Ladies Against Free-Thinking are at it again. They titled this post
"A Cultural Emergency".
When LAF titles a blog post like this, we can usually expect the same tired old drivel from them. They're going to be writing about how families are all screwed up because peeps aren't fitting into their proper roles, which they have complete and perfect definitions for (because they hold the line on what is truly "biblical"), peppered with small pretzel-ized disclaimers to make it appear that they are not being controversial or asinine.
And, as you read through this, you will not be disappointed. They start out their post by stating the following:
It has become so apparent that even CBS Sunday Morning had to comment on the startling statistics. After decades of societal revolution and “gender equality,” even the workforce is beginning to pay the price. The latest labor statistics prove it.
Of course, the way this is worded, a sloppy reader would assume that CBS was startled by the fact that "gender equality" has given us such a dire "emergency". But a viewing of the video shows nothing of the sort. It is a simple reporting piece on Father's Day where the recession numbers are analyzed. Yes. You read that correctly. The
recession numbers were analyzed.
CBS was reporting on very recent statistics that showed jobs, typically held by men, being hit harder than those held by women. And, the fact that jobs, typically held by women, were projected to grow faster, in the future, than those held by men. Then, at the end of the video, the real reason for the numbers was revealed - the fact that fathers can now spend more time with their children. Time that they really need, due to living an average of five years less than the typical woman.
The video was very informative and had a warm message. It had no underlying ideas about women in the workplace being a negative factor.
With unemployment hovering near double digits, husbands and fathers are finding themselves edged out of the office. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, unemployment rates for men over the age of 20 remained at 8.9% last month, while women the same age experienced unemployment rates nearly an entire percentage point lower (8.0%). And it is not for lack of trying; while nearly three-quarters of the men are either employed or looking for work, nearly 60% of women the same age are competing with them for their jobs.
Husbands and fathers? The truth of the matter is, the statistics state that MEN have an unemployment rate of 8.9%. Not husbands and fathers. The usage of these words are simply to tug at the heartstrings of those who view all men as either a husband or a father, and if not, then evil or aspiring to be one.
Edged out of the office? This is a shoddy reading of the numbers. This statistic is based on those men and women that are looking for work. It has nothing to do with all the millions of mothers that are perfectly happy exercising their right to stay at home, rather than taking freedom by the horns and going out and competing with the best and the brightest in their field for a job. Also, men losing their jobs has no correlation to women gaining employment. Even a merging of these statistics and the CBS video will reveal a simple fact - the careers typically held by women are not shedding as many jobs as those typically held by men. That's it!
Five years ago, the Department of Labor reported that women held half of the professional and managerial jobs. Now, the balances are tipping in their favor. What will the workforce look like in another decade, when women take over the high-level jobs and more than half of the workforce?
How exactly are the balances tipping in their favor? The "five years ago" statistic is simply a head jerk in another direction to trick the reader into believing that it proves the next sentence. It doesn't.
Also, let me help the author out by answering her very basic question that she can't quite get the answer to, even thought the answer is answered in the same question that she wants answered.
What will the workforce look like? Well, as a matter of fact, if what you assume will be true, is in fact true, more than half of the workforce will include women and high-level jobs will be overtaken by these horrid urchins in short skirts or (gasp!) PANTS! If that doesn't scare a man and send highly-intuitive, feminine, heel-length denim jumpers with white tennis shoes and knee-high leg warmer wearing women screaming into their vegetable garden-surrounded homes, then I don't know what will.
How will this change our culture, as husbands increasingly struggle to find employment and provide for their families? How many churches will struggle and missionaries plea for support as offerings fall off as unemployment continues to rise? How radically absurd will stay-at-home motherhood appear to the next generation? Will “homemaker” even be on the census form?
Wow! This author (a woman) comes up with these questions from the few statistics she mentioned? This is laughable at best, completely asinine at worst. Let's explore the questions one at a time.
Question: How will this change our culture, as husbands increasingly struggle to find employment and provide for their families?
Answer: Where is the proof that husbands are struggling or will be struggling to provide for their families? Why can't the wife go out and get a job if it is true that women are the only people going to be working in the next decade? Why "husbands" when the video and US statistics claim the issue is about "men"? Don't you understand that we are in a recession and certain statistics are skewed during those types of economic events? People buy fewer goods and services during an economic downturn. Companies tend to not want to employ people they don't need. Once an uptick happens, they may very well begin hiring again due to people buying more goods and services. Short term trends then correct themselves. Recessions are hardly good subjects to base long term economic trending on.
I can understand how, in this author's "biblically" elitist worldview, the husbands she is referring to are the ones that do not allow the wife to go out and get a job. Thus, if the said husband was actually being "edged out of the workforce" (which is NOT happening, especially based on these statistics) she may have a point. But then, I would add, change your freaking worldview! Can you imagine the husband who believes this crap writing on his welfare application: "I can't get a job and my wife is dutifully at home."?
Frankly, if you live in America, you drive on the right side of the road. But, if you go to almost any other country in the world (except Mongolia because there, Genghis Khan still rides a horse), you are required to drive on the left side of the road. How stupid would it be to stand on "principle" and refuse to do what is now newly required? Things change. Women used to wash laundry on a rock beside the creek as part of their wifely duties. Then, Wal-Mart came along and clothing became disposable. Do patriarchal types still require their wife (or wives) to use the rock?
Question: How many churches will struggle and missionaries plea for support as offerings fall off as unemployment continues to rise?
Answer: If "husbands and fathers" are edged out of the workforce by evil women, can't they start their own business? After all, your patriarchal culture worships the family business, run by an omniscient male head, fully versed in all things business, employing his obedient children through their 40's, and supported by the dutiful wife. If this were the case, why would offerings fall off at all?
I'm also going to assume this was not a blanket question about all churches. If it was, this author needs to get her head out of where the light don't shine and look around a little bit. MOST churches have plenty of evil short-skirt wearing, working women. If they become more successful, well then,
since women tend to give more than men do, the churches should be set.
Question: How radically absurd will stay-at-home motherhood appear to the next generation?
Answer: Right now, more than ever, women are working in the workforce. Sure, certain branches of feministic thinking devalues the right to stay at home and be a mother, but they can generally be ignored. Everyone worth their salt knows that women have every right to do whatever they want in life, as individuals. Motherhood is not currently viewed as absurd and I don't see any change in that view, except possibly for the better, as the awesome movement of feminism progresses to its true purpose - freedom for women. Last I checked, women have the freedom to be a mom. Stop with the scare tactics.
Question: Will “homemaker” even be on the census form?
Answer: Huh?! Let me provide a helpful hint. Since when has the government, which is evil to its core, according to paranoiac patriarchy, EVER provided a single person with something "biblically" warranted? The fact is, if you don't have "Homemaker" on the census form, you can still stroke your elitist "Christian" ego and WRITE IT IN THE "OTHER" BOX!!!! I'm sure you know how. All your readers are used to doing that for the Constitutional Party candidates.
It is up to Christian families to stand in the gap, to boldly live counter-culturally in an upside-down world.Women in the workforce is not evil in itself (I have worked myself at times, both in and out of our home). But the lie behind this cultural phenomenon is evil. It is not wrong to support our husbands financially, but it is blasphemy to supplant God’s order for the home. It is critical that we as biblical Christian women recognize this trend, understand what is happening in our country, and determine our paths according to Scripture.
Translation: Umm...errr...Wait. I can't do this. The pretzel she twisted into here is too choice. She tries to get in a small disclaimer that it is alright for a "biblical" woman to work outside the home because women in the workforce is not evil. But, then she says the lie behind the cultural phenomenon is evil. What lie? Supplanting God's order by working instead of your husband? I don't get it.
First of all, it appears she is saying that those who don't agree with her are not Christians. But, she does seems to qualify the good women as "biblical" Christians. But, isn't Christianity based on the Bible, so anything other than a "biblical" Christian cannot be a real Christian?
The reality is, her disclaimer falls short. It has no clear definition of how or why it is correct and good for a woman to work. It is only inserted to try to appease the few women who HAVE to work in order to keep food on the table. That is the problem with patriarchy and fundamentalism. Life is sloppy. It doesn't fit neatly into a rulebook. Thus, you need to carve out exceptions which disagree with the founding principles of the cult. The pretzel arguments to "prove" that they are okay are so dizzying that cult members just pass it off as good logic, even though an objective outsider can only raise one eyebrow, shake their head, and walk the other way - choosing freedom (and better logic) instead.
Ever since Satan told Eve she could have so much more (Gen. 3:1-6), women had been tempted to do more, know more, be more. Feminism says women can do it all, because Satan says we know what is right for ourselves (“ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil”). Feminism doesn’t consider what God really said (“Yea, hath God said?”). Feminism don’t stop to count the cost to the family (“she gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat”). Feminism is secular humanism in a skirt, and it is so easy to put on. It is just another god.
My holy freaking lord! This is horrible! And to think, this is a WOMAN writing this. She must hate herself. Hate herself with a passion. I wouldn't be surprised if she requests a flogging from her husband, once a week, to do penance for just being of the same gender as the devil in human form - Eve.
Unfortunately for Eve and all women (more the men that beat this into a woman's head), the serpent happened to say the "ye shall be as God" bit to Eve. The problem with placing that phrase on Eve's head alone is that the serpent was answering Eve's declaration that "
We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" So, Eve was speaking of both her and Adam. And the serpent's response was general in nature, speaking of Adam, as well.
Another point I have made in previous posts is that I get very riled up when someone uses the argument that Eve is to blame for the sin of mankind. After all, if she hadn't offered the cumquat to Adam, sin may have not entered into the world at all. The problem with this argument is that Eve didn't strap Adam to a rock using the leftover twine from Tarzan's rope swinging threads, knock him semi-unconscious with a molted turtle shell, slice the cumquat up into bite-size pieces, and then carefully, lovingly, and submissively, Proverbs 31 style force feed him. Little do these theologians realize that Adam had to actually take the yellow sweet-fruit, open his mouth, salivate, decide that the taste was worth more than the obedience, and then dig his teeth into the bloody thing.
Finally, something this woman, who hates herself and all other women, is saying is: "...women had been tempted to do more, know more, be more...[since The Fall]."
Translation: Women are worthless and should remain that way. However they try and twist the pretzel, it will always come back to that end. Feminism is about the equality of women and the realization that every person, male or female, is an individual with equal rights to the same freedoms. To reject feminism with that definition is to relegate women to be less than human.
We know better. We know that husbands can wisely lead the home spiritually, physically, emotionally, educationally, and financially (Eph. 5:25- 6:4; I Tim. 3:1-12).
Ephesians 5:25 - 6:4 says absolutely nothing about wisely leading a home. NOTHING! It says nothing about a home at all. Until Chapter 6, it is merely talking about how a man should treat his wife. It is a beautiful picture of the other half of mutual submission to one another. Then, Chapter 6 just tells children to obey their parents and then fathers to not piss the kids off. Good ideas, but nothing remotely close to proving that "We know better" about what a husband's role is.
And the 1 Timothy reference? Yeah. More prooftexting at its worst. The author is speaking to his understanding of church offices and what the man's home life should be like. It could be assumed that the author was being very specific, knowing that only the best of the best could hold church office-ship. We can therefore conclude that all other types of family environments were present and accepted.
But, we don't even need to assume anything, being that this set of verses does not prove the point. The post's author is simply throwing some unrelated Scripture references into the article to seemingly support her premise. It doesn't. There is no prescription for the exact way a man should lead his home, or that a wife cannot lead the home. Not to mention, the LAF author assumes that a woman working is usurping the leading of a home. It doesn't follow logically.
We know that women can manage their homes, counsel and support their husbands, train their children, and encourage those around them to fear God (Titus 2:3-5).
Ah yes. I can't say much here. This passage appears to be prescriptive. Very clearly prescriptive. BUT! If that is the case, we need to also keep in mind that
EVERYTHING ELSE prescriptive, written by every author in the Bible must also be followed. Verse 9 of this passage is a message to slaves. Should we then say slavery is the design of God? What about our current understanding of slavery? It is culturally taboo. So, what else in the Bible is cultural? Maybe a woman staying at home?
An underlying point that needs to be stated here is that nobody can stand up and say "I have the final word on what God wants." Why? Because only God knows his true word. The Bible has been touched, and by touched, I mean potentially corrupted, by mortal men and women. I would use a stronger word than "potentially" but, it isn't necessary.
We know the family can reflect kingdom principles. We know that God will bless and honor those who follow His way (Deut. 28:1-4; Matt. 6:33).
Who cares what she means by "kingdom principles." It's pure jargon. Meaningless. Only uttered to induce the nodding head and audible "Ah!" of unthinking enablers.
The next sentence is a cheap shot at all Christians. The formula here is, first, state what you know is undoubtedly God's ways, then quote some meaningless verse about how God will bless you if you do what he commanded. It wraps a message up in a nice neat bow. But, if you look at the context of the Deuteronomy reference, you will see that the verse followed a bunch of laws. Nowhere in that list of laws was there an admonition to the husband to rule the roost and to the wife to be an underling. Nowhere.
In fact, to quote this verse in this context is to admit that the law is still necessary for our perfection in this age, rather than, as Paul stated, simply a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ. Also, the Matthew reference is Jesus specifically telling the people to stop trying to follow rules of what to eat, what to wear, etc., but to seek God first. I'm sorry, but running your home and following your gender roles to the 'T' does not fit into any worthwhile definition of seeking God.
We should not, then, be passive onlookers to this rapidly changing culture. Rather, there are definite steps we must take to demonstrate our opposition to the secular humanism around us:
Rapidly changing? Ok. I might give the author that one. We may be rapidly changing, but to equate women working outside the home to secular humanism? That's a bit of a stretch. Then, the author goes on to recycle more bulls*** about gender roles and how to train the next generation for its realization and how to do everything for your husband except giving him sex. Frankly, my eyes glazed over due to the repetitive nature of the message. Beat something like this into people's heads often enough, they'll just regurgitate it back to you, believing themselves to be brilliantly independent thinking. Foolishness.
This author has no clue what it means to be a real woman. I define a real woman as one who sees herself as a very worth-full human being. Someone who has the capacity, as much and arguably more than a man, to be successful in any endeavor she puts her hand to. If that means going out and having a career, then that is what it means. Life is very complex and calls for many solutions to even equal problems, due to the nuances of every situation. In short, women can and do reject the notion that they are somehow uniformly, pertaining to their sex, to blame for the sin of mankind. There is no respect of persons, in Christ.
