Wrong for women to have outside jobs?

King James Version, 1769 Edition.

 

Men refused to pay women the same money for the same work at the beginning, and still don't to some extent. That might just affect the math.

 

Don't know what years that report was talking about, but when I was working as a waitress in college, I got the minimum wage of 90 cents an hour and one meal. Because it was the world's first Burger King in Colorado Springs (a converted Safeway store -- you want to talk about sore feet?), no tips were allowed...

So how did we manage to lower it from there? I was in that transitional group, being 55 now.

 

I've been married 23 years, raised two sons,a nd have never worked outside the home, no matter how poor or broke we were. We just did without the extras, and it didn't matter, my kids had mom at home with them.
We once went to school for open house,and I read a paper my second grader wrote for thanksgiving, it was what am I thinakful foir, one of the things he was thankful for was that every day when he came home from school his mom met him at the door and said hello Tony, how was your day. He was very proud of that. He told me once another kid said his mom didn't love him becasue she worked everyday, and was never home when he go home from school. No matter what a kid says to his parents, they are hurt when theres no mom at home, they feel like they can't count on them to be there for them, I've heard this from several kids. They believe they aren't loved when mom would rather work and buy stuff then be home for them. Theres a whole lot you can do without, and it doesn't hurt a bit.

 

I have been married 18 years and have a 16 year old girl. My husband is not a Christian. I was working full time going in to my marriage and don't remember ever considering leaving the work force when I had children.

We had our daughter less than 2 years later. After a slightly extended leave due to childbirth complications I returned to work full time. That's when the struggle began. We found a wonderful Christian day care provider, but I struggled every day to get up, take my girl to the day care, go to work, come home, take a stab at making dinner and cleaning up, spend a frantic weekend shopping, cleaning, spending quality time together, blah blah blah. I knew it was wrong FOR US but it was what my husband had come to expect. As the years progressed I felt like my daughter's needs had become reduced to a problem to be managed while we both went about the primary task of making a living. Every time I raised the issue of quitting it started an argument. I was called lazy, unmotivated, anything that could be used to get me back on track with OUR GOALS. All I could hear when he was talking to me was "$$$KA-CHING KA-CHING$$$". I was able to get him to agree to let me work part time while she was in kindergarten half days, and that lasted about a year. Then it was back to full time.

Fast forward to the end of 5th grade, the summer between elementary school and middle school. By this time she had been in 4 different day cares, one of them a nightmare from h***. But by golly we were ON TRACK. At this time she was too old for day care but too young to stay home alone. We still had not made summer arrangements for her, and something (can't remember exactly what) had happened where I realized that I was not on top of things with her school experience like I should have been. I sort of snapped and announced right there that I was quitting. I'd had enough. No asking permission, no lengthy discussion, just did it. I think my hubby was kind of shocked, but I think that God may have been working on him because he agreed, as long as I agreed to work part time at least during the school year.

That was the summer of 1999, and it has been one of the greatest blessings of our life. My husband is still not 100% on board with it. If I went back to work full time today I think he would jump for joy. He feels that it was a step backwards for us. There have been some periods when I was unable to find appropriate part time work and that was a little stressful. And I do wonder sometimes about my "non-submissive" attitude in this. But after a life full of spineless, shallow, superficial existing on my part I finally acted on one of the strongest convictions of my life and I do not regret it. My daughter has some "latchkey" friends who have been on their own for many years, and although she does act sometimes like she does not want me so close, she has made many comments regarding her friend's lives that show me that she does notice and appreciate that there is always someone there for her. We are clothed and fed and have a lovely home. I will be starting a new part time job after the holidays that is about 4 blocks from her school and about a 13 minute drive from home. Yippee! God is good.

[ December 06, 2003, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: ralb ]

 

Amen Donna!

 

I do not get it. If "the more people that are being paid the lower the overall wages" then why exactly is it that "you have the foreign sweatshops producing a good bit of the products." The conclusion does not follow from your premise. If basically half the American work force were to quit tomorrow, supply and demand dictates that wages would go up, just like in your premise. Do you not think that this would cause even more jobs to go overseas? It would be reinforced by the drop in prices that the lower demand would cause. A lower price for goods and a higher price for labor would push more jobs out of the country.

Having said that. I think that if possible, the woman should be at home, especially when their are preschool kids in the house. But a woman who can fulfill her motherly requirements and still manage to work to help the families finances are to commended not scorned. There are also the cases where the wife's earning potential is much greater than the husbands. For her to not work would place a great finacial strain on the family. I work with a woman, brilliant researcher, who also makes twice the money of her husband and is a good mother to her kids. For her to quit work tomorrow would be a shame due to the burden it would put on her family and the loss of her talent. We have already been given biblical support for women to work outside the home. Here's an anecdote.

 

Love does not have to be a missing commodity because a woman works outside the home. As far as unruly children are concerned, I fear that a stay-at-home mum is no guarantee that a child will not turn to crime and other vices.

I never felt unloved because my mum worked through the depression years or through the war years. In fact, I admired her for the extra effort she put in with our father away. My sisters and I took on additional responsibilites and in that sense gained more in life.

When applying scripture, we must not ignore the rules of understanding; context, culture, people being addressed and the timely theological meaning for to-day. We tend to forget these things and the changing times and circumstances.

My wife had a career job throughout our married life and that inlcuded my 57 years of ministry. Our girls had a nanny at times, and me when I was home. They never lacked for love and attention from mum, and we are quite proud of our girls and how they have turned out. Well educated, mannerly and considerate, and never an ounce of trouble.

Cheers, and God bless the working mums, and those who choose to stay at home full time, each a vocation of choice.

Jim

 

How does this say that women cannot have "outside jobs?"

 

One wonders whether Paul preached at Lydia for being a wealthy textile merchant. I doubt it.

 

I was just checking because alot of times I will check to see if the versus are false and I only have an NIV and the virsus were REALLY close in context. So I was just wondering to see if someone just copied them wrong.

 

Everyone needs to think about when these virsus were writin. Back in that time almost everyone had jobs inside the home. Men and women alike. Most men were farmers AT HOME and most women stayed and took care of the kids. It was very rare for men to work outside of the home.

 

Not entirely true. Then, just as now, there were many people who worked for hire, were paid a wage, and lived in rented lodgings. Even in Paul's day, the city wasn't a new invention.

 

Well, if women were paid the same amount as men, then this wouldn't eb the case, would it? This is clear evidence of wage discrimination. Additionally, studies show that the wage gap between men and women, while still present, has been closing steadily over the years.

 

Its all about supply and demand. Its because when two people are working they can afford to buy more. Buying more good and services causes prices to go up. Economics 101
Guess what this does to families that have only the husband working? It puts many things out of their price range and causes the cycle to be reinforced. </font>[/QUOTE]Where we live it is actually about the supply and demand. The people who are coming form Los Angeles and San Frandcisco that are retired can sell their home and buy one here that is much cheaper and have money left over. But the people who live and work here are making much less than those in Los Angeles and San Francisco. So it has caused a false inflation much like those in the neighboring states around New York. Houses are appreciating at about 20 percent per year.

 

Hi Karen,
Thanks for the "kudo." Please note I did not say there never was a time women should work, but because a married woman's first priority is to be her husband's helper, which includes being a keeper of the home, that her work should be something that doesn't keep her away from home for extended periods of time. Hence, the suggestions for work that would complement her husband's work times.
It's true, women of the past and other modern agricultural societies today that worked and worked hard; especially on the farm. But doesn't Proverbs 31 include that kind of work?
Besides, when women were home--even helping on the farm or the family store--they were still available to the husband & children. On the farm, Mom can oversee homework while kneading bread, shelling peas or making that night's soup. She can teach her children about life & chores while they're taking care of the chickens, or scrubbing floors.
I don't agree with Jim, who wants to culturize this teaching. That smacks of higher criticism and liberal theology to me. Let's take the Word for what it says. When it's meant to be spiritualized or allegorized, do so; when it's obviously a literal demonstration/instruction of truth, then take it that way. Proverbs 31 has both; Titus 2 is quite literal.
The Word speaks plainly that a married woman's "base of operations" should be the home. Her husband & kids needs & welfare come first, under her relationship with Christ.
Meeting their needs may include growing a garden and selling the abundance at a road side stand; or to the grocer/florist in town; or doing part time work while the children are in school, or while Dad's at home; as long as it doesn't rob the family of time together.
Other needs are things that aren't right to put on the husband, when God calls him to be the one to provide for the family. The husband shouldn't be doing most/all of the cooking & cleaning, because the wife wants her "career" and doesn't feel like doing those things. I'm not saying he can't help, tho!
There are plethora examples of great men & women of God that understood and followed the Biblical pattern for men & women. The children they raised changed the world: Charles Wesley, John Paton, John Hudson, Charles Spurgeon, etc.
Sorry, folks, it may sound "old fashioned" but that's been standard Bible in teaching & life for centuries!