Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mitel!spock!watson@uunet.uu.net (Steve Watson) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Should a wife work outside the home? Message-ID: Date: 5 Nov 90 09:49:46 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. Lines: 90 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Some of this may have been said already: our news feed has been having trouble and I think a few inbound postings got lost. In correll@brahms.udel.edu (Sharon J Correll) writes: >[...] And I could no more hire someone to raise my kids for me >than I could hire someone to go to church for me. It's MY job, MY duty >before God. NOBODY else can do it, no matter how fine and loving a >person they are. And Cindy Tittle replies : >Not even your husband? >I would have thought that it was the job of BOTH of you. How come he >gets off? Amen, Cindy! Where did the idea come from that only mothers know how to look after children? Since the arrival of Baby #1 (now 5yrs.) we have both worked part-time to minimize the need for day-care: they would go in the morning, and then Mummy or Daddy pick them up and take them home for the afternoon (we take turns). When our Baby #2 (now 3yrs.) arrived, guess who took 5 months off to look after him? (well, she did it the 1st time, so it was my turn, right?). (I should perhaps add that we are both EE's with very understanding employers.) I'm glad to see that the old kids-are-women's-work attitudes are changing, but I get the feeling that some Christians are dragging their heels for (misguided, IMHO) theological reasons. Some rather conservative friends came for a weekend visit a few years ago: I was impressed (in a negative sense) with just how LITTLE the husband actually did with or for their kids. In conversation, he talked about 'babysitting' when his wife went out of an evening for a church activity. I thought babysitting meant getting someone (paid or volunteer) to look after someone ELSE's children. When my wife goes out, I'm not 'babysitting', I'm just looking after MY kids. Anyways, guys: if you aren't involved with YOUR children, AS MUCH AS you can be, right from Day 1 (including the night feedings, dirty diapers, the baths, the floor-walking, etc.), not only are you free-loading on your poor wife, AND ripping off your kids, you are also DENYING YOURSELF one of the most wonderful and growing experiences you will ever have. I would counter Titus 2:5 (which I think refers to a specific problem situation in that church) with Proverbs 31, in which a wife is praised when she operates her own business which includes: a market garden, a vineyard, weaving, and sewing. Certainly she did not stay meekly barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen! (Of course this is not a COMMAND to work, as one or two posters seem to fear). But it happens to lead nicely into my main point, which is that the woman-at-home, man-as-bread-winner model of the family is historically very rare until this century. For MOST of history, in most families EVERYONE, of both sexes, from the toddlers to the grandparents, worked VERY HARD to make the family economy run. They were either tending their kitchen garden, making their own clothes, or doing something which would bring in some cash for things which had to be purchased. And they usually did it fairly close to home: the distinction between home and workplace is largely a product of the Industrial Revolution. Our mostly agrarian forebears knew nothing of it. It was only the urban upper classes who could AFFORD to have non-productive (in the strictly monetary sense) wives. The Epistles (pls. confirm/correct me on this) are mostly addressed to urban congregations. The problem in Titus (and elsewhere in the Epistles) seems to be, not that these women were working outside the home, but that they were IDLE. Paul's message to them is not "Go home and sweep the floor!" so much as "Find something useful to do with yourself!". And there are many ways of being useful (Not, I hasten to add, that sweeping the floor is useless! As it happens, it is among my assigned chores) It was not until this century (and only in the prosperous West) that most families could afford to live on one person's wage. And the economics which made that possible seem to be changing: many families (and not necessarily the high-flyers either) find it very difficult to get by on just the husband's paycheck. And before someone replies "Oh we're doing just fine on my salary!", remember: if you're like most people on the net, your income is *well above* the average (well, unless you're a grad student ;-). Would you be as well off if you were say, a factory worker? Or the cleaner who does your office? I doubt it. So, to sum up, do whatever makes most sense to the kind of home and family you have, or are trying to have. But please, let's not take some cultural stereotype out of the 1950's and try and claim that it represents God's eternal will for the family. -- ====================== disclaimer =============================== "Blame me, not the Company I keep..." - Steve Watson UseNet: mitel!spock!watson@uunet.uu.net