On the list of claims that are bound to get you into trouble, “Don't marry a woman with a career” ranks near the top. Yet Forbes.com editor Michael Noer recently offered just such a warning to men:
Why? Because if many social scientists are to be believed, you run a higher risk of having a rocky marriage. While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it.
[…]
If a host of studies are to be believed, marrying these women is asking for trouble. If they quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, they will be unhappy (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003). They will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Social Forces, 2006). You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2001). You will be more likely to fall ill (American Journal of Sociology). Even your house will be dirtier (Institute for Social Research).
Noer points out that this findings are based on studies from the social sciences and even adds qualifying clauses (“if many social scientists are to be believed,…”; “If a host of studies are to be believed…”; “…it's important not to confuse correlation with causation…”) to distance himself from the conclusions. Such hedging wasn’t enough, though, for he has been savaged in the blogosphere for making the politically incorrect claim that there might be reasons a man would not want to choose a career woman for a potential wife. But if statistics show that you are more likely to be divorced if you marry a career woman then a man who avoids marrying a career woman is less likely—statistically speaking and all other things being equal—to get divorced.
Such a cold statistical inference, though, cannot determine whether the connection is a matter of correlation or causation. Personally, I think it has less to do with a woman having a professional career than with either (a) the type of women who choose such career paths and/or (b) the experiences that are obtained while seeking such paths.
Consider, for example, a woman who has completed a BA and an MBA from Ivy League schools and has taken a job at a Fortune 500 company. Statistically speaking, such a woman will be less likely to have a traditional view of religion or sexual mores; will have had several sexual partners; and will seek marriage primarily for emotional fulfillment. These factors, not the fact that she is an executive, will detrimentally affect her chances of being “happily and fruitfully married.”
This is not to say that marital bliss requires women to become June Cleaver-style stay-at-home moms. In fact, the biblical ideal for a wife, which is clearly presented in Proverbs 31:10-31, shares much in common with what we would nowadays consider a “career woman.” The primary difference is that becoming a “professional woman” entails acquiring qualities to build an impressive resume, while becoming a “Proverbs 31 woman” requires obtaining qualities to build an impressive character. But just as Noer warns against marrying a career woman, many Christians would advise (in reality if not in theory) that you avoid marrying a “Proverbs 31 woman.”
The last chapter of Proverbs describes and praises the “noble wife” and outlines the traits that make her a role model. The woman described is characterized primarily by her actions. Within the 21 verses a number of action verbs are used in describing what she does: arises (gets up), brings, considers, extends, holds, grasps, makes, opens, (over)sees, trades, plants, provides, portions, selects, supplies, speaks, and works.
Each of these 21 verses also describes a particular virtue or quality that the “noble wife” possesses. The Proverbs 31 woman is charitable, entrepreneurial, fashionable, financially astute, healthy, industrious, loving, managerial, productive, prudent, resourceful, responsible, reverent, self-confident, skilled, trustworthy, virtuous, wise, praiseworthy as a wife and mother, and married to a respectable husband.
According to Proverbs, the ideal wife is:
A woman who is…virtuous
10 A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies.
A woman who is…trustworthy
11 Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value.
A woman who is…loving
12 She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life.
A woman who is…industrious
13 She selects wool and flax and works with eager hands.
A woman who is…resourceful
14 She is like the merchant ships, bringing her food from afar.
A woman who is…responsible
15 She gets up while it is still dark; she provides food for her family and portions for her servant girls.
A woman who is…entrepreneurial
16 She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
A woman who is…healthy
17 She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks.
A woman who is…financially astute
18 She sees that her trading is profitable, and her lamp does not go out at night.
A woman who is…skilled
19 In her hand she holds the distaff and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
A woman who is…charitable
20 She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy.
A woman who is…prudent
21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household; for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
A woman who is…fashionable
22 She makes coverings for her bed; she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
A woman who is…married to a respectable husband
23 Her husband is respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
A woman who is…productive
24 She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies the merchants with sashes.
A woman who is…self-confident
25 She is clothed with strength and dignity; she can laugh at the days to come.
A woman who is…wise
26 She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
A woman who is…managerial
27 She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness.
A woman who is…praiseworthy as a wife and mother
28-29 Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her: "Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all."
A woman who is…reverent
30-31 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised. Give her the reward she has earned, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.
Sadly, even among evangelical Christians this ideal has fallen out of favor. Although we often give lip service about how we admire this passage, we reject its implied list of virtues in favor of our own brand of “family values.”
For example, the passage says nothing at all about the wife being directly responsible for educating the children. But how many Christian women today think being a “homeschool mom” is more virtuous than running a business from home? Or what about the passage where the woman “considers a field and buys it”? Can you imagine the reaction from her Bible-believing, complementarian husband if she were to purchase land without consulting him first? We praise the ideal but what we really mean is “Don’t marry a Proverbs 31 woman.”
This is not to imply that I’m against homeschooling (I’m definitely not) or that I wouldn’t freak out if my wife bought a couple of acres without consulting me (I definitely would). But we need to carefully consider how the qualities and virtues presented in Proverbs 31 can be translated into our own time and culture. As Christians we need to present a more robust view of the role of the “noble wife” that is rooted more in the Bible than in 50’s-era faux nostalgia.
1
Joe,
You insult today's Proverbs 31 woman by calling her a career woman. The Proverbs 31 woman does not put career first and everything else next. Today's career woman does, even ahead of her own marriage.
But how many Christian women today think being a “homeschool mom” is more virtuous than running a business from home?
It is.
We praise the ideal but what we really mean is “Don’t marry a Proverbs 31 woman.”
Or don't marry Joe's idea of what makes a Proverbs 31 woman.
This is not to imply that I’m against homeschooling
You say quite directly that having a career for a woman is more virtous than homeschooling. I'm sure Mumon and Boonton and The Raven will agree with you on that.
But we need to carefully consider how the qualities and virtues presented in Proverbs 31 can be translated into our own time and culture.
Sadly, I do not believe you've done that.
Sadly, even among evangelical Christians this ideal has fallen out of favor. Although we often give lip service about how we admire this passage, we reject its implied list of virtues in favor of our own brand of “family values.”
You may need to sit down and talk with the folks at your congregation. This isn't the case with the Christians I know.
My wife is the Proverbs 31 woman and i'm thankful for it.
She homeschools our children.
She manages our bank account
She sews and fixes clothing that the children rip and tear.
She buys the groceries that keep us fed.
She pays the bills.
Our children lover her and are obedient to her even in public. She is complimented by other mom's at the park because when she calls our children one time, they come to her calling, "Yes momma?!"
She is praised by our neighbors for how she raises our children. Other mothers ask her how she does it and solicit her advice.
She reads and studies her Bible even while taking baths because her time is filled with tasks to complete.
She keeps our clothes washed and the children bathed and clean.
She takes our old things or those things that we no longer need and she sells them at garage sales and then she uses that money for our home.
She clips coupons so that we will pay less for our groceries and is a very frugal shopper, looking for sales before buying things. She even makes sure to buy things in the off season (Like Christmas ornaments in January) because she is wise enough to know they are less expensive after the season and then save them until the following year.
She puts each child to bed at night and even though she is tired and has had a long day and a hurt back, she does not complain. Instead she bends the knee and gives thanks to God for her husband (Thank the Lord it's me) and our four lovely children.
She puts her faith in God that He will lead me to lead our family and accepts me as the head of our household.
That does not keep her from telling me when I need correction and prayer.
In all of this you can see in my wife one thing. Her household is her career.
And that is what you are missing about the Proverbs woman. Her household is her career. The 50's era housewife is much closer to the proverbs woman and less deserving of your disdain than you realize.
posted on 08.28.2006 3:52 AM2
"In fact, the biblical ideal for a wife, which is clearly presented in Proverbs 31:10-31, shares much in common with what we would nowadays consider a “career woman.” The primary difference is that becoming a “professional woman” entails acquiring qualities to build an impressive resume, while becoming a “Proverbs 31 woman” requires obtaining qualities to build an impressive character."
It seems contradictory to emphasize the importance of character to the Proverbs 31 description here and yet base your primary modernized examples on things she does (buy a field, homeschool) rather than who she is (character). While some may disagree with these types of actions, it seems like most would agree with the character qualities represented in the passage.
posted on 08.28.2006 6:43 AM3
You say quite directly that having a career for a woman is more virtous than homeschooling. I'm sure Mumon and Boonton and The Raven will agree with you on that.
On the contrary, I think for a small minority homeschooling is a perfect fit. I think, though, that for many many others homeschooling would quickly devolve into "just watch TV while I do these chores".
One aspect of this article Joe fails to consider is money. If you're Donald Trump you can afford to ignore money considerations since you already have all you can need. If your wife has an income of her own that very well probably does you no good (if she's a $200K a year lawyer that's still peanuts to Mr. Trump). However for the regular person money is still important and a woman who is smart enough to make a living for herself can be quite valuable...even if that means a greater danger she may have ideas of her own which may conflict with yours.
Speaking of which, another way of reading this may be to ask not what the problem with 'career girls' is but what is the problem with the men. A woman who doesn't have a career might be, statistically speaking, less willing to challenge your bad ideas. Less likely to call you out when you do something stupid or wrong. More willing to go along with you without a fight. Men following this advice might be as foolish as CEO's who stock their senior management with 'yes men'. Despite numerous divorces, Donald Trump doesn't seem to have been the least bit humbled by them.
AS for what's virtous, I think getting the job done is the most virtous. That means it's more virtous to have the humility to admit that you probably can't homeschool your children very well and therefore let the school do it than it is to neglect your child's education so Eric&Lisa will give you a pat on the back after Sunday service. If you are capable of doing a good job homeschooling then that's great. This, however, is not so much a moral issue as a division of labor issue. If you're able to do plumbing you should do it yourself instead of calling a plumber. If you insist we can say it's virtous to do this because otherwise you would be financially wasteful but I wouldn't agree with someone saying always doing your own plumbing is virtuous. If you're in over your head it's a virtue to have the humility to accept that and get someone who knows how to do it.
A household needs an income which means external labor as well as internal labor to make the house run. I think some on the right watched some on the left make the mistake of viewing housework as some type of ghetto and made the same mistake but in the opposite direction, trashing women who are struggling to provide for their families for failing to live up to some false ideal of the stay at home woman. Instead both roles should be valued properly and couples should feel free to allocate them in the most logical way they find for their circumstances without anyone else laying guilt trips on them.
posted on 08.28.2006 6:44 AM4
Boonton wrote;
That means it's more virtous to have the humility to admit that you probably can't homeschool your children very well and therefore let the school do it than it is to neglect your child's education so Eric&Lisa will give you a pat on the back after Sunday service.
Everyone is capable of homeschooling their children. It's not a matter of how smart the parents are or what the parents know.
It's a matter of will not of capability.
I think, though, that for many many others homeschooling would quickly devolve into "just watch TV while I do these chores".
Yes well, we can agree that this person certainly wouldn't be the woman of Proverbs.
posted on 08.28.2006 6:58 AM5
"A woman who doesn't have a career might be, statistically speaking, less willing to challenge your bad ideas. "
Boonton, no offense, but that's kind of crazy. A woman who doesn't have a career of her own makes her husband and family her career. That results in a woman much quicker to advise and challenge her husband. Remember, her entire livelihood depends on the actions of her husband. If she is a wise woman, she'll challenge his assumptions, advise his decisions, and help him lead her family. A traditional, stay-at-home wife and mother is no door-mat, I assure you. You can ask my husband!
posted on 08.28.2006 7:06 AM6
All:
1] On Marrying Ruby:
I first note that as Joe noted but maybe did not recognise the full force of: The Prov 31 woman -- we often call her "Ruby" out here in the Caribbean --had a HOME-based business.
For many centuries, with farming, commerce and light manufacturing [esp. textiles] the Mom-Pop enterprise has been very stable and has contributed to the success of many cultures.
The difference with the Corporate carrer first culture is just that: it is a culture that is not based on the home and family, adn is too often antagonistic to the commitments required for the family to thrive.
2] Home schooling
On this I think that the snide detractors should look back on history to see that this in the long run of history, together with apprenticeship adn supplementary instruction in the local synangogue or church etc., has been the DOMINANT form, especially in the formative years.
Home schooling as a modern movement is in large part a reaction to an increasingly secularised and propagandistic public education system, several of whose products are regularly to be seen in EO's threads, puting their secularist biases and ignorance on display. The LACK of true education -- as opposed to indictrination -- so displayed is not exactly a shining testimony to the secularised schooling systems of today.
So, I think a little restraint on snideness is in order, especially after you look at say the Calvert System or A Beka. [BTW, both are now being used in public or private schools. From experience and observaytion, I can testify to the effectiveness and solidity.]
++++++++++
Okay
Gordon
posted on 08.28.2006 7:10 AM7
Everyone is capable of homeschooling their children. It's not a matter of how smart the parents are or what the parents know.
Just about everyone is capable of doing plumbing as well. It's a question of whether they should. Here not only does your own intelligence come into play but your own person. If this is something that isn't a good fit for you then forcing yourself to do it may get it done but is likely to get it done in a poor manner.
It's a matter of will not of capability.
To a degree however even here humility should be given more consideration as a virtue. A person who admits they know their will is faulty and knows homeschooling for them will turn into a fiasco is IMO more virtuous than one who refuses to admit there's any problems and lets a diaster brew. One size does not fit all here and the world would not be any nicer if it did.
Boonton, no offense, but that's kind of crazy. A woman who doesn't have a career of her own makes her husband and family her career. That results in a woman much quicker to advise and challenge her husband. Remember, her entire livelihood depends on the actions of her husband. If she is a wise woman, she'll challenge his assumptions, advise his decisions, and help him lead her family. A traditional, stay-at-home wife and mother is no door-mat, I assure you. You can ask my husband!
Perhaps but don't you think that dependence can be turned on the wife? After all, should the husband leave it is very difficult to re-enter the working world after being out of it for years. It would be almost impossible to do so without a serious loss of income and lifestyle. While I'm sure you're quite savy your husband should be given some credit too IMO. He is humble enough to let his judgements be challenged by you because he knows you often have a point worth considering. As I said though, one size does not fit all and while your husband may be mature in this respect there are many men who are not.
Gordon
On this I think that the snide detractors should look back on history to see that this in the long run of history, together with apprenticeship adn supplementary instruction in the local synangogue or church etc., has been the DOMINANT form, especially in the formative years.
As you also pointed out, though, the dominant form of economic structure throughout history has been home based business (agriculture, light textiles, crafts etc.) While this is still economically viable for some and it seems to be returning in some changed forms among the well off (doctors, consultants, others of that type can often make their businesses at home or spend a huge amount of time at home relative to your typical 40 hour per week worker) it is not viable in today's economic structure for most people.
My experience with homeschooling is a bit more personal. When I was young I would run home from school and teach my younger sister everything I learned there. She went on to do very well and is a chemical engineer today. On the flip side, I lived with my in-laws for about two years and observed my infamous sister-in-law. She was both incapable of disciplining her kids and at the same time overdisciplined them (especially the ones that were not biologically hers). She indulged them so much whenever they wanted to stay home from school that more than once the house had visits from authority figures of varying degrees. Finally she announced to our collective horror that my Godson would henceforth be homseschooled by her. Needless to say we were all relieved when the school informed her that if she did not send her son to school they would arrive at the door with a police officer and arrest her. The next day he was on the bus and we are all better off for it.
posted on 08.28.2006 7:34 AM8
Allow me to modestly state that I can speak with some authority on this issue.
My wife of ~15 years has been a "career woman". We married when I was 40 and she was 30. She has an Ivy BA and a Top Ten law degree. Among other achievements, she was responsible for the largest (at the time) IPO in history on the NYSE. In her last corporate job, she had a multimillion-dollar P&L responsibility in a high-tech global company.
Re-reading Proverbs, I can tell you that she is a Proverbs 31 wife. Looking back over our marriage, I wish I had been as consistently committed to our relationship as she has.
In addition to her legal and management career portfolio, she speaks basically perfect Spanish (last summer, in Barcelona, a Spanish university professor told her she spoke Spanish like Cervantes and like most Spaniards should). When I retired at 50 and she at 40, she decided to teach, and she is teaching middle school Spanish at a local private girl's prep school (she's not qualified to join the teacher's union and teach in public schools as she does not have the necessary political indoctrination from a School of Re-Education).
To suggest that one has to be a fulltime housewife to be a Proverbs 31 wife is narrowminded in the extreme. To suggest that we could not homeschool our children effectively (I have a PhD in psychophysics and have been on the faculty of several universities) is ludicrous.
Some people just can't see beyond their own noses.
posted on 08.28.2006 7:35 AM9
I agree with the point you seem to have been shooting at Joe, but I think you missed it.
The difference between "a professional woman" and a "Proverbs 31 woman" is the focus on themselves versus their God, their spouse and their family. Everything listed in Proverbs 31 that the woman does is related to helping, supporting and raising their family and husband.
The difference between a "Proverbs 31" woman and your stereotyped evangelical "family woman" is that some so-called evangelicals have equated "Proverbs 31" to being a subserviant woman. Such people view a married woman's first and only rule is be obedient to their husband in all things, even when he is wrong: They cherry-pick the first and last 3 verses and miss all the ones in the middle. These views are not the same, just being a career woman and a Proverbs 31 woman are not the same.
Nice try anyway.
posted on 08.28.2006 7:40 AM10
The difference between "a professional woman" and a "Proverbs 31 woman" is the focus on themselves versus their God, their spouse and their family. Everything listed in Proverbs 31 that the woman does is related to helping, supporting and raising their family and husband.
It's interesting that making a career is put down as some type of selfish focusing on one's self. Was Michelangelo some type of self-indulgent brat when he painted the ceilings of the Sistine Chapel instead of homeschooling children?
posted on 08.28.2006 7:44 AM11
Reminds me of a song ...
"If you want to be happy for the rest of your life
never make a [pretty/career/insert your own] woman your wife
Taka my personal point of view
Pick another woman to marry you"
Will I get in trouble for this?
Collin
posted on 08.28.2006 7:47 AM12
"Perhaps but don't you think that dependence can be turned on the wife? After all, should the husband leave it is very difficult to re-enter the working world after being out of it for years
It would be almost impossible to do so without a serious loss of income and lifestyle."
No doubt. Life is full of risks, isn't it? Reversals of fortune can happen no matter how many members of the family hold outside jobs. In my case, I'm blessed with a husband whose income is enough to support us all. I'm also blessed with abilities of my own that would allow me to support myself pretty easily, if it should come to that.
"While I'm sure you're quite savy your husband should be given some credit too IMO. He is humble enough to let his judgements be challenged by you because he knows you often have a point worth considering. As I said though, one size does not fit all and while your husband may be mature in this respect there are many men who are not."
Again, no doubt. I'm very blessed with a husband who can admit it when he's wrong. Fortunately, he's strong enough to tell me when I'm wrong, too!
I think the problem here is that we're trying to quantify the perfect Proverbs woman, when the truth is that every situation is so different that we can't. Only God , the woman herself, and her family can be close enough to the situation to judge whether or not she should be the career woman or choose to make her family and community her vocation. Not every family should homeschool or even have a stay-at-home mom, that's for sure. Circumstances are different for every family. My parents both worked outside the home, and I got a pretty good education from the public school system. I'll homeschool my children because I have the abilities necessary for successfully launching my children into the world. Not everyone has that. Sorry to contradict conventional homeschooling wisdom, but I'm a little bit elitist on that point. I love homeschoolers and homeschooling, but I know better than to think that just any parent is able to do it.
So how to identify the perfect Ruby? Give her husband a truth serum, then ask him!
posted on 08.28.2006 8:09 AM13
I think we are mostly in agreement Daisy even though we approach this question from two different angles. In general I think people individually are the best ones to judge both themselves and their situtations and make the best decisions for them. The old wisdom here of 'mind your business' applies, since we should be very, very slow to judge other people's marriages, choices, etc.
It's damaging then if people are distracted from making the best decisions for themselves that they can make and instead are told they must make decisions to serve some ideology. A woman (or man) should stay home or go to work based on their own judgement...not because they must feel pressured to conform to either a left wing model of a working woman or a right wing model of the 1950's stay at home mother.
To use my sister-in-law as my favorite example of how NOT to live. I think she would be much better with a job. It would set a good example for her kids, she would value money more rather than spending it frivilously at Wal-Mart and she would occupy her time with something more healthy than she does now (chatting on AOL and participating in endless blogs and online discussions about Wicca). But she is the first to jump at the coverted right wing label of 'I'm a proud stay at home mom' while her kids run amock and family live has degenerated into warring factions.
posted on 08.28.2006 8:17 AM14
Eric and Lisa,
You are given to hyperbole, and much of what you say is quite simply false.
You say: "You insult today's Proverbs 31 woman by calling her a career woman. The Proverbs 31 woman does not put career first and everything else next. Today's career woman does, even ahead of her own marriage."
You do not qualify in any way, and thus you say that every career woman puts career first. One counter-example shows that what you say is false, but I'll give three: my mother, my grandmother and my wife. All three are teachers. Thus all three have careers and so are career women. But all put family above career.
Indeed I would guess that most career women think family more important than career. You've described a type of woman who is in a minority.
One thing more, and then I'll quit. You say this to Joe: "You [Joe] say quite directly that having a career for a woman is more virtous than homeschooling."
Read what he said again. He does not say this, nor does anything he in fact does say imply this. Indeed I would guess that, if put to him, he would "quite directly" reject it. What I'm about to say isn't very nice, but I can think of no good reason not to say it: please do read carefully before you begin to criticize.
posted on 08.28.2006 8:20 AM15
"It's damaging then if people are distracted from making the best decisions for themselves that they can make and instead are told they must make decisions to serve some ideology"
We are certainly in agreement on the "mind your business" aspect, Boonton. Sounds like your sister has made some bad decisions. Not my business, of course, but it sounds to me like your sister is bringing an ideology around to serve her own needs, rather than serving an ideology herself. She claims to be a proud stay-at-home mom, but doesn't seem to have gotten around to the mothering part. Living on one income doesn't allow for reckless spending, negligent parenting, or chaotic behavior. Sounds to me like "stay-at-home mom" is her excuse for not working, rather than her reason. She is as bad an example of the stay-at-home mom as the stereotypical career woman is of the working mom. Neither side is giving the other a fair shake here. One side seems to think it's not possible for a working mother to honor her husband and nurture her family, while the other side seems to think that a stay-at-home mom is incapable of contributing meaningfully to the family because she isn't in the workforce.
My mom has always worked outside the home, and she's also the woman I most want to emulate, even though I prefer not to enter the workforce until my kids are grown. If I can become half the woman she is, I'll consider myself successful. Her job never defined her, her motherliness and her Godliness did. Whether a woman stays home or not, her attitude toward her God and her family are what make her life meaningful.
posted on 08.28.2006 8:39 AM16
One more thing: Eric and Lisa, it is *not* more virtuous for a woman to homeschool than to have a career. We're talking about a different skillset, not a different moral standing. You may believe with all your hearts that you would be sinning to have a two-income family, and that's fine for you, but perhaps you should be more careful about judging what you know not. What a turn-off it is to an unbeliever to see such self-righteousness in believers. Such attitudes are not becoming of Christians. I'm sorry I sound so heated about it, but that kind of judgemental attitude can only harm our cause.
posted on 08.28.2006 8:46 AM17
Indeed, but it's my sister-in-law. My sister has done very well for herself and generally makes good decisions. Amazingly my sister-in-law is able to waste money even though not only is she out of work but so is her husband! They have been living off my parents-in-law as well as disability for her. Things might be turning around now, though, because her husband just started working again so a sense of seriousness might return to the household.
I probably shouldn't be so critical of her but it's good to learn from other people's mistakes. She certainly does use the 'stay at home mother' label as an excuse to avoid true responsibility but I think she also believes it which makes her very dangerous.
Her husband is different, he likes the 'good ole' boy' persona but he seems to know it and is honest about who he is. He knows his flaws which is a potent virtue. Even though he is flawed he knows he isn't the type to do homeschooling or even serious parenting. If left to his own devices he would tell the kids they have to shut up, wake up on time and get on the school bus. That, IMO, is a lot better than indulging in fantasies of homeschooling and being unconventional.
18
Sorry about the sister/sister-in-law mix-up. I noticed that about two seconds after I hit 'post'.
posted on 08.28.2006 8:57 AM19
Daisy wrote;
One more thing: Eric and Lisa, it is *not* more virtuous for a woman to homeschool than to have a career.
In the context of this discussion it is. Obviously if the woman doesn't have a family or a husband then it is outside the scope of the woman of Proverbs discussion, because she is a wife.
There are a few exceptions i'm sure that could be thought up, like perhaps a man unable to work for some reason and therefore the wife must get a job to support the family.
You may believe with all your hearts that you would be sinning to have a two-income family, and that's fine for you, but perhaps you should be more careful about judging what you know not.
I'm not a moral relativist. We're not here discussing what I know or don't know, we're discussing what the Bible advises as wise and virtuous.
The woman who chooses a career over her husband and/or family is neither wise nor virtuous. A woman who can (Read: Is capable of) afford to stay home with her children and raise them but will (Read: Chooses not to) not is less virtuous than than the woman who chases after her career.
As Boonton wrote;
A person who admits they know their will is faulty and knows homeschooling for them will turn into a fiasco is IMO more virtuous than one who refuses to admit there's any problems and lets a diaster brew.
Here he basically is singing the praises of the lazy. He argues for the person who says, "Well, I know i'd end up just letting them sit in front of the television instead of teaching them." and therefore finds virtue in the fact that a person can admit they are lazy and accept that fact. Somehow, in Boonton's world, the lazy woman who loves herself more than she loves her family is humble.
Franklin wrote;
You do not qualify in any way, and thus you say that every career woman puts career first.
The context should suffice. We aren't here discussing the widow, or the unmarried.
You've described a type of woman who is in a minority.
That honor goes to the author of Proverbs.
He does not say this, nor does anything he in fact does say imply this.
I guess i'll just have to disagree with you here. He says that the career woman is the Proverbs woman and that the homeschooling woman is not biblically based but rather part of 50's faux nostalgia.
posted on 08.28.2006 9:49 AM20
Here he basically is singing the praises of the lazy. He argues for the person who says, "Well, I know i'd end up just letting them sit in front of the television instead of teaching them." and therefore finds virtue in the fact that a person can admit they are lazy and accept that fact. Somehow, in Boonton's world, the lazy woman who loves herself more than she loves her family is humble.
To a degree. What I actually did was praise someone who knows they are lazy in contrast to someone who is lazy but deludes themselves into thinking they are not. IMO, self-delusion is probably one of the biggest vices human beings have. Everyone, to some degree, operates under an illusion that they are more perfect than they really are. Simply being aware of your limitations is in itself a very valuable virtue.
But leaving that aside it is not lazy to know your limitations. I know I can do mechanical things if I must but I also know I am not great at it. I'm better off turning to my brother-in-law or father-in-law for help. If my wife was great at mechanical things I shouldn't stand in her way.
I find it sad that Eric & Lisa describe providing for one's family as turning one's back on them. If you're wife's a doctor and you're a waiter then the reality is it would be stupid to insist that you be the bread winner and she be a stay at home mom. Could you afford it? Yes you could but that's not the point. People in this world 'afford' to live on $1 a day. What such a couple is doing is wasting resources and that is wrong. A woman who goes to work to provide her family with financial security is hardly turning her back on them. Feminists have a good point when they observe men are generally not held to account for ignoring their family in favor of work.
I guess i'll just have to disagree with you here. He says that the career woman is the Proverbs woman and that the homeschooling woman is not biblically based but rather part of 50's faux nostalgia.
It's faux nostalgia but not 1950's nostalgia but Biblical nostalgia. It's as silly as saying a woman shouldn't have a car but instead ride an ass back and forth.
The Catholic tradition has a useful idea here call vocation. The idea is that God calls each person to a unique life. For many people that would be along the lines of a traditional family but not for everyone. Some are called to lives of religious devotion. Others are not called to marriage but to professions. Again a fancy way of saying one size doesn't fit all and you should be true to yourself.
posted on 08.28.2006 10:34 AM21
So turning to education its true that many people can teach just as many people can cook or do plumbing or fix cars does it make sense to say that everyone has exactly the same skill at teaching? That no one can be a gifted teacher? No that's absurd.
If there are people that are gifted teachers then doesn't it make sense that they should teach as many kids as they can rather than just teaching their own?
posted on 08.28.2006 10:37 AM22
Thanks for the great post, Joe! Forwarded this to my P31W at home, and our two daughters.
Grace and peace,
db
23
I think we failed to take into account the time that proverbs 31 was written vs today. No matter how wealthy they were, the people of that time were much poorer then Americans of the current time. On the other hand I am sure the children of that time had asuperior moral education then this generation. Which is why homeschooling is so valued to us today while a woman with financial sense was so valued back then.
posted on 08.28.2006 11:49 AM24
Excellent post, Joe. I do think this is a serious problem with the "traditional gender roles" which are sometimes touted by conservative Catholics as well as the evangelical community. I'm glad you pointed out that the Proverbs 31 woman doesn't measure up to some of the current standards.
posted on 08.28.2006 11:49 AM25
TeresaHT wrote;
I do think this is a serious problem with the "traditional gender roles" which are sometimes touted by conservative Catholics as well as the evangelical community.
What are the serious problems which are sometimes touted by conservative Catholics as well as evangelicals vis a vis, "traditional gender roles"?
I'm glad you pointed out that the Proverbs 31 woman doesn't measure up to some of the current standards.
What do you suppose these current standards are that she doesn't measure up to?
posted on 08.28.2006 12:06 PM26
What are the serious problems which are sometimes touted by conservative Catholics as well as evangelicals vis a vis, "traditional gender roles"?
1. The assumption that God desires a Christian wife to devote herself to maintaining her home, rather than doing economically productive work.
2. The assumption that working "outside the home" is the traditional norm for men, and thus is uniquely men's work.
3. The assumption that it is normal or acceptable to see a concern for childcare and childrearing in opposition to a desire to produce goods or services in exchange for wagese. In other words, accepting that women just "have to choose" between being good mothers and having careers. It may be that women DO have to choose sometimes, but I don't believe that that's either the historic norm nor the Biblical ideal.
What do you suppose these current standards are that she doesn't measure up to?
See above. Proverbs 31 Woman produces goods, rather than merely consuming them using money her husband has earned. She engages in business transactions in the public sphere (you don't consider and buy a field from home). She earns money to support her household, rather than relying on her husband as the only financial support. In fact, some interpretations suggest that her labor is part of what gives her husband the time to engage in civic responsibilities- sitting with the elders at the gate. Her income may actually help free him up to be the "respectable man" he is.
It seems to me that certain models of Christian womanhood would discourage these behaviors. I may be mistaken about how common these faulty models are, but I'm pretty sure they're out there.
27
Joe,
Posts like this are a good reminder of the difficulties we face in being a good mate and finding a good mate. Speaking as someone who is single, and recently out of a long relationship, it is almost as hard to wait for a woman like this (especially in a day and age where everyone is so transient that consistent companionship is hard to come by), as it is to be the kind of man worthy of this woman. Perhaps more than anything, our generation has lost its insistence on high standards (both in ourselves and in others), and reading passages like the one above just gets depressing. Where do you find someone like that?
posted on 08.28.2006 1:20 PM28
You said that there were serious problems and I asked you what those serious problem were and if i'm not mistaken, you didn't identify those serious problems. You simply defined what the gender roles are. Let's just take the first thing you said as an example:
1. The assumption that God desires a Christian wife to devote herself to maintaining her home, rather than doing economically productive work.
For example, if I were to say that there is a serious problem with your point #1, it would be that devoting yourself to maintaining a home is also doing economically productive work.
You see what I mean? I still don't know what you mean when you call the gender roles "serious problems". Why are they, "serious problems" exactly?
posted on 08.28.2006 1:26 PM29
Very, very interesting post/commentary so far. Joe, I do think you stretched a bit, especially at the end. Philip's criticism seems aptly applied.
Oh man, I just read the rest of the comments, and there's too much confusion on what people are intending to say versus what their words are saying because this whole topic is ridiculously loaded along with the words we need to use to discuss it.
Eric&Lisa, I think that description of your family is just beautiful. Praise God!
Boonton:
Quick question. You said, "If this is something that isn't a good fit for you then forcing yourself to do it may get it done but is likely to get it done in a poor manner."
What do you mean that something isn't a good fit for someone? In my view, it seems there are a few possibilities, correct me if I'm wrong.
1) That "fit" means "capable." Hence, everyone is able to homeschool children.
2) That "fit" means "you want to" or are "agreeable to doing it." Eric&Lisa say it's a matter of the will and not capability.
3) I personally think you really meant that "fit" means "best use of time." That conditions 1) and 2) apply, but it's not the best use of time.
But, I think "best use of time" would be determined differently for you and Eric&Lisa. For example, if parents could either make $1,000,000 and pay for full-time, top-quality childcare OR homeschool their kids, you would probably say that's the "best use of time."
Eric&Lisa might not due to their Christian perspective.
"As I said though, one size does not fit all and while your husband may be mature in this respect there are many men who are not." -Boonton
Point taken. However, I think the discussion is more along the lines of "What is the ideal that improving Christians should be working towards?" So yes, your sister-in-law would not receive anyone's recommendation to home-school, yet that does not mean that it shouldn't be something that she, if she is a Christian, should be working towards (again, not that I believe that's that case).
George
"To suggest that one has to be a fulltime housewife to be a Proverbs 31 wife is narrowminded in the extreme."
Forgive me if I missed it, but who suggested this? Not that it will make you feel better, and not that I agree with them, but for the sake of accuracy and discussion, I point out that Eric&Lisa only asserted the smaller claim that it was better for moms to homeschool than to run a home business, not that it absolutely disqualifies career women who are also able to prioritize their homes and families as well, as your extraordinary wife is able to do, from being a Proverbs 31 wife.
How homeschooling is intrinsically morally better is something he has not addressed yet, so your confusion is reasonable.
Boonton:
It's interesting that making a career is put down as some type of selfish focusing on one's self. Was Michelangelo some type of self-indulgent brat when he painted the ceilings of the Sistine Chapel instead of homeschooling children?
I think, because "the professional woman" is in quotes, that Kevin simply automatically included the connotation of selfishness for the sake of argument, not that he believes that making a career is necessarily selfish.
The answer to your question about Michelangelo is obviously: maybe. The larger (arguable) theological point is that vocations and motives are separate entities (which I believe is true).
Daisy:
"I love homeschoolers and homeschooling, but I know better than to think that just any parent is able to do it."
It'd be interesting to see you and Eric&Lisa (respectfully) hash out your differences on this one. :)
Franklin Mason:
"[Eric&Lisa,] You do not qualify in any way, and thus you say that every career woman puts career first."
You are not reading their comments charitably. It is clear from the quote you quoted from them that Eric&Lisa say that every career woman puts career first simply because that's how they define "career woman": as a woman who puts career above everything, NOT, as you would define it, as a woman with any sort of career. Clearly, they would not call your mother, grandmother, or wife a "career woman" as they define it--which you should have paid more attention to because in not doing so you make inaccurate criticisms. So in this case, I believe your own advice should be followed for you as well.
That said, you are correct in pointing out that Joe did not necessarily imply that homeschooling is less virtuous for a woman than having a career. The relevant quote seems to be: "But how many Christian women today think being a “homeschool mom” is more virtuous than running a business from home?" -Joe Carter Eric&Lisa, Joe's point here seems to be that being a homeschool mom is no more OR LESS virtuous in itself than running a business.
Eric&Lisa:
Joe said: "As Christians we need to present a more robust view of the role of the “noble wife” that is rooted more in the Bible than in 50’s-era faux nostalgia."
I think this statement is saying not that the vocation (in Boonton's term) of housewife is necessarily less biblical and virtuous, but that the virtuous housewife model is more often a result of bad pop theology than sound theology (as you, perhaps correctly, believe it is). Does that make sense? He's not attacking the end result as much as the means to that conclusion.
That said, I do believe you need to explain the theology behind your conclusion that:
"A woman who can (Read: Is capable of) afford to stay home with her children and raise them but will (Read: Chooses not to) not is less virtuous than than the woman who chases after her career."
... taking into account that it is (arguably) possible that some Christian women do both well, especially if homeschooling is not necessary to biblically raise a child.
Okay.
30
TeresaHT:
The question is not as simple as you make it out to be. The issue is less whether Christian women should "produce goods" or not, but why are Christian women producing goods and making money? Are those reasons any different than the reasons Christian men would be producing goods/making money, and if so does that have any effect on the type of work that women may do?
In other words, in the Christian worldview, are there differences between men and women that would legimately result in differences between vocations? If so, what are these differences and how do they affect the range of legitimate vocations for men and women?
This is in part why Joe's post mentions complementarianism, because such a discussion, which amazingly has not been breached explicitly yet in the comments, is central to how we answer this question.
posted on 08.28.2006 2:04 PM31
JohnC.
"Where do you find someone like that?"
By the sheer mercy of a God who loves us, and through prayers of faith. And God also uses churches that take membership seriously very powerfully.
32
giggling wrote;
That said, I do believe you need to explain the theology behind your conclusion that:
"A woman who can (Read: Is capable of) afford to stay home with her children and raise them but will (Read: Chooses not to) not is less virtuous than than the woman who chases after her career."
Glad to see that you can now use the wonderful commands of HTML. :) (That's a happy face turned sideways by the way)
Let's start on agreeing about the word virtue. If not for your sake then for my own. The old latin definition of virtue really means manliness or courage, I believe. But certainly we can agree that that is not how its being used here, right?
Here i'm trying to use it in the sense of how a person can best be that which God made them to be. So, a woman who is more virtuous than another woman best exemplifies what a woman should be. As an example, let's say that we called one knife more virtuous than another knife. We would mean that the more virtuous knife, or perhaps the virtuous knife (Maybe the other knife is completely dull) cuts better, which is what a knife was made to do, cut.
Therefore, when I say that one type of woman is virtuous and another type of woman is not, I mean that one woman is the Biblical example while the other is not. Or at the very least, one is closer than the other.
Make sense?
If it does, great, if not, help me clarify it. Later, after ive slept, i'll finish my response. You might have to wait a day. Be patient.
posted on 08.28.2006 2:20 PM33
1) That "fit" means "capable." Hence, everyone is able to homeschool children. 2) That "fit" means "you want to" or are "agreeable to doing it." Eric&Lisa say it's a matter of the will and not capability. 3) I personally think you really meant that "fit" means "best use of time." That conditions 1) and 2) apply, but it's not the best use of time.
Fit here has two meanings. First it means that it is compatatible with your skills and aptitude. To put that simply, if you don't speak French you can't teach your children French. If you never took calculus you probably can't teach that to your kids. Aptitude is what you're capable of. You might be able to teach yourself enough calculus to teach your kids but maybe you are just too old to learn a foreign language yourself. If, for whatever reason, it's important that your kids know French then instead of you doing a half-assed job of teaching them it's better that you get someone else to do it. A fluent French teacher could pull this off for you. Likewise even though you can teach yourself some skills does it make sense to do this while your kids wait or should you just have someone whose skills in that subject is already honed and perfected?
Here I'm not a fan of 'education majors' but there education is itself a skill. If you spent your life teaching calculus you'd accumulate a wealth of knowledge of how people learn it. You'd learn to anticipate the mistakes kids make, learn how to really test them and so on. You will not know these things just by teaching your kids calculus and then forgetting about it. Here is where not utilizing the skills teachers have developed is a waste of resources for many (not all) people.
The second meaning is stronger than 'something you like to do' but along the same lines. If you find you have no patience for something you are not likely to do a good job at it. This isn't trivial, if teaching or doing housework is not your thing you are likely to be poorly motivated. This will lead to anger and resentment which is even more unhealthy. It is foolish to think this would just be overcome or can be solved by chiding yourself for being 'selfish'. We all do what we have to do so if there's no choice...if we were in the middle of a war zone living in a bomb shelter then yea you might just have to teach your kids youself but if there's good schools around you for free then you shouldn't feel guilty about making use of them.
Point taken. However, I think the discussion is more along the lines of "What is the ideal that improving Christians should be working towards?" So yes, your sister-in-law would not receive anyone's recommendation to home-school, yet that does not mean that it shouldn't be something that she, if she is a Christian, should be working towards (again, not that I believe that's that case).
Point also taken, although I think it is good that there are many hurdles society puts in front of her before she can homeschool. To be allowed to do it she has to fight for it a bit and those that do are those that are already well motivated. I'm not sure if I'd go along with it as an ideal. I'd say if it is a goal she wants to work toward then she should but should we all really work towards such a thing? To me that's like saying everyone should try to be a doctor or engineer and if we end up doing something else there's an undertone of failure about it. I don't think that should be the presumption at all.
I think, because "the professional woman" is in quotes, that Kevin simply automatically included the connotation of selfishness for the sake of argument, not that he believes that making a career is necessarily selfish.
I think feminists still would have a good point here that this is one sided. No one would write "professional man" with a presumption that it means a selfish man. It would sound like an honorific but it sounds like for a professional women have to first overcome a presumption that they are acting selfishly, denying love to their husbands or kids etc.
The answer to your question about Michelangelo is obviously: maybe. The larger (arguable) theological point is that vocations and motives are separate entities (which I believe is true).
True, I think vocation is a useful idea here to keep in mind that we all are unique.
In other words, in the Christian worldview, are there differences between men and women that would legimately result in differences between vocations? If so, what are these differences and how do they affect the range of legitimate vocations for men and women?
This is an excellent way of wording the question. In contrast look at Eric & Lisa's:
Here i'm trying to use it in the sense of how a person can best be that which God made them to be. So, a woman who is more virtuous than another woman best exemplifies what a woman should be. As an example, let's say that we called one knife more virtuous than another knife. We would mean that the more virtuous knife, or perhaps the virtuous knife (Maybe the other knife is completely dull) cuts better, which is what a knife was made to do, cut.
Before we are anything, though, we are individuals. Having children, for example, is something that women do but it doesn't make a woman a woman. Gender here would be a trait that individuals have but isn't the end in itself. In contrast a knife is a knife. It is something made to cut well and while you can use it for other things it's relatively simple to see cutting is what it's made for. Since individuals are unique it seems simplistic to reduce their purpose to a larger category they belong to. Hence saying women are made to keep house, care for children, etc. is like saying Germans are made to rule Europe.
posted on 08.28.2006 2:58 PM34
Look, I don't want to take over someone else's blog. I posted about this at my own blog, and I'd rather not fill up Joe's combox with my own arguments, especially as he might not agree with me, and I don't want to appear to be speaking for him. So I'm only going to give brief answers here, and I'm going to try to drop out. Sorry!
Eric and Lisa: You said that there were serious problems and I asked you what those serious problem were and if i'm not mistaken, you didn't identify those serious problems. You simply defined what the gender roles are.
The assumptions I identified are all assumptions which I believe to be wrong. That's why I listed them as serious problems. Maybe you and I are understanding the word "problem" to mean something different? I think holding false assumptions is itself a problem.
For example, if I were to say that there is a serious problem with your point #1, it would be that devoting yourself to maintaining a home is also doing economically productive work.
Some housework is economically productive, yes. But most of it, arguably, is not. Rather, it is work spent consuming and maintaining what someone else has already earned. It is not the same kind of work as raising chickens, spinning wool, maintaining a garden, or weaving cloth. All of these latter actions produced raw materials or converted raw materials into goods which could be used, bartered or sold. That's what I'm calling "economically productive" work. Some housewives do this kind of work, but for many women, if they do it at all, it is only a small part of their work. Going grocery shopping is consumption, not production. Vacuuming the floor is maintance, not production. Do you really not see the difference? I'm not saying such consumming-and-maintaining work is unnecessary or unhelpful. Buying groceries, preparing meals, and clipping coupons is real work, no doubt about that! I'm just saying that I don't believe God intends for such maintenance-and-consumption work to be the primary work most women do. The "men are producers, women are consumers and maintainers" model is not a Biblical model for division of labor: it is, rather, a result of the Industrial Revolution.
Giggling: I'm sorry, but I'm not getting your point about complementarity. I must be missing something.
35
Eric&Lisa:
Your definition of virtue is understood; it's a good start. I'll look forward to your next posts.
Boonton:
"...but if there's good schools around you for free then you shouldn't feel guilty about making use of them." -Boonton
I understand what you mean, but one could argue (note: this is all speculation but nonetheless valid) that there may be differences between a public school education and a homeschool education that should make one feel guilty, differences that go beyond subject matter/education quality but that relate to goods given to children intrinsically by the fact that their parents are teaching children themselves. For example, if parents taught children themselves, the parent-child relationship might be powerfully strengthened in such a way that God intended to happen. Again, I have no idea if this can be supported biblically, but if it could, I could understand Eric&Lisa's perspective as a Christian.
"I'd say if it is a goal she wants to work toward then she should but should we all really work towards such a thing? To me that's like saying everyone should try to be a doctor or engineer and if we end up doing something else there's an undertone of failure about it. I don't think that should be the presumption at all. -Boonton
But for some Christians, I think it'd be more like saying, "Should parents have their kids go to Sunday school?" I would say for Christians the answer is generally Yes, and that it isn't a matter of "Well Sunday school doesn't fit my family"; it is something that is ideal and that we should conform to as much as we can. Do you see how that's different than "Must I be a doctor or engineer?" It's not a perfect analogy, but I believe it gets nearer to the heart of the question.
This is why I'm so eager to hear the Scriptural arguments underlying Eric&Lisa's conclusion, because only Scripture can show whether it's an issue that's more or less a matter of discretion for a Christian.
"I think feminists still would have a good point here that this is one sided. No one would write "professional man" with a presumption that it means a selfish man." -Boonton
Yes, culture has loaded the language here. But we need to use something. :)
"This is an excellent way of wording the question. In contrast look at Eric & Lisa's:" -Boonton
I appreciate the compliment. But I do think Eric&Lisa's analogy, though not perfect, is correct on precisely the point you dispute:
"Since individuals are unique it seems simplistic to reduce their purpose to a larger category they belong to." -Boonton
Yes, individuals are unique, but at the same time individuals belong to larger categories and do determine overall purpose.
For example, individuals are unique, but all individuals are human and are therefore meant, i.e. their purpose is, for Christians, to glorify God as image-bearers. Therefore, the larger category in which individuals belong (humanity) determines purpose (glorifying God as image-bearers). Smaller categories of humanity, men and women, may likewise be said to direct their populations to glorify God in certain distinct ways (as men and women). Likewise, preachers all are meant (in a sense) glorify God through preaching. Sons are all meant to glorify God as sons. Finally, at the most specific level of individuality, Giggling may be meant to glorify God in specific ways that Boonton is not, but in doing so I should nonetheless glorify God through the larger categories of being a son, a student, a citizen, etc. Moreover, preachers and doctors, husbands and sons, men and women may also glorify God by doing the same things. The question is, along with the things that may be done identically, are there things that may not be done, depending on the category.
I'm not sure if that was clear =\
TeresaHT:
"Look, I don't want to take over someone else's blog." -TeresaHT
Oh hmm, we do these sorts of discussion all the time here on EO.com. I didn't realize that it was not polite. Do you mind, Joe?
"The 'men are producers, women are consumers and maintainers' model is not a Biblical model for division of labor: it is, rather, a result of the Industrial Revolution." -TeresaHT
What's interesting here is that you seem to be stuck in the Industrial Revolution mindset as well, with your IR distinctions of producers of goods, consumers, and maintainers.
But in today's society, it seems that the "goods" that people produce are not necessarily physical commodities that you seem to elevate in importance above "services" that people produce.
Services, after all, are what you are describing as somehow lower in importance than the production of physical commodities. Yet what is your justification for such a distinction?
Isn't it true that companies exist today whose sole purpose, for example, is to go grocery shopping for you and deliver them to your door? They are called service industries and there is simply no reason to say that what they sell are less products than shoes are to Nike.
I seriously believe in light of examples such as this that your own Industrial Revolution perspective limits what you view as production, and therefore taints your view of the legitimate production that wives do (not to mention those employed in service industries).
"I'm sorry, but I'm not getting your point about complementarity. I must be missing something." -TeresaHT
My point is simply this. If men are different than women, these differences may affect which vocations are proper for them. So my question is again:
"In other words, in the Christian worldview, are there differences between men and women that would legimately result in differences between vocations? If so, what are these differences and how do they affect the range of legitimate vocations for men and women?
posted on 08.28.2006 6:39 PM
36
It's interesting that making a career is put down as some type of selfish focusing on one's self. Was Michelangelo some type of self-indulgent brat when he painted the ceilings of the Sistine Chapel instead of homeschooling children?
That's a red herring, Booton. We're talking about women in this day and age, not a man from 5 centuries ago.
Some have taken issue with my reuse of the term "career woman" and provided so called counter examples. First, I was reusing (and agreeing with) Joe's and Michael Noer's definition of a career woman as someone who puts their career ahead of husband and family. It may be somewhat of a circular definition, but I consider it a stipulation in this discussion.
Secondly, most (all?) of the examples given not "career women" by the definition in Joe's post. That term does not include all who work outside the home, only those who put such work first.
posted on 08.28.2006 7:33 PM37
I hope this isn't a trivial point, but I don't see a double standard in the designation of career woman/man. A "career man" isn't a man with a career but a man who intensely focuses on his career to the exclusion of other pursuits (including family). And at the very least, since the '80s the pop culture has shown how the career man discovers that he has lost something valuable by neglecting his family.
posted on 08.28.2006 8:28 PM38
I think an extension of this issue is important; is it intrinisically harmful to the family when the wife works outside the home? I think you could argue that either spouse working outside the home damages the relationship (in that the principal focus of everyone who works fulltime outside their home is a parallel life away from family) but women seem to tolerate it better than men. Whenever my wife leaves on a trip without me, I always grumble "why did I get married if I have to be alone," whereas the two summers that I worked out of state, my wife said that she rather enjoyed it. She was the boss of the house, did exactly what she wanted when she wanted all the time, and had a paycheck deposited in the account every week. Not that I can't see her point of view, but many women seem to accept the absence of their husbands provided they have economic security, whereas very few husbands seem happy this way.
So in the end, I just wonder if Christian families would be stronger if wives didn't work outside the home.
posted on 08.28.2006 8:59 PM39
Eric,
You’ve covered a lot of ground so I’ll try to catch up by combing some of your previous statement.
Eric You insult today's Proverbs 31 woman by calling her a career woman. The Proverbs 31 woman does not put career first and everything else next. Today's career woman does, even ahead of her own marriage.
Setting aside that gross overgeneralization, I didn’t call the P31W a “career woman.” I only said that they shared many qualities.
Now, let’s get to the part about “virtue” because I think you make some interesting points that I don’t think can be supported by scripture.
For example, you say that it is more virtuous for a Christian to be a “homeschool mom” than it is for her to run a business from home. I find this claim be astounding! (Though I’m sure you’re not the only one who thinks that it is true.)
First, though, let me explain my own thinking on the matter. The Bible speaks about training a child in moral education but as far as I know there is no passage that says the parents must “homeschool” their children. None. At best we can say that the Bible is silent on the matter. While some Christians might believe that it is better for the parents to be the ones to teach social studies and geometry to their children, the Bible does not claim that it is necessary.
It is my belief, then, that while being a “homeschool mom” can be equally virtuous, it cannot be more virtuous than a path that is praised in Scripture. That is as far as the “argument from silence” will allow us to go.
Now let’s take a look at P31 again and dig out the verse in this hymn to the “noble wife” that mentions how she stays home to educate the kids (v. 28-29 tells us she has them). Let’s see, she works with her hands, shops, provides food, manages servants, buys property, plants vineyards, trades, weaves, gives alms, makes bed coverings, dresses well, makes and sells linens, supplies merchants, gives advice, and watches over the affairs of her household.
Did I miss the part about homeschooling? Surely if it is more virtuous to homeschool than to run a home business the chapter would have mentioned it, wouldn’t it?
The problem I see that we have devised our own idea about the “Biblical ideal of womanhood” and cling to it even when it can’t be supported by Scripture.
For example you say, “I'm not a moral relativist. We're not here discussing what I know or don't know, we're discussing what the Bible advises as wise and virtuous.” But yet you’ve ignored what the Bible claims is a “wise and virtuous” woman and replaced it with your own ideal (a homeschooling mom).
Take another example where you say, “There are a few exceptions i'm sure that could be thought up, like perhaps a man unable to work for some reason and therefore the wife must get a job to support the family.” The P31W has a husband who “takes his seat among the elders of the land” and yet she still brings an income into the family. The idea that the man is to be the sole provider of the family is a modern notion that is not rooted in the Bible.
And that is what you are missing about the Proverbs woman. Her household is her career. The 50's era housewife is much closer to the proverbs woman and less deserving of your disdain than you realize.
TeresaHT had such a great response that I want to highlight it again:
Some housework is economically productive, yes. But most of it, arguably, is not. Rather, it is work spent consuming and maintaining what someone else has already earned. It is not the same kind of work as raising chickens, spinning wool, maintaining a garden, or weaving cloth. All of these latter actions produced raw materials or converted raw materials into goods which could be used, bartered or sold. That's what I'm calling "economically productive" work. Some housewives do this kind of work, but for many women, if they do it at all, it is only a small part of their work. Going grocery shopping is consumption, not production. Vacuuming the floor is maintance, not production. Do you really not see the difference? I'm not saying such consumming-and-maintaining work is unnecessary or unhelpful. Buying groceries, preparing meals, and clipping coupons is real work, no doubt about that! I'm just saying that I don't believe God intends for such maintenance-and-consumption work to be the primary work most women do. The "men are producers, women are consumers and maintainers" model is not a Biblical model for division of labor: it is, rather, a result of the Industrial Revolution.
Yes, yes, yes. She is exactly right. The 50s era wife (which was more of a fantasy than a reality) is about maintenance and consumption not production. Household chores are undeniably important. But they are not, as exemplified by this passage in Proverbs, meant to be all that a wife and mother does. The P31W adds economic value not only to her family but to society as a whole.
Giggling Oh hmm, we do these sorts of discussion all the time here on EO.com. I didn't realize that it was not polite. Do you mind, Joe?
Above the fold is my domain. This subterranean lair of comments belongs to my readers. ; )
What's interesting here is that you seem to be stuck in the Industrial Revolution mindset as well, with your IR distinctions of producers of goods, consumers, and maintainers.
I don’t want to speak for Teresa, but I think her model could incorporate services in the category of “production.” Production of service is no less honorable than production of durable goods. But let’s not confuse service-sector production with personal maintenance. If a barber shaves a man’s face, he is adding to the economy. If I shave my own face, it’s just grooming. The production praised in P31 is value-added both to the family and to the society at large. The P31W produces both types.
In other words, in the Christian worldview, are there differences between men and women that would legimately result in differences between vocations? If so, what are these differences and how do they affect the range of legitimate vocations for men and women?
I would say “yes,” though I’d want to save the making of distinctions and clarifications for another day.
40
Alexander So in the end, I just wonder if Christian families would be stronger if wives didn't work outside the home.
I think the larger problem is that we Christians pretend that the "nuclear family" is some sort of Biblical ideal. We raise (legitimate) questions about whether the mother should work outside the home. But where is grandmother? And grandfather? And the uncles and the other kinsman?
As much as I admire the homeschooling movement, I think it has a tendency to draw people inward, causing them to put too much focus on the nuclear family and not enough on community in a way that is not Biblical. After all, Jesus wasn't exactly a "family values" kind of guy. He was always more concerned with the "Kingdom" than he was with building stable family structures.
posted on 08.28.2006 9:44 PM41
That was good food for thought, Joe, and I found it liberating. Thank you.
posted on 08.28.2006 9:48 PM42
Joe -
Since you did respond to me, I'd like to point out that I didn't say anything about nuclear families. Even if my mother-in-law came to live with me, which almost certainly will happen some day, it wouldn't change my biological or psychological need to be first in my wife's life (which I think is functionally incompatible with a full-time job, but that may or may not be true or true in general).
Furthermore, while I didn't say anything about homeschooling either, when you say "Jesus wasn't a 'family values' kind of guy" I believe that you are arguing from silence. It may very well be that no Gospel writers recorded any teachings by Jesus on family values because they felt it didn't add to the salvation narrative? I don't really see stable, loving families as hindering Kingdom work either, so maybe I missed something in your definition.
My only point was that Christian families might find themselves happier if the wife doesn't work outside the home (and I should have qualified "work" with full-time, which I think has different demands than part-time), based on biology and psychology as much as any theological reasons. I just don't see how my quote ties into the reply you made.
posted on 08.28.2006 10:19 PM43
I don’t want to speak for Teresa, but I think her model could incorporate services in the category of “production.”[. . .] But let’s not confuse service-sector production with personal maintenance. If a barber shaves a man’s face, he is adding to the economy. If I shave my own face, it’s just grooming. The production praised in P31 is value-added both to the family and to the society at large. The P31W produces both types.
Yes, I would say exactly that, although to be fair I hadn't worked it all out yet when I commented earlier.
posted on 08.28.2006 10:34 PM44
Alexander I just don't see how my quote ties into the reply you made.
It doesn't, I just used it as jumping off point for something that was already on my mind. ; )
Furthermore, while I didn't say anything about homeschooling either, when you say "Jesus wasn't a 'family values' kind of guy" I believe that you are arguing from silence.
Actually, I meant more his statements such as in Matthew 10:37, where Jesus says “Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me…” Or in Luke 14 he states the point even more emphatically: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.”
Of course I don't think Jesus was a homewreaker. But I think there is a danger that we could put family stability over furthering the Kingdom. (Jesus certainly seemed to think it was possible.)
My only point was that Christian families might find themselves happier if the wife doesn't work outside the home (and I should have qualified "work" with full-time, which I think has different demands than part-time), based on biology and psychology as much as any theological reasons.
That's a very valid point and one that I think is worthy of exploration. The Bible isn't an encylopedia so there are many areas of "general revelation" that we have to turn to in order to discern what us neo-Calvinists would call God's "creational norms."
posted on 08.28.2006 10:35 PM45
I've enjoyed the post and discussion. One thing I want to add is it feels as if people presume that if homeschooling takes place, it's the mom who's supposed to stay home and do it. My dad (who was a pastor and worked at home) homeschooled me while my mom worked outside the home. It would seem that some male proponents of homeschooling also need to be open to re-considering which spouse is being called to stay at home.
>Eric and Lisa write: A woman who is more >virtuous than another woman best exemplifies >what a woman should be. As an example, let's >say that we called one knife more virtuous than >another knife. We would mean that the more >virtuous knife ... cuts better, which is what a >knife was made to do, cut.
I think this analogy actually suggests the opposite conclusion. It would seem strange to claim that a steak knife better exemplifies what a knife should be than a butter knife does: both knives are intended to serve different functions, to cut or spread different things. The analogy would then suggest that God has made women with different skills/functions, and it would be odd to say that some functions "better exemplify virtue/womanhood" than others do. Knives are different, women are different.
posted on 08.28.2006 10:50 PM46
Lots of people have said lots of things here. Just to add the two cents worth:
The Proverbs 31 woman is an ideal pattern, and if you look at that realistically it is a pattern lived out over a lifetime full of phases and changes. She certainly did not have to ask her husbands input on enterprenurial activities like buying a vineyard because if you notice... throughout time... her husband had implicit trust in her judgement. He had already given her his signet to do as she saw fit in such matters.
There is more I could and have said on the topic, but suffice here to say that such comments as "The 50's era housewife is much closer to the proverbs woman" is very dubious to anyone who lived close enough in time to the reality.
The points on homeschooling are historically incorrect. We just call this "homeschooling" now because of the very new ideas of mandatory public education. Not so long ago teaching children at home was quite a normal part of a mother's duties. There are exemplary examples such as Abigail Adams, and it reaches quite far back into history, but it wasn't exactly what we deal with today, no.
One last thing. The whole idea of some housework not being of economic worth. I challenge that on the basis of "a penny saved is a penny earned".
Just take a few minutes to let that last thought sink in...because there are whole principles in scripture that I could add to it...like those who stayed back with the stuff were equal to those who went out to war. This idea of devaluing women who are preservers and capable stewards just floors me.
Lightning and thunder precludes me going on and on in my most didactic and wearing style;)
thanks for the forum.
posted on 08.28.2006 11:41 PM47
The woman of Proverbs is both a lady of the house and an entrepreneur. Since she is honorable and wise and fears the Lord, there are no problems. Dig?
King James Version (KJV)
Proverbs - Chapter 31
Pro 31:10 ¶ Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price [is] far above rubies.
Pro 31:11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.
Pro 31:12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
Pro 31:13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.
Pro 31:14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.
Pro 31:15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.
Pro 31:16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.
Pro 31:17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.
Pro 31:18 She perceiveth that her merchandise [is] good: her candle goeth not out by night.
Pro 31:19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.
Pro 31:20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.
Pro 31:21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household [are] clothed with scarlet.
Pro 31:22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing [is] silk and purple.
Pro 31:23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.
Pro 31:24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth [it]; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.
Pro 31:25 Strength and honour [are] her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.
Pro 31:26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue [is] the law of kindness.
Pro 31:27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.
Pro 31:28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband [also], and he praiseth her.
Pro 31:29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.
Pro 31:30 Favour [is] deceitful, and beauty [is] vain: [but] a woman [that] feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.
Pro 31:31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.
48
Before getting to giggle, let me catch up with some of the posts here.
Joe wrote;
For example, you say that it is more virtuous for a Christian to be a “homeschool mom” than it is for her to run a business from home. I find this claim be astounding! (Though I’m sure you’re not the only one who thinks that it is true.)
Hmmm, this isn't my position at all. If I said this it surprises even me.
Being a homeschool mom is a part of her business from home. As I believe ive already stated before, her career is her home. And if you are saying that a home based career for a woman is the Proverbs 31 woman and excluding careers out of the home (Doctor, Lawyer, etc) then we are in agreement.
To jump on what Ilona already said
The points on homeschooling are historically incorrect. We just call this "homeschooling" now because of the very new ideas of mandatory public education. Not so long ago teaching children at home was quite a normal part of a mother's duties. There are exemplary examples such as Abigail Adams, and it reaches quite far back into history, but it wasn't exactly what we deal with today, no.
I think we are dealing with an anachronism here. Homeschooling wasn't talked about directly as homeschooling in the Bible because there was no such thing as such. Historically speaking (Not specific to the Bible) woman have been property and have not enjoyed the rights that they have today. Not even the same rights that they have had over the past few centuries.
Women couldn't own things like they can now. They couldn't go out and get jobs and earn a living and have all the freedoms that they have today. This makes it pretty difficult to compare a woman living during the time of Proverbs 31 and now.
The same goes for children. You weren't an adult at the age of 18. Today you are still considered a child by many and therefore adult men and women behave like children because they are treated as such. But during the time of the Proverbs 31 woman, the woman of the home (Or her servants) raised the small children. As soon as they were able to begin work, they worked. Either at the home with the mother and father, or as some type of apprenticeship most likely with the father at whatever he did outside the home. This could begin at very young ages.
But no mothers were sitting down with their children teaching them the 3 R's. If they even knew about such things, they most likely didn't have time for such nonesense. They were too busy trying to survive.
So I don't like this idea of singling out the homeschool mom and comparing her to the Proverbs 31 woman as if that were sufficient. The comparison is between the woman who makes her household (Of which the children are a part) her career vs something outside of the household.
So, moving on to giggling;
That said, I do believe you need to explain the theology behind your conclusion that:
"A woman who can (Read: Is capable of) afford to stay home with her children and raise them but will (Read: Chooses not to) not is less virtuous than than the woman who chases after her career."
Notice above giggling that I think I made clear that homeschooling, or raising children, or making the household the career of the mother doesn't mean teaching the children the three R's.
To make my point even more clear if i'm able. In America today a child leaves the home at age 5 (Or possibly even 4) and spends a majority of their time during the week in a classroom for Kindergarten. Just when they are becoming old enough to learn their values and have a fuller understanding of what right and wrong means they begin to be taught that by the community as much as, if not more than, from their parents. As a matter of fact, a large section of society believe that children are better raised by the village.
Proverbs 22:6 tells us, "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."
Since we are in Proverbs I found this verse to be particularly helpful. The responsibility to train up a child in the way he should go rests on the parents of that child. Not on the mother, or the father, but both parents. Yet the parents are nonetheless the responsible party. A woman with a career outside the home cannot also build up her household.
Going back to Proverbs yet again we have, "A wise woman builds her house; a foolish woman tears hers down with her own hands." 14:1
This is a reason for the prevelance of divorce. The career woman gives her time to whatever her career is. If her career is her household, then she will be building up her house. But if her career is outside the home, she will be tearing it down.
I hate to focus too much on just one verse but this is pretty much where I find my theology from:
Titus 2:3-5
The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; that they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
This too is anachronistic but serves the purpose well. The young men would depart for a vocation while the young women would learn how to be homemakers from the older women. The older women were commanded to teach the younger women how to be keepers at home. But also the use of the word love here is not meant to be an emotion, it is meant as action. To love her husband and to love her children means actually showing them love through actions, which in that day and age meant respect for her husband and obedience and meant training up the children in the ways of the Lord.
It should mean the same thing today. The responsibility in the Christian home of the woman is to be what we would call a homemaker. This includes the things written by TeresaHT
It is not the same kind of work as raising chickens, spinning wool, maintaining a garden, or weaving cloth.
All of those things could be a part of the career of the biblical woman. That career being the household. She wrote that as though I might disagree with her but everything she wrote I believe is a part of the career of the homemaker.
I hope ive been clear here giggling, but if I havn't, please feel free to ask me to clear anything up. I'll be happy to.
posted on 08.29.2006 4:56 AM49
Joe, you had more commenters than I had visitors at my blog.
I think this post is fantastic. My wife worked in a seasonal, retail partnership for two years. For the entire year, I brought home the bacon; but for three months - she brought home the lobster. Now, we have a son and she's hanging at home with him.
Likewise, my mom stayed at home with my sister and I until we were a certain age and started a business which employs a dozen people or so locally; and has become something of a pre-retirement for my dad (though he works harder for her than he did at the office)
One of your earlier commenters stated that the Proverbs 31 ideal is something that happens in phases. I believe this and I think it's a good compliment to the ideas you put forward in yoru post.
Many Christians, either openly or secretly, value women who embrace a traditional ideal which consists of keeping the house clean and keeping the kids in line. However, while those should be valued, it should be our jobs as husbands and fathers to encourge our wives and daughters to pursue their God-given talents and ambitions in the same way wives and mothers do with their husbands and sons. One need not look farther than the Parable of the Talents for New Testament backup on this.
posted on 08.29.2006 6:22 AM50
>Of course I don't think Jesus was a homewreaker.
>But I think there is a danger that we could put
>family stability over furthering the Kingdom.
>(Jesus certainly seemed to think it was possible.)
Joe, this is a good point; I hadn't thought of your argument in that way.
51
I understand what you mean, but one could argue (note: this is all speculation but nonetheless valid) that there may be differences between a public school education and a homeschool education that should make one feel guilty, differences that go beyond subject matter/education quality but that relate to goods given to children intrinsically by the fact that their parents are teaching children themselves. For example, if parents taught children themselves, the parent-child relationship might be powerfully strengthened in such a way that God intended to happen. Again, I have no idea if this can be supported biblically, but if it could, I could understand Eric&Lisa's perspective as a Christian.
You seem to be saying unless children are homeschooled parents will teach them nothing. On the contrary, children learn a lot from their parents. When you look at it, academic learning is only a fraction of all the learning a person does as they grow up.
As for the differences, that too depends on circumstances. The fact that homeschoolers do pretty good on average says nothing about my sister-in-law's situation.
Yes, individuals are unique, but at the same time individuals belong to larger categories and do determine overall purpose.
Very true but I think loyalty (if that's the right word) should attach first to a person as an individual and then to larger categories that the person might belong too. From the sociologists/policy makers perspective the temptation is to put people in easy to manage categories and that's fine for filling out forms or whatnot but every day I wake up first as an individual and second as all the other things that I may happen to be.
Kevin:
That's a red herring, Booton. We're talking about women in this day and age, not a man from 5 centuries ago.
Has human nature really changed since then?
Some have taken issue with my reuse of the term "career woman" and provided so called counter examples. First, I was reusing (and agreeing with) Joe's and Michael Noer's definition of a career woman as someone who puts their career ahead of husband and family. It may be somewhat of a circular definition, but I consider it a stipulation in this discussion.
Why would this be a sensible definition of a career woman? Again you wouldn't define 'professional man' as someone who puts his career ahead of family. You'd define that as someone who has a job requiring skill and education.
There are tradeoffs in all our decisions but tradeoffs run in both directions. Take the fellow whose wife was a successful lawyer and later professor. Yes she did take time away from her family to do those things but at the same time her family was part of those things as well. Her success and fame also was enjoyed by her family (as well as her income which we often pretend is crass to discuss but is very important regardless).
Secondly, most (all?) of the examples given not "career women" by the definition in Joe's post. That term does not include all who work outside the home, only those who put such work first.
So it's a definition that doesn't apply to most of the people a common sense reading would apply it to? If I defned mother as a woman who kills her children and then tries to blame their deaths on a fictional carjacking. Everyone would scream that's a horrible definition because it covers one out of twenty million of who everyone else would define as a mother.
And...of course...shouldn't we be equally concerned about men who fit this definition of 'career women' as well?
Joe
TeresaHT had such a great response that I want to highlight it again:
I agree, she hit the nail on the head with her definition of economically productive work versus work on consumption and maintaining. It's only slightly short of being rigerous because if a man were to hire a person to shop for him, cook or clean his house that too would seem to be technically 'economically productive'.
Eric & Lisa,
I think you have a problem reading too much out of too little. For example, you write about a passage:
This is a reason for the prevelance of divorce. The career woman gives her time to whatever her career is. If her career is her household, then she will be building up her house. But if her career is outside the home, she will be tearing it down.
Yet here is the passage you were talking about:
Going back to Proverbs yet again we have, "A wise woman builds her house; a foolish woman tears hers down with her own hands." 14:1
This says nothing about career woman. It almost certainly referred to 'stay at home' women who nevertheless tore their homes apart with bad emotions, bad behavior etc.
Likewise:
Proverbs 22:6 tells us, "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."
Does not say:
1. The child shouldn't go to public school.
2. Parents who send their kids to school are not training their children.
3. A woman with "a career outside the home" (I notice here that career is now being used in its normal sense, not the specialized sense of a 'turning your back on your family' that was presented before) is tearing down her home.
You write of this passage:
Since we are in Proverbs I found this verse to be particularly helpful. The responsibility to train up a child in the way he should go rests on the parents of that child. Not on the mother, or the father, but both parents. Yet the parents are nonetheless the responsible party. A woman with a career outside the home cannot also build up her household.
On both parents yet why is it a man working outside the home not questioned? It seems like it is only the women w ho have to present you with the 'excuse note' for having a job!
posted on 08.29.2006 8:59 AM52
Boonton, you're putting incorrect words in my mouth. A man who puts their work ahead of their wife and family is just as much a "career man" as the stereotypical "career woman" we're discussing. I have the same basic issues with both.
posted on 08.29.2006 1:10 PM53
(Admitting upfront that I haven't read through the comments yet, so I may be repeating...)
WOW. A friend sent me this link and my mouth dropped open as I read... These are my SAME thoughts (especially interesting because I *am* a homeschool mom and have *been* in that camp. The last paragraphs of your post, however, bring up some of the same things I've been grappling with (as my paradigm for my little world has gone tumbling down) over this last year.
We've been having some very interesting (passionate, yet so far respectful) discussion on these things over at my blog. It is amazing how deep these things can go...amazing how many things you have to rethink, once you let that first block of patriarchy (as you had defined it, that is) get pushed out of the tower. I think what has astounded me the most is how many things I have assumed were "black and white" God's will, when ac