If you can contribute anything to this lady's questions on one of my theme articles,
your gracious comments to her would truly be appreciated. I think I've explained these answers many times in long, long, well-thought out posts, and I'm wanting to write about other things right now. Some young women are "concerned about many things" like Martha, but will one day wisely choose "the better part," or the part that will make the greatest impact on your life in the future.
My purpose in writing the article she posted on (Get In On Life, Before It Passes You By) was to help girls see that the "better part" was their child bearing years when they should be married and tending to the home. While they are worrying about the many things the world is telling them to be concentrating on, they are missing out on the better part, which is the part most urgent in there lives.
You can always go to school. Schools are a dime a dozen. Husbands and children and houses are not. It is getting harder to find a mate. It is harder for women in general to have children. You can always get a career. That will always be waiting in the wings for you. But, to be married, to be a loving wife, or a mother and homemaker in your own dear little house, is something you cannot put off and expect to be there later on. Wife-hood, motherhood, homemaking, homeschooling--these are things that must be done when it is time to do them.
I am sure there are many preachers whose sermons have covered the story of Mary and Martha, and that there are many wordy, theological explanations for it in various places on the web, so I am just going to give my personal application.
I don't believe that Jesus was telling Martha to abandon house work and go to a meeting or become a missionary. Several times when He walked the earth he reminded people that "the bridegroom you will not always have with you." (Matthew 9:15). There would be time to do other things after he had gone. He was only there a short time. People needed to sense the urgency of being with him while they could, while he was there. Marriage, home and family is urgent to the young. They need to capitalize on their feelings for it while they are young. They need to chose the better part. It is that era that they will do it the best.
Without re-writing the entire article, I will try to explain: All that time the world has you in their schools, convinced you do nothing else, you will be wasting your child-bearing years, the time when it is the least difficult to bear children. You will be forfeiting the time most likely to find a mate. You might even pass up some very good chances, in order to "finish school."
The poster did not really address these issues, which were the main theme of my article. A very helpful article, written for the Atlantic Monthly in the early 1900's, can be studied here http://menstribune.com/abbott.htm and should be another theme article. It explains more fully the urgent reason that women need to be home while young, attending to things that can only occur during that time in their lives. For sure, a woman can fall in love at any age, and maybe even have children, but the best time is when she is young, and those years are too often spent in institutions (school, career) instead.
Most young people want the best in life. They want to wear the best shoes, the best clothes, go to the best restaurants. If they hear of a town or state that is considered the healthiest place to live right now, they all flock up there to settle, even if it means leaving their parents. In like manner, they need to understand that the best time to marry, build a home, and raise children, is when they are young. Jesus wants us to choose the better part, that part when will be the most comforting to us later on and which will impact our lives with greater force later on. Jobs will decline, companies will go bankrupt. Careers will fade.
Phyllis Schlaffly wrote in one of her columns that most jobs young girls study for in college, will not even be available when they get out. Industry is always changing. Demands for careers change constantly. I remember learning to type and was told the need for typists would be great. However, in just a short time, there was no such demands. Things had changed. There will always be a need for a wife and a mother and homemaker. This one thing has never changed throughout the ages from the beginning of time until now.
Many people can teach your children, but it is the mothers that do it best. Anyone can be hired to wash and iron and clean, but it is the wife who knows what technique is needed and who does it for different reasons other than just getting it done. Anyone can clean house, but the homemaker does it because it is her little cottage and she loves being there so she wants to do all the arranging herself. Throughout time, the office of homemaking has never changed. Various rebels have tried to put an end to the family structure and their inter-dependence, but their ways have always ended in disaster.
Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.
And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word.
But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.
And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:
But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her. Luke 10:38-42
88 comments:
Well said, Lady Lydia, well said. A well-meaning relative recently told my daughters to wait as long as possible to get married and have children, to get their lives settled first. I politely told this relative that we are NOT teaching our girls to live life in that order and that we feel it not only goes against the way God designed us, but it's really even backwards from a natural perspective if you take the time to thnk about it. Sadly, many don't.
1. Because men cannot bear children, and often do not have a "biological clock" ticking away, telling them it is becoming more urgent to settle down, like women have. I stayed home while my dh was in undergraduate and law school, and he has said many times that not only was it a major blessing to know that he had a hot meal, a made bed, and a loving companion to come home to after a long night of studying, but he knows 100% for sure that I have a much harder job than he does, and that I work much longer hours, with little to no recognition on most days. Being a stay-at-home wife and mother (especially a homeschooling mother) is much more demanding both physically, spiritually, emotionally, and mentally than any outside job I have ever held.
2. I was never a domestic person, but I have become one since I began staying at home. Being in one's home all day makes you think about the things you could do to improve on the look and feel of a place, and before you know it, there is a sense of satisfaction in cleaning the house, planting tomatoes, fruit trees, and flowers, and making your own curtains, or rearranging the furniture just so. I also do most of the minor repairs, and some major repairs to the appliances around our home, so I'm not some June Cleaver prancing around in heels and pearls waiting for Mr. Cleaver to come home. My husband often finds me up to my elbows in dirt in the garden when he comes home, and he loves nothing better than to see me in the yard with the children. Just because you are a housewife or a homemaker doesn't mean you have to sit inside and knit all day. I happen to love sewing, knitting, embroidery, gardening, flower arranging, yard work (leaf raking, etc.), and home improvement projects. I am able to be me more at home that I could possibly be anywhere else.
Lady Lydia:
Clearly, the anonymous blog commenter is bitter and that is very sad. To answer her points, I would say:
1. I have a university degree. I use it every day. I am a better mother and wife simply by being an intelligent, educated lady who is able to think outside the box. I got married during college and had my children afterward. I have been a work at home mom, a work out of the home mom, and a stay at home mom. By far, the stay at home mom part of my life has been the most productive and peaceful. It has also helped my marriage as neither hubby nor I (or kiddos) was as stressed. I am not oppressed. My hubby and I make decisions together and we have chosen different paths as necessary for different needs in our lives. Our Christian beliefs come first, then marraige, children, then the outside world, in that order. If you don't agree, tough. We're grown ups and get to make those decisions for ourselves.
2.Goodness gracious, if you have no talent for homemaking (much like myself when newly married), then set out to LEARN! Why are domestic duties noble when someone else does them for pay, but cheapened when you have to take care of your spoiled self? If you value an education highly (university or otherwise) then you are certainly capable of making beds, sweeping floors, etc.
3.As to your quotation, I can't imagine what you are referring to, as I am far from powerless. I have the power in my hands to raise children to be respectable, responsible citizens and contribute to a more sane future for our great nation. I can affect global climate change with my personal choices (less fossils fuels wasted when my empowered fanny stays at HOME). I further my education. I feed my family nutritious foods and not the garbage sold to stressed our folks through drive through windows. The only way that I would be powerless is to allow the whims of a corrupt society to micro-manage me to the point that I don't believe in myself anymore and where my choices are limited by someone else's shallow goals. I am empowered simply because I value my role. I know I am intelligent. I try new things as I decide. I am happy.
Lady Lydia did not judge you when she stated her views. Yet, your response is quite judgmental. The answers to your questions are found on this website without the addition of my comment, but you chose to be defensive instead of open-minded. You are free to make whatever choices you decide. But, you belittle my choices with your negative attitudes. At least you can never comment again that you didn't receive answers to your questions. That you didn't understand or agree with the answers you asked for did not make them less valid.
I only ever wanted to be married and raise a family. I resisted pressure from others to go on to university, instead training at a college of childcare, learning fine needlework, cookery, music, art and flower-arranging as well as all aspects of childcare and health. This was an excellent course and has served me well all my adult years. I worked as a private nanny from the age of 20 to 26 and as a maternity nurse and kindergarden teacher until I was married at 36. I am now a stay at home mother, I love my children dearly; but oh to have the patience, energy and enthusiasm I had with other people's babies and children twenty five years ago! (Nevertheless, I am totally certain that my husband is the one chosen for me, and I met him through my work.)
For all things there is a time...
Gill.
The bitterness of these questions is so obvious and so sad. I cannot answer all of them, but I can contribute this:
I have a Masters in Computer Science. I have been a SAHM since my eldest was born 11 years ago. We have 5 children and I could not be happier. I fervently hope the Lord will grant us more, but as I am now 40, I'm afraid it will be difficult.
As to "powerlessness", well, that is just funny. The whole of our family life revolves around me. I have the power to make 6 people very happy or very miserable. Frankly, sometimes I feel it is too MUCH power because of all the responsibility that accompanies it.
I would never tell any woman how to live her life, but I would hope her choices would at least be educated, not just knee-jerk reactions!
In His peace,
Melody
Mrs. Melody, --very good points, extremly.
Think of the power a job or a university has over the people within their control: they can also make an atmosphere or create circumstances that make people happy or miserable.
Why is that okay, but home is supposed to be less important? Indeed, the homemaker has as much power as the workplace or the education establishment. And, that is what all the fuss is about, isn't it? There are those who don't want the home to have the power. This power goes out into the worl. This influence of the home is felt everywhere.
Lady Lydia, I hope it's ok, but I turned my comment into a post on my site, because I just couldn't fit it all into words here. I linked back to here, giving you full credit for the original post.
Lady Lydia, I hope it's ok, but I turned my comment into a post on my site, because I just couldn't fit it all into words here. I linked back to here, giving you full credit for the original post.
Lady Lydia, I hope it's ok, but I turned my comment into a post on my site, because I just couldn't fit it all into words here. I linked back to here, giving you full credit for the original post.
About Erica Jong:
read about the reaction to one of her speeches here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1416438/posts
and be sure to scroll down to see some of her quotes underlined, in bold pink. No wonder she was jeered. You follow people like this? Her words are not inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is.
In answer to your questions:
Men are supposed to be the bread winners. Women are supposed to be the guards and guides of the home. They are to marry, bear children, and keep house, in that order. Younger women and younger widows are supposed to marry and mind their own business. They are to be in submission to only one man: their husband.
About Erica Jong:
read about the reaction to one of her speeches here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1416438/posts
and be sure to scroll down to see some of her quotes underlined, in bold pink. No wonder she was jeered. You follow people like this? Her words are not inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is.
In answer to your questions:
Men are supposed to be the bread winners. Women are supposed to be the guards and guides of the home. They are to marry, bear children, and keep house, in that order. Younger women and younger widows are supposed to marry and mind their own business. They are to be in submission to only one man: their husband.
blogger is giving everyone fits today
Hello.
In response to your questions:
1: a woman in the workforce isn't committing "a great sin" in the way that murder or adultery is a sin. Rather, it's just another false promise of happiness. Men are stronger and tougher than women, and so are more apt at earning a living than women. It's their place, pure and simple. I'm heading to college in the fall because that is what my father wants me to do. My grandmother gets giggly every time I tell her that I am going for that reason as well as to work on attaining that dreadfully out-dated M.R.S. degree, and I say so with pride.
2. What do people go to college for? to learn how to do a job. Homemaking is a job, like any other, and so can be taught, though not through classrooms, but by mentoring and lots of practice. I grew up without my mother around, and had to learn a lot of homemaking tasks by trial and error (through which I discovered such inedible delicacies as brownie soup) I'll be turning 18 next week, and until a few short years ago, I had dreams of being a powerful career woman. I was under the impression that I was repressed, just like feminism taught. That was until I realized that I still had the choice to be a full-time wife, and I have never felt more free since!
My dear, there has never been a more privileged class in history than the American woman.
God Bless,
Machelle
Being a full time mother and homemaker, or even just a wife with no children, is spiritual, because, love is spiritual. When you really love someone you want to make life better for them. In marriage, each one treats the other as though they were more important than themselves. This is a very spiritual thing. Jesus taught that the spiritual part was the better part. Homemaking is very much the spiritual part. It isn't done for personal gain or glory. It isn't done for pay or for monetary gain (although it does end up having more gain than working), and it isn't done out of social pressure. In fact, you will go against the grain of society today if you stay home. But it is done for love and for a strong feeling of duty before desire.This is a better part.
Miss Anon:
How are women "powerless" if they stay home and guide and guard it?
REad the link I put on a previous comment, about Erica Jong and tell me how great she is and what she does for womankind. Better yet, look and see what kind of success she has had in the home as wife, mother and homemaker.
What are women missing out on that is so important, by staying home?
I think a lot of women could answer that, and you will be very surprised by their answers.
It seems so simple to me...look at the average American family...divorce, children talking back, doing drugs,premarital___,the list goes on.....simple if you are going to have children, RAISE them, teach them...they are yours, it doesn't take a village, it takes a family.
Makes sense to me.
Deby
thank you for giving us inspiration and encouragement, lady lydia. this is one of my must-dos in the morning before i start my day! keep blogging!
I know why Anonymous is upset. A few years ago it could have been me leaving a comment like that.
You see, I asserted my feminist "rights" and joined the workforce in the name of free will and independence. I asserted my freedom in Christ and dared anyone to judge me for my actions! I even made up a song during the long drive to my office:
"Jesus loves me this I know, now it's off to work I go. Feminism can't be wrong, Oprah says I'm nice and strong. Yes...my husband loves me...yes, my children love me. Yes...my bosses love me, my paycheck tells me so."
I told myself that my children needed to be more independent when the ache in my heart surfaced over the fact that I hadn't made a warm breakfast for them in months.
I, too, insisted that my husband help with the housework and kept a mental ledger to be sure that everything was "fair". After all, I was equal with him now...in every way including providing for the family.
I was Woman of the Year in my estimation and I certainly loved the luxuries my paychecks afforded.
I loved them so much, in fact, that those things quickly became entitlement issues. I DESERVED to have manicures and pedicures. I DESERVED $5 cups of coffee. I DESERVED to sleep in on the weekend and everyone would just have to deal with it.
My children became burdens in my mind, preventing me from achieving success at work. (It is only now that I can admit to even having that thought. I spent so much time assuaging my guilt for abandoning them by convincing everyone around me that I was the greatest mom EVER! My husband and children were the only people who knew that to be untrue.)
My husband didn't look at me the same way my male co-worker did and certainly didn't appreciate me for who I WAS. I began to resent his lack of enthusiam since I started to "be all that I could be"! I resented that he wanted me home on Friday nights when all the girls from the office were going out after work. How dare he treat me like a slave, insisting on me giving up an opportunity for fun after all I had done for him!
I had gone from being a stay-at-home devoted Christian who lived to serve the Lord and my family to a whining, self absorbed, conceited, deceived Oprah cult member.
But then God began a work in my heart when my child brought home a picture from public school which he had drawn. It was a drawing of our family but I was not in it. I asked him why I was missing and he said "I forgot you."
It was then that God showed me how I had traded everything I truly loved for a false sense of happiness and acheivement. I believed society over God's word and, in the process, because one of the ugliest people I had ever met.
Anonymous, I am guessing you are thinking that I was way more selfish than you could ever be and that you would never do or think the things I did. Let me warn you, it is a slippery slope into the pit of despair and oh so hard to rebuild relationships. There is a reason that God's word says "Every wise woman buildeth her house: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands" (Proverbs 14:1)
Your comment was all about YOU and YOUR rights. You came voluntarily to this website and even discussed it with your friends and mother. If you aren't feeling God tug on your heart with conviction, why would you waste your limited time reading it?
I'm so glad that you are feeling the pain of having to defend the reasons you can't be a stay at home wife and mother (to complete strangers, no less!) Just be aware...God equips you for the calling He places on your life.
I have a hunch that soon your husband is going to be enjoying homecooked meals from a woman who enjoys preparing them.
Dear Lady Lydia,
Sadly, my mother has been reading a lot of Christian-mysticism spiritual-type books for many years. They hyper-spiritualize everything, and this story of Mary and Martha is one of the classic ones that she meditates on a lot. She takes it to mean that everyone should literally leave everything behind to sit at Jesus feet all the time, and that the weary problem of this world is that housework and "the cares of this world" are always there waiting to distract you from you true purpose of going deeper with Jesus and recieving daily personal words from him. She kind of thinks that if she waits on Him long enough, he will take care of all the household duties for her! And creative things like painting, sewing, enjoying social outings etc., are time-robbers that leave us negligent of our spiritual duties. We should just do the bare-minimum we can get away with so that we can spend more time in seeking deeper revelations of God, prophecies, etc. The state of decline of her life over the past twenty years has been a heavy source of discouragement and loss for me. It hasn't been simple aging, either, she is only middle 60s. Her whole existence which was once so bright, seems like all depression, inward-looking, backward-glancing, spiritual examining. It makes for a dark, frustrated, spiritually controlling person.
She spends a fortune on new copies of these books and CDs on the latest prophecies to give away to people, and it is leaving her in poverty. She believes people need to hear these or they will miss out on what the spirit is saying to the church today. She is decending down into penury, and no doubt, if she just meditates longer, the Lord will take away the debt too!
She also looks awful, like a bag-lady, only wearing huge sweats and always looking unkempt. This is not just getting older and slipping a little, this is a result of her really believing that she's not allowed to spend effort on herself. Even if she doesn't have a lot to spend on clothes, she is an excellent seamstress, and has lots of fabric, but she has just quit doing anything "earthly" or worrying about that kind of stuff that includes etiquette, correspondence, or any other kind of earthly social convention). I am in such grief that the Mother I need so badly right now has distanced herself from everyone who she feels is not as spiritual as she is.
She wants me to study these books with her, and when I tell her respectfully and kindly that they are wrong, she considers me a spiritually blind Martha, who is empty, and only cares for the physical needs of this earth. She wants me to spend huge amounts of time each day seeking the Lord, while I am homeschooling 5 children, 8 yrs. and under and breastfeeding one! And won't help me with a visit because it would be taking her away from Jesus!To me, this is a different Jesus, who demands her attention and doesn't let her have family or friends.
She has retreated into her own personal spirituality so far, that she has functionally removed herself from my life, so that the same effect is achieved for me as if she had already died.
I have no Mom, though she's living up the road from me just a few hour's drive. She was a beautiful, educated, capable, artistic, homey, accomplished, mothering-type mom, who through following these books for so long, has had ALL the joy taken out of her life. Then, in the place of home-making joys, she tries to conjure up joy through meditative and spiritual-warfare techniques. An attempt to escape reality (her home and life are very gloomy now)and retreat into this mystical meditative "place", instead of believing God and His concrete Word will help you to face reality, as an overcomer.
The thing is, my mom LOVES the Lord, and she wants so much to please him, but she has slowly, over a long period of time(years upon years), let false doctrine creep in for so long that she doesn't realize how upside-down things have gotten for her. In fact, I think there is another spirit that affirms her in the way she is going, giving her coincidences, and false "words" to affirm that what she's studying is right. It puts fear of God in me that God lets this happen to people who don't keep the word pure, but allow it to be polluted with loose translations and personal interpretations, even those who "love, love, love" him.
And people like this always sound so good, because they seem more spiritual than we are (because, of course, God didn't give US all these personal revelations, and WE didn't spend 3 hours in prayer yesterday), and we might be tempted to imitate them or follow them, but I would just like to testify as to where this kind of stuff ends up in the end. It destroys what is normal and sweet and good. The Christian mystic books she reads, I see in Christian bookstores EVERYWHERE, and I wonder how many people are reading them.
Now, I cannot believe I went on like this, I didn't mean to when I started, it just kept coming. I guess the Mary, Martha story just hits a nerve with me, and you are right, it was a literal story about the Messiah being there right then!
Your website means everything to me, I have followed it silently for a long time now. It is my main encouragement and I think so much about the things you say here. The women I have had in my life that were doing things right and succeeding, believe just like you do, so I have seen it first-hand, and you and their memory has carried me through this very trying time of going without any maternal input or cheer (my mother-in-law is a feminist Red-Hatter whose best help to me is to tell me she feels sorry for me, and that she understands what my life must be like right now! She doesn't DO diapers. :) Have you ever?) I didn't spend enough time getting to know her before I got married.
Thank you with all my heart. And thank God, that those who follow "the pattern" of God, even when no other family members do or help, he still blesses them! By his Word, he has taught me to train my children, and love my home, and he will bless the home that I build while I obey him. He will not leave it in ruins because we don't have the advantages of Godly family members. But I do believe the going is slower and harder for us, and the benefits may not show very well until another generation or two from now.
I've written too much, so please don't put this in your comments section after all, but I do want to go ahead and send it to you to read personally. Julielou
Since many have already answered Ms. Anonymous' questions very well, I will just add a question for her:
If you are so sure that your way of life is best, why are you so bitter and angry that you are spending your time looking for blogs that will upset you and offend you so?
Sometimes, rather than asking questions of others, it is a good idea to ask questions of oneself.
All the best,
TF
Dear Anonymous,
You have valid questions that many women have asked over the years and if you are earnestly seeking the answer it is not so hard to find. However, learning to live the answer is not as easy.
There is nowhere that I have seen that this blog categorically states that women should not be educated. In fact, the opposite is true. Lady Lydia is constantly encouraging women to learn new things that will make our lives more lovely and allow us to touch other lives with beauty. Sometimes we forget that University is not the ONLY place to receive an education. At University, we learn what is prescribed by another, to a degree that another deems appropriate, so that this other can tell us we are "qualified" by giving us a slip of paper with our names printed on it. In the meantime, we lose our freedom to choose what is important to ourselves and those we love.
When my brother was single, he lived in an apartment. It was very neat and clean (a hold over from his military service). A perfectly functional living space with little difference in personality than a waiting room. He liked to spend his off time at my parent's home, at his married friend's homes, or riding his bicycle out in the countryside. Those activities fulfilled his need for beauty and peace that he could not?would not provide for himself. Contrast that to my girlfriend's apartment which was neat and clean but also beautiful. She was single and had to work for her living but when she had time off instead of going out to other's homes, she spent time in her own home enjoying the beauty she had created for herself and sharing it with her friends and family. This may seem stereotypical to you but it illustrates the point. God designed women and men to be a team. (Even if you don't believe in God, His principles still are true.)And He has equitably divided the work for us according to His design. A single woman of today must do everything for herself by providing an income and satisfying her creative need for beauty and order. The same holds true for a man. When the two are teamed together, the work is divided to lighten the load for each and each person is blessed by the strengths of the other. It's not about evading the proper sphere, but embracing what is better.
As for your second question regarding the lack of talent or desire to be a homemaker the answer is, again, very simple. You need only to begin. Learn it. Try it. Give yourself the grace to make a mistake. ( you won't get that at your job)Change your attitude toward it. Every job is made easier with the right attitude.
Starting with question 2, I don't understand it. Even if you work, don't you have to take care of yourself and your home, no matter if you are single or married?
Back to question 1, all I know is I went to college. I don't regret it. I do regret some of the years I wasted afterwards. I do wish I had started a family earlier.
As far as proper sphere, yes, taking care of my family in this lovely home is my proper sphere. Slaving away in an office for 8+ hours a day, not my proper sphere and I'm grateful my husband does that for us now so I don't have to. Who wouldn't want to be in a lovely home, taking care of their children, preparing fresh and healthy meals, reading, relaxing when needed?
~ Ann
The 60's feminist movement sometimes used scripture to prove their point.The Mary/Martha story was sometimes emphasised in showing that housework was not important, but the intellect was. They made the mistake of separating the intellect from the heart. Being with those you love when they are available to you is the point, to me. Children don't wait. The house needs care, to make those children and the husband feel at home and feel glad to have a family. Those are things that cannot be put off. One day your husband will die and your children will leave home and then, you will have, in proportion to what you gave. A dedicated wife and homemaker will have her memories to sustain her. She will have built a reputation for herself of being dedicated in the home. Her home and even her house and her family will be a great comfort to her. But if she neglected that part, the better part, and got worried and concerned about everything else that wasn't important, she will suffer more when her children leave home. And, not just that, but whether or not she has children, she increases the value of her property by looking after it. She will be requited for anything she has lost, if she faithfully executed the duties of the homemaker. The Mary/Martha story does not mean it is wrong to fix meals for company, as they were doing. It just means we can get distracted by many things and fail to see what is important right now. Even a mother, as mentioned in the post, in her 60's, has people in her life that need her. Colleges and careers are great lures and distractions that take the population of women away from their homes and away from being availble to those who need them.
Education can be derived from many different sources. I am sometimes attacked over this issue, but if I hated education, why would I have educated my own children completely through highschool, at home? It is the vehicles that I am choosey about, and I got to choose our own books, with the help of my children, because I wanted things they would be delighted in and respond to best. I didn't want them to be burnt out of learning. I notice that many college grads regard learning as a time and place rather than a life. I wanted my family to love learning and not relegate it to a classroom or a lecture. And, in doing so, I see they are intensely interested in all kinds of things. When you are educated formally, your life is more fragmented. I believe that a learner's spirit is part of what makes successful homemakers, wives and mothers. Without it, a marriage would not last, and parents would not want to raise their own children.
Lady Lydia,
I read the comments from Anonymous and noticed she described herself as a Christian AND a feminist. As a born again believer and former feminist, I KNOW the terms are mutually exclusive. Many women believe they can be Christian and still encorporate feminist ideals into their lives but they are being deceived. Only renewing the mind through Scripture can erase this kind of endoctrination, and that can take time. Also, this woman's mother worked as a doctor and she was raised by a nanny (someone outside the family had to be hired to raise her.) I am a firm believer in education for women, not for the purpose of a career outside the home, but that they may help educate their own children. The timing is just wrong for women. Those years when a young lady is at college are THE MOST FERTILE YEARS OF HER LIFE! Feminists don't want to hear that, but it's true. I posponed marriage until forty, and God did bless me with a child. I wanted more children, but had several miscarriages in my mid-forties. It was just too late. There are many women like me. "You have plenty of time to have children" is one of the biggest lies Satan has ever told women (besides the one in the garden of Eden!) There is a definite "window of opportunity" in a woman's fertility, unlike a man's. Even in the Scriptures there are women described as being "past the age of child bearing", while men are never described this way in the Bible. The truth is right there in the Word. Some women are having a hard time conceiving children. There are many enviromental issues attached (chemicals, hormone-injected meat sources, etc...) Also, the "sexual revolution" has left many young women with STD's and reproductive problems, something many young sexually active women don't want to hear. I've know women who had abortions when they were young and didn't want the responsibility, only to have the heartache of not being able to bear children later in life(a dear family member). But mostly women have posponed having children too long and have left their most fertile years behind. There are fertility treatments and procedures available (my family member had them), but they are very expensive and don't always work. It's just sad. Young women think they have all the time in the world, but they don't. Lady Lydia, you are blessed with the gift of expressing thought in a way that is very unique. Please continue to influence young women and encourage them to seek God's way in their lives. I hope this post is not too explicit; I don't want to offend anyone, just share what I've seen concerning this topic.
If anyone cares to look at the LAF site, there is a book store, where you can get books to educate yourself. If we didn't believe in education we wouldn't be writing and selling books. What I don't think is an effective way of learning is the institutional method, in colleges and universities. There, they do not create a good atmosphere for clear-headed learning, and you pay them thousands of dollars to make you stressed and miserable, as well as missing out on the next step for young women: marriage, children and home, where they belong and where they own the place. Why would you pay to have someone lock you up and force-feed their doctrine of learning to you, when you can have the freedom of marriage, home and family? When there is good weather, does a school have the good sense to let out all the students to enjoy nature? Rarely. And when there are unique events, do the schools/ colleges let out their students to take advantage of it? This is what I mean when I say "the better part." In homeschool, we at least can practice having a sense of doing things when they are supposed to be done. For example, yesterday my daughter's children were studying from a book and then she noticed the sun was out so she let them all out to plant the garden. Homemakers eventually learn to use their senses, and their spiritual senses, to discern when it is time to do something or other. Colleges and careers do not always cater to that. HOme is flexible. There is a time to plant. A time to be in the house. A time to go out. Those times are often dictated by the weather, the age of the children, the health of the wife, the schedule of the husband, etc. but it doesn't mean the time of confinement that a career or a college gives.
Dear Annoymous,
I was a child during the 60's and 70's in a small New Mexican town where most of our parents were Professors with degrees from Yale and Harvard. They had prestigious jobs and impressive titles and many had been raised in homes with moral parents and mothers at home.
My older siblings all became hippies and experimented with drugs and lived with their boyfriends and girlfriends. I was the youngest wandering around in an empty house while my mother and father were busy with lots of other activities.
They believed (and taught me) that education would save the world. their lives were wrapped up in all the business of their Ph.D students, who was getting tenure, who got promoted etc. Their children (my siblings) were living a lifestyle that our parents said was true "freedom"; abortion rights, "free" sex, drugs, etc.
Education is not the solution to happiness.
My parents lived their lives and sought "freedom" and reaped a whirlwind of divorce and unhappiness. My mother was horrified when I got married (even though I finished my degree) and had eight children. She continued to "do her own thing" and has never chosen to be involved in the lives of her grandchildren. She is a lonely, bitter, alcoholic woman and my children have grown up to be secure, loved, joyful children who are a blessing to her.
When we say that we want to pursue our own happiness and forgo serving others (and shudder at words like obedience, submission and service) we fail to realize that it is the little children who will suffer.
I know several people who are my age (almost 50) who were abandoned as little children while their parents pursued their own fulfilment. We may not have been abandoned on the streets but growing up alone in an upper middle class home can be just as lonely and scary. We ended up raising ourselves and groping in the dark for the wisdom and help we should have received from our parents. All of us (even now) have never gotten over the lack of confidence and love we were missing as a child.
God's way brings blessings, life and joy. It is simple but hard to follow Him but He is a good God and has wonderful plans for those who love Him.
Jill
If the lady who asked the questions would go to http://thesparrowsnest.typepad.com/the_sparrows_nest/ she could see many ideas for learning. She needs to be able to be open minded enough to understand other life styles. Checking in on the links to homemaker's sites will help. Also, check out my daughter's newsletter at thepleasanttimes.blogspot.com She is in a different stage of life than I am. She is having children and raising them. The woman's body is designed for that in those years. Her blog shows the different things she is doing, as well as the other blogs on the side.
Once you have taught school at home to children from 0 to 25, you change your view of education. I doubt very much any one teacher has ever taught all those grade levels, and none have taught them all at once, like the homemaker does!! That is truly a feat. I will write, when I have time, of my observations of my daughter teaching her own children and how interesting it is. Some people think it is okay to be a teacher and have a career as long as you are being paid. But, one day she will be paid greatly for this, as each of her children will do something of value for her. They hope they raise a family of builders and designers and architects. Other families have the freedom to teach their children skills in their own family businesses. This always enriches the family.
These questions can be translated into physical terms. (If I may be allowed to reword them) To me the questions sound like this. "Why do you people eat steak and ambrosia, why not enjoy dry toast and sour kraut like us?"
I didn't read all the comments, so maybe I will repeat something others have already said; anyway...
At 22, I'm happily married (I do have a college degree, and I did benefit from it in some ways, but in other ways I've been gravely harmed by the sinful and pressuring atmosphere of a college campus). Most of my friends who are my age are only just starting college and are knowingly postponing marriage for years and years. Are they happy? Are they content? Not really. They are afraid of missing the right man, but at the same time are afraid of ruining their careers. Why? Social pressure. It's crystal clear that these girls would have been so happy to just be wives and mothers. They worry about not having time to start a family later on, but they will do what is expected of them - go to college and get a job, and "take care of themselves", a mindset that can be disastrous in a marriage.
Dear Lady Lydia here stated that careers can wait - and in many cases, it is true. But even if it wasn't - even if getting married, bearing children and keeping home would mean that we're giving up any chance of future professional advancement - we are only young once, and we must choose what we want to devote our best years to. It had better be "the better part" in our lives! I know my marriage and my home are a thousand times more important to me than any degree or career or job. Yes, I "give up" pursuing a higher degree. That's because I don't want to give up being a devoted wife to my husband and a keeper of our home! This month, we have to spend a lot of time away from home and it's such a stress. I can bear with it for a month, but I really cannot imagine it becoming the permanent situation.
As to the second question... well, let me just say that only two years ago, I couldn't even boil an egg. My homemaking skills were close to nil. Then I had a few cooking classes in college, and was drawn to it; I had to do laundry for the whole family, and found myself enjoying the fresh clean smell of laundry on the line... and so bit by bit, I began enjoying homemaking. And the more love, time and effort I put into it, the more I enjoy it. It doesn't take any particular talent, just plain hard work and a good bit of devotion. I'm convinced that if I could do it, practically anyone can.
Jen:
Your comment completely moved me. As much as we love our kids, they have a way of telling us the truth in the way that it will best blindside us.
You have richly blessed your children by heeding that message.
God bless!
Jan Hatchett
www.anotherhatchettjob.blogspot.com
Miss Anonymous: To get back to your three questions:
1. Why not change the wording and see what it means: why do men HAVE to go out and compete to earn a living, and women GET to stay home and have dinner ready for them? Why do the women GET to bake bread, have tea parties, and fold laundry while their husbands are away working?
2. What do you expect MEN to do if they have no inclination to be the providers and bread-winners? What if they have no talent for work, or no interest?
Finally, the quote by Erica Jong. Erica's archaic philosophy gets booes and gets ignored at her speeches throughout the country. Young people are waking up to the selfishness of it. She had a couple of failed marriages, and cannot be a role model for women, in general.
Now you see why we must have a standard to live by (found in the Bible) and not suffer the whims of the era we live in. God is the same and doesn't change his views. Women were given the opportunity to be home to guard it and guide it. Men were given the task of providing and protecting their families. Those who want to change this find many a conflict, health problems, and mental distress. The only way the enemies of the duties of women and men can get people to stray from it is to spread all kinds of propaganda that women at home are unhappy, suffering, oppressed, not able to live as they like, suppressing talents, etc. They get a whole generation of women to believe that by indoctrinating it with those thoughts from preschool through college. Alexander Soljenitzen said in his book, "THe Gulag Archipelago" (which many homemakers have read: have you read it?) that when a society has been told lies so many years, after awhile they lose the ability to distinguish between the truth and the lies and will believe the lies. Women at home were never suppressed or 2nd class. They were first class, and they gave it up to work in drudge jobs that took them away from their homes and families where they belonged and where their mothers and grandmothers were doing quite well before feminists/marxists spread the lies to convince them they were not free. You are going to find that working outside the home is not freedom at all.
While you make many good points, I do believe that education for women is very, very important. Not every girl has a family that wishes to support her into adulthood, should she not marry, nor a family that might be prepared to help her should her husband die or leave her. I feel that if girls are educated to be able to earn well, then they are less likely to be doomed to poverty later on.
Kate
1 Most people would not sign up for a thirty year payment plan for a car they were going to drive for a few years. Unfortunately that is what many young women do when they sign up for the student loans for college.
I worked serveral years in daycare and it was clear to see many mothers desperately wanted to be home with their children. They knew no job outside the home was as important as raising their child. However student loan payments were one of the reasons many continued to work.
2 Their was a day when a person would not have known how to do the routine daily tasks at work run a computer, make photo copies, etc. With practice skills improve. Most of cooking involves reading and telling time, I do not understand how people who can do those things can not cook at least very basic items. Dusting and vacuming are not done because the process is enjoyed, it is the end result (clean rooms) that is enjoyed.
As for women being exploited most of the dangerous jobs are and have mainly been done by men Military, Firefighter, Cop. If men truly hated women so much I don't think so many would have chosen jobs that could have cost their lives to possibly save women's lives.
Melanie
I won't bother to answer a question that's already been well enough.
However I do wish to say that my sister in-law is exactly like you. Her husband loves her bossy independence so much that he joined the military to prove it. And when he comes home on his leave...guess where he doesn't go? HOME! She whines a great deal and just can't for the life of her understand why he doesn't stay at home with her, won't take her out and while he's out "blowing" his mad money why there's never any little gifts for her. Gee, I wonder?
Now today is Mother's Day. I am a stay-at-home wife and mother. My career sisters and sisters in-law sure enjoyed this stay-at-home wife's from scratch cake topped with fresh sweet strawberries and fresh whipped cream. They also enjoyed my from scratch Southern buttermilk biscuits and "real" mashed potatoes today. When one hard working SIL learned that my husband had made the whipped cream she said, "I wish that would rub off on my husband." Later my husband said, "I do it because you appreciate my help, but don't demand it. She probably yells, screams, and nags. No man would help her." I didn't tell her that my husband and daughter took care of the mashed potatoes. I got the praise but they did the work.
When you, as Queen of the home, "rule" with kindness and love the citizens look forward to doing deeds that the Queen needs done.
I really feel sorry for you, your mother and your friends. Girl...you are working so hard and making life hard for yourself. I, on the other hand, do not work that hard (harness the power of youth). Not to boast, but, I have more money in my pocket & in the bank than any "career" woman I know has. Why? Because my husband is constantly giving me money. I ask why all the time and his answer, "Because you work so hard and deserve this and more." I know I am very blessed indeed.
My motto: "Work smarter, not harder!" Hey, it pays!
Lovingly,
Paula
PS I do have an "identity" with google but whenever I have it unprotected I receive lots of spam in my email in-box. I talked with my Beloved about the spam and how little time I have for the internet. (I was deleting up to 200 spam email per day! This for a paid email addy.) So, anyway, he blocked my email addy and now I am unable to sign into my account. That explains why I am "anonymous."
Kate (our red house), I felt that I had to address your comment.
First, I agree that a girl should have some skills which will enable her to earn her own money, if necessary. However, I'm not so sure that an expensive career training is what is really needed.
There are two problems connected with it. On the one hand, college and university education costs a lot of money, which later must be paid back. If the girl marries she will be stuck with paying those student loans, which can prevent her from staying home. Second point is more subtle, and I'm afraid many people are unaware of it, which fact prompted me to write a reply.
It is a fact that most women (of course, there are exceptions) tend to marry up. They search for a man with higher education, higher earning potential and higher society status. In short, a lady doctor or professor isn't eager to marry a truck driver (again, exceptions happen). With more women than men entering colleges and universities, and getting highly paid jobs, the pool of men available to them shrinks considerably. There are now thousands of ladies in those highly paid jobs who desperately want to marry and cannot find a husband.
Eventually, such a woman may consider marrying "beneath her" (a man with a lower income level). In that situation, the chance is big that her husband won't want her to stop working, and probably will stop working himself when the kids come. After all, it makes economical sense, doesn't it?
Feminists claim that female education wasn't important in the 1950s, but the truth is that education was seen as a means to an end - it enabled men to earn a decent living to support a family. Most women wanted to marry anyway and their own mothers often encouraged them not to go to a univerisity.
Again, I will stress that I agree with your premise that it is necessary for a lady to have some money-making skills, but they don't necessary include going to a university or a law school.
There are other options to a college education besides sitting in classrooms from ages 18 - 22.
Joyce Swann used distance learning for her ten children and all had earned bachelor's and master's degrees by the time they were 18. She, with a high school education herself, set a schedule of schooling them for three hours each day, year-round, with the end result that they progressed faster than average. It was also very cost effective compared to following the usual college path.
This site has articles by Mrs. Swan and some of her children on their experiences with learning at home:
http://www.home-school.com/Articles/SaveOnCollege.html
Donna
I write as someone who straddles both worlds, the world of work outside the home and my home life as a wife and mother. I can therefore only speak from real experience of life, not from an intellectual, abstract perspective of feminist writings. At this point I should also mention that I am struggling to understand what has been building up as a conflict in my own life, and which I am only realising fully as a conflict through resources such as Lady Lydia's blog. I can't yet see all the issues as clear-cut, but I hope that my comments are taken as exploratory and genuinely questioning rather than challenging. Much of the conflict comes from the way society has developed over the past 30 or 40 years, with women, far from 'having it all', being forced into an economic and social trap.
My experience of university was very different to some of the negative comments I've read about a college education. I am in Britain, and a university education here does not (yet) carry such a burden of loans as it does in the US. University for me was a time of great intellectual and personal growth, and at no time did I need to come into contact with any undesirable behaviour. In fact the experience was very wholesome! The lasting benefit of university for me was meeting my now husband there!
I didn't experience any conflict in working outside the home in the early years of our marriage. But everything changed at a stroke with the birth of our first child, and I was plunged into misery at what should have been the happiest of times. All expectations were that I would return to work. I felt the burden of society's expectations, to the extent that I never mentioned to my husband that I would like to stay at home. He only wanted what would make me happy, and as far as he knew I wanted to work. I 'knew' that this was what I should do, but I cried every day on leaving my baby with a stranger. This didn't get any easier with the birth of our second child. So I led a double life, outwardly a successful professional, inwardly hating and resenting every minute that was not spent at home.
Slowly, painfully, I've realised that the world of work outside the home is not the real world. There is no lasting satisfaction in it, no deep happiness. Eventually I have resolved the conflict as best I could, given the economic trap of the assumption that both husband and wife will work, of not working during my children's school holidays. Some of my contemporaries express surprise at this - how could I want to be with teenage children all day? Needy, crying babies, yes, but teenagers intent on their own pursuits? Well actually it is the greatest joy I can imagine. Yes, they will sometimes meet up with friends, usually at their houses, with a parent present, or have friends to visit here. But most of the time we spend happily together. Other contemporaries are very wistful when they learn of my working arrangement. Like me, they don't want to get to the end of life and ask, 'is that really all there was?' Who on earth is going to retire and say, 'I'm so glad I spent all that time in the office. It was so enriching and satisfying and it's left me with such wonderful, positive memories'?
I've come to realise that I cannot split myself in two and give equal amounts to work and home. Something has to give - there are no real working superwomen. Show me a working superwoman and I'll show you someone who will be too busy with her Blackberry at breakfast time to notice that a big teenage boy seems a bit nervous that morning and needs a casual question to allow him to bring up the issue he's worrying about. Or who is staying at the office to finish that essential report, or working all evening on the computer to get the numbers to balance. That essential report will be trashed by the next person who comes into a position of power in the workplace and makes changes just to show their power. But the precious opportunity for a spur of the moment, possibly life-changing conversation with your teenager will be lost forever.
I have been surprised by what my heart has told me - that I am happiest as a mother and wife, home-making. I have done ALL of the powerful workplace bit, so I can speak from direct experience. Intellect may construct an edifice of arguments in favour of working mothers. I just know that my heart tells me otherwise.
I was a teenager once. I remember thinking that I needed my parents more at that age than as a child. It was at that age I needed their companionship. I needed to be in the adult world with my parents, not with a lot of others my own age. Without parents, teens often have more health problems, more social problems, more spiritual problems. They may seem independent but their parents are an anchor to them. Teen hood is the worst time to be separated from parents, not the best.
Dear Anonymous,
I have a degree from one of the best colleges in the country, and I worked for 19 years outside of the home, during all of my children's formative years.
Looking back on my early life, I am grateful for the education I received, and I would encourage anyone--male or female--who deeply wants to learn to pursue a mind-expanding liberal-arts education. After my deepening relationship with God and my second marriage, my education has been the most beneficial force in my life.
However, most people simply don't feel the way I do about education. Most go to college simply because they are supposed to. In their cases, the cost and time they devote to college may not be worthwhile.
Marrying and reproducing young, however, is a good idea I think. This is what nature intended people to do, and those who wait may find that they can't. The marriagable men may be taken, or they may be no longer able to conceive.
I married young and had children early. I'm glad I did.
However, I also encourage young women to develop a skill to fall back on. Disasters happen. Some men walk out on their wives, as my first husband did. Women don't need a career, but they do need a skill they can practice for pay, if the need arises.
I don't, though, encourage women with young families to concentrate on a career. Instead I urge them to put as much thought and love into their family and homes as they can.
When I think back on my working life, I don't feel elated about book deals I signed or authors I encouraged. I don't feel bad that I didn't make it to the top of my profession. I don't wish my career had lasted longer.
But I am troubled about how I reared my children. I wonder constantly about whether I did right by them, and I am sorry that I was too tired and overwhelmed by the demands of work and single-parenthood to enjoy them.
Now, after my children are gone, I am home, just about full time. I have never enjoyed a job as much as I enjoy keeping a house. And I have never worked for a better boss. After all, he loves me.
I find keeping house much more intellectually satisfying than working in publishing, and I find cleaning the bathroom less a matter of drudgery than commuting to New York City every day.
Now I have time for hobbies, friends, volunteering and visiting with my adult children. Thank God, I can live my life the way I want to. I hope other young women will find the freedom I have.
One more note to my comment.
Growing up in a single-parent home, where your mother has to work two jobs to keep the roof over your head and food on the table, will quickly put your priorities in order when you are an adult. My mother made the best of the circumstances and did the right thing, don't get me wrong.
But for me, working didn't seem quite as glamorous as some people think it is after seeing what a "working woman," really looked like. I couldn't wait to make a real home and be with my children all day. You couldn't have pried them from my hands to put them in a daycare center.
~ Ann
The fact that this anonymous writer (A.W.) is compelled to repeat her questions, demand answers, and throw around quotes from feminist writers on an anti-feminist blog, all demonstrates that she is not really looking for answers to her questions. When people are truly looking for information, they tend to shut up and start to listen. They quit repeating themselves and demanding attention. At this point, A.W. is far more interested in what she has to say than in anything that is being said to her by Lady Lydia or any of Lady Lydia’s readers.
Unfortunately for A.W., what she has to say is not appealing. She sounds like a big whiner. Her questions hold the complaint that Lady Lydia doesn't want to let girls do what boys get to do. She worries over what women are supposed to do who don't know how to do housecleaning, and don't really want to.
Good grief, A.W., if you want to go to college and get a job, go do it. Why are you worried about what Lady Lydia thinks? If you don't want to scrub a toilet or cook a meal, hire someone to do it. The sky won't fall in. Why are you getting hung up by anything said by Lady Lydia, when you have the likes of Erica Jong on your side?
Hmmm, could it be that maybe feminism has exploited you into powerlessness? Are you so wrapped up in your feminist ideals that you can't allow yourself or anyone else to actually find satisfaction in the simple pleasures of keeping a home and caring for a family? So you don't find homemaking appealing -- why do you feel compelled to question that desire in others?
Why don't you just relax, keep thinking and reading, and be quiet for awhile? Let wisdom come to you, rather than swatting at it like it's a pesky fly.
Whoohooo Judy!!! SO well put. I love it. Bridget
But again, I insist that a lot of the whining is based on a choice of words. Men "get" to break their backs at work, and women "have" to stay at home. In real life, the men "have" to work to support their families and women "get" to stay home. All of it is is admittedly, a belief, but believing or not, the fact remains that the system of the men working and the women at home has been the foundation of human civilization since time began. The societies that tried to change it eventually came to ruin. In Roman times when women were domineering in everything, they demanded the right to have abortions. We all know what happened to Rome. Since modern feminism has tried to make us think the Proverbs 31 woman was a career woman, and since modern feminism has tried to "liberate" women from the family, we have had more family problems than ever before: more divorce, more troubled children, more debt and more poverty among women. Is that a better system than the one where men took care of their families and women were happy to be cared for, and happy to look after their husbands?
Dear all,
thank you for answering my questions and for the interesting points you have made. First of all, I want to clarify some things, so you can better understand where I come from.
as I have said before, I'm a Christian and a feminist. Let me explain what I understand by feminism . I believe men and women have equal worth as human beings and have equal rights. I am strongly opposed to the submission of women to men, and men to women for that matter! as a firm believer in equality, I think men and women should enjoy the same opportunities and freedom to choose their path in life. For me a marriage is a partnership, husband and wife should have mutual respect and should equally share their responsibilities as parents and the household tasks. In a marriage the decisions should be made after mutual consultation and not by submitting one's will to the other's.
as for my religion, I'm an Eastern Orthodox. I suppose very few of you are familiar with this religion, so let me tell you that doctrinally we are similar to the Catholics, with slight differences. I think most of you on this blog are Protestants (calvinists, presbyterian, etc) so we obviously have a radically different approach of Christianity.
I am European and I have always lived in Europe, so my knowledge of American society comes only from books, movies, documentaries, etc. Some of you have said that I am bitter and whining. I am no such thing! I started reading this blog out of curiosity and amazement. When I accidentally stumbled on a similar blog, I was amazed to discover women with a way of thinking which reminded me of (bad ) Victorian novels, I have never thought that there are women in the Western world who think of themselves and of their role in society in a way similar to the worst mysoginists of the past centuries. So i read your blog out of sheer amazement and a will to understand how is it possible for women to have such a vision of themselves. I do not blame your choice of being housewives, you are free to choose your path, but I am amazed that you think that the right way, the only way is for women to stay at home and serve their husband. I am also amazed at the way you deny and demonize women's rights and all those who fought and still fight for them. You only need to study history and you will see that women have ALWAYS had a much harder time than men In almost all societies, they had less rights than men. Their education was neglected, or very different from that available to men, they had little or no choice in the matter of their future husband, they had no rights to their own property after their marriage, no right to the custody of their children, even if the divorce was not their fault,and I could go on and on..If that's not oppression, I don't know what is! I'm referring to women from upper classes, because in the lower classes, poverty was an equalizing factor between men and women who had the same possibilities - or rather, the same lack of possibilities.
Another thing I disagree with is your use of the Bible to justify your position. Have you ever considered that 2000 years ago, there were no "jobs" in the current sense, so of course women stayed at home? The society had evolved and we must evolve with it. In the Bible we also have poligamy and stoning to death. Why not embrace that also, since it is the way people lived then? We should have enough discernment to differentiate between the way Christians should behave and the way society was organized 2000 years ago. And what about women like Esther, Deborah and many others? I would like to draw your attention to Jesus' attitude towards women. Jesus promoted the dignity and equality of women in the midst of a very male-dominated society. Women became disciples and followers of Jesus, in a time when not only were women not to read or study the Scriptures, but in the more observant settings they were not even to leave their household. He was changing the way divorce was viewed by actually saying women should have as many rights as men. Before then and even after, men were not punished for infidelity, only the women. Another good example is Jesus's treatment of the woman caught in adultery. Also, although women had little standing in that culture, and no religious authority, Jesus gave them the role of informing others of his resurrection. Jesus clearly did not think of woman's role in restricted terms; she was not to be limited to being only a housekeeper. Jesus rejected the stereotype that the proper place of all women is "in the home," during a visit to the house of Martha and Mary (Luke10:38). Jesus treated Mary first of all as a person whose highest faculty is the intellect, who is allowed to set her own priorities, and in this instance has "chosen the better part." And Jesus applauded her: "It is not to be taken from her."
Some denominations interpret St. Paul's words in such a way that they actually conflict with what Jesus said. We must remember that the interpretation of his words must submit to what Jesus said--after all, he was God. This view is often promoted by misreading the account of Eve's creation in Genesis 2:18-25, in which Adam is provided a "helpmate." The Hebrew word used here often is translated "companion," She was not created for servitude; she was fashioned to be a co-laborer with Adam so that they might rule together over creation as God commissioned them to do (see Gen. 1:28).
and finally, being a good wife and a good mother has nothing to do with staying at home all the time. my mom has 2 jobs and is an awfull cook ( when she does cook which is rarely) she has gone back to work 3 months after my birth, I was raised by a nanny, but even so, she's an amazing mom and for me the best in the world!
I have an answer for Judi: I have an university degree and a good job, and as it happens, I also have a cleaning lady.
I also think it's very important for women to have an independent income. I know good jobs are not easy to find, I know that even if now I have a high-ranking, well paid job, I might lose it someday, but I also now that I will ALWAYS work, even if I have to sell fruits in the market or clean toilettes. I could never agree to become a kept woman and I would never ask money from my husband in order to buy things for myself.
as for Erica Jong, I don't care about her private life. If I like a writer, I couldn't care less what he does with his life. I found quotes by her and I thought they were very true and appropriate.
Miss Anonymous: Jesus meant that the spiritual part would not be taken from her. It was a good example to put Christ first, always. Many people say they put Jeus first but they get jobs on Sundays when they should be in church, on the first of day of the week, as commanded in the NT to partake of the breaking of bread and to assemble and worship. Putting Christ first means to obey his principles rather than choose maybe even an "easy path" in the world. One of his principles is to allow the women to be provided for by their husbands, and to give them the responsibilities of caring for the home.
Anonymous, first, Eastern Orthodox Churches teaches marital submission.
Second, The idea that women always have had it more difficult than men, is ri-di-cu-lous. It is nothing else but a lie being spread by feminists to push their agenda. Luckily for all of us, books start appearing which tell us the truth. Read this discussion:
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2067
If you are a Christian you should believe that the Bible is an inspired Word of God, so when it says Wives Obey Your Husbands, you'd better stop and listen. There can be NO contradiction between what Jesus taught and what Paul taught, since Paul's teachings were divinely inspired.
You called your mother an amazing mom but the actual mothering of you had been done by a nanny.
And finally, insulting all good homemakers out there and calling them "kept women" is simply above the limit.Such comments won't endear you to people.
You just show us once again that feminists hate housewives.
More links:
http://www.angryharry.com/esAnExclusiveandInsightfulInterview.htm
http://www.angryharry.com/nobenefitsoffeminism.htm
Two thoughts come to mind regarding this person's concerns.
One, my staying home keeps the traffic down a little bit and makes it easier for all the single girls to get to work. I don't need to work, since my husband provides for me, and since there is enough to keep me busy at home. If I worked, I would go out of my mind, totally. I just can't live with chaos around me, and I could not hire a maid. Here, they are very expensive and only the rich can afford them. Women in the US do their own housework, or train their children to do it. Very very few of them have maids. One lady I know got sick and her husband hired a maid. It caused the lady to be so nervous that she cleaned up a lot of things before the maid came, and then fixed lunch for the maid and visited for awhile and watched a favorite tv program together. The woman who had been ill just couldn't imagine anyone doing her work for her and had a hard time allowing it. She also didn't want the woman to feel like a servant ;-)
Another thing that comes to mind is that if I stay home, I free up jobs for the men and the single women who have no providers. What could be wrong with that? If half the women stayed home, the traffic wouldn't be so bad and the lines not so long.
Then, too, I am not under pressure. You can work all you want, but one day it will get old. Being a homemaker never really gets old because it changes constantly as your family's needs change. Children do not remain children and every day they change. I can't tell you how many times a room has been changed here: one room went from a guest room to a sewing room to an office, to a bedroom, and the kitchen changes constantly according to the size of the family. It is not a static job, and it will never go out, unlike other types of jobs.
Finally you will discover as you grow older that you will not always have perfect health. You will need to be free to go and take a hot bath or lay down and sometimes you may have to take it easy for several days out of each month. This simply cannot be accomodated in a career when you are subject to the rules and regulations at work.
At home, women have access to real life. When the sun shines, it is time to go outside and do something interesting in the yard. I doubt very much that the career will allow you to take advantage of good weather unless it is your prescribed vacation time.
My daughter teaches her own children at home and she has a sense of what is appropriate according to the circumstances. For example, if she feels tired, she will lay down and read to the children from a good book, and discuss good values with them. If the sun is shining it is good to go on a nature walk and do some science project outside. The people at work are not going to allow that kind of flexibility. At home, women can say whether they will come and go and it is nobody else's business.Most women in America have their own cars and can come and go as they need to. I doubt very much at work you can go out when you like and get in the car and go shop a sale at a grocery store or go to the fabric store during the business hours.
If you are from Finland, it is not a surprise that you think this way. In any socialist country, the memory of traditions of the past that have to do with the family--wife staying home, and husband working, are wiped out so that you think what people are doing in your society is okay.
People used to wonder how English women, who in the past had valued their life at home and couldn't be dragged into work or career, would change so much into socialistic beliefs. The socialists got control of the public schools and managed to change the beliefs of the younger generation. Whoever controls the schools will control the nations habits and beliefs.
It is a blessing that the Bible never changes, even though many people try to change it to fit their own actions. They will twist and wrestle with certain words and try to re-define them so that what they are doing is okay. Instead of changing themselves to fit the pattern, they will change the pattern to fit themselves.
You mentioned the Victorians but you are reading an askewed, revised version of history. Did you actually ever know a woman who lived in that era? Some of us, born in the 40's or early 50's, actually had relatives who lived in that era, and the women were certainly not oppressed: far from it. I would prescribe to you a book that you can get quite inexpensively on ebay or Amazon called "Simple Social Graces" or "The Benevolence of Manners" (same book, different titles) by Linda Lichter. She started out researching the Victorian era to show how much more liberated women are today, but in doing so she discovered that quite the opposite was true. She found women were far more valued and cherished and protected in that era, than today. Please read it before you think you know so much about the Victorians. I knew quite a few people who lived at the tail end of that era and I have the writings of great grand parents who were in the middle of the era, which speak much differently than the vilification that modernists give it.
I will put the links on the main article for you so it will be easier to click them.
I must say, though, I know where you are coming from and why you think as you do. Someone gave me a college textbook, history, and it said blatantly that women had no rights and no jobs, in the past and that they didn't feel they were equal. There is no proof of any of this, and they did not give any documentation. The book lacked any historical responsibility or proof, as it claimed that women had no opportunities. My parents were born in the 1920's, the product of victorian parents and grandparents and there certainly was a lot of work for women, hard, hard work!!These college courses do not tell the truth about the past, or even the Bible. You come out though, acting as though you know something, or are a Bible scholar but you contradicted yourself. First, you claimed there was no industry for women in Bible times and that is why they didn't have careers. Then you asked what about Deborah or Esther, one who was a judge and one a queen. Obviously, there was plenty to do and women always had an opportunity if they wanted to work. Lydia was a seller of fine cloth. That did not mean she was a working woman the way women do it today--leaving their kids to be raised by others in daycare, and hiring maids to do all their work at home. You also brought up, very unscholarly, stoning and polygamy. You are speaking of the Old Testament. There were no Christians in the Old Testament. The New Testament is the last will and Testamen of Christ. It is the will of Christ. It ushered in the Christian era. Christ told Christians to act better, since his law was established upon better promises. "For if that first law had been faultless, then should no occasion had be sought for the second." Hebrews 8:7. Even in the Old Testament, God commanded them differently. He never told people to have mulitiple wives and heJust because some people practiced those things does not mean God approved of them. He always commanded mercy.So even if you believed only in the OT you would not become a stoner or a polygamist. You need to study a little more.
Anomymous Writer, you are a poor judge of character. As I have said before, some people are book smart and others are people smart. You have judged the women here and suggested they were of a certain religious view. But there are a lot here who are not protestant or calvanist. There are many Catholics and Orthodox here and many members of the churches of Christ, which is not denominational and is neither catholic or protestant. There are many other people here of no denominational affiliation.
Excuse me, you may be from Romania, Germany, Sweden, Russia, or any number of socialist countries or former socialist countries. There are few people in those places who remember the system of the family when the focus was on the family and women stayed home. Just because you don't see it around you or don't remember it, doesn't mean it didn't exist in a healthy fashion or that it didn't work. I doubt the way we are going is making people very fulfilled an happier.
You probably mean Eastern Germany since it used to be communist. I had decided not to post under my old handle but accidentally did, so I deleted that comment. Anyway, the links are now on the front page. Those who interested may want to read the whole discussion.
While I disagree with polygamy, it actually had its function in the society as it made provisions for women in the times of constant wars when there was a shortage of men. To me polygamy doesn't=oppression of women. Also, if marriage used to be so oppressive how comes so many women were so eager to marry? It was not men who used to mock "old maids" but it was other women.
As for stoning, it was commanded for both the adulterer (male) and the adulteress (female). You may disagree with stoning but it was gender neutral.
Let's be fair and stop viewing everything through the lens of female oppression. To listen to feminists, one could think world revolves around women. The only thing which interests them about any law, custom or culture is: does it benefit women? And they usually don't mean marriage and family oriented women, either. They never ask: does it benefit family? Women were not made to leave independently, but to marry and have a family. We should think if it benefits a family when we discuss things.
In the times past when most people were glad there was bread on the table, the rights of individuals weren't high on the agenda. Survival of the family was. Both men and women had to sacrifice for the family.
That is in a nutshell, the point Steve Moxon makes.
Concerniing women in the Victorian era, I do know many personal stories. For instance, my maternal great-grandmother was widowed at an early age. She had 6 children, no education and no income because her husband "provided for the family" When he died, she quickly became destitute. She was forced to give away one of her children ( my grandmother ) to wealthy relatives. For my grandmother, it was a lucky escape from poverty. She had an education and became a nurse. Her inddependence ended when she married my grandfather. She had to give up her work and she became financially dependent on my grandfather. Although he was an engineer and held various high-ranking, well-paid positions, he gave her very little money. For instence, when travelling together grandpa travelled first class and grandma second. He gave her very little money and she slaved away her life to an early grave. My paternal grandmother was a teacher. She married my grandfather, a doctor, and started a family, although in her own words she was not the type of woman who wants children and she was not in love with my grandfather. She was also forced to give up her job and when my grandfather died, all the wealth dissapeared and she and her children ended up in very difficult circumstances. She couldn't go back to teaching and she had a hard time bringing them up. How different it would have been if my grandfather had allowed her to keep her job!And finally, another story: my great grandmother Sophia who was born at the beginning of the XXth century had 2 brothers and 5 sisters. Unusually for the time, their parents gave them all an education ( college or university) Sophia became a teacher, married my great grandfather, also a teacher, had 2 daughters and kept her job throughout her marriage. She was a wonderful woman, a good wife and a great teacher and mother. So she actually "had it all" at the beginning of the last centuries, when housewives were the norm. Her sisters also had succesful careers and happy families.
For the record, I think a happy family is one of the best things in life. There are countless happy families in which both parents work. As I said before, being a good wife and a good mother doesn't mean you necessarily have to stay at home.
Sandra, you say my "mothering was done by a nanny" the nanny stayed with me for 8 hours a day while mom was at work. She was great but she didn't replace my mother. I loved her like a grandmother. I had the great luck to be raised by two wonderful, loving and caring ladies. Although my nanny left when I started school at 6, our relationship continued. I feel privileged to have been "mothered " by her.And my mom has given me so much. She made me be strong and independent. I learned to solve my own problems and not burden her with trifles. Once, at a very low point in my life I asked to come stay with me for s few days because I felt really desperate. She refused and told me I must get over my depression by myself, and not rum to mommy every time I have a difficulty. It was hard at first, but a great advice in the end, because it made me very strong.
As for the lack of women's rights in the ast centuries, they are a fact. Of course if they were lucky to get a good husband, they were happy, but the fact is there were laws and social taboos which severely limited women's rights and liberties.
My thoughts (reposted for a convenience into 1 comment):
Anon, was you great-grandmother forced to marry or did she choose it yourself? Did your great grand-father put a gun to her head? Why didn't she stay in the wonderful working world but chose to marry instead???
You wrote with contempt of your great-grandfather "providing for his family". Was it his fault that he died at an early age? The man probably worked himself into an early grave trying to support a wife and 6 kids, but of course, a real victim in the situation was your great-grandmother who went on living.
In those times the access to higher education was restricted for both men and women for lower classes. It was income thing, not a gender thing.
You wrote that your grandmother was forced to give up work. Again, was she forced to marry? Had you read the links I provided you would see that the laws in some countries preventing married women from employment were taken because other WOMEN not men demanded it. Also if your granny chose a lousy husband it hardly makes all men into scoundrels.
How do you know all those women were forced to give up their jobs? May be they gladly quit when they got the 1st chance like many others. Your view of men is truly skewed.
You know after you told us a story of your mom basically leaving you alone in hard times, I started feeling pity for you. Do you really think that the story proves any positive point?
Your ideas of what constitutes a happy family, and the loving relationship between parents and children are unorthodox, to say the least.
You wrote the lack of women's rights was a fact. No, it was not.
The link below shows most women were only too glad to quit working. (reposted in the main entry as html)
http://www.angryharry.com/esDidWomenReallyWantToGoOutToWork.htm
About my great-grandmother: yes, she did marry for love.I do not feel contempt for my great grandfather, who by the way didn't work himself to death in order to provide for his family but died as a result of an accident which happened because of a very stupid bet he took with his men friends. my point was not to show that women were forced to marry, but that women with no education were and still are in danger of becoming destitute if for some reason ( death or desertion ) their husband didn't provide for them anymore. As for my maternal grandmother's story, I was making another point: a woman financially dependent on a man can have a really hard time! I'm sure you know that some people show their true caracter after getting married, and that was the case with my grandfather. My grandmother did not live with him before marriage, so she could not know what kind of a man he was and how he used his money.
I told you stories about 4 women from my family, I didn't generalize and I don't pretend other women were forced to give up their work. My grandmothers were forced by my grandfathers to give up their work, not by the laws of our country. I notice that you made no comment on my great-grandmother's story, which is an early example of succesfully balancing a career and a family.
My mother's attitude was an example of "tough love" and you really have no reason to pity me. We need to grow up at a certain point and what better way than by handling our own problems? Should I be dependent of my mother and unable to cope with my problems? Where would that leave me when she'll be gone? And by the way, what is so wrong with my idea of a happy family? a family in which husband and wife are of an equal worth, share a mutual love and respect for each other, make all their decisions together and share their responsibilities as parents and their household duties?
When I wrote aout the lack of rights for women in the past I was referring to: the fact that they were in the eyes of the law second rate citizens, they had no right to inherit titles and estates if they belonged to the aristocracy, no right to vote, they lost the right to their own property upon marriage, it was extremely difficult to get a divorce and almost imposible to gain custody or even visitation rights to their children. As for working, I believe women have the right to decide if they want to work or not. But think of the jobs available to women in your great Victorian era: servants or governesses at best. If you read the great Victorian women novelists like George Eliot, Charlotte Bronte or Anne Bronte, you will see a constant preocupation with the veryy limited horizons women had.
Anonymous in Romania: first of all you need to go to Vox Day on the web and read some of his points about feminism, and also to No Ma'am. I will provide links for you on the article. Check the article and click on the ones that Sandra, also in a former communist country, has provided.
There is another woman from your country that posts here occasionally. She is a stay at home mother and wife who says that she is treated with contempt by other women because she believes in staying at home and is happy at home.
I doubt the homemakers treat you with contempt because you choose to work. I doubt they have time to go to your blog or the blogs of feminists and tell them how stupid they are.
I doubt very much homemakers are staying home because they are concerned about being low/high classed or are trying to pursue money. There are deeper reasons, which you don't seem to posess or understand.
I rarely hear a working girl or a college girl tell how much dedication it takes to stay home.
Mostly they talk about money. Money, money, money. If they do manage to talk about goodness and Biblical values, in the home, they eventually get pressed into a corner about it and end up bringing up money.
Oh, she will be destitute if anything happens to her husband. She will be beaten when her husband shows his real self in marriage. She will be a second class citizen? Well, it is people like you who make homemakers second class citizens by the disrespect you show them for their convictions and their choices.
Things might be really backwards in former communist countries, but in the west, women have always, even in Victorian times, been able to have property and careers if they wanted. Look at the women poets, writers, painters, and those who had haberdashery shops and others who provided meals for people. However, most of them would have rather had a husband.
But you and other feminists seem to believe that the only reason a woman wanted a man is because there were no factories to work in. Of course, had there been factories and careers available, women would have naturally left all those terrible marriages and awful farms and horrible houses and gone to work in the nice, quiet, clean, happy little factories.
Of course women prefer, from birth to work outside the home. Of course they always hated sewing and cooking and decorating. Getting up and going to work every day is FREEDOM, isn't it!! And being subject to strikes and problems with management--that is a wonderful way to live. If you like Victorian novels to show how life was in Victorian times for working women, read North and South or watch the movie. It will show how the wonderful factories were such nice places for women, instead of their homes. And, poor Margaret "had" to stay in her comfortable home serving tea to her loved ones, or ironing curtains and table cloths and helping with the housework. Poor, poor Margaret. In the mean time her best friend, Bessie "got" to work in the cotton mill. In the end, though Margaret chose the better part--to get married and keep a home. Her working women counterparts were not any better off financially than she was.
And, that is one thing I have noticed. The working women aren't really any more high classed or richer or better off than the homemaker. Homemakers will get the investments (insurance, ira's, investments, retirement funds) from their husband's estate should anything happen to them. At least that is the way it is here. Maybe no so in Romania, which does not have a lot of regard for women at home.
You never explained to me about the miserable Victorian women. I guess your Victorian men were happy but the women unhappy? So it was just the women who were second class and not the men? What about the laborers? And I have observed that next to money, feminist are obsessed with class. Are you high classed because you work? And so, all the homemakers, because they give it up and go to work, are suddenly high classed and not low classed anymore? to whome? And where does it actually get them? Is there some great king petting them on the head saying congratulations you left your kids in daycare and you left your husband so you can be high classed and have some more money?
Not everything is about class or money but I know from years of experience that the feminists, when they do not properly think and research (and grow up) will eventually get to the class issue, the race issue or the money issue. Those are the three things that Karl Marx capitalized on in order to inflame people enough to make the changes he wanted in society.
I would ask also that you tour your city and see the old neighborhoods and observe the architecture. Were these designed by miserable people with opressed families? Were the Victorian homes cared for by oppressed women? Were the houses built for second class citizens? We have many Victorian neighborhoods still standing and people compete to buy them and live in them. Victorian culture is all the rage. People love its beauty: the furniture, the architecture, the clothing, the way of life. The houses were often built for a wife or daughter, by a parent or a fiance. I suppose they were all so miserable though, and that families now in the 21st century are happier because they can abort and do drugs and rebel.
Miss Romania: the better part is the spiritual part, which many women of the past and today have followed. As for being second or first class citizens: it doesn't matter to us, because those who follow the teachings of Christ are in a different kingdom. Their citizenship is in heaven. Their work has a purpose higher than money or class.
Again, I decided to summarize my comments, not to clutter the blog.
Anon (pick a handle already),
Your idea of balancing career and family is farming off children to be raised by strangers.
If my mom told me to get over myself and not to bother her with my problems I'd do exactly that. I wouldn't bother her with phone calls, birthday cards, and visits, either.
Tough love in your opinion is providing no emotional support to your own children in the times of need.
Also, you wrote your greatgrandfather's death was his own stupid fault. OK, I believe you. But many more men died working dangerous jobs to provide for the wife and kids, while she stayed at home, secure and warm. We can use this fact as a proof that men were oppressed by women, can't we?
And even now, 95% work related deaths are all men . Men died by thousands in various wars protecting their women, but feminists keep harpying on about how oppressive men were.
Where is your proof that women were 2nd sort citizens? In some situations title could be inherited by women. Normally it went from father to son, logical - we also get our family names from fathers. Women could inherit estate in many cases.
Women could vote in local councils in many situations. Women did not lose their property upon their marriage, the law viewed husband and wife as 1 person so they had common property.
You wrote there was no easy divorce - since when is divorce a good thing? It went both ways, the husband couldn't get rid of the wife even if she nagged him to death.
The reasons of father's custody are addressed by Steve Moxon.
Also, an article to which Lydia linked shows that most women were at best indifferent to voting.
You don't read any sources provided and don't address the points made but keep coming here with the same tired old arguments.
You need to stop reading Marxist textbooks, communism is already abolished.
Also since you seem unable to follow the links, I will provide the necessary information for you:
So here we go: quote (by Steve Moxon):
"There are no aspects of women's lives in the past where any argument that they were oppressed stand up. On the contrary they all show how women were privileged.
Take the vote. Women were always allowed to and expected to vote at the level of their interests -- the local community (in the manor -- the Court Leet -- and in the parish -- the Vestry meetings), and women were compared to men privileged in that in the 13th century, women were along with clergy and nobles the only category of persons allowed to choose NOT to attend the Court Leet. Matters of state were 'imperial' concerns only: concerns that only impacted on men, because only men were drafted to fight wars, and only men were taxed to pay for them. As soon as national politics had much relevance to local life, then women were given the vote more or less straight away. In the UK this was 1918, when at the time still most men effectively did not have the vote, and did not have any choice over the war they were fighting and dying in by the million.
If you look at child custody laws, the point of them was to ensure that in no circumstances could a man divest himself of the duty to support his children and to provide for their entry into adulthood. Women were assumed to naturally want to care for their own children, but it was recognises that in some situations men would be required top be forced to do their duty. So if it was anyone who was ‘oppressed’ by custody laws it was men, not women. Whenever custody laws backfired on privileging women, the law was changed, and many law changes were needed to cut through the mess the law was in, but towards the end of the 19th century all was rectified."
And this:
"If you look at the law of ‘coverture’: this was a serious onus on men to take all responsibility for the behaviour of their wives, irrespective of how unreasonable. A man could be bankrupted by his wife’s spending and he would be in the debtor’s jail, with this wife unpunished. Anyone was obliged by law to supply to he wife, even if they knew that they would thereby become creditors forever out of pocket. At one time even the most serious crimes were attributed to the husband even though committed by the wife.
If you look at the ‘marriage bar’, whereby women were given their cards upon marriage: this was a measure brought in expressly to protect the jobs of unmarried women. It was in no sense to help men to keep jobs, because in the past as now male and female unemployment are almost wholly independent. It was always the great majority of women and not men who supported the ‘marriage bar; wherever it was introduced.
To reiterate: there is no situation anywhere in history where women were disadvantaged. If you look at the situation at issue in the light of social justice at the time, it always turns out that women were privileged."
So you see, officially the wife's fortune "became" her husband's upon her marriage, but he was placed under serious financial obligations and was even held responsible for her crimes.
Also, in countries like England the property division upon marriage was determined by the marriage contract. in "A Woman In White" the husband could not get his wife's money without her written permission which eventually brought him to crime.
Miss AW you mentioned how happy people are when the wife works and husband works and children are away at institutions all day and the family rarely sees each other. People are always talking about happiness. I keep hearing people say that they "weren't happy" to justify their wierd living situations (living with someone else's mate, or walking out on someone) but I rarely hear any feminists, even Christian feminists speak of love and duty and unselfishness. Some women care more about their own happiness than the happiness of their husband and children. They leave a trail of tears on their quest for personal happiness. Husbands need wives and children need mothers, but many people believe that if you aren "happy" you have a right to leave all that and go your own way. This is more disturbing than a woman staying home and creating stability for her husband and children.Money isn't everything and like one woman said, no one could have pried her child from her arms and forced her from him. Love is certainly the better part, which Jesus was talking about.
You might also read this:
http://heartsforfamily.blogspot.com/2008/05/whats-girl-to-do-interview-with-lindsay.html
I will be 23 when I graduate with an engineering degree. Have I missed my most fertile years? I don't agree with your argument in that regard. Also, let's say I have a career until I'm 30 and somehow can't have my own children. What's wrong with me adopting or fostering children? I don't understand the importance you place on giving birth to my own children.
Also, in regards to finding a mate, I don't see how getting an education is forfeiting my best time to find a mate. On the contrary, I find that I meet many people with similar interests to mine in my classes. I also get to branch out and meet people I may not have known otherwise by volunteering for campus organizations. And, I can still go to church and meet people there too.
You say that wifehood, motherhood, homemaking, etc are things that must be done when it is time to do them. I do not think that everyone is automatically ready for those things as soon as they are able to bear children, or as soon as they hit a certain age.
You say that most jobs that women study for in college will not be available when they get out. What about 'traditional' jobs for women like teaching and nursing? I don't know of many places that couldn't use more teachers or more nurses. If industry is changing fast for women, it should be changing that fast for men. Can we use the argument that men shouldn't get degrees because they might not be valid when they get out?
You say, "Many people can teach your children, but it is the mothers that do it best". With a degree, won't I be able to teach my children even more?
The answer about the fertile years of a woman can be seen by some of the posts here where women have shown why they regret not having started earlier. Also there is plenty of medical evidence that the best time, health wise, to have children is when you are younger. You can look it up on any health site online, if you like.
As for the importance of having your own: if it is possible to have your own, it is better for your own body. Having babies is natural, lactating is natural, and it send your body into the natural route it is supposed to go, as a woman. You can also look this up, as there are many sites which show how women putting off having children have more health problems. Having a baby definitely changes things both in the mind and the body and it is something that those who have not had children cannot fully understand. The woman was created to have children. If she cannot have them, that is an entirely different matter. I have lots of people in my family tree who were not able to have children. They found time for their relative's children and they were fulfilled in other ways, but it wasn't because they didn't want children. They accepted that they could not have them and were content. In those days very few people deliberately did not have children for the sake of getting a career instead.
If college is a great place to find a good husband, then I am the last to know. If this is so, then why do so many people go through college and not come home with a mate, and why are so many people joining matchmaking organizations like e-harmony in order to find a mate. I see the campus swarming with men and women but they aren't attracted to each other. They walk around looking nueter-gender and there is no spark. They are familiar with each other but there is no driving desire to get married. I often assume that because a young girl is in college she will meet someone to marry but I haven't seen that happen so much recently. In the 50's girls went to college in hopes of getting their MRS and they usually came back with a husband. Today though they want a career and are not likely to come home with a husband.
If they do meet a man, he likes the fact she is in college because it means she will earn a living too and then can share expenses and they can have more. He doesn't really want her to be a homemaker because she would be wasting her degree. The girls feel the same way. So if you do meet a guy in college, he will be as liberated as you are. He won't want a traditional wife if he goes to university expecting to meet one.
As my time is limited I'll let others answer some of the questions but I will answer this one about your degree being helpful as a teacher of your own: as you teach your own childrne, your degree doesn't count. TEaching your own at home is an entirely different experience that your degree really won't cover. You will learn many things as you go and as you grow to love your children.
Yes, but how does waiting until after my degree hamper my chances of having children if I will be only 23 when I finish, possibly even 22?
With regards to e-harmony, I see this as a symptom of society as a whole. You and I, for example, may discuss over the internet without ever meeting each other in person. So many of our socializations are increasingly being carried out through the internet. Dating seems like a 'natural' (or unnatural) progression of this.
With regards to college and getting married, I know several people already who met their mates and got married through college/university. Some are in very traditional relationships, and are staying home to raise their children. I don't think you can just throw everyone into the liberal barrel just because they're going to college. Each and every man and woman is different, and I can tell you there are still lots of men looking for a wife who will stay home and take care of the house for them. Also, there are still Bible colleges where women can still go to get their MRS.
With regards to teaching, at least purely in an academic sense, you are able to teach better the more you understand the material. Who says that education should stop at a certain point? I think a lot of what I learn is really interesting, and if I can show that interest to kids, depending on the age level, I can teach them really neat things that they wouldn't learn in school/at home. I get lots of volunteer experience here working with children, doing science demos and learning how to teach concepts in a manner appropriate for the age level of the children I'm working with. I think my education will provide me with the opportunity to go 'above and beyond' when I teach people. And what about tutoring? It's good business, especially for college level courses, and it can be done from home.
When you have had experience of several years of being a wife, mother and homemaker, you can look back at your own questions and answer them. There is no way that college can give you the wisdom and the knowledge you need for these things. Until you have experienced them, you can only go around in circles reasoning your way out of the natural and Biblical way of doing things. Check back a little later when you have lived outside of college awhile.
Alright, but I still don't agree with many of the negative things you attribute to my education.
Amber, nobody is preventing you from finishing your degree over here. You are free to do as you please! No one has said so far that women must be prohibited by law from getting a degree. However, in order to take an informed decision one must see the advantages of something as well as the disadvantages.
Nowadays, the only thing young women are often told about, is the advantage of going to a college/university, but they rarely hear about the possible negative consequences of this desicion as well.
One of the disadvantages is the cost of university education, and the fact that many young people are deeply in debt when they graduate. It may be not the case in you situation.
Another disadvantage is the fact that because a girl has spent so much time and money to get a degree she doesn't want to marry right after graduatuion but first spends some time working at a career and paying back her debts. Just as you have written, imagine I work until I'm 30 and then...
That is now exactly the mistake many young women make. They falsely assume that they will be just as attractive and fertile in their 30s as in their 20s and delay searching for a husband. They don't realise that female attractiveness, just as female fertility diminishes after a certain age. It may not be true for every woman out there, but it is true in general.
Of course, it is still possible for a woman to marry in her 30s, and 40s, and get children, but generally speaking the chance to make a good marriage is less for a woman who is 35 than for a woman who is 25.
Unlike feminists, we just want young women to take informed decisions. If you want to establish your career first and work till you are 35 and then search for a husband, it's fine - but be aware of the possible consequences.
Here is a link to an interesting discussion on the subject of college education and debts:
http://www.boundlessline.org/2008/03/the-7-deadly-fi.html
And this article:
http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001135.cfm
Also many girls spend years studying for a career but don't learn anything about homemaking. It comes as a surprise to them after they marry that homemaking actually requires some skills and knowledge.
I think we should bring back home economics classes in schools and colleges. On my site I have a link to a YouTube Video on home economics. Home economics courses were not only about keeping house, they provided women with professional skills which enabled them to earn an income in case they didn't marry.
Are College Degrees a Waste of Money?
Listen Now [16 min 54 sec] add to playlist
What do you think? Is college overrated?
Talk of the Nation, May 12, 2008 · Author and career coach Marty Nemko argues that when kids are not adequately prepared for college, they are simply wasting their time and money on four years of college-level course work. "College is a wise choice for far fewer people than are currently encouraged to consider it," he writes in his article, America's Most Overrated Product: the Bachelor's Degree.
The majority of students entering college today are unprepared, Nemko explains, "When you hop into a cab or walk into a restaurant, you're likely to meet workers who spent years and their family's life savings on college, only to end up with a job they could have done as a high-school dropout."
Nemko's article appears this month in The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Related NPR Stories
Feb. 25, 2007
Opting Out of College for a Blue-Collar Life
Feb. 22, 2007
Amber: paste this in your browser and read:
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/jan08/08-01-02.html
It is called "College Not Necessary for Many New Career
I will most likely graduate with $20-30 thousand in the bank, due to my own hard work. I knew beforehand that there was a work program available and I also picked a school with good scholarships/funding. Basically, I will have paid for my entire education myself. Despite this, I'm not spoiled, addicted to fine clothing, makeup, and lattes. I don't drink coffee or tea, don't wear makeup, and I still hunt around for bargains on everything I purchase. I'm not a man-hater and I don't judge people by their bank accounts.
Who knows if I'll be married or not by the time I graduate (well, God). Since most men work a 9-5 job, if I don't get caught up in overworking and obsessed with making money, I think I'll still have time left to meet men. Assuming, that is, that I don't meet a husband before I graduate. I read that it's becoming increasingly acceptable to date coworkers, but I don't see myself going quite that far.
I don't think my fertility will be affected, and I'll have another 7 years before I even hit 30. I agree that children need love, and it's important to have someone stay home with the children. Although fertility and money may be an issue for some people going to college, I don't think that these negatives apply to me.
As far as homemaking skills go, I'm renting a house (with 5 others!) while I get my degree. I have plenty of chances to decorate, make things look nice, and even sew (knitting is a lot like math, and I pwn math). I cook my meals myself, and I keep the house clean (although it does get messy during exams). No, my sewing isn't up to the level to earn a supplementary source of income (I just started learning!), but I could always do that though tutoring if I choose.
I will agree that many people in college are not suited to be there! Nowadays it's like anyone who graduates from high school expects to go to a college or a university. Many of these people are not hardworking, not diligent, or simply are not able to grasp the material. I will agree that college/university is definitely not for everyone, and I don't think that every man, nor every woman should go.
Lydia, I read the article you posted. That's truly terrifying if 40% of Duke engineers cannot get a job after graduating. Then again, I thought only 60-65% of engineering graduates in the U.S. passed their licencing exams on the first try? Things work a bit differently up here. I'm doing a program that has about 20 months of internships involved, and I already have offers of a job after I graduate. I think the placement rate is about 95% within the first 8 months of graduation or something.
Sure, college isn't necessary for many careers, nor should it be, but I'm not interested in those other careers. I felt called to do this (it's a long story), and I really think that it will be a great way to put my skills to use helping others.
Sorry if this seems a bit discombobulated, I really need to start typing up comments in a word processor before posting.
To anonymous christian feminist:
For more information go here
http://no-maam.blogspot.com:80/2008/05/this-way-to-see-great-egress.html
and
Check here also:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/05/more-doubts-about-college.html
And it should be known that no matter what any article says, you have to weigh the value of college yourself. One does not have to read any articles to know what colleges are like or what people are really getting out of them, or what they cost or what is the real benefit to anyone. With the exception of doctors or architects most graduates pursue something else, and even the doctors and architects do not always go into their chosen fields.
I don't know if anyone has commented this, but marrying and keeping house and having children was something God intended women to start doing in their youth, not put off til they got an education and career. Women are now getting more and more diseases that were unheard of when women generally married early in life and bore children at a young age. The chance of getting a husband in your late 20's or early 30's becomes harder as you get older.
Lady Lydia you have misquoted me again "you mentioned how happy people are when the wife works and husband works and children are away at institutions all day and the family rarely sees each other."
I wrote something very different about my idea of a happy family "a family in which husband and wife are of an equal worth, share a mutual love and respect for each other, make all their decisions together and share their responsibilities as parents and their household duties"
Concerning the Victorian age, I never criticized its art and architecture, which by the way I like. I did suggest you read carefully some of the great women writers of that time. For instance, Charlotte Bronte, who wrote :"Women are supposed to be very calm generally; but women feel just as men feel; they need exercise for their faculties and a field for their efforts as much as their brothers do; they suffer from too rigid a restraint, too absolute a stagnation, precisely as men would suffer; and it is narrow-minded in their more privileged fellow-creatures to say that they ought to confine themselves to making puddings and knitting stockings, to playing on the piano and embroidering bags. It is thoughtless to condemn them, or laugh at them, if they seek to do more or learn more than custom has pronounced necessary for their sex."
Jane Eyre (Ch. 12)
"Shirley" is a powerful indictment of the position of women in nineteenth-century England. That their dependent status is a source of misery is evident in the initial fate of Caroline Helstone, who, like the Brontë sisters themselves, has neither dowry with which to secure a husband nor any respectable means of earning a living without one. The novel's other female characters offer no role models for Caroline, either inside or outside the married state; the married women are abused or ignored, while the spinsters are impoverished and embittered. The plight of women dependent on men for their survival is similar to the plight of workers dependent on the mill owners for theirs.Shirley is a great book to make us understand the severe limitations imposed to women at the time. And I could give you many other examples...
Concerning the lack of women rights in the mast, there are many books written by objective scholars - not feminists - there are memoirs and letters and of course, the law itself which demonstrates that women were indeed lacking in many vital rights and had a very limited freedom of choice. All over the world women were considered, openly or not, inferior beings. Read objective history books, not web sites made by mysoginists. But of course, since you're homeschooled you read only what conforms to your views.
What bothers me about your way of thinking is the ostility you all show towards women. You really are all mysoginists. Why so much hate for your own gender? If you like to be housewives, so be it, but don't criticize and don't demonize career women and don't presume to impose your own definition of what a good mother and wife is. Although you are a Christian, I find no Christian love for your fellow, no charity, no love for the sinners - real sinners or sinners only in your view. Your Christian faith must not be very strong if you feel you can only protect it by hiding from the world.
You write "Some women care more about their own happiness than the happiness of their husband and children. They leave a trail of tears on their quest for personal happiness. Husbands need wives and children need mothers" But in real life - there are statistics to show it - the overwhelming majority of those who leave their spouse and children are men.
A few years ago I read "the handmaid's tale" by Margaret Atwood. It is a SF book, but after reading your blog, I think the horrible position of women in the society described in the book might just happen if you and your kind took power.
I would like to point out that I do not believe, as you wrote, that "the only reason a woman wanted a man is because there were no factories to work in. Of course, had there been factories and careers available, women would have naturally left all those terrible marriages and awful farms and horrible houses and gone to work in the nice, quiet, clean, happy little factories." In fact, one of the things I mentioned was the very restricted jobs available to women. Factory work was hard for everyone and not the kind of jobs I was referring to. I was referring to women who belonged to the upper classes, who were not able to go into politics, administration, etc. It was extremely hard for women in the Victorian era to become doctors and to pracice medicine, even if they managed to study it. I never said women married because they couldn't work! My belief is that women are just as able as men to have a job and a family. You mentioned women writers, artists, etc. Have you read about them? For the overwhelming majority, it was extremely hard to pursue their talent, because of the very wrong belief that a woman writer, painter, etc was somehow less fit to be a good mother, wife, etc. Many did not marry because they were forced to choose between their talent and having a family.
As for university education, it is a very positive thing because it allows people from humble backgrounds to better themselves and move up on the social scale. In my country, for instance, the grandparents or great-grandparents of the majority of people with university degrees, in fact the majority of middle and upper-middle-class were peasants, poor labourers with no education, no money and no hope. Because of our educational system - mandatory primary education and state universities where only students with low grades must pay - a great proportion of our population managed to escape poverty and move upwards on the social scale. For instance, my maternal grandfather was born into an aristocratic family and his wife, my grandmother, was the daughter of very poor peasants. Luckily for her, she was able to go to school and to have a higher education. Thanks to her education, she was able to marry an aristocrat, which would have been impossible if she had stayed at home. She would have become a poor labourer, like her parents. One of her sisters was also educated and married up, while her brothers and their children, with no education, remained poor peasants in their village.
Finally, I don't read marxist textbooks as Sandra said. I do read women history books because I feel very interested in this subject. Any serious historian cannot deny the fact that women have always had less rights and privileges than men. feminism and communism are NOT the same thing.
After this comment, I will be closing the comments on this particular article.
Anonymous from former soviet country:
You aren't married and have not had the experience of a long, successful marriage, like many women here. Most of us have been married 10 to 40 years and have managed our husband's careers and helped several family members in their life's destiny. That is purely unselfish service to others and to the Lord Jesus Christ, whom we honor when doing this. You claim to be a Christian but are completely ignoring the command to have a servant's heart and to love one another, which is what the homemaker promotes. You have also ignored Titus chapter 2 and Ist Timothy 5:14, as well as many other Biblical passages that clearly define the great position of the women in the church. The world may be full of radical feminists who compete with men, are bitter against the past, dominating men, and ruling the world, but the Christian woman was told to be different than the world. You find me very "different"? Well and good! That is what I am trying to be. The world has enough women in the professions. It has enough women in the Universities. It has enough women controlling government. It has enough women in offices. The home has been neglected. Children are farmed out to intitutions to be raised. Young men and women don't understand the real meaning of a home life. I doubt very much that my position on this issue is very threatening to anyone, because you, the feminist, have nothing denied you: nothing at all. However, the hand that rocks the cradle, still rules the world, and that is the bottom line. You wonder sometimes after reading the wonderful history of England, how they could succumb to socialism so easily: the socialists got control of the schools, and whoever controls the education system will control the child and control the world. That is one reason there is such a large homeschool movement today. Christians want to take the responsibility God gave them and not hand it over to the state. Women want to come home and guard and guide it as the Bible teaches.
Another thing that I noticed in all your rants was your inconsistency. You claimed women were oppressed in past centuries, yet you also say your mother or grandmother was educated and still married a rich man? If she was so educated she would have worked all her life and not depended on a man for a living. You claim he forbid her to work. Did he tie her to the house with a chain or something? I know that even as a Christian, no one can stop me from doing what I really am determined to do. I could easily find a way to escape if I thought I was being locked up.
Another thing is that I'm trying to make more homemaking articles on this blog, to uncover the beauty and exquisite joy of being home and being free, out from under the oppression and restriction of the employer, and so I am not really going to turn the blog into a debate about feminism. I would suggest you go to No Ma'am and post because he is the one that has the article about the connection between Marxism and Feminism (you need to study your history a bit more) and he also doesn't delete comments and they are used to debating with feminists so you can spout off all your ignorant assumptions there and they will be quite a bit more blunt than I am. I am merely a simple homemaker and no matter how much you can prove that women are or were oppressed in society, the Bible is still my guide, not what society is doing. It withstands the ages, and tests of time. Following it will always work. Please read two articles on my sidebar: Do What God Says Do and "For Newcomers." Rob Fedders "NO Ma'am" link is
here http://no-maam.blogspot.com/ but it is not a Christian blog and I only send feminists over there. It is the one that shows the connection between marxism and feminism. Also you can post on Vox Day here http://voxday.blogspot.com/ just paste it in your browser. He has articles about feminism and you can post to your heart's content.
Finally, about the book you read about the handmaiden's tale: if that is what you base your beliefs on, try Alice in Wonderland. It is a lot more fun, and also fictional, and Alice gets to go on trips through the looking glass.
If you are interested in how you can be a better wife and mother and homemaker, you will find some great information and links here. I even link to a lot of shops online owned by women. It is interesting that they are all selling things that enhance the home. In fact, most of the market place sells things for the home. LIfe revolves around the home, not around the feminist pursuit of utopia.
Please check back in a few years when you have managed to hang on to a man and keep a marriage strong, and when you have raised some children and have learned a little bit more about life in the real world.
Alice in Wonderland was written in the Victorian Era, so of course, it must truly be historical, just like The Handmaidens tale which was written in the 70's, and poorly written, at that. Of course it must all be true, after all, as it was written about the past, even though it is fiction. I say this all with a wink and tongue in cheek. Ms. feminist must truly believe everything she reads, so why is it so odd to her that I believe the Bible? Is it less fantastic than some of these fictional works?
Anon,
You wrote:"But in real life - there are statistics to show it - the overwhelming majority of those who leave their spouse and children are men." Actually, it's not true, at least for USA, where about 70% of divorces are filed by women. Had you bothered to read Glenn Sacks, you would have known better. BTW, he is not a mysoginist, but a fathers'rights advocate.
Concerning your family saga: Strange, we only hear about things from the point of view of your female ancestors, I wonder what their husbands would say if we asked them.
Instead of addressing the arguments made on the websites we linked to you prefer to label them mysoginist. Calling someone names is not an argument. You prefer seeing oppression of women when you turn to the past, me, I see that women were protected, taken care of and revered.
The novel is often studied by high school and college students.[1][2] The American Library Association lists it in "10 Most Challenged Books of 1999" and as number 37 on the "100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990–2000"[3] due to many complaints from parents of pupils regarding the novel's anti-religious content and sexual references.
The book was written in 1985, and is not a historical account. It was written with the intent to condemn the bible and Christians, and make people feel prejudice against biblical standards of marrige, home, family, etc.
I was encouraged to open up comments again because of some of the interesting emails I got over this issue. So, please post your emails here, if you like.
I still have to emphasise the folly of putting your faith entirely in novels like "The Color Purple" and "A Handmaid's Tale." Apparently Handmaid's Tale, though claiming to be historical, was written in 1985. The author didn't actually live in the Victorian era, and she did not have accurate information for her suppositions. In this novel she proposes that everything the male did was the ruin of woman, and that all women were oppressed until feminism stepped in and rescued them from so called slavery at home. I posted links to the reviews on the side, under "For Students," so go there and read about the disgust that even the students who were forced to read this piece of trash, had for the book. Unfortunately there are those girls who will naively succumb to such teaching and be so greatly influenced by it that they believe it is the truth. What astonishes me is their ridicule and disdain for my belief in the Bible, erstwhile believing in fantasy like Handmaid's Tale. I suggested that maybe Alice in Wonderland was equally historically accurate, and that it would be more appropriate for a feminist since they believe in fairy tales. If you want fairy tales why not read good books about men and women and normal relationships, like Barbara Cartland or Jeanettle Oake or Grace Livingston Hill.
Dear feminist, when you wake up in the morning, how does feminism help you? Will it help your marriage last a lifetime? Will it bring up your children to be moral and good? Will it help you support your husband in his life and his business? What if you had to go live in the wilderness, for some reason? Would it help you survive? How will feminism increase your dependence upon God? How will feminism help you repent of your sins when you have fallen away from God? How will feminism help you sew a pretty dress? How will it bring your family fresh scones in the morning, with hot tea? How will it make you kind and loving in all you do? And how will it improve your family relationships, with your parents, grandparents, children, etc?
A word about education. It is not education that makes a person better. John Dewey and other modernists believed that there should be an alternative to Christian beliefs about morals. They wanted to do away with sin and guilt. Through education, mankind was supposed to get better and better. (note here--just because someone doesn't go to school or college does not mean they cannot learn to read and write, add and subtract. I know many brilliant people who were educated at home. The female writers of the Victorian period--jane austen, elizabeth gaskell, Louisa Alcott, the writer of Elsie Dinsmore, and the poets and artists did not go to public schools and colleges--in fact, many successful men did not attend public schools either, in that period. It was a different system but it does not mean that people failed in life. Almost all the PResidents of the US were home educated until the 20th century. So whether or not a person has a public education has nothing to do with their ability to read and write.) Mankind, in the 20th century, despite Dewey and Mann's attempt to reform them through massive public education, did not get better and better. In fact, there was more divorce, more children uncared for, more broken homes, more pregnant girls out of wedlock, more drugs, more smoking and drinking, and more illicit behavior. So much for your higher education. Have a look at how many female students spend their spare time and then tell me they are bettering themselves. Your claim that education enabled people to better themselves does not show in real life. There are just too many people with degrees who cannot keep a marriage together or raise good children.
Alice Walker's feelings about children reminds me of a 'Dear Abby' type column I read a few years ago with women writing in and explaining why they were so happy they chose to be childless . . . they had lots of rich friendships to invest in, they and their husbands/partners could travel and buy anything they wanted, they didn't have to lose their figure, on and on. Some of those contributing were even in their 40s and 50s. However, none were in the 60s and 70s. And I pictured these childless women growing older and older and ending up in nursing homes, watching their partners and old friends all passing away and not having the joy of children and grandchildren to brighten their days. I once thought, as a young woman, that I didn't want to have children either, but God changed my mind. Even as a young mother busy with my daily responsibilities, I had no idea of the richness of the life that lay ahead of me. Now I look at my grown daughter and my stepdaughter and grandchildren, and I think of how close I came to
not having them and it frightens me and makes me very sad to think how much I would be missing now and how I wouldn't even know it. It really frightens me and makes me want to cry. My whole life pivots around a decision I made one night over 25 years ago to go to a farewell party with a friend instead of staying home and sewing all night as I had planned . . .
Post a Comment