Women in the workplace.

It's an interesting theory, but I don't agree with it. If Adam had this understanding of the need for a redeemer, then why did he blame his sin on Eve? I've always thought that the reason that Adam ate the fruit is because he would have rather died with Eve then lived without her.

 

But the Titus passage says at home. Look up the phrase "busy at home". It meas work at home. Im not trying to be mean just trying my best to compare scripture to scripture. Proverbs 31 is silent about the nature or extent of the woman's work but Titus 2 says at home.

How do you reconcile these things?

 

Haven't been on for a while, so don't know all the history here, but I don't see the OP claiming some of the things assigned to it. Have to agree, though, the Adam thing is ludicrous, whether from DeHaan or anyone else. Adam ate the fruit because he was a man (read stubborn) and no one (including God) was going to tell him he couldn't do it.
The Prov. 31 arguments don't hold up because women couldn't purchase property in that day, so she would have done it as her husband's agent. No, she was not confined to her home, but all her "working" was about caring for her home. It is clearly God's best for the wife to be focused on the home, especially if there are children. TItus 2 has yet to be refuted. "Keepers at home" means her job is the home. It must be her primary focus. Certainly the mom can be involved in helping to provide, as the Prov 31 wife did, but God did not give kids to families to be raised by daycare providers. Obviously, you have special situations with single moms, divorced, widowed, etc. The church needs to graciously step in and minister as much as possible for those types of needs.
BTW - A careful study of history and Scripture will reveal that the norm ahs been for both parents to be at home. The men didn't "go to work," they worked their own fields or tended their own shop with the family, at emeals wit hteh family, etc. I believe that having either parent (much less both) absent from the home for 50 - 80 hours a week is contrary to God's plan. Thou mayest commence throwing thy projectiles.

 

Buying a field and planting it cannot be done at home.

 

Sure it can. THousands of people do it every year. Not in the house, obviously, but at home.

 

A woman working is only a problem when it prevents her from guiding the house and raising children. For instance, if a woman spends all her time working and neglects her family, she is not doing what God has instructed and it is then a problem. Obviously things work ideally when the woman is able to stay home with the kids, but as long as she is able to fill her role in the home, there is no problem.

Now, I want to remind you that us men have roles too. We, likewise, shouldn't spend all our time working to the neglect of our family. We also shouldn't come home and prop up our feet every evening while the wife slaves away cooking and cleaning. Treat your wife in accordance with the knowledge that you are heirs together of the grace of life.

 

What makes you think that a working woman doesn't have her home as her primary concern?

 

Some do...many do not

 

Perhaps the problem is men not stepping up and being responsible?!?!

 

"So, the differences here are that mom #1 has abandoned her place at home and with her children. The second mom has not. It's a matter of heart priorities"

Well stated, Ann.

 

I did. No where are "all" the ills of society are blamed on women.

You haven't answered the question. Aren't men supposed to "take care of," the home? But no man is commanded to guide the house or be a keeper at home.

You know you're being disingenuous.

I got rave reviews from the women on this board for some recent advice I gave a man concerning his Catholic wife. Where were you?

 

I'm all ears.

 

So Adam fell because of his virtue?

So wrong. So, so wrong.

 

The ideal is for women to be in the home, but that isn't always possible.

Has it really been worth it? Well, that depends on what you believe the goal is.

There's no question that women in the workplace has had a detremental impact, but there are instances, such as WWII, where it was necessary.

 

Did you want links, Aaron?

To a lenghty but good article on women during Tudor times:

http://tudors.crispen.org/tudor_women/

To the Showtime series, sorry I said HBO earlier:

http://www.sho.com/site/tudors/home.do

On the double standard that existed on the treatment of men's adultry compared to a womans:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/828954

On the fact that the view of women as inherently sinful was NOT just a Christian belief:

http://faculty.luther.edu/~kopfg/interesting/papers/ROBIN.HTM

A quote from your fav, John Calvin, on his idea that women are more likely to push for sinful activities, dress provactively in the 1500s and enjoy running around rather than finding things to occupy them at home:

http://www.cas.sc.edu/hist/faculty/edwardsk/hist310/reader/calvinmarriage.pdf

Really the one above shows more that there is nothing new under the sun, than anything else. Calvin complained about exactly the same things as are discussed frequently on this board.

A rather good article on how Martin Luther changed views on women (first few paragraphs):

http://www.frontline.org.za/articles/howreformation_changedworld.htm

Enough?