So....
I have some opinions on this, but I'm going to give you all an opportunity to chime in if you want.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Reflections of a Journeying Blogger
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(166)
-
▼
October
(21)
- technology fast
- Religious right...and left
- Dueling church signs
- Donald Miller on Issues
- Stay at home dads and marriage
- McCain Won
- Prediction
- What are you trying to say?
- Are you for us or against us?
- Paul for President
- Real priorities
- Pro-Life
- I'll take 2
- Tee Hee
- And now...
- Palin's Giving
- Vice Presidential Debates
- rest
- Interesting compairson
- Does this matter?
- Character Formation
-
▼
October
(21)
16 comments:
is it 1950 in here?
so ... staying home to care for the little ones -- as a man -- is not "providing for the needs of your family" ?
it's cool that it works for them, but it sounds like they need to be a little more open to these 'different roles' they are rappin' about.
and the crying?
this be all crazy.
I have to say that I disagree with 1-jo. 1950 it is not, but the man had a number of good points. There are days I would love to be in the "workforce" but I would have to put Greg into day care, and I would miss so much. Interestingly enough I-jo doesn't say if they are male or female. I being a woman, am proud that I am able to stay home with my kids. I am proud that we have a "budget" (using the term loosely) that allows Bob to provide for us and the lifestyle we have. Yah, I would have loved to have taken the family to Disney this year or ND with him, but it didn't work out that way and you know what. I think we'll make it. To say the church needs to be involved in a disaplinary way I think is crossing the line. If there is unity in the home, and the parents are in agreement, I see no reason the mother can't be the breadwinner. Especailly if the father is the more sensitive one in the relationship, which happens. That being said, it takes a strong man to bite the bullet and let the woman make the money. There are both men and woman who are not ment to be in the "corperate" world, and there are both men and woman who are. I am not:) and I know this about my self. Plus I can't imagin the state of my house if I had to work even a part time job, it's a disater the way it is.
That being said. If you are a "working" parent CONGRADULATIONS, you are a parent.
If you are a "stay at home" parent CONGRADULATIONS, you are a parent. In becoming a parent you know that there is no such thing as a day off.
You are always working.
24/7 365 days a year.
(I was told that spelling mistakes don't count in blogs so please over look mine.)
Everything (almost) they say lines up what the Bible prescribes for family.
Even if you look at it from a secular point of view, it's hard to deny that it's an accurate prescription. I know the world wants to melt men and women down into a homogenous, gender stripped, pile of equality. But "equal" doesn't equal "different."
It's sad when society wants to sweep the obvious physical and psychological differences between men and woman under the rug and pretend they were never there. The basic roles of men as hunter gatherers and women as nurturers is how we are wired and it's supported from an evolutionary perspective.
Ok, so where do we go from here? I know Paul's wife works. My wife works.... and at this point in time, IS the one supplying for our family.
Am I living UN-Biblically? Possibly. God has always provided instructions and principles that work for every aspect of life. Sometimes we choose to do things a little differently... or a lot differently in some respects.
In many cases, it leads to sin. In some cases, destruction. In other cases, failure. In other cases it may just lead to something being accomplished, but not as ideally and fully as God prescribed.
So is having a family structure in which Mom is the sole provider and Dad is Mr. Mom, sinful and destructive? I don't know. Is it Biblical? No. Is it the most ideal situation, even from a secular perspective? Certainly not.
While I'm not going to start a campaign to get Christians to get back to the Biblical family structure, nor tell working moms with stay-at-home dads they are living in sin, I will admit this is one of many ways Believers have allowed the World too much influence and control in our lives.
[selah]
aaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
i second mdog. i'm also a childless married chick. (sorry. forgot to say.)
woman breadwinners are not sinful.
(can someone please show me in the bible where this is not the case? i'd be happy to reconsider.)
i think it's more sad that society wants to melt each man and woman of god into a homogenous gender role.
man=work
woman=home
whaaa? a god of infinite creativity would leave a little room for various strengths and talents, i'd think, right?
i imagine it would be very difficult to have a baby and head back to work while the hubby stays home to raise it. and i bet that's largely because of the guilt leftover from theology that honestly seems a bit outdated.
lots to think about here.
sorry if my tone seems overly harsh.
OH, come on. This is just silly. If you want to stay home, great. If you want to work, you should. If the daddy/husband wants to stay home and the wife likes working and they can live on it, that's fine. Whatever works. A lot goes into these decisions for people. Most of the time, from my experience, people are doing the best they can with their families.
As for me, I love my job.
I work because I believe really strongly that I have something to contribute. If you knew me, and some of you do, you'd know that I am supposed to work. I feel "called" you might say, to work.
If every smart, capable, interesting woman with ideas and talents stayed home...wow, I can't even imagine. Where would the mentors be for the single ladies who "had" to go to work and never crossed over to the magical land of marriage where you don't have to work? It's hard enough to find a great female mentor in some fields...what if only single women had real careers?
Or what if it was so expected that you get married that no women worked and they just waited to get married? If I was still single would I be expected to live at home and hang out with my also jobless mother and make soup for my dad all day? If I wasn't married, I guess I would be a 30-year old soup maker...what a waste, because while I can make a decent chowder, I assure you, I have more to offer.
So if you don't feel compelled to go out and contribute to the world beyond your immediate family, that's totally fine. But I do and that is part of the reason I work. I won't say you are bad or wrong for staying home - maybe I will totally change my mind and do that too. But this is the point - quit telling people what to do! (not that any of you are necessarily doing that here.) What is working for you, great, keep doing it. But don't act like that is the only way. This is the problem with many, many Christians in my opinion...they have to yell at other people for living differently and make their rigid views known, loud and clear. My experience is that people who do this have a very small world - they spend time with people exactly like them and they reinforce each other's views and judge people outside of that small circle. When you step out into the world, you see a lot of different kinds of families. And you see that a lot of different ways can work.
I work because I really love it and I'm pretty good at it and I learn so much. I am making a focused effort at serving the poor with my life largely through my work. Even though I do it every day, I feel burdened by the poverty in the world. I feel challenged by those who do way more than I do. And I wish these people who are telling women to stay home, like this is some pressing global issue, would shut up and do something about AIDS instead.
I am fairly certain that God cares a lot more about people dying of a disease for which there is a cure and the fact that so many Christians ust don't care, than He does about who should stay home and who shouldn't. When people start telling other people what they should do about how it's wrong for a husband to stay home or a woman to work...I just want to scream at them.
I realize that these people are worthy of my grace, and that they are probably doing the best they can, too. But it makes me really mad.
so Paul where do you stand? just wondering.
Sorry, I have to say one more thing. In that video, the man and woman both talk about how if a man doesn't provide for his family, he is worse than an unbeliever. I am pretty sure they are misinterpreting that verse. Because for the most part, in those times, only men worked - the work was mainly physical, men are bigger, so it makes sense. Women were also oppressed because if men let them work, then they could be independent and men probaby didn't like that idea.
But my point is that men were the ones who were working in general. That verse is not saying "Women should not work instead of a man." The point of the verse, I would say, is that if a man has children and they are not provided for, if the children are starving because no one is providing for them, then he is to blame because he was supposed to be working. I think the point is to give a message to lazy or deadbeat dads. I would say that message goes to both parents, especially the father in those times...probably more equally now that both men and women do and can work/provide. In the absence of a father, that message is to the woman and the family and community around her.
Here is something to ponder: Conservatives, (I am not one) tend to be for women staying at home to care for their children, but against public assistance aka welfare which was actually created to allow single/widowed mothers to stay home with their children. If anyone here is in that camp...could you address the obvious inconsistency?
Staying at home does not equal not having a creative outlet, stating that 'work' is the only way anyone can 'contribute' or 'be creative' or 'not waste their life' as a fact shows very little creativity.
The 1950s is not the only period of time when women stayed home and men worked. We only referenced this point because it's the point after a huge global war that totally destroyed a lot of things materially, humanly, and socially. When it was over, society tried to put things back to normal, except there were so few men that a lot of women didn't even have the option of marrying and were pushed out of the jobs they had filled during the war because there was a huge influx of men who needed work. The women didn't have any socially acceptable alternative so they carved one out. Stop referencing it like it's the prime example of female bondage, it's just the point of change.
We have destroyed the society of women. I highly doubt all women did was stay home and be stupid while keeping the house spotless and living to love their husbands. When did people need a corporation or a government to further their ideas? What has happened to the women's charity leagues? The book clubs? The tea times? You laugh, you roll your eyes, but think about it. What could this lifestyle allow when roughly half the population isn't stuck in 9-5? For whatever reasons, women entered the male world with no considerations of what would be utterly destroyed without them.
Food for thought.
As poised and articulate as I would like to be on this subject, I have to say that this video left me literally shaking with outrage and I am unable to form coherent thoughts at this moment.
Okay, it's now a day later and the seething and shaking have subsided. Here's my somewhat more thoughtful reply:
One of the things that bothers me most about fundamentalist interpretations of faith is that gender roles are carved in stone. Indeed, this seems to be a defining principle in ALL fundie religion. Usually what this means is that women are obligated to become third-class citizens--obedient wives, domestic slaves,
and baby factories (gotta make more little fundies). And of course, they're systematically made to feel ungodly and unwomanly if they don't absolutely revel in this role they've been consigned to by a succession of misogynists (popes, preachers, mullahs, imams,
priests, rabbis, ideologues, pundits, and theocrats) that runs from three or four millennia ago to the present. Please bear in mind that I am not lumping all clergy into this category--only the ones who stake some kind of claim to ultimate, literal,
uncompromising truth in their particular interpretation of faith.
On the other hand, I think there is certainly a case to be made that one sex is "wired" for certain
activities more than the other, regardless of whether this notion comes from the supernatural or scientific realm. There is nothing wrong in acknowledging this
if you believe it, or even taking this into account in your own relationship when you break down the division of labor, so long as both parties agree. However, to
try to control or limit the behavior of others (even going so far as to threaten them with "church discipline," whatever that is) is, in my humble opinion, morally presumptuous, needlessly invasive, and simply wrong. Biology and tradition are powerful
forces, but they are not (and should not be construed as) immutable when it comes to the management of our relationships and families.
Rob. Thoughtful response. Thanks for chiming in. I appreciate your contribution. (And I think I'm in columbus next week... might call if we can arrange a time.)
right or wrong thier opinion took guts especially to declare infront of this group. Weather or not you agreee I think he is perfectly with in his perameters to require those within the ministry he leads to live within certain standards tha can be argued biblically.
but he's got such a cool wardrobe. no way he's a fundie.
... i wonder what the bible says about affliction t-shirts.
Is I-jo is being a bit sarcastic? :)
Post a Comment