# Women in the Workforce



## Afterthought (May 25, 2015)

A good argument could be made that ordinarily, married women with children should be keepers of the home while the men primarily provide for their family. And of course, unusual cases or cases of necessity might bring women to the workforce or to be the primary providers of a family. Such is what I was taught. I've been wondering though, what about women who are single or married without children?

An argument is sometimes made that a lot more time was needed to care for the home, but modern technology has sped things up, so women have more time on their hands. So what are they to do with their time so as not to be idle? Why not join the workforce? Indeed, I've on several occasions heard women tell me they would be bored taking care of a home, so they are seeking a career instead. Especially in our modern society, single women are basically forced to work and get a job before getting married, and in some places (due to a poor economy) may have to work along with their husbands even while married with children?

Any answers to these questions/objections or suggestions on applying biblical principles to our modern society? I often get questions like these due to the feminist hold on people's minds, and I don't want to say something that upsets them unless it is in fact true.


Sometimes people refer to Proverbs 31 in this situation saying the woman is a career woman. But how much can actually be extracted from this passage, since the woman is (to my understanding) Wisdom and so application to women is secondary?

Sometimes people refer to Titus or to Timothy. How do these apply? If women are allowed in the workforce, they may not (as a matter of order, rather than sin) take a role that places them in authority over men?


----------



## Edward (May 25, 2015)

Afterthought said:


> An argument is sometimes made that a lot more time was needed to care for the home, but modern technology has sped things up



The argument doesn't hold up for the middle or upper classes, where domestics did the work before being supplanted by modern conveniences and a shifting social structure. And where did those domestics come from? The lower classes, where the women worked outside the home (as well as keeping up their own households) before the advent of modern household technology.


----------



## Afterthought (May 25, 2015)

Edward said:


> The argument doesn't hold up for the middle or upper classes


A fair point. What specific things did the (non-idle) ones do then?


----------



## MW (May 25, 2015)

Afterthought said:


> Any answers to these questions/objections or suggestions on applying biblical principles to our modern society?



What is called "biblical principle" tends to be a reading of the Bible through cultural lenses, and the lenses themselves are usually borrowed from a way of life that was only imagined. I recall having a discussion with a person who recommended that I watch Little House on the Prairie to see the way people used to live and how much happier they were. Well, besides the fact that the episodes differ from the books, and the books themselves are idealised, lo and behold, we find women working in various situations outside the home.

Proverbs 31 is best understood in the context of the book as a whole, which repeatedly personifies wisdom as a woman.

Timothy and Titus speak to the issue of people being properly provided for in a social context; there is no intention to establish an idealised form of the nuclear home.

The reference to usurping authority is related to the official function of "teaching," not economics. Whatever one thinks about the monstrous regiment of women or specific roles, the traditional view allows women free range when it comes to their own spheres of service.


----------



## timfost (May 25, 2015)

I'm no authority on the matter, but I'm a little uncomfortable personifying wisdom as the Prov. 31 woman (although certainly she is wise). Normally wisdom is personified as "her," but I don't see any reason to reverse the normal order in Proverbs (e.g. wife as wisdom).

"She opens her mouth with wisdom,
And on her tongue is the law of kindness." (V. 26)

It would seem redundant to state that "wisdom opens her mouth with wisdom..."

Therefore, I believe there is a lot that we can learn about the roles of women from Prov. 31. Jay Adams discusses this at length in his "Christian Living in the Home."


----------



## MW (May 25, 2015)

"She openeth her mouth with wisdom" helps to identify the unnamed woman of the extended parable. There is nothing odd about this. The same occurs in chapter 8. Verse 1, "Doth not wisdom cry?" Verse 11, "wisdom is better than rubies."

No doubt women should aim to possess and exhibit the virtues of wisdom, and much practical application is to be expected; but it applies equally to men.


----------



## Edward (May 25, 2015)

Afterthought said:


> hat specific things did the (non-idle) ones do then?


Volunteer work, among other things.


----------



## Andres (May 26, 2015)

I don't see where the Scriptures offer a blanket prohibition against women working outside of the home. And especially in the case of a single woman, she would naturally be expected to provide for herself, so most adult, single females would work outside of the home to earn an income. When this woman marries, then I would leave the decision on whether she works outside of the home or how much she works outside of the home, to her and her husband. 

To use a personal example, when my wife and I met, she was in college, so she was working part-time. Once she graduated and we married, she worked full-time. During that time, we used her added income to help us prepare for our future, which we were already planning on children and her staying home with them. We used her added income to primarily help pay down debts and to build up our savings. Once my wife became pregnant with our first child, she quit her job a few weeks before the birth of our son. In the three years since then, she has worked part-time as a sitter to bring in extra income for our family, but even then that was always done in the context of us prioritizing her motherly duties to our son first. Now our second child is due in a week and my wife has given up her sitter job as well. We'll see where things go from there later down the road.


----------



## earl40 (May 26, 2015)

MW said:


> The reference to usurping authority is related to the official function of "teaching," not economics. Whatever one thinks about the monstrous regiment of women or specific roles, the traditional view allows women free range when it comes to their own spheres of service.



This is a line that often gets blurred. I mourn when I see when our mothers arive home in a box from wars, more so than when I see the dad. Same as with lady police officers.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 26, 2015)

MW said:


> I recall having a discussion with a person who recommended that I watch Little House on the Prairie to see the way people used to live and how much happier they were.



Poor you. I hated having to watch that show as a kid; now you get to share my pain.


----------



## Miss Marple (May 26, 2015)

We are positively commanded to be keepers at home so it seems to me any work outside the home should be ancillary.


----------



## Jack K (May 26, 2015)

The line between home and work, or family and career, is far more distinct in today's Western society than it is or has been in most cultures of the world. We need to be careful not to read our own culture into these Bible passages, nor to act as if our culture's distinctions ought to be the norm. In particular, I hesitate to assume that a person working "at home" is meant to mean someone not contributing to family income.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 26, 2015)

"Keepers at home"? Mrs. Clinton seems to think that the USA is her home. "It takes a village" after all.


----------



## MW (May 26, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> We are positively commanded to be keepers at home so it seems to me any work outside the home should be ancillary.



"Keepers at home" does not mean "staying at home," but "carrying out household duties." The term should be understood in the context of the pastoral epistles' concern with fulfilling personal responsibilities and providing for those under one's care. For some this may mean "staying at home," but that should not be regarded as the exclusive application of the term.


----------



## Huckleberrylane (May 26, 2015)

I'm 32 and a daughter at home and I wanted to throw in my 2 cents here since this has been something I've thought a lot about over the years and have seen it don't poorly and seen it done well. I guess the biggest issue here has to do with the heart. Many young women I know say they want to be homemakers but don't really keep their hearts at home. They don't really take joy in the keeping a home in order, seeing the work as drudgery. But goodness! What a more glorious calling to fulfill! Keeping a home happy, clean and comfortable; making it a place of peace and refuge for our family and friends should make every woman joyful! A home should be the hub of industry (like the Proverbs 31 woman) where there are things going on and things getting accomplished. My sisters and I find great joy in being able to help new mothers, the elderly or any friends when we are needed because we are not tied to jobs. For us, we are thankful to be available any time. The Church is lacking in hospitality. Why? People don't have time anymore. 

My parents have encouraged us "kids" (we're mostly adults now) to find hobbies that we enjoy and to learn all we can about it. We just need to be creative with our natural talents and interests. My one sister loves dogs so she has spearheaded a dog breading business. We are all have our parts to play in it. I'm a photographer and I've been able to do the photos and advertising for the business. Another sister loves to bake, she has been making wedding cakes. I love flowers and have done flowers for weddings and such. My sisters and I clean turnover rentals for a property management company, and we charge a lot because we've learned to clean at home!  Those are just a few things young women can do to keep busy if/when they have extra time after the normal daily duties. So if you have daughters at home, I would encourage you to help them find what they like to do and to see how it could either bring in money or how they can serve others with it. There are a thousand things I can think of for young women to do if they were bored and needed something to do! 

But the main things is to evaluate where your heart is. Are we desiring to make the home a joyful and peaceful place? Are we wanting to honor God in all we do by being good stewards of what we have? Do we want to be a joy to those we're around and show His love to those around us? Do want to honor our families with a well ordered home and fun things to do together? We need to keep our eyes on Christ and what He has done for us and only then will our love of serving others flow naturally in our daily lives. 

(I totally understand there are times where a woman isn't able to remain home but I think we also need to be more creative in our outlook on being at and keeping a home for the glory of Christ. I also realize this probably sounds radical! Hehe! But it's something I'm passionate about (can't you tell? Lol!) since I've been happily living like this for some time. I've watched so many women say they want to be home makers and then when it comes down to it they are discontent. Over the years I've tried to figure out why. Why is this the way it goes with so many? I'm not sure the answer to that but it does grieve me to see people going back on their convictions, not only in this issue but others as well. So I'll gracefully step off my soap box!  Thanks for reading!)


----------



## MW (May 26, 2015)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Poor you. I hated having to watch that show as a kid; now you get to share my pain.



I watched it as a kid too. Seeing it again from a mature perspective I quickly grew tired of the lead character's hero complex.


----------



## Afterthought (May 26, 2015)

I'm a bit busy right now; I'll respond more later because there's a lot of good stuff that has been thrown out there that I nevertheless have remaining questions on and clarifications concerning.



MW said:


> The reference to usurping authority is related to the official function of "teaching," not economics. Whatever one thinks about the monstrous regiment of women or specific roles, the traditional view allows women free range when it comes to their own spheres of service.


Sometimes specific examples can be helpful. This might be too personal of a question to ask, but if you are comfortable with sharing, what do you teach your daughters (if you have them) on the matter? E.g., do you teach them to prepare for a career; do you teach them to gain skills they can use to contribute to household income?



Huckleberrylane said:


> So if you have daughters at home, I would encourage you to help them find what they like to do and to see how it could either bring in money or how they can serve others with it. There are a thousand things I can think of for young women to do if they were bored and needed something to do!


I'd love to hear about some of these thousand things if you don't mind listing some.


----------



## MW (May 26, 2015)

Afterthought said:


> This might be too personal of a question to ask



Yes it is. An important duty of a parent is to protect the children's right to privacy.


----------



## Afterthought (May 26, 2015)

MW said:


> Yes it is. An important duty of a parent is to protect the children's right to privacy.


Fair enough. Your diligence is appreciated.

Hopefully I'll get to the other posts around tomorrow or so. I also watched some of "Little House" as a kid. I didn't like it too much either.


----------



## Miss Marple (May 26, 2015)

I do agree, Pastor Winzer, but my point was a career would be ancillary, that is to say, not primary. I can't focus on developing a career in any deep way while keeping all my household plates spinning and raising a pack of wild Indians. That kind of split focus is simply impossible.


----------



## arapahoepark (May 26, 2015)

Edward said:


> Afterthought said:
> 
> 
> > An argument is sometimes made that a lot more time was needed to care for the home, but modern technology has sped things up
> ...


I agree with this. Many of these hyper patriarchalists advocate middle and upper class Victorian era roles conveniently leaving out the lower class who actually had to work for a living.


----------



## Huckleberrylane (May 26, 2015)

> Huckleberrylane said:
> 
> 
> > So if you have daughters at home, I would encourage you to help them find what they like to do and to see how it could either bring in money or how they can serve others with it. There are a thousand things I can think of for young women to do if they were bored and needed something to do!
> ...



Sure! Here are some ideas that quickly came to mind that have to do with making money:
-Baking goods to sell at farmers markets, craft fairs, to the people dad or brothers work for and the like.
-Making freezer meals to freeze and sell to friends and family
-Tutoring children
-House cleaning (I don't recommend doing this alone. Working is a team is safer)
-If you like to do hair styling, offer to do hair for weddings.
-Catering events and get togethers
-Online business (blogging, craigslist, ebay, amazon and the like)
-Photography - family, children, infants, events, weddings, animals
-Furniture restoration and resale
-Gardening
-Doing research or selling things online for busy mothers or those who don't know how
-buying used items at garage sales and reselling them
(most of the above I have done at one point so I know they can be done!)

There are so many other ways to keep busy without making money. That list would be MUCH longer but if you really want to read it I'll make a list! lol! But you know, young people need to be encouraged to think of things to do. Sometimes they are going to make mistakes and messes. I remember the first thing I sewed looked awful, frankly it didn't look like anything though it was supposed to be a dolls dress. I was proud of it but my mom thought I was going to be a failure! Haha!! But she encouraged me to do better next time and because of that I now make historical garments from the corset out to the apron! Encourage your young people to excel and do their best and it will surprise you what they can do.


----------



## MW (May 26, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> I do agree, Pastor Winzer, but my point was a career would be ancillary, that is to say, not primary. I can't focus on developing a career in any deep way while keeping all my household plates spinning and raising a pack of wild Indians. That kind of split focus is simply impossible.



Many feel the same way about focus, and it has much to commend it when stated in terms of wisdom and good sense. At the same time some might feel constrained to "juggle" for one reason or another.


----------



## ZackF (May 27, 2015)

MW said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Poor you. I hated having to watch that show as a kid; now you get to share my pain.
> ...



That was Landon's doing. "Pa's" treatment in the novels is more well rounded. I thoroughly enjoyed the books growing up but couldn't stand the show.


----------



## Elizabeth (May 27, 2015)

Amber...I love your winsome, merry spirit. But I do want to point out that there are many women who can't develop businesses because they cannot afford to do so(nor can their parents/ husbands underwrite them). And that's okay. They are called to lead a more difficult life, working and tending to home. Their witness can have a certain good sharpness to it, that even here....even in these tough circumstances of trying to hold hearth and home together while working to pay the rent, Jesus reigns. 

We need to be very careful to not project our lifestyle(I am a business owner, working from home) onto those without the means to make it happen. We need to be careful not to make them feel less because our Lord has them live out a different sort of homemaking than our own. We need to be very careful not to make our 'homemaking ideals' idols.


----------



## Huckleberrylane (May 27, 2015)

Elizabeth said:


> Amber...I love your winsome, merry spirit. But I do want to point out that there are many women who can't develop businesses because they cannot afford to do so(nor can their parents/ husbands underwrite them). And that's okay. They are called to lead a more difficult life, working and tending to home. Their witness can have a certain good sharpness to it, that even here....even in these tough circumstances of trying to hold hearth and home together while working to pay the rent, Jesus reigns.
> 
> We need to be very careful to not project our lifestyle(I am a business owner, working from home) onto those without the means to make it happen. We need to be careful not to make them feel less because our Lord has them live out a different sort of homemaking than our own. We need to be very careful not to make our 'homemaking ideals' idols.



Yep! I 100% agree! Homemaking wouldn't be a godly calling if we were to idolize it, making it our desire and focus and loose sight of the reason we do keep a home. I guess the thing I was getting at it that there are so many ways to creatively make money for a home without going into a "career". It's wonderful you are able to work from home! What a blessing!


----------



## ZackF (May 27, 2015)

KS_Presby said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > Reformed Covenanter said:
> ...



Oh wow. You were speaking of the character "Laura." I just now got that. Strange ...as I always thought "Charles" was way overplayed.


----------



## Miss Marple (May 27, 2015)

I have been stewing about this over the day and have a couple of more points to make:

1. 1st Timothy 5:8 "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel" This is directed to men, not women; and it seems to me that this carries together with the rest of Scripture. To act as though it is equally a woman's job to provide for her house, is in my opinion wrong. Pragmatically, she may have to, but that is not the ideal or the norm.

2. Consider the curse; Eve's curse was childbearing, mostly, the difficulty of pregnancy and constantly avoiding its risks, the vulnerability of being pregnant and the few weeks thereafter, the extraordinary pain (when God said something is painful, it sure is), and by implication the responsibility of these little guys who absolutely positively need their mothers particularly at younger ages, and you really can't get away from it, all the sorrows and pain and hardships and sleeplessness associated with it, many times over if you have several children. Whereas man's curse is work, particularly it seems difficult work, the difficulty in procuring daily bread in a world that is against you.

Now to say women ought to be providing for the household seems to me a double curse. I take a sort of umbrage at the notion that I get the whole childbearing curse with the added fillip of my desire shall be for my husband he shall rule over me; and that by the way I can provide for the household, now, too.

I have earned income all of my life so I am not obviously opposed to earning money; I have also been in and seen situations where it is an awfully good thing that I or other women have been able to earn. I don't say it is a sin for a woman to work. I say it is wrong for Christian men to expect women to undertake at anywhere near their level.


----------



## MW (May 27, 2015)

KS_Presby said:


> Oh wow. You were speaking of the character "Laura." I just now got that. Strange ...as I always thought "Charles" was way overplayed.



Actually I was thinking of Charles. I haven't read the books, but we have some bookworms around here and they echo your sentiments about Charles being overplayed on screen.


----------



## Afterthought (Jun 3, 2015)

I had many more questions but time thinking about the matter has resolved most of them. Thanks again for all the replies!


What sort of spheres of service might be appropriate for women that you all have in mind? E.g., PhD professors or supervisors at some business seem to have some authority over men, and the argument in 1 Timothy is grounded in creation and hence widely applicable?

Spinning off of Miss Marple's posts, if there is no blanket prohibition, would it be fair to say the ideal is for women to not be in the workforce (this might follow from "keepers at home" referring to "carrying out household duties")? And hence we should work towards the ideal when possible?

Reversing the roles, what if a husband decided to take care of the home and the wife decided to go to the workforce for no reason beyond that this is what they preferred (i.e., they could do things the other way but decide to do it this way, perhaps because the husband gets a thrill at keeping the home while the wife would be bored)? This somewhat overlaps with the question about what is the ideal.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 7, 2015)

I think there is a danger in being too prescriptive here, but, having said that, if a woman who has newborn or young children has work which means that she has to neglect her primary duties of nurturing them and keeping the house in order then she is not following the path of wisdom.

Even many of the feminist-influenced women of our day are recognising the folly of "trying to have it all" - i.e. a busy career and children - with numerous articles on this subject in the press.

Once the children reach a certain stage a different balance can sometimes be struck.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Miss Marple (Jun 7, 2015)

"what if a husband decided to take care of the home and the wife decided to go to the workforce for no reason beyond that this is what they preferred (i.e., they could do things the other way but decide to do it this way, perhaps because the husband gets a thrill at keeping the home while the wife would be bored)? This somewhat overlaps with the question about what is the ideal. "

How could this possibly line up with injunctions that a woman stay busy at home, and that if a man does not provide for his household, treat him as an unbeliever? ("unless of course he gets a thrill at keeping the home?") Really, I must say  Would not want one of my daughters marrying that!


----------



## lynnie (Jun 7, 2015)

Many occupations were part of what women used to do in the home, but they have been taken out of the home in modern times. For example nursing the sick and taking care of elderly people. Of course cooking, childcare, and so forth.

I would ask a woman if her job would have been part of a women's work historically centered on the home, for thousands of years. If yes, then it is certainly appropriate now, even if this fallen society has taken it out of the homes. 

The big problem is dumping babies and toddlers in day care to have money for the beautiful suburban life....that tends to be the worst problem I've seen, no matter what the woman is doing at her job.


----------



## lynnie (Jun 7, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> "what if a husband decided to take care of the home and the wife decided to go to the workforce for no reason beyond that this is what they preferred (i.e., they could do things the other way but decide to do it this way, perhaps because the husband gets a thrill at keeping the home while the wife would be bored)? This somewhat overlaps with the question about what is the ideal. "
> 
> How could this possibly line up with injunctions that a woman stay busy at home, and that if a man does not provide for his household, treat him as an unbeliever? ("unless of course he gets a thrill at keeping the home?") Really, I must say  Would not want one of my daughters marrying that!



Well, don't be too rigid. I know a couple where the husband lost his hand in a tragic accident such that he could not do his former job, and she was a pediatrician, so they decided he would be the housewife as it were, and the kids all turned out well.


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Jun 7, 2015)

Psalm 113:9; Titus 2:5. 

I wouldn't want us to read our contexts into the first-century social order. We obviously need to go back much further. I am wary whenever one blunts commands toward saintly women in the interest of an indiscriminate application to men.


----------



## Miss Marple (Jun 8, 2015)

"Well, don't be too rigid. I know a couple where the husband lost his hand in a tragic accident such that he could not do his former job, and she was a pediatrician, so they decided he would be the housewife as it were, and the kids all turned out well. "

Lynnie, I don't mean to be rigid. A man who is unable to provide is not sinning. A woman who provides in that case is to be commended. The example I was responding to was "the husband gets a thrill at keeping the home while the wife would be bored."


----------



## Afterthought (Jun 8, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> ("unless of course he gets a thrill at keeping the home?") Really, I must say. Would not want one of my daughters marrying that!


Maybe, but it is basically what unbelievers have suggested to me (i.e., the "ideal" is whatever each partner desires/wants to do) when discussing the matter with them.


----------

