Women in the Workforce

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
"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!
 
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.
 
"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.
 
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.
 
"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."
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top