rachel Hammon exhibited a prime example of intolerance for any posture but her own, including that of other women. She apparently believes that the opinions or desires of other women have no value unless they fit into the “Hammon” perspective or definition of “women’s roles.”  As I understand it, the requests to establish a homemaking degree at the college came from women.  Women have designed the curriculum.  It is their desire that it be for women only.  Apparently these women feel that their “on the job” training has been inadequate and would like to meet with other “homemakers” and increase their understanding and skill as wives and mothers.  Perhaps they view those roles as significant responsibilities.  Certainly these women should be given the opportunity to freely pursue whatever course of learning they desire.  Isn’t that what advocates of women’s rights have desired?  Rachel Hamman has apparently assumed that her direction is ultimately the “only valid one” and these women should have no right to choose for themselves.  Her intolerance of these women’s desires sends the liberation of women back much farther than the 1950’s.

I find it interesting that most of those who were "appalled" by the interview were either stay at home moms and/or had a home economics background.  The rallying cry that "feminist" women who support the right to choose are somehow denying stay at home moms the right to choose is a red herring.  I didn't hear anything that suggested or implied that homemaking was a distasteful choice in and of itself.  The point was that it should be made available to both men and women alike and the fact that it was being made available to women only indicated that it was "women's work". Period.  Maybe the stay at homes ought to figure out why they are so defensive about the subject.

in the early 60's learning how to sew and how to cook were part of the L.A. areas 7th grade classes that were manditory.. now i learned a lot from that but more at home.. today in a country that is so busy that family has fallen by the wayside and that the children are affected more that parents would like to admit.. that having classes in college i think it is a great idea .. you need a licensen to drive a car, you need a licensen to have a dog, but you sure do not need anything to have a child and to be a good parent til after damnage is doneand then in many cases child protective services has had to  interveined.. so i am all for it.. i am a nurse have been for 40 years and i think i believe that classes are vital to learn other methods of raising children instead of what our parents are did or what our friends are doing.. it is a fact that i do sew, i do crochet, and do lots of crafty things, making many things.. but did my daughter learn how to do this nope.. is she a good mom, a good cook, a good partner yes, she is but when she needs mending done she brings it over to me.. or she trys.. until i told her it was time to learn how to do this herself..
i am in favor of teaching these things but it needs to go back into the high school where it will reach everyone and it needs to be offered to men as well as women.. just to learn the basics and to know how to do what many of us older womem and men learned and take for granted....it needs to go back into the jr. high school class room..

I personally do not have anything against a school offering a degree in homemaking, HOWEVER, I do have a problem with it being offered only to women.  It is sexist and implies that men do not need to take a role in managing the home.  I was especially offended by the comment that they hope to reduce the divorce rate with this class.  Do they think that the only reason couples divorce is because the woman is not a great homemaker?  Give me a break.  

I'm a totaly career driven mom who loves the right to climb the corporate ladder and earn more $$ for my kiddos. But I've also known numerous amazing women whose sole desire has been to fill the role of wife and mother. For these women there have traditionally been two choices at a college level:
1) don't go -- afterall, I've heard many feminist also complain that it's a waste of time/money for a degreed woman to stay home.
2) spend time and money and get a degree in something you'll never use. I find this funny in light of Mrs. Hammon's comment about money in the garbage disposal.

Many of my SAHM friends have said they would have loved to take classes in homemaking. Heck, as a working mom I'd love to know how to make more nutritious meals and use that stupid $300 sewing machine in my basement. Most universities offer degrees in nutrition and early childhood development, this is just an extension of this -- geared for women who asked for this education.

For Ann and Mrs. Hammon to blast the guy from Focus on the Family, well, it's laughable and expected. Afterall, we are fine with a woman's right to choose her path, but just not for her to get the support, education and skills needed to stay home.

As for me, Mrs. Hammon, I'd love to learn homemaking from my friends and family, but most of us had working moms who don't know how to do it. The only cooking skill I learned from my mother was how to make a mean hamburger helper!!

A few points:
1. True feminism offers women freedom of choice... including the choice to stay home and be caring wives and moms.

2. Being a mother and wife, and running a home, is not an easy task. It involves child development, psychology, money and time management, nutrition, first-aid know-how, etc. Practical things like meal-planning are great things to offer today's generation given that so many families opt for eating out (unhealthy and expensive) because they have no resources to cook for themselves.

3. Stay-at-home moms are NOT opting for the easy route!(I hope a similar program is offered to male students in the future, since they'd undoubtedly learn a lot from it!)

3. The degree doesn't prevent women from getting a job in the future should they choose to get one. It seems to provide a good survey of general knowledge that can be built upon with a master's degree or provide a good background for a variety of jobs!

4. With so many women coming from broken families, etc. where could they have learned the many skills needed to successfully manage a home in today's high-paced world?

5. Glenn Williams was a true gentleman despite the demeaning knee-touching by Ms. Hamman and the constant interruptions by Ann Curry. Kudos to him for infusing the interview with at least some semblance of class and civility!

 I was glued to my TV during the interview hoping someone would finally give all of our mother's and grandmothers for many generations the credit they deserve - a degree.  I learned more at my mother's and grandmother's knee than I did in college. Those skills transfer to running my own business today. Homemaking is one of the greatest things anyone (even men) can do for their family.  
  I am a single mom with my own business AND I'm a homemaker.  I love it that I can sew, cook, mother a child, and run a great business. (No I don't cook or clean for work either.)  I feel I'm the luckiest person in the world to have so many skills.
  These days parents aren't teaching their children the skills that many of us learned at home. Most of my peers (in mommyhood) can't sew, many can't cook and even more don't want to. They think that others will think less of them if they do these things that aren't valued in our society.  
  Being able to take care of myself and my child in everyway is a wonderfully empowering experience.  I recommend that every woman and man learn to be a homemaker and give those who choose that avenue for their life's work the respect they deserve.

I am disheartened that the story line downgraded my profession.  The producers did everyone in the interview and those viewing a disservice by not addressing the central point -- the relevancy of the coursework.  Though Southwestern Baptist has chosen to use an antiquated term for the courses they are offering as electives.  Such courses are still very much a part of the profession known as Family and Consumer Sciences. The term "homemaking" has never refered to any official coursework to my knowledge; although Southwestern is chosing to use it now. I am a proud member of the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences.  I maintain my Certified in Family and Consumer Sciences credential which requires me to get 75 hours of continued education every three years.  For me, this demonstrates my commitment to personal growth.  Next year our profession will celebrate its Centennial.  Ellen H Richards, credited with founding the profession of Home Economics, was a graduate of Vassar College and went on to be the first woman to ever attend MIT.  I make this point to demonstrate that our coursework is not the "simple life facts not found in a text book" that Mrs. Hamman refered to but the profession now known as Family and Consumer Sciences has a strong Science background. Our membership is comprised of men and women who are dieticians and health/wellness specialists; interior designers; hotel and restaurant management supervisors; small business owners (like myself); educators (on all age levels); financial management consultants; cooperative extension agents; family and child therapists; and more. I am disappointed that neither of the people interviewed on the set were representative of the field of Family and Consumer Sciences.  I would very much like to see a follow up story that makes right the misnomers that were projected loudly this morning.

First of all, I am so irritated with the debates on the Today show about Homemakers verses Working Mothers.  They are never conducted fairly with an impartial mind...and usually slants towards the working mother.  If you are going to have a debate...make it fair.  

Second, I have a degree in human development and family services with a minor in child development.  I worked in pediatrics for 9 years before I decided to have children and use my knowledge at home instead of letting someone else raise my children.  Having said this...I would have loved a course like this to take before I made that decision.  I know milestones and child guidance like the back of my hand, but making nutritional meals, running the finances and household budget, and time management of the kids would have been wonderful to know and not learn "on the job".  One thing that Ms. Hammon kept saying was that there are other avenues to get this information...such as parents, aunts, other mom and such.  I disagree, this generation of homemakers often had mothers that worked so where were they supposed to have learned their skills to pass down to us....there mothers?  Then we get into a huge generation gap of what is appropriate for children and what is not because times have changed and pediatricians have changed their views so much on things.  So no offence to my mother or Grandmothers, but I would rather take a couse on this than learn from them.  

It's a sad state when we have to justify the caring for our families and children to people who claim they support that role like Ms. Hammon does with her books.  

I was disappointed with the way Ann Curry handled the homemaking segment.  The women completely took over the interview, but setting that aside I've been a homemaker for 46 years.  I chose to do that.  I have a college degree in Business Ed. "in case" I needed it, but didn't......My husband also has a college degree.  I feel as if I've been a success in my career.  We have 3, healthy, successful, happy children....l0 healthy, happy, successful grandchildren...That was my goal....to raise my family, with my husband's help.  I'm sorry that when you tell people that you are a "homemaker", they instantly think that you "don't work."  Programs like this, doesn't help that image.  If we want women to "have a choice" in this country, why not give them good homemaking classes to choose.  Practically every woman will have a home of some description, and the majority will have children in their life, so why not give them some avenue to improve these life skills.  As for men, they need to know all they can also....I'm a homemaker, I studied skills to help me in highschool, I went to college, I married and stayed at home and raised my family, and I don't regret a day of it.  

Home Economics courses are available at most State colleges and universities, and some technical schools.  These courses have been around forever and will continute to be around.  At my hometown college you could substitute Home Vegetable Gardening for a math course (depending on your major).  However, these courses are open to everyone.  That's the point.  There was no sexual stereotyping, no discrimination, no barriers to anyone.  My husband took several courses in Home Economics (almost enough for a minor).  He was not discriminated against and he is, by the way, an excellent cook; he can sew anything and fix the car.  Our tomatoes this year are wonderful.  I choose to work outside the home; he chose to work at home.  
If you note my address, you will understand that I am within a stone's throw of Bob Jones University and live in the buckle of the Bible Belt.  I know about Southern Baptists--a lot about Southern Baptists.  It does not surprise me that the course is for women only.  Ministry leadership is for men only.  They make a big deal about women being of "equal value", but declare at their convention that women must be obedient and subservient...yes, subservient, to men.  Their place is in the home with the family.  Theirs is not a discrimination against women in the home; they advocate it.  Theirs is discrimination against any semblance of role reversals.  That I work and my husband stays home would horrify quite a few Southern Baptists.
The point of the program and the interview wasn't really about feminisim, traditional roles or half the comments people have made in this blog.  It was about discrimination and the basis of that discrimination.  It discriminates against people like my husband who might choose to stay home, and the basis of that discrimination is simple:  it's MY place to be at home--I'm the woman!  It's HIS place to work outside the home--He's the man!  This type of discrimination and sterotyping has got to go.  The interviewers were on target grilling the bigot.  Anyone with an open mind understands the implication of this women ONLY course.

Many are comparing this to a home economics type of study.  The Home Economics School at Iowa State was mentioned.  My mom also attended the Home Economics School where she received a degree in graphic design.  There were also majors in textiles, nutrition, etc. - and there were plenty of men in these majors as well.  As majors, these are all very specialized and have real viable job opportunities.  I'm not sure if a general degree in "homemaking" is quite the same thing.  If it was home economics, they'd call it home economics.  They call it homemaking.  It seems more focused on being "a good wife and mother.”  And while this is in no way a bad thing, I doubt it could translate into a job that could financially support a family, if need be, as well as some other majors…

Generally, I have two major problems with this particular idea of a homemaking major at this school:

A) Why is this course only for women?  Why are men not allowed to enroll?  I heard the question asked, but was never given a straight answer.
What restricting this course to women does is send a clear message about “appropriate” gender roles – women’s place is in the home, men’s is as the breadwinner.  Forget women in the workforce - what about all the stay at home dads?  Women are supposed to aspire to be homemakers, but not men?  Women are not the only ones that deserve to have a choice!

B) The spokeswoman for the university claimed this was supposed to strengthen family and marriage, prevent divorce, etc.  While I could see how this coursework could make you a "proficient" homemaker and mother, I highly doubt it is the key to lowering divorce rates.  I'm sure in most cases far greater problems than a wife's ability as a homemaker caused the marriage to end.  And if a man ever did divorce his wife for burning the meatloaf too many times, she's probably better off without him.  

My mother the graphic design major has spent 25 years as a stay-at-home mom/homemaker and she is awesome at it.  But before that, she spent many years single with a career.  It took her awhile to find the right guy (my dad) - so even if a woman plans to be a homemaker, it may take some time until she finds the right guy to have a marriage and family with – so she better have a back up plan!  And being ready, mature, and with the right person - that's got to lower the divorce rate!

What I think would be more beneficial for everyone is, at all schools, offer or even require a basic class for freshmen men and women on home economics - basic cooking skills, cleaning, laundry, budgeting, etc.  Most students could benefit from this.

I am a women that is proud to be a homemaker and I have a husband that is also in praise of my efforts.  He comes home from a hard day's work to a loving wife and quiet, peaceful atmosphere where I have dinner waiting for him.  Then I see other families in America....both spouses come home and there is chaos..who is going to cook?  Meanwhile who is really raising the kids while both parents are away at work?  

I think having a course on Keeping the Home is a great idea because let's face it...some modern day women were off making the almighty dollar rather than teaching their girls how to be women and feminine.  So these girls that soon grow up and in their mind they want to be like the women of "ole"....doing their rightly roles and having a homemaking course is a great way for them to learn.

More homes would be happy and divorce would be lower if men performed their roles and women likewise.  I'm thankful I have a real man who won't subject me to work on a job outside of my home, because I'm delicate and as he calls me....his "queen".  I look up to him and he admires me.  

So to sum it all up.....we need more Homemaking courses or better yet how about some more homemakers?

P.S.  Was decades ago so bad?  Funny how there were LESS divorces and more happy homes.  Look at society today......is this were changing roles of the man and woman got America?  

*From a happy submissive homemaker, mother and wife to a wonderful man

As for Ann and Rachel ganging up on Mr. Williams,  give me a break!   Mr. williams is a grown man, and he can speak up for himself.  In one post I read, one lady even accused Rachel of not being able to keep her hand off his knee for God's sake!  (How Ridiculous!

I was amazed on the feminist view of motherhood. I have heard that they just don't get it and I now know it is true. I am a stay at home mom of 2. I have always wanted to have a family. I never wanted to have children for other people to raise. I believe we can have it all but not all at the same time. I plan on going back to school. Where I was an elementary education major I have decided business. I would love to have have home economics available to me. I feel that the things I would learn there would help me run my home more efficiently. Raise intelligent and respectful children and do my part is preserving the endangered species of the family. Rock on baptists!! I am not one but good for them. By the way I would like to add that BYU has a home economics. major and it is open to all students.

The Today Show is a must watch for me every morning since beginning my life as a stay-at-home mom last February.  I have always been a fan but now that I am home I am loving it.  I would swear my daughter knows Matt and Merediths voices :)  But today I was disappointed with what I saw in the interview regarding the course in homemaking.  I can't figure out why in a world that "preaches" tolerance for everyone we are so intolerant when something is contrary to our liberal views.  We want conservative people to tolerate liberal thinking...shouldn't go both ways.  If a small college wants to offer a course in homemaking and women want to take it, who cares???  There are plenty of other things going on in colleges today that are much more worthy of news and discussion than a simple course on homemaking.  How about under-age drinking and cheating just to name two.  
Normally I am a big fan of Ann but not today I wasn't.  Sorry!

I was a homemaker for 25 years.  During my daughter's school years, I did the volunteer work that many working women weren't able to do.  When I wanted to re-enter the workforce, I found opposition at many levels, including from the very women I had helped to make the choice to work.  I made sacrifices at all levels, including income.  "Just a housewife, was a normal expression".  

If it takes a course in homemaking, to make women think differently about the roles that we can all play in society, and the acceptance of such, then great.

But if I had known then, what I know now, I would not have given up my day job.  The loss of dignity isn't worth it.

Instead of feeling sorry for the working women with income, I wonder if this course suggests it is time to really think about the silent numbers of women who have filled in the gaps in volunteer service, taken the insults from others, who are really hurting.  They are called homemakers, or housewives.  

And they aren't rich.

From Canada

I was enraged by the interview conducted by Ann Curry about the homemaker major option at SWBTS. I am dumbfounded by the negative and condescending comments made by the woman opposed to this option -- an option, according to the segment, presented to women, by women, for women, at a private college.

I cannot tell you how many times in my last seven years of marriage, and my last 3 years of being a mom, I have said out loud, "I wish I had taken some cooking/design/child education classes in college." My public relations degree served me well the first four years after graduating from the University of Florida, but classes such as the ones now offered at SWBTS would be serving me well on a daily basis and for the rest of my life.

Furthermore, the notion that a homemaker needs no training than that which she can glean from friends and family is ludicrous! What a stupid message to be sending young women in our society! I can tell when I come in contact with mothers who subscribe to this belief. These mothers would, no doubt, benefit from some classes offered through this "controversial" major.

I would gladly continue my rant concerning this interview. There are many more points I would love to make, but I have two darling girls downstairs who need my attention and breakfast. So I'll take my knowledge of typesetting and layout design, and see if it translates into making whole wheat waffles...

Having not seen the show and just read the synopsis (not the comments), I have a problem with the program being open only to women.  With single parent households so prevalent nowadays, I feel it should be open to both women AND men.  Men need the ability to learn to care for families as well as women.  Many times women are the major breadwinners or men have the children in a household after divorce.  Men need to learn the skills as well as women.  It shouldn't be slanted towards women only.  Join the new century.  But, on the other hand, this is a Baptist theological seminary...what more can we expect?!

As a 30-year Hone Economics teacher, I couldn't help but comment.  Here in California the Home Economics programs have been cut so drastically over the years, in both high school and colleges, that when I retired 5 years ago I wasn't replaced, and when a colleague retired a few years earlier, the school district couldn't even find a teacher with a Home Economics degree to replace her.  The message over the past twenty plus years has been that Home Economics education wasn't very important. After all, students didn't need to learn how to cook, they could always get their food from McDonalds. They didn't need to sew because they could buy clothes ready-made. They certainly didn't need to learn how to balance the checkbook because the bank would let them know when they were overdrawn. Now when people wish they had this education and want to know why the schools don't teach it, maybe the answer is that they (students, parents, and school officials)just didn't think it was important enough. When they do decide they should have these classes, where will they find the teachers credentialed to teach these subjects?

Now we hear that a college wants to institute a "brand new" program. I wish them well, and hope they will reconsider their "females only" stance. My many male high school students could attest to the benefits of such classes for them.  

Let me set a few things straight from yesterday's interview. First, I am a homemaker, so, I fully encourage and support women to become stay-at-home moms. My first concern with the course was that it is offered to "women only" and that the college did not beleive that it would be beneficial for men. If marriage and parenting is supposed to be a collaborative effort, then shouldn't both parents be encouraged to take an active role in making the home a better place for their children? I disagreed with the college trying to carve out gender roles. It is extremely limiting to both men and women. What about the man who wants to become a stay at home dad?
My second concern was about the content (or lack of content) in the Homemaking Cirriculum. Of course women should be able to learn about cooking or sewing if they so desire. What I was trying to say was that if they are offering the course with the intention of it lowering divorse rates (like the President of the college said at the begining of the segment)then I think that they might want to consider elements of the course containing other aspects of homemaking, in ADDITION to the cooking and sewing, such as Communication skills; Budgeting; and Time Management. These things are often mentioned for putting stress on a marriage and at the heart of why so many people get divorced.
So, for the record, I am a proud stay-at-home mom who does embrace being home with my kids. (And no, I do not have a nanny.) I am not a raging femenist, only a concerned Mom who wouldn't want my own daughter thinking that the responsibility for keeping a harmoneous home falls solely on the woman and that being a good homemaker means more than being able to bake cookies from scratch and sew your childrens' Halloween costumes. Being a good homemaker involves time, dediaction and persistance from both people at the helm of the family.

I think that the course being offered is a wonderful idea.  I am a working mother with four daughters and managing a household is an awesome responsibility. It is also difficult. I think it is the most important thing I do, my work is nowhere as fulfilling as providing a home for my children.  I think moms who work within the home are a benefit to their family and society.  It should be a choice not dictated by economics as it is in so many homes.  I admire the families who have planned for and made the sacrifice to be at home.  I wished when I was younger I had made better financial choices.  Ironically, the Today show offers financial advise all the time, cooking tips, purchase ideas...what is so different in having a college course that embraces the ideals of managing a home?  Is it because it is centered on Chrisitan values?  Does our society not realize that our Country was founded on biblical principles and although a few try to wipe biblical truths from the face of our society it can't.  Do we not want to live in a country where we have choices?  So why try and limit somes choices in learing how to take care of a family?  Sometimes when my girlfriends and I are sitting around chatting we debate what happened to our society before we entered adulthood and the impact that it has had on us.  As a society we need to realize that we have an obligation and that individually what we choose to do does impact others and sometimes not in a positive manner.  We shouldn't limit the majority for a fews opinion.  Why is there such a debate?  If the course isn't successful the college won't continue to offer it, if students choose to take the course then there must be an interest and a need.  My mom had the opportunity to be a stay at home mom for twenty seven years, raising three children, but when divorce came she decided to go to school and then to work.  Not because she had to but because she wanted to, and I realize that is not everyone's choice.  I choose to work but I really have a passion to manage my home.  Fortunately my husband and I are a great team and he feels it is his responsibility along with me to do so.  I hope my girls have the opportunity to learn how to manage their home by my example and maybe a course at college.  Isn't it obvious that there is trouble within the society with latch key kids, daycare raised children, the increasing divorce rate, and the decline of the family?  I think it is time that we have a more balance and maybe this program is a step in the right direction. I believe the speaker representing the program should have been allowed to discuss the course without interruption but I find everyday watching television that there tends to be a bias and that if you don't have a liberal viewpoint then your viewpoint doesn't matter.  Choice is the issue not the course.  Education is important and I think the course has a true value.

I think the course is a great idea.  I think the college will find if there is an interest and they will make decisions about the course offerings by the success of their program.  What I find alarming is that the representative could not get the message out for the constant interruptions.  It seems to have been a bias interview.  That's sad because the art of journalism isn't to have the journalist opinion but a clear view of the story.  Maybe what should be reviewed is the courses taught to journalist.  They have an awesome responsibility to show the story and I find that I have to sift through alot of opinions to get the meat and most times it is lost.  I'm not offended by the course, I'm a mom raising four daughters and I have a career.  By far my family and how I interact with them is more important than my career.  It is tough balancing all the responsibilities but it sounds as the course has a lot to offer women.  Why would you not want to learn the art of taking care of your family?  If you look at cable there are tons of cooking shows, finance management shows, etc.  Do you not think America could learn that the basis for a great society is a firmly founded home?  I think the Today show has interesting topics and I would appreciate that they support the family and allow equal time to topics that have substinance.  Thank you.

After thinking a lot about this interview, the one thing that stood out to me was that Ms Hamman was so defensive about having that this course of study even exist. We aren't requiring her to take it!
I applaud Southwestern for offering it to the women who might be interested in this course of studies. In our society where our families are now far apart many of the homemaking skills, like what I learned from my GreatGrandmother, are not being handed down as they were.  

I find it odd that so many woman are offended that Mr Williams did little to uphold his side of the debate.  

His first statement about not opening the course to men was sexist, I would love to hear one valid argument as to why men should not be included.  But I guess Ann and Ms. Hamman should have "submitted" to his opinion and let him finish why it should be for men only.

His second comment he admitted to not knowing much about the curriculum (nice job researching Mr Williams before going on a national tv show).  

His third comment was a rambling PSA for Focus on the Family which told me the real reason he agreed to participate in this debate. Great organization but it had little to do with the topic at hand.

This president of this college has had no problems sharing his views about what woman's roles should be and I am sure the course will reflect them. This is not your standard Home Economics couse or degree, it is an effort by the Baptist convention to turn back the clock instead of trying to come up with solutions that work in today's world.

In addition to the earlier statement I made about Ann's  interview with Mr. Williams and Rachel, I would also like to add,  "When Ann asked Glen Williams -- Do they teach Submissiveness Glen??"  He stuttered and said --QUOTE -- "I'm not familiar with the curriculum." --IF he is not familiar with the curriculum,  HE SHOULD NOT BE ON THE TODAY SHOW TALKING ABOUT IT!!! --DUH !!!! -- I watched that interview,  and I think Ann did a good job.  Her questions were fair to both sides---And if Glen Williams,  sounded & looked like a stuttering idot,  that's his own fault,  Not Ann's 0r Rachel's!!!

Thank you, NBC, for having the interest, and apparently courage, to deal with a topic of great importance in the modern culture. Changes in society merit as careful a look as choices deserve consideration. Perhaps a future program can provide a more balanced discussion forum with firm and courteous direction from a chairperson who can guide the debate with the efficiency neutrality allows and time for expressing the different positions to be articulated.

Southwestern's homemaking concentration is 23 hours within over 120 hours of a very challenging humanities program requiring both Latin and Greek studies. The concentration is one of four offered and designed to serve as an introduction to careers ranging from homemaking or managing a household to other aspirations that spring from the skills introduced in this limited sampler.

Southwestern offers at least six programs specifically for women from the certificate up to the doctorate level as well as welcoming women to a host of other degree programs. Some of your listeners may be interested to know that men (and women) are  required to take the course The Christian Home within the Master of Divinity program. I am teaching The Biblical Model for Home and Family, the first course for our homemaking concentration, and began yesterday with the maximum number of students projected for the class, all of whom have not selected the homemaking concentration but all having an interest in the subject.

Dorothy Kelley Patterson
Professor of Women's Studies in the School of Theology
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

I am a Family and Consumer Scientist (which used to be called a Home Economist).  I think the only thing wrong with having this college course is that it is not open to men.  EVERYONE is a homemaker, whether you are male or female, whether you live with your family or live alone, whether you are a professional or blue collar worker, whether you are old or young.  Everyone needs skills to provide shelter, food and clothing, to be able to manage his or her money, to balance work and family, to get along with others at home, work, school and in the community, and to know how to care for loved ones.  I think every student should be mandated to take Family and Consumer Sciences in high school.  If each person was taught these skills that are needed every day of one's life (which, by the way, algebra and chemistry are not), many of our societal problems (child and elderly abuse, divorce, personal bankruptcy, malnutrition and obesity, lack of work ethic, stealing, etc.) could be alleviated.

A nice start. Perhaps someone could also look into how shop has changed into Technology Education. How the Americal Industrial Arts Association has changed into the International Technology Education Association (ITEA) and how some states and districts has allowed the change to help our kids where others have put many blocks in allowing the change. This applied Math and Science education that amounts to Engineering and career/vocational education would help our kids keep competitive in the world, move our schools to the 21 centery and help keep kids interested in schools. The news people would have quite a story with much depth and much willingness to help explain the changes that have taken place should you chose to look futher. a good starting place would be with the ITEA.  

Its too bad there isn't much value placed on women who want to stay home and raise their children. I gave up my career this year to stay home with my son and I would not have it any other way. I have the masters degree and the job experience to go back later should I choose. But I did not wait all these years for a child to have someone else raise it. What about kudos for those who make this choice willingly?

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):