# How Women CEOs & Women in Similar Roles are Ruining the Workplace



## JBaldwin (Apr 10, 2008)

> > More women are CEO's, more women are seminary professors. The United Methodist, PCUSA and the ELCA have predominantly women pastors. There are women in the FD I won't go into that but it is not pretty...I wonder where all this will lead?
> 
> 
> I have been wanting to start a thread on this very topic for some time. I might just do that. As a woman who is probably very capable of being a CEO, I think it's the WRONG place for women, and I wouldn't do it. Women in leadership roles, especially over a lot of men, are ruining the work place. More on that later when it's not so late.



Well here is the promised thread. 

In my lifetime, I have witnessed the rise of feminism, especially in the workplace. I have also witnessed the decline of male leadership in the work place. In the last few years, I believe we are seeing the workplace destroyed, because of the push to raise women to high levels of leadership even though they are not qualified. 

Here is what I mean by "not qualified". I mean that most women (there are a rare few exceptions), are not wired for leadership roles. Because of that, they are demoralizing the men underneath them and ruining good workers (both men and women) in the process. 

It seems the more leadership power a woman has in the workforce, the less efficient and effective she becomes. Why? Because God did not make women to lead. He made women to SUPPORT. Notice I didn't say "follow", and I chose that word on purpose. The word "follow" implies that a woman does nothing but take orders, and I disagree with that. I believe that women are there to support and help make a man more efficient in his leadership role, not just in the home and church, but in the workplace (when they are working). And yes, I do believe that there are times when women should work. I had to support myself as a single woman for 12 years before I married, and there are many others out there in similar situations. 

An Aside: One of the reasons why feminism had such a power over women (even godly women) is because women were not treated as supporters, but more as followers in the work place. I believe they were reacting to this attitude from men, and to the fact that they were financially rewarded as "followers" rather than supporters. 

I hope that clarifies at least one part of my thoughts. I would love to hear what you all have to say about this.


----------



## Grymir (Apr 11, 2008)

Mega Dittos JBaldwin!!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Apr 11, 2008)

Great Thoughts J!!!


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Apr 11, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> > > An Aside: One of the reasons why feminism had such a power over women (even godly women) is because women were not treated as supporters, but more as followers in the work place. I believe they were reacting to this attitude from men, and to the fact that they were financially rewarded as "followers" rather than supporters.
> > >
> > > I hope that clarifies at least one part of my thoughts. I would love to hear what you all have to say about this.
> >
> > ...


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Apr 11, 2008)

Just wonder how much longer till the men start stepping up to the plate again, will it slowly solve the problem- or spark more feminist?


----------



## turmeric (Apr 11, 2008)

Depends on how they do it.


----------



## JBaldwin (Apr 11, 2008)

ModernPuritan? said:


> Just wonder how much longer till the men start stepping up to the plate again, will it slowly solve the problem- or spark more feminist?



I don't know, but at my husband's work place (he's working for a university), they have systematically replaced his boss (department chair), the dean of his college, and the vice provost with women. The morale is at an all time low and the professors (both male and female) are starting to rebel.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 11, 2008)

I sort of liked B. Bhutto.


But, then again, I am not a fun of short-haired, padded shouldered, bossy women who are often extra curt in reminding people of who is in charge.


I had a captain in the army that was a minority female when I was a new "butter bar" Lt. and (call me an ogre) after 6 months I swore once I was out of the army to NEVER to work for a woman again in my life in a subserviant role. 

(p.s. she was passed over twice and exited the army in disgrace after announcing that her passing over was due to racism. I told her that is was simply that she was not a good boss... we did not leave on speaking terms).


----------



## mshingler (Apr 11, 2008)

Okay, I'm going to risk sounding sexist, here, but anytime you discuss biblical roles of men and women in our society, someone will think you're sexist anyway. I basically agree with the initial post, here, but would question the part about women being even in a supporting role in the workplace. I agree that a woman was made to "support" a man - to be his helper. However, what man or men is a woman made to support? Her husband. I think that, unless a woman has her husband for a boss, going into the workplace puts her in a position where she submits to the authority of a male leader who is not her head and, quite likely, is not even a believer. I don't see, biblically, why a woman is to support a man in these three spheres - home, church and workplace. It is, primarily, in the home, with the church (as in church leaders other than her husband) being quite secondary. I find no biblical justification for extending that principle of headship to some man who simply happens to be the boss at work. 
Now, I realize that this may not apply to every conceivable circumstance, but, for the most part, I don't think there should be a need for a woman to compete in the workplace at all. A married woman can support her husband. A single girl can fulfill the same supporting role in relation to her own father. In the case of a widow or a single woman who's father is either deceased or not someone she is able to support for some other reason, she may have great opportunity to be used in the service of the church, supporting the male leadership an ministering under their authority (Rom. 16:1; Phil. 4:2-3). We ought to be concerned to look after the material needs of widows and any other ladies in our churches who have no man to be provider for them.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 11, 2008)

How many women moderators do we have on the PB any way?


----------



## Olivetan (Apr 11, 2008)

About this topic, i always think about that example:

In a company or a group, if a woman is the most qualified person among all and if she is the best option to lead them and take them to their goal(like Bhutto- like many thinks that she was better than other men) then what happens? Is the result important? Or the process...


----------



## Wannabee (Apr 11, 2008)

Excellent post Mike!
This was what I was alluding to in the thread where Joy "threatened"  to start a post related to this. It ultimately comes down to headship. It has to.
Women were created to be under headship and promote the advancement of that head, just as the church was created to be under the headship of Christ and promote Him (Eph 5). Young ladies are to be under the headship of their father until given away. This has been lost in our culture of 18 yr. old adulthood, child rights, individualism, blah, blah, blah. It's a disgrace and abomination; leading young ladies into a false sense of independence for which they were never created. No wonder women, in general, cannot find satisfaction in their lives. They're trying too hard to fit into a man's role.
The young lady is to promote her father's prosperity until given away. This is why children are a blessing. It's not because they simply exist, sponging off mom and pop until they've received the training to make their mark in the world. It is because the more children one has the more prosperity he should enjoy as many hands contribute to the promotion of the head of the household. 
Then, when the woman is given to another man, he becomes her head. The responsibility and submission is shifted completely. She is now to live to promote the head of her household, her husband. If she goes into the workplace she now has another head to promote. No wonder so much infidelity happens in the workplace. A woman's headship is confused and she now has two men (or more) with authority over her as she strives to promote the advancement of both of them. This too is an abomination and blurs the beauty and grandeur of the male/female distinctness that God provided from the beginning. 
The cause and result of the fall as lived out in culture conspire against this beautiful design as men avoid and abdicate their responsibilities and women rise up and usurp the leadership role that God intended for men alone (Gen 3). 
It's clearly in the garden. Deborah is a good example too, where Jael kills Sisera and gets the glory a man should have had because Barak desires a woman to join him in battle (Judges 4-5). History repeats this theme time and time again. Women rise to leadership where there are no men with vision. If men embrace their God given roles then there is no vacuum that women think they need to fill. And, if men embrace their roles then it is much easier for women to embrace the glorious role God has given them as men's helpers.
So, Mike, I guess I can join you in tomato dodging.


----------



## Galatians220 (Apr 11, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> > > More women are CEO's, more women are seminary professors. The United Methodist, PCUSA and the ELCA have predominantly women pastors. There are women in the FD I won't go into that but it is not pretty...I wonder where all this will lead?
> >
> >
> > I have been wanting to start a thread on this very topic for some time. I might just do that. As a woman who is probably very capable of being a CEO, I think it's the WRONG place for women, and I wouldn't do it. Women in leadership roles, especially over a lot of men, are ruining the work place. More on that later when it's not so late.
> ...


 
 and  !!!!

What you have written here is something that has long been on my mind and heart - and I've spent a career in the legal field. In a "support" capacity, mostly because of my individual temperament.

You have said exactly what I've been wanting to TRUMPET all over the place for years and years! 

*A simple "thank you" for this wouldn't have been enough from me, Mrs. Baldwin!!!!!!* There's nothing I can add except for anecdotes, which I won't bore people with here.

Margaret


----------



## mshingler (Apr 11, 2008)

One of the main areas of emphasis in our small, family-integrated church here is that we are trying to challenge and equip men to step up to their role of leadership in their homes. That involves spiritual headship as well as providing for their families. 
This is a big issue in our home, as we raise 2 daughters. My wife has shared how insecure and pressured she felt as a young single woman because of the way this was handled in her home. When she graduated from school, she was expected to get out into the workplace and "pull her weight", so to speak, in her parents' home. I imagine that is not an unusual approach for a father, but I believe it derives more from our feminist culture than from the Scriptures.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Apr 11, 2008)

Galatians220 said:


> You have said exactly what I've been wanting to TRUMPET all over the place for years and years! Margaret



I seem to recall that someone else once blasted a trumpet about similar things. It made him rather unpopular!

Interesting thread.


----------



## Herald (Apr 11, 2008)

I do not subscribe to the view that a woman is tied to her father, in all things, until she is married; nor do I believe she necessarily must leave the home and find a job until she is married. Culture has placed a burden on young women to support themselves financially. This does not mean a young woman has to separate from the family. Take health insurance for example. Most adult children are forced off their parents policy once they complete college. Unless they are employed they are uninsured. If my daughter attends a college nearby I would like her to live at home. That is the ideal. But even if she is out of state it doesn't mean she is removed from my complete authority. Much of this has to do with the relationship a parent has with their child. At this stage of her life my daughter wants to submit to my authority. There are many children who live at home and refuse to submit to the authority of their father.


----------



## aleksanderpolo (Apr 11, 2008)

There was an article:

Men rule â€” at least in workplace attitudes - Careers - MSNBC.com

here is a quote from the article:

"And three out of four women who expressed a preference said they would rather work for a man than a woman."

And the article go on to say that the reason is because of "stereotypes", never even consider maybe, just maybe, they express a preference because of their real life experience.


----------



## shackleton (Apr 11, 2008)

Two points:
(1) There is a female pastor and seminary teacher at a UMC seminary near my house that I go talk to on occasion because she is very knowledgeable. She has stated that women sort of "rebelled" because of the way they were treated over the centuries, they were treated more like a servant that a help meet. She was honest enough to tell me that a lot, not all, of women in the ministry were there due to feminism and trying to show they could do anything a man can do, and sometimes better, than it had to do with trying to be more biblical. I think women in leadership roles in ministry has more to do with the churches trying to be like society rather than trying to follow God's rules for church.

(2) Where I work it is mandatory that we attend are day long classes every year on how to get along with women in the work place. What you can and cannot say, how you can and cannot act, what can be watched on T.V., what magazines can be laying around etc. They have everyone on edge especially when women are at a station. Sadly there are some women who capitalize on this and claim they have been "sexually harassed and sue the city and retire or they sue and get promoted. It has greatly affected the moral of the workplace. Then of course there are the affirmative action hires and promotions. There needs to be a certain amount of women in management roles. When there is a woman who is promoted to captain it makes the news and the paper. I have heard that it is really bad in the military. 

I hope this is not too offensive, I feel bad even putting this in print, like I am going to be reprimanded.


----------



## Herald (Apr 11, 2008)

Erick,

I've had to attend those mandatory meetings too. Fortunately I am very adept in allowing my mind to wander. I think of other things and basically ignore the tripe. When the meeting is over all is well and back to what passes for normal.


----------



## Kenneth_Murphy (Apr 11, 2008)

mshingler said:


> One of the main areas of emphasis in our small, family-integrated church here is that we are trying to challenge and equip men to step up to their role of leadership in their homes.



What would be your recommendation as to the best book to read to learn what that means and how to put it into practice?

I've only been attending a reformed church for the last two years and still have a lot of baggage in my understanding I'm sorting through. So a good resource on this subject would be very helpful. I have 14 month old son, so I've been working on learning how as the head of my household I am to raise my Son in the faith, discipline him etc and overall clearly understanding my role.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Apr 11, 2008)

And just think, if Hillary becomes President you'll be able to expand your analogy from ruining the workplace to ruining the country.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Apr 11, 2008)

Only in two out of seven jobs have I had a good experience of working for a woman. I prefer working for men. I love working _with_ ladies, but not _for_ them.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Apr 11, 2008)

My last supervisor was a woman, and the best supervisor I ever had.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 11, 2008)

joshua said:


> Mr. Murphy, a good start might be "Rediscovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood," which is available in PDF file here for free: http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/rbmw.pdf



Excellent catch Josh. Also the website itself is well worth checking out. I especially appreciate their willingness to put so many solid books on the Net for free.

BTW, my wife and older daughter are both seminary educated. My wife serves a Christian ed role in our church (mostly in children's ministries). Few things get her as furious as the nonsense of feminism. She has observed that most of the ordained women she knows (she never sought ordination for reasons of conscience) are very angry and bitter people. Jeanette thoroughly enjoyed the DVD, *Monstrous Regiment of Women *(DVD), nodding approvingly throughout the documentary.


----------



## mshingler (Apr 11, 2008)

Kenneth_Murphy said:


> mshingler said:
> 
> 
> > One of the main areas of emphasis in our small, family-integrated church here is that we are trying to challenge and equip men to step up to their role of leadership in their homes.
> ...



One place to start, in addition to the resources already mentioned here, might be "Family Driven Faith" by Dr. Voddie Baucham. 
VBM Online


----------



## shackleton (Apr 11, 2008)

Have women in the workplace driven inflation up? In the fifties a family could live comfortably on one income now it is almost necessary to have two incomes. 

Women are starting to get all the diseases only men used to have, ones pertaining to stress, heart disease, ulcers, workplace dissatisfaction, etc. I even hear women who are in demanding jobs and positions of leadership are deciding to return home and say that there is more fulfillment there taking care of children.


----------



## satz (Apr 11, 2008)

*No tomatoes here, but...*



mshingler said:


> Okay, I'm going to risk sounding sexist, here, but anytime you discuss biblical roles of men and women in our society, someone will think you're sexist anyway. I basically agree with the initial post, here, but would question the part about women being even in a supporting role in the workplace. I agree that a woman was made to "support" a man - to be his helper. However, what man or men is a woman made to support? Her husband. I think that, unless a woman has her husband for a boss, going into the workplace puts her in a position where she submits to the authority of a male leader who is not her head and, quite likely, is not even a believer.



Agreed 100% that a woman is made to be a helper to her husband and to help him fulfill his goals in life. However, I see no bible warrant for the idea that a woman may not come under another authority other than her husband or father. Being under authority is not necessarily the same as being under ‘headship’. Even a married woman or a daughter at home is under the ‘authority’ of the ruling government, and her pastor, by the ordinance of God. Her husband may well come first, but that does not make the existence of other authority relationships sinful. 



> I don't see, biblically, why a woman is to support a man in these three spheres - home, church and workplace. It is, primarily, in the home, with the church (as in church leaders other than her husband) being quite secondary. I find no biblical justification for extending that principle of headship to some man who simply happens to be the boss at work.



Throughout the Old Testament, we see that many women were under the authority of other men as their maidservants. God’s law specifically allows for a situation where a woman has both a husband and a master, and he sees nothing evil about it (Exodus 21:2-11).



> Now, I realize that this may not apply to every conceivable circumstance, but, for the most part, I don't think there should be a need for a woman to compete in the workplace at all. A married woman can support her husband. A single girl can fulfill the same supporting role in relation to her own father.



A single girl or woman is certainly under the headship of her father. But I see no bible reason to say that headship is denied or compromised in anyway if she comes into an authority relationship with another man, for the reasons stated above.



> In the case of a widow or a single woman who's father is either deceased or not someone she is able to support for some other reason, she may have great opportunity to be used in the service of the church, supporting the male leadership an ministering under their authority (Rom. 16:1; Phil. 4:2-3). We ought to be concerned to look after the material needs of widows and any other ladies in our churches who have no man to be provider for them.



I have often seen the fact that widows were to be cared for as justification for the idea that women have no place in the workforce. When I look at 1 Tim 5, I see some fairly strict criteria for a widow to be placed into the full time care and support of the church. Not every woman simply by virtue of her gender is to be supported fulltime. Bible ‘support’ in an ordinary case it to provide people with a means to earn a living, even if efforts are taken to make that work easier that it normally would have been – as we see with Ruth and Boaz and Deut 24:19


----------



## satz (Apr 11, 2008)

Wannabee said:


> The young lady is to promote her father's prosperity until given away.
> .
> .
> If she goes into the workplace she now has another head to promote. No wonder so much infidelity happens in the workplace. A woman's headship is confused and she now has two men (or more) with authority over her as she strives to promote the advancement of both of them.



This logic does not follow. Does a man who works for another man end up taking on the role of a woman and promoting this other man instead of being his own man?

No, while he may serve his boss’s interests at work, he is essentially still working for himself. He brings home his paycheck to support his family and his own goals. Likewise a woman may bring home a paycheck in support of her family whether she is married or unmarried.

I don’t want to get into a discussion about a woman's duties at home, all I am saying here is that your argument that a working woman is under another head in a sinful way does not seem to me to work.


----------



## Neopatriarch (Apr 11, 2008)

mshingler said:


> I basically agree with the initial post, here, but would question the part about women being even in a supporting role in the workplace. I agree that a woman was made to "support" a man - to be his helper. However, what man or men is a woman made to support? Her husband. I think that, unless a woman has her husband for a boss, going into the workplace puts her in a position where she submits to the authority of a male leader who is not her head and, quite likely, is not even a believer.



In support of this, here is an internet article from ladiesagainstfeminism.com you may be interested in:

Against the Proletarization of Women

Antonia Cunningham writes:


> A married woman who works for another man is literally forced to obey two economic masters, and is consequently unable to be subject to her husband in everything as the Lord commands (Eph. 5:24).


----------



## Galatians220 (Apr 11, 2008)

Thomas2007 said:


> And just think, if Hillary becomes President you'll be able to expand your analogy from ruining the workplace to ruining the country.


 
 and .

Margaret


----------



## Wannabee (Apr 11, 2008)

The comments on a widow leave out the fact that, until 60, they are to remarry. Ideally all women will fall under and promote one head. The only ones that the church is supposed to support are the older ones who have proven and live out their godliness (1 Tim 5:15). And even then it's only the ones who don't have families to take care of them.


satz said:


> I don’t want to get into a discussion about a woman's duties at home, all I am saying here is that your argument that a working woman is under another head in a sinful way does not seem to me to work.


I understand your concerns Mark. First, your first question really has no bearing. We all work for someone, either directly or indirectly. And we are are to promote whoever is in authority over us. God has absolute authority over us, so we promote Him first. As a man our employer generally has authority over us, so we promote him. If we're in the military the same principle applies. Within the church it is the leadership. For women, they have a head over them, their fathers or husbands. 
There are instances when a woman must do what she must to survive (Ruth was mentioned - but she really was working under her closest head/kinsman). I did not say it was a sin for a woman to work under a man that is not her head. I said that, ideally, she shouldn't do it. And I would say it's usually a symptom of a deeper issue. We have one couple in our church where the husband is deaf and has a hard time holding down a job. The wife works steadily. It's a very difficult situation, and far from ideal. But it's also not one with a solution readily available.
It's also evident that testoserone levels rise in women in the workplace. They become more aggressive. They become more assertive. And most women who are keepers of the home do not get caught up in affairs. The overwhelming majority of women involved in adultery have workplace relationships. 
-2 out of 3 women and 3 out of 4 men admit they have sexual thoughts about co-workers.
-86% of men and 81% of women admit they routinely flirt with the opposite sex.
-75% of men and 65% of women admit to having sex with people they work with.

Women who are employed full-time outside the home are more likely to have an affair than full-time homemakers. Travis and Sadd reported that 47% of wives who were employed full-time and 27% of full-time homemakers had been involved in an affair before they were 40 years old.
New Woman magazine found that 57% of employed wives who had an affair met their lover at work.

Here's an interesting article - Can a woman ever do work outside the home?


Consider also the OT teaching of vows.
Numbers 30:3-15
3“Or if a woman makes a vow to the Lord, and binds herself by some agreement while in her father’s house in her youth, 4and her father hears her vow and the agreement by which she has bound herself, and her father holds his peace, then all her vows shall stand, and every agreement with which she has bound herself shall stand. 5But if her father overrules her on the day that he hears, then none of her vows nor her agreements by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the Lord will release her, because her father overruled her. 
6“If indeed she takes a husband, while bound by her vows or by a rash utterance from her lips by which she bound herself, 7and her husband hears it, and makes no response to her on the day that he hears, then her vows shall stand, and her agreements by which she bound herself shall stand. 8But if her husband overrules her on the day that he hears it, he shall make void her vow which she took and what she uttered with her lips, by which she bound herself, and the Lord will release her. 
9“Also any vow of a widow or a divorced woman, by which she has bound herself, shall stand against her. 
10“If she vowed in her husband’s house, or bound herself by an agreement with an oath, 11and her husband heard it, and made no response to her and did not overrule her, then all her vows shall stand, and every agreement by which she bound herself shall stand. 12But if her husband truly made them void on the day he heard them, then whatever proceeded from her lips concerning her vows or concerning the agreement binding her, it shall not stand; her husband has made them void, and the Lord will release her. 13Every vow and every binding oath to afflict her soul, her husband may confirm it, or her husband may make it void. 14Now if her husband makes no response whatever to her from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or all the agreements that bind her; he confirms them, because he made no response to her on the day that he heard them. 15But if he does make them void after he has heard them, then he shall bear her guilt.” 


And before we think that "youth" is below some age around 20 we must consider that Paul told Timothy to not let them dispise your youth when Timothy was about 40. I know that makes me feel better.


----------



## Wannabee (Apr 11, 2008)

Calvin and Knox on the Doctrine of Male Headship

John Calvin on Women Rejoicing in Their Role as Homemakers

The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy

The Feminization of the Family

Biblical Patriarchy and the Doctrine of Federal Representation

Called to the Home — Called to Ruleby Melissa Keen

Exegetical Defense of the Woman as Keeper At Home

The Feminism of the Mothers is the Destruction of the Daughtersby Sarah Zes

“You Don’t Know Feminism”by Mrs. M.L. Chancey


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Apr 11, 2008)

I disagree slightly with the OP. Don't get me wrong, I'm very much anti-feminism and do believe a woman's primary calling is to be a wife and mother, and to care for her family. But I don't think it's necessarily wrong for a woman to work or even be a CEO of a company. There are multiple Biblical examples of Godly women who own and operate their own businesses, such as Lydia after she was converted in Acts 16. And the Proverbs 31 describes the "excellent wife" as a hard worker and industrious businesswoman. 

Please don't misunderstand, I agree with the general sentiment of JBaldwin's post (and most others in this thread). However, I don't agree that it's wrong for a woman to work and be in leadership in business, so long as she doesn't neglect her primary responsiblity to her family.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Apr 11, 2008)

But then isnt it highly probable that for a wife to be a ceo would cause her to neglect her bigger priorities as a wife?


----------



## servantofmosthigh (Apr 11, 2008)

Dr. Al Mohler also talked about this issue in one of his radio programs a few months ago, specifically addressing if America is ready for a female President. And Dr. Mohler said that if Margaret Thatcher was alive today, was an American citizen, and was running for President of the U.S., he'd vote for her because he knows where she stands politically.

Dr. Mohler draws a line between male leadership in the church and in the home, versus secular leadership in the workforce. And what I think Dr. Mohler is saying is that the fight for male leadership must be first fought in our own homes and in our own churches, and nevermind about the secular workforce because they're part of the fallen world. At least, our homes and our churches can reflect the redeemed ones of Christ.


----------



## JBaldwin (Apr 11, 2008)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> I disagree slightly with the OP. Don't get me wrong, I'm very much anti-feminism and do believe a woman's primary calling is to be a wife and mother, and to care for her family. But I don't think it's necessarily wrong for a woman to work or even be a CEO of a company. There are multiple Biblical examples of Godly women who own and operate their own businesses, such as Lydia after she was converted in Acts 16. And the Proverbs 31 describes the "excellent wife" as a hard worker and industrious businesswoman.
> 
> Please don't misunderstand, I agree with the general sentiment of JBaldwin's post (and most others in this thread). However, I don't agree that it's wrong for a woman to work and be in leadership in business, so long as she doesn't neglect her primary responsiblity to her family.



If you read my post carefully, you will see that we agree. I was very careful to add "there are a few rare occasions". I also pointed out that there are times when women should and can work. I don't believe in the total absence of women from the workforce, but I think it should be more rare than it is. I also think that women should not encouraged to take high level leadership roles. It usually spells disaster for a company. 

There are many roles in the workforce that are much more well suited to women than men. Also, as I pointed out in the OP, there are situations were women have to support themselves.


----------



## satz (Apr 11, 2008)

Joe, thank you for your reply.



Wannabee said:


> The comments on a widow leave out the fact that, until 60, they are to remarry. Ideally all women will fall under and promote one head. The only ones that the church is supposed to support are the older ones who have proven and live out their godliness (1 Tim 5:15). And even then it's only the ones who don't have families to take care of them.



1 Corinthians 7 would seem to indicate that a widowed woman is free to either remarry or stay as she is at her liberty. When Paul said in 1 Tim 5:14 that he wanted younger women to remarry, he was speaking of remarrying as opposed to, being put on the financial support of the church and ending up in idleness. I see no reason he meant it as absolute rule for younger widows. 

You said : “Ideally all women will fall under and promote one head”.

I would like to see the biblical basis for the ‘one head’ part of that statement. In your example you just said that a man may have up to three heads over him – God, his employer and the church leadership. But there is no conflict. As I said before, women are always under the authority of the government, and their church leadership, as well as the father/husband. Whether or not you consider the former two to be ‘heads’ she is still under their authority. So I see no bible basis for saying it is either wrong, or not ideal for a woman to be under more than one authority at the same time.

Also, I am curious what are the verses that say a woman is always to be under a head? For instance, that a widow or a woman whose parents die must come under another head. I am not necessarily saying I disagree, but I would like to see the verses to support the point.



> I understand your concerns Mark. First, your first question really has no bearing. We all work for someone, either directly or indirectly. And we are are to promote whoever is in authority over us. God has absolute authority over us, so we promote Him first. As a man our employer generally has authority over us, so we promote him. If we're in the military the same principle applies. Within the church it is the leadership. For women, they have a head over them, their fathers or husbands.
> There are instances when a woman must do what she must to survive (Ruth was mentioned - but she really was working under her closest head/kinsman). I did not say it was a sin for a woman to work under a man that is not her head. I said that, ideally, she shouldn't do it. And I would say it's usually a symptom of a deeper issue. We have one couple in our church where the husband is deaf and has a hard time holding down a job. The wife works steadily. It's a very difficult situation, and far from ideal. But it's also not one with a solution readily available.



As I mentioned above, you admit that for a man to have multiple ‘heads’ – God, boss, and pastor is not wrong. Where is the bible basis for saying it is wrong for a woman to have the same? There may be a definite priority in authority relationships, but I see no biblical evidence that it is wrong for a woman to be in more than one authority relationship.

The husband of a woman is indeed her head, and she is to promote him. Again, I see no bible basis to say this is incompatible with serving a master in the workplace. A man does two things in his work – he promotes his master’s interests, but he is also working for himself, to provide for his family with the pay he brings home. I fail to see how it is wrong for a woman to serve her employer’s interests, but also be primarily serving her family through the income she earns and brings into the family estate.

How would you address the issue of the maidservants we see all throughout the bible? Who was their head?



> It's also evident that testoserone levels rise in women in the workplace. They become more aggressive. They become more assertive. And most women who are keepers of the home do not get caught up in affairs. The overwhelming majority of women involved in adultery have workplace relationships.



These statistics are meaningless unless they somehow represent the situation amongst zealous christian couples. Drinking alcohol may statistically speaking increase your chances of getting drunk, but that is not a biblical argument against it.



> Consider also the OT teaching of vows.
> Numbers 30:3-15
> 3“Or if a woman makes a vow to the Lord, and binds herself by some agreement while in her father’s house in her youth, 4and her father hears her vow and the agreement by which she has bound herself, and her father holds his peace, then all her vows shall stand, and every agreement with which she has bound herself shall stand. 5But if her father overrules her on the day that he hears, then none of her vows nor her agreements by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the Lord will release her, because her father overruled her.
> 6“If indeed she takes a husband, while bound by her vows or by a rash utterance from her lips by which she bound herself, 7and her husband hears it, and makes no response to her on the day that he hears, then her vows shall stand, and her agreements by which she bound herself shall stand. 8But if her husband overrules her on the day that he hears it, he shall make void her vow which she took and what she uttered with her lips, by which she bound herself, and the Lord will release her.
> ...



I do not see how these verses change address the situation being discussed. It shows a husband or father has absolute authority over a woman’s ability to make vows, but how does that affect whether she many enter into an employment relationship? The verses say the husband as the right to overrule her vows, it does not remove from women the ability to make vows of her own accord.

Also, if anything, I would think these verse provide the solution to the dilemma you raise about a woman being conflicted after being under two ‘heads’ if she enters the workplace.
The husband may overrule her vows, but he may also stay silent and confirm her vows, if he so chooses and allows. A husband should consider the amount of time and energy he can allow his wife to spend away from the home and at work, as well as the kind of work and co-workers and any dangers, spiritual or otherwise that such work may place the wife in, and then make a decision on if he will allow his wife to work a particular job, and if so how many hours.



> And before we think that "youth" is below some age around 20 we must consider that Paul told Timothy to not let them dispise your youth when Timothy was about 40. I know that makes me feel better.


----------



## JBaldwin (Apr 11, 2008)

Here is a quote by the Earl of Lytton (1831-1891) that says well what I mean by "supportive"

"It is a wonderful advantage to a man, in every pursuit or avocation, to secure an adviser in a sensible woman. In woman there is at once a subtile delicacy of tact and a plain soundness of judgment which are rarely combined to an equal degree in man. 

A woman, if she be really your friend, will have a sensitive regard for your character, honor, repute. She will seldom counsel you to do a shabby thing; for a woman friend always desires to be proud of you."


----------



## Wannabee (Apr 11, 2008)

Good points Mark; especially the last paragraph. If you can have your wife work in an environment where you have that much oversight of her circumstances, then more power to you. Generally speaking her schedule is dictated by her "boss," as are her assignments and coworkers. There are obvious differences. Also consider that, generally speaking, the family was to promote the family business, thus the patriarch. If she can start up a something to gain more income for the family, then that's wonderful. Often women will train their children in business endeavors that help supply for the family. I don't think we're that far from one another in our understanding, except that I would take a firmer position than what you seem to be espousing. Perhaps it's more splitting hairs. Please understand that I know the world is not ideal. It's full of us... What I have put forward is a patriarchal model that lines up with Scripture. It is what we should aspire to. But when a woman is left with children (and perhaps a disabled husband) to feed and no support, she has to do what she has to do until/unless God provides a head or other means. Some of the articles I linked are pretty long. Some of the content is a bit OTT. But they will make you think. If you get a chance to read them I'd like to hear your thoughts.

And don't be to quick to set stats aside. They say something and should be considered. Yes, a godly wife and husband can overcome any stats by the power of Christ. But, in considering what is ideal and how you would advise people, these things must be considered. They are symptoms of an underlying problem. I once had the stats for Christian infidelity. It was even more lopsided, with women who were guilty overwhelmingly relating to work relationships. I wish I could find them. Perhaps someone with more internet savvy can do it. Other factors have to be considered as well, such as the propensity for women to see her income as "my money"; a propensity to see their husbands as somehow less of a man because he needs her help; a propensity for all of us to admire someone we are working with/for. These influences are erased if she is focused on the home. Getting back to the original proposal, it would be amazing indeed for a CEO to be an effective keeper of the home. I know there are some women who can handle all these things. But I think I could count the number of them that I've known on one hand.

I would recommend you read through 1 Timothy 5 again though. I would disagree with you on that point. This obviously doesn't preclude her working. It simply lays out her responsibilities. The head that a widow falls under, if she has no kinsman, would be the church leadership. That is what I perceive Paul to be asserting here.

I'd also add that the challenge is generally a non-issue where men are men and embrace the role God has given them.


----------



## Gryphonette (Apr 11, 2008)

Pergamum asked: "How many women moderators do we have on the PB any way?"

[sweetly] Just enough.


----------

