This famous cartoon created by Laura Foster in 1912, an opponent of women’s suffrage, has proven to be absolutely true a century after the passage of woman’s suffrage. A new study released this week confirms “women’s greater economic independence” as a contributing factor of rising cohabitation rates and declining marriage rates in the United States.
Here is more of the story from Reuters:
“More Americans 50 years and older are copying younger generations and eschewing marriage, opting instead to live with their partners, according to new research.
In 2016 about 18 million Americans were cohabiting, defined as living with an unmarried partner, and nearly a quarter of them were people over 50, an increase of 75 percent since 2007, data released on Thursday from Pew Research Center showed…
Government figures show that so-called “gray divorce,” or splits among adults 50 and over, has about doubled since the 1990s and could partly account for the increase in cohabitation.
Fewer marriages, changing social norms and women’s greater economic independence are other explanations for the rise, Stepler added.
As cohabiting has gone up, the marriage rate in the United States has dropped, from 8.2 per 1,000 population in 2000 to 6.9 in 2014, according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Stepler also pointed to an increase in the number of older Americans who have never married. Pew found that 27 percent of people 50 years and older who are cohabiting have never married, while more than half are divorced and 13 percent are widowed.”
Whenever reports like this come up about declining marriage rates and rising cohabitations rates you have to look very closely to see the actual cause buried in the fine print that no one wants to address.
Newtons third law of physics states:
“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”
And this law of physics actually applies to changes in society as well. If you take social “action” there will always be “an equal and opposite reaction” in society for the betterment or worsening of society.
While this report tries to show “fewer marriages, changing social norms and women’s greater economic independence” as factors in the rise of cohabitation rates and decline of marriage they are not really three different causes. Fewer marriages and changing social norms (the acceptability of cohabiting outside of marriage) are a direct result of women’s greater economic independence and what gave women greater economic independence? The women’s rights movement, the movement to make women be social equals with men that started in the mid 1800’s.
The Driving forces of Marriage before Feminism
For the history of mankind women had fewer rights than men. Women were for the most part owned by men. Few women owned property and still fewer women held positions of power. The result was that women were compelled to seek out marriage to men for their economic prosperity.
In fact, in many cases women did not even chose whom they would marry but rather their fathers did. Often men would literally purchase their wives from the woman’s father.
This was the simple formula that served as the foundation of the human family for all of human civilization:
Man seeks out woman for her beauty, sexual pleasure, bearing his children, caring for them and caring for the affairs of his home.
Woman seeks man for his protection and provision.
America and other westernized nations have neutralized both of these primary historical drivers of marriage for women and replaced it with something that was rarely if ever a driver for marriage before the modern times – romantic feelings.
Governments have now granted rights to women to be socially and economically equal with men and for those women who still cannot support themselves the government will step in and help through welfare benefits. Modern police forces provide all the protection women need so again in this area women do not need a husband anymore.
So now romance is the only driver for marriage. If a man sufficiently worships a woman telling her how wonderful she is and agreeing to support her as her equal companion in whatever she chooses whether it is a career or having children she will grant him the privilege of marrying her.
And since she has no need from him other than his emotional support of her and constant worshiping of her if either of these things diminishes there is no need for the marriage to continue.
This change in the foundation for marriage has directly lead to a decline in marriage itself. Because after all if marriage is just based on feelings – why does anyone need a paper? Why make a commitment that will just cause more complications? Live on feelings and when the feelings are gone each person can go their separate ways.
This is not just about economics but about spirituality
As Christians, we know there is much more going on here than just the destabilization of marriage because of the economic independence of women. We know that marriage is about more than just a mutually beneficial economic relationship (although God did intend for it to be a mutually beneficial relationship as well).
The Bible shows that God designed marriage as a spiritual symbol of the relationship between himself and his people:
“23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing…
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:”
Ephesians 5:23-24 & 28-29(KJV)
The Biblical model of marriage is simple.
Man loves his wife by leading her, protecting her and providing for her as Christ does the Church. Woman submits to and serves her husband as the Church submits to and serves Christ.
The Bible show us specifically how a wife serves her husband in this world:
She serves him by making herself affectionate, beautiful and sexually pleasing him
“19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.”
Proverbs 5:19 (KJV)
She serves him by bearing his children and caring for the domestic needs of his home
“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.”
1 Timothy 5:14 (KJV)
This is the model of marriage that our creator designed. While human beings imperfectly followed this model for thousands of years it served human civilization well.
But then we thought we knew better than God. We overturned thousands of years of civilization for an experiment with women’s rights and women’s independence. We broke God’s model for not only marriage but society at large – that model was patriarchy. And now we are reaping the consequences of that decision.
As a direct result of feminism, marriage as an institution is crumbling and women are having so few children that western nations can only keep their populations growing by importing people from less developed nations. Third world nations from Central and South America and Africa are overrunning Europe and America as a direct result of our failed experiment with equal rights for women.
What can we do in the face of this disaster?
The Scriptures tell us “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3).
It can be very disheartening to those of us who recognize the collapse of our culture and soon as a result the collapse of our nation.
We must restore the foundation for our society one family at a time and that foundation begins with Jesus Christ himself:
“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
1 Corinthians 3:11 (KJV)
But then what is next? We must build upon his Word as given by his Apostles and Prophets in the Bible:
“19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone”
Ephesians 2:19-20 (KJV)
In keeping with the Word of God as our foundation we must teach women NOT to be independent of men but rather we should teach our daughters to depend on us as their fathers as we all should depend on our heavenly father.
We should teach them what God’s word says a young woman’s primary goals should be:
“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.”
1 Timothy 5:14 (KJV)
There is not one passage in all the Bible that encourages women’s independence from men. Not one. And we as Christian parents continue to do a disservice to our society when we encourage our daughter’s independence but more importantly we sin against God’s design for men and women in this world when we do this.
It is up to Christian fathers and mothers to encourage our daughters to play the part that God has given them to play. When we return to doing things God’s way – we will reap the benefits not only in our families and churches but in our societies and nations as well.
Should we discourage our daughters from being educated?
This question will certainly be asked in the face of my advocating for parents not to teach their daughters to be independent of men. In fact , women not being educated was one of the ways in which society for thousands of years discouraged women’s independence.
However, I don’t think as Christians we need to completely discourage our daughters from being educated. The Bible tells us in Proverbs 31:26 of the virtuous wife that she “She openeth her mouth with wisdom” and in the New Testament elder women are encouraged to teach younger women in the Lord:
“3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”
Titus 2:3-5 (KJV)
But we should teach our daughters that their education should be channeled toward the primary directives God has for them to marry, bear children and keep their future home in order. If they are pursuing education fields that are not supportive of those goals then that may be questioned.
I am not saying women can’t learn history or science or other such subjects even though they don’t directly relate to her home making duties. Especially when we know that if she is going to home school or even help her children with their homework as mothers should she needs to have some knowledge of these subjects.
But we as parents should always be cognizant of the direction our daughters are taking. We must ask a simple question in any activity our daughter undertakes:
Will this be a help or a hindrance to her following God’s directive for her to eventually marry, bear children and guide the domestic affairs of her home?
If we feel the answer is that it will be a hindrance – then we should discourage whatever it is.
44 thoughts on “Why you should teach your daughter NOT to be independent”
Unfortunately, dear friend, the West seems doomed to self destruction, as even the modern church balks at the thought of women being subject to men. The good, strong Christian men, whom I have looked up to for many, many years of my life, deride me as being too fringe and borderline chauvinist when I explain to them that the words of the bible that give husbands authority, REAL authority over their wives and daughters. They tell me about the culture of the time of Jesus and how women were treated as less than human. Though this may be true in some cultures we see no evidence of the nation of Israel, under the law of God, being TOLD to treat women this way. People are people and even in the best society you will have men who treat women like garbage and women who treat men like toys. Our ‘enlightened’ society will have nothing to do with relieving women of their new found freedom (new-found when compared to the history of the planet). In fact I just heard rumor that one of the old churches I used to go to has just allowed their first woman pastor. She may not get up in front of the congregation and deliver a message, but they have allowed her to take courses in and become an official ‘pastor’. This is what I like to call the first step down the slipper slope.
Even if Christian men decided to regrow their testicles and lead as they should and hold their wives feet to the fire to be obedient and submissive as they should I don’t think the West is salvageable. Every day I see stories that lead me to believe we are not mentioned in end times scripture for a reason – we simply aren’t there. I pray for revival in our country, I honestly do, but revival takes action, and I don’t see very many churches taking action anywhere but third world countries. Meanwhile their own country rots under the weight of godlessness and weak Christianity.
Excellent post, and great picture.
Woman was created to be a “helping companion” Genesis 2:20,
Instead of that the world teaches men that woman is an object of idolation, adoration and worship.
A new form of idolatry and we can not compete with Tinder and Snapchat in providing “emotional support” and flattery. As one of the posters mentioned, a 1930-s techniques used by pimps are now necessary to keep a woman’s affection. So sad.
Thank you for the great article BGR. It takes a lot of courage to stand up for the truth in this day and age.
I have grown up in a traditional society where the man provided for the woman. The women never complained about being housewives. But today the people who shame housewives are mostly other women who have made progress in their careers.
I also think that many men encourage their wives to work so that they can take on a bigger mortgage. They are trading family life for an extra bedroom, less stressful jobs, foreign holidays and more discretionary spending.
Money is the root of all evils (1 Timothy 6:10).
I completely agree with you from a human perspective that Western nations seem on a course for self inflicted destruction. Our society will keep telling themselves everything will be alright as the culture becomes so weak and unrecognizable that it dies. But with God all things are possible. God could choose to bring about change and I will never stop hoping that he will while I like you recognize the course we are on without his direct intervention.
On the issue of women be treated as less than human in times past I sometimes chuckle at that when I hear it. I will be the first to acknowledge there were situations where men abused their wives as men still do today. Women rebelled against their husbands in Biblical times as they do today. But I find that when people say women were treated as less than human they mean “women did not have equal rights with men”. Just because one set of humans has less rights or privileges than another does not mean they are being treated as less than human.
When we physically abuse someone or wrongly imprison them or starve them that is treating them as less than human. Giving them less rights is not treating them less than human. The fact that women could not vote was not treating them less than human. The fact that women were seen as the property of their fathers or husbands was not treating them less than human. The fact that men expect to be able to have sex with their wives when they wished it was not treating them less than human. These are the things I contend with my fellow brothers in Christ because that is what they really mean by treating women less than human.
What I think is so interesting is that you pose marriages being based on romantic feelings alone to be a bad thing. Having relationships till the feelings go away makes a lot of sense. Do you think that love is irrelevant? If you found out that your wife stopped loving you would this mean nothing to you? You also made it sound like we shouldn’t have a police force so men can feel better. Also you don’t get a women just because you want her, of course she has to want you too. Could you even be happy forcing a women to marry you and have sex with you when she doesn’t want to because that sounds miserable.
Feelings are flaky but commitments last. Marriage must be built on something that lasts. The bedrock of society is the family and the core of the family is marriage. Everyone has their part to play. The world has tried it your way now for the last half century or more basing marriage on feelings and it has been an utter and colossal failure by every measurement. 50 percent of marriages end in divorce and 70 percent of divorces are filed by women who are now basing their marriages on feelings and not commitment to each other and to God.
I think love based on commitment is very important – the fact that we do things for each other even when we don’t feel like it is a mature love. An immature love says “well if I don’t have feelings for you or because you mistreated me in some way then I will not do keep my commitments”. There has been plenty of times in my marriage where the feelings of love were not there from me toward my wife or my wife toward me just as it was in our parents marriages. My wife has a hard time admitting when her feelings for me are not there but I can tell when they are not. But what remains constant during those times when are feelings of affection for each other is gone is our commitment to one another.
For instance, just because my wife is mad at me about something I said or did does not mean she stops doing the dishes, cooking or laundry or that she can tell me no to sex. And just because my wife sometimes ticks me off does not mean I can stop taking her to the doctor, getting her medications or working to provide her with the necessities of life or tell her no to sex. This is what grown up commitment looks like, this is what Christian marriage should look like.
Do we all prefer to have those feelings of affection? Sure we do. And those are the happy times of a relationship. Do I prefer sex with my wife when she is mad at me? Of course not. But if she is mad for days and I have not had it in a while I might just take some not so happy sex. Its ok because like marriage, Biblical sex is not based on feelings of affection toward one another – it is based in duty and commitment and the mutual affection just makes its better.
I agree with you that men saw an advantage in having their wives work. Many men and women were opposed to suffrage and women’s rights but once the damn broke and it happened they saw the economic advantages of it. Families started to become two income – and now probably 70% of families as a result are two income. But the problem is the economy adjusted to the double income family making house prices, car prices and everything else go up so after a while many families had to have two incomes just to have what they had before on one income.
This also made it harder on those families who are trying to live the Christian way with the man providing and the woman keeping the home and it is still extremely difficult for most households today to live on just the man’s income although many still do.
It will be painful to reverse the trend but it is possible. If families choose to live simpler lives and not go after those big expensive houses – guess what will happen? They won’t sell as many of those expensive houses and they will start building the smaller more affordable houses again. But if we chase after the bigger and better homes they will just keep making them.
I once heard a political conservative say that if every married woman left her career and came home there would be no unemployment and, in fact, the job market would be in such a demand for workers that wages and benefits would go up, improving single income homes.
My husband gets picked on by guys at work because I “leech” off of him. They tell him to “put her butt to work so you can get more toys.” Hubby notices that the guys with live in girlfriends with careers and the single guys still living at home are the laziest workers on his crews.
All feelings of love and affection don’t just go away when your mad at someone, for instance I fight with my best friend more then anyone, and I get angry and frustrated but I still like her, and she is still my best friend. I’m talking about strong romantic feelings that do not just go away, that are the core of a long standing relationship. Commitment is important but it’s not all that makes a relationship and certainly isn’t the only thing.
Also you say that women’s suffrage is a problem because it leads to less marriage rates, but why is that a bad thing? You say often that marriage is a symbol of God’s relationship’s with Israel and mankind, but why does it have to be that way in the first place. Why does God have a desire for us to live our lives that way.
My sister tried for 5 years in an impossible situation. Her (supposedly super Christian) Husband wouldn’t work, wouldn’t watch the kids, wouldn’t help around the house. She begged, pleaded, went to counseling, threatened divorce. For years. She gave him control of the money per the church’s counseler’s advice in order for him to have more responsibility, only to have 15,000 in savings, $$ for the kid’s education “dissapear” (he still won’t say where it went.)
The Church’s advice is always “led the man lead.” Well that is great if the man is a good guy. What do you do if he’s a loser? Just stick it out forever, slide into ruin and chaos, and hope Heaven is better?
She’s finally filing for divorce, and I’m glad.
She couldn’t work because of a back injury (though she tried for 2 years and the pain was excruciating.)
What would you have her do? Women need a “backup” plan in case they get a dud.
Interested to see your response to cordeliajane. I got myself a “dud” as well…in our six years of marriage, he worked maybe a total of a year. Obviously. I did work… you can’t live without an income. Trust me, if I had had a husband capable of it, I would have been only too happy to have him “lead” and “provide for” me.
Unfortunately, I was incapable of fulfilling my “womanly role” of bearing children, also through no fault of my own. I am infertile, likely due to myriad health issues dating from my birth. My free-loading husband left me recently for a woman he had impregnated. Guess he wanted a breeder. By your assessment of gender roles, I guess he did the right thing?
What answer do you have for women like me? Had my devoutly Christian parents taught me that wife hood and motherhood were my ultimate destiny, I would be left with no hope and no purpose. I would have to choose between faith in a god who clearly didn’t accept me or atheism.
As it stands, they have taught me that I am more than my uterus and the ability of a man to love me. I am loved by God and endowed with unique abilities to serve Him–not solely based on the fact that he happened to give me a vagina.
I hope none of your daughters are left alone and childless. If so, you are giving them only despair as an option.
Jenny – do you realize that before the last 150 years or so that it was very common in most places of the world for women to marry men they had no relationship with prior to marriage? It was more common than not for the romantic feelings to grow after marriage – rather than romantic feelings causing the marriage to happen. Men and women both understood that marriage starts with a commitment and then may lead to stronger romantic feelings later. As Christians we encourage couples to cultivate an affection toward one another which leads to romantic feelings. But this does not form the found of marriage – it is a commitment to God and a commitment to one another – or what the the Bible calls a “covenant” which forms the basis of marriage.
In marriage there are short term issues – a fight here or there like what you describe with your friend. Some are less intense than others. But even some intense fights and those which last longer term may lead to a degrading of our affection for our spouse. We must be honest – there are sometimes we just don’t like our spouse. It is perfectly normal and human to sometimes feel “I love my spouse but right now I do not like my spouse”. These are not contradictory things when we understand that Agape love is an unconditional love of the will – not based in the feelings of the heart.
I wonder are you married? I could be wrong but it sounds to me as if you are not. You cannot compare marriage to just a friendship. Marriage is a relationship based on a covenant – friendship is a relationship based on mutual interests and feelings.
I agree that commitment is not the only thing important in a marriage relationship and that couples should try their very best to cultivate a genuine affection for one another. However commitment is the MOST important part of a marriage and it is the very foundation of marriage and the only thing that is guaranteed to hold the marriage together. Feelings can be lost and a marriage still remain intact. But when commitment breaks or is lost this means death for a marriage.
I about fell out of my chair when I read this question from you. Your question is sort of like saying “Ok so you said holding my nose and covering my mouth will lead me to having less oxygen, but why is that a bad thing?” I don’t mean to mock you. But your question is to me is so absurd that I must ask you to defend even asking such a question. How are falling marriage rates not a bad thing?
The reason is it has to be this way is because God created us for his own glory. He has the right and power over our lives. He designed us to play out certain roles to glorify him. We were not made to simply live for ourselves, but to live for him.
The key phrase in your statement is “Husband wouldn’t work”. Contrary to the teachings of many Churches and Church counselors today God DOES allow a woman to divorce her husband for certain sins. You see we have two extremes in Christianity in this area of divorce.
On the far left we those who teach that you can divorce your spouse for any sin or just because the feelings are gone – this group has little to no respect for God’s institution of marriage and make marriage completely based on feelings.
But on the far right we have those who like me have a deep and profound respect for marriage but in their zeal for God’s institution of marriage they fail to realize that while God designed marriage to be a life long commitment he also recognized the reality of sin in this world would sometimes break his design.
God does not allow divorce for just any sin – but he allows divorce for certain sins that break the model of marriage. One of those sins is when a man fails to provide for his wife. When a man fails to provide for his wife this breaks the model of God providing for his people and Christ providing for his Church. Therefore God allows women to be freed from(divorced from) their husbands if the man is able bodied and simply refuses to work to provide.
I have said before in the situation of a deadbeat husband who refuses to work a woman only has two Biblical choices:
1. Divorce him.
2. Stay with him but if she stays with him she must submit to him and follow his leadership.
There is no third option to stay with him but not follow his leadership.
So like you I am glad for your friend that she finally divorced the bum. Laziness is makes me nauseated as it also does God. God made men to work and work hard – when they do not they are violating God’s design for man.
The “backup plan” reasoning is the one a lot of parents use to justify having their daughters get a college degree and have a career before marrying just in case they get a divorce. But the Bible never tells us as parents to do that. We should not teach our daughters to go into marriage planning for failure. Yes because of sin in the world husbands die, become disabled or divorce happens. But a woman should not go into marriage planning for that – she should plan for God’s best ideal and have faith that if bad things happen he will provide.
The main problem with this “backup plan” idea is that it causes a woman to become independent of man and thus breaks the model of God and his people where his people are always to be dependent on him for their leadership, provision and protection.
And from a practical perspective I can tell you first hand that women who go to college, get a career and then try to get married often have a very hard time giving up that career once they are married. I am not saying that some don’t give it up – but it adds a hindrance to marriage.
So we have to ask ourselves when we encourage our daughters to have the backup plan by having a career before marriage “just in case” – is this a help or a hindrance to them having marriage as God designed it? I would say it is a hindrance.
“Women need a “backup” plan in case they get a dud.”
“I got myself a “dud” as well…in our six years of marriage, he worked maybe a total of a year.”
When backup plans multiply (careers for women, higher education for women, easy divorce) women and their parents become less picky.
Decades ago it was common and accepted for young women to marry a man 3 to 8 years older. This allowed the man to be established in business or with a farm before the woman committed to marriage.
Why did you marry a man who did not have a strong history of working full time?
One issue is that would be good for another blog entry BGR, would be what happened with men that has causes them to be such miserable failures as husbands. It is heartbreaking to see wives failed by husbands who didn’t do what was right.
Yes I see what you asking – basically you are asking what is the source and cause of the deadbeat husband/dad? The short answer is sin. But a more detailed answer is from several sources. Some men were raised by good fathers who set a good example yet they go astray – why? Because of sin that built into them. I am thinking of a young man I know right now from a family who were good Christians and his father always worked hard and provided. Yet his son(whom he adopted from another family they know) actually took after the horrible traits of his biological father and he is extremely lazy and can’t hold down a job. He has the best example growing up in his adopted father and never really knew his biological father and yet he grew up to be exactly like his biological father? How do we explain that – it is because sin does not just come from bad examples or environments but sin is in our DNA itself.
Another causing factor in deadbeat men is masculine overbearing mothers who dominated families(whether they were single parent or had weakling fathers).
But at the end of the day we as men have a choice – we don’t have to let our bad upbringing or DNA that carries the sin of our ancestors and temps us toward certain sins determine our destiny. We can chose to do what is right in spite of all that and many men do. But their will always be deadbeat men like the ones described here just as their will always be unsubmissive and rebellious wives.
The problem with our culture is – while we will condemn lazy men from all sides(both Christian and secular) we don’t condemn rebellious and unsubmissive wives – in fact our society encourages them. That is the big difference.
That is an EXCELLENT point. How can a young man who has been working for a year or two at most even be a candidate for being a husband? Yet because these men can be cute and flirtatious women fall for them only to wake up a few years later realizing they married looser. As you said – no proven track record and you are absolutely right that men should be several years older and have proven work history and character that can be attested to by others before a father every agrees to allow a man to marry his daughter.
For instance with my sister – she wanted to marry some looser when she was 17 and he was not much older. Her Dad knew he was a looser and would not sign the papers because she was underage but she got her mom to – what was this all based on? It was based on that he was cute and made her feel good. She was divorced from him a few years later.
But this is pathetic state of marriage today – loosers woo women into marrying them with their charm and looks and parents either enable it or stand by helplessly.
On to a related subject, I was reading a blog entry from a feminist the other day where she highlighted something about men that I had never considered before. I hope you don’t mind me posting the link: https://medium.com/@emmalindsay/men-dump-their-anger-into-women-d5b641fa37bc
Her key takeaway was ‘women are expected to regulate the emotions of men as well as themselves.’
She talks about how she had to deal with emotionally immature men throughout her life. Right from awkward school boys when she was younger to rude infantile men when older. She claims that many women go to great lengths to not give true feedback to men for fear of being the targets of their anger. And that many immature men dump their emotional baggage on their wives and girlfriends.
I know from my own parents, my father was emotionally immature when he got married. He would through a hissy fit when the food my mum prepared was not salty enough or would sometimes not talk to my mother for weeks out of anger for silly things.
I see women in many cases are the true psychologists helping men who did not have emotional training growing up.
I think even in the case of traditional Christian men, you may have someone who comes from a good family, has a good job and is well regarded in public. But then to his wife, he is a baby who plays silly games and dumps his anger and frustrations from other parts of his life on to her. Some boys even do this to their mothers.
What the feminists like this blogger do is highlight that many men are damaged goods/clueless in relationships though they may have everything else going for them (health, job, reputation).
So was the psychologist like role for wives part of the design for marriage?
I have known of men who are immature and emotionally unstable but that is not the role of a wife to fix. Being a psychologist to one husband is not a role God has called wives to. That may be part of a mother’s role toward her son but not a wife’s role toward her husband.
As Bee said women should not be marrying these kind of emotionally damaged men in the first place. But if they do marry such a man in their ignorance, unless he does something God allows divorce for than she must love him,respect his position and submit to him and suffer for God’s glory.
You said, “As Bee said women should not be marrying these kind of emotionally damaged men in the first place. But if they do marry such a man in their ignorance, unless he does something God allows divorce for than she must love him,respect his position and submit to him and suffer for God’s glory.”
My parents did choose my husband for me and, being a good, obedient daughter, I married him. This man was 10 years older than me, had a good job, owned his home, was a deacon in our church, and seemed to genuinely care for me. Until we got married. Then he became very controlling and physically abusive. For example, I was not allowed to leave the house without his permission and even then I was only to be gone for a certain amount of time. So if I had to go grocery shopping, he knew that it took 10 minutes to drive to the store, I had 30 minutes to shop, I had 2-5 minutes to load the car, and 10 minutes to drive home. So 55 minutes total, not 60 minutes. If I was 56 minutes late he would question and berate me, accuse me of cheating, and more often than not I was slapped, kicked, and punched for my disobedience. Needless to say I was a very efficient shopper and tried my best to be a very obedient wife. Of course nothing was ever good enough for him and the physical and mental scars I carry to this day attest to that. I am also infertile because of health issues I have had my entire life, but at the time I didn’t know this was why I couldn’t get pregnant and neither did my parents. He believed the reason I wasn’t having babies was because I was cheating on him and God was punishing me for the sin of adultery. This led to more physical abuse and yes rape, because who wants to have sex with someone after they beat you up. My church, my parents said I had to stay married to him because “God hates divorce!” but after 5 years of knowing this man was going to kill me one day I divorced him. I didn’t choose an emotionally damaged man, it was not my ignorance that married me to a dangerous man. You say over and over that a daughter should marry who her parents wish. What happens when they end up in my situation? If it wasn’t for that little bit of independence I had, I could be dead right now. My parents did that to me. To this day my whole family shuns me because I divorced that man. That’s ok with me, I remarried a very good man and am incredibly happy and in love after 10 years of marriage. I think you are dangerously wrong. You cannot take someone’s independence away, you cannot teach someone that you are the only one who knows what’s best. What happens when you are wrong?
I am sorry for the horrible experience you went through with your husband and I don’t disagree with you divorcing him for physical abuse.
But just because there are some monster husbands out there – and the one you describe sounds like one – does not justify teaching a generations of young girls to be more independent. It does however involve us teaching our young men to look out for our young ladies. I routinely teach young men – including my sons to look out for their sister. When she is married trust me – if the guy abuses her he will have 4 men and me as her father at his door with baseball bats.
I also teach that family – especially the men of the family are supposed to be there for a woman if her husband dies or leaves her.
I realize you are scarred by your past and you think it is right to teach women to be independent because of the horrible abuse you suffered at the hands of your first husband – but we should not teach our children to plan for failure,but rather for God’s ideal.
If I believed as you then I would have to teach my sons to get prenup agreements because of the evil things I have seen women do to men. Should my son’s go into marriage to a woman expecting her to run around him and then divorce him and take everything he has? Should they be suspicious and check up on their wives all the time because of what they have seen from family members? I think not. Trust me they have every reason to be suspicious of women the way you are of men but we cannot view marriage like that.
Just in response to your replies to Didi’s and my comments about emotionally immature men. I agree with you that the wife is not meant to fix up her husband’s emotional issues.
I used to think very lowly of my father for his hot and cold treatment of my mother. Like Didi’s ex-husband, my father was a tyrant and a great lover to his wife.
But then I realised that it wasn’t just my father but a whole generation of devoutly Christian men from my father’s time who were emotionally deficient in many ways. They had all been taught by their own Christian fathers and the church to run their households like a corporation. The wives and children were continuously made to submit and kept on the edge. This school of thinking seems to come off from the book of Exodus especially the treatment of slaves.
This has caused a lot of pain to many wives and children over the generations. There are many stories like my own parents that have never been told.
Thanks to first wave feminism and the internet, the new generation of young people today including me cannot bear to see the injustice of our fathers. But If I was born in an earlier era, I would have accepted my father’s behaviour as that of an alpha ‘male’ to be modelled on.
My question is what had caused these Christian men from the older generations to be brought up as narcissists. What was lacking in their Christian teaching?
I note that in Jewish custom, the man of the household spent very little time with their young children and wives. They mostly socialised amongst other men and took on their sons as apprentices. In many ways, the sons had to earn their father’s love and respect. This is still the case in the middle east.
Today secular men shower their households with unmeritted love and affection.
So these are two extremes. From my reading of the bible, I see that this traditional hierarchy was a concession rather than the intended design. From the teaching of Emmanuel Swedenborg, I can see that there is a Christian need for gender roles but gender hierarchy is a concession for the men of older unstable communities.
And that ‘love’ and romantic feelings was the intended design before the fall in Genesis. The hierarchy was a concession after the fall that God seemed to have declared to Adam and eve for their new world order.
Similarly slavery was not outlawed by God im Exodus but it was reformed by God to become employment. In the same way, I feel God is working into reforming purely functional marriage into love/romanticism.
I am not saying that men and women should plan for failure but rather they should accept suffering as an outcome for doing good just as Jesus suffered. But rather marriage is built on equality and love and that the functional nature of it is secondary. The law was intended for functional purposes of community living but love for your neighbour was a greater than it. Similarly it is greater for man of house to be the slave of the house than to be its master.
What I have discovered by running this site and receiving daily and weekly emails from men and women over the last 3 years is that often we transpose our life experiences to more people than is sometimes true. Children who were abused by their parents can sometimes see abusive parents everywhere. Women who were raped can sometimes see rapists everywhere. Men were cheated on by their wives and take to the cleaners by them in divorce see these women every where and women with emotionally abusive or physically abusive husbands see them everywhere when this is not the case.
Again as I just said there is no evidence that whole generations of Christian men were ever brought up as narcissists. In fact men were taught to work hard, have families, and provide for their spiritual and physical needs. Men brought their families to church – men taught their families the Bible at home. In fact older societies taught men(and women) to be the opposite of a narcissist. They taught them to think of God, their families, their towns, their churches and their nations. Today in America we have taken individualism to an extent the founders never intended and that radical individualism along with egalitarianism formed the foundation for feminism.
I would argue that feminism has taught modern generations of women to be narcissists. They tell women to think only of their own ambitions and happiness and not the impact of their actions on their families or on society at large. Free sex, Romanticism, Abortion and Careerism have replaced a culture where men and women understood and accepted their place in God’s design.
The type of man that Didi describes insisting his wife finish grocery shopping in 56 minutes, that psychosis she describes, was not and has never been the norm among men in our culture, or even earlier Christian cultures. This is a myth propagated by feminism. “Men were all chauvinistic tyrants who treated their wives as slaves or animals this was form the need for feminism”. This is the lie.
If I were to go by the men I am have know personally in my life(my father, father-in-laws, grand fathers, friends, other relatives) I have never know as a man as Didi has described. I could take that personal experience and say these monsters of men don’t exist but they do and I would be wrong in saying they don’t. However it is equally wrong if a woman were to say that there is are large chunk of men or there were even whole generations of these types of monster men – there is no historical evidence to support such a position. Have they existed in every generation of man? I am sure they have. But there is no evidence that there were whole generations of these men.
There is absolutely no evidence that “traditional hierarchy was a concession rather than the intended design” in the Scriptures. A lot of false teachings surround the Genesis account. Liberal theologians(including feminist Christian theologians) try and argue that this passage that hierarchy was a result of the fall – not its intended design:
There are several problems with that ideology which states patriarchy(male headship over women) was a concession after the fall and not design.
1. Adam is the one who named all the animals and also named Eve denoting his authority over her. He named her type(“woman”) and he gave her the individual name of “Eve”. These are both acts of authority – one happening before the fall and the other after the fall.
2. But we have even greater evidence of Adam naming the animals and naming the type of being known as woman. We have perfect and inspired commentary. You see today men write commentaries on the Bible all the time, men have done this for centuries. In a sense what I am doing on this blog is writing a commentary on the Scriptures. But my commentary is not perfectly inspired by God – I could be wrong in a variety of areas just as liberal theologians could be wrong in their commentary. But when the Bible explains itself – when it comments on what has previously occurred or has been said – that commentary is perfect and unquestionable.
This is the case with traditional hierarchies and gender roles. The Bible in its own God breathed commentary tell us that the patriarchy was not a concession of the fall – but it was rather by the will of God to reflect God’s image and then the relationship between God and mankind.
Here are some examples of such divinely inspired commentary that tells us exactly what happened in the Genesis account:
This divine commentary tells us that from the very beginning man was God’s direct image bearer and women is not. This tells us the whole “male and female created he them” from Genesis was not saying woman and men were equally created in God’s image. Man was created in God’s image and woman was created from man to serve man and bring glory to man as man was created to serve God and bring glory to God.
Ephesians 5 gives us more divine commentary on the Genesis account:
Ephesians 5 shows us that from the beginning the relationship of man to woman was designed to reflect the relationship of God to his people(as we see with God and Israel in the OT and Christ and his Church in the NT). It was not a concession – it was by design.
Let me clarify what you are saying by ‘love’ for the readers. When you are talking about romantic love you are talking about feelings of affection type love. Not duty based love. Feelings type love is the weakest form of love and this reflects the way women most naturally operate and this one of many reasons that it is fitting that the Bible calls woman “the weaker vessel” in I Peter 3:7. Men are both physically stronger and they were designed to primarily love in a stronger way – the the duty form of love.
You see when the Bible says in I John 4:8 that “God is love” it literally is saying “God is Agape”. Agape love is an unconditional love based on a commitment of the will not feelings, emotions or attachments. And it is the strongest precisely because it is not based on feelings.
When Paul talks in Ephesians about how Christ made marriage to model the relationship between God and his people he tell us husbands:
“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” – Ephesians 5:25
When he tells husbands to love their wives – it is not phileo(friendship, romantic feelings love) but it is Agape love. Love that comes from the will, from a commitment, from a duty to do things for that person unconditionally. SO again the Biblical evidence directly contradicts your view that the basis for marriage and love between a man and woman was romantic feelings before the fall.
I don’t mean to be harsh – but your positions are simply not supported by the entire witness of the Scriptures.
How would agape love between spouses be any different from the agape love that we are all called to have for our fellow humans? Doesn’t agape also inspire us to treat strangers with basic civility and to assist them when we see them struggling? For example, I feel no familial, friendly, or romantic love for cashiers at the supermarket, but I always make sure to smile, say “please” and “thank you,” and give them a pleasant greeting and farewell. I feel no familial, friendly, or romantic love for people coming into or out of a building closely behind me, but I still hold the door open for them. I feel no familial, friendly, or romantic love to the woman whom I helped fold up a stroller on a plane that I boarded a couple weeks ago or the man whom I helped pick up some papers that he’d dropped about a week ago. And even in the social circles that my husband and I move in, I know some people whom I personally dislike. But I’m still basically polite and civil to them. For example, there’s one young man whom I find to be particularly irritating, but I still gave him some of the motrin that I had in my purse and got him some water when he got a migraine around me, and I still gave him some advice on how to avoid triggering migraines through exercise. And even when I’m annoyed or frustrated with my husband, I don’t start being mean to him. I still get him food, and I don’t stop cleaning the house or start refusing to let him touch me. So isn’t it more accurate to say that we’re called to give agape love to all people and that our duties are simply greater when it comes to our spouses?
As believers, we are not under the law, although it provides solid guidelines in general. However, we do have a solid amount of verses from the NT on which to build a case. 1 Tim 5:8 can reasonably be construed to the male(s) of said households.
1 Timothy 5:8 Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
Then we have Paul’s letter to the Corinthians that follows up on this:
1 Corinthians 7:10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not [d]leave her husband 11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not [e]divorce his wife.
12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not [f]divorce her. 13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not [g]send her husband away. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through [h]her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called [i]us [j]to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
Thus, the options are:
1. Separation for a period of time, potentially permanent.
2. Stay with him but if she stays with him she must submit to him and follow his leadership according to 1 Peter 3.
3. If the husband chooses to leave, then let him go.
Divorce is/was never a given option. Remarriage may be permissible IF the husband leaves according to v12-16, but even that is questionable (as the relief of bonds of marriage do not necessarily imply that remarriage is an option).
Re: Love and Feelings.
The only given reason in the NT to marry is also from 1 Corinthians 7:
1 Corinthians 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Paul indicates that passion is likely to be a part of the marriage, but it is not separate from the marriage. Feelings come and go and come and go. The covenant of marriage is the commitment that helps you get through the harder times, and passion does come back if you continue to work at it.
Also, frequent sex helps to deter temptation and as a bonding mechanism.
Yes, agape is different according to the different interactions.
The covenant of marriage has certain roles and responsibilities inherent with it that are not found with interactions between other family, friends, or even enemies. Men are providers and protectors. They are called to love, not be embittered, to treat wives with understanding as the weaker vessel, and with honor as coheirs in Christ. Wives are called to be respectful and obedient, have a gentle and quiet spirit, be keepers of the home, to love their husbands and children and so on.
Carrying out these certain roles and responsibilities as an act of obedience to God is agape love.
On the other hand, those who are our “neighbor” (e.g. Love God and love your neighbor), Jesus uses the parable of the good Samaritan as an example of who is our neighbor. Those who we hate, those who we despise, those who we think less of. We still treat them with dignity and honor as those made in the image of God, and pray that our kindness toward them leads them to repentance like God’s kindness toward us led us to repentance. Also, see the entirety of Matthew 5 about how to treat our enemies [as neighbors].
It’s important to know what roles and responsibilities are imparted to us so that we can act accordingly. Different types of relationships have different standards that come with them.
I hope you don’t mind if I share some theology that might differ from your theology. I only want to offer a different opinion.
As a Christian, I have been studying the Quran over the last few months because I was sick and tired of reading about people’s opinion of Islam and terrorism. I wanted to know for myself what the book really is about.
Upon reading it I was surprised to find out that the Quran had another perspective of the same events of many OT stories such as that of Adam, Moses and Abraham. What was a common perspective amongst them was that ‘all divine instruction came about because of disagreement’. The Quran says in the beginning that there existed only one community of man but as time went on, they began to have many disagreements. E.g. inheritance, land rights, punishments for crime, allocation of wives, civil leadership, etc. Often such issues were fatal to community.
What was needed was divine instruction in order to bring about agreement. This divine instruction was law that proclaimed righteousness to those who abided by it and death to those who refused it. This is similar to what we read in Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Exodus.
But such divine instruction was a concession. What was supposed to be worked out in love, humility and sacrifice was replaced by mechanical thought and action. E.g. What is greater? A man who voluntarily pays 10% of his income to charity or one who is taxed 10% for charity?. Hence the law is lesser than love.
Similarly what was instructed in the bible for marriage was also out of disagreement. We look into Paul’s letters to the Corinthians and we see verses such as I do not permit women (wives) to raise their voice in church. These verses came about because of disagreements in the Corinthian church (as Paul’s letters indicate a lot of church infighting). Such divine instruction had to be passed to them. And other such divine instruction had to be passed even for concubines who were women captured during war. As we have seen throughout the OT, the Israelites were keen to borrow custom and practice from their neighbours. The regulation of the treatment of concubine in exodus was a concession to appease Israeli men who wanted war booty.
Similarly we see concessions everywhere in the OT including an eye for an eye. Jesus even highlighted concessions with Moses’s rulings on divorce.
The submission of a woman to a man was born out of communal need. Women exchanged between families brought peace. They also helped men in regulating their emotions given that they spent much of their time with other men practising emotionless activities such as hunting, warfare, politics and enforcement. The woman had the weakness and care that the man desperately needed to balance himself out. Without her unique character, he was incomplete as a human.
Submission was naturally regulated by the in-laws to the woman. And we have seen throughout every human society, there can much be bitterness between the in-laws and the wife because of the in-laws enforcement of submission of the wife to their son/brother.
As such submission was put into writing to sought out disagreement between the wife and her husband/in laws.
But there comes a bigger teaching on this. I asked a question to you about the fall and what was lacking in the Christian teaching of older generations.
You see before the fall, Adam was naked and after the fall he was clothed but naked. What does nakedness mean?
You see who we are today to others is seen in the context of how creation clothes us. Creation clothes us as husbands, sons, male, female, American, human, priest, engineer, rich, poor. Who are we apart from creation? Who were we before we were born? How would we present ourselves to God before we were born?
You see all suffering in this life tends to be driven off our shedding of our creation clothes. When an old man finds out that he can no longer compete, when disaster strikes and takes away our belongings, when disease appears and takes away our health.
The church of the past taught us that the greatest we could do as biological males was to be clothed as men. Such a man had a wife, worked the fields and enforced submission. The gentile world of today is more materialistic. They clothe themselves with their sexuality, their houses, their bodies and their public image. The clothing of a ‘Christian man’ is much superior to other forms of creation clothing but in the end it is only but a clothing.
Hence the book of Ecclesiastes and Pauls teaching that there is no male, female, jew or gentile. Who we are is who we are in God only.
We see this the best with Jesus on the cross. At that point he was stripped of every clothing he had. Stripped of God in front of all the angels, stripped of being a man after being pulverized, stripped of being a rabbi and stripped of being ‘good’. Yet deep within him was a small part called the ‘self’ that praised and loved God. And this ‘self’ was devoid of creation.
Similarly being men is something that will be stripped away from us. Sometimes our sons/government/welfare/police take away our functions as males. We cannot cling to it and tyrannical promote it outside of reason, culture and circumstance.
The teachings of Jesus was that the greatest amongst us had to be servants even if it meant being open to abuse. And that he went around as God asking mere men what they thought of him. Similarly the man of the house can be the ‘master’ out of biblical authority or he could be crowned ‘master’ by those he serves. Similarly Jesus said ‘who do you say I am’ and Peter called him lord.
So a husband is crowned by his wife. The teachings of the church of old was for the man to do all he could to crown himself to his wife. These were concessions.
Women are equal. Yes the bible says that she is joined in one flesh to her husband but a time will come when her husband will die and she will spend a few decades being a widow. She will be abused and become a beggar but yet in this life she will be stripped of being clothed as a ‘wife’. Yet in her nakedness she must find her identity in God.
What is charity then? We see a lot of biblical verses of God commanding us to take care of widows and orphans. We are to clothe them but they are temporal. Their clothing must be torn apart some day and they be naked to God. It is not for us to to strip them but it is whenever God deems right.
Christian men of the past could not let go of their Christian male clothing. They clung on to it even if it meant being tyrannical and emotionally distant from their wives and children. It was their last line of clothing. They could not let go of it despite the pain it caused.
Yet gender roles are correct. As men, there are roles or clothing that fit us better.
But such teaching on curtailing the independence of a woman is based on concessions. The woman is equal. But whatever she does, she must do in devotion to God as her clothing and then to her husband.
“But such teaching on curtailing the independence of a woman is based on concessions. The woman is equal. ”
According to I Corinthians 11 there is a hierarchy and women are not equal to men. Valuable, loved, forgiven; but not equal.
Are women the same as men? No. In that sense we aren’t equal.
I think in this sense equal means this:
10+10=20, but so does 4×5. They equal the same sum, but are not the same math facts. You cannot compute them the same way. In PEMDAS, one comes before the other to make the entire equation work.
I had this random thought today and I shoveled manure: with more and more women working full time jobs outside the home, and entering armed services, are the gender death rates and life expectancies going to equal out? Are women going to live only as long as men, in general? My other thought is that women, in general, cannot endure the labor like men can. God made men both mentally and physically more capable of doing physical labor. Will their life expectancy start to become lower than men’s?
Time will tell.
Even attempting to compare men and women is wayward. Comparison breeds covetousness, jealousy, and discontent. The modern feminist is the epitome of this.
No, men and women are not equal. The reason why God created certain positions in marriage, in the Church, and on earth is to teach us how to live in harmony with His design. When we deviate from those positions, we think it’s beneficial but in reality it’s sin and destructive in the long run.
For example, 1 Peter 3 teaches husbands to view wives with understanding as the weaker vessel and in the grace as a co-heir in Christ lest their prayers be hindered. The meaning is ultimately that men and women are different and need to be treated different, but that we should all remember that we are all created by God. Treatment needs to come from love not harshness.
Feminists, egalitarians, and complementarians are paranoid that men are going to abuse women because they have authority. They make up stories about how “Patriarchy” was used to abuse women in the OT and NT when the Law of Moses and Jesus show us that Authority is mean to Protect, Provide, and Love. They live in Fear not Love.
After you stop buying into that nonsense, the Truth is pretty clear to see.
Equal means in value. In God’s eyes, are men and women both of equal value to Him? Different roles, different purposes, but ultimately human, children of God, lovingly formed by Him, and Christ died for all of us. Women are humans. We are not a step between animals and men. Therein lies our equality.
Are we equal in roles, abilities, responsibilities, etc? That is where no one is equal.
I still don’t think forced dependence is right for just making marriages exist. I think the answer is in Truth, in knowing the true meaning and purpose of marriage. To me, forced dependence is the other side of the pendulum swing of flighty emotions and infatuation to create a marriage. Neither are healthy.
Before Eve was created, Jehovah God charged Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eve sinned by listening to the Serpent and to her own judgement, instead of her husband. Adam sinned by listening to the voice of his wife, instead of God.
Exactly. The key issue here is the ‘independence’ is of the spirit of rebellion. It is to say that God that one does not need Him. In the context of gender roles, it is to say that woman can rebel against her husband, such as by divorcing him, but yet still get benefits of him, such as money and child custody, to use the child against him.
Most divorces, I would say about 70-90% are filed by women. Why? Because they have incentive to do so, because they can gain both money, by pretending to be ‘dependent’ on the husband for divorce proceedings, as well as moral capital, which she can use to make people feel sorry for her. It seems like by even considering the woman to be more ‘vulnerable’ in divorce proceedings, we all know intuitively that woman made to be dependent on man.
Most modern men support women working so that they can use that as an excuse to not support and love his wife in a self-sacrificial way. That is why we also have so many young professional secular men who don’t want to get married. However, of course, it is also their (co-habiting) girlfriends who encourage them to think this way.
Now, western society is paying for it all with all the divorces, family violence, child abuse, family breakdown, increasing house prices, indebtedness etc etc etc.
However, on the flip side though, I have to say that there are young married couples in the west, where both are professionals, who have children young. That I believe is a good thing, as it indicates a desire to care for children, rather than focus on one’s career.
One thing which disturbs me is where people don’t want to have children because they want to earn more money to buy a house, or have an easy life. It is mainly women who have their attitude, and control their husbands into not having children. Yet, when they want to have children, and are unable to, they divorce their husbands.
Any wonder why I have such a negative view of the west, in particular, such a negative view of western or westernised women??? They are typically psychopathic jezebels who are not to be trusted with anything, whatsoever.
Speaking of life expectancy of women, there have been recent studies which show a decease in life expectancy of women. Looks like double-mindedness will find out those who are double-minded, just like how “your sin will always find you out”.
Note how this HuffPo report says that this reversal is “seen ONLY in the US”.
Do these western women still think they are invincible because they are women?
Let’s see if they will learn a lesson.
1 Corinthians 11:11 says it all.
“Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is NOT INDEPENDENT of man……”
Sprry, haven’t come back to this in a while.
You mock me for marrying a man without a strong work history. The issue was that he didn’t work during the marriage; before the marriage, he claimed to have a job. Now, it also turned out that he was a pathological liar, but since I tried to do the right thing and not live with him before marriage, I didn’t know. Also his working or not wasn’t really the issue. The issue was him leaving me abruptly for another woman. So…you missed the entire point of my post.
Let me try again…what does your daughter do when her husband leaves and oh, whoops, God decided not to give her ability to conceive. Role of mother impossible (adoption is financially out of reach for many of us), role of wife doubtful. If that’s all you teach your daughter to be, she will have nothing to live for. I’ve had enough really serious depression recently; had my parents raised me as suggested in the article I likely would not have survived it.
It’s all well.and good to set up fairy tale ideals of what you think life should be, but life is messier than that. So please, don’t base your daughter’s self worth on a uterus that may end up not working, and a husband who may not stay. Help her base her self worth on who God made her to be, which just maybe is not a mother (by biology) and not a wife (by circumstance).
You should watch the handmaid’s tale. It shows an idealistic future where this happens. It is quite vulgar at times so watch with discretion and maybe not with your children. I think you will find it very interesting even though it is told from the secular side so it is put into a very negative light if that makes sense. It is also a book if that’s more your thing. I have not read it though so I don’t know if it’s a good read or how similar it is to the show. At the very least the premise is interesting enough for you to maybe google it and see what you think. Best regards!
Also I’d like to point out that I get made fun of A LOT because ideally I’d like to be a housewife or stay at home mom. It makes me sad.
I like to encourage you to be strong in standing your ground against those who make fun of you because you would ideally like to be a housewife or stay-at-home mum. Those ideals are high ideals which should be commended. It is a high calling for a woman to devote herself to her children.
I don’t know if you’re a Christian, but if you are not, I encourage you to find out abut who Jesus is. Only when you trust in Jesus will you know Truth, and the Truth will set you free.
I would never encourage my daughter to be completely dependent on a man, and it’s not about feminism or the possibility of divorce. My father got Multiple Sclerosis and could no longer work, so my mother had to. My best friend’s husband was in a car accident and is now disabled. You never know what can happen and when: a woman may have to step up. I had to pick up the slack temporarily several years ago when my husband lost his job. I recommend any woman have an education or some sort of skill certification to use if necessary. Our. husbands are not Superman. Illness, injuries and job losses happen. I see it as another way to be a help mate if needed.
I think a woman must have some education in order to support their families in circumstances where her husband cannot provide (due to disability, job loss, death, etc). But the education must be with that goal in mind.
Feminism has a very high influence in the minds of many, sometimes even without their knowledge. Too many women study nowadays to have a career even post marriage, stating reasons like ‘We must not waste our God-given talents.’ Some of my female friends are pursuing a career in medicine, to become a doctor, giving this very reason.
I always feel that if God has given them talents, he expects them to use the talents within God-given boundaries, just like the woman in Proverbs 31.
Keep doing what you’re doing! I think we all need to hear these truths, but especially Christians cuz I fear for the church when the church contorts itself to fit in with our societal viewpoints vs. what the Bible actually teaches.
I know this is an older post, but I completely agree about education. A good, solid education (hard to come by these days!) is essential for men and women! I would venture to say the highly politicized institutions and many cultural problems we have today are a result of dumbing down our education and the anti-intellectualism of our culture. You meet people who don’t know basic history or geography etc, but they can repeat all the popular left-wing slogans of the day! I am a strong supporter of homeschooling and classical education.