I might as well get this out of the way, because a lot of future posts will come from it. It’s well known that plenty of churches, and plenty of people (who write plenty of books on marriage), feel that the only correct place for a married woman, and especially one who has children, is at home. Not in an office.
I’ll be perfectly blunt: I think that’s bunk.
I think SAH is a great choice for those for whom and for whose families it works. I know lots of wives who SAH, and lots of moms who SAH, and they have no doubt they made the best possible choice. Everyone involved is as happy as a clam. Some did it because it’s what they always dreamed of, some did it because when it came time for the choice they felt there wasn’t one at all, and some did it because after careful consideration, the scale came down on that side. Regardless of how it came about, they are still doing what they believe to be best. I applaud these folks, because their choice is not always easy. Unfortunately, there are way too many women who think that any woman who wants to SAH, much like any woman who believes in submitting to her husband, is setting all womankind back a hundred years or two. That’s ridiculous. How can a woman choosing to do what makes her happy and fulfilled, be an affront to feminism and progress?
However, the reverse is also true, and unfortunately, instead of “society” or a bunch of perfect strangers disapproving of their choice, WOH women find disapproval from the very people who should be supporting them: their close family, friends, and church. IMNSHO, this is way worse. I don’t care what strangers think of me. But I do care what people in my inner circle think. And when they try to say that my having a job is going against God’s will for wives (and mothers, but I am not one right now), it’s just plain offensive and hurtful.
They base this primarily on Titus 2:5 “…to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands…” But I fail to see how “to be busy at home” translates to “don’t leave home.” Because let’s think about it, for how long have people been leaving home for work? Not long. A hundred years ago and beyond, everyone worked at home. Right? The advent of leaving the house and driving to the office is a fairly modern development. When the Bible was written, men certainly didn’t get in the car and drive to a downtown high-rise while women never left the house.
And if you look at Proverbs 31, there is a lot about women working in a lot of capacities. “She brings food from afar.” “She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.” ” She watches over the affairs of her household.” This last verse, by the way, is exactly what I think is meant by Titus 2:5. Women watch over the affairs of the house and make it a home.
What makes no sense about those who say women should not work is that they are not consistent. Generally you find them listing a number of circumstances where working is acceptable, such as when the husband dies or becomes disabled. But shouldn’t the husband have provided for those circumstances? What about life and disability insurance? I don’t see these folks citing any Scripture that says, “Wives should stay at home, except…..” If women should stay at home, then they should stay at home. If it’s acceptable for women to work sometimes…….well, my point exactly.
My whole view on this subject is that no family’s needs are the same. And those who advocate a one size fits all approach for breadwinning are ignoring this completely.
holly | 22-Aug-07 at 8:26 pm | Permalink
I agree with this - also want to add that women with careers are also “busy at home” too. Nobody leaves all the home busy-ness to their husbands, regardless of his work or at-home situation. Working women are busy at home after work.
Emily | 23-Aug-07 at 9:05 am | Permalink
That’s a good point, and I was sort of trying to say that in my post but you said it better.
Jacqueline | 23-Aug-07 at 6:26 pm | Permalink
[i]What makes no sense about those who say women should not work is that they are not consistent. Generally you find them listing a number of circumstances where working is acceptable, such as when the husband dies or becomes disabled. But shouldn’t the husband have provided for those circumstances? What about life and disability insurance? I don’t see these folks citing any Scripture that says, “Wives should stay at home, except…..” If women should stay at home, then they should stay at home. If it’s acceptable for women to work sometimes…….well, my point exactly.
[/i]
See, though, this is what I have heard in a few Christian circles to combat wifely submission. That there are no exceptions laid out within those passages for when a wife is to not submit - so, if submission is a Biblical principle, then it is to always be, regardless of a husband’s willingness to uphold his end. That if God meant for there to be exception, then those exceptions would have been noted. Not saying I agree, but it’s an interesting point.
Emily | 23-Aug-07 at 8:22 pm | Permalink
Right. My point is, staying at home is not a Biblical principle. Some think it is, but then they are not consistent with it.
It’s a cultural principle, and a religious principle, but not a Biblical one.
Jacqueline | 24-Aug-07 at 6:50 am | Permalink
I don’t think I’m saying this correctly. You were saying that if staying at home were a Biblical principle, then there wouldn’t be this unless X, Y, or Z exceptions, right? Unless Dad is disabled, unless you are a widow…that if it were a Biblical principle, it would be consistent across the board. Yes?
I have heard it argued (by other Christians) that wifely submission isn’t a true Biblical principle, either. They argue that everyone who holds on to wifely submission as Biblical also quickly note exceptions (unless he is abusive, unless he hurts your childrem unless he is an adulterer), and their point is that if wifely submission were a Biblical principle, then it would have to be consistent without man-made exceptions.
Emily | 24-Aug-07 at 7:05 am | Permalink
I guess I’m not quite sure what you’re saying.
I’m saying staying home is not a Biblical principle. Those who say it is, allow for exceptions. My point is that if these people allow exceptions for death, disability, divorce (that’s a lot of D’s!) or whatever, why do they not allow exceptions for financial need (remember saving for retirement is also a need), personal fulfillment (many women think they are better as wives and mothers because they work), child socialization (many people believe their children thrive in an environment with other children present), and all the other reasons that women have, including that they WANT to work. Who decides what exceptions are allowed? The Bible? I haven’t read that anywhere. Probably because I haven’t read “you MUST stay home” anywhere either.
I have heard what you are saying about submission as well. It is hard to articulate my response, even though I do have thoughts. Is it possible to submit to a person but not to their behavior? In other words, submit to your husband but not to his abuse if that is his tendency? Do you leave rather than subjecting yourself to such? (as opposed to fighting back)? It’s a fair question.
Jacqueline | 24-Aug-07 at 7:27 am | Permalink
I’m not arguing the stay-at-home point. Not at all. I think I probably agree with you - at least, in this moment I do :p
I’m more speaking to your earlier point on submission. I think you could actually take your paragraph about staying at home and replace it with wifely submission and have a sound argument:
I’m saying wifely submission is not a Biblical principle. Those who say it is, allow for exceptions. My point is that if these people allow exceptions for adultery, addiction or abuse or whatever, why do they not allow exceptions for financial need (sometimes a husband could lead you into dire circumstances), personal fulfillment (there are men who wouldn’t allow their wives a night out with friends), female socialization (most of us believe that relationships with family and friends are important, but some husbands would disallow it), and all the other reasons that women have. Who decides what exceptions are allowed? The Bible? I haven’t read that anywhere. Probably because I haven’t read “you MUST submit always” anywhere either.
It just struck me as interesting that your argument against staying at home (which, again, I don’t disagree with) is the same argument I hear against wifely submission.
Emily | 24-Aug-07 at 7:36 am | Permalink
I see what you are saying. No, I don’t have a great answer.
Perhaps when I die, God will give me the secrets of the universe. (Won’t that be nice!)
My main point of the whole submission post is that a lot of people think it’s anti-feminist and a flashback to the 50’s. I think that focusing on submission (and for men, love and respect), means you’re focusing more on the other person than yourself, which is what we should all do.
I think the anti-submission camp misses the point because they are so busy arguing how submission is an affront to women and is unequal, that they fail to see why it’s taught in the first place. And again, I personally think men get the short end of that stick. Loving someone as Christ loved the church? How tall an order is that?
It’s an interesting argument because I actually do think the Bible says “you must submit always.” I mean, “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord” is pretty clear. However, I cannot reconcile that with “you must submit to a wife-beater.” And besides, if you are submitting to your husband as to the Lord, well, the Lord would not be a wife beater. So it’s at times a difficult parallel to draw. Husbands are not, of course, without sin like Jesus. I think that is a major part of the issue.
Rachael - Rae_anna46 | 24-Aug-07 at 9:03 am | Permalink
Have you ever read the extreme fundamentalists who say a woman should always be in the home and never work? (And for that matter, the ideal is for the men and fathers to be entrepenuers with family businesses so that they are not enslaved to corporate america). When you bring up “but what if the husband dies/abandons the family” the response is that the church should provide for the family so that the mother can stay home with her kids and homeschool them, and that if the church does not do this they are remiss in their biblical mission.
If you ever want me to give you a bunch of links to craziness like that let me know. That TrueWomanhood blog I gave you a link to a few days ago is working to address a lot of those issues and stand up against that craziness (the whole women should never go to college, and working college-educated women are corrupted by the world type of spiel).
Emily | 24-Aug-07 at 9:12 am | Permalink
I really like that truewomanhood blog - I added it to my bloglines so I can follow it.
Speaking of college educations, I was actually planning to post about something I recently read about Paige Patterson and how he is so distressed that 60% of all college students are now female. Something about how if women are educated that is deameaning to men because they get left behind. I need to read up on it some more and then I will post.
I wouldn’t mind reading some links to the fundamentalists just to see what they are saying. I stumbled across something that was linked in the truewomanhood blog a few days ago and now I can’t remember the URL. I’m sure there are a thousand more like it though.