Our Round Table questions for the first chapter:
So, in what ways did Carolyn resonate with you?
In what ways do you differ from Carolyn?
What do you think Carolyn’s biggest issue is?
Do you think this is a common issue for women?
Our Participants:
Stacy McDonald from Your Sacred Calling and author of the book, Anne from Our Homeschool and White Washed Feminists, Sarah Mae from Like a Warm Cup of Coffee, and Lynn from Indelible Grace, and Janet of Exulting In The Cross.
The Discussion:
Lynn:
<< So, in what ways did Carolyn resonate with you? >>
Probably in putting off general organization and housework, then getting
frustrated and embarrassed about it. Too much time on the internet. This is not nearly as much of a problem as it used to be, but it could be a lot better. I am thinking of reserving it for the late afternoon only, when it will feel like a nice treat to sit down and facebook or e-mail friends, and surf, comment on blogs, etc..
<< In what ways do you differ from Carolyn? >>
Well, my parents wanted me to go to college, so I did, and I graduated, and there were no offers of marriage at that time, so I worked for a few years. I really, really wanted to be married, though. I hated being single. I got
married, about 5 years after ending college, and continued to work part-time until the children came along, then severely curtailed work, and finally quit. So I know nothing of being on the brink of having a career, then putting it off
for motherhood right away, and I do not miss it at all, to be honest.
<< What do you think Carolyn’s biggest issue is? >>
It’s hard to say. She could be struggling with post-partum depression, or it may be as simple as jealousy and envy of her neighbor and her husband. It isn’t just the wife that struggles, btw, during these years. Her husband
could be having problems, too. He could be wishing to get out from under the strain of having to provide for his family. He could be doing things that are under the radar, such as sexual fantasies and pornography. Perhaps neither one of them are in a good community of believers. Perhaps both of them are isolated, or are feeling that way. All other things being equal, she will feel a lot better if she does some work first before looking at books and surfing the internet. If she works at connecting with her husband. She may indeed need to take some time for herself, but not the way she is doing with her mental escapes into books and the net – for exercise and fitness, for example. She may not be scheduling enough bathtub time for herself if that’s how she unwinds. It doesn’t all have to be related to self-centeredness. She may need some organizational skills to help her.
<< Do you think this is a common issue for women? >>
I think it is a very common issue for some mothers with multiple children. I was told that the mothers of the early 1960s that they were in awe of Jacqueline Kennedy and her poise, beauty, and charm, and that was their dream – to be kept, have beautiful hairdos, lovely clothes, and to not have to be alone so much and out of sight. Each generation deals with these kinds of issues.
Sarah Mae:
So, in what ways did Carolyn resonate with you?
More ways than I care to admit! I would say that my perspective has been changing…I do not think the same way Carolyn does, but my actions are very similiar to hers – messy home, unkept look, etc.
In what ways do you differ from Carolyn?
I don’t buy into the “my life could be better if…” thing. I wouldn’t trade being a homemaker and full-time mommy for anything – even on those crazy days!
What do you think Carolyn’s biggest issue is?
Her attitude…lies she is believing
Do you think this is a common issue for women?
YES! It is so easy to let our thoughts go negative, which lead the way to foolish living and behavior.
Stacy:
So, in what ways did Carolyn resonate with you?
It was a transition (culture shock) for me to go from working woman with one child (and single) to being a pregnant wife and mother of 5 children in less than a year. This rocked my world. The hardest part for me was no longer having a “perfect” house with clean walls and a peaceful atmosphere. I cried a lot because I couldn’t keep up and I was determined to – even if it killed me (and it almost did! LOL). God had to bring me to my knees and make me truly needy to see that I couldn’t (and shouldn’t) “do it all.” To show me what was important and what wasn’t.
While motherhood and homemaking was still what I wanted more than anything, I wanted it MY way. I still wanted to look perfectly manicured and dressed to the hilt each day. I wanted all of Jessica’s “Little People” to stay on the shelf, facing the front, nicely in a row. I even wanted my carpet to keep the vacuum lines (no kidding!). In Passionate Housewives, when I mentioned the ”marble sink,” I was trying to give a word picture of what life was like in the neighborhoods where I grew up in Houston. Homes were new. Bathtubs shined. Everyone wanted marble sinks, Corian counters, and custom kitchens and bathrooms. It was yuppie land. Many moms I knew were like me; they wanted to keep their homes a “certain” way, and children (and many times, finances, when you’re on one income) get in the way of that. Here is the quote from the book:
“Finally, after spending long days watching dancing alphabet people on television; making organic, fat-free baby food; driving Johnny to soccer; discovering that undisciplined children don’t obey; and washing dirty diapers in her marble sink; the exhausted ‘professional’ stay-at-home mom burns out and goes back to work where at least she was appreciated and life was ‘easier.’”
I saw moms who gave up careers to come home and found that life was not as glamorous as they imagined. They tried to superimpose the “professional life” into the home and they felt defeated. They read all the latest child training books, and tried to do everything perfectly; but, they found it wasn’t real – it wasn’t “natural.” They were trying to turn their homes into a daycare and it was not “real life.” Moms also found that motherhood is often a “thankless” job. That may sound like a cliché, but it is a truth that moms need to know going into it. Servanthood is giving and it means sacrifice. Jesus calls every Christian to this. If we’re not focused on what we’re “not getting” then we won’t notice when we don’t get it. I’m much happier this way. J
Homemaking is a job that is never, ever completely done. You don’t always get a pat on the back from the boss (but a good husband should do his best! J), and the work day doesn’t end at 5:00. There are no bonuses, no pay, no intellectually stimulating projects (unless you count homeschooling), and often no adult interaction. And the thing that was the hardest for me was that I never seemed to have UNDISTRACTED time to work. Trying to clean the house, cook, pay bills, organize laundry, toys, kitchen, bathroom—whatever, would take no time at all if I could complete those duties alone – uninterrupted! But I have to somehow do it with little ones pulling on my skirt, spilling drinks, asking thousands of questions, bickering, coloring on the wall, having to go potty, cleaning up where someone wasn’t SUPPOSED to go potty, and yes, washing diapers in my “just washed” marble sink. (Not that I ever had a real marble sink, by the way! LOL)
Some of these things were part of what inspired that chapter. All those things are real struggles we face, but I wanted to point moms to the joy that’s in the midst of it all, when our focus is right. Does that make sense?
Lynn:
Regarding the portrait of Carolyn in PHDFG: let me throw out a very realistic, though hypothetical anecdote, based on my experience on a rehabilitation unit, plus a real live conversation I had with a close friend yesterday. Then, I’ll try as best as I can to explain why I wrote this.
Let’s say an elderly female has a stroke on the left side of her brain, which affects her right side body movements, and leaves her unable to speak, though she can possibly understand everything said to her. Her chief medical issues at
this time are stabilization and recovery as much as possible, and rehabilitation for where recovery does not occur.
1) There is a tendency to get your mind over-focused on the chief problem this woman has, to the exclusion of other matters that might exist and need to be dealt with.
2) There is always a tendency to depersonalize people, who come as whole packages, by putting labels on them. The labels might be very true – for example – “I’m working with a left CVA, right hemi with expressive aphasia today in the parallel bars.” This is true, but humanly speaking I’m seeing if I can help Mrs. Smith recover some balance, transfer, and ambulate safely so she can go back home.
But getting back to number 1) — the stroke may not be Mrs. Smith’s only problem. There can be a tendency to overlook other problems which contribute to her recovery and rehabilitation. Let’s say Mrs. Smith was getting some pretty
painful osteoarthritis in her right knee, but was compensating for it well enough prior to her stroke, by taking ibuprofin, and her physician didn’t know about it. In the emergent phase of recovery, things can fly under the radar screen. But when you try to get Mrs. Smith to transfer or stand on her stronger side (her left side), she can’t. She hasn’t taken her ibuprofin, and her knee hurts, and she can’t tell you except to make signs. The rehab team realizes that orthopedic doctors need to be called in, and she may require some medications and/or surgery to help this
problem so she can utilize her stronger leg without pain.
3) The solutions to real problems we face may come from places that surprise us.
Re 3) – here’s a real life situation. One I found out about yesterday from a friend I’m getting reconnected with after about 15 years. Her firstborn son is 17, and she explained how he was an early reader, and his reading level has always been “off the charts” as she told me. However, she could not get him to work with math or writing in homeschooling. His reading comprehension was fine, but he would fly into rages with her and become defiant with her, and her perception was he only wanted to do what HE wanted to do, and so there was a power struggle, which didn’t help matters. She eventually put him in a Christian school and his orthography etc. continued to “stink.” The teachers all assured her that by the time he was a little older, it would be better, boys are slower after all, don’t worry, etc.. But it didn’t get better. It took a move, and a decision to place him in a public school, who evaluated him for learning disabilities, and they didn’t get it right the first time, but eventually he was diagnosed with what is called “dysgraphia.” I don’t know anything about
it, other than when he was allowed to use a computer to do his work, and got intervention for the rest, his grades skyrocketed. And his mother tells me she still is dealing with repercussions from making his brain issues character ones, and for labeling him as “lazy.” She intimated to me that sometimes what a child needs is not parents who have no clue, or Christian or public schools that slough off problems. Sometimes the help you get is where a large sector of Christendom (ie – the homeschooling movement) will tell you you can’t go, on account of all the corruption. And that is a public school system that tries its best to help diagnose problems so children are not so frustrated and can succeed. This is a very real story I just related.
Ok – Carolyn. Carolyn’s problem with envy of working women, her possible mild depression does NOT exist in a vacuum. It may be her chief problem, but it may not be her only problem. Does she need to get her eyes off our materialistic culture? I thoroughly agree. But I just want to remind myself at this juncture that although she will need a
reminder that this life isn’t about us (I’ve read on), that her calling to be with her children and build the home is a high calling that Radical Feminism has tried to make into meaningless, slavish, drudgery, that there may be other things
she’s facing and has to deal with during her “rehabilitation phase.” Things that well meaning Christians can overlook, and perhaps even physicians and others might not get right the first time around. That – and based on the conversation I had yesterday – the solutions to her problems might not fit into neat little categories that we would like to have them
fit into. And instead of focusing on the labels of “feminist,” it is always good to get back to the person you are dealing with — which is Carolyn.
In order to make the first chapter work well, you have to make some assumptions. You have to assume that Carolyn’s husband does see when she’s exhausted and pitches in; he does spend as much time with his children as he possibly can, their relationship is generally good, that Carolyn does not have underlying medical issues, and it’s also would be helpful to assume they are in a good church.
Anne:
> Too much time on the internet.
I have this problem myself, Lynn!
> It’s hard to say. She could be struggling with post-partum >depression
This is a great point. I think sometimes we focus on what a joyous thing it is to have a baby, we forget to tell women that they may feel isolated, and depressed. It’s a huge change, motherhood, and there are so many chemical changes. Women shouldn’t feel bad or guilty about post-partum depression. There is help, and many of us have also dealt with it.
> Stacy said: Some of these things were part of what inspired that chapter. All those things are real struggles we face, but I wanted to point moms to the joy that’s in the midst of it all, when our focus is right. Does that make sense?
Everything you said made sense to me! And I think using this example was actually a great way to start the book. Because so many of us have issues similar to Carolyn’s and it helped us see in what ways this book was going to be useful to us.
Carolyn’s story resonated with me in that I often feel overwhelmed, especially if I’ve let things go. Sometimes I feel like everyone else has it all together and I’m trying desperately to keep my home and family in order!
I differ from Carolyn in that while I do love what I do, my ultimate dream has always been wife and motherhood. I have no desire to be in the workforce at all.
I think Carolyn’s biggest issue is a lack of contentment with where she is and what she has. When we can find peace about being who we are, where God has placed us, and work to do the best job we can right now, I think we’re all a lot
happier.
I think this is a very common issue for women. Especially those of us who, like me, were really raised to become working women. In my case, for example, I love being at home, caring for my husband, my children, and my house. But I feel ill equipped. I’m behind. Because I wasn’t trained for this work. I want to do well, but become frustrated when I don’t think I am. I think it may be some of that frustration that leads women to want to be back in the work force where they at least feel that they know what they’re doing.
Janet:
So, in what ways did Carolyn resonate with you?
Carolyn’s story resonated with me in that I can tend to get depressed and give up if I let things go. Or if we’re putting in a septic system. (smile) She seemed overwhelmed, and ready to believe that the lady across the street had it all together. The truth is that none of us have it all together. We may have perfectly tidy homes, yet we snap at the kids. We may have messy kitchens, yet we’ve spent a couple of fruitful hours snuggling on the couch with a sick child.
In what ways do you differ from Carolyn?
I am older than Carolyn. Most of my children are grown, or growing…I only have one under 10. I am happy to be home, and I do not long to have a career. I worked recently for a couple of years on a part-time basis for a ministry that I LOVE, but even though I was only away two days per week, the entire house fell apart. It’s just not worth it to me.
What do you think Carolyn’s biggest issue is?
She doesn’t see the value of her calling. In fact, she doesn’t see being a keeper at home AS a calling. So, she is not contented, and she is not resting in the fact that this is exactly where she is supposed to be, and what she is supposed to be doing. She needs to have her perspective changed. That would make all the difference.
Do you think this is a common issue for women?
I think this is a very common issue for women. They have been fed the lie that there is fulfillment in a career that is not possible if you are a stay-at-home wife and mother. They want to make something of themselves, to leave a mark on the world, to receive those pats on the back from their co-workers or bosses. They can’t imagine feeling fulfilled if they “just” stay at home.
Note: Feel free to discuss in the comments section, but Jennifer and I decided that we did not want this to be a place to ask questions of Stacy McDonald. Too often that’s turned into a bash fest, and we don’t want that to happen here. Thank you for understanding.
As of 6/18/09 Comments have been closed.
This was fun to read through.
I have a friend/aquaintance who had two little babies back-to-back, both of them “surprises.” She tried to be a stay-at-home mom but was bordering on suicide. I actually fear for her children (I’m thinking she has a mental issue going on, and jobs that are NOT relational seem to be best for her, whereas relational things tend to put her over the edge…meaning, I think she needs a diagnosis, that there is actually something wrong).
I was one of the loudest supporters of her putting them in daycare and returning to the workforce. At home, she was floundering, miserable, and borderlining on abusive parenting.
I just wanted to throw this in alongside Lynn’s (I think it was Lynn?) story about the mom who made a brain issue into a character issue. I know that my friend is not the only woman who is not wired to do full-time-stay-home mothering well. Her family put the pressure on, since sahm is very important to them, and really gave her some guilt trips about the whole daycare thing.
But what I don’t think they thought about is the kind of care the children were getting with a sahm who, on her bad days, was drinking heavily to cope, as well as leaving her young children unsupervised for long amounts of time, then getting extremely angry about all the things they got into while she ignored them for hours, and then punishing them (leaving them in their rooms to scream while she went and drank some more).
She is a very intelligent fun person. She is not the best at relationships…has very few friends because of it…but she’s extremely good at non-relational things. Her bad days were not every day, just some days (seemed somewhat cyclical), but I was horrified when I would hear the details of what those bad days were like. The fact that it took her so long to put her children in daycare just grieved me… And yet her family, instead of supporting her choice to go back to work, begged, pleaded, and attempted to guilt her into continuing to be a sahm.
It was an example to me of the damage we do when we set up being a sahm as a mother’s only godly option. Those kids are doing SO MUCH BETTER in daycare than they were in an unstable home environment. And my friend is SUCH a better mother to them now that she doesn’t have to carry the strain of a 24/7 task.
I think it’s so good when we support and encourage sahm’s and the transition, for many of us, is ROUGH. I did not like it… I loved my baby, but I hated the seclusion of becoming a sahm. Hated it. Those are not years I would want to relive… Most of us get used to it and make the curve. I did. I came to a place where I began to really enjoy myself. (And if I had not been struggling through an abusive marriage, I think I would have enjoyed myself so much more!).
Though I am an extrovert and though, in so many ways, being a sahm does not really fit my individual giftings or desires, I still came to find it a pleasure, generally through working hard to find ways to “make it work,” and concentrating on the “sacred every day,” which includes the unseen/unappreciated benefits that the entire family recieved, including my own self.
I think it is important, however, that we be discerning so that when we see someone “transitioning” who does NOT appear to be doing well, her children suffering because of it, we need to make sure we encourage the course of action that is best on the children, not the course of action that best fits our “ideal.” My friend’s family meant well, but they were not looking at the Real Picture, which was an abusive environment for children and a barely-sane adult. Not good.
They were thinking that being a sahm is what brings God glory, but I differ with them on that. As the case of my friend illustrates, there are sometimes bigger, much bigger, issues at stake than whether a parent is home or not.
Great points, molleth. This is why I’m relieved that Chancey’s in the minority with her anti-daycare and female workers thing.
I think it is important, however, that we be discerning so that when we see someone “transitioning” who does NOT appear to be doing well, her children suffering because of it, we need to make sure we encourage the course of action that is best on the children, not the course of action that best fits our “ideal.”
Yes, that was exactly what I tried to convey in my rambling reply to Anne’s question.
I know at least two cases of mothers who deal with bipolar disorder. One has one child, the other has two children. The mom with one (who wants to get pregnant again) is telling me about all the safety nets and precautions she has to have ready in case she gets pregnant and it exacerbates her problem. She’s told me about the medication she’s currently taking – that there is only one (disputed) side effect on the developing baby, which can be offset by making sure she’s taking extra folic acid and I guess having blood level checks.
This mother quit her professional job to stay at home with her daughter, and she is very active in children’s ministries in our church, and is a good example of personal responsibility. But as Molleth said, this isn’t always the case.
I know that the topic of having as many babies as possible wasn’t the main focus of the first chapter in the book. However, the hypothetical example “Carolyn” did have five children who were all very young, so the issue was in the background setting. Carolyn was resentful of her husband’s career and travel opportunities, and she was envious of a neighbor lady, who had a career and no children. She spend a large part of her day stalling and escaping into books and magazines, etc..
I agree with Anne and Molleth. It does take a lot of encouragement and help for women who were geared to be out of the home a lot, to remain with their children when they are very small. And I also agree with Molleth that we should not ignore serious problems, including chemical imbalances, when there are children at stake. And I would hope the two women I know would never feel pressured to have more children, that they would never be put down for a “feminist” decision like that on their part, when in truth they are trying their hardest to be good wives and mothers.
Molleth, I think you hit on the head what is so bizarre about this line of thought to me, and why I do begin to believe that there are cultish leanings inside patriarchy. It’s the one size fits all idea – God WANTS us to be homemakers, so it must fit whether we want it to or not. It cancels out nearly all the great women in history – Sally Ride should have been taking care of children, not being an astronaut! Madame Curie should have kept her nose out of the lab. Is that really what they want? I’m aghast.
I was raised by a SAHM, and she was deeply unhappy. This was much worse for my psyche, and things improved when she took a job (and kept the house the same as before) when I was in Junior High. It made her a much better mother, in my opinion. There is a deep toll growing up with depressed parents. And oddly, my mother would have been far better at handling the “outside world” than my father. I don’t happen to think that gender is destiny in this way. On the other hand, I happen to dislike the pressure that women use on each other to leave the home – I would say that my friends fall on both sides of this line. Some would love to be home, but feel they need to work to help the household. Some are depressed and anxious without outside stimulation. What it comes down to is that motherhood is not just a job, it’s a talent. Some seem more talented than others. This is observation, not fact.
A friend forwarded me this exchange this morning (scroll down):
Kelly,
I do have a question for you- my babies have all been born via c-section and at this point, a vaginal birth is not an option; God knows I tried! I’m just wondering at what point it’s “wisdom” (I know that word can be an overused excuse for not having more babies) to stop for my health’s sake. Not too many doctors encourage having multiple c-sections. Thoughts on this? Thank you! Your blog is such a blessing to me
Kris,
I certainly can’t answer that question, but understand your concern and I believe you and your husband should bring it carefully before the Lord.
I will say that I have several friends who have recently given birth to their 6th and 7th babies via c-section, without any complications. Also, several opinions are better than one in the medical field.
http://www.generationcedar.com/main/2009/06/children-according-to-jesus-if-you-want-to-see-the-kingdom.html
As someone who works in the medical field, I find this disturbing. She’s really advising someone to keep having children until they drop? What’s the good of this? It seems as if it is God first, men second, children third and women, well, dead last.
(Of course I NEVER made the comment in there. Kelly is faking my comments now, which I have to admit is kind of funny. She is not fond of dissenting opinions:)
There really are not simple answers are there? If there were, we would not need to depend on God and learn to trust His leading in our lives. I think that’s why, while we can find many guiding principles in the Bible, there are many things like how many children to have and what being a “keeper of the home” entails are not laid out in black and white commands.
That said, Mother of Dog, your representations of the comments on that blog post are inaccurate. Kelly simply related a personal example, she did not indicate that this was a rule for all women needing c-sections. I personally have had four and both my GP and OB have green lighted a fifth pregnancy. My OB has done as many as 7 on one woman and has told me that at this point there is no reason to limit how many children I want because I need sections. However, we also operate on a pregnancy by pregnancy basis. Like another commenter on GC had indicated, my doctors will let me know when my womb is showing signs of thinning and we will do a tubal ligation while I’m there on the OR table.
At the expense of a long comment here, what bothers me is that we narrowly view an accepting of children as blessings as a willingness to have as many babies as possible. I took this “high road” for several years and after having my fourth and struggling with postpartum depression, exhaustion, feelings of isolation (with a supportive husband), and homeschooling the older two I became very convicted about treating my current children as blessings. I was not. Never mind my attitude towards future children (we are undecided) I needed to take stalk, hold off on getting pregnant again, and begin enjoying family life again. Thankfully it was my husband who had the “wisdom” to say no more babies at this time. He wants me healthy and joyful in where God has placed me – I am only one woman who can’t do it all. Now that my fourth child is nearly two I am only beginning to come out of the fog and enjoy the sunshine of family life.
We may have another child, we may not but we are certain the Lord will lead and make it clear to BOTH of us (another topic brewing there) in His timing.
God is not pleased with sacrifice and I will NEVER FIND more favour with him by having more children. And God is no more pleased with the mother of 12 than He is with the mother of 1. He smiles on us because He sees us through the work of His son. And if love for Jesus is not motivating us in all we do then we need to examine our motivations and get off our self-righteous high horses and quests for self-justification before God.
This discussion is refreshing. I am glad that a couple of people (Lynn and Molleth, for example) brought out real life examples of other factors that need to be considered.
I had problems with this book because of the blanket-statements and cold judgment without, imho, mercy. It is so easy to blame “feminists” but it is illogical.
“It’s the one size fits all idea – God WANTS us to be homemakers, so it must fit whether we want it to or not. It cancels out nearly all the great women in history – Sally Ride should have been taking care of children, not being an astronaut! Madame Curie should have kept her nose out of the lab. Is that really what they want? I’m aghast.”
Exactly, Mother of Dog. I am aghast, too. The thing that bothers me about this book and so many others like it is the “one size fits all”.
It is not a just judgment. It doesn’t consider so many other factors. In Carolyn’s case it is all chalked up to her being selfish and not content. Well, could it be that she isn’t content for a reason? She isn’t content with the “one size fits all” package she was taught to believe was for all women everywhere in all times no exceptions? We women are not all made the same and we were not all created to do the very same thing. We women do not only have one purpose and calling.
I have deep compassion and empathy for the “Carolyns” in this world and I think that forcing them into one certain mold can most certainly make things WORSE than they were before.
A seemingly simple issue made complicated by sin.
The truth is, there is an ideal, and it’s God’s ideal – that we would raise and train up children for the Lord. The complication is that there is sin…but we should strive for the ideal. If you are a “sane-minded” Christian woman, I would ask, “what is more important than raising human beings?” In fact, in my mind, raising children is one of the most important and life-affecting “jobs” one can do…and God have women that role! Does anyone else see that as super empowering and AMAZING?!
Perspective.
It’s all about perspective.
Just to quickly clarify, I’m not saying you are not sane if you don’t stay home and raise your kiddos, I was making a distinction between the mentally ill staying home and a “normal” woman.
God WANTS us to be homemakers, so it must fit whether we want it to or not.
Yes, whether we want to or not or whether we CAN or not. It is turned into a *sin* issue. If you love God, you will be a homemaker. If you don’t love God, you won’t be.
All this from a passage in Titus 2 that was talking to women 2,000 years ago in a culture that viewed most NON-home-bound women as prostitutes.
OF COURSE “the word of God would be blasphemed” if everybody thought that Christian women were prostitutes. That was the way they thought then. So that was the setting that the early church had to work with. To take that verse and transpose it onto today’s culture, an entirely different setting altogether, and say that *now* God is blasphemed when women aren’t full time homemakers is to (in my opinion) treat Scripture irresponsibly.
We have to be careful not to assume an “eternal command” application out of passages that were dealing with a specific problem in a specific culture and time. (And while Kelly and friends would say I’m not taking Scripture seriously, I don’t see anyone working hard to obey the “greet each other with a holy kiss “command” that was given six times in the NT, for example… Taking into consideration the cultural background of a text *is* taking Scripture seriously)…
I have been looking up references to the curses that are related to the fall of mankind. So far, I think that John MacArthur’s sermon on the curse on the Eve is great. He describes it as it is.
The difficulties that we women face are a result of Eve’s sin. We are cursed in our relationship with our husband, and cursed in our child-bearing role. We also find great joy in those roles of wife and mother.
Men are cursed with many kinds of “weeds” related to their work. They also suffer because of what their wives and families go through. Men also find great joy in their work and in their homes, but there are always weeds.
I’m not saying that the “weeds” can’t be managed, but they will always be there.
So, it should not surprise us that life is difficult.
What is one of the means that God uses to help alleviate that suffering brought on us by the curse? Well, the most wonderful one is salvation in Christ. Our relationship with our Heavenly Father can be restored when we come to Christ in faith. Knowing Him makes it all worthwhile. As Paul said, “for me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”
The worst curse, that of death both physical and spiritual, has already been taken care of in Christ. All the rest of the curse will also come to an end. Meanwhile, we struggle in this life.
Then, the Bible talks about how other women – especially older women who have some years of experience in this – can teach younger women to love – to love their husbands and to love their families.
The Bible speaks most directly to our husbands about what their role and attitudes should be as Christians.
So, there is help. There is hope, in spite of all the difficulties. Love covers a multitude of sins.
I appreciate this discussion, since I think it is helpful. If we can quit the online slander and listen to what is really being said, then that will be a HUGE help.
I think that the Internet has the potential of being a huge encouragement to moms and women who are struggling, as all of us women struggle because of the curse.
If we spend our days cursing one another, then what profit is there in that? If we spend our days cursing our husbands, then what profit is there in that? If we make the burden of the curse heavier than it already is by our meanness, then what profit is there in that?
So, I commend White Washed Feminists for this attempt to generate some light, and not just the heat of the past.
I think that some “weeds” are being pulled, here, and that this is going to be a great exchange.
I enjoyed reading this first installment.
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
You know, Corrie, I really didn’t see that in this book. I’ve seen it other places, with other authors. And of course I’ve been pretty open about my disagreement with the article Jennie Chancey wrote about Titus 2. But I just didn’t see it in this book. I found it pretty down to earth, with a clear understanding that we are not to be perfect, that the authors are not perfect, and that we can find ourselves in the role of wife and mother.
As a working-outside-the-home mom, I’m sometimes quick to see judgment but I just didn’t. It didn’t bring up exceptions to the “rule” but I don’t think it ruled out that there could be some, it just wasn’t the focus. But I’m sure we’ll get more into that as we progress through the chapters.
I agree with you, Sarah Mae, and I think most women would. I think some women simply believe they’re not capable of doing it well all day every day and they want help. Other women have to work for various reasons. For my part, I feel like I have my hands busy dealing with my own sin and my own issues. I don’t want to spend time trying to figure out the sin/issues of other people. I’d rather spend my time encouraging them in their walk with the Lord, like you do! Because as they’re encouraged in their faith, they’ll figure out their own sins/issues (which they know well) with God’s help.
Wow, what a good point, Molly! I really hadn’t thought of it that way before. But of course, I always thought that passage was really talking about the appearance we have in the world. I always took it to mean that if we are not living a life that is Christ-centered, people will think badly of our faith, and will speak ill of the word of God. Not that if we weren’t at home we ourselves were blaspheming His word.
To be clear, the passage in question is the following:
From what I understand, Anne, Jennie Chancey puts down both careers outside the home and even daycare centers. That sounds very judgemental to me.
I’m a few chapters into this book. So far, all you’ve seen me issue are caveats about the first chapter, and about how I struggle with being lazy.
I do very much appreciate two things said in subsequent chapters, which I look forward to sharing my thoughts in due time.
It appears to me the primary focus of this book is to restore the right kind of pride and dignity to the role of motherhood, that the Radical Feminism of the 1960s tried to destroy. And because of that, I understand why they portrayed Carolyn as they did.
One thing that thrills me, in my church, though, is to see both men and women value children. Last night, we started our Vacation Bible School outreach, and I am helping to sub for people who can’t be there. I was there last night, and it was SUCH a blessing to see all the dads there with the little children, helping lead games, being “crew leaders,” doing drama, telling Bible verses, playing and praying with the children — of all ages. There were some pretty young fathers there with pre-schoolers, all the way up to sixth graders.
Maybe I am dense, but I just didn’t see all the male participation years ago when it came to the children’s ministries, and this is absolutely fun to watch. And comforting.
I think it becomes so much easier for mothers to value and cherish their calling as mothers when the daddies show that they value their children, too. I know that VBS is not a “family integrated” thing as the authors would, as they write in other places, probably wish it to be, but to see these men (many of them Air Force officers) just crazy about the kids, and hearing a close friend (a retired officer) talking to the VBS organizers about how he, his wife, and his jr. high daughter want to be there to help out in any way they can, is something to be very thankful for.
And that is what I call true Christian leadership by men. Yes, some women need to stop listening to the devil’s lies about the value of their calling. I know that some years ago, I needed this kind of encouragement. We all need encouragement, because motherhood is not easy. The older women do need to encourage the younger women. But after last night, I think the greatest encouragement comes when the dads lead by example and getting right in there with the children and washing their little feet, so to speak, too.
I have deep compassion and empathy for the “Carolyns” in this world and I think that forcing them into one certain mold can most certainly make things WORSE than they were before.
Maybe, but…I see Carolyns in the working world as well.
“I hate this job….no one I work with will help me out. If I could only be a stay-at-home mom like my friend Molly….”
You know? Sarah Mae hit it on the head when she said Carolyn’s biggest problem is probably her attitude.
And speaking of those named Molly..;)) Your friend probably isn’t the best example to bring up when it comes to mothering. I mean, yes, some women do feel stifled at home, but some one who often drinks to excess while responsible for caring for her children has some other issues going on.
(I would feel the same way about a father who did this, also, btw.)
To be honest, Molls, your own example of trying to be the consummate homeschooling mom and perfect wife at nearly the cost of yourself would be a better example.
Again, I didn’t see that in the book. It may be somewhere, I certainly felt that in the Titus 2 article I responded to here, but not in the book.
Reading through my now approved comment, I read back through Molly’s description of her friend, and, well, yikes.
This screams *call Children’s Services* to me, whether the mom is working or not. No child should be sent to a room and screamed at by his drinking mother. This is not okay, and not relevant, really, to this discussion.
I mean no offense to Molly, whom I dearly love. But I do think the discussion would be better focused on more moderate women who may or may not be meant to stay at home with their children.
Saying that “either I work, or I drink and become abusive” is not so much of a convincing argument.
So Anne, neither author anywhere in this book indicated that a wife and mother was what all women are called to?
No, Bette. This book certainly emphasized the blessing it is to be a wife and mother, and to stay at home. But it came across to me as a book written to encourage women already on that path, not to force them onto it. And as I said, I’m a mom with a paying job outside the home. I think I would have noticed it.
Alrighty, just asking since lots of people got that impression.
I love Stacy’s story-writing, so I may check out Carolyn’s tale if nothing else.
I agree, Marcia (and, btw, I did say that she has something going on that I believe is certifiable, and I am encouraging her family to SAY SO, though it is slow going)… Also, the behavior in question was something I heard about after the fact, not during. Her family spoke to her about it and was concerned, but it really bothered me that they kept encouraging her to be a sahm when such issues were going on!
They were right to value the power of a full-time-at-home parent on a child’s development, sure, but they were exalting a general truth over a specific situation, to the detriment of all. It was very frustrating. As of now, her family is now aware of the drinking, she is on some medication and supposedly not drinking, and from what I know, things are going much smoother. She is being monitered closely by concerned family. (I am someone who has NO problem reporting child abuse if I am sure that it is occuring and that family/friend attempts are not resolving the situation).
I also agree with you, Marcia, that my own scenario may be a better illustration. Trying to be the perfect sahm, homeschooler, ect, while married to someone with some serious problems…just bad. And it will probably continue to be bad, only in the sense that if divorce is the outcome, I will CERTAINLY be working.
I am living proof of why our daughters should be sent into marriage with a VIABLE means of making a living in case the picture perfect world does not work out. I married my husband in Bible College, he was a well respected pastor, we were even called the “next Dobson family” by many (crazy to think of that, now) but you just NEVER DO KNOW.
Thankfully, I have only three semesters left until my Bach is completed, but still, what a mess. And what do I have to support my family on? NOTHING. I have been out of the workforce for a very long time. Women, and ESPECIALLY QF homeschooling type women, are, indeed, in a very vulnerable position should their husband flake out, and just as it is never good to “plan” that only the worst will happen, it is never good to “plan” that only the best will happen. We live in a fallen world, bad stuff happens, and it’s wise to be prepared.
ANYWAYS, sorry to bring up my friend. I was just rambling a bit off topic, I suppose, and yet it had just occured in this past half a year and so was fresh on my mind as I read the post and the comments… *grinning shrug*
Okay, but in all fairness, the overwhelming impression I got from reading this book is that they both believe this is God’s calling for all women, regardless of personal desires. It may not be said outright, but it is definitely there in the subtext.
Oh, Molly, I didn’t mean that *you* personally should have reported your friend; I just meant that’s how that situation appeared to me. I wasn’t being critical of you at all. (Besides, you know that if I want to criticize, I’m a lot mouthier about it.
))
Anne, as your fellow Florence Nightingale working outside the home, I agree with you in that I did not feel judged by the book.
I agree with what Cally says above–”the overwhelming impression I got from reading this book is that they both believe this is God’s calling for all women”– but I took it simply as the authors expressing their belief. I didn’t view it as judgment of those who believe differently.
Thanks, Cally and Anne.
I think that’s the way I’d describe it too…
Jen/Cally, but I think there’s a difference between the belief that this is the calling for all women, and judgment for those who are not. I really didn’t get the judgment from the book, and I had thought I might.
I’m fairly convinced that if I came to this book without ever knowing anything else that the authors had written, I might agree with you. But I just can’t over the whole “women who work are blaspheming the Word of God” thing… This believe informed the writing of this book (as least where Jennie Chancey is concerned), so while the judgment might not be overt, it is still there.
“I always thought that passage was really talking about the appearance we have in the world. I always took it to mean that if we are not living a life that is Christ-centered, people will think badly of our faith, and will speak ill of the word of God. Not that if we weren’t at home we ourselves were blaspheming His word.”
Exactly, Anne. I believe this is exactly what it means. It doesn’t mean that “the woman” who works outside of the home is blaspheming God. But I do believe that when society in general begins to minimize or reject the importance of women nurturing their families and keeping their homes that God’s Word will be blasphemed by the world. I think one commentary says that His Word is slandered.
It causes all sorts of problems for Christian families and society in general. And we see this with latch key kids, burned out moms trying to juggle home and work, husbands not having the support they need, and families so disconnected they don’t have a family identity anymore.
How about the extreme caricature of Leslie the “working woman” who doesn’t know her God-given rightful place which is IN the home and NOT in the workplace?
I found it ironic that the first chapter spoke of stereotypes when the first two chapters contained nothing but stereotypes in the form of Leslie and Carolyn.
Also, I know many men who are out of work right now and having to care for their young children full-time while their wives work. I have spoken to them and they sound just like “Carolyn”. Should I tell them just to be “content” and not “selfish”?
My advice is that they still do the things that they love to do. So, I offer to take their kids so they can go fishing or whatever once in a while. I know I NEED time away once in a while to do the things that interest me. I spent too many years believing that it was bad to pursue things that interest me. I wouldn’t hold my husband back from doing the same thing so why should women be any different?
And, why is Carolyn’s desire to travel “selfish”? Why is it that I get the picture, from this book and both of the author’s other writings, that women are created to be totally content with being only a wife/mother because that is what they were created to do and be and nothing more?
One thing I appreciate about Jennie Chancey is that she doesn’t try and obsfucate what she really believes depending upon the audience she speaks to.
And, don’t forget, Vision Forum published this book. These two authors are VERY involved with this company. We can’t take this book in a vacuum.
But I just can’t over the whole “women who work are blaspheming the Word of God” thing…
I’m trying very hard to not think of that blue horse when I read the book. But just to be accurate, it’s “women who work outside the home for compensation.” Home businesses are OK.
And it’s Jennie Chancey’s views, there, not necessarily Stacy McDonald’s, although she does endorse writings that promote the idea you said (quote above) when she endorses the Botkins. Stacy also votes, from what I understand, and she and her husband vote differently from how the publishers of the book vote, and Doug and Beall both vote, unlike Jennie Chancey.
They wrote about things they all agreed on, is how I take it.
Corrie, I wanted to address some points you made in your comment:
I think you need to be clear that this was your perception of the Leslie character. And I think it’s fair to make clear that the book never says that she’s not in her “God-given rightful place”. In fact, in this chapter she’s made to seem far more glamorous and fun than the stay-at-home-mom character.
But I think that was partly the point, to make a fictional example of the stereotypes we all have. And to add in real issues that women deal with.
I don’t know what you should tell your friends. But I know when Jennifer/Cally had to work to help her family I encouraged her to be grateful that God had provided the opportunity for her to have a job. We all have periods where we’re not living exactly the way we want to. Being content and selfless in those circumstances has got to be a better alternative than miserable and selfish.
That’s a totally different issue. Neither of the authors ever say in the book that people shouldn’t persue things that interest them. In fact, both talk about things they do that do interest them. This argument is a basic straw man. You’ve built up something that never existed (at least not in this book, and that’s what we’re talking about) and then knocked it down.
Again, I think you’re sharing your perception of what was being said. The book never states that Carolyn’s desire to travel is selfish, nor that women can be nothing more than wives or mothers. In fact, both of the authors are themselves much more.
Yes, VFM published the book. And I’m not a big fan of VFM. However, the statement about both women being very involved with this company is inaccurate and, in my opinion, misleading. Jennie Chancey’s family is certainly closely tied to VFM, but Stacy McDonald, her husband, and their ministry is not. And I think it’s clear when one actually reads through the McDonald’s writings that they are not as far down the path as VFM. Not by a long shot.
One thing I appreciate about Stacy McDonald is that she’s willing to listen and grow right along with other women. She heard our concerns about how some things could be perceived and actually took the time to consider our position. She has been incredibly gracious to listen and to allow her thoughts and ideas to continue to be formed while she holds to the basics in which she believes.
Anne:
It’s interesting you bring up the issue of perception. This is where, as an English major, I was taught to examine the intent of the author.
In other words, the author created and designed the fictional characters of Carolyn and the “working woman” in order to purposely direct our perception. The author only lets us see what she wants us to see.
Good story tellers do this to entertain us. But PHDFG is not meant as entertainment. The story of Carolyn and the “working woman” is a moralistic tale. Because of this, the author must pointedly and directly manipulate our perception of the characters.
My best guess is that McDonald wants women to see how Carolyn’s “restlessness” is the direct result of her unwillingness to fully embrace the sacred call of motherhood.
In essence, the story is about God’s holy purpose for women (Carolyn’s story) as juxtaposed against the world’s lie to women (the working woman’s story).
My perception of Carolyn and the “working woman” was that these two characters were very narrowly defined. But that was the author’s intent, right? If Carolyn was more complex, if her “restlessness” and problems had something to do with PPD, an abusive husband, lack of support–then the answers given in the book wouldn’t be sufficient.
The truth is, real women are much more complex than the 2 dimensional caricatures presented in the book.
So, yes, I found some helpful perspective from the book. I can certainly learn to be more joyful in my vocation as wife and mother. However, I was also frustrated. Carolyn’s story left me with more questions than answers.
Thank you for this discussion.
Note: I often try to communicate with commentors through the e-mail addresses they leave. Especially if they have a concern about our blog or the way we’re moderating comments. If I find that the e-mail you have left is not valid, you will be banned from posting further.
Elizabeth:
I didn’t get the idea that it was a moralistic tale, but instead one that was meant to demonstrate what many of us go through.
I don’t think it was the authors intent to narrowly define them. They were supposed to be a fairly simple example of what women go through when their hearts aren’t in what they are doing. And I think that can be true for anything. Even in the workplace I’m not going to be as good if my heart isn’t in what I’m doing.
I think the first chapter is supposed to leave one with questions as opposed to answers. The answers are what the rest of the book is for. =)
Could anyone elaborate on the “Stepford Husband” chapter? What did Jennie think constituted a weak-made man?
Manda, we’re doing this chapter by chapter, so that would be a great question to bring up when we get there. Thanks!
“It causes all sorts of problems for Christian families and society in general. And we see this with latch key kids, burned out moms trying to juggle home and work, husbands not having the support they need, and families so disconnected they don’t have a family identity anymore.”
A quick thought, but this kind of statement really bothers me (which isn’t to say *you* bother me, Stacy, lol…). I think because it places, inadvertantly perhaps, the blame for all these problems on WOMEN, and then says that if women will only do ___, all those problems will go away.
It kind of touches on what some other commenters have said, in that it acts as if the problems are black and white, instead of complex.
I see this happen so many times in the conservative Christian world, especially in regard to marriage, where it’s assumed that the wife is the problem and that if she’ll only ___ (be sweeter, be more submissive), then the big problems will go away.
I was just speaking with a woman who’s husband was adulterous and so they went to their pastor for counsel, and at the end of the session, she stumbled out of his office with a pile of books on how to be more submissive. The pastor said their problem was that the wife was too honest (she said what she thought) and not submissive enough, the end. She said she’s never been back to church since. She couldn’t believe what had happened. She was the one who was reeling, hurting, angry, grieving, but the pastor said it was all her fault. (It’s years later now and they have a fantastic marriage, and still happily don’t attend church).
The same thing happens, I think, in a larger more general way, when we blame working women for societies woes. The problem isn’t “women are working” and the problem won’t be solved by “women staying home.” The problems are much much more complex than that.
And we really are, in so many ways, blessed to live in such richness that we even get to THINK about whether or not we should work outside the home! Most of the world’s population doesn’t have the privelage of considering these things. They are simply trying to survive.
But that statement about working women paints an overly simplistic picture and places the blame for the ills of society at the feet of women. I really don’t like that. The women are bearing enough burdens already.