What's wrong if women wanted a career? I just came across too many men who expects the woman to cook, wash, clean the house and have babies! Sad. Aren't we women supposed to have dreams n careers? What would you rather have? A career woman or a houseproud housewife? I don't see any wrong if a woman has dreams n career as long as she doesn't neglect her family.
I don't think it is true that two have to work. We live in a higher than average cost area, and i have a niece with 4 kids and only she works, not a high paying job either. They are frugal, very frugal.
I did the same with my child, converted part of the house to a stand alone small bungalow and rented it out for years to allow stay at home. And delivered flowers for fill in money.
At least until the kids get into 1st grade, I believe, have one parent at home with them. the most important job on the world is to know you did everthing that you could imagine to guide the person you brought into the world to be someone to make this a better world, what could be more fullfilling or important than that?
What is living comfortable? what if it was defined as being able to stay with one's kids?
Where is thAat infidel scripture, I would like to read it.
Why have kids, if we are not going to be with them? I am sad when I read in the ads that mother is looking for nanny (they are always nannys) for her 3 week old when she goes back to work. What ways could we cut our expenses to make this work?
I agree,it would be great for the mother to stay at home and do something like online jobs,church service etc for the first few years of her kids' life.
What is wrong with cooking, washing, cleaning the house and having babies? I do think that there is nothing wrong with that and there is nothing wrong if a woman wanted to pursue her career either. But my concern is that all this depends on the type of career you are pursuing! Some careers demand a lot of time and that means you will have to give up much of the time you have for family.
Children especially the very young need their parents� time (most especially their mother�s)-Lots of it! Did you know that 50% of a child�s character and personality development takes place by age three and 75% by age five? Oh, would you rather have a nanny to help raise your children (of course she will be the one who spends more time with them)? All am saying is that at such a stage, career should wait especially if your husband is able to provide for your family efficiently. Alternatively, you can do something part time just to supplement and contribute to your family�s income�But if kids are not there, then I guess you can pursue your career but again I hope it does not impact negatively on your relationship with your husband(especially if your career leaves you with very little time for your family).
My career will focus basically on economic research� (It is a tasky thing and that means more time needed).Personally, I would give it up for some time and choose to stay home (If God blesses me with them) and teach, train, discipline and care for my children; there could never be any satisfaction like raising an individual who has a heart after God and giving the world a gift of a godly son/daughter! Alternatively, if my husband is not able to provide for our family, then I would have no option but to find alternative part time sources of income which are not going to rob me of my time with family.
As I end,there is this one woman(Edith Schaeffer) I read about and this is what she said about being a
mother; � Being a mother is worth fighting for, worth calling a career, worth the dignity of hard work�
Ultimately the issue here is the sexism involved. If one parent is to stay home, why must be the woman? Just because she lacks a 'Y' chromosome? Is that it? Old fashioned people tend to extremely exaggerate the differences between the genders. Some men (who are not gay) are far superior to homemaking than women are. There is a wonderful God-made diversity in the personalities and abilities of both genders and believe me we are better off for it. If the woman has a better paying job than the man, and it is decided that one parent needs to stay home, why would the wife stay home? It's totally illogical and harmful to the well-being of the family. If the male is more nurturing and supportive and the wife is more authoritarian and goal-oriented, why should the woman be with the children more?
I would say that having a parent at home is a huge plus, especially when the kids are young. As to which parent it is, use logic and reason to determine which one would do better.
First of all, it says widows which weakens that passage's relevance to a married couple having children. Secondly, women could not have jobs in ancient times, so Paul telling the women to take care of the house isn't so much rebuking those who have a job, but telling them to do what they are allowed to do. Paul didn't say "don't get a job" since that would be the equivalent of telling a modern person not to take a hike on the sun. He's giving solid advice to women who have a family, but are in need of source of income.
It was fantastic advice for women 2000 years ago. Since then, society as a whole has accepted that women ought not be treated like dirt and thus they make (nearly) as much money as men do in the same job.
Some advice simply carries out regardless of time. The ten commandments and the virtues will never become outdated. These are intrinsic moral ideas that do not age, but financial advice to people living 2000 years ago is not likely to be relevant today. I don't believe in any way that Paul truly believed that it was intrinsically wrong for women to work, it was simply unheard of.
Honestly after reading your post Mithridates, I was tempted to view your profile just to see your sex, age and if you had any child! But i thank God that you are a young guy with no kids.
But first i should ask you one question; why don't men get pregnant? I would like you to know that men can never be equal to women and this is because Nature dictates!
By the time a woman goes through the pregnancy stage, child birth and caring for the new born( including breast feeding the child), there is an emotional attachment or deeper bond that develops between a mother and a child and this is in our genetic make up! this means that to nurture and care for the child is automatic. I hope you know that women are more nurturing than men anyways! There is no way a normal mother will decide to spend much of her time away from her child however much her husband or nanny is helping to take care of the kid! and that explains why most women would rather stay home or do part time jobs(if her family's financial stand is weak) so as to spend most of the time with her child/children.
I have baby sat several times before and from my experience, taking care of a child especially below age of 3 is all-the-day-work! This means that a lot of patience is needed and how many men(if any) are that patient PLUS how many women are willing to be 'far' from their young children(below age of 5)?
I know that you may never understand this now but i pray that you get kids and then you will know what I am saying.
( First of all, it says widows which weakens that passage's relevance to a married couple having children)
Mith,
It doesnt weaken it at all. You see Paul doesnt have to speak to the married women because they already know what to do. He specifically addresses the widdow to do what a young woman needs to do to have purpose in life. A widdow who is grieving can feel directionless and Paul is giving her direction.
We as Christians our purpose if we accept it is to bring Godly children into the world. That children are a heritage from the Lord and a wife is a good thing. The problem with our society as Christians we dont know what God values and we are lost and end up allowing the world to tell us how to find fulfillment.
Every individual here can argue with me against it but family is what God values.
A man loving, protecting and leading his family a woman supporting nurturing and caring for her family. I see it all through scripture and I see the examples of failure with King David and others.
The question is what are we going to do? What are you the reader going to do? Are you going to look for your self in what God values are or you going to continue in your path?
What I'll do is make sure that the God-given talents that we have been entrusted do not go to waste. The woman who has extraordinary knowledge of Astronomy and Quantum Mechanics ought not let it go to waste. For those to whom God has given much, he expects much. All women have been given certain physical attributes, but not all have been given certain mental abilities. To not properly use these would be spitting on what God has given to you.
I absolutely agree that women on average are more nurturing than men. I am not arguing for a total gender reversal, on the contrary I am simply criticizing the gender stereotyping in general. I have met women who have not been blessed with much nurturing and I have met men who have been very blessed with it. We must not allow our gender stereotypes to let these talents go to waste. Instead of saying "Oh you're a man! Thus you MUST be good at these things" simply analyze people on an individual level to learn their specific talents and then use them for the kingdom. It is an oversimplification to assume that every single woman in the world is more nurturing than every single man in the world. This is an obvious falsehood and from a statistical standpoint makes zero sense.
To re-emphasize, I have absolutely nothing but the highest respect for women who stay-at-home and raise kids. I am not the person who scorns those who do. There are obviously biblical as well as scientific reasons to support this. As I said, it is my opinion that at least one parent ought to stay home and raise the kids.
My only issue is the idea that it can't ever be men. I simply find this outdated and arbitrarily sexist, especially now when the woman's ability to breast-feed a child is not required for a young child's health (as it can be stored/bought etc.) If the woman has the God-given talents to better financially provide for her family, than I would argue it would be sinful not to let her do it on no other grounds than her being the female of the house.
Of course we see in the bible men being dominant and breadwinners...because women weren't allowed to work and were treated as property. Women biblically weren't allowed to have political power, should we remove all political power from women simply because women didn't have it in the bible? It's an argument which is ignoring the societal context of the bible, and it's the same awful argument which racist white pastors used countless times to defend slavery. "Oh, well, it's in the bible. Therefore it's the right thing." Wrong. Just because a practice occurs in the bible does not make it ethical. Misinterpretation of the bible has caused countless harm to millions of people over millenia. Understanding the bible is as important, if not more important, than actually memorizing it.
We must not forget that the bible is full of horrible things, it is full of slavery, rape, incest, murder, war, adultery, prostitution among many, many others. Just because it is in the bible, does not in any way mean God supports it. There is no reason not to believe that sexism is just another one of these things that occurs in the bible, but ought to be avoided.
