Monday, October 22, 2007

Dealing with doubts

"I do want to be a wife and a mother someday, but I don't want that to define me. Why should it be wrong for me to want to become a physician as well, to possibly aid women in childbirth, or to save lives in an emergency room? I was also wondering what your thoughts were on women who have changed the face of the world, such as Mother Theresa (who never married or had children)?"

Dear reader, thank you for taking the time to reply. I always love getting response such as yours, which helps me clarify my position. By the way, the same goes for my faith: I feel challenged and inspired when my faith is questioned and I am then motivated to learn even more.

I think that, from reading a bit on my blog, it's clear to you that I have no doubt whatsoever about the women's intelligence, talent, and capability which can enable her to pursue a variety of occupations. So, the discussion here is not about 'what a woman can do' but rather, 'what's the right thing to do'. And also, not 'should a woman pursue her talents', but rather, 'how should a woman pursue her talents?'

I think that we - and I include myself in this, as well - have been conditioned to think that only office and paycheck mean we're doing something important. Only college means we get good education. Only... well, you see my point? But if we think outside the box, there are countless ways a woman can express her talents at home. Teaching her own children is the most obvious one I guess!

I choose to be a homemaker and focus on my family - God willing, I will have a family - and I feel that my knowledge in medicine, nutrition, psychology and everything else I studied in college will be put to good use - well actually, it is already put to good use - right here at home! I think that even if a woman is childless, she can have a beautiful and productive life as a keeper-at-home. Her talents are applicable in countless aspects of being a helpmeet to her husband and a good homemaker.

The concept of a woman being a wife and helpmeet is not some sort of oppressive tyranny meant to tie women down and limit them. And it is not something meant for the inferior and less intelligent women! Through blogging, I was blessed to 'know' many former professors, engineers and simply very talented women who made the choice to come home and are happy about it.

If a woman feels she wants to get married and have children, she takes responsibility for this, and must take care of her family. If she is a wife and mother, being many hours outside the home steals her away from her family. There's basically no way going around it. Yes, I am of the opinion that no pursuit - no matter how good, or right, or noble in itself - cannot be right if it interferes with us caring for our most precious ones.

I will share with you one quote a reader sent me: "To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labours, and holidays; to be Whitely within a certain area, providing toys, boots, cakes and books; to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can imagine how this can exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone and narrow to be everything to someone? No, a woman’s function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute."--G. K. Chesterton in What's Wrong with the World

You mention mother Theresa; yet just like you said, she was unmarried, and thus didn't have this conflict of her duties to husband and children clashing with her desire to give to the rest of the world. However we look at it, the majority of women will become wives, and as such, they are taking on duties which will demand much of their time, skills and ability. Will they have time to spare for other activities? Maybe. And each woman should see how much she can give to other pursuits (in which I include work, volunteering, and different personal projects) without it steering her heart away from her family. She should be honest with herself. If she spends many, many hours away from home and sees that she cannot take proper care of her husband's needs and her household, she shouldn't brush it off as unimportant, but should consider it very carefully.

75 comments:

Gothelittle Rose said...

I wonder when I hear women expressing a wish that the term 'wife and mother' not Define them. Wherever you go, whatever you do, people will define you by terms. Suppose you become "the female doctor in the ER" or "the engineer who won't brew coffee because she thinks its sexist" or "the mid-level manager who always wears red on interview days"? Are these terms any broader, any less defining than "the wife and mother"?

If you want to be a wife and mother, it's going to be part of what defines you. You can't help that. You'll be checking the checkbox at every doctor's office, it'll be written wherever you appear in the newspaper, it'll be listed on your obituary. Mrs X, doctor at X hospital for 37 years, wife and mother, sister to Mr. X and daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Pre-X.

And why should it be wrong to want to become a physician as well? It's a good thing to want to save people, right? Well, personally, I think it may be possible to become a good wife and mother and hold a job as a physician as well. The ability to dictate your own hours to a point as well as the familiarity with nutrition and health may make it a decent way to earn some money and fill some time without compromising your family too much. There may even be better acceptance for bringing your children to work. You'll want to keep a small and simple home if your husband works too. But that aside:

Why be just a wife and mother? Why not a physician too? Tell you what, why just a wife, mother, and physician? Why don't you spend your weekends volunteering at the local shelter, too? It's not wrong to want to help people, right? Well then, why don't you be a wife, a mother, a physician, volunteer weekends at the local shelter, and spend one week every month in Ethiopia vaccinating babies? Vaccinating babies is good, right?

I know, you can be a wife, a mother, a physician, volunteer weekends at the local shelter, spend one week every month in Ethiopia vaccinating babies, and spend your evenings writing an advice column for troubled teens. Why give any of that up? It's helping people, right? I'm pretty sure you won't be defined as nothing but a wife and mother. I'm sure you'll change the face of the world. I bet your son will end up in jail and your daughter will end up pregnant at 15.

A woman's life is like an onion, and some rings are simply put closer to the center, whether you like it or not. If you have husband and children, you must ensure that they are well cared for before adding a career ring to your life. That doesn't eliminate the possibility of a career, but to go for it for the sake of avoiding a 'mother label' is just bad priorities.

(Speaking as a higher-education graduate working part-time as an adjunct college professor!)

Katy-Anne said...

Mother Theresa was catholic so we can't really take her as an example of Christian womanhood anyway.

Rebekka said...

Hi Anna,

I know you have blogged on this topic before, the necessity of devoting one's energies to home and family OR to the workplace, since you can't be on both sides of the fence at the same time.

I am just curious as to what your solution is for all the work that working wives and mothers do. Who will do that work when they've gone home?

My concern is that it is too easy to say that we don't need waitresses when mothers are at home making wholesome food for their families, we don't need schools when women homeschool their children, we don't need day care because there's always a stay-at-home parent. Is it possible that too much responsibility is resting on the individual? For example, is it fair to a large family of children to be homeschooled by a mother who may have been poorly educated? Her sons will have a harder time providing for their own families, her daughters will pass on the burden to theirs.

Or take another group. What would we do without nurses? It's a skilled profession mainly staffed by women, and requires training. Will there be enough unwed women to staff our hospitals? It's true that some things--grandmother's pnuemonia, for example--could be managed in the home by a family caretaker, but many things cannot.

What do you think is a solution for this?

Rebekka

Anna S said...

"I am just curious as to what your solution is for all the work that working wives and mothers do. Who will do that work when they've gone home?"

Well, let's think back in time a bit... who was doing all that work even 50 years ago, before women flocked into the work force in such massive numbers? Why, men of course! It would keep the job market from overflooding, allow higher salaries, and enable families to live on one income more easily.

"is it fair to a large family of children to be homeschooled by a mother who may have been poorly educated?"

One, I firmly believe women can and should be well educated. Two, I'm not a homeschooling expert, but as far as I understand, a homeschooling mother is not actually on her own. There are plenty of ways for her to get help if that is needed. Homeschooling ladies, anyone? Your input would be very much appreciated.

"What would we do without nurses? It's a skilled profession mainly staffed by women, and requires training. Will there be enough unwed women to staff our hospitals?"

Men can be wonderful nurses as well. As a matter of fact I know excellent young men who want to become nurses but can't get in because the requirements are so high. Yes, most nurses are now female - and most women are now out of their homes. But who said this is how things are supposed to be?

maria said...

I'm sorry, but I can't resist asking: what sort of an argument is that, Katy-Ann? Catholics are christians; in fact, they are christians since what you call christians are christians, and besides I'm sure there are lots of "Mother Theresa" equivalents who are what you call christian!

Anna S said...

I'm sure Katy-Anne didn't mean to offend any of the wonderful Catholic ladies who (as I know) read this blog; I do think we should all be careful with what we say, though.

Gothelittle Rose said...

I know a girl who got her education and worked for a couple of years at a nurse before she met her husband, married him, and went home. What's wrong with women working before they marry and after their children leave the home? From what I've seen, the happiest waitresses and nurses are the ones who have done their duty by their family and are having a bit of adventure in their 'retirement', not the weary younger women who have a cadre of rebellious children to face at home after her shift.

Come to think of it, while people claim it's selfish to say that a woman with children should stay home for them, isn't it equally selfish to demand that a woman who puts her life and energy into helping her family stack a career on top of that for the sake of 'women everywhere'? Shouldn't I be able to sit in my living room teaching my son how to read without wondering what will happen to society because I'm not waiting on tables? Living in a "blue state" as I do, I see a lot of women wondering in astonishment where the world will go if I don't wait on tables, even as they regard me with secret admiration for keeping a refuge at home to which tired people flee and rest.

Homeschooled and homeschooler here! If your kid can read instructions and follow them one by one, the books can do a lot towards helping you teach. There are still places willing to sell teachers' guides to parents with answer keys included. In addition, the most important thing you will teach your kid is how to learn, and you could do that even on a sixth grade education. Your kid is going to hopefully surpass your knowledge someday, whether it be in fifth, eighth, twelfth or higher grades. By the time you're getting lost in the math, he should be able to find his own resources. My sister is far above the rest of us in her knowledge of biology, and there is nothing my mother can do to help her except what she's already done... taught her diligence, perseverance, and how to ask for help.

Terry said...

I, too, know men who are nurses and are very good at it. Men can be waiters as well. Because women tend to be more loving and nurturing (traits our heavenly Father gave us in large doses to equip us as wives and mothers) we tend to prefer women in professions that require care and service, such as nurses, waitresses, and even nursing home workers. I tend to agree with Anna and submit that if our society was one where families fulfilled their obligations to each other: as wives, mothers, sons, daughters, and husbands, there wouldn't be a need for a massive workforce of waitresses, nursing home workers and the like. Also, if a woman feels called to a life of service outside the home, she can forgo the path of being a wife and mother.

AnneK said...

You know my opinion about working wives, so I am not going to hash that out anymore. But I had to comment because I am appalled at Katy Ann's comment. I am not a catholic, I am an evangelical Christian. A lot of our beliefs do not line up, but any Christian knows that it (Christianity) is not a bunch of rules, but simply faith in Jesus to forgive sins. I do not know Mother Theresa's personal walk with the Lord, but I think she is more of a Christian than this commenter has shown herself to be.

I am sorry, but I am really peeved. It was at the very best insulting to all catholics and all evangelicals who think all catholics don't go to hell.

PhDCow said...

I'm a wife, mother, and a college professor. I feel that each of my occupations contributes to my success in the other ones. For example, my multi-tasking ability and my conflict resolution skills I use everyday when dealing with my two children have become great assets for me in the classroom. Also, the compassion and softness I've developed as a mother gives me a much gentler perspective with my students. And, what I learn in the classroom about teaching and handling difficult students definitely translates into my parenting.

Having said that, I don't buy into the myth of work-life balance. In fact, as a business professor, I speak out against women who try to have it all. You can't. There are only 24 hours in a day and something has to give. My husband and I are willing to handle trade-offs, including his increased role as a hands-on father. I teach Tuesday nights and that's his special time with the children when he cooks them dinner, plays with them, helps my daughter with her homework, and puts them to bed. As much as I miss my children on Tuesday nights, I take comfort in the fact that he's stepped up and enlarged his role as a father.

- Angela

Karen said...

I'm offended by the comment about nurses. My mom was a nurse, and while she was gone "helping people" I was at home being abused by the babysitter.

Anonymous said...

Well Anna, as usual, your post today has fostered some very good discussion!! I'm sure my remarks will simply be a repeat of comments already posted, but I can't resist echoing those made by gothelittlerose. She is very observant! Myself, I haven't been on the receiving end of much open disdain....envy, though, is another story. I don't consider myself pampered because I am a SAH, but I do appreciate the fact that I am blessed. Even on hard days, sometimes when I am exhausted, I know my work as a homemaker is preferable to a job "out there".

When will we (women)stop? Just. Stop. Ask ourselves this question: "What am I afraid of?" It seems to me a good many are afraid of the pangs of regret at the end of their lives. Why? For what? Are they afraid of dying obscure? That their obituary will be boring? Will something REALLY bad happen to the rest of the world because they decided to be home with their children?

As to the reference to Mother Theresa: that wonderful woman is to be praised for her tireless work. But did you see her trying to combine her work with an earthly marriage? No. As it should be.

Ladies, choose to use your talents where you can be your best, where you can be the greatest influence for good (maybe not influencing the greatest number of people, mind you). If you're a mother, you are the entire world to your baby or child...Chesterton had it right!

Brenda

USAincognito said...

Annek: Same here....no point in saying any more about those women who do work. And I agree with you on the comment left about the Catholics. It is our belief in God that counts, not what church we attend or what rituals/rules we follow.

Anonymous said...

I just wanted to add about homeschooling moms and the lack of education they may have in regards to schooling thier own children. It was said by another poster that you only need at most a 6th grade education and I heartily agree!! Abraham Lincoln didn't have formal education growing up- his mother did not have a college degree- he hardly had any books-(a great story about him is his walking ten miles to return a book) but he turned out to be judged as one of the greatest presidents in the history of the USA. If one can read, one can learn. On top of that alot of public school educations are not any that great one would probably get a better education from a mother who has had *only* a 6th grade education than at a public school. Oh and Catholics are Christians they believe in the virgin birth, atoning death, resurection and return of Jesus.

BV

Anna S said...

Gothelittle Rose - you define it very well, as always. If you choose to be a wife and mother, that's part of the things that will define you!

And Brenda, I was absolutely charmed by that quote! I must find out more!

Candy said...

Why should'NT a wife or mom be something else in addition to "just a wife/mom/homemaker".. like a doctor or nurse or the million other things she could be...... ?
I'll tell you why I think she "shouldn't" be.... and this is my 2 cents here :) Its because THE BIBLE says a womans place is in the home, to care for her, to train her children. It doesnt say for women to work outside the home. God already knew we couldnt be super-moms or super-women and He knew we cant be a full time mom and/or fulltime homemaker AND hold a fulltime job. Its impossible. Like someone else said..somethings gotta give. If a woman wants to be a nurse...nurse your family. If a women wants to be a teacher..teach your family.
If we had all women working in their homes as homemakers, wifes/moms.... there;d be more jobs for men. Men are quite capable to be nurses or hold any job that women hold. Then maybe like someone else said..men would get paid more and the family would be better off in the end.

The bottom line is: Some of us are speaking about our beliefs based on The Bible and Some of us are not basing what we believe about women roles from the Bible...THATS where the disagreement stems from...I think.

Like I said..just my 2 cents :) I enjoy Anna's blog.

Candy :)
Full time homemaker/wife/mom by choice and by following what I believe God wants me to be.
Also dont forget: I am also a nurse, teacher, chauffer, cheerleader, doctor, care giver, interior decorator, maid, and all the million other "jobs and careers out there"...Im just all those things AT HOME...for my family.

I dont want to come across as judging others though. Im just expressing my beliefs...

Hugs to everyone :)

Anna S said...

Candy - well said!

"Some of us are speaking about our beliefs based on The Bible and Some of us are not basing what we believe about women roles from the Bible...THATS where the disagreement stems from...I think."

Absolutely! There are of course lots of practical reasons why it's better for the family to have a wife and mother at home, but at the bottom line, it comes to this: do we believe in what God calls us to, as women, or do we bend His will to fit our ideas?

Anonymous said...

Could someone give me specific Bible passages that address the thought "a woman's place is in the home"?

Anna S said...

Anonymous - I don't think you will find a passage saying a woman should literally never set foot outside her home; but there are more than enough passages indicating that a woman is supposed to be family and home-centered. Read Proverbs 31 and Proverbs 14; do you think it is possible for a woman to "look well to the ways of her household" if she is absent during most of her waking hours? Sounds almost impossible to me.

Kyla said...

Anna,

I think that this is another situation where verses are being used to mandate "Biblical Womanhood". Those verses do state that women should be home-centered and family oriented. But it doesn't give us specifics on how this should be accomplished. This is going to look different for each woman, man and family. What should look the same for all Christians is their attitudes and their hearts. God is concerned with our hearts (1 Sam 16:7), are we loving and warm to believers and unbelievers. I think that being a wife and mother is a high calling that should be taken seriously and reverently. But I think that being a Christian is an even higher calling to witness to those around us. What I am seeing and makes me so sad is that Christian women are restricting each other by setting "Rules" that are not found in the Bible. I know what Titus 2 says and isn't it really speaking to our hearts and our attitudes and not our jobs whether it is laundry or medicine?

Anna S said...

Kyla, I agree with you on the point that God desires first of all our hearts, and that His plan is different - yet equally wonderful - for each and every one of us: married, single, mothers to any number of children. I also know that God never said, "you will spend all your days in the kitchen canning your own food and making brownies".

You and I both agree women are to be home-centered, though. So, I'm not saying *how* exactly it should be accomplished. I'm just presenting the following questions: can we still call ourselves home-centered if we are almost never home? Can we call ourselves home-centered and family-centered if something else, some other project or pursuit, gets most of our time and energy?..

Bethany Sue, CFO said...

Great post Anna! You said it gracefully, intelligently, and in kind way.

Anonymous said...

I understand the belief that God said that women are to be keepers in the home. I also know that there are many capable women, women whom I respect, who choose to be keepers in the home. I also believe that the work performed by keepers in the home has value. (Indeed, it is often work that has economic value as well as intrinsic value, that we have to pay someone to do if no woman is available to do it without pay.)

But there are three troubling elements that stand out for me about the keeper-in-the-home role: (a) it places the woman in an extremely vulnerable position, and does not allow her much leeway to get out of the vulnerable position by adopting other roles if things go sour; and (b) it is vastly more limiting than the role assigned to the male half of the species; and (c) the lack of consideration given to women's individualism, i.e. the expectation that each of the millions of very different women in the world will fluourish according to one blueprint.

Keepers in the home may have variations in lifestyle depending on where they live and the husband's role. But the basics are pretty much the same -- giving birth, caring for children, keeping a home, providing food, and managing the home finances. A man, on the other hand, has limitless options and he can choose the options best suited to his talents and desires. He does not literally have to toil in the field as Genesis commands. He can be a sailor, a politician, a salesman, a craftsman, a farmer, a mechanic, a policeman, a doctor, a journalist, a professor, a minister, a fireman, a banker, an engineer, a scientist, an artist, etc. etc. etc. The possibilities are endless, but not for women under this scheme.

It is hard to believe that God would prevent all women from living this world of possibility. Is it just because of Eve's actions in the garden? And, if so, why is it fair to limit all women because of the actions of one woman at the dawn of time? I just have to believe that God is bigger and better than that.

-- Pendragon 3

Word Warrior said...

Thank you, Anna, for expressing so succinctly and thoroughly, a subject near and dear to my heart :-)

Amanda said...

This reminds of a class I took in college, in which we discussed the "traditional" role of a woman and whether we agreed with it. Our answers were submitted anonymously, then discussed. I said that nothing would make me happier than to be a SAHM and housewife. To which the entire class uproared, wanting to know why I was "wasting my time in college." As if my knowlege couldn't be put to good use at home, as well.

Well written post, as usual!

Allison said...

Anonymous--
Titus 2:3-5 speaks of how the older women are to teach the younger women, one of the areas being to be "busy at home" or "keepers at home". God uniquely designed the roles of women to be at home training their children; obviously not to be taken as a negative thing, but something that all women should love to do! :)

On the subject of homeschooling, for my family the purpose of homeschooling is simply not to learn all the math facts and all the presidents names, but rather to use that time for discipleship. Home-centered discipleship, where the parents are taking the initiative to train and disciple their children, is the most effective!

Amanda said...

One more thing--I agree, why is it so bad to be "defined" as wife and mother. That IS part of who you are, whether you're a doctor, a firefighter, or a waitress. You're still a wife and mother. If that's such a bad thing, then why would you suffer the stigma of getting married and having children in the first place?

Anonymous said...

I am a sahm now that worked outside of the home prior to having my children. I believe that it was important for me to have that experience so that I am able to appreciate the fact that I am a sahm. That said I do work from my home. My husband and I own our own business and I am able to do my portion from our home. I also work for my parents from there home once a week where I can take my children with me. It doesn't interfere with my taking care of our home or our children anymore than going to my son's school to volunteer for and hour once a week.

I don't know about other women's children, but mine are able to entertain themselves for periods of time without me. Nothing would ever get done if I had to entertain them all day long.

It would be wonderful to not have any other responsibilites other to care for my home, children and husband, but my life doesn't work that way. My husband and I chose to start a business and my parents still need my help. To me if that is what my husband and parents want from me then I am doing what I should be doing.

Anna S said...

All of these are points that merit to be described more elaborately... well, as time allows. But in the meantime, just throwing some thoughts into the air:

* Yes, it does mean the woman is to depend on her husband. The entire family is supposed to be inter-dependent; we'd be terribly lonely if we never allowed ourselves to depend on anyone (which is precisely what is happening to family stucture today! Among other ways, divorce is also hurting us financially - men as well as women.)

* Being a homemaker is NOT cookie cutter living. Each family, husband, home and child are unique, and thus each woman lives her life uniquely. Yes, there are basic duties she takes on herself *by choosing to become a wife and mother* - which most women do - but there's plenty of room for creativity.

* Men's career options might look more varied, but once the choice is actually made, their typical day at work is often much more monotonous than a woman. Again, I'm painting with a broad brush here, but most men don't do something terribly thrilling and exciting to earn a living. Most are just normal men working normal jobs - no, not actually plowing a field these days, but often working 60 hours a week just to bring home a decent paycheck. Men didn't get the better deal. Neither did women. God just assigned us different jobs.

Gothelittle Rose said...

Let me take a moment to address the comment that stay-at-home involves a greater limitation than men have. I think that you forget that while homemaking is many-faceted, a man can only choose one of those many careers. Let me give you some examples.

My husband is a programmer. He sits in front of a computer and programs. All day, every workday. I am a stay-at-home mom. I sew, I specialize in baking and Italian-style cooking, I work part-time as an adjunct college professor, and I'm involved in local and global political discussions, as I homeschool my 4-year-old son. I also write political/religious essays and fiction.

My father is a technician. He builds circuits for scientists. Every workday, all day, he builds circuits for scientists. My mother is a homemaker. She cooks more, doesn't sew at all, does her own home improvement construction projects, works part-time at the local post office, and teaches her 12-year-old daughter Latin and her 17-year-old son geometry. She loves walking marathons, roller coasters, extreme tubing, and jumping off cliffs.

My grandfather was an electrician. He did electrical work mostly for a radio station, then for a college. He did electrical work every workday, all day. My grandmother is a homemaker. She raised her children, got a college degree in business, and is highly involved in local politics. She communicates online with people all over the world about genealogy. Her cooking is pretty simple, but her sewing skills are amazing. She manages the family properties and is a landlady to some people within and outside of the family.

In each of these cases, the man seems to be much more limited in what his job requires than the woman. Each homemaker has a different profile. Some build furniture. Some plant corn. Some teach school. Some wire schematics. The job changes as your children grow and change, always bringing you into new areas of expertise.

It is by no means limiting.

Audrey said...

Another homeschooled and homeschooler, I had to leave a message concerning the ability of a parent to teach their children. The Homeschool Legal Defense Agency did a study on this and other subjects. One table shows specifically the difference in test scores of children from parents without much education. The different catagories are 'Completed college', 'Some education after Highschool', 'Graduated High school' and 'Less than High School education'. The scores from the children whose parents did not finish high school were lower than those whose parents had graduated from college. However, their scores were still much better than public school. It has another table that shows the difference between children whose parents are certified to teach and those who are not. There is almost no difference. In fact, in one age group, the children without a certified parent actually scored higher than the one with! There is a lot of good information here, especially for those considering homeschool. Here is the site: http://www.hslda.org/docs/study/comp2001/HomeSchoolAchievement.pdf

Kaeus said...

im not going to get in on whether or not married mothers should work, because i believe it depends on the individual situation, and what the husband would prefer. God has not made us all the same, and He has not made our lives all the same.

BUT.

what DOES bother me, is that a lot of women insist that married (and sometimes unmarried) women should be at home regardless of whether they have children or not, but they also insist on only seeing female doctors. that seems a little hypocritical to me.


please note, anna, that i'm not accusing you or any of the other commenters of this. just stating that ive noticed many women do this, and it bothers me, because they seem to want to have it both ways - all women should be at home, except my doctor.

Christina said...

Katy-ann, Catholics are not only Christians, we were the *first* Christians. I suggest you read up on Catholicism!

Michelle-ozark crafter said...

Very good post! I hate it when I hear someone say that someone is JUST a housewife! Let them try it for awhile and see if they change their tune. I thank God that my mom was JUST a housewife for the short time I had her in my life!

Seung said...

Just a note on this whole "being a doctor" thing. It is very difficult for someone who has thoughts of being a doctor to really, really understand just what he is getting himself into. It's regrettable. I can tell such people of sleepless nights and of exhaustion so profound that your soul crumbles away in the first meager light of the day, and I will be wasting my breath. I can tell people of the politics and the hate and the hurt and the backstabbing that come part and parcel of this profession, and it will not matter.

The reality is, you only learn the truth about this profession the hard way -- after it is too late -- and you are too indebted to see any end but the one you have dug for yourself. You know the funny thing? Of the 15 women in my residency program, 13 of them have told me that if they had it all to do over again, they would not choose to do medicine. Some of them had dreams of being rich; others wanted to create something of impossible and lasting value on this earth; but the ones I grieve for the most are the mothers among them, who all have the look of sleepers just learning to open their eyes to the one and only thing that actually has lasting value on this earth.

I submit that there is nothing inherently noble about my profession. There never has been. I have seen the emptiness in the eyes of too many a surgeon when he lies to me about how well his son -- whom he hardly knows; how could he, given the hours he works? -- is doing. I have seen the manner of destruction that too many of us wreak in the name of doing good in our clinics and our gleaming offices. I have held the cracked flesh and the shattered bones of the defenseless unborn. All this for what? A decade or more of your life, gone. In its place, hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt and the dark knowledge of what it feels like to wish your patient would die so you could catch a couple minutes of sleep.

If I ever had a daughter -- or a son -- the path of the doctor is the last possible profession I'd want her -- or him -- to take.

Anonymous said...

As a nurse I would remind your readers that nursing is very flexible...you can work part-time, nights, weekends, in a hospital, in a doctor's office, by phone, etc. God has called me to be a nurse to minister to others, as he has called others to be keepers at home. God doesn't place the same calling on every woman's life...that's idea of men rather than God.

neuropoet3 said...

"is it fair to a large family of children to be homeschooled by a mother who may have been poorly educated?"

I just want to second audrey's comment. I was public schooled until high school and then home schooled until I finished - which only took me two years. When I look back on my education I can see that the only thing I learned in school was that other children do not like children who do not follow the crowd. My mother taught me to read before I began my school years, she even taught me to write cursive because the school "didn't teach that anymore" and they weren't about to teach me just because I wanted to know how - there wasn't time for things like that! Thanks to homeschooling I was able to finish my education through high school right after my sixteenth birthday - and my mother only had a high school diploma (she often says her real education began when she began homeschooling). My two younger sisters have been educated at home throughout their "school" experience, and my middle sister is in Bible College now earning straight A's. :) If a mother can read she can teach her child to read, and from there the entire world of knowledge is open to them - especially with the wonder of the internet and all the amazing "teaching" programs available now. I also want to strongly recomment www.hslda.org for more information on the actual studies related to homeschooling.

~Jenny

not a christian said...

I just tried to post a comment but I think it didn't work. If it's a double post, sorry.

Just wanted to say that in the Jewish tradition, there is no problem with a married woman with children working part or full-time outside the home. Even in the strictest Orthodox communities you will find working married women. Nonetheless, they manage to have large, happy, well-adjusted families, keep a high level of religious observance and a very low divorce rate. We also do not have the whole "keeper-at-home" concept.

I realize you are writing from a Christian perspective, but I thought you might be interested to hear a different "Biblical" view.

Anna S said...

Not a Christian,

Your comment made me giggle for ten whole minutes. Want to know why? Email me at celena_costello@hotmail.com

:) I'm looking forward to hearing from you.

Now, to your actual comment: I'm very familiar with the situation you describe. Mothers of large families with many young children, pregnant, nursing, take on a double shift, working, both at home and outside the home, overwhelmed, exhausted, overburdened.

Yet... tell me something... from the Jewish perspective, does a man have an obligation to provide for his wife and his family, or doesn't he? You know, working in the sweat of his brow and all that...

And... Proverbs 31, is that something Jews believe in, or don't they?.. You know... all that about a woman "looking well to the ways of her household"... can she really do that working full-time without overtaxing herself?

Anna S said...

"what DOES bother me, is that a lot of women insist that married (and sometimes unmarried) women should be at home regardless of whether they have children or not, but they also insist on only seeing female doctors."

Actually I agree with you. I go to a male doctor, always accompanied by my mother or another woman.

And Seung, thank you for giving us a doctor's perspective!

Anna S said...

Oh, and another something to not a christian: how many of those women actually go for the most ambitious, time-consuming and competitive careers?.. I hardly think that's possible with ten children. If her work is low-stress and part time, the woman can somehow, at an incredible effort, keep some sort of balance. But it's still overtaxing. And unfair.

Buffy said...

I must admit I always insist on a woman doctor. (Obviously I don't have a choice regarding a consultant or specialist.) I would hate for all women doctors to disappear and all women nurses as well. (Although I agree with Anna that men can make excellent nurses.)

I don't really understand why this has to be an all or nothing issue. Of course women can be doctors or nurses. How about women that never get married for a start? There are nearly always more women than there are men in the average population so why shouldn't some of them go into caring professions if they want to? And I can't see why women who are not yet married of all ages can't do jobs like nursing or teaching (if they want to) until they get married. Even women who are married and can't have children or whose children are grown up might want to do a bit of part-time nursing. There is a world of difference between a women with four children aged below 8 working outside the home and a woman with no young dependants to look after having a part-time occupation if she and her husband are happy with that situation.

Anna S said...

Buffy, I agree with you. There are women who will remain single (few, but there are), and women at different seasons of life that allow them more time to dedicate to pursuits outside the home. I'm talking about priorities here. If you have loved ones in your family who need you, they come first. Otherwise, the concept of doing "something noble out there" become a slippery slope.

Gothelittle Rose said...

Agreed with both of the last comments (Anna and Buffy). :)

The male/female doctor preferences and reasons could fill a whole nother post, I think. Personally, I see a male doctor and a male ob/gyn. I don't go with my mother or sister, but he always calls in a female nurse for any physical checkup just as a matter of procedure. They both do. I trust them. If either doctor made me uncomfortable, I'd get another doctor immediately. I've had female doctors before and prefer male.

(I don't think either sex is any more or less competent as a doctor, of course. I don't fall into the present-day trap of mistaking personal preference for bias. But anyways.)

Yes, at different seasons, a wife and mother does different things. I had my own full-time season, and now I do not. Later in my life, I may again.

maria said...

Don't you think that being a nurse is mostly (not always, of course) a feminine calling? It could be cultural, but the role of nurses is somehow very close in nature to that of taking care of sick children and elders within the context of a family, and that, I believe is what you believe, is mostly the woman's role. Again, I don't think that such role should necessarily be carried out by women only.

Buffy said...

Anna, I think you and I are more or less on agreement on this one, I was really reacting to the comments which were showing some polarisation where there really shouldn't be any.

BTW I don't prefer a female doctor because I am embarrassed about seeing a male doctor. It's more an emotional thing, I suppose I like a bit of mothering from my doctor!

Anna S said...

Maria: yes, I believe the work of a nurse is wonderful for a single woman. But men can be great nurses as well.

mm said...

"You and I both agree women are to be home-centered, though. So, I'm not saying *how* exactly it should be accomplished. I'm just presenting the following questions: can we still call ourselves home-centered if we are almost never home? Can we call ourselves home-centered and family-centered if something else, some other project or pursuit, gets most of our time and energy?.."

"Anonymous - I don't think you will find a passage saying a woman should literally never set foot outside her home; but there are more than enough passages indicating that a woman is supposed to be family and home-centered. Read Proverbs 31 and Proverbs 14; do you think it is possible for a woman to "look well to the ways of her household" if she is absent during most of her waking hours? Sounds almost impossible to me."

Hi Anna,

If I could ask a question regarding the comments you made above. You seem to be implying that at least as a general proposition, a woman who spent a significant amount of time away from home would not be able to ‘look well to the ways of her household’. However, while the bible certain says that a woman’s husband, children and home should be her priority over outside work, I am not sure we can extract the idea that a woman must be home X% of the time in order to fulfill her duties.

Even Proverbs 31 that you referenced notes that the virtuous woman conducted activities for the sake of earning income. She made fine linen to deliver to the merchants (v24), and she considered a field, bought it, and turned it into a vineyard. These are activities that had nothing to do with homemaking per se, and in fact would have taken her time away from strict homemaking duties.

I believe that if a woman is fulfilling her duties at home, she is allowed to work beyond that. Whether that is possible for each individual woman is going to depend on her specific circumstances. A woman with young children (or a young child) is for the most part going to have little if any time for outside work. A woman to whom the Lord has not yet granted children will have significantly more time. Whether she can take care of her home and husband and still work a job is going to depend on many factors individual to her, but primarily on her husband’s wishes. He is the one who decides how much care the house is going to need, and how much care he himself is going to require. Some husbands might want their wives home to greet them everyday when they return from work. Others might not mind if on occasion their wives are not there. Some husbands might want a home cooked meal everyday, others might be happy to eat take out on certain days. And so on and so on. My point is that whether or not a woman may work X hours per day and still successfully ‘look well to the ways of her household’ is something that varies from case to case. I am not sure it is right to say that a wife who works must always be ‘suspect’ as to if she is fulfilling her duties at home.

Anna S said...

mm,

If you asked me, "so, how many hours an X woman in an X situation actually needs to spend at home to make sure she has it all under control?" - I couldn't give you an answer. All I know that there are no miracles. There are only 24 hours in a day.

Anna S said...

... Oh, and to the reader who sent me the PDF file of Chesterton's book - thank you SO much!

Mrs. Brigham said...

For me personally, there is no way I would have enough time and/or energy to take care of Peapod, cook meals, do the chores at home, fulfill all my other home based obligations AND work outside the home on top of all of this. For others I guess it could be different, but I know my health would be adversely affected, and from there, everything else would likely go downhill. Being a wife, mother, and homemaker is a GREAT joy, but it also takes a fair bit of work, and I do not rightly see how I could celebrate "success" outside of my home when the situation within my home's walls is less than wonderful. If I were the greatest CEO or doctor in the world, and have broken all of the "glass ceilings" above me, what would I really have to show if I wound up divorced or with a child who got in trouble thanks to my not being there for her?

Kyla said...

Ok, I am just getting back to this discussion...Anna I do think that you and I agree...Once a woman becomes a wife and/or mother her focus should be on her husband, children and home. And while there is only 24 hours in a day, for some that is plenty of time to handle a career and a home.
I do it and so do most of the mothers and wives that I know and guess what, they have lovely homes and happy well adjusted children. Some of them even homeschool!! I have to say that I agree with MM's comments.

PhDCow said...

But men can be great nurses as well.

I had a male nurse when I delivered my son at a women's hospital that does deliveries and other women's surgeries.

As competent as he was, there's just no comparison between a male and female nurse.

Gothelittle Rose said...

That's probably why uncomplicated births used to be done by midwives. :)

Our culture has changed so much from what it used to be. A midwife would take care of her own family and keep track of the pregnant woman or women under her care, perhaps leaving her home at the dead of night with her babies asleep to go aid in a delivery. There's a big difference between that and the woman dropping her little ones off at a daycare center in anticipation of eight to ten hours on her feet and then coming home to make supper, clean house, and drive the kids to their various soccer practices. Back then and possibly today as well, you could be a midwife and a keeper of the home. Nowadays? My friend who has her nursing degree would say there is no way she could handle young children in her home and a nursing job. It's a very, very demanding schedule.

Of course you only have you children for a small part of your total lifespan. I really doubt that saying that a woman with young children working as a full-time nurse is screaming for burnout is equivalent to saying that there should be no more female nurses.

Personally, I like male doctors and I like male nurses. They're straightforward, communicate directly, speak with authority, and leave me with the feeling that they are in charge and I can relax. I also don't fear them being unable to support me if I suddenly list and fall. (After I delivered my baby, my blood pressure was 60/40.)

Anna S said...

"Of course you only have young children for a small part of your total lifespan."

Not necessarily; if a woman gets married young and she and her husband trust God to control the size of their family, it might well mean many years of pregnancies and breastfeeding for her. I know more than a few families with many children where the oldest child is 20+, and the yongest is a nursing baby. That's hardly a short time with young children.

Rebekah S. said...

Wonderful post, Anna! A woman is commanded to be a homemaker, helpmeet, etc. regardless of whether she has children or not. I believe that the Bible teaches that she is to be a homemaker even if she doesn't get married. The home is not some sort of cage for women. Rather it is the place where a woman finds her true strength, Biblical power, and true fulfillment. Working outside the home and having a career may seem glamorous. But the truth is, every time we disobey God's clear commands, there will be punishments and consequences that we will face. We need to begin trusting the Lord, and His omniscience, knowing that because He is all-knowing, then clearly being a homemaker is for the woman's good.

Thank you for yet another wonderful post, Anna! It's such a delight to read the thoughts of someone so likeminded! Your blog has been a never ending source of encouragement for me! Thank you.


P.S. I have been studying the history of feminism and am planning to asap write a post on the true history of feminism. Some of which is not even known by most people. So, I highly encourage you to check it out when it is done and posted. What you find may surprise you(as it did me when I began researching it). Also, if you like the post, please feel free to do a link on your blog. Your blog receives many more visitors than mine does, and I want to get the word out regarding the true history of feminism to as many people as I can. This is not to say at all that you should feel obligated to post my article on your blog-that's just an idea! If you would post it on your blog, I would feel honored, but if you don't want to, that's quite all right.


Have a blessed week,
Rebekah

Anna S said...

Rebekah,

As a matter of fact, I have been reading about the older history of feminism (its Marxist roots specifically) and wanted to write about it myself but haven't had time so far. If you do a thorough overview of the history of feminism, let me know and I'll be very happy to read it and link to it.

I remember in a video I saw recently, Mrs. Chancey points out that Eve was actually the first feminist. Because that's what feminism is all about - following one's desires when they clash with the Word of God.

Gothelittle Rose said...

Some women marry young and some women have a lot of children. It's not so common anymore. Even so, Mrs. Example may have married at, say, age 23 and had children until she was, say, 37. (My mother's last pregnancy, at age 38, was very dangerous due to her age.)

So that gives you 3 years to get your RN because we assume Mrs. Example is not a genius. (My friend did it in 2. She's not genius IQ, just a tenacious, disciplined homeschooled. :D) That's about 21 years of growing up/schooling/etc., then about 2 years of working before getting pregnant. 15 years in the process of having babies, add another, say, 17 or so years to get the last kid out... These are just estimates, mind you. 32 years. Ok. Now she's about 55. She's probably not going to start really slowing down until she hits her 70's. With some women, even later.

It isn't so uncommon nowadays to live to be age 90.

You wouldn't be able to work as a nurse for that time, very likely. (Though a great-aunt of mine went to work as a nurse once her last kid was out of the house and stayed in the job until she was in her mid-70's.) Still, even with your first baby at 18 and your last at 38, that's still no more than half your probable lifespan.

My statement, though, wasn't a declaration that every woman can work full-time and raise her children without giving up one for the other. It was a note that keeping women home full-time with their young children while their children are still young does not mean removing the entire set of female nurses from the workforce.

Anonymous said...

Rebekah S,

You said:I believe that the Bible teaches that she is to be a homemaker even if she doesn't get married.

Could you elaborate for me the verses you think teaches this? I have some idea of which ones you might mean, I just want to see your way of reasoning.

Thanks!

Rebekah S. said...

There was someone (I don't remember the name) who commented and said something about men having so many opportunities for work and women having nothing. A man may have a lot of different occupations to choose from, but he can only choose one. And once he has chosen that occupation, he does the same thing day after day after day. A homemaker, on the other hand, is a nurse, chef, interior designer, accountant, child-care provider, and the list goes on and on and on. A homemaker has many jobs!

Rebekah S. said...

Hi, anonymous! What a great question!

Directly after the fall, we see in Genesis 3 what the curses given to women and men were. The woman's curses were pain in childbirth and the desire to rule over her husband, despite the fact that the husband is the head of the wife, and the wife is called on to submit. The man's curse was to have to toil and labor in order to provide for himself and his family. We see in this passage that it is the man's job and responsibility to go out and work and to provide for his family-not the woman's job. The woman is to be a homemaker (Titus 2:5, 1 Timothy 5:14, Proverbs 31:27, etc.) When women go out and work in the workforce, they are bearing the double curse. In 1 Timothy 5:8, we read, "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." Once again we see that it is the man's job and responsibility to go out and work and provide for his family. If you are unmarried, the Bible teaches that it is your father's responsibility to provide for you. If you are married, it is then your husband's responsibility. So, we see that even if you remain unmarried, you are not to be off on your own, independent, and providing for yourself. It is the father's job. Of course this does NOT mean that the daughter (or wife, if the person is married) should be a lazy couch potato. This is unbiblical! We are to be as the Proverbs 31 woman was, and not eat the bread of idleness.

So, if you are unmarried, you are to be in your father's home under his leadership, protection and provision. The same goes when you're married-you are to be under your husband's leadership, protection and provision.

The Bible also teaches that an unmarried woman is to be under her father's authority. This woman is not to be a wage slave under the authority of another man out in the workforce. Likewise, a married woman, according to Titus 2, is to be "obedient to her *own* husband"-not some man out in the workforce.

Also, please note that Titus 2 says that women are to be homemakers and obedient to their own husbands (if unmarried, to their fathers) "so that the Word of God be not blasphemed". This is pretty strong language, wouldn't you say? :) As John MacArthur says in his study Bible, "When Christians claim to believe God's Word but do not obey it, the Word is dishonored. Many have mocked God and His truth because of the sinful behavior of those who claim to be Christians." As Christians, we MUST obey the Lord and His commands at all times!!

I hope that this has been helpful to you!! I would really like to hear what the verses are that you cite in support of this Biblical conviction.

Blessings,
Rebekah

Rebekah S. said...

Hi, Anna!

Thanks so much! Yes, I'm planning on writing about the Marxist history of feminism. But I also read another book recently that gave an even earlier history of feminism, that was really shocking to me! So, I'm planning on writing about this early history as well in the post.

I saw that video also! Wasn't it great? Mrs. Chancey is just so smart!

Rebekah S. said...

Someone said:

"God doesn't place the same calling on every woman's life...that's idea of men rather than God."

She was speaking on how she believes that some women are called by God to be homemakers and others are called to work outside the home. With all due respect (and I truly mean that), this is not true. We see in numerous passages that God commands women to be keepers at home. *He never once in the whole of Scripture contradicts one of His commands!* We are warned throughout the Bible that if we disobey God's commands, and do not live out His precepts, there will be punishment and consequences. It's clear how important His commands and precepts are to Him. Therefore, it is not true that He would call someone to disobey them.


P.S. Anonymous,
I forgot to say something else. :) I wanted to refer you to a book by Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin, entitled So Much More. It will help you a lot on this topic! :)

kyla said...

Rebekah,

You quoted 1 Timothy 5:8."But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

I am not sure how from that verse you gathered that women were called to live at home under their fathers roof. Providing for does not necessarily mean supporting. If you look at the whole passage it is speaking to Christian families and how we should treat each other. I have said it before, If a family prayerfully decides that keeping their daughters at home until married is right for them then I am all for it. But I have great issue with being told that it is Biblically mandated.

Also, the Bible does state that Women are keepers of the Home. But never does it say that it is wrong for women to work. Jesus was the first one to say that Mary had made the right choice by sitting at His feet. He wanted women to learn from him and be a part of his ministry. When you make the broad generalization that all women must be home 100% of the time then you are going against all of the other verses that command us as Christians to spread His Light into the world.

Anna S said...

Ladies, I closed the debate about Catholicism because I saw things were getting out of hand. This is really not the time or place.

I won't say "religion will not be discussed here", because I live, breathe, and nourish my soul on the Word of God. All I think and do is based on what He says.

However, it is my general policy not to permit vicious remarks addressed to specific religious groups. This is not because I necessarily agree with their doctrine. And not because I believe these issues *shouldn't* be discussed - in fact, I do study and discuss them. Just not on this blog.

Rebekah S. said...

Hi, Kyla!! If I may, I would like to address what you said last first. To calm your fears a bit, I do not believe that a woman is supposed to be in her home 100% of the time, and that if she's not she's unbiblical and is sinning. It would be crazy to believe that! If someone lived by that, then women could not be true homemakers, because they would never be allowed to go to the grocery store, to the store for clothes, etc. etc. etc. I don't believe that women should be "caged up in their homes". I would be crazy if I believed that! :) Women can and should spend some time outside of their homes-going to church, going shopping, going putt-putt with the family, going to a movie, out to dinner, etc. etc. But a woman is not to have a career or job outside of the home. That's clear from Scripture. Actually, Scripture says "Keepers at home" or in other translations, it says "homemakers". It doesn't just say keepers of home, but keepers at home. There's a difference. Clearly, a woman's work, job, etc. is to be found in the home-not outside of it. The Scripture may not explicitly say "Do not work out in the workforce". But that is implied when Scripture does say(in more than just one passage) that women are to be keepers at home. And, about being lights in the dark world: as I stated in one of my above comments, the end of Titus 2:5 said, "So that the Word of God be not blesphemed." This is very important! If we are not obeying God's commands (such as the one regarding being keepers at home) then we are not being the lights of the world as we ought, for we are clearly disobeying Christ.

In So Much More by Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin (which I very highly encourage you to read this book, as I believe it would be of help to you) they say the following: "Nowhere in Scripture does it even hint that a woman has a duty to provide for herself. Even in a worst-case scenario, our Heavenly Father has arranged for masculine protection for needy women. Men are commanded to be the supporters and providers to their daughters and wives." In another part of the book, they state, "No other career can come close to the importance of homemaking. Most other careers actually undermine God's order by cheating women out of their first and best calling and taking civilization in the wrong direction. This is because homemakers are so central to guiding and shaping civil society. When women leave that domain to pretend to be men, it's not just silly, it's detrimental to a woman's life and her culture."

The Biblical norm as well as the cultural norm in our country until a relatively short time ago was for a young woman to remain in her father's home until marriage. For one, it, as Scripture teaches, is the father's duty to provide for and support his dauthers. Once again, these dauthers are not to be lazy! They can even make some money from the home if that is what their father wants them to do. But I believe that it is taught in Scripture that a woman is to be under her father's roof and under his protection until marriage. She is not to be off alone, on her own, and independent somewhere. She cannot be under her father's protection if this is the case, and at all times of her unmarried life, she is to be under her father's protection (Numbers 30). Again quoting So Much More, "In historic Biblical circumstances, a girl lived at home under her father's roof until she was married. We should seek and welcome God's protection. We should also seek and welcome our father's protection until we have our husband's protection. It is a father's responsibility to provide for his daughter, lead her, and protect her body, soul, mind and emotions. If a daugther is wise enough to understand her need to be fully under the authority and protection of her father, it's so logical that she would seek those all the way, instead of giving them a token nod("Sure, I only see my father every few months, but if he tells me to do something, I obey."). Throughout the whole Bible, we see examples of young women who lived at home under their father's protection until they were given in marriage. One example of a daughter who left home to seek friends outside the covenant community is Dinah, who is interestingly called "the daughter of Leah" instead of the daugther of Jacob. In Genesis 34 we see what a mess she made for herself, her family, and the entire neighboring kingdom."

I hope I have been able to answer your questions. I apologize for the length of this! :) If you have any more questions at all, please feel free to ask them and I will try to answer them to the best of my ability. Or, you could e-mail them to me at living_for_my_Lords_glory@hotmail.com

Have a wonderful week!!

Blessings in Christ,
Rebekah

P.S. Go to www.visionarydaughters.com for more info about So Much More, as well as the Botkin's new documentary, The Return of the Daughters, which you may be interested in.

Krystyna said...

Hi Anna and Rebekah S,

It's not my place to comment on the main subject of the post, but I'm curious about some of your comments.

I've seen the feminism-marxism connection made on a couple of homemaking blogs and I agree with it. However, the term marxism seems to be used as something extremely negative. My question is, what is wrong with marxism from your positions? My philosophical knowledge dwindles after John Locke or thereabouts - to me, it is an interesting theory which makes some true observations on social injustices, but its vision of the future was a bit off (and inspired Leninism and Stalinism, which I don't like).

Rebekah S, I would very much like to read your post and to comment it, if I find something to say and you accept commenters from other political/religious options.

Anna S said...

Krystyna,

Marxism as a theory plain doesn't make sense to me. I just don't see any logic in the superiority of the working class. The system it suggests is artificial - it cannot be kept without force, like practice has proved - and thus overthrows the natural society structure and negatively influences the Biblical family model.

As for the Marxism as it was put into practice through Leninism/Stalinism... I think we are both (at least originally) from post-communist countries and know what it was like. Should I say more? :)

Anna S said...

Maybe I should write about it once, for those who don't know - what it's like to live in a country that overthrows everything sacred, puts religion out of law, tears families apart, pulls children away from their mothers and into the hands of the state which shapes and molds them according to its will, and takes away the woman's noble calling as the heart of her home.

kyla said...

Rebekah,

I believe that this a situation where we must "agree to disagree". While you are content and confident with your beliefs I am just as much so with mine. I have studied and spoken to many theologians concerning these beliefs.

I haven't read So much More but I have read several reviews and many excerpts. I am very familiar with the teachings of the Botkins, Vision Forum and the likes. I have also known families torn apart by so called Biblical mandates. I will not elaborate on this topic but if you would like to email me feel free (kylajean@hotmail.com) and I also suggest that you listen to the podcasts at thatmom.wordpress.com.

Respectfully in Him,

Kyla

Rebekah S. said...

Krystyna,

Marxism is akin to communism. Karl Marx, the founder, desired to turn all countries into socialism. Also, the following is a quote from him: "My goal in life is to dethrone God and abolish Christianity." I hope that helps you a little more with your understanding of Marxism. :) Oh, and thank you for your intrest in my upcoming post!

Blessings,
Rebekah


Kyla,
Sometimes, that's the case. You just have to agree to disagree. :) I've stated and shown you what I believe the Bible clearly says, but I suppose we'll have to just leave it at that. :) Yes, families are sometimes torn apart these days due to the sin in the world. Thank you for referring me on to those pod casts. I will check those out and let you know what I think.

Blessings to you in Christ,
Rebekah

Rebekah S. said...

Kyla,

As to what you said about you talking with many theologians on this subject, very sadly, many theologians have been influenced by feminism, which is founded in Marxism (socilaism and communism) and gnosticism. It's such a sad truth, but the fact is, feminism and its philosophies have seeped into the churches and have poisoned the beliefs of Christians and non-Christians alike. This may not have been the case with the specifid theoligians that you spoke with, but it's very possible.


Have a blessed week and a peaceful weekend.

Blessings to you in Christ,
Rebekah

UltraCrepidarian said...

Brilliant post, Anna.

Now, for the commenter who did the "bible thump" (Candy I think).... You mean well, but you're not going to win hearts with that argument, even if it is sound. Look at how wonderfully (and persuasively) Anna presented the same ideas, as a positive, rather than as a negative.Look at Anna's quote of Chesterton. It's a brilliant quote, by a man who very much appreciates wives and mothers, and understood the spectacular "feminine genius" that underlies those gifts.

Warren

Krystyna said...

Anna, Rebekah, if you happen to read this, thank you for your explanations!

Anna, I definitely agree that a lot of marxist theories are overdrawn. But on the other hand, I agree with its criticism of capitalist society (which, in the 19th century, was a lot more brutal towards the working class than now). As for putting it into practice, I don't think that was what Marx himself quite had in mind.

Rebekah S, practically the whole of Europe is socialist. I don't see this as a bad thing, but I understand that from some religious standpoints it might be - esp. as the continent is growing more and more secular.

Anna S said...

Krystyna, I have comment moderation so you can be sure I read all the comments that are left here, no matter how old the post is.

I'm not saying the structure of society in 19-th century or before was perfect. I mean, people had slaves!! However, from there to supporting the theory of Marx, the road is long. And practically, I don't think it can ever be any different than what the bitter past taught us. I truly must write an essay about it sometime, of what women's lives were under the communist agenda; as time allows. Rebekah is also planning to write about the feminism-marxism link on her blog.