Interesting perspective. Years ago, one of our church leaders talked about the importance of wives staying home saying that if both husband and wife worked outside the home and came home weary and worn, disagreements could escalate as they both tried to meet the demands of the home and love could evaporate in that hostile environment. There are probably many reasons modern marriages don't work; not the least of which is the attitude I've observed in too many young women, that because they are educated and work that they are superior to men, and they treat their man as a personal slave. It was not a pretty sight.
We (myself and our two daughters) have a saying in our home: One marriage cannot support two careers and a family.
What's worse, many women exhibit more loyalty to their jobs than to their husbands and children, so he is on to something...
This is an overly simplistic assertion built on the false idea that most married women take jobs out of an independent, rebellious rejection of their husband's provision, and that is demonstrably false.I can NOT count on my hands the number of wives I have encountered over the years who would have loved to be home with their babies full time, at least during their first 10 years of life, but who worked because their husbands desired them to. In most cases, the job is providing for the husband's needs and desires as much as for the wife's. Sometimes more so.I am a full time wife and mother and have been for the past 25 years. This isn't some self-serving rebuttal. It's what I have seen with my own eyes. As much as I loathe feminism, the screeching and howling and nonsensical feminist arguments we read and hear most frequently are not the sentiments of the average woman (at least not in total). Most every woman born from the mid-1960's onward (I was born in the 1970's) has been thoroughly and fully indoctrinated with feminist thought, but few are as insane and ideological rabid as Friedan, Steinem, and the current crop of Hollywood feminist preachers.Some women work because they are fearful of any number of things, and yes, some work to retain some level of independence from their husbands. I'm not denying that reality, but I have grown a wee bit annoyed with the wholesale ignoring of the fact that many if not most husbands send their wives out to earn a paycheck. The women then submit to that request and get blamed for it by trads on the right.
I think the reason it might sound simplistic, elspeth, is because it IS simplistic. The Bible is pretty clear about it. Of course, there's many ways to interpret it because everyone thinks they are the exception to what God says in Titus 2. What D has discovered from women sharing with him from his places of employment is that they [generally] do not want to give up their nice houses, nice clothes, nice cars, phones, cable, trips, abundant spending on food and or private schools, abundant gift buying at Christmas (choose all from the list or just one). It wasn't just a few women, it was MOST that have this perspective.
Oh I agree that it's very often the husband's fault, not the wife's. Men are supposed to be the guardians of society, but I'm not sure it changes his argument (which is somewhat simplistic,but it's the nature of twitter which doesn't really allow you to write long posts). I see it more as an observation on the state of the modern marriage, not trying to pin the blame on women. Because if the woman works (especially full time) it does make her more independent. Whether it was her husband's wish or her own, it doesn't change the fact. We also tend to get attached to those we care for and spend a lot of time with, so the woman who spends most of her productive time at work will form an attachment to this environment. It's true for men, too, but to a lesser degree as men are better at compartmentalising things.
well Robyn, I know just as many women if not more who work jobs at the behest of their husbands. Some do get accustomed to the creature comforts it provides over time, but it was absolutely NOT their desire when their kids were young.I recognize that it is simple to see that the traditional, Biblical model of husband as provider is the best possible model, but it is simplistic to look at the married mother heading to work and point fingers at her as if it is for ever and always a decision she made in a vacuum, independent of her husband, in a bid for rebellion and independence.The verses in the Bible commanding women to submit to their husbands are far more clear and unambiguous than the Scriptural ideal of the woman at home full time, not earning any money in support of the household. So when such a wife works in clear submission to her husband, I will not participate any longer in her evisceration.We anti-feminists don't do women (or men) any favors by absolving men when they compel their wives to go to work in order to lighten their loads.
I don't agree that wives are victims. It is clear that women are to obey (submit) as to the Lord; and the Lord is clear and not confusing. I think it depends on how you define sin (disobedience). Or, in today's vernacular -- what mountain, as a wife, are you going to die on? For my walk with God, I would submit to pretty much anything D asks me to do, but no, I'm going to disobey how God has created me to be: Female, the weaker one. And go out into a masculine world and strive in his punishment: "IN TOIL you shall eat of it, all the days of your life. Both THORNS and THISTLES it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. IN THE SWEAT of your face you shall eat bread." (Gen 3) Testosterone KILLS wives; we wives were not created with the strength to carry our punishment from Genesis 3 as well as a man's. It is also a sin to enable a man to be lazy. This is why we are instructed to do what is right and be fearless about it, 1 Peter 3.
(correction in the sentence: ... but no, I'm NOT going to disobey how God has created me to be:)
"... many women exhibit more loyalty to their jobs than to their husbands and children ..."It took me years to understand the wisdom that my grandfather exhibited in his later years.His first wife was a disaster, the type of woman who could look in the mirror, ignore the reality facing her, and proclaim herself to be Grace Kelly of the working world.She created a scene so dramatic that the police of three countries wound up looking for my grandfather, and then she concocted a story to the courts so grand that he wound up paying her as a result of a divorce decree the kind of money normally reserved for the financial shaming of actors and bankers.In essence she earned a second company director level salary through the courts.His second wife was a waitress and school teacher who retired from both, because if you have enough cash that you don't need to work and can stay home to tend to the family, why bother?I didn't understand a little ritual they'd do when I was with them of driving past a certain caff in the Midlands until she explained it to me.Her last job, which she was grateful to leave.Since I came to an understanding, I've been highly reluctant to invest any time and effort in a woman who's more invested in her career than she will be me and a family.What elspeth says is spot on: it's the ones who can walk away from it who aren't damaged by the experience, but also circumstances may be quite different from what they appear to be.
I would say that both men and women are the victims of modernity to some degree, that's why it's probably not productive to point fingers. Just think of it, till the 1970s many people like small farmers even in Western countries, would have a house without mortgage, inherited from their family. Nowadays everyone is plugged into the matrix and the banker laughs last.They are now trying to spread the same model to the Third World under the guise of "help". I often hear about Christian (!) charities, who provide poor farmers' kids (often girls) with an education, so that they can get a job in town instead of "wasting their potential on the family farm". How's different from what this song describes:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5HZ6agJ92I
Post Alley, nice ritual, approve:)
I wasn't saying that women are victims. Not at all! I am saying that all the woman blaming has wearied me because I see with my own eyes women married to men who won't allow them to come home full time after kids, or decide suddenly that they don't even want kids because they like their life as is, etc. My comment wasn't about making women into victims. It was about looking at the thing realistically and objectively and noting that the men and women of this generation are two sides of the same coin. If my husband decided today that he needed me to get a part-time job, I believe the greater sin would be to outright rebel against his request vs getting the job. What you and I have is a fundamental disagreement on where the lines are drawn when it comes to wifely submission, and that's perfectly okay.Thankfully, and I am very grateful for this, we both seem to be married to men who are committed to providing so that we can keep our attention fully focused on home rather than divided.
blaming another for your own actions, is in fact, being a victim. Blaming your husband for your FREE choice, is saying, "i have no choice, i am being forced to work outside the home" this is a victim mentality." It was about looking at the thing realistically and objectively "-implying that i was not, "realistic and objective" I believe I am both realistic and objective ... in my opinion. A disagreement with your opinion is merely that.But I AM in complete agreement with you that both of us are married to amazing AMAZING men!
Actually,the Bible is clear that women who are married do not have full freedom of choice.
There are two things to consider here, imo. First, whether your husband's request is sinful. Here the opinions will differ, according to one's religious affiliation. For instance, a Catholic woman can't use artificial contraception just because her husband demands it, since her church designates it as a (mortal, I think) sin. Second, marriage is still a contract. If the two beforehand decided that the wife will stay home and take care of the family, and she keeps her end of the bargain and the family aren't in need, then the husband is in the wrong if he suddenly demands her to go get a job, and it's my opinion that the wife isn't obligated to obey in that situation.The tricky part is that for a modern marriage a default position seems to be both spouses working. If she consented to this family model and her husband fully expects it (and they are dependent on her income to a degree) the wife can't just quit working because she got a change of heart, without her husband's consent. That's why it's so important to discuss these things beforehand.
I agree that in cases such as a Catholic wife and artificial birth control, the lines are much clearer. Ditto the oft repeated refrain of bank robberies and threesomes, LOL. There are times when a wife MUST disobey. I get that.I don't disagree with Robyn as far as the general principle. I just think that as we are wont to do, we allow our pendulums to swing to other extremes in our defense of the ideal.The question, for me at least, is whether a wife obeying her husband's commands to do something that is supposed to be his primary responsibility is a sin worthy of committing the sin of rebelling and creating a hostile marriage and home environment for the children.A lot of times, couples marry with the understanding that the wife will work until the first child is born. My observation has been that some men switch the rules of the game afterwards.In this particularly instance, I would say obey and do everything possible (including fervent prayer) to hasten the day when he can see and appreciate that the family will be much better served with his wife at home. I've personally known couples whose marriage ended over money woes, and I don't think there's any question of whether a dissolved marriage is a bigger sin than a wife working.As to the original tweet, the other reason I disagreed with it is that monogamy is a sexual term, referring to a commitment to having sexual relations with one person and one person only. Unless a wife is sexually involved with her job or her boss, the assertion is way, way off base.I understand that he was using hyperbole to make a point, but still...
I would say that it depends on the financial circumstances a bit and on what type of marriage they have. If there is a clear understanding beforehand, the husband simply can't arbitrarily redraw the lines without a good reason. Wifely submission is partly based on the husband providing, btw. If she earns more than him, she really doesn't need him, the fact which they both understand very well. It's true that many marriages fall apart because of money issues, which in my experience, often includes the husband not being able to hold down a job. Anyway Robyn must speak for herself what exactly she means:)Yeah, I agree that monogamy absolutely has s*xual connotations, but in crude terms, traditional marriage is provision in exchange for s*xual favours; so the question then arises, if the husband gets s*x but doesn't provide, is he still strictly speaking, the husband? Of course, one can't get intimate with one's job, but considering the very real attachment many women form to their employment, his idea comes close to home, so to say.Don't they sometimes call modern spouses friends with benefits?
Just to clarify, if the husband positively threatens divorce should the wife quit, she should probably keep her job, to avoid divorce, but I really can't imagine a situation like this, unless they are very poor and the wife is a spendthrift. Men with normal incomes would prefer a housewife, according to polls, so I may be biased.Another thing to consider is that there is a difference between the husband who works normally and the one who refuses to provide. In the latter situation, he loses all the husband's rights, imo. It's immoral for a healthy man to live by courtesy of his woman. Unless, it's what they both decided beforehand. I tend to view marriage as a contract, where both parties have rights and obligations, and that's what my opinion is based on.
My floors are calling, but I am going to offer a real life example of people we know personally as what I have seen as the typical trajectory.A young wife (Caucasian, recently turned 30, husband a couple of years older) who works with our daughter (and whose family happens to live in a house in the same subdivision as ours. They have two kids, 6 years old and 13 months old. Husband makes roughly 70K a year, Wife0K. It happens that the baby has been getting sick nearly every other week in day care, and the wife was at the end of her rope. My daughter suggested that she could probably stay home at least until the baby started school maybe longer, and since they both work in the accounting department of their company and are good with numbers, the sat down and looked at the numbers to see if it would be feasible for the wife to come home.They looked at gas, transportation, day care, extra food expenses, etc. Being spreadsheet type women, they laid it all out, and the young woman made her pitch to her husband. He was adamantly opposed and basically said no. That they needed her to keep working. Their scenario is pretty typical of what I have witnessed. In our marriage, we had never even discussed my being at home full time. It wasn't a paradigm that either my husband nor I had experienced, despite coming from intact families. It just so happened that my husband saw what working full time with one baby and pregnant with two more was doing to me, and he basically said, "Enough. Come home. We'll work it out." And we never looked back.It occurs to me that our situation was probably more typical. That it is assumed that the pre-marriage status quo will continue, and the reality of mothering while working drives couples to make the shift. Fewer men today are willing to make it.Which is why I think you're 100% correct that these things to be discussed ahead of time. Unfortunately, our romanticized view of marriage and relationships means a lot of couples don't do that.Ok, my floors are calling, LOL!
Oops. I meant to say "Wife makes 60K".
Yes, that's the problem, that people just kinda drift into marriage, without discussing that kind of things before. Material wealth is addictive, and in the situation you describe I can well imagine that the husband would be inclined to say no. However, if before they got married, they both agreed the wife would stay home and she did and then suddenly (without any financial emergency) the husband told her he was changing the deal, I think she would be within her rights to refuse (knew a family like this in real life, she still doesn't work and they are still not divorced). To return to the original tweet, if more guys viewed it the same way the original poster did, they'd probably be more inclined to let their wives stay home.Anyway,I think your country is somewhat different than mine. Here we have an easier access to health care and even widow pensions, subsidised housing etc. In my country, most women could probably stay home, if they chose to, which proves that there is more to the story than financial security only. I have a recent IKEA catalogue at home which features a (prob Turkish family) living with 5 kids in a small apartment with 2 bedrooms. (3 rooms total, parents sleep in the living-room). I bet the wife stays home, but most Dutch ladies would think it beneath them.