And yes, of course the exceptions prove the rule. I myself was raised by a single Mom who HAD to work. Key word: HAD. But lets not play games and pretend it is ok for a woman to choose that role unless it is a necessity/exception. Just having to give this caveat shows how far we have degenerated as a society.
Word on Fire contributor Dave Brenner made what I think are some common observations in an article today. All true and very sad. But I think he is way off the mark in his solution to the problem. The article is about how women are outpacing men in all areas of society now. His proposed solution is a sort of "let them eat cake" thing. My paraphrase would be something like "Do better, men". Well, it ain't that easy. Men and women are different, and papering over the gross abuse of gender roles in our culture is not helpful. I tried commenting on the blog, but I don't know if it went through, so here was my comment, beginning with a quote from the author:
''Those statistics are not a problem by themselves—it’s a good thing that women have more opportunities and are striving to fulfill their calling in life. The issue is not that women are catching up but that men are falling behind. ''
I disagree and I think you have truly missed the point. And missed it badly. When women are prominent in any important endeavor, they take it over completely, leaving men in their dust. The men will invariably turn into Seth Rogan. This is at the heart of Eve's curse to "desire her husband". She desires the authority position proper to men. When women en masse become players in the workforce or academics, it will never be 50/50. The women will win, and men will drop out.
For me it is frustrating to see so many women at my workplace taking jobs/pay away from fathers trying to support our families who are unemployed. And for what? An extra car to be able to go to work in your pant-suit?
The vast majority of these women by and large should be at home fulfilling their role as wife and mother. Raising godly children to conquer the world for Christ is the most important job in the world! Yet many women throw that chance away to collect a paycheck doing things they have no business doing. Their job is to nurture children and being a HELPER to their husbands, not taking on his role.
There can be no parity.
There can be no 50/50 of men/women in the workplace and university. If women try to fill men's roles, then the curse of Eve takes effect and God will give them over to their arrogation. The result is that men WILL become disillusioned and WILL give up. Which is exactly what is happening. Make fun of immature men all day, but unless we call our women back to their proper role, don't expect men to take back theirs.
What we men need to do is yell this truth from the rooftops. Get our women back in the home and out of the workforce, and take charge of society again. Until we reassert our role as the "garden tamers" God created men to be, women will continue to usurp our birthright, and to give up theirs at the same time. I the end, both sexes will not be fulfilled, and find only frustration. This is not sexist people, just true.
As a woman, I agree. Biologically, I feel I need to be home with my children. I should be making my house a home for my husband. Instead, I am forced to work and feel out of place. Almost as if my life is not going the correct way.
ReplyDeleteHi Bailey,
ReplyDeleteWell, be gentle with your husband, these things take time for us to understand. My wife was gentle with me years ago in bringing up this topic, and gradually we were able to move to a single income, and she has been at home ever since. This also enables us to homeschool, which is very important to us.
Pray that God will allow you to make things work so tyou can stay at home with your kids. He will help you.
Peace,
David
David,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response. God has helped tremendously in my journey so far. I think often of where we were this time last year and the changes that HAVE occurred. Thank you again.
Blessings,
Bailey
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am twenty-four years old. I have no desire to marry or have children. I cannot make that commitment. What I *am* going to do is aim for a career that will allow me to live my life as fully as I can, while volunteering in my parish and in the community. I will still be doing good for society, but I will be living the life in the way that is best for me. I won't be put "back in the home" because I can't make the commitment that a marriage (and raising children) needs. The tone of your article speaks of complete insecurity and it isn't helping me keep an 'open mind' to your opinion. 'We men' and 'our women'? No, 'we women' aren't chattel anymore! Also, women aren't "taking away" jobs. Most legitimate companies/corporations today, especially in this economy, of course hire those who are QUALIFIED. It doesn't matter whether or not an employee is male or female. So, what will I be doing? What I just stated, a fulfilling career while helping out the church and the community. If I chose to, I could even work my way to be coming a successful, respected judge like Deborah. From the Bible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah *ahem* Yes, she was a wife but was also in the 'workplace'!
ReplyDeleteALSO: 'Femi-Nazis'? COMPLETELY out of line, comparing feminists to savages who gassed and tortured millions.
Hey fangirl,
ReplyDeleteI am 100% happy that you have found your vocation, and I believe it is completely legitimate for a woman to choose not to marry, to have a career, and to work outside the home. Go for it and I truly wish you the best.
Having said that...
As the first line of my post says, the exeptions prove the rule. You are an exception. If a majority of women did what you are doing, it would be a negative for society. Just as if a majority became nuns and priests it would be a negative. With the replacement fertility rate being 2.1 kids per woman, it is just simple math that most women cant do what you (and nuns and priests, and permanent bachelors) are doing. That is not to say those vocations are bad (in fact they are awsome), it is just to say that they are designed to be rare. So if they are not rare, it is ok to point it out.
The natural state of a human female is to marry and bear children and raise them in the home. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. This is the most important job on earth, and it is not the traditional view that sees women as chattel, it is the feminist view that sees them that way, by objectifyingthem and telling women that to be fulfilled they need to find fulfillment in the areas that are more likely for a man to find fulfillment in (career).
The natural state of men is to protect and provide for the situation above as a husband (husband literally means "house-bound") That is not to say a man cannot have a vocation other than marriage, and likewise for a woman.
If 75% of men were priests, and therefore outside of the primary male vocation (husband/father), I would say that something was dreadfully wrong. And likewise with a majority of women now in vocations other than the primary female vocation (wife/mother), I am saying something is wrong.
Most feminists are very destructive individuals, and I would argue have done much more damage than the Nazis throug hthe targeted destruction of the family unit.
I hope you do become a judge and I wish you only the best, and I trust that you truly do have a vocation to remain unmarried and have a career. Again, that is the exception which proves the rule.
Peace to you,
David Meyer
You people forget that the Bible in Proverbs Chapter 31 PRAISES a woman who has a outside job.
ReplyDeleteLets take a look at the woman in the chapter.
As in she is in real estate, she owns her own land boughten with her own money. She plants it herself. Raises her own crops. She is not only a land owner, she is also a farmer.
...She would not be able to do that if she was stuck in her home.
She makes her own merchandise. And sells it in the marketplace. She would have had a ruined reputation if she did the selling from inside her home the selling of her merchandise. So she had to be outside of the house at her place of business.
...Again, she had to be out in a outside job as a merchant.
She also has to travel not only be at work. She also goes away from her husband to seek the best merchandise, Either for her own usage, and or for the household.
Too many folks forget that biblical women in their own way brought in cash for the house. They tend to think that only males should be the ones being paid for work. That only males should be allowed to have outside jobs. These are the ones who did not read the chapter I refer to.
Suzette,
ReplyDeleteYes, thank you for bringing the Proverbs 31 woman into the discussion. What a great chapter and a great example of a vocation.
Perhaps there is some confusion (caused by me) with the whole "in the home" thing. I am not saying there is some magical thing about women being physically in a house. As if being confined in a certain space is all right and good. What I am saying by "in the home" is that the primary vocation for human females is to be a wife and mother, and the primary responsibilities of being a wife and mother will necessarily entail a more domestic focus.
Proverbs 31 says "her works shall praise her in the gates". This is a reference to her husbands leadership. The leadership of the city would gather in the gate to discuss and decide, etc, and the Prov. 31 woman was so good in her vocation under her husbands leadership, that her works were well known, even enough that her husband was congragulated in the gate of the city for his wifes good work.
Women can do anything they want. Wives can do anything they want. They can be paid for work. But this should all be done under their husbands (if they have one) leadeship. I imagine the Proverbs 31 woman probably taking her children with her on her daily work duties, involving them directly and parenting them simultaneously with her prodigious work.
What absolutely did not occur, is the Proverbs 31 woman leaving her kids in daycare while she sat at council in the gate of the city. And that is precicely what feminism says is ok. Well it is not ok.
Thanks again for the input.
Peace,
David M.
I agree sort of except one thing, that is not finacially possible anymore. Now it is only fair to split responsibility of children and work because in order to keep a home now a days you need 3 jobs or more. No joke. Why make the husband work three jobs when he can just work 2? It's not so much that that is not what we were created for, it's more like, it's no longer possible, unless your husband is rich or something.
ReplyDeleteErica,
DeleteI agree that it is hard... but not impossible for a wife to stay at home. I myself have an average paying full time job and do things on the side to make ends meet for another 10-15 hours a week. 5 kids, one more on the way, yeah life gets stressed, money is a constant issue, but we eat rice and beans and make it work. But if my wife had a job would that be less stress? I can't say for sure, but my very solid guess is that it would be the same or more stress.
On the other hand, I do understand that our culture is moving toward multiple incomes as an expectation. And with that comes our own expectations which can be unrealistic (giant house, 2 cars, vacations, etc...) but also things like house prices really DO get out of reach of people like me, because the other buyers are all making a combined income of 75K or more. Hard to compete with that. But there are tricks to it I have learned. It just depends what the TOP priority is... is it my kids and wife staying home... or is it money. I know we all have different situations and I cant speak for you... but for me I do anything humanly possible, including bending rules and swallowing pride... to let my wife be at home with our kids.
Peace.
So you're admitting men can't compete? That's what you're saying- that if women join the work force or have any authority, they "win". That means you're also saying by default that men can't hack it. If that's the case, they don't deserve to be in a position of "authority" in the first place.
ReplyDeleteTrying to claim half the population must conform to a life and role YOU find socially acceptable just because of their gender is repugnant.
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting. I would like to respond to some of your comments.
You said “So you're admitting men can't compete?”
Yes and… no. It aint that simple. It depends what we are talking about. The key to what I am saying in this post is that men and women are different in almost every way possible. And in each of those ways, one gender could (if we wanted to) be considered “better”. Women are “better” at bearing children, for instance. They are also better multitaskers, and are better at showing empathy. Men have their strengths also. I like these differences and don’t believe either gender is superior to the other. They are just better suited to specific things than the other gender. Some of these things, like bearing children and being the primary caretaker for them are simply and beyond dispute better done by females. NOT because the task is simple and mundane, but quite the contrary because it is the hardest and most important job in the world.
“That's what you're saying- that if women join the work force or have any authority, they "win".”
It is not me saying it, the data says it. More women are in universities than men, and women do better in the workplace than men. Not my opinion, simply the facts.
“That means you're also saying by default that men can't hack it. If that's the case, they don't deserve to be in a position of "authority" in the first place.”
Wow, that sounds quite sexist. I didn’t say men can’t hack it, I said women will displace men when doing the same tasks IF those tasks are masculine by nature (better suited to men). That is not the same thing as saying they do it "better" than the men, or that the men aren’t needed in those roles. The male and female engineers I work with approach the job very differently, but both have unique and creative gifts to give on the job. The fact remains, however, that the career itself is a more masculine career, and is dominated by men, as it should be. Just as a human resources department is dominated by women, as it should be. These are just natural outcomes of the things each gender does best. But in a culture like engineering, if women became a majority, the men would disproportionately exit the culture and be displaced by the women, and the gifts those men brought to the engineering culture would be lost. The opposite is not true, however. Women can be a minority in that culture and hold their own. Just as men can be a minority in a naturally female dominated culture like human resources or childcare and not be displaced.
“Trying to claim half the population must conform to a life and role YOU find socially acceptable just because of their gender is repugnant.”
I didn’t make men and women different. So it isn’t about what I find acceptable or not, it is about society being as human and natural as we can be, and each person and gender being the best they can be. In general (of course there are exceptions, as with everything), women whose main life tasks consist of things other than nurturing and teaching a family will be unsatisfied. Women who try to be like men will be unsatisfied and bitter. Just as a man who makes it his mission to give birth will be left unsatisfied and bitter. I did not make these rules. And pointing them out isn’t repugnant it is just honest. We need women to raise children because it is the hardest and most important job in the world, and because men are not suited to it and would not do as good a job… I simply don’t see how that is a repugnant statement.
Peace,
David
Oh, spare me.
DeleteTrying to pretend you know what will make a woman satisfied or fulfilled or happy just by her chromosomal content is quite frankly dimwitted. As is the insistence that there are "masculine" fields or "feminine" fields in the workplace. If men leave a field because they can't handle that women actually work there too, they obviously don't have the maturity or capability to be there in the first place. We should have the best and brightest in all fields- if you can't hack that a different gender works with you, you don't qualify.
It is not "trying to be like men" to have a career you enjoy and excel in, and to place importance on that rather than being some man's housekeeper. Trying to shove all women back in the house because you can't handle the competition is definitely repugnant- and sour grapes.
Oh, spare me.
DeleteTrying to pretend you know what will make a woman satisfied or fulfilled or happy just by her chromosomal content is quite frankly dimwitted. As is the insistence that there are "masculine" fields or "feminine" fields in the workplace. If men leave a field because they can't handle that women actually work there too, they obviously don't have the maturity or capability to be there in the first place. We should have the best and brightest in all fields- if you can't hack that a different gender works with you, you don't qualify.
It is not "trying to be like men" to have a career you enjoy and excel in, and to place importance on that rather than being some man's housekeeper. Trying to shove all women back in the house because you can't handle the competition is definitely repugnant- and sour grapes.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSir, just ask, what's your practical solution, practically in education and workplace? Should we become like Iranian Muslims who "implied" (but thank God it's not implemented) some field of education (esp. STEM) should be men only, and vice versa?
ReplyDelete