The role of women as wives and mothers

[benedictaoo]

Creed doesn't really think women are supposed to wear just dresses and skirts, huh?

 

[Gwendolyn]

Creed doesn't really think women are supposed to wear just dresses and skirts, huh?

Pants are men's clothing.

 

[sylverpiano]

Hi there!

What about those of us who have no desire to be a wife and mother?

 

[Sphinx777]

​

 

[helenofbritain]

Hi there!

What about those of us who have no desire to be a wife and mother?

Well syliva, my mystery writer (will no one guess them??) has some thoughts on that in the same document:

Marriage and Virginity or Celibacy

16. Virginity or celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God not only does not contradict the dignity of marriage but presupposes it and confirms it. Marriage and virginity or celibacy are two ways of expressing and living the one mystery of the covenant of God with His people. When marriage is not esteemed, neither can consecrated virginity or celibacy exist; when human sexuality is not regarded as a great value given by the Creator, the renunciation of it for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven loses its meaning.

Rightly indeed does St. John Chrysostom say: "Whoever denigrates marriage also diminishes the glory of virginity. Whoever praises it makes virginity more admirable and resplendent. What appears good only in comparison with evil would not be particularly good. It is something better than what is admitted to be good that is the most excellent good."(38)

In virginity or celibacy, the human being is awaiting, also in a bodily way, the eschatological marriage of Christ with the Church, giving himself or herself completely to the Church in the hope that Christ may give Himself to the Church in the full truth of eternal life. The celibate person thus anticipates in his or her flesh the new world of the future resurrection.(39)

By virtue of this witness, virginity or celibacy keeps alive in the Church a consciousness of the mystery of marriage and defends it from any reduction and impoverishment.

Virginity or celibacy, by liberating the human heart in a unique way,(40) "so as to make it burn with greater love for God and all humanity,"(41) bears witness that the Kingdom of God and His justice is that pearl of great price which is preferred to every other value no matter how great, and hence must be sought as the only definitive value. It is for this reason that the Church, throughout her history, has always defended the superiority of this charism to that of marriage, by reason of the wholly singular link which it has with the Kingdom of God.(42)

In spite of having renounced physical fecundity, the celibate person becomes spiritually fruitful, the father and mother of many, cooperating in the realization of the family according to God's plan.

Christian couples therefore have the right to expect from celibate persons a good example and a witness of fidelity to their vocation until death. Just as fidelity at times becomes difficult for married people and requires sacrifice, mortification and self-denial, the same can happen to celibate persons, and their fidelity, even in the trials that may occur, should strengthen the fidelity of married couples.(43)

These reflections on virginity or celibacy can enlighten and help those who, for reasons independent of their own will, have been unable to marry and have then accepted their situation in a spirit of service.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Virginity and celibacy are not as appreciated as they ought to be.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

I think all people are or should be humble.
And we are all equal in Heaven.
For there will be women who werent humble, who will be humbled.. and same so for men.

So hey, let's all take an account of ourselves...
Its just a reminder - i myself need to put out there - for myself.

It's hard to be humble... and whatever anyone wants to think of me, so be it. I take it in - because i can only see myself thru other peoples eyes.
Now thats humbling, even tho i stand corrected in not being humble saying so.

I think - Catholic men are the most practiced in seeing women as an equal. Only an observation i have made. I could be wrong. There are some exceptions.
And i see a good many feminists who degrade men. Which is just as bad as those whom they profess against.

I think I will answer everyone with the wisdom of St. Augustine, and a large number of other Fathers..

“Nor can it be doubted that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, ‘The head of the woman is the man’ [1 Cor 11:3]; and ‘Wives submit yourselves to your own husbands.’” - St. Augustine





and I think we can agree equality(or worth is a better term) has nothing to do with authority or roles..

Jesus was equal to the Father, yet was under his authority

The Church is under the authority of Christ. Just as woman is under the authority of man.

The Holy Catholic Church teaches, through Scripture and Tradition, that the husband is the head of his family and has God-given authority over his wife and children. This gift of authority does not give a husband any greater dignity than his wife. Both are equal members of the marital covenant, as is reflected by God creating woman from the side of man (as opposed to his head or feet). Instead, this order of authority reflects the divine order between God, Christ and man. God blessed the marital covenant with this order to maintain peace and harmony in the family, the “domestic church.” Just as Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church (the family of God), so the father is the head of his domestic church (his family).


Women could take care of the babies, but shouldn't seek much more than that because they simply weren't cut out for it. Clearly, the headship of men was established by God because, clearly, men were best able to deal with the outside world. Women were too emotional and fragile to function outside the home, so they should be left where their nurturing talents were best employed: the Christian home. The ideal here was the 1950s middle class dream in which the father brings home the bacon and mother cooks it up for father and the kids.

St. John Chrysostom remarks:

“Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” And why so? Because when they are in harmony, the children are well brought up, and the domestics are in good order, and neighbors, and friends, and relations enjoy the fragrance. But if it be otherwise, all is turned upside down, and thrown into confusion. And just as when the generals of an army are at peace one with another, all things are in due subordination, whereas on the other hand, if they are at variance, everything is turned upside down; so, I say, is it also here. Wherefore, saith he, “Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.”


If it be asked, what has this to do with women of the present day? it shows that the male sex enjoyed the higher honor. Man was first formed; and elsewhere he shows their superiority. “Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” (1 Cor. xi. 9.) Why then does he say this? He wishes the man to have the preeminence in every way; both for the reason given above, he means, let him have precedence, and on account of what occurred afterwards. For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. “Thy desire shall be to thy husband?” (Gen. iii. 16.) This had not been said to her before.

But how was Adam not deceived? If he was not deceived, he did not then transgress? Attend carefully. The woman said, “The serpent beguiled me.” But the man did not say, The woman deceived me, but, “she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Now it is not the same thing to be deceived by a fellow-creature, one of the same kind, as by an inferior and subordinate animal. This is truly to be deceived. Compared therefore with the woman, he is spoken of as “not deceived.” For she was beguiled by an inferior and subject, he by an equal. Again, it is not said of the man, that he “saw the tree was good for food,” but of the woman, and that she “did eat, and gave it to her hus436band”: so that he transgressed, not captivated by appetite, but merely from the persuasion of his wife. The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he saith, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this? It certainly concerns them; for the sex is weak and fickle, and he is speaking of the sex collectively. For he says not Eve, but “the woman,” which is the common name of the whole sex, not her proper name. Was then the whole sex included in the transgression for her fault? As he said of Adam, “After the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come” (Rom. v. 14.); so here the female sex transgressed, and not the male. Shall not women then be saved? Yes, by means of children. For it is not of Eve that he says, “If they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” What faith? what charity? what holiness with sobriety? It is as if he had said, “Ye women, be not cast down, because your sex has incurred blame. God has granted you another opportunity of salvation


Our text says, 'She gave it to her husband also, and they both ate it. Their eyes were opened.' Great was the man's indifference, too: even though like him she was human and his wife as well, still he should have kept God's law intact and given it preference before her improper greed, and not joined her as a partner in her fall nor deprived himself of such benefits on account of a brief pleasure, offending his benefactor who had also shown him so much loving kindness and had regaled him with a life so free of pain and relieved of all distress." - St John Chrysostom




I prefer to take the early fathers as a good exegesis on scripture. Not post-modernistic bias from people who aren't even canonized as saints and think everything they dislike was just "cultural bias" and twist it semantically .. The Church Fathers were straight in their exegesis at least and were not influenced by modernistic culture, which gives a much purer exegesis and isn't defiled by the filth of modernism..

“Do you go forth (to meet them) already arrayed in the cosmetics and ornaments of prophets and apostles; drawing your whiteness from simplicity, your ruddy hue from modesty; painting your eyes with bashfulness, and your mouth with silence; implanting in your ears the words of God; fitting on your necks the yoke of Christ. Submit your head to your husbands, and you will be enough adorned.” Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women, Ch XIII (c. A.D. 200).

“Now, when I find to what God belong these precepts, whether in their germ or their development, I have no difficulty in knowing to whom the apostle also belongs. But he declares that ‘wives ought to be in subjection to their husbands:’ what reason does he give for this? ‘Because,’ says he, ‘the husband is the head of the wife.’ Pray tell me, Marcion, does your god build up the authority of his law on the work of the Creator? This, however, is a comparative trifle; for he actually derives from the same source the condition of his Christ and his Church; for he says: ‘even as Christ is the head of the Church;’ and again, in like manner: ‘He who loves his wife, loves his own flesh, even as Christ loved the Church.” Tertullian Against Marcion, Ch XVIII) (c. A.D. 200).

“The ruling power is therefore the head. And if ‘the Lord is head of the man, and the man is head of the woman,’ the man, ‘being the image and glory of God, is lord of the woman.’ Wherefore also in the Epistle to the Ephesians it is written, ‘Subjecting, ourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the Church; and He is the Savior of the body. Husbands, love your wives, as also Christ loved the Church. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies: he that loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh.’ And in that to the Colossians it is said, ‘Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as is fit in the Lord.’ ” Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Bk 4, Ch 8, (c. A.D. 200).


“First, if our prophetesses have spoken, show us the signs of prophecy in them. Second, even if the daughters of Philip did prophesy [Acts 21:8-9], they did not do so inside the church. Likewise in the Old Testament, although Deborah was reputed to be a prophetess [Judges 4:4], there is no indication that she ever corporately addressed the people in the way that Isaiah or Jeremiah did. The same is true of Huldah [2 Kings 22:14].” Origen, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 4, 74, 6-16 (c. A.D. 220).

“As the church takes its beginning from Christ and therefore is subject to him, so too does woman take hers from the man and is subject to him.” Ambrosiaster, CSEL 81.3:117-118 (c. A.D. 380).

“And the apostolic word has also escaped their notice: ‘I do not permit a woman to teach in such a way as to exercise authority over men. She is to preserve the virtue of quietness.’ And again, ‘For man is not from the woman, but woman from man.’” Epiphanius, Panarion, 49, 3 (c. A.D. 380).

“Since man did not make woman, the question here does not concern the origin of woman. Rather it concerns only submission.” Serverian, Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church, 15:260.

“For just as God has nobody over him in all creation, so man has no one over him in the natural world. But a woman does - she has man over her.” Serverian, Pauline Commentary, 15:261.

“For the man is the head of the woman in perfect order when Christ who is the Wisdom of God is the head of the man.” Augustine, Against the Manichaeans 2, 12, 16 (A.D. 391).

“Wives be subject to your husbands” he writes to wives: “That is, be subject for God’s sake, because this adorns you, Paul says, not them. For I mean not that subjection which is due to a master nor yet that alone which is of nature but that offered for God’s sake.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Colossians, NPNF1 12:304 (A.D. 404).

“Observe again that Paul has exhorted husbands and wives to reciprocity...To love therefore, is the husband’s part, to yield pertains to the other side. If, then, each one contributes his own part, all stand firm. From being loved, the wife too becomes loving; and from her being submissive, the husband learns to yield.” (John Chrysostom, Homilies on Colossians, NPNF1 13:304 (A.D. 404).

‘Subjecting yourselves one to another,’ he says, ‘in the fear of Christ.’ For if thou submit thyself for a ruler’s sake, or for money’s sake, or from respectfulness, much more from the fear of Christ...rather it were better that both masters and slaves be servants to one another...Thus does God will it to be, for he washed his disciples’ feet" John Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians, Homily XIX, NPNF1, 142 (A.D. 404).

“Then after saying, ‘The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is of the Church,’ he further adds, ‘and He is the Saviour of the body.’ For indeed the head is the saving health of the body. He had already laid down beforehand for man and wife, the ground and provision of their love, assigning to each their proper place, to the one that of authority and forethought, to the other that of submission. As then ‘the Church,’ that is, both husbands and wives, ‘is subject unto Christ, so also ye wives submit yourselves to your husbands, as unto God.’ For she is the body, not to dictate to the head, but to submit herself and obey.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians 5:22 (A.D. 404).


“Wherefore, saith he, ‘Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.’...For if it is their duty to be in subjection ‘as unto the Lord,’ how saith He that they must depart from them for the Lord’s sake? Yet their duty indeed it is, their bounded duty...For he who resists these external authorities, those of governments, I mean, ‘withstandeth the ordinance of God (Rom 13:2), much more does she who submits not to her husband. Such was God’s will from the beginning.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians, NPNF1, 143-144 (A.D. 404).


“For the name of Christ is on the lips of every man: it is invoked by the just man in doing justice, by the perjurer in the act of deceiving, by the king to confirm his rule, by the soldier to nerve himself for battle, by the husband to establish his authority, by the wife to confess her submission, by the father to enforce his command, by the son to declare his obedience, by the master in supporting his right to govern, by the slave in performing his duty...” Augustine, Letters, CCXXXII (A.D. 410).





“Nor can it be doubted that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, ‘The head of the woman is the man’ [1 Cor 11:3]; and ‘Wives submit yourselves to your own husbands.’” Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence 1, 9, 10, NPNF1 5:267 (A.D. 419-420).


http://www.scripturecatholic.com/husband_headship.html

 

[helenofbritain]

Women could take care of the babies, but shouldn't seek much more than that because they simply weren't cut out for it. Clearly, the headship of men was established by God because, clearly, men were best able to deal with the outside world. Women were too emotional and fragile to function outside the home, so they should be left where their nurturing talents were best employed: the Christian home. The ideal here was the 1950s middle class dream in which the father brings home the bacon and mother cooks it up for father and the kids.

This is your opinion, Creed, and not a quote you missed italicising?

Also - I spent a long time writing this post: http://www.christianforums.com/t7516302-2/#post56208161. I would appreciate it if you would address it. Ta.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

"You are not her master, but her husband; she was not given to you to be your slave, but your wife.... Reciprocate her attentiveness to you and be grateful to her for her love."

lol.. that quote was not even written by St. Ambrose.. It was written by PJPII when he was talking about regarding the issues of slavery. And is actually in a relation to a post that supports the headship of the husband..Here is the full list


Pope Pius XI predicted this course of events in his encyclical, Casti Connubbi, in the year 1930:

“False liberty and unnatural equality [in authority] with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as among the pagans the mere instrument of man.”

Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical, Christian Marriage, emphasizes that subjection does not detract from the honor and dignity rightly due the woman:

“The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; but because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honor or of dignity in the obedience which she pays… Let divine charity be the constant guide of their mutual relations, both in him who rules and her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church.”

Pope John Paul II continues this theme in Familiaris Consortio:

THEN with relating to charity, PJPII says


“Authentic conjugal love presupposes and requires that a man have a profound respect for the equal dignity of his wife: You are not her master…but her husband; she was not given you to be your slave, but your wife…Reciprocate her attentiveness to you and be grateful to her for her love.”

Notice how it says dignity? nothing about authority..He is relating that the wife should not have the lessened dignity of that of a slave..

Again, context...

And can you answer the, about 20-30 quotes from the ECF? helonfbritan??

“The woman who submits to her husband will share a oneness with him, a communion she never dreamed of, an emotional peace and security positively unattainable when she struggles with him for power in the home.”

Perhaps you can find solace in the words of Pope Pius XI: “For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.”


Why is this such a hard doctrine for women today? because they have become brainwashed by western feminism.They whine and kick and scream when the courageous priest dares brings up Ephesians 5:22..But sadly it proceeds from pride. Just as Lucifer wanted God's authority, so today many women are clamoring for mans God given authority. The modern woman is not concerned with following God's laws, but views this authority as some sort of prize competition and thinks it will make her "equal" with men. When In reality following God's laws are what truly makes us equal. Not trying to grab for authority or power not given to us, just as Lucifer tried.. This is simply a re-enactment of the beginning of Genesis, where Eve wanted to be more powerful and knowing from the fruit. The woman became seduced by the power she perceives from authority and thus clamors for it. Just as she clamored for the fruit in the garden.

 

[helenofbritain]

Creed - you seem hung up on this idea of the man being the "head" of a marriage. Here is a passage from Mulieris Dignitatem (On the Dignity of Women) from the late, great John Paul II which may clearly explain to you what this means:

The Gospel "innovation"

24. The text is addressed to the spouses as real women and men. It reminds them of the "ethos" of spousal love which goes back to the divine institution of marriage from the "beginning". Corresponding to the truth of this institution is the exhortation: "Husbands, love your wives", love them because of that special and unique bond whereby in marriage a man and a woman become "one flesh" (Gen 2:24; Eph 5:31). In this love there is a fundamental affirmation of the woman as a person. This affirmation makes it possible for the female personality to develop fully and be enriched. This is precisely the way Christ acts as the bridegroom of the Church; he desires that she be "in splendour, without spot or wrinkle" (Eph 5:27). One can say that this fully captures the whole "style" of Christ in dealing with women. Husbands should make their own the elements of this style in regard to their wives; analogously, all men should do the same in regard to women in every situation. In this way both men and women bring about "the sincere gift of self".

The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife" (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a "mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ" (cf. Eph 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the "head" of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give "himself up for her" (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the "subjection" is not one-sided but mutual.

In relation to the "old" this is evidently something "new": it is an innovation of the Gospel. We find various passages in which the apostolic writings express this innovation, even though they also communicate what is "old": what is rooted in the religious tradition of Israel, in its way of understanding and explaining the sacred texts, as for example the second chapter of the Book of Genesis.49

The apostolic letters are addressed to people living in an environment marked by that same traditional way of thinking and acting. The "innovation" of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous content of the evangelical message and is the result of the Redemption. However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual "subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ", and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew. Saint Paul not only wrote: "In Christ Jesus... there is no more man or woman", but also wrote: "There is no more slave or freeman". Yet how many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity through the abolition of slavery! And what is one to say of the many forms of slavery to which individuals and peoples are subjected, which have not yet disappeared from history?

But the challenge presented by the "ethos" of the Redemption is clear and definitive. All the reasons in favour of the "subjection" of woman to man in marriage must be understood in the sense of a "mutual subjection" of both "out of reverence for Christ". The measure of true spousal love finds its deepest source in Christ, who is the Bridegroom of the Church, his Bride.

Mulieris Dignitatem, John Paul II, 15 August 1988 - Apostolic Letter

And here are some extracts from his Letter to Women which you may find interesting:

Thank you, women who are mothers! You have sheltered human beings within yourselves in a unique experience of joy and travail. This experience makes you become God's own smile upon the newborn child, the one who guides your child's first steps, who helps it to grow, and who is the anchor as the child makes its way along the journey of life.

Thank you, women who are wives! You irrevocably join your future to that of your husbands, in a relationship of mutual giving, at the service of love and life.

Thank you, women who work! You are present and active in every area of life-social, economic, cultural, artistic and political. In this way you make an indispensable contribution to the growth of a culture which unites reason and feeling, to a model of life ever open to the sense of "mystery", to the establishment of economic and political structures ever more worthy of humanity.

..........

4. And what shall we say of the obstacles which in so many parts of the world still keep women from being fully integrated into social, political and economic life? We need only think of how the gift of motherhood is often penalized rather than rewarded, even though humanity owes its very survival to this gift. Certainly, much remains to be done to prevent discrimination against those who have chosen to be wives and mothers. As far as personal rights are concerned, there is an urgent need to achieve real equality in every area: equal pay for equal work, protection for working mothers, fairness in career advancements, equality of spouses with regard to family rights and the recognition of everything that is part of the rights and duties of citizens in a democratic State.

This is a matter of justice but also of necessity. Women will increasingly play a part in the solution of the serious problems of the future: leisure time, the quality of life, migration, social services, euthanasia, drugs, health care, the ecology, etc. In all these areas a greater presence of women in society will prove most valuable, for it will help to manifest the contradictions present when society is organized solely according to the criteria of efficiency and productivity, and it will force systems to be redesigned in a way which favours the pro- cesses of humanization which mark the "civilization of love".

Letter of Pope John Paul II to Women

 

[Assisi]

Creed - a woman taking out the rubbish or getting a job as a plumber is 'struggling with' her husband 'for power in the home?? Yikes!

FTR DH and I have a pretty conservative view of marriage and we hold quite traditional roles inside and outside the home. I do submit to my husband and I do consider him the leader of our family. This only works because my husband is an exceptionally giving (Christlike) man who puts sacrifice for my good as a top priority in his life. I find a man touting the importance of a husband's authority just as distasteful you seem to find a woman touting the importance of equality of the spouses.

I find your description of women 'grabbing for power' quite distasteful. Is working outside the home grabbing for power? Expressing an opinion? Have you considered that there are many men out there who are not stepping up to the plate, leaving their wives to pick up the slack?

 

[WarriorAngel]

Creed, as i often see this same end of the discussion from most protestant men, i think most forget the role of men... skip over it and say 'Woman you have to submit'
Often times in any argument involving the relationships - men first mention what a woman must do. MUST DO. As though men cannot love her if she doesnt first submit.

I ask, would you submit to a tyrant? No.
Unwillingly, maybe. Perhaps to a boss, but you would certainly resent them whole heartedly... therefore if a man makes his wife, or insists his wife submit, he will not get back love from her. Not now, not ever.

She would resent him the rest of her life. AND is that really what men want?
And she does no disobedience to God because she is not commanded to love him - altho by nature she does - until he starts his power tripping.

What is forgotten is that Ephesians tell men to submit to their wives. What is glossed over is that men MUST love their wives.
Love does not, so says St Paul, insist on it's own way. If it does, it simply is not love.

Who did Paul direct the statement to regarding what pleases God through submission? To women, to please the Lord. If a woman is able, that is if she is sufficiently loved and free to help make decisions that involve her life, for she is not a caricature of slavery to a man, but if she is treated well and there is no inequality, she will demonstrate the positive of submission. SO long as the husband is giving, and loving in that he doesn't wield power over her own life.

She is still free to give love willingly, but woe to any man who demands she do as he says. Because a negative against God's law will always make a negative. If a man is insistent, the wife will hold back genuine respect and love if forced to be in some sort of servitude. That's human nature...and God never goes against human nature. His rules abide by our natures for our happiness.

Let me ask you - would you want to be of service of someone who demands it? Since by Paul we know Jesus said to treat others as we want treated.
Or as Jesus said 'the first shall be last - the last shall be first'.


NOW let's look at women working...
IF you had a mother, and three sisters - all unmarried [widowed mother] - you do realize according to that culture - you would be responsible financially for all of them.

Women, who are not married - in today's world, would be without a home, food, car, bills paid [etc] UNLESS the man of the family - father or brother provides for them.
ARE you Creed, willing to take them all on?

This is why - without a nucleus family today - it is impossible for men to demand women stay out of the work force.
Many unmarried women still do exist.
Are they not supposed to work? Who will take care of them?

There is an understanding difference between the society of which we live and the society in which ancient times worked.

NOT forgetting that gentiles were not forced to adhere to the Jewish Laws. And the ancient customs of the gentiles - recorded - were that women had equal rights to men. They werent under the Jewish Laws.... where women didnt have freedoms.

So taking away the cultural phenomenon, and really taking in the wholeness of the marriage scriptures... it is about the couple becoming one - and whatsoever a husband would not like done to him, since he loves himself, he will not do to the wife, so as to please his wife.
Which includes maintaining her human dignity as a person as an equal and loving her as though or if not more than himself.

When a man tries to usurp the individuality of his wife, he doesn't love her. If he is demanding, he is losing the natural desire of the woman to give more back to him and respect him - thus submit to him.

If any of these are not put into perspective taking into account the wholeness of what Paul taught, the man shall not have love from his wife. Bitterness, even if she tells him she does not, is what she will feel towards him.

IF a man doesnt give properly to the woman, causing a negative reaction in the marriage, then he reaps what he sows. Though Paul never tells the wife to love, she may then with hold all love???

So because Paul gives man a role to protect the wife, does this mean he does not submit to her too, to please her?? YET everything else the Apostles say - is about love first, to which Paul explains what love is... are men holding up to that??

It's all in the scriptures, unless we do as those who only point out what pleases them and negate the wholeness.


Word up - treat your wife like she is better than you [another lesson from the Lord] and as though you are less than her. Then your marriage will be positive.
I dont know your marriage - but if you are acting the way you are saying, there might be problems caused by not understanding the entirety of the Bible.
I could be wrong.


As for moms staying at home. It's ideal, and i wish all mothers would or could. Its unfortunate that not all [the poor] are able to do that.

 

[Assisi]

As for the OP: I agree with the author that women should not be compelled to work outside the home. This is a fault with the society I know. The insane price of housing means it is almost impossible to survive on one income. This is just wrong imo. Our fore-sisters fought not to be chained to the kitchen, now we are chained to the office instead and our children are missing out. I think the recent shift to paid mat leave solves the immediate problem for many women, but worsens the problem at a societal level and makes it more difficult financially for women to stay home long term *ducks for cover*

On the other hand, I think women have something different and important to add to the corporate, professional and political world. Women ARE different to men, and our skills are valuable and often lacking in the world at large. Imagine the value of a pro-life Christian mother as PM as opposed to the Emily's List PM we have, just for example. (One would hope the former would have better dress sense at least! - I know, I know...how petty and catty of me).

 

[Assisi]

Perhaps my pettiness and cattiness will one day be a gift to the corporate world

 

[WarriorAngel]

As for the OP: I agree with the author that women should not be compelled to work outside the home. This is a fault with the society I know. The insane price of housing means it is almost impossible to survive on one income. This is just wrong imo. Our fore-sisters fought not to be chained to the kitchen, now we are chained to the office instead and our children are missing out. I think the recent shift to paid mat leave solves the immediate problem for many women, but worsens the problem at a societal level and makes it more difficult financially for women to stay home long term *ducks for cover*

On the other hand, I think women have something different and important to add to the corporate, professional and political world. Women ARE different to men, and our skills are valuable and often lacking in the world at large. Imagine the value of a pro-life Christian mother as PM as opposed to the Emily's List PM we have, just for example. (One would hope the former would have better dress sense at least! - I know, I know...how petty and catty of me).

also too - men are getting demanding that wives work - or lose the house.

as i said - it would be ideal.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

also too - men are getting demanding that wives work - or lose the house.

as i said - it would be ideal.

We don't need a stinkin house...

Seriously, I believe most people do not need a 2nd job but without a 2nd job they would not have so many luxuries. I am speaking of the USA too. We tend to confuse wants with needs.

 

[Assisi]

We don't need a stinkin house...

Seriously, I believe most people do not need a 2nd job but without a 2nd job they would not have so many luxuries. I am speaking of the USA too. We tend to confuse wants with needs.

It varies based on where you live I think. Where I live the cost of the average house is well above the means of a family on one average wage. It's criminal.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

It varies based on where you live I think. Where I live the cost of the average house is well above the means of a family on one average wage. It's criminal.

In Detroit you can buy a house for as low as $5,000. Granted it may have had the plumbing ripped out.

But there are options... we may not find them desirable but they are almost always there. But we tend to expect a certain "quality" of life and this almost always entails things that are not listed under needs but under wants. I am as guilty as many and more so then some.

 

[Assisi]

In Detroit you can buy a house for as low as $5,000. Granted it may have had the plumbing ripped out.

But there are options... we may not find them desirable but they are almost always there. But we tend to expect a certain "quality" of life and this almost always entails things that are not listed under needs but under wants. I am as guilty as many and more so then some.

I agree that we seem to have an expectation of what is 'due' to us in our western culture. Maybe I should convince DH to change careers and move to Detroit... our area (an hour from the city) gets you a basic house for approx $700,000 We still spent 7.5 times our income buying our apartment. Either you can have a family or you can afford a family around here.

 

[Antigone]

In Detroit you can buy a house for as low as $5,000. Granted it may have had the plumbing ripped out.

Over here you won't find even the tiniest of apartments without any sort of amenities under $150,000...