# For those Christian women that cover...



## Jesus Saves (May 31, 2005)

I am now one of ya! My husband after 3 years has given his blessing on my conviction to wear a headcovering. Now mind you, I have gotten lots of funny looks at church. I am the only one of over 700 people that cover. The nice thing is MOST of my friends were nice about it. Didn't make fun of my TOO much. :nono: It was to be expected tho. DH say I need to wax my back and let it roll off. It's also funny to see who really likes you for you.
Just thought I would share.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

What kind of headcovering did you use for church, and do you use a different, more everyday type for at home? Just curious.

Angie


----------



## Christina (May 10, 2002)

I go to a traditional (Latin) Catholic parish, and always cover my head with a hat or lace veil. 

Once we were visiting my parents over a weekend and had to attend Mass there, and my mother gave me a hard time about wearing a chapel veil - said it looked dumb, especially for my girls.

A few years back my husband was at a Catholic gift shop buying me a veil, and the lady there noted that more and more protestants, especially from African-American congregations, are buying veils to cover their heads.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

Good for you, and for your husband! For every woman who looks at you funny, there will be a dozen men who treat you with more respect. 

When I first started covering, I don't know if my blessings really did increase, or I just noticed them more, but it brought me to a much closer relationship with Him. My wedding ring, I forget it is there - it became a fixture. My covering, I am always aware of and it encourages me deeper into prayer and peacefulness.


----------



## hmsteader71 (Mar 16, 2006)

I was torn on whether or not to cover. I think when I did cover it was for the wrong reasons. I felt like I had to because others were. When I did cover I was made fun of and it was said that I looked stupid. That didn't bother me. I just don't understand the reason to cover. We attend an independent Christian church so there are no coverings there. We did attend a Messianic Synagogue where they covered. I guess I just got confused.


----------



## River (Jun 25, 2003)

hmsteader71 said:


> I just don't understand the reason to cover.


*I Cor. 11:5* But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with _her_ head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
*11:6* For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

*Isa 47:2* Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers.
*47:3* Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen...

River


----------



## River (Jun 25, 2003)

Jesus Saves said:


> My husband after 3 years has given his blessing on my conviction to wear a headcovering.


That is great news! I wish you the Lord's blessings.

River


----------



## MicheleMomof4 (Jul 17, 2002)

We are considering covering. I am curious to what your covers look like. 
And RockyGlen made a good point that I also noticed once I went to dresses only...I was much more aware of the Lord in my daily life. 
I look forward to this thread.
God Bless,
Michele


----------



## bumpus (Jul 30, 2003)

.
Covering of the head, and the lenght of hair for Christians.


If you will take the bible and remember as you read it, that The Corinthian church was in much trouble with carnality and man made doctrines, and misuse of God's Holy Word.

Every time the writer ( Paul ) addressed a separate problem in First Corinthians he would make a separate reference to that one problem and remind them of what he had already heard or was told by others what was going on within the churches.

Such as a man having his fathers wife and the church thought it was ok. 
1 Corinthians 1:8

Not to company with fornicators which many Christians were doing:
1 Corinthians 9:13 

Tongues and it proper use.

Charity and it's importance above all things etc.

The Corinthian church had already started a doctrine about who was to cover there head, and not covering there head, and the length of men and women's hair to be pleasing to God. 

Paul has brought this to there remembrance by writhing about what they were doing, and trying to enforce it upon others in the church.


1Cor: 11:1: Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2: Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3: But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6: For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8: For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9: Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10: For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11: Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12: For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13: Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14: Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15: But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16: But if any man seem to be contentious, *we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.*




Paul wrote also and told them the answer 
to there doctrine in; 1 Corinthians verse 16.

1 Corinthians: 11:16: But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.



The covering your head and the length of peoples hair he said, was nothing more than *A Man Made Custom ! ! !*

It was NOT of The Apostles Doctrine 
It was NOT a Doctrine Of The Churches Of God ! ! !

Covering of the head and length of hair is all a man made doctrine brought in to the church by men. *Not by God ! ! !*

Is there anything wrong with some one covering the head or wearing there hair a certen length ... *NO ! ! !*


Read it for yourself ! ! !


bumpus
.


----------



## triana1326 (Feb 13, 2006)

If you don't mind, I'm rather curious about "covering". What exactly is it and how does it make you closer to God? I honestly would like to know; I don't want to be rude, but I claim ignorance in this area of Christian religion.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

Triana, I am speaking only for myself here:

Wearing a head covering is very controversial, even in Christian churches. Many women who choose to wear one are the only ones in their church who do. Some feel the hair is the covering, some feel it was cultural for that time and place, some feel that we have "evolved" to the point where women and men are the same and a head covering is shameful, and on and on. It is a personal decision. My own belief is that it will be commended, but is not commanded and that it does not offer salvation or condemnation, but is a personal reflection of a persons walk with God.

Having said that little disclaimer, I will say that there are three main reasons why I choose to wear one. In no particular order:

1. Women were told not to pray or prophesy with an uncovered head. Many beleive that the hair is the covering, but that makes no sense to me because of these verses that Bumpus quoted: "5: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6: For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man." 

If the hair is her covering, and she is not covered, how can she then have her head shaved since she would have no hair to shave? Also, if we look at it as the hair is the covering, then all men would have to shave their heads, LOL. 

2. We (Christians) are to be set apart from the world. We are to be IN the world, but not OF the world. My personal feeling is that if you can not tell I am a Christian, I am doing something wrong. Anyone who claims Christ, is a witness FOR Christ. You may be a good witness or a bad witness, but you ARE a witness. This is not just a matter of dress, or covering, but also entertainment choices, charity, and everything that we do. My dress and covering clearly state "Believer." Because of that, I am much more aware of what I do and say. Not on the internet, unfortunately, LOL. I am human and I get angry or frustrated. Knowing that I am a walking billboard reflection of Christ helps me maintain politeness, self control, and humility. Above all else, I do NOT want to malign Christ.

3. It is a symbol that I beleive in the Biblical order of headship. Christ, husband, wife. It is a symbol of my dedication to Christ and to place myself in submission to my husband as the church is in submission to Christ. I don't know your level of knowledge about the Bible, so if you want verses I will supply them, but I am assuming you are familiar with them. Christ is the head of the man, the man is the head of the woman. My husband is to love me like Christ loves (and leads) the church - giving himself up for me. I am to submit myself (notice it is a choice *I * must make, not being beaten into it figuratively or literally!) to my husband as the church is supposed to submit to Christ. 

That's the condensed version.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

These are the two styles I wear most often. It is not me in the photos, they are taken from prayercoverings.com, where you can buy finished veils or patterns to make your own.


----------



## MicheleMomof4 (Jul 17, 2002)

And a very good version! I am printing your points off and sharing them with my DH. 
God Bless,
Michele


----------



## MicheleMomof4 (Jul 17, 2002)

Thank you for the pictures and link Rocky, I'm off to look at them. 
God Bless,
Michele


----------



## nomad7inwi (Nov 30, 2005)

RockyGlen said:


> Triana, I am speaking only for myself here: cut
> 
> 2. We (Christians) are to be set apart from the world. We are to be IN the world, but not OF the world. My personal feeling is that if you can not tell I am a Christian, I am doing something wrong. Anyone who claims Christ, is a witness FOR Christ. You may be a good witness or a bad witness, but you ARE a witness. This is not just a matter of dress, or covering, but also entertainment choices, charity, and everything that we do. My dress and covering clearly state "Believer." Because of that, I am much more aware of what I do and say. Not on the internet, unfortunately, LOL. I am human and I get angry or frustrated. Knowing that I am a walking billboard reflection of Christ helps me maintain politeness, self control, and humility. Above all else, I do NOT want to malign Christ.
> 
> ...


I am not arguing or criticizing your choice. I'm trying to understand something here. I am a Christian, a liberal Christian if that is not an oxymoron yet. I completely agree with the sentiment that others should know I am a Christian by how I live. 

I am active in a homeschooling group primarily made up of Christians. Many of the women & girls will only wear dresses, some have head coverings. A lot of public prayer. It seems some of these people, not all, are showing the world they are Christian by their dress, more so than their actions. It also seems at times a competition, to see who can out "Jesus" the other. "I only wear dresses, so obviously I love God more than you do" type of thing. Do you encounter that? I know you said your dress shows that you are Christian to others so that obligates you to act in a Christian manner, I understand what you are saying. But can it also cause a false sense of pride?

I don't know you, or any of you, so I am certainly not suggesting that you are doing this, nor would pride be a motive for you. Do you ever encounter what I am witnessing?

Thanks


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

nomad7inwi said:


> It also seems at times a competition, to see who can out "Jesus" the other. "I only wear dresses, so obviously I love God more than you do" type of thing. Do you encounter that? I know you said your dress shows that you are Christian to others so that obligates you to act in a Christian manner, I understand what you are saying. But can it also cause a false sense of pride?
> 
> I don't know you, or any of you, so I am certainly not suggesting that you are doing this, nor would pride be a motive for you. Do you ever encounter what I am witnessing?
> 
> Thanks


Yes, I have seen this. Pride is something each person has to guard against within themselves. 

I don't have a link for this, but it is something I have had for several years now. It came in an email from someone who is no longer online that I know of. Your question made me think of it:



> Legalism is a personâs attempt to gain salvation through his or her own works. The Scriptures make it clear that we cannot gain salvation through our own works (Acts 4:12). Salvation is bought only through the shed blood of Messiah Yeshua, the promised Savior (John 3:16 and 3:36).
> 
> *OBEDIENCE is the grateful heartâs RESPONSE to salvation. * Humble servants of the LORD who want to obey are not trying to earn anything. Their heartsâ desire is to look to Scripture, not for how much liberty they have or how much they can get away with, but to search it for that thing that is most pleasing to God. Many Scriptures emphasize obedience as a fit and proper response to so great a salvation. âHe who loves me keeps my commandmentsâ (John 14:23). âThis calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey Godâs commandments and remain faithful to Christââ¦âwho obey Godâs commandments and hold to the testimony of Christâ (Revelation 14:12 and 12:17b, emphasis added).
> 
> *We must see that every obedience is a work of grace.* We would have no desire to obey, or even bother with obedience, if we were not born again. Obedience by grace naturally follows salvation by grace.


One of the most vicious gossips I have ever met in person was a dress wearing, head covering Christian. My personal belief is that she is going to answer for that, because she is representing Christ in her dress, but dishonoring the Word of God in her actions.

Titus 2 "3Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, *so that the word of God will not be dishonored."*


----------



## moopups (May 12, 2002)

In my entire life the issue of women covering their head has never before been addressed. This is not common practice here to my knowledge. Nor, in my childhood when I was required to attend my fathers church did any woman cover her head. I do not understand the relevance of any of this.


----------



## Jesus Saves (May 31, 2005)

Well, first the type of covering I wear is more of a mennonite covering. It has no strings. I made it myself out of mesh. It has 3 pleats on each side. I wear this one everywhere, church, home. 

I don't agree with Bumpus. But that's ok. The no such custom to me is "being contentious" 

I also don't believe it is just your hair. I have studied this for a few years. The words in the original language are different. Also, you are to wear your covering when praying or prophesying, I can't take my hair of during the times I wouldn't normally wear it.

For me, it is a headship thing and a modesty thing. I am covering my glory. I also glorify God by covering since I am the glory of man and my husband is the glory of God. It is hard to explain typing it out. Lol! 

Also, I believe it is an outward sign to the angels that our home is a God fearing home. 

By being obedient to what God says to YOU, you are being closer to God. This is what God has convicted me of and I am finally free to do as He pleases. I must say, my heart is so much lighter even with the snickers.

On the snicker note, I did notice that the people who look are actually secretly interested in why you do it. Perhaps, God has been speaking to them and they are afraid. So deep down, they want to stop you in the store and ask you questions. Otherwise, the ones who could care less either way, don't really acknowledge you that much.

I guess that's all for now.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

Moopups, I don't think it is a major issue. I don't know of any churches (other than Amish and Mennonite, of course) that address it. 

For me, it was a personal conviction that had nothing to do with any church we have attended. Women did cover their heads for centuries when in church - until the mid-nineteenth century. Then, up until the 1950's, many women wore fancy hats to church as a head covering, but it became tradition rather than obedience. 

My personal thought, with absolutely nothing to back it up, is that our nation is headed for a massive revival. People are searching, and many women are desiring (whether they know it or not) a closer relationship with Christ and a return to a time when women were honored and treasured. It seems to me that baby steps are being taken, and the increase in women covering their heads is one of those baby steps.


----------



## Jesus Saves (May 31, 2005)

I agree, RockyGlen.

The funny thing is, my mom came over yesterday and I hadn't told her I was doing this. She was speechless. LOL! Poor thing. I gave her some info and sent her along. She thought I was trying to be Amish. It has nothing to do with that. Oh well. Im sure she phoned the whole family and told them I was crazy!


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

I purposely wear coverings that are not associated with Amish, Mennonite, or Nuns. I don't think God really cares what they look like as long as they are modest, but I did not want to be associated with any "church" but Christ's. And I still get asked where my horse and buggy are, what orphanage I work at, and how I cook without electricity, LOL.


----------



## A'sta at Hofstead (Sep 20, 2006)

Could I wear a Harley Davidson or leopard print kerchief?


----------



## Hears The Water (Aug 2, 2002)

I went through a time where I was considering the whole issue of cutting my hair, wearing a dress and head covering. I had a good friend (through my home school co-op) that was old time pentecostal and wore only dresses and never cut her hair. I was so blessed that we got to talk very openly about it. She was very kind and helpful. She lent me some books that talked about it. Now at this point we disagreed. The author of the books said that cutting a woman's hair was an abomination and that was an unforgivable sin and therefore all people that cut their hair were going to hell. I came right out and asked my friend if she believed that way, and she said that no she didn't but that she used those books for scripture references. I asked my husband what he thought of my personal struggles, and he said that if I came to the decision after prayer and a calling from God, then he would support me in it. I was so touched and honored by his statement. I did decided after much prayer, discussion with other godly folk, and scripture reading that I was not being called in this direction. But I am still open to it. I think for me it was an act of obedience to look at it and be ready for it. I have several friends that only wear dresses, and one that doesn't cut her hair. There are no folks that wear head coverings in our group though. 

JS, I am thrilled for you! 
God bless you and yours
Deb


----------



## Saffron (May 24, 2006)

RockyGlen said:


> My personal thought, with absolutely nothing to back it up, is that our nation is headed for a massive revival. People are searching, and many women are desiring (whether they know it or not) a closer relationship with Christ and a return to a time when women were honored and treasured. It seems to me that baby steps are being taken, and the increase in women covering their heads is one of those baby steps.



I completely agree with this. I know that I am desiring to be closer. I have more questions now than ever before.

I have personally not thought much of the covering until I started studying the Amish and Mennonites. Still didn't give it Biblical thought, just knew they required it.
I like the thought that your hair (glory) is to be for your husband's eyes.

I have a question to ask about baptism - but which forum should it go in - here?


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

Scaresgro, there is a Bible fellowship forum. I think you have to click on UserCP at the top of your screen, and then subscribe to it in order to be able to see it.


----------



## farmergirl (Aug 2, 2005)

A'sta at Hofstead said:


> Could I wear a Harley Davidson or leopard print kerchief?


I don't think so...my understanding is that those would be considered prideful since you would be making a fashion statement with them. Besides, last I heard, the BIG GUY rides a Suzuki


----------



## triana1326 (Feb 13, 2006)

Jesus Saves said:


> On the snicker note, I did notice that the people who look are actually secretly interested in why you do it. Perhaps, God has been speaking to them and they are afraid. So deep down, they want to stop you in the store and ask you questions. Otherwise, the ones who could care less either way, don't really acknowledge you that much.
> 
> I guess that's all for now.


I'm interested in the religious aspects, rather than the salvation parts. I've studied religion since I was 7 years old and have found a faith that fits my morals, values, and speaks to me on the same level your religion speaks to you. I've just always been interested in what people believe (I also have a Psych. degree, if that helps explain things). I used to talk to the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons who came by the home. My senior thesis was about comparative views of death and the afterlife. Thank you for answering my questions with such thought and patience. I truly believe that if people just took the time to understand one another, that this world would be a more peaceful place.


----------



## A'sta at Hofstead (Sep 20, 2006)

farmergirl said:


> I don't think so...my understanding is that those would be considered prideful since you would be making a fashion statement with them. Besides, last I heard, the BIG GUY rides a Suzuki


Darn it, how about just sponge-bob, God does have a sense of humor- he made the platypus!


----------



## farmergirl (Aug 2, 2005)

A'sta at Hofstead said:


> Darn it, how about just sponge-bob, God does have a sense of humor- he made the platypus!


A'sta, I'm afraid that the commercialism will be a stubbling block here. You need to find something that has no connection to advertising or materialism. And I think any color other than white or off-white might be an issue too.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

it is what is in your heart that matters - not what is on your head


----------



## Saffron (May 24, 2006)

Rocky Glen - I can't get it to show up. At all.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

Click on UserCP, then on the bottom left click "Group Memberships" and select the Bible forum.


----------



## Saffron (May 24, 2006)

Ty!


----------



## A'sta at Hofstead (Sep 20, 2006)

farmergirl said:


> A'sta, I'm afraid that the commercialism will be a stubbling block here. You need to find something that has no connection to advertising or materialism. And I think any color other than white or off-white might be an issue too.


I am being flippant, which is just wrong. I just don't see why God would care what you wear at all, as long as you go. :shrug:


----------



## LamiPub (Nov 10, 2006)

River said:


> *I Cor. 11:5* But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with _her_ head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
> *11:6* For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
> 
> *Isa 47:2* Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers.
> ...


I grew up in a church where many of the older generation women still pinned a small lace kerchief on the top as a head covering. I admired it and thought it was a lovely and sweet tradition. I am in no way criticizing those who choose to wear headcoverings. If in their heart they feel compelled to wear one or even if they just like wearing one I respect that. However, in case some feel *unnecessarily bound* I wish to share the rest of the passage which seems to get overlooked. 

I Cor. 11:13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 

14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 

15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 

*16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.*


----------



## LamiPub (Nov 10, 2006)

As someone else said it is what is in your heart that matters and each individual with the help of the Holy Spirit will choose their way. While I certainly believe a Christian should try and let their "light shine", "be the salt", and livetheir life as a testimony to Christ's teachings I tend to relate more to the following passage. 

Matthew 6
Do Good to Please God
1 âTake heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 3 But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.[a]
The Model Prayer

5 âAnd when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 6 But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.* 7 And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. 
8 âTherefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him. 9 In this manner, therefore, pray: 

Our Father in heaven, 
Hallowed be Your name. 
10 Your kingdom come. 
Your will be done 
On earth as it is in heaven. 
11 Give us this day our daily bread. 
12 And forgive us our debts, 
As we forgive our debtors. 
13 And do not lead us into temptation, 
But deliver us from the evil one. 
For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.[c]

14 âFor if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Fasting to Be Seen Only by God

16 âMoreover, when you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, with a sad countenance. For they disfigure their faces that they may appear to men to be fasting. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 17 But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18 so that you do not appear to men to be fasting, but to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly*


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

King James does phrase it to sound as if it was not the custom to cover heads. However, newer translations phrase it this way:

1 Corinthians 11:16 (New American Standard Bible)

16But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. 

Using the word "other" rather than "such" changes the entire meaning. Each person should study it for themselves to determine what God really intends.

Matthew Henry (who died in 1714), in his commentaries, explained it this way:



> v. 16. Custom is in a great measure the rule of decency. And the common practice of the churches is what would have them govern themselves by. He does not silence the contentious by mere authority, but lets them know that they would appear to the world as very odd and singular in their humour if they would quarrel for a custom to which all the churches of Christ were at that time utter strangers, or against a custom in which they all concurred, and that upon the ground of natural decency. *It was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was manifestly decent that they should do so. Those must be very contentious indeed who would quarrel with this, or lay it aside. *


----------



## Rory (Mar 12, 2007)

farmergirl said:


> And I think any color other than white or off-white might be an issue too.


The Mennonites and Amish around here often wear black covers, or maybe it's various groups of visiting Amish of a different order from somewhere else.

Very interesting thread! We're of the dress-wearing, long-haired women, short-haired men Christian persuasion here too, but we don't cover. I'd never understood covering or even thought to ask. I'd like more information on this myself because I really enjoy many points of view on this thread, especially making the difference between praying and not praying. Our long hair is our glory, which is why we bind it up. However, a lot of that has to do with tradition I suppose.

Congratulations on your choice!


----------



## Jesus Saves (May 31, 2005)

RockyGlen, 
That is one translation I use. So, I see it as "we have no other practice" as in this is the way it is. 

A'sta---honestly, I think if you were serious about covering, you could wear a harley bandana all the time. God would know you weren't wearing it because you idolized harley davidson, but that you just that they were cool and you liked that for a covering. ????? Maybe I'm wrong. 

I chose this kind of covering (white mesh) because it suits me. A bandana wouldn't suit me so well. 

Also, I do cut my hair. I wear it down to my bra strap in the back and when it gets longer, it is hard to put up so I get it cut. I CANNOT make a bun to save my life!! I wear a french twist under my cap. I have VERY thick hair. 

Hi, my name is Stephanie. I'm a dork who can't make a bun


----------



## Sharon in NY (May 11, 2002)

Not Christian, of course, but congratulations on your choice.

For me, as a Jew, the issue is quite simple. One covers one's head at prayer. You are supposed to pray so often that uncovering would be awkward  . That said, I don't always do it - I go back and forth between just covering for prayer and covering all the time. 

I use bandanas, pretty scarves, kippot (scullcaps/yarmulkes), hats, handknitted kerchiefs, and the occasional snood. I like them all - I don't think the specific covering is mentioned in the Torah  , so I wear what I think looks nice. DH and kids wear kippot - not the little kind that pin to your head, but the Israeli kind that cover more of your hair. I have one of those too, and it isn't awful, but it makes me feel like I'm wearing a scone on my head, so I prefer my scarves  

Sharon


----------



## River (Jun 25, 2003)

LamiPub said:


> However, in case some feel *unnecessarily bound* I wish to share the rest of the passage which seems to get overlooked.
> 
> *16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.*


Interestingly, church leaders who were much closer to the issue and could read the original Greek letters believed women should cover their heads.

For instance:

*Tertullian:* " I also admonish you second group of women, who are married, not to outgrow the discipline of the veil."

*Clement of Alexandria:* "For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled."

*Hippolytus:* "And let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque cloth, not with a veil of thin linen, for this is not a true covering."

For myself, I do not believe Paul, in verse 16, was nullifying all he had written in verses 1-15.

River


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

there is a Jewish woman in our town who covers her head.......with a wig. I thought that was interesting.


----------



## LamiPub (Nov 10, 2006)

I am sorry but I still feel the words "*we have no such custom, neither the churches of God*" negate a "requirement" for all times for the traditional head coverings. Those words seem to say to me that this is not a church custom or law. Again I respect those who make the personal choice to wear one as an outward sign. I just wished to help those who are unclear see that is *not* the law of God.


----------



## Monte Sano (Jul 6, 2006)

11:3-10 - But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every individual man, just as a man is the "head" of the woman and God is the head of Christ. Thus it follows that if a man prays or preaches with his head covered, he is, symbolically, dishonouring him who is his real head. But in the case of a woman, if she prays or preaches with her head uncovered it is just as much a disgrace as if she had it closely shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head she might just as well have her hair cropped. And if to be cropped or closely shaven is a sign of disgrace to women, then that is all the more reason for her to cover the head. A man ought not to cover his head, for he represents the very person and glory of God, while the woman reflects the person and glory of the man. For man does not exist because woman exists, but vice versa. Man was not created originally for the sake of woman, but woman was created for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to bear on her head an outward sign of man's authority for all the angels to see.

11:11-16 - Of course, in the sight of God neither "man" nor "woman" has any separate existence. For if woman was made originally for man, no man is now born except by a woman, and both man and woman, like everything else, owe their existence to God. But use your own judgment, do you think it right and proper for a woman to pray to God bare-headed? Isn't there a natural principle here, that makes us feel that long hair is disgraceful to a man, but of glorious beauty to a woman? We feel this because the long hair is the cover provided by nature for the woman's head. But if anyone wants to be argumentative about it, I can only say that we and the churches of God generally hold this ruling on the matter.



bumpus said:


> .
> 1Cor: 11:1: Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
> 2: Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
> 3: But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
> ...


----------



## LamiPub (Nov 10, 2006)

"16But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. 

Using the word "other" rather than "such" changes the entire meaning. Each person should study it for themselves to determine what God really intends."

In the footnotes of the more current translations I found the following: "the Greek word "other" can also mean "such". The word order in the Greek suggests the following translation: "If anyone...about this, it is not we who have such a practice-nor the churches of God" Paul means that neither he nor the church has introduced such a practice; they are merely following the current social custom.


----------



## bumpus (Jul 30, 2003)

.
No matter what your wear it does not show that you are a Christian.

Non-christian women wear dresses and hats.

Clothes do not make a christian.

Jesus Christ was known by his claims of being The Son Of God. Not by the clothes he wore.

People will not know who you are unless you tell them. Just because you go to church does not tell people you are a Christian. Lost people go to church.

Be a witness not a poster child for people to guess who you are, or they will just think you are a good old boy or girl.

If your hair falls out you have no glory then, now what ?

16: But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Contentious means in disagreement and Paul said the Church and the Apostles do not have that custom made by men, and NOT by God, to be put on the Children of God the Christians.

Living by the doctrines of men brings you back into bondage of men ! ! !

bumpus
.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

No one on this thread has said that every woman must wear a head covering. No one has even hinted at such. In fact, some have flat out said that it is a personal matter for each person and Christ to decide. 

But still, instead of accepting that some people have this conviction, it has to become an argument because others don't accept it.

This will be my last thought on the subject, and is taken from a booklet I picked up at the State Fair, of all places:



> verse 16 "But if anyone thinks to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the churches of God."
> 
> With full apostolic authority, Paul emphatically states that if anyone is contentious (philaneikos - to love strife) on this matter, they had no such practice in all the churches of God. What practice - veiling, or unveiling? One has to be amazed at the commentators who imply that Paul is in this one verse abolishing all that he has said in verses 1-15. The word translated 'such' here is 'toioutos', which simply means 'such as', and not 'other' as some translations misinterpret. It is soon obvious to anyone studying this passage that 'such custom' is referring to and answering his question in verse 13, "Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with, her head uncovered?'. In the Greek, the grammatical structure of this verse is such in case, number and gender to make it agree only with the pronoun 'yourselves' in verse 13. Thus verses 14 and 15 are a parenthesis between verses 13 and 16, where he appeals to their native sense in the matter of hair length for each sex. Paul proclaims boldly that in every church the sisters wore the head veiling, and he flatly commands them to step in line with universal apostolic practice.


No one here is trying to force all women to wear a headcovering. We are saying that WE have been convicted in this matter, and we rejoice when another sister in Christ is taking this step into Godly submission. If you don't feel this conviction, fine, but perhaps another thread could be started to argue about it?


----------



## River (Jun 25, 2003)

bumpus said:


> ...the Apostles do not have that custom made by men, and NOT by God, to be put on the Children of God the Christians.
> 
> Living by the doctrines of men brings you back into bondage of men ! !


*I Cor. 11:10* For this cause ought the woman to have power on _her_ head because of the angels.

Man made?

River


----------



## Hears The Water (Aug 2, 2002)

Jesus Saves said:


> Hi, my name is Stephanie. I'm a dork who can't make a bun


Hi Stephanie, I am Debbie a fellow dork that can't get pins to stay in her hair. My hair is very very thick and curly and will push pins out rather quickly. 

I thought of you when I saw this part of the headcovering site. I don't know if it will help you or not, but I can't wait to get some new hair barettes to try a couple of these methods out! HTH
God bless you and yours
Deb

http://www.prayercoverings.com/pages/howtomakeabun.php


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

I have long, thick, hair. Here are some of my tricks:

To put my hair in a bun or french twist, I buy shish-ka-bob skewers, the cheap wooden ones, and break them in half and run them through the center of the bun. Works great, is cheap, and they are easy to replace. 

Buy quilt clips in the sewing section, rather than hair clips in the hair section. You can get 30 "binding and hem" clips for the same price as 6 "hair clips" and they are exactly the same

Rather than putting a clip in your hair, and then a pin in the covering, I put a barrette or clip in my hair, and then use the clips to hold the covering on, also. My babies can hug and love on me without getting poked by pins.


----------



## Jesus Saves (May 31, 2005)

Hears the waters and RockyGlen----Thank you!!!

I will try those things.

One thing I forgot to say was----When my 10 year old son came home from Grandma's and saw me, he said, "huh, what's that for? Now I won't see your hair" Well, first I read him the scripture and he got it. Then I told him he sure would see my hair at night when I drop it and comb it out. He said "oh, so only me and dad get to see your pretty hair? That's cool." LOL I love him so much, he has such a wonderful heart.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> My personal thought, with absolutely nothing to back it up, is that our nation is headed for a massive revival. People are searching, and many women are desiring (whether they know it or not) a closer relationship with Christ and a return to a time when women were honored and treasured.


And what time was that, I wonder?

It didn't happen to also be a time when women couldn't vote, rape and incest were seldom reported or prosecuted, domestic violence was considered a 'family matter,' alimony and child support orders were lacksadaisically enforced if at all, colleges denied admission to women or mercilessly hazed the occasional brave female who dared to enter a quote-unquote man's profession ... etc. Did it?


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

Jesus Saves - you are very welcome.

I think I will go read Three Billy Goats Gruff, now.......


----------



## RoseGarden (Jun 5, 2005)

Willow, I like you as a person, but to be honest, you simply are not getting the point in this discussion. It isn't about 'bondage' to men or anything of this earth. It is about God. Please go back and carefully re-read what RockyGlen has posted, she has a very good grasp of what covering and submission are about, and conveys that very well.

Again, this is not about being opressed.

Edited to add that yes, I also cover, and have most of my adult life.


----------



## TxCloverAngel (Jun 20, 2005)

Thank you for this thread. I have never given covering much thought. But then I never really understood it either. I admire those of you following your convictions no matter what they may be.


----------



## Kstornado11 (Mar 17, 2006)

TxCloverAngel said:


> Thank you for this thread. I have never given covering much thought. But then I never really understood it either. I admire those of you following your convictions no matter what they may be.


Ditto. I have often wanted to ask about it,but didn't want to seem rude. Thanks for helping me to understand it.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

Please, feel free to ask me anything you want as long as it is an honest curiosity question. I may choose not to answer publically, but I do not mind honest questions at all.

It's the people who ask for the sheer purpose of telling you how stupid you are that many of us (OK - make that I) get weary of.


----------



## fostermomma (Feb 26, 2007)

I had a friend who did the long hair and floor length dresses thing. They did not believe in having braids. I never understood that one. They also didn't believe in showing ones elbows. I understand modesty but never could find a scripture to back up the elbow idea.


----------



## comfortablynumb (Nov 18, 2003)

> DH say I need to wax my back


wow
thats gonna hurt.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

fostermomma said:


> I had a friend who did the long hair and floor length dresses thing. They did not believe in having braids. I never understood that one. They also didn't believe in showing ones elbows. I understand modesty but never could find a scripture to back up the elbow idea.


I sure can't think of any Scripture to back up the elbow thing. I did several quick web searches and came up with a Catholic site and a Pentecostal site that both say sleeves must cover the upper arm to the elbow, but both said it was their definition of "modest." My concordances came up with nothing, either. That's a new one on me.......

Braids is because of I Timothy 2:9
"Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments" I braid my girls hair, and mine, but it is not to draw attention, just to keep it neat - and is not elaborate, with gold and ribbons and such. 

Interesting! There are Old Testament verses that lead one to beleive that modesty means covered from neck to knees....but I can find nothing about elbows.


----------



## lorian (Sep 4, 2005)

Our church is made up of about 6 (large) families. Most of the women wear head coverings. We are not mennonite, or Amish but reformed.
I just recently started wearing a covering to church.
I love wearing it.....
50 years or so ago practically all women wore hats or some kind of mantilla to church services. It wasn't even questioned. Has anyone thought about that?


----------



## Wildwood (Jul 2, 2007)

Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts and feelings. I also have a much better understanding of the issue.

In my whole town and extended rural communities, there is only one young woman who covers and I've probably mistakenly assumed she was Amish or Menonite.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

RockyGlen said:


> it is what is in your heart that matters - not what is on your head


AMEN!!! God looks at the heart, unlike man. My Grandmother was United Pentecostal. She never cut her hair, and always wore dresses. BUT, what really impressed me was that she lived the life that she talked about. However; many of the ladies who attended church with her had all the same outward appearance as my Grandmother, but their lives were anything but a witness.

If a person can't tell I'm a Christian by the way I live my life, then I'm doing something wrong. I don't feel led to wear a head covering, or even wear just dresses. I do feel led to live my life in a way that would bring glory to my Lord and Savior and have had many people ask me what was different about me, which opened doors for me to share the good news of salvation.


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2007)

Very interesting thread. It also proved that I don't know my bible very well. When I was a little kid I can remember going to church with my grandma and mom. They always wore scarfs to church as did many other women. Now that the subject has come up, I wonder if they were doing it for religion reasons. I always thought it was because it was just a style for that time period. Early 60's. 

So my question is, when did most modern day church's abandon head coverings and what scripture did they use to make that judgement?


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

r.h. in okla. said:


> Very interesting thread. It also proved that I don't know my bible very well. When I was a little kid I can remember going to church with my grandma and mom. They always wore scarfs to church as did many other women. Now that the subject has come up, I wonder if they were doing it for religion reasons. I always thought it was because it was just a style for that time period. Early 60's.
> 
> So my question is, when did most modern day church's abandon head coverings and what scripture did they use to make that judgement?


OK....I'll jump into the fire with both feet, LOL. It began phasing out in the late 50's and early 60's........right about the time womens lib was coming along. The greater emphasis on the equality of men and women tended to downplay elements that stressed their differences. Likewise, for the first time in centuries, not removing their hat indoors and wearing a hat outdoors, for men, ceased being considered as bad manners, whereas up to a few years beforehand it was deemed unseemly to go around hatless or to keep it on in the house. That was also the timeframe in which women started wearing pants and working outside the home. The Catholic church kept head coverings during worship as part of their cannons until 1983.

As for what Scripture they used.........well............it was Opinions 1:1. I shall not do anything I don't want to do.

That was a joke. Seriously - I do not know what reasons were given. Scripturally, I have heard things taken out of context, like the fact that there is no male and female in Christ. Mostly, I have heard that it was a cultural thing - that in the Corinthian church, in New Testament times, it was the culture for women to cover their heads. In out culture, in our time, it is the culture for women to be equal.

In other words - feminism. :help: 

Before people fire up their flamethrowers - please bear in mind that I do NOT beleive that every woman should wear a head covering, or be a stay at home mom, or any other generalization. So.....well.....BE NICE. :angel:


----------



## heather (May 13, 2002)

River said:


> *Tertullian:* " I also admonish you second group of women, who are married, not to outgrow the discipline of the veil."
> 
> *Clement of Alexandria:* "For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled."
> 
> *Hippolytus:* "And let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque cloth, not with a veil of thin linen, for this is not a true covering."


Tertullian was speaking of a veil worn by virgins - he argued that it shouldn't be a law - it should be the woman's choice, but this was only worn by virgins

Also, as I understand their writings, Tertullian and Clement were BOTH speaking of VEILS, not coverings - if you read the entire text of Clement, he clearly is speaking of a VEIL that covers the face

_Woman and man are to go to church decently attired, with natural step, embracing silence, possessing unfeigned love, pure in body, pure in heart, fit to pray to God. Let the woman observe this, further. Let her be entirely covered, unless she happen to be at home. For that style of dress is grave, and protects from being gazed at. And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by *uncovering her face.* For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled. _ from THE INSTRUCTOR, BOOK III, CHAPTER I

I also wonder if you would quote Athanasius who wrote women should have their âface be veiled and downcastâ in their encounters with others

You quoted HIppolytus - he also wrote that men and women be segregated while in church, without greeting one another, and that the head of the women be covered completely


I am all FOR you covering your head if you like, but when others are asking sincere questions about where you get your information, it's good to include ALL the information, not just some of it
And if you didn't know all the information that these men wrote about this subject, it might be good to study up on it -

If you are going to take SOME of what these men say, where does it end? or doesn't it? if you're going to take their quotes on head coverings to support your argument, then you should take it all

Do you keep your head down in your encounters with others? does your church segregate men & women?
maybe you do -
I am just not one for taking quotes this way


----------



## MicheleMomof4 (Jul 17, 2002)

Rocky,
I was going to reply before you did with the comment....
"We were liberated dontcha' know." But figured I had scorched my pantaloons enough today in other threads. LOL
God Bless,
Michele


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

MicheleMomof4 said:


> Rocky,
> I was going to reply before you did with the comment....
> "We were liberated dontcha' know." But figured I had scorched my pantaloons enough today in other threads. LOL
> God Bless,
> Michele


LOL - probably not too bright on my part, but I broke my foot yesterday and am on pain killers, and it's late, and dh is still out of town, and........anyway.......... I kind of have a "don't care" attitude right this minute. Also, I would hope that most have read the fact that I don't think head coverings are a commandment.


----------



## MicheleMomof4 (Jul 17, 2002)

I'm with ya. I have pneumonia so it seems and have that same attitude today or is it tomorrow already? 
Any who, hope your foot feels better and fast! Prayers coming your way. 
God Bless,
Michele


----------



## Heidi's_Goats (Mar 21, 2007)

Thank you everyone for your enlightening responses to the original poster! I had never really thought about this topic in great detail. Being raised and currently Roman Catholic it is very seldom to see a woman wearing a veil. We however do have a local Latin Rite Roman Catholic Church where many of the women do cover. 

I really liked the answer that this man gave to the question: http://www.fatimafamily.org/articles/VeilCanonLaw.html 
And the reasons for wearing a veil. "I wear the veil as a sign of reverence in the presence of Jesus, my Lord, God and Savior." A more detailed answer could add - "and as a sign of submission to God from whom all authority comes."

I will have to investigate this subject some more. Thanks again.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Willow, I like you as a person, but to be honest, you simply are not getting the point in this discussion. It isn't about 'bondage' to men or anything of this earth. It is about God. Please go back and carefully re-read what RockyGlen has posted, she has a very good grasp of what covering and submission are about, and conveys that very well.


Just wanted to shed some light on that lil fantasy that there was a time in the distant, misty past when women were powerless but nevertheless treated with respect and dignity. 

Umm, that ain't the way it works, folks ... sorry! 

Personally, I suspect women who cover outside of church (unless they belong to a culture where everyone does it, i.e., Amish or Mennonite) do it to show off. A holier-than-thou sorta thing. Which, when you think about it, is the exact opposite of modesty, isn't it?

I found Heather's citations above interesting ... does anyone see a similarity to the Islamic burka? 

I also am reminded of "The Handmaid's Tale," in which the women wore elaborate headcoverings that restricted their vision. 

From a patriarchal standpoint, the requirement may make sense -- if you make women go about heavily veiled, covered from head to toe, you won't have to forbid them to take part in many activities -- they will be unable to by reason of their garments. Inability becomes the default setting.

Of course, a simple headscarf is unlikely to be much of a hindrance, but knowing it's rooted in this sort of reasoning makes me uneasy.

Just a few random and probably very unwelcome thoughts from your resident women's libber, LOL. 

And I do hope you ladies (Rocky and Michele) feel better soon!


----------



## saramark (Nov 2, 2004)

willow girl-just wanted to add that I cover and also wear long dresses. I have not found a single thing that I am unable to do because of how I dress. When I first went to skirts and dresses only, I kept a couple pairs of pants for the times I would "need" them. After a year I got rid of them as there has never been one of those times. 
No one else around here covers but it is not a prideful thing for me. Many people don't really notice or at least make no comment about it. If someone asks me about it, I say that I felt God leading ME to wear a headcover. God deals with all of us in his time and place. If he is asking me to cover, that is the least I can do for him sending his Son to die on the cross to pay for my sin. 
And even if it is just a custom I would rather that I do nore than is expected of me than not do what is being asked. God has given us the bible as a love letter. He sees the big picture and knows what will and will not work in living our life. If we just follow it we will see God's blessings.

sara


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> Just wanted to shed some light on that lil fantasy that there was a time in the distant, misty past when women were powerless but nevertheless treated with respect and dignity.
> 
> Umm, that ain't the way it works, folks ... sorry!


Godly men DID and DO treat their women that way, because that is what they are commanded to do. They are not perfect, any more than women are, and do make mistakes - and some flat out abuse the verses about headship, but it DOES work that way for many, many families.



> Personally, I suspect women who cover outside of church (unless they belong to a culture where everyone does it, i.e., Amish or Mennonite) do it to show off. A holier-than-thou sorta thing. Which, when you think about it, is the exact opposite of modesty, isn't it?


And, once again, a non-Christian comes to a clearly labeled Christian thread and starts insulting people. Can't remember who it was that suggested we keep a running tally of how many liberals verses conservatives start stirring up trouble with no provocation, but here's another mark for her liberal column.



> I found Heather's citations above interesting ... does anyone see a similarity to the Islamic burka?


Heather did not quote the Bible (yes, I know, she was responding to another poster who also did not quote the Bible). The discussion was concerning Christian veiling- not Muslim.



> I also am reminded of "The Handmaid's Tale," in which the women wore elaborate headcoverings that restricted their vision.
> 
> From a patriarchal standpoint, the requirement may make sense -- if you make women go about heavily veiled, covered from head to toe, you won't have to forbid them to take part in many activities -- they will be unable to by reason of their garments. Inability becomes the default setting.


Did you see the photos I posted? There is nothing physically restrictive about a Christian head covering. There is also nothing about a Christian head covering that could be used to keep a woman unable to do thing. 



> Of course, a simple headscarf is unlikely to be much of a hindrance, but knowing it's rooted in this sort of reasoning makes me uneasy.
> 
> Just a few random and probably very unwelcome thoughts from your resident women's libber, LOL.


Hence my confusion......this was a clearly stated thread about Christian headcoverings. The OP was clearly rejoicing about her new found freedom in Christ. From there, several women asked, very respectfully, for reasoning of why people who wear one, do. If you posted a thread title of your new Pagan status or a practice, I would not even open it and if I did, I would read with interest and keep my thoughts to myself since I would totally disagree with whatever it was you were doing. If someone asked why some people thought it was wrong for you to do that, I might post, but I would not try to rain on your parade. And I certainly would not clip clop across your bridge trying to stir up the troll.



> And I do hope you ladies (Rocky and Michele) feel better soon!


Thank you! My foot still hurts, but I expect it will for some time to come.


----------



## Jesus Saves (May 31, 2005)

I cover outside of church and such, not because I think I'm all that. I do it, because I pray alot while driving or shopping or taking a walk, etc. It also, honestly, helps me keep myself in check. It is humbling to wear, not prideful.


----------



## MarleneS (Aug 21, 2003)

What someone else chooses to wear or not isn't really my business, until it somehow offense my senibilities, and they have to be offended greatly before I would actually say or do anything about how some one else is dressed or to be more honest undressed.

Whenever I see women with religious connected hair coverings, to me it says they are proud to let others know how important religion is to themselves and more often then not it's a family thing. 

Of course, I don't really know the reasons they choose to dress as they do, I'm sure it is possible there are as many good reasons and there is the possiblity that they do it for wrong reasons, we have no way of knowing the reason, I figure it's better to go with the kinder thought.

If my observations of other people out in public reactions are correct, they do draw attention to the wearer, but it's always been not unpleasent attention so far.

RockyGlen is correct about how other people treat you when they assume your dress has religion connections. I too noticed this when I had very long hair, when I wore it up on top of my head, and had on a favored longish demin skirt with cotton print blouse....of course they had no way of knowing I was thinking...."If only they knew."

Hugs,
Marlene


----------



## fostermomma (Feb 26, 2007)

Thank you for looking into the elbow thing RockyGlen. I had tried looking it up myself and just assumed I missed it somewhere.

I have been doing a lot of considering the idea of going to dresses and skirts. DH doesn't have an opinion about it. I guess it is becoming a matter of conviction. Our church (well the churches we have been going to----we are looking for a new church)
don't do the dress thing so I would be the only one. Our old church had two families who did the dress thing one family cut hair but it was kept long I mean like down to the waist. The other family never cut or trimmed their hair.

I have had long hair for years and wear it up most of the time. I have noticed that when I am in a dress or skirt I do seem to be treated better especailly by the foster boys we have.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> willow girl-just wanted to add that I cover and also wear long dresses. I have not found a single thing that I am unable to do because of how I dress. When I first went to skirts and dresses only, I kept a couple pairs of pants for the times I would "need" them. After a year I got rid of them as there has never been one of those times.


Ironically, I wear long dresses or skirts most of the time, too, although not for religious reasons ... I just like 'em! 

I'd wear miniskirts if I had nicer legs ... LOL



> Hence my confusion......this was a clearly stated thread about Christian headcoverings. ... If someone asked why some people thought it was wrong for you to do that, I might post, but I would not try to rain on your parade. And I certainly would not clip clop across your bridge trying to stir up the troll.


Oh, I was reading along quietly enough until I came to the assertion there was some time in the glorious past when powerless women were treated respectfully, just because. Usually those assertions are accompanied by the idea that if only women were stripped of everything we fought tooth and nail to achieve in the 20th century, men would magically be transformed into knights in shining armor once again. A dangerous notion, and one that deserves to be rebuked, IMO. 

Yes, godly men ought to treat their women kindly, and it appears some actually do, but not all (or even most) men are godly, so thank goodness for liberation and equality! I am sure some slaves were treated so benevolently that emanicipation seemed unnecessary, but for the masses, I suspect it was a good thing. 



> RockyGlen is correct about how other people treat you when they assume your dress has religion connections. I too noticed this when I had very long hair, when I wore it up on top of my head, and had on a favored longish demin skirt with cotton print blouse....of course they had no way of knowing I was thinking...."If only they knew."


LOL

A funny story: when I was training as a herd tester, I was sent out one morning during a heat wave, 100 plus degrees! First time I'd ever seen cows pant like dogs. I'd had only about 3 hours of sleep between herds, so I showered, skipped the makeup, and pinned my long hair up in a bun. Rode out to the farm with the tester who was training me ... the owners were (improbable as it may seem) a young gay couple who looked more like hairdressers or waiters than dairy farmers! The one was very standoffish to me at the outset, which surprised me as I'd hardly be one to criticize their lifestyle. Oh heck no! After we had chatted a bit, he shyly asked me, "Are you Mennonite?" Guess the plain face and hair had him fooled! I told him nope, I'm a pagan, and we both cracked up. Needless to say, things were a bit more relaxed after that.


----------



## RoseGarden (Jun 5, 2005)

I don't cover in order to 'show off' or be 'holier than thou'. That would be prideful. I cover to show that I love the Lord. I cannot control what anyone else thinks of me. But if a woman wear miniskirts to show her nice legs, isn't that being prideful and showing off? And what if that causes others to think that woman is showing off? Well, the woman would likely say 'I don't care what someone else thinks'. 

Willow, you are well entitled to believe whatever you want, but you should educate yourself in world history before you make comments that in essence say that women have always been opressed and downtrodden. A good place to start would be with Jewish, Greek, and Roman history.

I really have nothing further to add to the discussion because we are all entitled to believe and live as we want. As for myself, I will always cover because it is my belief, and for those who can't understand the reasons I would suggest practicing the respect and tolerance that they demand for themselves in their pagan, wiccan, atheist or other such religion.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> Oh, I was reading along quietly enough until I came to the assertion there was some time in the glorious past when powerless women were treated respectfully, just because. Usually those assertions are accompanied by the idea that if only women were stripped of everything we fought tooth and nail to achieve in the 20th century, men would magically be transformed into knights in shining armor once again. A dangerous notion, and one that deserves to be rebuked, IMO.


As a Christian, I think anything pagan is a dangerous notion and deserves to be rebuked. I also think feminism has contributed more to the downward slide of this country than any other single thing. But instead of interrupting your conversations or insulting you, I simply say a silent, very general, prayer for enlightenment where needed and I move on. Why? Because I respect your free will to beleive what you choose. If I am constantly telling you how wrong it is, without being invited, I am not respecting that choice. My silence does not mean I endorse your beliefs, it means I have respect for differences.


----------



## Christine in OK (May 10, 2002)

*Triana*, I think your desire for knowledge about other religions is admirable. I agree that the better we understand the beliefs of others, the better we will be able to make ourselves understood when discussing _our_ beliefs with others.

Willow, I would daresay that you do get your hackles up regarding Christian beliefs! But, I understand the statement you made about the helplessness of women. Perhaps the misunderstanding in this case does come from a historical perspective - as in, historical meaning 50 - 100 years ago, or 2,000 - 3,000 years ago. It is amazing how "liberation" swings so drastically over time, and repeatedly also!


----------



## Christine in OK (May 10, 2002)

RockyGlen said:


> As a Christian, I think anything pagan is a dangerous notion and deserves to be rebuked. I also think feminism has contributed more to the downward slide of this country than any other single thing. But instead of interrupting your conversations or insulting you, I simply say a silent, very general, prayer for enlightenment where needed and I move on. Why? Because I respect your free will to beleive what you choose. If I am constantly telling you how wrong it is, without being invited, I am not respecting that choice. My silence does not mean I endorse your beliefs, it means I have respect for differences.


Well, we were posting at the same time! 

I agree - telling people how wrong they are over and over is not the way to win, is it? Sometimes it's enough for people to _know_ that you disagree, but respect their decision enough not to cram your beliefs down their throat.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Willow, you are well entitled to believe whatever you want, but you should educate yourself in world history before you make comments that in essence say that women have always been opressed and downtrodden. A good place to start would be with Jewish, Greek, and Roman history.


You're on!

Let's see, in ancient Greece, women basically were chattel.
- They spent their lives sequestered in their homes
- Marriages usually were arranged
- Married women were not allowed to own property and anything they inherited became the property of their husbands
- Women had no voice in the political arena
- Female infanticide was accepted
- Women could divorce their husbands, but had to make their case before an official. Men could divorce their wives by kicking them out or sending them back to their families.
- In the event of a divorce, children remained the property of the father.

In ancient Rome, things were a bit better -- women at least were considered citizens! Upper-class ones received some rudimentary education and were not sequestered in their homes. However:
- Girls married around age 12, usually to much older men, and were expected to have as many children as possible. Infertility was grounds for divorce.
- Female infanticide was accepted, and a wive could not overrule her husband's decision if he chose to allow their newborn daughter to die of exposure, the common means of eliminating unwanted babies.
- Women were not allowed to vote.
- They were not allowed to drink wine, and could be punished (including killed) for doing so. Death also was the punishment for commiting adultery.
- Fathers could sell daughters into slavery or force them to get a divorce.
- Divorced women had no rights to their children

Jewish history, well ... I will assume most readers of this thread are familiar with the Old Testament, wherein a woman who was judged to have not screamed loudly enough during a rape was to be executed along with her attacker. 'Nuff said!



> As a Christian, I think anything pagan is a dangerous notion and deserves to be rebuked. I also think feminism has contributed more to the downward slide of this country than any other single thing. But instead of interrupting your conversations or insulting you, I simply say a silent, very general, prayer for enlightenment where needed and I move on. Why? Because I respect your free will to beleive what you choose. If I am constantly telling you how wrong it is, without being invited, I am not respecting that choice. My silence does not mean I endorse your beliefs, it means I have respect for differences.


Rocky, this is a CHAT board. It's what people do here, chat.

Please don't feel you need to pull your punches on my behalf.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> Rocky, this is a CHAT board. It's what people do here, chat.
> 
> Please don't feel you need to pull your punches on my behalf.


I pull my punches because being pushy is obnoxious. And it would be very nice if Christians could occassionally discuss a Christian topic without it being derailed by those who have no interest in it other than to denigrate and make themselves feel better by putting others down.

I'm done, have a wonderfully blessed day.


----------



## Christine in OK (May 10, 2002)

This is getting off-topic. 

If you want to discuss anything other than head covering; like say, women's liberation, feminism, and the historical perception of women's rights, please start a new thread for said discussion.

If you want to talk about varieties of headcoverings, availability and the pros and cons of making vs. buying them, or funny/not so funny stories of people who don't cover and their conversations with or about those who do, please carry on!


----------



## River (Jun 25, 2003)

Christine in OK said:


> This is getting off-topic.
> 
> If you want to discuss anything other than head covering; like say, women's liberation, feminism, and the historical perception of women's rights, please start a new thread for said discussion.
> 
> If you want to talk about varieties of headcoverings, availability and the pros and cons of making vs. buying them, or funny/not so funny stories of people who don't cover and their conversations with or about those who do, please carry on!


Thank you Christine. This appears to be a topic many are interested in. I hope it can be enlightening to those who would like to learn more. I am interested in reading what others have to share.

River


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

Yes, Thank you Christine.


----------



## Ashtina98 (Aug 10, 2007)

For those of you who have made this a change in your life, how did you go about it? Did you gradually start adding skirts into your wardrobe, wear a headcovering occasionally?

Dee


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

I switched to all dresses first, as dh was not sure he wanted me to wear a head covering, but was thrilled at the idea of me wearing only dresses. I asked him to pray about the head covering issue, and said that I felt convicted to wear one, but that I would honor his wishes. It took him a long time (months) to study and pray on it, and finally told me to do what I felt I needed to do and he would back me up. I started covering immediately, full time. Now he says he wishes he had agreed sooner because the change in my attitudes, countenance, and such changed so drastically. 

I guess the short answer would be that I went whole hog to wearing dresses only, and then months later went to full time covering.

ETA - I probably would not have gone to dresses only all at once, but I happened to go to a thrift store that had $1 a bag clothing, and someone my size that really like long western skirts had donated a bunch. I got 10 skirts for $1.


----------



## Sharon in NY (May 11, 2002)

I made a fairly drastic change - my husband was debating whether to wear a kippah (Jewish man's headcovering) full time or not, and I told him that if he did, I would. So he started doing it every day, and I switched to skirts and a scarf immediately. It was fine, and it wasn't a big deal, but the problem was that I didn't have a lot of skirts or headcoverings, and one day I couldn't find it, and... then I got choppy. My personal feeling about making these changes is that it is easiest usually just to go full bore into whatever you are doing. But that's just me.

Sharon


----------



## MicheleMomof4 (Jul 17, 2002)

Dee,
That is a good question. I wonder the same too. 
God Bless,
Michele


----------



## xoxoGOATSxoxo (Jul 29, 2006)

Now, no disrespect, please dont take it rudely. Im just confused. 

BUT, if the hair is a covering, then why dont Christians shave their heads, and then wear a more Muslim-type covering, one that covers the whole head? (YES, I know Muslim women do not shave their heads.But their coverings cover the whole head.) Then, if they didnt want to be covered, they could just take off the covering and not be covered, with hair or fabric. 

Huh. Help me on this one?


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

xoxoGOATSxoxo said:


> Now, no disrespect, please dont take it rudely. Im just confused.
> 
> BUT, if the hair is a covering, then why dont Christians shave their heads, and then wear a more Muslim-type covering, one that covers the whole head? (YES, I know Muslim women do not shave their heads.But their coverings cover the whole head.) Then, if they didnt want to be covered, they could just take off the covering and not be covered, with hair or fabric.
> 
> Huh. Help me on this one?


That is one reason some women start wearing an external covering. The hair as a covering makes no sense if you replace the word "covering" in Scripture with the word "hair." Particularly where it says that if a woman does not have her head covered, she should be shorn. If hair is the covering, and she is not covered, there would be nothing to shear. Also, if hair is the covering, and men are to pray with their heads uncovered - they would all have to be bald. 

As for the muslims coverings - which cover much more than just the hair - I don't know what their reasonings are. The Bible passages dealing with covering specifically mention hair as the glory of woman, and talk about dishonoring our heads - which are our husbands and Christ. 

Hope that helped a little. Feel free to ask again if I missed your point entirely.


----------



## Jesus Saves (May 31, 2005)

Ashtina98 said:


> For those of you who have made this a change in your life, how did you go about it? Did you gradually start adding skirts into your wardrobe, wear a headcovering occasionally?
> 
> Dee



I actually started wearing skirts more. Then I would wear my hair up in a french twist or rolled on the sides. The headcovering came later. I was convicted first, but husband was not for it. So I continued with more skirts and kept hair up. My friends thought I was weird for never letting my hair down in front of them. :shrug: Now that my husband is ok with it, I have to get past all the questions from my mom and friends.

Right now I am wearing a Mennonite type cap. I am interested in other ones too, such as a lacey type bandana. Is there such a thing? I made the covering I have now. I don't think I could make that kind.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

I know a woman who wears a lacey type bandana thing. All she does is get the lace at Walmart or sewing stores, I don't think she even hems it. She just cuts it into a large triangle, and ties the ends at the nape of her neck like a kercheif. You could also buy a Catholic mantilla like the ones at the bottom of this link, and just close them around your hair or tie them under your hair.

http://www.ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/Lace/cid=183/shop.axd/Category


----------



## MicheleMomof4 (Jul 17, 2002)

Someone suggested to me a way to ease into it was a bun cover. But I have no clue what that is. Anyone?
God Bless,
Michele


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

http://www.fjsmjs.com/Mary/basicbun.htm

Here is a picture and the directions to crochet one. Basically, it's kind of a doily with elastic around the edges and it only covers the actual bun - none of your other hair.


----------



## MicheleMomof4 (Jul 17, 2002)

Rachel,
You don't have to answer here if you don't want to...you can do so in private. Just wondering if your daughters cover? And thank you for the link. I think maybe a snood is more what I would be comfortable wearing. I like the lace/crocheted one. I will show DH these links provided today. 
God Bless,
Michele


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

I don't mind. Right now, my daughters wear a covering sometimes, maybe about 10% of the time - usually to church. They are at the age now where they do it just because mom does it and they want to be like mom. If they decide to cover all the time, I would hope they start doing it around the time they start physically maturing. We would never require that they wear one, simply because it really must be an outward reflection of your heart - not just an act of obedience, but of love.


----------



## jerzeygurl (Jan 21, 2005)

but they dont look like headcoverings

they look like accessories, ornaments


what exactly are those items in the picture covering? they leave a lot of hair exposed which is what i thought the point of the covering was...to cover the hair?


so i leave this thread more confused....


btw not an attack, i suppose im missing something here


----------



## Ashtina98 (Aug 10, 2007)

I too would like some help in interpreting the whole shaved head part. I am not being sarcastic or trying to stir the pot, this is a point I have read and reread in my bible and have yet to fully conclude what I am to do. 

My situation is a little different in that I am bald. I am in the middle of chemotherapy and my hair is maybe 1/4" long (not even sure if this is my hair growin back or peach fuzz). Anyway before cancer I was really feeling like this is something I should do, even purchased fabric for making my own! The only thing that held me back was I don't know anyone who does cover, I was not raised in a Christian household and neither was my husband so our families sure would not understand (We are in Arkansas they are in Washington so that may not be much of a problem for a while anyway) and I have yet to see anyone around here do it (I know I know it is a pride thing and I need to think about why I'm doing it and it is not to fit it) but also my husband doesn't get it either but he would support my decision either way.

So back to my original question. Since I am already bald do I still need to cover? My interpretation is that the long part of your hair that differentiates you from a man needs to be covered. What are your thoughts? :shrug: 

Dee


----------



## mtnbluet881 (Jun 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> AMEN!!! God looks at the heart, unlike man. My Grandmother was United Pentecostal. She never cut her hair, and always wore dresses. BUT, what really impressed me was that she lived the life that she talked about. However; many of the ladies who attended church with her had all the same outward appearance as my Grandmother, but their lives were anything but a witness.
> 
> If a person can't tell I'm a Christian by the way I live my life, then I'm doing something wrong. I don't feel led to wear a head covering, or even wear just dresses. I do feel led to live my life in a way that would bring glory to my Lord and Savior and have had many people ask me what was different about me, which opened doors for me to share the good news of salvation.


I totally agree. 
My major concern is that the younger generation sees nothing wrong in not 'covering' themselves in terms of enough fabric. Examples are the trend to show belly buttons, and miniskirts, etc. 

If people want to wear head coverings, etc, more power to you. However, do remember, that God looks at the heart and please be comfortable around those who do not choose to wear head coverings, or dresses. That way we can fulfill the Lord's directive that as Christians we should live together in unity...and laugh together and share together and break bread together and have fun together. That is what really counts in God's family.


----------



## mtnbluet881 (Jun 4, 2006)

MicheleMomof4 said:


> I'm with ya. I have pneumonia so it seems and have that same attitude today or is it tomorrow already?
> Any who, hope your foot feels better and fast! Prayers coming your way.
> God Bless,
> Michele


Try these home remedies and see if you don't feel better:

1 cup tomato juice
1 tsp lemon juice
1 tsp grated fresh garlic
1/2 tsp hot sauce

heat together and sip until feeling better---probably can save one half of this recipe for the next day or can make a large amount and put into ice cube trays for future quick use.

--------------------------

peel 3 regular size or more onions
cut into large chunks of about 1 inch size and
put into a teflon pan with nothing else
and heat slowly until warm and soft

Then put into an older towel and use as an
poultice onto your chest or back, wherever it hurts.
In no time you will be breathing easier.


----------



## donsgal (May 2, 2005)

You know, it wasn't really until the 19th century that women went bare headed all of the time. If you look at art from the previous centuries women almost always covered their heads (unless they were too poor to be able to afford to do it). Even today in many other countries (not just Muslim), women cover their hair. It has more to do with cleanliness than anything I think. You don't have to wash it as often if you protect it from getting dirty, particularly in the fields or around animals.

This has very little to do with the OP, I just thought I would throw it in there. I think what I am trying to say here is that it shouldn't be looked on as something strange. It should be normal, for whatever reason a person wants to do it. I think it is a very lovely thing to do.

donsgal
who often covers, but not for religous reasons.


----------



## hoggie (Feb 11, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> You're on!
> 
> Let's see, in ancient Greece, women basically were chattel.
> - They spent their lives sequestered in their homes
> ...


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Just had to say...

WillowGirl--I totally get what you're saying, and I think you bring up really valid points and questions. I thought of the Muslim CUSTOM/LAW of covering the head as well--which arose from the melting pot of the Middle East. In the denomination I grew up in, in the early 1920's it was "gospel" that pianos were sinful and not allowed in church, and of course today they are. When did the "gospel" change? That whole "law" was merely a custom/whim of man, although the church-goers certainly took it as the eleventh commandment. Please keep butting into the Christian's discussions(this is a public forum). I am a Christian myself and I'm always asking questions, not just swallowing stuff as "gospel".

To everybody else--how are you going to share your beliefs with GRACE if you tell the unbeliever to pipe down? Jesus himself had the patience of Job with the pagans and worse, the tax collectors! The volume of discussion has been on what the covering looks like, wearing dresses, what a covering is not...but the heart of the issue is that the covering "brings one closer or more aware of God". How? Why? When? 

My own Christian belief is that closeness to God is an entirely spiritual process, props can be helpful, but are not required("gospel"). Like I can still pray without a rosary. 

PS Willow, Jesus and the church he started were revolutionary in the treatment of women. Jesus spoke openly, publicly, frankly and graciously to loose women(the s word). He had dear female friends, he chose to appear FIRST to a woman after he rose from the dead, AND this was recorded in the bible as such--something so un-pc in those times. The early church had women leaders, and taught that husbands should cherish their wives, again so completely turned around from the surrounding culture. All through the Bible God chose to work through women, Esther, Ruth, Jael(a favorite, blood and guts involved) in very history-changing ways. It is so hard to separate out what man has made of the Bible, tacking on laws and cultural stuff, but get to the core of God's word and that is the real treasure!

ps, a dress just doesn't work on a dirt bike...


----------



## MicheleMomof4 (Jul 17, 2002)

I think the Christine, the Mod here, made it clear that if we wanted to debate this issue to start another thread. Seemed pretty clear to me. Wasn't an issue of not being debated, but in the appropriate place. Didn't seem like a lot to ask. 

Mthblue,
thank you for the recipes, I will be trying them as it is 4 am and I am unable to sleep. Yuck. Something has to work! 

Rachel,
Thank you for that answer. When me and DH discuss it both of my girls chime in and say they want to wear one if I did as well. I look at it the same way, it isn't something to be mandated to them. It is a heart issue and a personal one. 
Thank you for all your answers in this thread. It has been very inspiring! 
God Bless,
Michele


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> PS Willow, Jesus and the church he started were revolutionary in the treatment of women. Jesus spoke openly, publicly, frankly and graciously to loose women(the s word). He had dear female friends, he chose to appear FIRST to a woman after he rose from the dead, AND this was recorded in the bible as such--something so un-pc in those times. ... It is so hard to separate out what man has made of the Bible, tacking on laws and cultural stuff, but get to the core of God's word and that is the real treasure!


I am aware of that, and kinda like that Jesus dude. 
And I dig the fact my parents named me Judith, although I don't think they intended for me to go around chopping men's heads off. LOL


----------



## Jesus Saves (May 31, 2005)

RockyGlen said:


> I know a woman who wears a lacey type bandana thing. All she does is get the lace at Walmart or sewing stores, I don't think she even hems it. She just cuts it into a large triangle, and ties the ends at the nape of her neck like a kercheif. You could also buy a Catholic mantilla like the ones at the bottom of this link, and just close them around your hair or tie them under your hair.
> 
> http://www.ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/Lace/cid=183/shop.axd/Category


Thanks for the link. Actually, those are not what I had in mind. I found some online last night, but forgot where. My husband actually said he preferred me not to wear a bandana. :baby04: He said I would remind him of Aunt Jamima. :shrug: So I did find a lace head covering that was doillie-like. If that doesn't make him comfortable, then we agreed to keep what I'm wearing now. 

He supports me, but he said he has to get used to seeing me with a covering. He says I just look so different. But he's ok with that.

Here is a question---When you are at home and not going anywhere, do you still wear jeans or shorts with your covering? I don't mind skirts, but I don't have the proper shoes for winter for them. I only have sandals and no money to get flats. Anyway, just wondered.


----------



## Faustus (Jan 11, 2007)

Someone mentioned the thing about Orthodox Jewish women covering with wigs; if you read about the Hasidic Jewish communities in particular, there's a whole debate about whether covering with a wig is "tznius" (modest). It varies from community to community- some rabbis rule that it's fine, since it covers the hair, which is the point (from the Orthodox standpoint, anyway). Some say no, it's not okay to wear just a wig, because it defeats the whole purpose of covering in the first place, since it looks like the person _isn't_ covering. The rabbis who rule that way have different requirements for distinguishing that a woman is covering- some say kerchiefs and things only, others say that a wig is okay _if_ it's covered by a kerchief or if a hat is worn on top of it (which must get sweltering in the summer)... if you know the customs of different communities in, say, Brooklyn, sometimes you can actually tell what group a woman is from based on how she covers. Sort of like being able to distinguish between different Anabaptist groups based on the style of their prayer caps and/or bonnets, I guess.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

jerzeygurl said:


> but they dont look like headcoverings
> 
> they look like accessories, ornaments
> 
> ...


I understand your confusion. Covering your head is open to personal interpretation, that is why there is so much variation. My personal belief is that the bulk of my hair and the crown of my head is to be covered. Covered means unseen or hidden. Because of that, my head coverings are always opaque, and cover from right behind where my hair starts to the nape of my neck, and all my hair.

There is a Scripture mentioning that the head covering is "a symbol of authority on her head." Because of that, some women feel it is symbolic and anything will do. I have met one woman who attachs "hankies" that match her dresses to a barrette and calls that her covering. I know a Jewish woman who wears a wig as her covering. I know another Messianic Jew who wears lace mantilla type - you can see all of her hair, but it is covered.

I, personally, do not feel covered if it is small or see through. Dh had asked me once to make matching ones for my dresses so that it was not so plain. I did, out of respect to him, but felt awful - like it was an ornament. After a few days of me wearing pale, small printed ones, dh came and said to me that he hated it and would I go back to the plain ones. He said it was like earrings or a necklace. I was so glad that I had submitted to him in this matter. 

Because it is one of those things that God left open to interpretation, you will find a huge variation. If God had said let a woman be covered from her hairline to the nape of her neck in black linen, the argument would be simply whether to cover - not how.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

Ashtina98 said:


> I too would like some help in interpreting the whole shaved head part. I am not being sarcastic or trying to stir the pot, this is a point I have read and reread in my bible and have yet to fully conclude what I am to do.
> 
> My situation is a little different in that I am bald. I am in the middle of chemotherapy and my hair is maybe 1/4" long (not even sure if this is my hair growin back or peach fuzz). Anyway before cancer I was really feeling like this is something I should do, even purchased fabric for making my own! The only thing that held me back was I don't know anyone who does cover, I was not raised in a Christian household and neither was my husband so our families sure would not understand (We are in Arkansas they are in Washington so that may not be much of a problem for a while anyway) and I have yet to see anyone around here do it (I know I know it is a pride thing and I need to think about why I'm doing it and it is not to fit it) but also my husband doesn't get it either but he would support my decision either way.
> 
> ...



First - I have added you to our family prayer list, God bless and protect you as you go through chemo!

Second - I think, and this is just my interpretation, that the head covering has a dual purpose. 

We are to cover our "glory" - our hair. It is to be kept private for our husbands. You would be surprised how husbands feel about that after a while. My husband always wanted my hair long, but never paid much more attention to it than that. Once it was hidden from sight all day, it became......how to say this, enticing? to him. He loves it at the end of the day, when I remove my covering, let down my hair, and brush it out. He will just sit and watch, and sometimes brush it. He says it's sexy. Not sure how a head covering can be sexy, but ok! 

The MAIN purpose of covering, in my opinion, is as a symbol of the order of headship or submission. Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman., and God is the head of Christ. I Corinthians 11:5 says, "but every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head...." When I remove my covering, I am denying my natural place in the order of things and trying to elevate myself. Again, I know this is going to rub some the wrong way - it is just MY personal belief for MYSELF.

There is a woman on one of my email loops that covers her head and is currently bald from chemotherapy. She continues to cover, and jokes that it prevents sunburn. When another lady asked her why she still covered she said that her covering was more about her relationship with Christ (seh is unmarried) than about her physical body.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

Jesus Saves said:


> Here is a question---When you are at home and not going anywhere, do you still wear jeans or shorts with your covering? I don't mind skirts, but I don't have the proper shoes for winter for them. I only have sandals and no money to get flats. Anyway, just wondered.


I own one pair of jeans, and if I do have to wear them, I wear my covering. No one in our family wears shorts, unless they are swimming.

Our family rule is pretty much that if it can not be done safely in a dress, I should not be doing it. There are times when I have to put on pants (like helping to roof), and if I had put on a pair of pants, or swallowed my pride and asked my son to do what I was trying to do, I probably would not be sitting here at the desk all day with a broken foot, boring all of you! :help: 

You may laugh at this, but if you need shoes, pray for them. You might be surprised at what comes your way.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

wyld thang said:


> To everybody else--how are you going to share your beliefs with GRACE if you tell the unbeliever to pipe down? Jesus himself had the patience of Job with the pagans and worse, the tax collectors! The volume of discussion has been on what the covering looks like, wearing dresses, what a covering is not...but the heart of the issue is that the covering "brings one closer or more aware of God". How? Why? When?
> 
> ps, a dress just doesn't work on a dirt bike...


If "How? Why? When?" are honest questions, I will be happy to try and address them. I have no problem sharing my beliefs with unbelievers if they have a true desire to know what and why I believe the way that I do. But there is a proper, respectful time, place, and way to have those discussions. 

Maybe women who are raised Amish or Mennonite cover simply because they were raised that way, but most others have come to it THROUGH the study of the Gospel and it is a personal choice. Not something forbidden or required.

I ride a horse and a 4 wheeler in a dress.


----------



## Ashtina98 (Aug 10, 2007)

RockyGlen, 

Thank you for your interpretation. I have been wearing scarves lately to protect my head and felt that this was almost like "covering" and that it may also be a good time for transitioning to covering since I will be wearing these scarves for the next 6 - 9 months anyway. My scarves tend to be pretty plain, usually ivory or white so this should be an easy transition.

Also thank you for including me in your prayers, I am of the mindset that you can never have too many people praying for you! 

I am sorry about your broken foot, praying for speedy recovery!!!!

Dee


----------



## River (Jun 25, 2003)

I appreciate the input given in this thread. I offer the following as a (slightly) different viewpoint, not to be contentious.



RockyGlen said:


> Maybe women who are raised Amish or Mennonite cover simply because they were raised that way...


We are members of a conservative Brethren church in which all the sisters cover their heads. We also have many friends of Amish and Mennonite persuasion. In our experience, women who have been raised in such a setting know exactly why they cover their heads, and what scriptures apply. However, I am sure there are exceptions -- I just do not know anyone like that.



RockyGlen said:


> ...but most others have come to it THROUGH the study of the Gospel and it is a personal choice. Not something forbidden or required.


We believe head covering is a commandment of our Lord:
I Cor. 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Therefore, we do not consider it optional.

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Blessings,
River


----------



## Christine in OK (May 10, 2002)

Jesus Saves said:


> Here is a question---When you are at home and not going anywhere, do you still wear jeans or shorts with your covering? I don't mind skirts, but I don't have the proper shoes for winter for them. I only have sandals and no money to get flats. Anyway, just wondered.


Um, I'll be a mysterious way (you know, God works in mysterious ways). What size shoes do you wear? I might be able to locate a pair. Don't hold your breath, but maybe.


----------



## mtnbluet881 (Jun 4, 2006)

River said:


> I appreciate the input given in this thread. I offer the following as a (slightly) different viewpoint, not to be contentious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Isaiah 58 to me says it all. And yes fasting to me represents all that is done outwardly. 

1-Cry aloud, do not hold back, lift up your voice like the trumpet and show my people their transgression and the house of Jacob their sins.

2-Yet they seek me daily and delight to know my ways, as a nation that did righteousness, and forsook not the ordinance of their God: they ask of me the ordinances of justice; they take delight in approaching to God

Everything seems fine here. Nothing seems to be amiss.

3-Wherefore have we fasted and you do not see it? Wherefore have we afflicted our soul and you take no knowledge?

However, God sees something very wrong here.

Behold, in the day of your fast you find pleasure and, and exploit your laborers.

4-Behold ye fast for strife and debate and to strike with the fist of wickedness: you shall not fast as you do this day, to make your voice to be heard on high.

God is saying---where is the love? and without love and concern for others there is left wickedness. God doesn't hold back here in calling selfishness evil.

5-Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul? is it to bow down the head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? Will you call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the Lord?

All is outward in appearance here and also the only thought of the persons involved in for themselves. No mention is made of doing anything for others 

6- Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the bonds of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free and that you break every yolk?

I see this saying today that we help in whatever way we can to lift burdens off of people. If we can do it monetarily, then we should. This is a commandment here. If we cannot, then we can pray for people and speak words of encouragement to them.

7-Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and that you bring the poor that are wandering into your house? when you see the naked, that you cover him; and that you hide not yourself from your own flesh?  

Here we are commanded to share our food with those that have less and clothe those that perhaps do not have the money to buy clothes for themselves. Also you are to take the homeless into your house and you are to take care of your own family and not to neglect them. In other words we are to Love others and God even gives us specifics on how we are to do it.

8-Then thy light will break forth as the morning and your healing shall spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard. 

God is saying you will even heal quicker and He will protect you.

9-Then you shall call, and the Lord shall answer; you shall cry and He shall say Here I am. 

If you take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the pointing of the finger, and speaking wickedness;

10- If you extend your soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul; then shall your light rise in darkness and your gloom shall be as the noonday. 

Again we are to help others, listen to them, satisfy their needs be it physical or spiritual, and we are not to oppress others in any way. We are not to look down on others either. Joy in the darkness of the world is the promise here!

11-And the Lord shall guide you continually and satisfy your soul in dry places, and strengthen you: and you shall be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not. 

Here is the promise that God himself will be your personal guide, you will have strength physically and mentally. You will have joy that is without end.

12-And they that shall be of you shall build the old waste places; you shall raise up the foundations of many generations; and you shall be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of streets to dwell in. 

Generations after you will call you blessed because you put peace back into your family. Whatever is desolate in your family and your life has now turned into a wonderful garden of fruit, of love and joy and you are a delight to be around. Why? Because you love anyone you come in contact with and you don't put anyone down; you don't oppress anyone.

13-If you turn away your foot from the sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable; and shalt honor Him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: 

Self explanatory here

14-Then shall you delight yourself in the Lord; and I will cause you to ride upon the high hills of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. 

This is the Lord's commandment; it has come out of His own mouth.


----------



## Jesus Saves (May 31, 2005)

Christine in OK said:


> Um, I'll be a mysterious way (you know, God works in mysterious ways). What size shoes do you wear? I might be able to locate a pair. Don't hold your breath, but maybe.


Your so kind :angel: I need a black pair, a blue pair, and dark brown size 7 1/2. Just simple flats, not really any heel. (Boy, I didn't just jump all over that did I)  I saw them at Walmart for $10, but right now I just can't. Sounds silly, but we are in dire straits at the moment. I have a neuromuscular disease and my medical bills are chocking us right now. I am ok now, but these are past bills. I know God will provide. I have not been to the thrift shop yet (this is where I do all my shopping or I sew my own skirts) We are saving any extra right now for hunting clothes. Hubby hunts deer and we need the meat. We have til November for that. He is laid off in the winter and the deer comes in very handy :dance: Yummy!


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

hi RG

(quote)I have no problem sharing my beliefs with unbelievers if they have a true desire to know what and why I believe the way that I do. But there is a proper, respectful time, place, and way to have those discussions.(quote)

I disagree there--if you wait for many unbelievers to be proper and repectful in order to share with them, it will never happen. On the other hand I've been in many conversations when the unbeliever(I wish there was a better term to use, that is so separatist, I prefer seeker, because I truly believe everyone is seeking God/their Creator, they just dont' know it yet) starts out snarky and defensive, but I reply with an honest friendly answer, and then the conversation really goes well--because I don't get all huffy and holy. 

(quote)I ride a horse and a 4 wheeler in a dress(quote).

Okay(I'm teasing now), horses don't count--women and bedouins have been riding with skirts forever.

Now you bring up an interesting quandry with the quad. Do you wear a helmet? Do you wear your cover under the helmet, in which case no one can see it, and it loses its outward symbol function to others and you appear cover-less? Or do you wear it over your helmet so others can see it and know you're still covered, or do you not wear a helmet because it would cover the cover? In which case you take a big risk and shouldn't be riding. Do you give up riding a quad because to do it safely would obscure your cover? I know that sounds absurd, but it illustrates the questions I'm curious about your determination to wear it and the rules you've set up for yourself, because you are convicted to wear it. Which, by the way, is perfectly fine ;0). 

OK, funny story time, I worked at a Christian summer camp and a group was having their family camp, I thin it was Apostolic something--they wore dresses, long hair, no activities with mixed sexes, swimming in dresses. When they came to trail ride, the guy wranglers could not be there, and we had a dickens of a time getting them up on the horses because of those flappy dresses. And we prayed hard during the whole ride no horses would flip out. Needless to say we sacked out all the horses afterwards. 

I am going to do some Bible study (extra-Jesus) on that verse though.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

wyld thang said:


> I disagree there--if you wait for many unbelievers to be proper and repectful in order to share with them, it will never happen. On the other hand I've been in many conversations when the unbeliever(I wish there was a better term to use, that is so separatist, I prefer seeker, because I truly believe everyone is seeking God/their Creator, they just dont' know it yet) starts out snarky and defensive, but I reply with an honest friendly answer, and then the conversation really goes well--because I don't get all huffy and holy.


Well, I don't think I get all huffy and holy, either. But I also see no point whatsoever in arguing with someone who has no belief in the Lord and quite frankly, refuses to hear it. It is my job, as a Christian, to sow the seeds - I feel that I have done that. It is God's job to make them grow. Some seeds just fall on rocky soil, and all the arguing *in the world* is not going to make them grow. However, I am more than happy to pray in support while you convince total unbelievers to convert. 



> Now you bring up an interesting quandry with the quad. Do you wear a helmet? Do you wear your cover under the helmet, in which case no one can see it, and it loses its outward symbol function to others and you appear cover-less? Or do you wear it over your helmet so others can see it and know you're still covered, or do you not wear a helmet because it would cover the cover? In which case you take a big risk and shouldn't be riding. Do you give up riding a quad because to do it safely would obscure your cover? I know that sounds absurd, but it illustrates the questions I'm curious about your determination to wear it and the rules you've set up for yourself, because you are convicted to wear it. Which, by the way, is perfectly fine ;0).


It's rather sad that another Christian finds it necessary to attempt to turn someones beliefs into a total farce. If your curiosity is honestly aroused to that extent, I apologize, however I have been on the receiving end of way too many "liberated woman" rants to beleive that without an assertion of intent. However, I will give you a serious answer, just in case. We only ride 4 wheelers on our farm - no helmet necessary. If I did feel a helmet was required, it would go over the headcovering. God would still know the headcovering was there, and that is all that matters. The opinion of other people, including women who feel threatened by submission, is unimportant.



> OK, funny story time, I worked at a Christian summer camp and a group was having their family camp, I thin it was Apostolic something--they wore dresses, long hair, no activities with mixed sexes, swimming in dresses. When they came to trail ride, the guy wranglers could not be there, and we had a dickens of a time getting them up on the horses because of those flappy dresses. And we prayed hard during the whole ride no horses would flip out. Needless to say we sacked out all the horses afterwards.


 The only thing funny about that story is one Christian making fun of or judging the other Christians for their convictions, that came from God. We swim in modest suits - not dresses, but I am sure you would find them excessive. Check Wholesomewear.com if you are interested. We also avoid mixed sex activities when modesty is a problem - like swimming. We would ride horses in mixed groups, and would let male cowboys help. The only thing NOT funny about that is the horses getting freaked out by flapping dresses - as that is how I broke my foot. The cow knows me, but working closely with her in the wind, I should have put pants on, but was too lazy to walk back to the house and too prideful to ask my son to do it.



> I am going to do some Bible study (extra-Jesus) on that verse though.


Anything that encourages extra study is good!


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

HI! First off sorry if I offended you, and I wasn't trying to make a farce out of it, just I am truly curious. There is never any point arguing with a seeker/nonbeliever because there is no common ground of absolutes. We can only share our lives and experience, and let God speak in the heart. I have RARELY met up with a person that in the end desn't respect a person who has deep convictions and faith. Maybe I don't get out enough?

(quote)If I did feel a helmet was required, it would go over the headcovering. God would still know the headcovering was there, and that is all that matters. The opinion of other people, including women who feel threatened by submission, is unimportant.

Aha, I think here is my answer I was looking for...and now I ask you this...if the physical presence of the headcovering is unimportant to others as you say now, why do you need a (wo)man made thing to bind you to your promise to God to live a certain way? Naked we come into this world, and naked we go out of it. Really, I'm genuinely curious why you do it...and I have no qualms "arguing" with fellow Christians ;0) I'm just asking though. From what I understand for you it is a reminder of your role as a woman to be submissive to your husband and obedient to God. Actually I am submissive to my husband, and I just do it and do it by God's grace and I've never gone on a liberated woman rant. It's just by bringing up the Bible verses as a proof, it seems that it is a commandment to wear it, yet obviously it isn't widely taught across Christianity. Yet on the other hand I get the answer it's an individual thing. THAT dichotomy is what is confusing to many.

As for my funny story--sorry I tacked "funny" onto it--but believe it or not the entire camp staff bent over backwards to accomodate this groups rules and beliefs and make them feel welcome. We were'nt snickering over their rules or dress, and were genuinly concerned for the safety issues. We tried all week to be friendly and talk to folks as fellow Chirstians, but they were so closed and barely could make eye contact, almost as if it was a sin to look at us more worldly cousins. THAT, rather than their appearance (dresses, rules) was our stumbling block, if you want to call it that. Your mileage may vary.

I never said dresses were excessive, etc. I have nothing against culture and tradition. What I do have a problem is with labeling culture and tradition as God's law.

And you really do need to wear a helmet. As you learned with the cow, "stuff" happens.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

wyld thang said:


> HI! First off sorry if I offended you, and I wasn't trying to make a farce out of it, just I am truly curious. There is never any point arguing with a seeker/nonbeliever because there is no common ground of absolutes. We can only share our lives and experience, and let God speak in the heart. I have RARELY met up with a person that in the end desn't respect a person who has deep convictions and faith. Maybe I don't get out enough?
> 
> .if the physical presence of the headcovering is unimportant to others as you say now, why do you need a (wo)man made thing to bind you to your promise to God to live a certain way? Naked we come into this world, and naked we go out of it. Really, I'm genuinely curious why you do it...and I have no qualms "arguing" with fellow Christians ;0)
> 
> ...


I was not offended. I gave it some serious thought and prayer after I posted. I even went and reviewed my journals since I started wearing a covering. In all these years....100% of the men who have asked about my covering have been accepting of my answers and respectful in their responses. Whereas.......90% (actually about 94%) of the women who have asked have gotten defensive, belligerent, and/or offensive-women, in general, just can not tolerate the fact that another woman has chosen to submit herself to "a man." As all teen girls know, women can be vicious.........I guess I just get tired of it even though I continually pray for strength and wisdom. I am always very up front about the fact that a head covering is NOT a salvation issue, it is a personal choice that I feel pleases God. If it were a salvation issue, the Bible would say, unless ye be covered (as It says about being born again)......or she who loves me is covered (as in he who loves me keeps My commandmenst)....etc. It does not say that. It leaves it up to personal interpretation - just like the definition of modesty. 

HOWEVER - and I capitalize that to show its importance to me - I do believe it pleases God for a woman to submit herself in this way. You refer to it as a man made thing - but it is not. It is in the Bible as pleasing to God, as seemly for women, and as a symbol to the angels; and the entire Bible is inspired by God and profitable to teach, reproof, etc. I never said it is unimportant, I said it is a personal matter between each person and God, and that God knows the heart. I do not consider it a man made thing at all. I can see how some who write off Paul as a cranky male chauvinist could claim that, but I do not. As for the naked we come into this world and naked we leave it...........does that mean we should run around totally naked? No thanks, I'd scare the neighbors! For me, a head covering is just part of the modest dress of a woman. Others have a different definition of modesty. 

Regarding tradition and God's law......what do you consider to be God's law? I consider the entire Bible to be God's law. Some of it has been fulfilled and replaced with a New Tesament (law), and that New law is what we are to adhere to. There are many things in there that are subject to interpretation....head coverings, vegetarians, and more.....and there are some things that are not.......believing in Christ. I consider whether to have an organ at services to be mans tradition. I consider Wednesday evening services to be mans tradition. I consider anything not mentioned in the Bible to be mans traditions, but anything in the New Testament to be God's Word.

Hope that makes sense. And, just for the record.........nope, ain't gonna wear no 4 wheeler helmet. Ever been to Wyoming? It's flat as a pancake and wide open as the ocean........but I am also NOT going to go around the livestock in a skirt in the wind again, LOL.


----------



## Jesus Saves (May 31, 2005)

RockyGlen said:


> HOWEVER - and I capitalize that to show its importance to me - I do believe it pleases God for a woman to submit herself in this way. You refer to it as a man made thing - but it is not. It is in the Bible as pleasing to God, as seemly for women, and as a symbol to the angels; and the entire Bible is inspired by God and profitable to teach, reproof, etc. I never said it is unimportant, I said it is a personal matter between each person and God, and that God knows the heart. I do not consider it a man made thing at all. I can see how some who write off Paul as a cranky male chauvinist could claim that, but I do not. As for the naked we come into this world and naked we leave it...........does that mean we should run around totally naked? No thanks, I'd scare the neighbors! For me, a head covering is just part of the modest dress of a woman. Others have a different definition of modesty.
> 
> Regarding tradition and God's law......what do you consider to be God's law? I consider the entire Bible to be God's law. Some of it has been fulfilled and replaced with a New Tesament (law), and that New law is what we are to adhere to. There are many things in there that are subject to interpretation....head coverings, vegetarians, and more.....and there are some things that are not.......believing in Christ. I consider whether to have an organ at services to be mans tradition. I consider Wednesday evening services to be mans tradition. I consider anything not mentioned in the Bible to be mans traditions, but anything in the New Testament to be God's Word.


Thank you for this. This is how I feel, but I have a hard time putting things into words. That doesn't help when you are being cornered about your covering. I tend to stammer and close up.

I may have mentioned this, but one thing I have noticed in the week I have been covering---my son seems to respect me and is kinder (he always has been a wonderful kid, but it is different like he is softer towards me now) Same goes for my husband. He tends not to yell or argue as much when I'm covered  And I am mindful of what I have on and tend to watch myself more too which helps me stay focused on Him.

Thanks all for all your comments.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

Jesus Saves said:


> I may have mentioned this, but one thing I have noticed in the week I have been covering---my son seems to respect me and is kinder (he always has been a wonderful kid, but it is different like he is softer towards me now) Same goes for my husband. He tends not to yell or argue as much when I'm covered  And I am mindful of what I have on and tend to watch myself more too which helps me stay focused on Him.
> 
> Thanks all for all your comments.


I think that men were created to be protectors, leaders, and providers. Women were created to be nurturers. They can not lead if we will not follow. My feeling, after talking to my husband about this many times over the years, is that when a woman LOOKs like the more feminine role of nurturing and caring, it reminds him and other males that women are to be treated as precious rather than just one of the guys.

As some of the women on here have shared- they are not Christians and are not traditional women, yet when they dress like girly girls they are treated differently. I think that a woman who looks feminine brings out some instinct in males to protect and nurture.


----------



## coalroadcabin (Jun 16, 2004)

Jesus Saves said:


> I may have mentioned this, but one thing I have noticed in the week I have been covering---my son seems to respect me and is kinder (he always has been a wonderful kid, but it is different like he is softer towards me now) Same goes for my husband. He tends not to yell or argue as much when I'm covered  And I am mindful of what I have on and tend to watch myself more too which helps me stay focused on Him.


First off, congrats on finding a way that makes you feel closer to God. I don't personally find it necessary to wear dresses and cover my head but I do respect the fact that you do, and that you are acting on your convictions. 

Not to be mean here, but I do have one on thing I'd like to say to you. I'm a bit concerned about your comment that your husband doesn't yell and argue with you 'as much' now that you've begun to cover your head............I don't know that he really should be 'yelling and arguing' at all. Sorry, but it worries me to hear that. This may not apply to you (I hope it doesn't) but remember that submission does not mean that you have to submit to violence. Yelling and arguing are one thing, if it moves on to physical violence, then you need to protect yourself and get help for your marriage.
(I might be misreading your post, if I am, I apologize. I just felt like I needed to say something)

Interesting thread, BTW.


----------



## Jesus Saves (May 31, 2005)

coalroadcabin said:


> First off, congrats on finding a way that makes you feel closer to God. I don't personally find it necessary to wear dresses and cover my head but I do respect the fact that you do, and that you are acting on your convictions.
> 
> Not to be mean here, but I do have one on thing I'd like to say to you. I'm a bit concerned about your comment that your husband doesn't yell and argue with you 'as much' now that you've begun to cover your head............I don't know that he really should be 'yelling and arguing' at all. Sorry, but it worries me to hear that. This may not apply to you (I hope it doesn't) but remember that submission does not mean that you have to submit to violence. Yelling and arguing are one thing, if it moves on to physical violence, then you need to protect yourself and get help for your marriage.
> (I might be misreading your post, if I am, I apologize. I just felt like I needed to say something)
> ...


That's ok. What I meant was we argued over little stupid things alot. He is a Godly man and our marriage has NEVER been violent. Just the usual spats. But now those are less. That is all I was meaning. But thanks for the concern.


----------



## Sharon in NY (May 11, 2002)

Faustus said:


> Someone mentioned the thing about Orthodox Jewish women covering with wigs; if you read about the Hasidic Jewish communities in particular, there's a whole debate about whether covering with a wig is "tznius" (modest). It varies from community to community- some rabbis rule that it's fine, since it covers the hair, which is the point (from the Orthodox standpoint, anyway). Some say no, it's not okay to wear just a wig, because it defeats the whole purpose of covering in the first place, since it looks like the person _isn't_ covering. The rabbis who rule that way have different requirements for distinguishing that a woman is covering- some say kerchiefs and things only, others say that a wig is okay _if_ it's covered by a kerchief or if a hat is worn on top of it (which must get sweltering in the summer)... if you know the customs of different communities in, say, Brooklyn, sometimes you can actually tell what group a woman is from based on how she covers. Sort of like being able to distinguish between different Anabaptist groups based on the style of their prayer caps and/or bonnets, I guess.


A close college friend of mine who is Orthodox wears a wig at work - she's a professor of Chemistry, and most of the headcoverings shout "headcovering here" - she felt she was discriminated against at work because she was religious, and that it stopped when she wore a wig which looked like regular hair.

Sharon


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

RG--so if your husband wanted you to wear a helmet, would you wear one? ;0)

Yes I've been to Wyoming. I still say "stuff" happens. And you have kids to raise.

I raise my boys to be nice and respectful to women regardless of what they are wearing, because they were created by God. I also teach them how to be discerning of people's character by their actions.

As far as the issue of being treated as a female, or godly woman, or something cherished, that is earned by one's behavior. I am a girl that participates in a "guy" sport(dirtbikes). I wear the same clothes as the guys, take care of myself on the trail like the guys, yadayada, but I find I'm treated respectfully, as you call it, as "one of the guys"(ha something I'm glad to earn by the way), BECAUSE I don't nag my own husband and I treat him nice, I don't demand special treatment because I'm girl(Pick my bike up! Start it for me! That's too hard!), complain about getting nasty helmet hair or getting my make up ruined, (but then I don't wear that crud anyways), I'm not offended in a liberated women sort of way(winkwink) when they offer to pick up my bike after I crash(I just smile and say thank you instead of I can do it myself--which I can, and they know I can, but I appreciate that helpful spirit), and I pitch in to work hard setting up camp, gathering n chopping wood. I think maybe the dutch oven pies score points too. But I'm saying I've been treated with respect in a very male testosterone hyped environment because I act like a lady, not a fragile girly girl drama queen who must be served. (I'm not saying you're being this, just that those kind of people drive me nuts). 

Actions, kind words and pie go way further(in the end) than what a woman wears...just sayin', in my experience. And guys certainly know that. Your mileage may vary, of course....I guess I'm just saying(since you're willing to discuss it, which is nice) that why do the guys need a physical piece of fashion to remind them to treat women well? It almost smacks of the old ("liberated" theory) men-are-pigs and women must be the vigilant ones to remind them to behave. Bumpus put up a few excellent verses in another thread 1 Peter 3:1-4, the gist of which is you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Peter says that a gentle SPIRIT is the far BETTER "adornment" than what is worn(athough I know my hub likes me gussied up--or not at all). THAT is the message that I fear gets lost in this whole discussion. I've been around the church long enough to know that it's very easy for physical items to acquire magical voodoo good luck charm properties( a certain translation of the Bible, a rosary, a saint's lock of hair, a certain pew, "the-same-way-we've-always-done-it"), and their original intent as a (mere) reminder is lost.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

I don't think the way a woman dresses should garner her more respect. I think it does waken an instinct in men that has generally lessened over the last 40 years. Or maybe it just reminds them of their grandmother? Then again, I also think the smell of pie is an aphrodisiac to some men. 

Every woman I have ever talked to that has gone from wearing pants to wearing dresses only has noticed a change in the way men respond to them. Even Willow and Marlene (I think it was Marlene?), have said there is a certain perception of women who dress that way, whether it is for religious reasons or not. 

It does not mean you DESERVE more respect, it just seems to have that effect. I don't know anyone who dresses this way simply to be treated differently. It is either a matter of comfort (Marlene and Willow) or conviction (Me and some others).


----------



## Snugglebunny (Oct 20, 2004)

I don't know about headcoverings, but I do know why I enjoy wearing skirts. I don't exclusively wear them, but I wear them often, because of comfort but also because I am the only female in a house full of males - DH, two boys and three cats. I guess I need a reminder that I am feminine. It makes me feel prettier to wear one.

But yes, I do notice a difference when I dress in skirts or other feminine things. Men hold doors open for me, etc.

As for my husband, yes he enjoys me looking pretty and feminine (even if I happen to be wearing jeans or modest shorts), but having a quiet and gentle feminine spirit goes farther with him than anything else. It's about being a Lady.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

wyld thang said:


> Bumpus put up a few excellent verses in another thread 1 Peter 3:1-4, the gist of which is you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Peter says that a gentle SPIRIT is the far BETTER "adornment" than what is worn(athough I know my hub likes me gussied up--or not at all). THAT is the message that I fear gets lost in this whole discussion. I've been around the church long enough to know that it's very easy for physical items to acquire magical voodoo good luck charm properties( a certain translation of the Bible, a rosary, a saint's lock of hair, a certain pew, "the-same-way-we've-always-done-it"), and their original intent as a (mere) reminder is lost.



I actually hear this alot. Always from women. The cries of "legalism" and "phariseeism" are not new to this thread or this issue. 

In this whole thread, only one woman said she felt it was a command, and even that was said very nicely and only one time - not repeatedly pushing it about. Everyone else has said it is a personal thing between that woman and God. No one (maybe that person did, but I don't think so) has said it is a salvation issue - meaning do it or spend eternity in hell. 

Yes, women are to have a meek and quiet spirit. We are also to let our adornment be "not merely external." Neither of those things cancels out the admonishments to be modest, and neither explains what modesty is. 

I am having a very hard time trying to say what I want without it sounding wrong. I am not saying this about YOU in particular, so please do not take this personally. 

In my experience (YMMV), I have had many men ask why I wear a covering and never once has one of them said anything against it or cautioned against legalism, et. al. 

Of all the women who have asked or made comments, non-Christians tend to ridicule (not all, but a good percentage), whereas Christian women who are not interested in dresses or headcoverings or all that "submission stuff" (that is exactly what a Christian lady at our church says) tend to shout "legalism" "pharisees" "it's what's in the heart that matters."

To which I agree! Yes, it could be viewed as legalism - if I were walking around saying you HAVE to do it. Yes, it could be viewed as Phariseeical, if my adornment were merely external which I have never been accused of, or if I claimed that it provides my salvation - which it does not. 

I absolutely, 100%, agree that it is what is IN the heart that matters most. But that does not mean that what is on the body (or NOT on the body in our culture!) is totally unimportant. 

What I question is why so many women (not necessarily here, but in real life) feel the urge to argue against my convictions when I have never tried to push those convictions on them? Have I said one thing that leads anyone here to think I am legalistic? Have I tried to persuade or bully anyone else into dressing the way that I do? Does it cause some women to feel threatened? Or judged? If so, why?

To use your lifestyle as an example, because it is here...I can picture you in your racing clothing, covered in mud, astride a motorcycle, laughing and being one of the guys. Very different from my choices. But I don't feel the urge/need/compulsion to warn you against the legalism of liberality/feminism.

There is so much more I could say, but I'm having trouble finding the right words - it is hard to convey certain feelings in writing - so I'll just stop here.


----------



## Christine in OK (May 10, 2002)

Jesus Saves said:


> Your so kind :angel: I need a black pair, a blue pair, and dark brown size 7 1/2. Just simple flats, not really any heel. (Boy, I didn't just jump all over that did I)  I saw them at Walmart for $10, but right now I just can't. Sounds silly, but we are in dire straits at the moment. I have a neuromuscular disease and my medical bills are chocking us right now. I am ok now, but these are past bills. I know God will provide. I have not been to the thrift shop yet (this is where I do all my shopping or I sew my own skirts) We are saving any extra right now for hunting clothes. Hubby hunts deer and we need the meat. We have til November for that. He is laid off in the winter and the deer comes in very handy :dance: Yummy!


Hmmph. That does make it more challenging - I wear a 9 and so does my sister (who gives me shoes periodically). My mother-in-law is about a 7, and I have a friend who's about that size also. I'll scout around and see if they have any. 

And if I run across a nice pair at a garage sale, I might just grab them. Sometimes you can find good ones around here for a dollar or two a pair. That is of course, if the Mexicans haven't beat you there (not being prejudicial, just stating a fact - I do see a lot of our immigrant neighbors hitting the sales 'round here!)


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Sorry, I took the opportunity to ask questions and discuss, not intending to convert anybody...I was genuinely curious to discuss with an actual person. I checked around some websites that explain it. I'm nothing near a "liberal feminist"(you are kind of labeling me as that, at least I feel that way). In researching the issue, I found that indeed it is a doctrinal issue that has implications on one's spirituality(for the ones that practice and/or advocate it). I try to see the church as the whole Bride of Christ is should be, not a chopped up divisive Bride of Denominational Frankenstein. I wondered why here was something a group of people really think is important, and why doesn't the whole church body think it is something to do? Like how communion is a super important thing. So I thought I better think about it. I think the reason a lot of women "argue" with you is because they indeed feel judged(I don't mean by you personally). 

I really was interested in your reasons. And I think a lot of other people were too. It's great you do it for your reasons, I never wanted to change your mind. But just saying, if someone visits the various websites that explain this, it certainly does come across as legalistic and something that does indeed reflect on one's "quality" of salvation. And if it's not such a big deal for you(it's a personal choice) then that is confusing too, in the whole picture--I'm kind of a literal Bible person too, either God says to jump, or not. Not jump on the second Tuesday if you think it's ok. Just trying to sort things out. 

My sister worked in a muslim country as a sort of undercover missionary. When she went out in public, she dressed as the in country women did, completely covered(head to no-showing toes) out of respect to the people(even though they did not expect it of a westerner), which they in turn respected her and appreciated her sensitivity, and they opened up to her. I would do the same thing. 

Sorry, I just think these matters of interpretation of the Bible get really interesting sometimes....


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

This is quite an interesting thread.
I have noticed a family in the area where the women wear skirts and covers. But they didn't fit any Amish church I was aware of. The wife and I were discussing it and wondering if some really liberal mennonites were around or something. This clears up that mystery.

So if it was any one here that covers that was at the little league games in Stratford a while back..a belated wave hello!
I was wearing the rainbow suspenders...not a religious thing at all ;-)


----------



## ahahahni1 (Sep 4, 2006)

Since we are all sharing our beliefs here...

I have been going through a journey and can only speak from my "travels". At one time I was homeschooling, long dress wearing, husband submitting, considered headcovering, long hair growing, no make up, quiverful (letting God control your fertility) mama. I in the past year started to question why I was doing these things. Some things I was doing out of conviction but honestly most things were out of competion to keep up with my other legalistic friends and family. I was convicted on why I did certain things and most came down to a rather pridely view. I believe if God convicted someone to do something who am I to judge. I did however go through the fire judging what was true and a testimony to the Lord for me to do or was it an attempt to "out-do" the next Christian or to keep up with my family or friends. It as a very hard thing to do. BUT I am now myself and try my best to listen to HIM and what he asks me to do in my life. I try to wear mostly dresses but have found I tear most my dresses on barbwire when working outside and it comes quite dangerous when climbing ladders and such. I'm short I use ladders a lot. So I do wear dresses most time unless I work. I do not head cover because I at this time don't feel God convicting me to do so. I do however grow my hair long for two reasons. I feel God wants me to look like woman not a man AND my husband says its sexy. Hey that will do it right there! I do believe in homeschooling but currently PS because I was not able to care for my special needs child AND keep up with daughters schooling also she goes to an awesome very very small PS. I TRY to submit to my husband and God knows I try. Now quiverful minded I still am and feel very strongly about it. Once you find out what those meds do to you body and ask your doctor the truth you really can't deny the truth any longer. Especially if you feel life begins at conception BUT thats another thread I am not interested in starting. If anything this journey has questions my own beliefs and made them stronger. It sounds as though you ladies are doing what you feel are convictions for the right reasons. I hope no one did as I did and thought if by doing this or that I would be closer to HIM when actuality I was going further away. My 2 Cents


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> As some of the women on here have shared- they are not Christians and are not traditional women, yet when they dress like girly girls they are treated differently. I think that a woman who looks feminine brings out some instinct in males to protect and nurture.


I've found it brings out a different instinct altogether but that's perfectly fine with me! 



> What I question is why so many women (not necessarily here, but in real life) feel the urge to argue against my convictions when I have never tried to push those convictions on them? Have I said one thing that leads anyone here to think I am legalistic? Have I tried to persuade or bully anyone else into dressing the way that I do? Does it cause some women to feel threatened? Or judged? If so, why?


I did a bit of soul-searching here and will attempt to answer as honestly as I can (although other women may have a different 'take' on the situation).

I think most feminists have a historical perspective on women's rights and treatment, and we know the relatively good life we currently have in America is a fairly recent development and not something that should be taken for granted. Should the social and political winds change, we could be herded back into the kitchen ... and thus feel compelled to remain vigilant and work to continue to expand acceptance and opportunites for our gender. 

When I see a woman who chooses to remain in subjection to men, I guess I feel a bit like a freed slave would upon encountering one who chooses to voluntarily remain in bondage. It is difficult for me to understand how anyone could be happy in that role! However, I recognize it's a free country, and thus ... so be it. I do worry the daughters in such families won't be given the chance to develop to their full potential. There actually is one who posts here, an intelligent and talented woman who struggles daily with the aftereffects of her early life. A terrible shame, IMO. I pray the girls who grow up in this sort of environment, but find they do not share their mothers' convictions, will have the courage to blaze their own trails.


----------



## bumpus (Jul 30, 2003)

.
Covering of the head, and the lenght of hair for Christians.


If you will take the bible and remember as you read it, that The Corinthian church was in much trouble with carnality and man made doctrines, and misuse of God's Holy Word.

Every time the writer ( Paul ) addressed a separate problem  in First Corinthians he would make a separate reference to that one problem and remind them of what he had already heard or was told by others  what was going on within the churches.

Such as a man having his fathers wife and the church thought it was ok. 
1 Corinthians 1:8

Not to company with fornicators which many Christians were doing:
1 Corinthians 9:13 

Tongues and it proper use.

Charity and it's importance above all things etc.

The Corinthian church had already started a doctrine about who was to cover there head, and not covering there head, and the length of men and women's hair. 

Paul has brought this to there remembrance by writhing about what they were doing, and trying to force it  upon others in the church and this is what the church  was preaching and teaching the people.


1Cor: 11:1: Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2: Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3: But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6: For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8: For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9: Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10: For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11: Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12: For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13: Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14: Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15: But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16: But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.




Paul wrote also and told them the answer 
to there doctrine which the Corinth church had started by itself ; 
1 Corinthians verse 16.

1 Corinthians: 11:16:* But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.*


The covering your head and the length of peoples hair he said, was nothing more than *A Man Made Custom ! ! !*

Paul did not comand this doctrine and was trying to correct it.

It was NOT of The Apostles Doctrine 
It was NOT a Doctrine Of The Churches Of God ! ! !

Covering of the head and length of hair is all a* man made doctrine brought in to the church by men. Not by God ! ! !*

Is there anything wrong with some one covering the head or wearing there hair a certen length ... *NO ! ! !*


bumpus
.


----------



## Snugglebunny (Oct 20, 2004)

Wow. Interesting thread. Amazing the misconceptions that arise when a woman mentions 'submission' and 'headcoverings'. Submission is not the same as 'subjection'. I am subjected to God.

I am a married woman with two children. No matter who does it, the house needs cleaning, groceries need buying and the laundry needs doing. This 'organization' needs management. If there are two leaders in the organization, it leads to arguing and dissention. therefore, there should only be one leader. Our leader is God, but the leader in this house is DH because he works, making the money. he is out slaving all day long while I am home. I am home because it is silly to ask him to work 60 hours per week then come home and do his own laundry and make dinner, take the kids to school and all that stuff. I am 'submissive' in that when he insists on having his jeans washed a certain way or wants the kids to stay off the carpet when they eat, I listen and do it. When a major decision is made, he has the final say (after we weigh all options together), because it's his wallet and his reputation on the line. I am submissive because he is King of this household, and I am his Queen.

But I sure do deserve every bit of respect from him. As much respect as I give him.


----------



## bumpus (Jul 30, 2003)

Snugglebunny said:


> Wow. Interesting thread. Amazing the misconceptions that arise when a woman mentions 'submission' and 'headcoverings'. Submission is not the same as 'subjection'. I am subjected to God.
> 
> I am a married woman with two children. No matter who does it, the house needs cleaning, groceries need buying and the laundry needs doing. This 'organization' needs management. If there are two leaders in the organization, it leads to arguing and dissention. therefore, there should only be one leader. Our leader is God, but the leader in this house is DH because he works, making the money. he is out slaving all day long while I am home. I am home because it is silly to ask him to work 60 hours per week then come home and do his own laundry and make dinner, take the kids to school and all that stuff. I am 'submissive' in that when he insists on having his jeans washed a certain way or wants the kids to stay off the carpet when they eat, I listen and do it. When a major decision is made, he has the final say (after we weigh all options together), because it's his wallet and his reputation on the line. I am submissive because he is King of this household, and I am his Queen.
> 
> But I sure do deserve every bit of respect from him. As much respect as I give him.


I like reading that ! ! !  

bumpus
.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

Wyld Thang - I did NOT want to label you as a feminist, and I am sorry. I tried to say that in my post, but new it was coming across wrong. I also believe in a literal Bible interpretation, and when there is confusion I go to the Greek and Hebrew (as much as I can understand them with the aid of reference books) and I have never understood some of the divisions that people place there. I was really enjoying this conversation and thought that I could finally ask someone why women react strongly to the head covering. Again, I am sorry if using you as an example made you feel bad - it was not my intent.

Ahahahni - I have been on homeschool email loops and seen the competition you speak of, and have heard other women talk of it. Since I have always been pretty much the only head covering, and one of a few dresses only, I haven't encountered it personally. I think it is wonderful that you searched out answers and are doing what you feel God telling you to do!

Willow - thank you! Your explanation makes sense of the reaction I often get.


----------



## MicheleMomof4 (Jul 17, 2002)

willow_girl said:


> I think most feminists have a historical perspective on women's rights and treatment, and we know the relatively good life we currently have in America is a fairly recent development and not something that should be taken for granted. Should the social and political winds change, we could be herded back into the kitchen ... and thus feel compelled to remain vigilant and work to continue to expand acceptance and opportunites for our gender.
> 
> When I see a woman who chooses to remain in subjection to men, I guess I feel a bit like a freed slave would upon encountering one who chooses to voluntarily remain in bondage. It is difficult for me to understand how anyone could be happy in that role! However, I recognize it's a free country, and thus ... so be it. I do worry the daughters in such families won't be given the chance to develop to their full potential. There actually is one who posts here, an intelligent and talented woman who struggles daily with the aftereffects of her early life. A terrible shame, IMO. I pray the girls who grow up in this sort of environment, but find they do not share their mothers' convictions, will have the courage to blaze their own trails.



The problem I have with the feminist movement is this.......wasn't it about having a *choice*? If they make a choice and still choose to be in the kitchen, you were and as evidence here in Willows post, still are deemed 'sad' and ' a shame' or in 'subjection'. I am none of those. Either the whole movement was not really about a choice or people in the movement are abusing the thought behind it. Because clearly, to a many feminist, there is only *one* choice.
God Bless,
Michele


----------



## Snugglebunny (Oct 20, 2004)

Think I'll put things a different way:

One man is married to a woman who works. They had a baby later in life, and she continues to work, putting the baby in daycare - even though her husband makes more money than she does. Her husband has some trouble finding a job to keep up their lifestyle, but eventually finds one that forces him to commute over an hour away from home, while his wife works within 20 minutes of the daycare. Still, she forces him to stay home when the child is sick, to pick the child up from day care, etc, so she can remain at work. The man leaves work early every day so as to pick up the child and is often absent from work. At work, the stress of his homelife has caused him to have a bad temper and often yells at coworkers. He has recieved reprimand on top of reprimand for his behavior.

Another man works many overtime hours knowing his wife is at home caring for the children. He is available whenever his boss needs him. While work still stresses him, he does it well, having respect for all his coworkers and his boss. He comes home to a good meal - even if he is late - and a family that loves him. His wife makes sure his favorite shirts are clean and hung up, and makes his breakfast so he doesn't ahve to buy fast food. His hard work earns him rewards, raises and promotions and recognition throughout the company, but he knows the secret behind his success is his adoring and lovely wife.

So tell me - who is really in bondage here? One woman has the 'freedom' of a job. One woman has the 'bondage' of serving her husband out of love and respect.


----------



## hisenthlay (Feb 23, 2005)

MicheleMomof4 said:


> The problem I have with the feminist movement is this.......wasn't it about having a *choice*? If they make a choice and still choose to be in the kitchen, you were and as evidence here in Willows post, still are deemed 'sad' and ' a shame' or in 'subjection'. I am none of those. Either the whole movement was not really about a choice or people in the movement are abusing the thought behind it. Because clearly, to a many feminist, there is only *one* choice.
> God Bless,
> Michele


 I've been reading along here, and just thought I'd chime in. I think Willow stated the issue well. To answer your question, I'd say yes, it IS about having choice, but maybe it's like this--you know how parents generally work hard to raise their kids to have as many choices in life as possible, because parents want kids to be happy and live up to their full potential? But then when the kid goes to college and says he's going to be an English major, the parents get kinda worried, and suggest maybe he should look into chemistry or business as majors.  They understand that he's passionate about Chaucer, but they've seen past English majors flipping burgers after graduation, and they're not sure that him following his dream is worth the risk that he'll have nothing to retire on. But, it's his life, so they stand back and watch with bated breath and hope against hope that his choices work out well for him. They hope that his CHOICE of Chaucer now doesn't FORCE him to live an undesirable life later--when the demand for English professors isn't quite what he imagined, and the only thing he's qualified to do is unskilled labor. And if you think about it, it's NOT really just his life, because their fate is tied up in his, to some extent. Will he end up living back on their couch when he can't get a job that pays enough to cover his school debt? Will he be able to care for _them_ when they are old and feeble? 

Anyway, I think there's a parallel to be drawn. Yes, the whole point is for people to have choices and be able to follow their convictions. But we've seen the flaws in some choices from the past (when they WEREN'T choices, but mandates), and so we hope against hope that people's choices today turn out well for them. In the end, it's not _only_ that we care about other people and want them to be happy (which we do), but that our fate may also be connected to yours. The thing you're choosing freely to do was once forced upon women, and we don't want a sea change of thought to arise where people think once again that it is ok to force women into that role. That possibility seems remote to most, but not impossible, so there's a certain vigilance against it, a certain desire to call it out and make it explicit that this choice is not an average or generally desired one. But meanwhile, I think that if women (yes, even feminists) realize that this is a choice you've come to out of your own personal convictions and not through any sort of inappropriate indoctrination, then they will be mostly inclined to step back, respect your choice, and hope it works out well for you.

P.S. this is coming from a Comparative Literature major who DID happen to get a good job after graduation, and my parents are still breathing a sigh of relief.  

P.P.S. Before anyone gets offended, I'm not saying that feminists have a "parental" attitude towards women in general--just a wish to see women do well and be happy....


----------



## hisenthlay (Feb 23, 2005)

Snugglebunny said:


> Think I'll put things a different way:
> 
> One man is married to a woman who works. They had a baby later in life, and she continues to work, putting the baby in daycare - even though her husband makes more money than she does. Her husband has some trouble finding a job to keep up their lifestyle, but eventually finds one that forces him to commute over an hour away from home, while his wife works within 20 minutes of the daycare. Still, she forces him to stay home when the child is sick, to pick the child up from day care, etc, so she can remain at work. The man leaves work early every day so as to pick up the child and is often absent from work. At work, the stress of his homelife has caused him to have a bad temper and often yells at coworkers. He has recieved reprimand on top of reprimand for his behavior.


 The reality of the situation today is that in families with two working parents, the mother is overwhelmingly the one to leave work early to pick up the kid, miss work because of child sick days, etc. That is a large part of the reason why men still earn more than women performing the same jobs. 

You're right that the workforce is still largely set up on the presumption that there will be one working spouse with the luxury of free time to be at the boss's beck and call, to work long hours, whose life will basically revolve around the employment, while there will be someone else at home to deal with all of the "minor details" of actually living--raising children, preparing food, keeping the home, etc. I believe this is a presumption that is harmful to families and the individuals in it (males and females, adults and children). This presumption is a historic novelty, counter to past human experience of both agrarian and nomadic cultures. 

I would argue that both of the scenarios you describe keep both parents "in bondage" to an unhealthy system.


----------



## River (Jun 25, 2003)

*By Bumpus:*
The Corinthian church had already started a doctrine about who was to cover there _[sic]_ head, and not covering there _[sic]_ head, and the length of men and women's hair. <--- Man made (not scriptural) 

Paul has brought this to there remembrance by writhing _[sic]_ about what they were doing, and trying to force it  upon others in the church and this is what the church  was preaching and teaching the people.<--- Man made 


1Cor: 11:1: Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2: Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3: But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6: For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8: For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9: Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10: For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11: Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12: For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13: Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14: Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15: But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16: But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
^ ^
| |
Scripture

Paul wrote also and told them the answer to there _[sic]_ doctrine which the Corinth church had started by itself ; <--- Man made 
1 Corinthians verse 16.

1 Corinthians: 11:16:* But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.*


The covering your head and the length of peoples hair he said, was nothing more than *A Man Made Custom ! ! !* <--- Man made 

Paul did not comand this doctrine and was trying to correct it. <--- Man made 

It was NOT of The Apostles Doctrine 
It was NOT a Doctrine Of The Churches Of God ! ! !

Covering of the head and length of hair is all a* man made doctrine brought in to the church by men. Not by God ! ! !* <--- Man made 

Here are reasons for a woman to cover her head:
I Cor. 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on _her_ head because of the angels.

What, pray, is man-made about the angels?

Note, too, a reason for this ordinance is headship:

I Cor. 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman _is_ the man; and the head of Christ _is_ God.

Evidently, Bumpus, you don't believe Christ is your head. In other words, headship is just "man made."

When Scripture is interpreted based on extra-scriptural "evidences" (see above), it is as the Apostle Peter wrote in II Pet. 1:16: a "cunningly devised fable."

River

P.S. the excessive use of exclamation points does not make a post any more "right."


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

I maybe should start another thread, because this is going to be major drift, but I am hoping we can continue this very civil discussion.

Hisenthlay and Willow - you have both made very good explanations of why feminists worry about those women who choose submission. My question for you, and any one else, is a little complicated.

Speaking only for the country in general - not women, not any particular person, but just for the country as a whole - do you think that the womens rights movement and feminism have been a good thing or a bad thing?

I know that for the women who do not want to be home it has been a great thing - I'm not denying or belittling that at all. I come from a long line of working women.

I guess I am asking about the bigger perspective that feminists have, because I have never heard it. In the feminist perspective, what effect, if any, has the feminist movement had on the nations marriages, children, schools, workforce, men, women, etc.


----------



## MicheleMomof4 (Jul 17, 2002)

hisenthlay said:


> The thing you're choosing freely to do was once forced upon women, and we don't want a sea change of thought to arise where people think once again that it is ok to force women into that role.


Where is the notion that if people freely choose to do this that it will once again become something others are forced to do? 
People are free to not marry. No one is being forced NOT to marry.
People are free TO marry. No one is being forced TO marry.
People are free to be pagans, no one is forced to be a pagan.
People are free to be Christians, no one is forced to be a Christian. 
Where is the evidence that if we are free to choose that it becomes an enforcement? I just don't see how we can draw that conclusion.
Furthermore, something stinks in Denmark as my Mamaw would say. If people are *free* to choose, but some folks don't like that choice and want it done away with.....then how *free* is that? Pot meet kettle. Sorry it is just very ironic to me that a whole movement set in stone about FREEDOM want the freedom of others belittled. We all want freedom, as long as it doesn't cover those who think differently than us? 
There are a lot of practices today that had off shoots of not so desirable behavior, does that mean any good that came from it should be abolished? I am afraid that when you throw out the baby with the bath water most don't realize that their bath water certainly can be next. It is a slippery slope when we start deeming what culture choices are better than another. 
God Bless,
Michele


----------



## bumpus (Jul 30, 2003)

River said:


> Evidently, Bumpus, you don't believe Christ is your head. In other words, headship is just "man made."


That is what you said River; and that is your interpretation, not mine.



I'm Typing This So You Get It Straight From Me, 
And Not Someone Else ! ! !


I know Who My Head Is ! ! !

God Our Holy Father Made Him ! ! !

His Name Is Jesus Christ, And He Is Alive And Well ! ! ! 

Jesus Christ Is My Lord And Savior ! ! !

Jesus Christ Dwells In My Heart ! ! ! 

I Am Being Lead Of The Holy Spirit, 
In The Kingdom Of God Right Now Today ! ! !

Jesus Christ Is My Judge Now, 
And Will Be My Judge On Judgement Day ! ! !

I Will Either God To Heaven, Or Hell, 
For Ever And Ever In Eternity After Judgement Day ! ! !


bumpus  
.


----------



## hisenthlay (Feb 23, 2005)

MicheleMomof4 said:


> Where is the notion that if people freely choose to do this that it will once again become something others are forced to do?
> People are free to not marry. No one is being forced NOT to marry.
> People are free TO marry. No one is being forced TO marry.
> People are free to be pagans, no one is forced to be a pagan.
> ...


I think you're missing part of my analogy--in my analogy, the parents were a bit concerned about Junior becoming an English major, they questioned his choice a little, but in the end *stood back* and *supported him* and *wished him the best*, because they knew it was the right thing to do. I think there's a little sensitivity here--I mentioned concern, and you jump to the choice "should be done away with" and "abolished". I never suggested any such thing. Quite the opposite. I support your choice and wish you the best. If someone wanted to "abolish" your freedom to make that choice, I would oppose that person.

You're right that this is a slippery slope issue, though. Really, I think that's the source of the concern. Religious fundamentalism is on the rise throughout the world, or so it seems from reading the news. Religious fundamentalism is reportedly surging in America, too. Does it seem likely that the US will be thrown back to 13th, 15th, 18th century laws and culture anytime soon? No. Is there this small niggling concern in the back of many women's minds that it might, just might happen? And that modern, everyday women choosing to go back to the home, submit to their husbands, wear traditional religious garb, may be the first step on a slippery slope in that direction? Yes, I think that that concern exists. When the Amish do it, it's quaint--"oh, look at them, with their sweet old-fashioned ways, brought up in a culture we can hardly understand, that is literally foreign to us." It's not "threatening". But when women just like you and me start to do it, people feel the need to label it as "other", so that there will be no mistaken impression in society at large that we want this for ourselves, that this is a typical choice that women should be pushed towards. But I think that in this case there is little risk of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." I'm a feminist who is generally surrounded by many other people who would consider themselves feminists. I've NEVER heard ANYONE, at any time, suggest that choice should be taken away from women, that they should not be permitted to choose to stay in the home, or engage in whatever sort of consensual relationship they wish, or wear whatever the heck they want. So no, I'm not seeing the hypocrisy here. My feeling is that you should be free to choose whatever you want--I'm under no obligation to think that your choice is a desirable one.


----------



## Snugglebunny (Oct 20, 2004)

Hisenthlay - the two men I spoke of are true stories - not historical things and nothing I made up. The first man my DH works with. Despite the fact that he commutes over an hour to get to work, and an hour home, his wife - who works 20 minutes from the day care - forces him to leave early and pick up their child, and forces him to stay home when the child is sick, so she doesn't have to leave work. Even though he is making more money than she is.

The second man is my husband. It is the nature of his job to work long hours when necessary, it's just part of his job. But because his wife - me - doesn't complain about his being late, because I ensure that everything (or try to) is taken care of here, it has freed his mind to be able to focus on his job and not have to worry about his homelife being in disarray. Because of his conscientous behavior at work, he has been given several promotions in the near-5 years he has worked there, multiple raises and was named employee of the month for being able to work the long hours necessary to solve an integral problem.

Does that put me in bondage? I am free to express my Love for my husband every day, in any way I want to without worrying about being at work on time or being asked to stay after hours. It also gives me freedom to put my time in volunteering and doing other socially-conscious things.


----------



## dosthouhavemilk (Oct 29, 2004)

RockyGlen said:


> Moopups, I don't think it is a major issue. I don't know of any churches (other than Amish and Mennonite, of course) that address it.


 A number of Conservative Friends (Quakers) dress plainly and in some Meetings it is quite common. 
It is not addressed as it would be in the Amish and mennonite communities, but many Friends are led to dress plainly. Well, Ohio Yearly Meeting of Friends (Conservative). 

I have considered wearing dresses in the past, but have always run up against my normal everyday activities that would not lend themselves to wearing dresses.

My father wore a hat everytime he went out when I was younger. When the Amish moved into the area that tradition kinda slipped away.


----------



## MicheleMomof4 (Jul 17, 2002)

No, I got your analogy. It wasn't what I took exception to, therefore I went to what I objected and addressed it. 
I think if a person is concerned that if some women choose to dress modestly and take on a traditional role it will somehow slip us back 50-60 years........their concern is really unfounded. I mean I know bell bottoms made a huge comeback and we should fear if beaded curtains come back, but really......LOL I guess I am asking where is the basis of this concern other than fear of the unknown. Show me in history (and I am asking cause I truly would like examples not being persnickety here) where this has been the case.
I never implied you yourself wanted it abolished. I speak in very general terms of those whom I have encountered. I am sorry if I made it seem I was speaking of you. 
God Bless,
Michele


----------



## hisenthlay (Feb 23, 2005)

RockyGlen said:


> Speaking only for the country in general - not women, not any particular person, but just for the country as a whole - do you think that the womens rights movement and feminism have been a good thing or a bad thing?
> 
> I know that for the women who do not want to be home it has been a great thing - I'm not denying or belittling that at all. I come from a long line of working women.
> 
> I guess I am asking about the bigger perspective that feminists have, because I have never heard it. In the feminist perspective, what effect, if any, has the feminist movement had on the nations marriages, children, schools, workforce, men, women, etc.


 Well, it's a big question, and I have limited time, but I'll give it a shot. Yes, I think that the women's rights movement has been good for the country as a whole, but that it's kind of like a half-baked cake at this point. Or let's put it this way. I like analogies today.  It's like society before the women's movement was a person with a hidden medical condition that was weakening it from within--let's say cancer. The women's movement diagnosed the cancer, and began to cut it out, and started radiation therapy and chemo (or whatever, I'm nto a doctor here) and made some good progress, but the person felt sicker than they did before they knew they had the cancer. That's ok, though, because they were on the road to complete recovery. Then, while they were weak and recovering, their surgical incisions got infected, and maybe they caught pneumonia. And there they are today, hovering between recovery and illness, looking VISIBLY much sicker than they were before they knew they had cancer. Was it right to cut out the cancer? Yes. It had to be done. Are things fine and dandy now? No. There's still work to do. 

In this case, I think that you can't call a society healthy while 51% or more of its population are second-class citizens. When you give that 51% some choices, yes, you're going to start to see some of the effects of the previous illness showing themselves. There will be more divorce, for instance, because all those women who previously had to suffer in silence with abusive, cheating, lazy, or mean husbands, will now have the more accessible choice of leaving those jerks and doing for themselves. Their children now don't have to grow up with alcoholic dads, or dads that beat them and their mothers, etc. That's good for society in general. But infection sets in--all of this coincides with industrialization, the specialization of society, moving away from traditional community ties, focus on the individual and personal fulfullment, advancement, etc. Not only do people not have to live with abuse, they don't have to do anything that's not good for THEM, RIGHT NOW. That's not just women, that's society at large. I'd be the first to say that things are in a bad state right now. I might even concede that, from a distance, things might've looked better 100 or 200 years ago. I don't think the women's movement is to blame. That cancer had to be cut out--the real question is where the treatment should go after that. Sharon in NY has written several excellent essays on this very topic, and I hope it's appropriate for me to post links to her blog here. I hope you read the links, too--I think it will go a long way to answering your question very sincerely.
http://casaubonsbook.blogspot.com/2007/07/barefoot-bearded-and-in-kitchen.html

http://casaubonsbook.blogspot.com/2007/02/home-economics-sustainability-and-mommy.html


----------



## hisenthlay (Feb 23, 2005)

Snugglebunny said:


> Hisenthlay - the two men I spoke of are true stories - not historical things and nothing I made up. The first man my DH works with. Despite the fact that he commutes over an hour to get to work, and an hour home, his wife - who works 20 minutes from the day care - forces him to leave early and pick up their child, and forces him to stay home when the child is sick, so she doesn't have to leave work. Even though he is making more money than she is.
> 
> The second man is my husband. It is the nature of his job to work long hours when necessary, it's just part of his job. But because his wife - me - doesn't complain about his being late, because I ensure that everything (or try to) is taken care of here, it has freed his mind to be able to focus on his job and not have to worry about his homelife being in disarray. Because of his conscientous behavior at work, he has been given several promotions in the near-5 years he has worked there, multiple raises and was named employee of the month for being able to work the long hours necessary to solve an integral problem.
> 
> Does that put me in bondage? I am free to express my Love for my husband every day, in any way I want to without worrying about being at work on time or being asked to stay after hours. It also gives me freedom to put my time in volunteering and doing other socially-conscious things.


Well, then, to answer your question in a more concrete way--it sounds like the first couple doesn't have a very good marriage. She "forces" him to do this and that? Wow. Neither my husband nor I would do that to each other. If something is more convenient for me to take care of, then I will generally take care of it, and vice versa. We are each considerate of the other's career and free time, and we work to try to ensure that each of us is supporting the other when they need it.

As to your situation, if you and your husband are both happy with the arrangement, then more power to you. Unfortunately, I think your happiness with the system puts you in the minority. The big problem with the current system is that if people don't want to live exactly as you and your husband do (i.e. one person at home full time, one person out working full time), then they are at a distinct disadvantage. Additionally, I work with many men who have at-home wives, and I've often heard them being dissatisfied that the demand for long hours led them to miss their kids' birthday parties, soccer games, graduations, etc. They're not happy missing out on their kids' milestones, but if they are to compete and keep their job that feeds their families, it's what they have to do. Those men are in bondage to a system that you seem to like. Meanwhile, their wives are at home, raising 2, 4, 6 kids mostly alone, feeling lonely and resentful that their husbands' jobs keep them away so much--after all, they married that man because they loved him and enjoyed his company, not so they could see him exhausted at the end of a long day, miss him on working weekends, and enjoy the benefit of his paycheck. I know this because their husbands tell me, and because I'm also friends with women in that same situation. 

I don't think the current system has much to recommend it. I'm glad you're happy with it, and my husband and I plan to make the best of it, but I think it's far from ideal, and contributes greatly to the current weakness of the American family unit.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

Thank you for those links, they were very clearly written and rather enlightening as to how and what "feminists" think.

The second blog entry, about the mommy wars, was excellent and I can agree with much of what was said.

The first one I printed out to read again when it is quiet.


----------



## Snugglebunny (Oct 20, 2004)

I know I am in the minority, because my husband balances work and family - very very carefully. I knew marrying him that his job required long hours. He takes the day off for the boys birthdays, only works weekends when absolutely necessary, and asks about my day and how the boys are doing at school. he is as involved as much as he can be. He calls home twice per day to check up on me and the boys. We talk through IM on occasion, especially if he is late. I am not 'happy' he works late, but I accept it as the nature of his job.

However. being a stay-at-home mom is a state of mind. A person chooses their reaction to situations. I choose to accept my husband's long hours, and he makes up for any lost time on the weekend. I choose to put the boys to bed alone, I choose to take friendships as they come, talking to my mom daily, and to other friends by email. Happiness is what YOU MAKE IT - whether a working Mother or a SAHM. Happiness is usually acquired through unselfishness.


----------



## heather (May 13, 2002)

I'm just going to try to answer your questions/comments as one Christian woman reading this thread



RockyGlen said:


> Of all the women who have asked or made comments, .............
> Christian women who are not interested in dresses or headcoverings or all that "submission stuff" (that is exactly what a Christian lady at our church says) tend to shout "legalism" "pharisees" "it's what's in the heart that matters."


I am a Christian woman who is not interested in wearing dresses or headcoverings all the time......I wear dresses to church & a bandana when I mow the lawn to keep my hair clean & out of my face.

I would not call wearing dresses & headcoverings "submission stuff"......a thorough study of the so-called "submission" passages in the Bible will make it clear that it is not about "legalism"



RockyGlen said:


> it could be viewed as legalism - if I were walking around saying you HAVE to do it. Yes, it could be viewed as Phariseeical, if my adornment were merely external.........or if I claimed that it provides my salvation - which it does not.
> 
> I absolutely, 100%, agree that it is what is IN the heart that matters most. But that does not mean that what is on the body (or NOT on the body in our culture!) is totally unimportant.


agreed



RockyGlen said:


> What I question is why so many women (not necessarily here, but in real life) feel the urge to argue against my convictions when I have never tried to push those convictions on them?


The only thing I wanted to "argue" about (ie discuss) was the quotes that River quoted -
I do absolutely hate it (yes, I hate it) when Bible verses & other historical quotes are taken out of context to support a belief or action.
Then those quotes & Bible verses are used to convince others to believe the same or act the same.
That is what I would "argue" about
I would not "argue" about YOUR convictions - Paul made it very clear in his writings that many people are convicted of different things in their spiritual lives - not everything is right or permissible for everyone



RockyGlen said:


> Have I said one thing that leads anyone here to think I am legalistic? Have I tried to persuade or bully anyone else into dressing the way that I do? Does it cause some women to feel threatened? Or judged? If so, why?


Seriously, I don't have time right now to read through all your posts to see if you were trying to persuade anyone...........
I don't feel threatened or judged by YOUR convictions




RockyGlen said:


> To use your lifestyle as an example, because it is here...I can picture you in your racing clothing, covered in mud, astride a motorcycle, laughing and being one of the guys. Very different from my choices. But I don't feel the urge/need/compulsion to warn you against the legalism of liberality/feminism.


Why do you assume that riding a motorcycle has anything to do with liberality & feminism?



RockyGlen said:


> Speaking only for the country in general - not women, not any particular person, but just for the country as a whole - do you think that the womens rights movement and feminism have been a good thing or a bad thing?
> ...................
> In the feminist perspective, what effect, if any, has the feminist movement had on the nations marriages, children, schools, workforce, men, women, etc.


I cannot speak from a feminist perspective (and yes, this should be a different thread altogether) because I don't have one  but I wanted to write anyway  

Feminism can be defined as
_The belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. The movement organized around this belief._

IMHO
The effect on marriages? Divorce
The effect on children? Abortion
The effect on schools? Any mention of God removed
The effect on the workforce? Made in China
The effect on men & women? See all of the above & more



RockyGlen said:


> I'm having trouble finding the right words - it is hard to convey certain feelings in writing - so I'll just stop here.


ME TOO


----------



## hisenthlay (Feb 23, 2005)

RockyGlen said:


> Thank you for those links, they were very clearly written and rather enlightening as to how and what "feminists" think.
> 
> The second blog entry, about the mommy wars, was excellent and I can agree with much of what was said.
> 
> The first one I printed out to read again when it is quiet.


 Thanks for taking the time to read them. I wonder if Sharon's ears are burning, with us talking about her here?  Seriously, I think she gives a great explanation, and puts into words much of what I've thought, too. The "mommy wars" are a great parallel to this whole discussion--it's a fabricated dichotomy that pits people with common interests against each other, and misses the real question altogether.

At home or not, head coverings or not, the main thing is that we want to be free to do what we think is best for us and our families.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

heather said:


> I would not call wearing dresses & headcoverings "submission stuff"......a thorough study of the so-called "submission" passages in the Bible will make it clear that it is not about "legalism"


My post that you were answering said dresses, headcoverings OR all that submission stuff. 



> The only thing I wanted to "argue" about (ie discuss) was the quotes that River quoted -
> I do absolutely hate it (yes, I hate it) when Bible verses & other historical quotes are taken out of context to support a belief or action.
> Then those quotes & Bible verses are used to convince others to believe the same or act the same.
> That is what I would "argue" about
> I would not "argue" about YOUR convictions - Paul made it very clear in his writings that many people are convicted of different things in their spiritual lives - not everything is right or permissible for everyone


I agree that different people have different convictions, and that Scripture should not be taken out of context. I do not base my beliefs on any historical writings, so I can't speak to that. I do apologize for assuming you were a non-Christian. 



> Why do you assume that riding a motorcycle has anything to do with liberality & feminism?


 The other poster has shared that she races motorcycles, hangs out with the guys, camping, is on equal footing with them, etc. I explained that I can easily picture her in her racing clothing, covered in mud (dirt bikes, right?), hanging out and being one of the guys. And then I said "Very different from my choices" but I don't feel the need to put her down or argue that her choices are wrong due to liberality or feminism. I was using the motorcycle racing as a way to point out our differences - not to condemn. Obviously, she feels the freedom (liberality) to race motorcycles. I do not say that she is wrong for that, even though it is not my choice. I was trying to show how some feminists think it is ok to berate women who make different choices, but that their lifestyle is just another choice and all should be respected.




> Feminism can be defined as
> _The belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. The movement organized around this belief._
> 
> IMHO
> ...


I have no problem with that definition, provided there is no condemnation of those women who choose not to pursue that equality. 



ME TOO [/QUOTE]


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

hisenthlay said:


> At home or not, head coverings or not, the main thing is that we want to be free to do what we think is best for us and our families.


Preach it Sister.

:happy:


----------



## hisenthlay (Feb 23, 2005)

MicheleMomof4 said:


> No, I got your analogy. It wasn't what I took exception to, therefore I went to what I objected and addressed it.
> I think if a person is concerned that if some women choose to dress modestly and take on a traditional role it will somehow slip us back 50-60 years........their concern is really unfounded. I mean I know bell bottoms made a huge comeback and we should fear if beaded curtains come back, but really......LOL I guess I am asking where is the basis of this concern other than fear of the unknown. Show me in history (and I am asking cause I truly would like examples not being persnickety here) where this has been the case.
> I never implied you yourself wanted it abolished. I speak in very general terms of those whom I have encountered. I am sorry if I made it seem I was speaking of you.
> God Bless,
> Michele


 Well, I'm no historian, but I believe the women of Afghanistan, for example, enjoyed many modern freedoms (the freedom to drive, the freedom to be out in public without a male relative supervising, the freedom to get an education, the freedom to live without religious coverings) before the resurgence of the Taliban. Societies, whole societies, HAVE taken giant steps back _by force_. Again, do I think that's _likely_ in the US anytime soon? No. But you asked for an example. 

If I thought that women choosing to wear headcoverings in the US was _likely_ to lead us to a Taliban-like state, I might oppose it. I don't think it's likely. I think it's fine. I think it's quite wonderful, actually, that we live in a society where people are free to choose to do that or not. And, you may be interested to know that if I see a woman in a store with a skirt and a headcovering, I actually tend to think I might have a lot more in common with that woman than the one next to her wearing gobs of make-up and fashionable clothes texting on her cell phone. There are all kinds of values in life--while I don't take the Bible literally, and I don't believe in any way that I should "submit" to my husband, I do believe that marriage should be forever, and that family should be the center of more people's lives, and that materialism (vanity, greed, sense of entitlement, selfishness) is a huge blight on America today, etc., etc. 

I'm glad you realize that I don't suggest limiting your choices (I did think you were referring to me), and I'm honestly surprised to hear that you've personally encountered people who think you should not have the choice to wear whatever you want to on your head. I guess I'm more sheltered than I thought....


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

hisenthlay said:


> Well, I'm no historian, but I believe the women of Afghanistan, for example, enjoyed many modern freedoms (the freedom to drive, the freedom to be out in public without a male relative supervising, the freedom to get an education, the freedom to live without religious coverings) before the resurgence of the Taliban. Societies, whole societies, HAVE taken giant steps back _by force_. Again, do I think that's _likely_ in the US anytime soon? No. But you asked for an example.



This is a very interesting point, and one I had not thought of. I am, (in no way, shape or form); a scholar when it comes to Afghanistan culture, so be patient with me. Was the Taliban voted into power, or was it a violent coup type of situation? If they were voted in, why? Were the people frustrated with what was happening to their country, and wanted to reclaim "the old ways" or was it a dishonest election by a corrupt few?

I know that a lot of Christians (and probably some non-Christians) think our country is headed downhill in a hurry. Many blame all the reasons du jour: God taken out of schools, homosexuality, abortion, no fault divorce, sex before marriage, working mothers, crooked politicians, welfare, and on and on and on....all the things that have changed since the "golden age" of the 50's.

If people in this country get frustrated to the point of trying to turn back the clock through the voting booth..........that makes for some interesting food for thought.


----------



## heather (May 13, 2002)

RockyGlen said:


> The other poster has shared that she races motorcycles, hangs out with the guys, camping, is on equal footing with them, etc. I explained that I can easily picture her in her racing clothing, covered in mud (dirt bikes, right?), hanging out and being one of the guys. And then I said "Very different from my choices" but I don't feel the need to put her down or argue that her choices are wrong due to liberality or feminism. I was using the motorcycle racing as a way to point out our differences - not to condemn. Obviously, she feels the freedom (liberality) to race motorcycles. I do not say that she is wrong for that, even though it is not my choice. I was trying to show how some feminists think it is ok to berate women who make different choices, but that their lifestyle is just another choice and all should be respected.


I agree that others' lifestyles should be respected
I still don't understand why you assume riding a motorcycle is chosen due to feminism. Are you supposing that riding a motorcycle is a "man thing" and since she does it, she's considered feminist?
I installed all the doorknobs in our house - while it might be considered a man's job, I don't consider myself a feminist (trust me, I'm far from it!) for doing it. I'm just a woman trying to get a small job done, that I"m perfectly capable of doing, while my husband is at work

Anyway..........



RockyGlen said:


> provided there is no condemnation of those women who choose not to pursue that equality.


agreed!


----------



## hisenthlay (Feb 23, 2005)

RockyGlen said:


> This is a very interesting point, and one I had not thought of. I am, (in no way, shape or form); a scholar when it comes to Afghanistan culture, so be patient with me. Was the Taliban voted into power, or was it a violent coup type of situation? If they were voted in, why? Were the people frustrated with what was happening to their country, and wanted to reclaim "the old ways" or was it a dishonest election by a corrupt few?
> 
> I know that a lot of Christians (and probably some non-Christians) think our country is headed downhill in a hurry. Many blame all the reasons du jour: God taken out of schools, homosexuality, abortion, no fault divorce, sex before marriage, working mothers, crooked politicians, welfare, and on and on and on....all the things that have changed since the "golden age" of the 50's.
> 
> If people in this country get frustrated to the point of trying to turn back the clock through the voting booth..........that makes for some interesting food for thought.


I didn't know the answer to your question off-hand, so I looked it up (on Wikipedia, the most reliable of all internet sources  , so take it for what it's worth). 


> *Origin*
> The Taliban initially had enormous goodwill from Afghans weary of the corruption, brutality and incessant fighting of Mujahideen warlords. Two contrasting narratives of the beginnings of the Taliban[9] are that the rape and murder of boys and girls from a family traveling to Kandahar or a similar outrage by Mujahideen bandits sparked Mullah Omar and his students to vow to rid Afghanistan of these criminals.[10] The other is that the Pakistan-based truck shipping mafia known as the "Afghanistan Transit Trade" and their allies in the Pakistan government, trained, armed and financed the Taliban to clear the southern road across Afghanistan to the Central Asian Republics of extortionate bandit gangs.[11]
> 
> The basis of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence Agency) provided arms to any group resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and started the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets. Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing these U.S.-backed training camps for the Muslims. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan and "by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war".[12]
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

Anyway, I think you're right--in the US, the fear is more of what will happen in the voting booths than some violent overthrow. Lots of leaders with slightly radical ideas look appealing as a change and a way to bring a nation out of crisis--apparently the Taliban (like Hitler) enjoyed some early support. But the article shows that once in power they became increasingly radicalized, and citizens were in over their heads before they knew what happened, and then it was too late to stop it (at least without bloodshed).

I think it's generally a good thing that the US system is set up to foster very slooooow change with the tripartite government system. Checks and balances, and all that. It's agonizing sometimes when you see something that SHOULD be changed, but it takes it forever to work into law, but on the other hand, when you think the system is going to heck in a handbasket, it's good to see it going there as slowly as possible, and give people a chance to come to their senses before it's too late!


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

heather said:


> I agree that others' lifestyles should be respected
> I still don't understand why you assume riding a motorcycle is chosen due to feminism. Are you supposing that riding a motorcycle is a "man thing" and since she does it, she's considered feminist?
> I installed all the doorknobs in our house - while it might be considered a man's job, I don't consider myself a feminist (trust me, I'm far from it!) for doing it. I'm just a woman trying to get a small job done, that I"m perfectly capable of doing, while my husband is at work
> 
> Anyway..........


Again - I was not saying that riding a motorcycle MADE her a feminist. I was pointing out the differences in her choices and mine, and how they can be interpreted by people looking in from the outside and making snap judgements. My daughter rides a dirt bike every now and then. I am refinishing kitchen cabinets. You can replce doorknobs. The blog lady's husband changes ALL the diapers that occur when he is home. None of that truly reflects the inner heart of that person, but the outwardness of it can be perceived to.

If a woman walked into your kitchen in a burqa and saw you replacing a door knob - you might assume she was oppressed and she might assume you were a feminist. In reality, maybe she was going to a halloween party and you just got tired of waiting for your husband to fix the door knob.

I was just trying to show how people's choices affect their outward appearance, and their outward appearance gives an impression of their beliefs, whether that impression is right or wrong.


----------



## heather (May 13, 2002)

RockyGlen said:


> If a woman walked into your kitchen in a burqa and saw you replacing a door knob - you might assume she was oppressed and she might assume you were a feminist. In reality, maybe she was going to a halloween party and you just got tired of waiting for your husband to fix the door knob.


LOL  




RockyGlen said:


> I was just trying to show how people's choices affect their outward appearance, and their outward appearance gives an impression of their beliefs, whether that impression is right or wrong.


agreed

So the question of this thread would be.......do you cover to give someone else an "Impression of your beliefs" or do you do it for you & your family alone? or both?
EVEN IF you only do it for yourself, you _are_ giving an impression.

I guess it doesn't really matter!


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

I cover, personally, for my self, my husband, and my God.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Thank you, Hisenthlay, for your excellent posts.


----------



## MicheleMomof4 (Jul 17, 2002)

hisenthlay said:


> Well, I'm no historian, but I believe the women of Afghanistan, for example, enjoyed many modern freedoms (the freedom to drive, the freedom to be out in public without a male relative supervising, the freedom to get an education, the freedom to live without religious coverings) before the resurgence of the Taliban. Societies, whole societies, HAVE taken giant steps back _by force_. Again, do I think that's _likely_ in the US anytime soon? No. But you asked for an example.
> 
> If I thought that women choosing to wear headcoverings in the US was _likely_ to lead us to a Taliban-like state, I might oppose it. I don't think it's likely. I think it's fine. I think it's quite wonderful, actually, that we live in a society where people are free to choose to do that or not. And, you may be interested to know that if I see a woman in a store with a skirt and a headcovering, I actually tend to think I might have a lot more in common with that woman than the one next to her wearing gobs of make-up and fashionable clothes texting on her cell phone. There are all kinds of values in life--while I don't take the Bible literally, and I don't believe in any way that I should "submit" to my husband, I do believe that marriage should be forever, and that family should be the center of more people's lives, and that materialism (vanity, greed, sense of entitlement, selfishness) is a huge blight on America today, etc., etc.
> 
> I'm glad you realize that I don't suggest limiting your choices (I did think you were referring to me), and I'm honestly surprised to hear that you've personally encountered people who think you should not have the choice to wear whatever you want to on your head. I guess I'm more sheltered than I thought....


I think Rocky covered the question I had about the Taliban answer of yours. I think those people were grossly deceived. And trust me, there is no 'shooter in the grassy knoll' twist amongst us traditional role likes. LOL 
The funny in all of this, I am not covered. I am just considering it. But I am a modest dresser (skirts and dresses only is our term of modesty for our family) and I have come against alot of negative things. I am also Quiverfull so I meet alot of people whom will let me know I need to stop having children, perfect strangers. LOL I think the reason I hear it, is because I am putting my radically different beliefs out for the world to see. I can't really play down the fact I am shuttling 5 kids to and for can I?  So, this may explain why I encounter more comments than you have encountered. 
God Bless,
Michele


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> The problem I have with the feminist movement is this.......wasn't it about having a choice? If they make a choice and still choose to be in the kitchen, you were and as evidence here in Willows post, still are deemed 'sad' and ' a shame' or in 'subjection'. I am none of those. Either the whole movement was not really about a choice or people in the movement are abusing the thought behind it. Because clearly, to a many feminist, there is only *one* choice.


Yes, I believe in free choice ... in fact, I believe feminism is the best construct for society, because it allows the widest spectrum of individual choice. 

To put it baldly, any woman who wishes to lead a "traditional" (it's not really, but that's another argument) or June Cleaver-like lifestyle need only find a man who is in agreement, and willing to support her and the kiddies. 

My only caveat, also expressed earlier, is that daughters in such households may get short shrift, or be shunted into roles that really are not suited to their inclinations or interests. (In all fairness, I realize this could happen on both sides of the equation ... a woman with strictly domestic inclinations, born into a "liberated" household, might be pushed into a career against her will!) It is difficult for parents of any stripe to encourage a child to follow her star when that star looks very unlike the one illuminating the parental universe. 



> So tell me - who is really in bondage here? One woman has the 'freedom' of a job. One woman has the 'bondage' of serving her husband out of love and respect.


Well, now that you put it THAT way ... lol. 

Seriously ... I will revert to the analogy to slavery (which may be perceived as insulting, which is not my intent ... it's simply the most accurate one I can come up with): Some slaves may have benevolent masters, thus serving them is indeed more pleasant than engaging in the rough-and-tumble world of employment with all its uncertainties. But ALL slaves are unlikely to have such good masters, and some are likely to chafe under ANY yoke, just out of principle ... here again, the option is best that allows the greatest amount of individual choice. 



> Hisenthlay and Willow - you have both made very good explanations of why feminists worry about those women who choose submission. My question for you, and any one else, is a little complicated.
> 
> Speaking only for the country in general - not women, not any particular person, but just for the country as a whole - do you think that the womens rights movement and feminism have been a good thing or a bad thing?
> 
> ...


Keep in mind the feminist movement did not spring forth fully-fledged, like Athena from Zeus' head. IMO, there were several contributing factors, including advances in science that reduced infant mortality on the one hand and made effective family planning possible on the other. Toss in the increase in industrialization, and the shift from farming to manufacturing, and feminism begins to seem like more of an effect than a cause. 

For most of human history, the majority of people were farmers. Work was labor-intensive and technology was rudimentary at best. It was desirable to have many children (free labor!), child mortality was high, and women did not have effective means to limit births anyway. Marriage was encouraged, as unmarried women ("spinsters") were viewed as liabilities to their families, not assets. So most women married in their teens, and proceeded to have a baby every 2-3 years until they died, often in childbirth. This was simply the way life was! It's not hard to see why few women played a significant role in the larger world outside the home.

In the 20th century, everything changed! Large families became mandatory, not obligatory. And for perhaps the first time in human history --since most children survived, and weren't needed on the farm anymore, and warfare was transformed by technology, and was no longer a matter of brute strength -- having a large number of children actually became a liability rather than an asset. Again, for the first time in history, women who were passionate about a vocation no longer had to choose between it and marriage (which had previously almost guaranteed a career-crippling number of children). Last but not least, technology ushered in a number of innovations that made the care of the home much easier than it had been. 

Women suddenly had time and opportunity, and we grabbed the bit between our teeth and ran with it ... LOL!

Change in women's roles probably was inevitable, and I do think the majority of the change has been for the better. I do not think there has been a time in human history when the mass of women have had as much freedom and choice as they do today. 

My primary criticism of the feminist movement, in Western society and particularly in America, is that women have chosen to identify with men and assimilate their values, rather than remaining loyal to their gender. Not surprisingly, given American culture, we've been selfish, and have worked primarily for our own individual benefit, rather than using the power we've attained to improve life for women (and children) in general. We've sold out!

Take, for example, the fact that America is virtually the only First World nation that doesn't provide some sort of paid maternity leave to new mothers. It's shameful that the richest nation in the world can't offer a benefit that even many struggling African nations somehow manage to provide their citizens! 

Yes, life is hard for many women who are struggling to juggle family and career ... but I believe there are alternatives to fleeing back to the kitchen! At one time, it was believed that when enough women achieved positions of power, we could begin to make a real difference in the traditional patriarchal structures. That day hasn't arrived, but I think it's hardly a foregone conclusion ... in fact, it seems our society is becoming more selfish, not less. In the end, this selfishness may be the undoing of feminism ... I hope not. I guess we'll see!


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

> In the feminist perspective, what effect, if any, has the feminist movement had on the nations marriages, children, schools, workforce, men, women, etc.


Willow, the above was my question. You answered regarding women, but I would like to know what effect feminism has had (in your opinion) on marriages, children, and the greater society - if you don't mind sharing. You mentioned, in your last paragraph, that society seems to be getting more selfish rather than less.

I have nothing against women who want to have careers, and I think they should not be hindered in that. I do not think it is selfish for a woman to want to acheive great things. What I wonder is whether it has been detrimental or beneficial to society as a whole. Have our men become the stupid wimps portrayed on television - and if so, did feminism play a part? Our youth are definitely out of control, did women putting careers above or equal with their children play a part in that? The schools have been declining and the lack of parental involvement is often cited - do you think that has something to do with women putting themselves above their children? I have even heard one person go on and on about how illegal immigration is the result of feminism because it opened the door to low wages and raised insurance costs because women have all those health problems. (I would insert rolling eyes there if I could find them.)

I am all for women who wish to have a career to have one. It gets a little more fuzzy for me when there are children involved - I do, deeply, believe that one parent should be at home when the children are at home. 

I was actually one of the children you spoke of who was manipulated in the name of feminism - every woman in my family, other than me, is a career person. My mother has barely spoken to me for years because I have never held a paying job and she thinks I am wasting my life. I went to college simply to please her, when all I wanted to do was get married and have children. I saw, and continue to see in MY family, how women who are career driven can (not all do I am sure) put their career so far in front of their children that the children are left rudderless and on their own. 

Many of the women I know (not all by any means!) who are stay at home moms were mothered by working women and felt that they would never do that to their children. 

Is there a pendulum - did women who hated being "just homemakers" swing so far the other way that their daughters are now swinging back? I don't know......

and boy did we get off topic, LOL.

I'm also curious as to why you said this:



> To put it baldly, any woman who wishes to lead a "traditional" (it's not really, but that's another argument)


For thousands and thousands of years, women were primarily responsible for the house, the children, the meals, etc. Men were primarily responsible for being providers. Weren't they?


----------



## Sharon in NY (May 11, 2002)

RockyGlen said:


> For thousands and thousands of years, women were primarily responsible for the house, the children, the meals, etc. Men were primarily responsible for being providers. Weren't they?


No, actually, they weren't. Now what is true is that in all of history there is no evidence of a society in which women were *not* responsible for very young children. Anthropologists document that the care of infants and toddlers is always primarily, but not exclusively, a female job. And since women are tied by nursing to young children, the work that women tend to take on has included things like cloth making, food preparation, gardening, etc..

But within those parameters, women have had a huge range of positions. In hunter-gatherer societies, older women and women without children routinely hunted as well as gathered. In nomadic societies, women who were not pregnant or nursing often fought, rode and hunted. In agricultural societies, poor women have always worked out of the home - rich women too, or else the "woman of valor" wouldn't be buying land in the marketplace. Something like 78% of all African American women worked during the 19th century - the "women at home with the kids" version of history is a very white one as well. Historically speaking, at no time in history have women *ever* on any scale (except since WWII) been home with *just* the house and children to tend to - they always had ritual/religious responsibilities, agricultural ones, work in the marketplace. The idea that women simply raised children and tended the home and didn't do anything else is historically false.

And remember, that for most of human history, the work of men (hunting, gathering, subsistence agriculture) was done close to home - everyone "provided" in the sense of working fields and gardens, collecting firewood, bringing food home, male and female, child and adult. Men cared for children who worked with them in the fields. Historically, the division between men who go "out" to work and women who "stay home" to work is really a product of industrialized society. As late as the turn of the last century, more than 50% of households had men and women mostly "at home" because the men either worked from home farming, or doing other home based work, or worked within easy walking distance, accompanied by older children. 

My personal theory is that many of the social breakdowns that we attribute to feminism are actually caused by *men* leaving the home - by the false idea fathers, fully integrated into daily life, aren't essential in the lives of children. 

The origin of this idea, more than feminism, is war. The idea of seperate spheres, in the Victorian age, descended intellectually from 18th century notions of men as warriors. The "breakdown" of the traditional family in the 20th century probably owed more to the two world wars than it did to feminism - the divorce rate and the rate of women working outside the home, and children experiencing radical seperation from their fathers skyrocketed during and after the war. Mainstream feminism's emphasis on working out arose, in part, from women's experience in the WWII workforce - despite what people say about women moving all of a sudden into the workforce when feminism came along, in fact, more women stayed in the workforce after World War II, and the rates continued to rise steadily through the 1950s, despite the cultural perception that everyone went home and raised kids. 

War is the thing that set up the idea that men go away, and bring back money and food, and that women stay home. Because war makes that true - but it is artificial - historically speaking, while women have cared for very young children, there has never been the rigid division that you describe above - except in a society that has lots and lots of violent conflicts.

Sharon


----------



## Sharon in NY (May 11, 2002)

willow_girl said:


> My only caveat, also expressed earlier, is that daughters in such households may get short shrift, or be shunted into roles that really are not suited to their inclinations or interests. (In all fairness, I realize this could happen on both sides of the equation ... a woman with strictly domestic inclinations, born into a "liberated" household, might be pushed into a career against her will!) It is difficult for parents of any stripe to encourage a child to follow her star when that star looks very unlike the one illuminating the parental universe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Speaking as a feminist who also has some real discomfort with the submission concept, I must say that I think that the analogy to slavery is wrong (and maybe offensive, but I won't take offense on anyone else's behalf). Slaves have no choice in their submission. Voluntary submission by adults to a faith and family structure that appeals to them has nothing to do with slavery, and the two shouldn't be equated - Hegel doesn't apply here. 

We accept voluntary submission all the time - employee submits to boss, student to teacher, child to parent, Nun to G-d, baseball players to the rulebook. In many cases we do it because we believe it to be right, or because it makes the game more fun, because the person believes it will bring them closer to G-d or because it just isn't possible to operate with 74 bosses. 

Someone who chooses a lifestyle of submission is not a slave, and shouldn't be called one. It is true that growing up in a household where submission is the norm will involve teaching children to have a narrower band of choices than otherwise, but you haven't convinced me that this is really a disaster, and in a society where other choices are everywhere, where there is no 
Taliban enforcing everyone's conformity, a child who really cannot live within those strictures is going to know that they have a vast array of other options once they are old enough to choose for themselves. 

I also don't think that the restriction of one's career options by religious training is one of the great tragedies in the world. It isn't clear to me that there's any real scholarly evidence for the notion that some of us are inherently unsuited to one career but suited to another, and I suspect the reality is that most of us, if we have such an inherent nature, don't get to fulfill it for reasons of economics, history, politics. The mythos that we all have the right and real opportunity to be what we are most inherently suited to seems to be just that - a myth. Is it really that big a deal for a woman with brains and ambition to turn those skills to her home, family, community and garden instead of her business? I think we tend to overestimate the importance of following one's bliss.

That said, I don't buy any of this stuff about submission and women's "natural" role - I think it is wrong. Nor do I think that historically speaking, the very narrow vision that some women have of "women's work" is accurate - I think that domestic work can be as valuable and fulfilling as professional work, and at least as important, but not in the very narrow, 1950s-esque way some people construe as "normal." But I think that we've bought a deeply wrong lesson from the personal narratives of some comparatively well off, priveleged, early second wave feminists who talk about how stifling their 1950s life was. The idea that only careers were the way out of that ignores the fact that part of the problem was the narrowing of the domestic sphere into vacuuming and tending kids - the domestic sphere used to be more imaginative, harder and better work, and it used to be essential to the provisioning and care of one's family. Once we switched to cheap energy and the notion that "provisioning" was the territory of corporations for whom you worked, of course the job was stupid and stifling.

All of which is a long way of saying I think everyone is wrong, at least a little  .

Sharon


----------



## jerzeygurl (Jan 21, 2005)

sharon you make some very good points, some that i often pondered....


----------



## Sharon in NY (May 11, 2002)

hisenthlay said:


> Well, I'm no historian, but I believe the women of Afghanistan, for example, enjoyed many modern freedoms (the freedom to drive, the freedom to be out in public without a male relative supervising, the freedom to get an education, the freedom to live without religious coverings) before the resurgence of the Taliban. Societies, whole societies, HAVE taken giant steps back _by force_. Again, do I think that's _likely_ in the US anytime soon? No. But you asked for an example.
> 
> If I thought that women choosing to wear headcoverings in the US was _likely_ to lead us to a Taliban-like state, I might oppose it. I don't think it's likely. I think it's fine. I think it's quite wonderful, actually, that we live in a society where people are free to choose to do that or not. And, you may be interested to know that if I see a woman in a store with a skirt and a headcovering, I actually tend to think I might have a lot more in common with that woman than the one next to her wearing gobs of make-up and fashionable clothes texting on her cell phone. There are all kinds of values in life--while I don't take the Bible literally, and I don't believe in any way that I should "submit" to my husband, I do believe that marriage should be forever, and that family should be the center of more people's lives, and that materialism (vanity, greed, sense of entitlement, selfishness) is a huge blight on America today, etc., etc.
> 
> I'm glad you realize that I don't suggest limiting your choices (I did think you were referring to me), and I'm honestly surprised to hear that you've personally encountered people who think you should not have the choice to wear whatever you want to on your head. I guess I'm more sheltered than I thought....


I'm with you Hisenthlay! Nicely put.

Sharon


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Great posts, Sharon! Thank you!

I am off to work on my farm right now ... more later!


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

I grew up in a house where my mom was not submissive to my dad, in a passive aggressive kind of way. She wasn't a card-carrying feminist, but was into the 70's self help books and grew up in the 50's beaten over the head to be a stepford wife, so maybe--I was a kid and didn't talk that stuff with her. My dad is the nicest guy and was very kind to her and very longsuffering. He worked long and hard, and many times he came home to cook for us, which I felt was very unfair(and I would help--and I know you'd say why didn't I cook? but cooking around my mom was a nightmare, and she got mad at us if we tried to "interfere"). I was a kid and didn't understand her nuerotic/depression/control issues, but somehow I got enough understanding to help myself, probably through the character example of my dad, that I should be a servant-hearted wife. 

On the other hand my husband's mother was completely submissive(old country portugese) and dominated in not a very nice way at all. The whole submission thing gone very wrong. He wasn't physically abusive, but he could say and behave very nasty, really treating him as his slave. She did enjoy caring for her family, but she put up with a lot of garbage as well. My husband saw how his dad treated his mom, and tried to be kind to her growing up, and not follow his dad's example.

SO for myself, I made the choice to raise my kids at home and care for the home in the traditional way. I also work full time from home in a combination of our business and my own business(out of neccessity). I also realize life is very fun and interesting, and I dont' want to get distracted/lost/miss out by keeping a spotless house and spotless children--having that be my only "legacy". 

Something I enjoy reading about is life in the old west, both from teh pioneers perspective, and the native americans. THere are lots of stories of women who were able to bend the gender straightjacket of the day and live happily(although it was certainly a hard row to hoe) in the life they chose. I was also interested to read about women in native american tribes who could make the choice to live as men--not for the sexual tendency reasons we associate with it today, but simply because they liked and were talented at hunting and fighting. Ha, as long as they did it well, as the men were expected to live up to their own set of standards, they were accepted--considered eccentric maybe, but accepted. I found this interesting because most indigenous cultures are very strict in what is male and female.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I also don't think that the restriction of one's career options by religious training is one of the great tragedies in the world. It isn't clear to me that there's any real scholarly evidence for the notion that some of us are inherently unsuited to one career but suited to another, and I suspect the reality is that most of us, if we have such an inherent nature, don't get to fulfill it for reasons of economics, history, politics. The mythos that we all have the right and real opportunity to be what we are most inherently suited to seems to be just that - a myth. Is it really that big a deal for a woman with brains and ambition to turn those skills to her home, family, community and garden instead of her business? I think we tend to overestimate the importance of following one's bliss.


Sharon, I agree with most of your posts, but strongly disagree with the above passage. 

Having been blessed with several jobs that I truly enjoyed, I believe that to be able do work that you find satisfying is one of life's greatest joys. Even a stranger can detect the difference between a man who loves his work, and one who is merely a slave to the time clock. Don't believe me? Go to your local Wal-Mart or chain grocery store and observe the clerks in the produce section ... then go to a farmers' market and watch the people who are selling fruits and vegetables they grew themselves. World of difference! 

In fact, I was thinking yesterday morning (prior to reading this thread!) that one of the reasons DBF and I have such a good time shopping and dining down on Pittsburgh's "Strip" on Saturday mornings is because we're usually buying and eating food made by people who are passionate about their vocation, and often are business owners or growers and thus have a direct stake in the success of their business. We were joking around with one of the artisan bakers at a little cafe called Enrico's, and it flashed through my mind that here is a man who loves and takes pride in his work, and is fully ALIVE and engaged ... what a wonderful thing. I think he sensed our approbation, as he slipped an extra biscotti in our bag ... LOL.

Also, I have talked to a few folks over the years whose early dreams were thwarted, and have noticed the even decades later, the perceived injury continues to rankle, sometimes in spite of having achieved success in an alternate arena. The fact that the majority of people actually don't get to live their dreams doesn't make the loss less poignant, IMO. I'm reminded of Whittier's aphorism, "For all sad words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these, 'It might have been.'"

I should add that I don't believe work has to be compensated monetarily to be rewarding. However, the human brain seems wired up in such a way that it usually needs to feel success, achievement, or progress toward a long-range goal in order to experience satisfaction. And the biggest complaint I've heard against housework is not that it's difficult or even that it's dull -- rather, that it's temporal. Dishes and laundry are washed, only to be dirtied; the mopped floor is tracked up again. I'm honestly not sure how the person who makes housework her life's work escapes frustration in this regard.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

I don't know anyone who makes housework her life's work. But I know many women who make loving her husband and raising her children her life's work. Cleaning the house is just one small part of that. Every occupation, no matter how loved it is, has some element of drudgery. And the result of well raised children will last far, far longer (possible even generations) than the result of having been a good real estate agent, accountant, or other "fulfilling" career. 

I actually know a family, that when the father died his wife put "hard worker" on his tombstone. OUCH. I know a woman who is in the local nursing home. She has 3 grown children and quite a number of grandchildren. She was one of the first women to hold a very high position here in town. Her kids don't visit her, and the people she worked with for 30 years don't visit her, either. One of her daughters is caring for the mother in law with alzheimers in her home, while her own mother is in a nursing home because she falls alot. She told me that she wishes she had realized years ago that her career was not going to keep her company and take care of her in her old age.

I'm not against women working - I'll say it a million times. I do think that if there are children involved, one parent should be home when the kids are. I just wish that being a SAHM was as valued as getting a career.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

And now, For RockyGlen:



> Willow, the above was my question. You answered regarding women, but I would like to know what effect feminism has had (in your opinion) on marriages, children, and the greater society - if you don't mind sharing. You mentioned, in your last paragraph, that society seems to be getting more selfish rather than less.


To expand a bit on my earlier post, U.S. business and government traditionally have been male-dominated, and the game has been played by men's rules, which have not been particularly kind to the family. As Sharon already noted, most roles (whether in the military or corporate life) took men away from their families for extended periods, at least most of the day, and most employers made scant concessions to the importance of family life. Not coincidentally, this is a mentality that maximizes profit, and a few people at the top of the food chain benefit from that profit. Dangling the carrot of success in front of the rest usually keep them on the treadmill.

As women made inroads into government and corporate worlds, we might have united and revamped the culture to be more family-friendly. Yes, this would have resulted in some loss of productivity and lower profits -- perhaps similar to the European model, which by and large seems to put more emphasis on quality of life and less on the bottom line. However, women didn't do this -- we instead made the grab for the carrot, the traditional male definition of success. (Perhaps I am unkind to label it selfish, but it seems so to me.)

Now that I've hopefully clarified my position on what I meant by "selfish" ... the effect on marriage? Remember, as Sharon already pointed out, for most of history, women actually were in the labor force to whatever extent they were capable while raising a large number of children, generally in some sort of cottage industry. Feminism allowed women to make inroads into formerly male-dominated professions, which tended to be higher-paying. As women no longer were forced to rely on men for financial support, marriage (or remaining in an unhappy marriage) became optional, not mandatory. I think feminism is a threat only to bad marriages. 

More later -- gotta go!


----------



## heather (May 13, 2002)

willow_girl said:


> I should add that I don't believe work has to be compensated monetarily to be rewarding. However, the human brain seems wired up in such a way that it usually needs to feel success, achievement, or progress toward a long-range goal in order to experience satisfaction. And the biggest complaint I've heard against housework is not that it's difficult or even that it's dull -- rather, that it's temporal. Dishes and laundry are washed, only to be dirtied; the mopped floor is tracked up again. I'm honestly not sure how the person who makes housework her life's work escapes frustration in this regard.


Are you equating "stay at home" with simply "housework"?
Not so -

I am a stay at home mom -
even if I didn't have the 2 children here with me, there'd be plenty to keep me busy besides housework - garden, animals, homeschooling, friends, volunteering, neighbors, etc.

I agree with you that housework can be dull 
However, let's take laundry for instance
I enjoy doing laundry because it reminds me of my family.
When I fold my daughter's clothes, in my brain you might hear "Oh, I remember when [the oldest] wore this....hard to believe she's already outgrown it"
"This shirt of hubby's is done for - he's worked hard in it & needs a new one"
Etc...You get the idea -
It's a chance to reflect on your family - 
that may sound absolutely ridiculous to you  ha!


----------



## Snugglebunny (Oct 20, 2004)

Historical housewives did far more than simple cleaning and child rearing. They used to be very community oriented, and often got together to use whatever skills they had for the betterment of society - church groups, sewing groups, etc doing whatever they could for those in need. When the world wars began they used those skills to support their husbands serving the military.

The idea of 'serving' has been lost, I think. Volunteer work has been reduced to something only done by high school kids needing scholorships for school or Elderly seniors retired and on medicare rather than something noble and wonderful and beautiful, something a woman can do to better herself as well as others.

My point is that being a stay-at-home Mother does not chain oneself to the house and children, though many do. In fact, it can be a vital part of mental health for a mother to leave the house to get together with others in a volunteer group - crocheting or knitting blankets for orphaned children, volunteering at the hospital, or some other such socially conscious thing.

But "feminism" itself - the idea of equality between genders - is not the problem for me. It's the extreme feminists who think it is a regression of society or an insult against our "foremothers" for a woman to stay home instead of working - that is the problem I have. Indeed, I see no problem with a woman working when necessary. The problem arises when the work leads to neglect of others - husband and children - or when it leads to a career being more important than anything else. This is one of many reasons behind the rise in divorce.

The other issue I have is that many seem to think that 'submission' is equal to an abusive relationship, that so many historical, traditional marriages were automatically abusive - when in reality the Bible teaches that a man must love his wife more than he loves himself.


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

willow girl, I hear what you are saying about temporal work. You raise a valid point. However, I do not see housework as "temporal" with no lasting value. Sacking groceries might be temporal. Pouring concrete might be temporal. Office work might be temporal. (Note I say might on all those, because if they are done to support a family they have great lasting value, or can.)

Taking care of my family's health? Not temporal, but lasting. That means lasting value in washing dishes, doing laundry, cleaning house, preparing nutritious meals.

Taking care of my family's mental health? Not temporal, but lasting. That means preparing delicious meals has lasting value. Playing games with kids has lasting value. Teaching kids has lasting value. Loving my spouse and putting his needs first has lasting value.

Taking care of my family's spiritual health? Certainly not temporal, but with the most lasting value of all. The privilige of teaching a little one about Jesus, and eventually being part of seeing them establish a saving relationship with Him has eternal, not temporal, value. That pretty much covers everything I do for or with my family. Literally everything--from the quilt on the bed to the food in the belly to the clothes on the back will reflect eternal values and create an atmosphere to transmit those values.

I agree that women should vote, should receive equal pay for equal work, and should be able to get any job they can do as well as a man. (Some men are not physically strong enough to work in the oil fields. Some women are not either.)

My complaint about feminism (not women's equality!) is the denigrating of the family. Family, not self, not career, should be second only to God. I am saddened that we seem to have forgotten the purpose of work is the care of the family. I am saddened that home life is denigrated as something to skim through with the least amount of effort.

And I am deeply, deeply saddened to admit that the people that have most denigrated traditional "woman's work" and "feminine ways" are women.

I don't need to be free to be like a man. True freedom honors both roles.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> It's a chance to reflect on your family -
> that may sound absolutely ridiculous to you


No, of course not.
Obviously, you love your family!
It sounds nice ...


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I don't need to be free to be like a man. True freedom honors both roles.


I agree, and I hope someday women will have made sufficient inroads into the male establishment to impose an agenda that gives family life and child-rearing the respect and importance it deserves. But women have to be able AND willing to do that, and as I said earlier, I'm not sure the willingness will exist even if and when the ability is there ... sadly!

And I'm not sure the optimal solution is a simple return to the days of Ward and June Cleaver -- a stay-at-home mother supported by a husband who works long hours and is largely isolated from his family. I'm reminded of a marvelous passage from Annie Dillard, from "An American Childhood," in which she describes growing up in an upper-middle-class home in the 1950s:



> This was the known world. Women volunteered, organized the households, and reared the kids; they kept traditions, and taught by example a dozen kinds of love. Mother polished the brass, wiped the ashtrays, stood barefoot on the couch to hang a picture. Margaret Butler washed the windows, which seemed to yelp. Mother dusted and polished the big philodendrons, tenderly, leaf by leaf, as if she were washing babies' faces ...
> 
> Mother wiped the stove; she ran the household with her back to it. You heard a staccato in her voice, and saw the firm force of her elbow, as she pressed hard on a dried tan dot of bean soup, and finally took a fingernail to it, while quizzing Amy about a car pool to a dancing school, and me about a ride back from a game. No page of any book described housework, and no one mentioned it; it didn't exist. There was no such thing ...
> 
> ...


----------



## Sharon in NY (May 11, 2002)

willow_girl said:


> Sharon, I agree with most of your posts, but strongly disagree with the above passage.
> 
> Having been blessed with several jobs that I truly enjoyed, I believe that to be able do work that you find satisfying is one of life's greatest joys. Even a stranger can detect the difference between a man who loves his work, and one who is merely a slave to the time clock. Don't believe me? Go to your local Wal-Mart or chain grocery store and observe the clerks in the produce section ... then go to a farmers' market and watch the people who are selling fruits and vegetables they grew themselves. World of difference!
> 
> I should add that I don't believe work has to be compensated monetarily to be rewarding. However, the human brain seems wired up in such a way that it usually needs to feel success, achievement, or progress toward a long-range goal in order to experience satisfaction. And the biggest complaint I've heard against housework is not that it's difficult or even that it's dull -- rather, that it's temporal. Dishes and laundry are washed, only to be dirtied; the mopped floor is tracked up again. I'm honestly not sure how the person who makes housework her life's work escapes frustration in this regard.


Willowgirl, I guess the part I disagree with is the idea that there's a *single* inherent job that we're meant to do - I love my work too - my work as a Mom, my work as a writer, my work as farmer. I like all those jobs. They are good, honorable work, and I take pleasure in them. The question is whether or not the thwarting of my future as a writer or college professor would have been some kind of deep tragedy. But the reality is that if I'd grown up in a different kind of household, gone to a different college, had a different set of experiences, I might never have become those things.

The difference between the guy at Walmart and the farmer is the conditions they labor under - those absolutely matter. Some jobs are horrible and demeaning. But that's a little different from saying that it is the work itself that is bad. I'll cheerfully agree that everyone needs good and honorable work, and the satisfaction they can derive from that. What I don't believe is that most people need any particular *kind* of work as long as the work is good and honorable and one labors in decent conditions.

That's not to say we don't have preferences and talents - some few people really are driven madly towards a single future - they couldn't be anything but a doctor or a musician. But most of us don't fall into that category - and some of the people who are that driven still somehow never achieve their dreams for a host of reasons - not enough talent, born in the wrong age, born too poor or in a different culture. The reality is "innate" desires get thwarted all the time, for a whole host of reasons, and I'd be very careful personally about suggesting that someone, say, who never became a concert pianist, but played for her own pleasure and the pleasure of her family suffered a great loss. Perhaps it was - but there are a lot of losses in teh world, and that doesn't strike me as one of the biggies.

Who knows - perhaps my husband would have been happier as a 19th century style natural philosopher and I would have been happier as a contemplative nun, but by accident of birth, religion and a whole host of other things, those options were closed to both of us. Life goes on.

I think people whose thwarted dreams still rankle may have suffered some serious inconvenience, but I'm not with Whittier on this one, at least on this kind of "it might have been." And, of course, people can choose, to a large degree, whether to let go of one dream and embrace another, or cling eternally to their grief that life didn't go the way they wanted it to. I think to a large degree it is a choice - and so is the choice to derive joy and satisfaction from the work open to you.

Yes, housework is endless. So is teaching (you get through one year and you are presented again with a group just as ignorant), so is being a chef (you make one meal, and the next sitting is just as hungry), so is being a farmer (you get through one season and you start again the next, all the food is eaten and there's just bare dirt before you.), being a nurse (you take care of one sick person and they get well and there's another one in front of you). Lots of jobs, maybe even most jobs, are like that - endless in some sense. At some point you learn to derive satisfaction from the work itself, and the small bits of success you give to others - the pleasure of the work itself, and of the result it gives - the meals people eat with enjoyment, watching your kids grow up strong and healthy, the fact that home feels a certain way because it is clean...

The reduction of homemaking to housekeeping is precisely why, IMHO, people seem to believe that there's something inherently awful and intellectually unstimulating about domestic work. Sure, at the end of the day, the dishes are dirty, the meal is eaten and the living room is a mess again. But like the chef, the nurse, the farmer, the teacher, you've nurtured and grown something. You've provided security, good health, comfort and pleasure - and that's where the satisfaction derives from. Your kids are one day older, and one day closer to being who they need to be. And, of course, there are some permanent things out there - traditional domestic work included the making and home manufacture of things - brooms, clothing, etc... That leaves you something more permanent. 

The other thing I think is most important here is that while I know some people who live in two-career, professional families who work full time who do not depend heavily on underpaid, exploited poorer people in really rotten jobs, they tend to be exceptions in my experience. If we're both to agree that it is important that work be good and honorable and done in fair and good conditions, then I think we also have to agree that following your bliss so that you can then rely on exploited, poorly paid people to do the jobs one of you (I do not specify gender here, and would strongly prefer this not be divided by gender, although I don't object to those who think it should be for themselves) is not doing. That is, most people I know in families who both work full time also subcontract out jobs they would do themselves if they were at home - things like home repairs, sometimes housekeeping, meals they would cook, etc... They let poorly paid workers at fast food places feed their kids, they let poorly paid people mow their lawns and tend their shrubbery, they burn a lot of energy hauling around and buying pre-processed food produced by exploited labor in migrant factories. 

The reality is that for people with kids (I think people without them can often do better on this), there are few people who can manage all the work required to produce good food, maintain a home, grow food, etc... So they end up burning fossil fuels, producing greenhouse gasses and exploiting other people in order to get the things that they don't want to do themselves done. Frankly, I don't think that's ok. Now there are exceptions - I have met a few people who can pull it off, but not many. And I absolutely don't claim that this is a woman's job or a woman's responsibility - both parents are responsible for this. But *SOMEBODY* has to do the scut work - it just isn't ok to use heavy chemicals and put them in the groundwater instead of cleaning your own toilet. It isn't ok to feed your kids McDonalds three nights a week because no one has time to cook. It isn't ok to buy crap made by exploited laborers so that you can enjoy your job. It isn't ok to destroy the environment so that you can enjoy your professional life.

I have no object to people paying others very well and treating them well while they do this work. But most of us aren't that rich. And it isn't feminist to leave your kid with an impoverished immigrant Nanny whose own kids are being babysat by the tv so she can make $8 an hour so you can be a surgeon - and I know a bunch of "feminists" like that. To be fair, I know plenty of at home Moms who think that being at home is a license to spend their whole days at the mall - but comparatively few of them are, thankfully, on this board. 

I am a feminist, but I get very frustrated by a feminism (and this is not all feminisms, but it is the primary voice, I think of second and third wave feminism) that is very aware of the limitation of comparatively well off white women, but not especially conscious of the price other women (and men) have paid in order to achieve what we have. I honestly would prefer to see men and women both go home equally - but somebody has to do the domestic work, and I'm less concerned with the power issues of having women do it voluntarily as part of their faith than with the powerlessness of many of the people doing it right now.

So I guess what I'd say is that a woman who joyfully chooses to clean her own toilet, care for her own kids, grow a garden and feed her kids healthy food is so far ahead, and in some ways performing a highly ethical, highly feminist act, that I'm fine if she does it because she believes in personal submission to G-d and spouse. Not my thing, personally, but that doesn't change the fact that I suspect that some such women are performing (shhhh...don't tell them  far more feminist acts than many.

Sharon


----------



## Sharon in NY (May 11, 2002)

willow_girl said:


> RockyGlen tells us about an elderly career woman who regrets not spending more time with her children. Don't you think many men feel the same way? I do. Don't you think children miss their working fathers as well as their working mothers? I recall DBF showing me a birthday card his daughter had made for him when she was small. In it, she had written, "I love you, even though I hardly ever get to see you." (He had taken a second job in order to make alimony and child support payments after his wife left.)
> 
> I think the ideal is not a return to the world described by Dillard, as idyllic as it may seem (at least if you're the woman or child in the equation!) but rather a more equitable system in which both parents contribute to supporting the family and rearing the children. No?!


In this I wholly agree with you. I think the 1950s was a very weird, artificial time in history for a whole host of reasons, and calling it representative of our collective past is just wrong. 

Personally, while I support the rights of families to do what they want, sometimes when I hear about families where one spouse works two jobs to have an at-home parent, I think how terribly sad it is that the children would grow up so far away from the other parent. Perhaps it can't be avoided in many places, but I often wonder if it wouldn't be wiser to have a mother take a part time job (if it was feasible, with childcare, etc...), perhaps in the evenings,, if it meant that Daddy could be home with the kids.

Sharon


----------



## hisenthlay (Feb 23, 2005)

nodak3 said:


> My complaint about feminism (not women's equality!) is the denigrating of the family. Family, not self, not career, should be second only to God. I am saddened that we seem to have forgotten the purpose of work is the care of the family. I am saddened that home life is denigrated as something to skim through with the least amount of effort.


 Agreeing that family should come first, but isn't that true for women AND men? Feminism doesn't have to be (and shouldn't be!) about putting self/career before family, although that has admittedly it seems that both sexes have been doing a lot of that. To me, it means men AND women putting family first. I strongly disagree with the common notion that if a man works 40-80 hours a week outside of the home, he is putting family first, while if a woman does the very same thing, she is "denigrating the family", or putting herself first, etc. As Sharon aptly noted, a big part of the problem with families today is MEN's absence from the scene. So yes, if a mother AND father both work out 40-80 hours, the home life is often relegated to third or fourth best, "skimmed through" as you say.

My husband and I are both in demanding career fields, but we have chosen our particular jobs and specialties intentionally to be as flexible as possible with reasonable hours, ability to work at home sometimes, etc., so that when we have children, we will BOTH be able to contribute greatly to raising kids AND economic support of the family. In working this out between ourselves, we realized that any other solution would leave both of us feeling cheated--if I stayed home full time and he worked out full time, he would feel that he was missing out on too much of family life and being present in the home, and I would feel a bit trapped and lonely and like my years of professional training had been rather an expensive exercise in futility. The same was true in the reverse situation, if he stayed home and I worked out. We both agreed that it would be more fulfilling to stay home, if one *had* to choose, but happily (thanks in part to feminism  ), we don't have to choose. It won't be the path of least resistance, but we will both be able to work out "alternative" schedules for ourselves. My complaint is that this solution *is* alternative, and that the structure of the workplace makes it hard, if not impossible, for many couples to make this choice. We are lucky to be able to do it, and we're going to make the best of it.


----------



## hisenthlay (Feb 23, 2005)

Funny--I was posting at the same time as your last two posts, Sharon, and repeated some of the same ideas you talked about.

Now I'm off to work on my shrubbery with my husband--see you all later!


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> RockyGlen tells us about an elderly career woman who regrets not spending more time with her children. Don't you think many men feel the same way? I do. Don't you think children miss their working fathers as well as their working mothers? I recall DBF showing me a birthday card his daughter had made for him when she was small. In it, she had written, "I love you, even though I hardly ever get to see you." (He had taken a second job in order to make alimony and child support payments after his wife left.)


It is comparing apples to oranges when you compare a working father's absence to the absence caused by a failed marriage. Apples and oranges are both fruit, just like both men are fathers - but the similarity ends there. A man working long hours is still going to be there and accessible at least part of the time each day, even if it is just for the two a.m. nightmare. A non-custodial father is only there at court appointed times, and I have yet to meet a child who needs a parent on a court appointed schedule. The effect of divorce on children is a whole nother subject....


----------



## Sharon in NY (May 11, 2002)

RockyGlen said:


> It is comparing apples to oranges when you compare a working father's absence to the absence caused by a failed marriage. Apples and oranges are both fruit, just like both men are fathers - but the similarity ends there. A man working long hours is still going to be there and accessible at least part of the time each day, even if it is just for the two a.m. nightmare. A non-custodial father is only there at court appointed times, and I have yet to meet a child who needs a parent on a court appointed schedule. The effect of divorce on children is a whole nother subject....


Now this I think is just plain wrong - a father who works long hours and is really only there for the 2 am nightmare may be spending less time with his kids then the non-custodial parents who clears his whole schedule for visitation with his (conscious) children. A Dad who leaves for work as the kids are getting up and comes home as they are going to bed isn't going to be there when he's needed - he'll be at work. 

My own husband has been asked a number of times, as he took our four kids to the playground or to do the shopping "Does your wife have custody?" The assumption being that the only reason men spend extended periods of time alone with their kids is because of court-appointed visitation. This is not true, of course, but it is true that divorced fathers are often forced by circumstances to actually be present for their children in ways they weren't in marriage. I certainly don't recommend divorce as a good way to get fathers back into the lives of children, but neither do I think the distinction you are trying to make holds - what matters is that the parent be there. And mothers cannot substitute for fathers - they can make sure a parent is there, but parents are not interchangeable. Kids need both - and time with both.

The reality is that the "quality time" message was a lie - kids need time - period, and with both of their parents. It isn't always possible - but I suspect that sometimes we make our own "can't" into the truth.

Sharon


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

I just have to say, in our our business(maid service)we have a (not a few) clients that are (wealthy) women that do not work, but send their babies and little kids to day care every day, or have a nanny while they are gone all day shopping, golfing or whatever it is rich people do when they don't work(or rip out the kitchen because they're "tired" of it). One had a framed poem on her wall about the joys of being a wonderful mother(gag me with a toilet brush!). That just drives me nuts.

Ha, of course we make our living with these people ;0)....

When I was pregnant I worked in an upper class daycare, and even thought those kids got great care, it freaked me out and convinced me to stay home at all costs. I wonder where those kids are now. Some parents did a good job of balancing it, but most did not, and the poor kids were very lost and needy. There were a handful of kids that were little Jeffrey Dahmers in training(one child repeatedly drew pictures of cutting up his parents into little pieces with a fork and knife, and was very, very cruel to the other kids.) I wasn't the only worker to feel this way, and we tried our best to really care for the kids(not just babysit). The whole thing broke my heart. And there are some kids you get attached to in a motherly way, and it's just as heart wrenching when they go away somewhere else.


----------



## Jesus Saves (May 31, 2005)

Wow, you all are on a roll!!  

Just wanted to say the covering is going ok despite some silly questions at church. Oh, I don't cover for them. I cover for God, since he is the one who convicted me to. No one else did.


----------



## LamiPub (Nov 10, 2006)

In most cases infants and young children do better under their mother's care. This does not mean that the presence of their father in their lives is not also important. The family unit is important and usually the man is the primary income in the household. Do children need their father? Yes, of course. However, it is necessary for a family to have a source of income. If the father has to go out and work it makes sense for the mother to be home with the children. The issue is not about father's being involved in their children's lives. Are you saying if the father can't spend as much time with the children as the mother they should both just go out and work and neither have more time with their children? Of course there are circumstances when a woman finds herself a single parent. She may just have to work and leave her children and she and her children should get help and support from her church/family/friends. However, in most the single mothers I have known they seem to have no problem finding sitters so they can go out on a date or spend time on herself. If you don't see how valuable a father's limited time is(because he is away working so often) just compare a family with a father who is away at work 60 hours a week but is still married and living with his family to a single woman raising children with no father in their lives. Both parents working certainly does not free up more time spent with the children. 

As for history...men went away to wars and travelled long distances for "work", hunt, discover new lands, etc. They were the primary breadwinners and leaders in the homes and societies. The father being away is nothing new. The farmer who has his "business" at home was actually away more hours each day than the white collar working fathers of today. The women raising the children, holding down the homestead, assisting in the family business and running it in his absence, etc is nothing new either. Family planning and birth control while in a new form is still nothing new. Diaries from women centuries ago advised each other to nurse their children longer as birth control, many herbs were also recommended. In centuries old diaries we find women who had large families, women who had small families, and women who were barren. We also see women who remained single to pursue personal pursuits and make contributions to societies. Yes, there were times and societies where women were limited in owning property, in furthering an institutional education (of course even in the 1600-1800s their "limited" education exceded most college grads today!), and running the governments (some still exist today...but hey live and let live, right?). If you read women's diaries from centuries ago you will see that women and men really haven't changed that much. The way of life through times has changed but not people. Most people here no longer have to work to survive. They don't understand the concept of "if you don't get up and do this, this and this today, you and/or your family will die today". That is what is different or missing today. Woman may have more personal rights and opportunities but we have also gotten lazier, more selfish and less intelligent imo.


----------



## Reptyle (Jul 28, 2005)

LamiPub said:


> In most cases infants and young children do better under their mother's care.


I'd like to see the studies done on this and possibly statistics as well.


----------



## emulkahi1 (Apr 22, 2006)

I just wanted to say that I have been interestedly following this post since the beginning and I am thoroughly enjoying the discussion. There have been some very intelligent, well thought-out points made from various points-of-view and it has given me lots of food for thought. I am surprised at how much I have learned....Very cool. 

Anyway, just wanted to chime in and say that....

Erin


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

I'd be interested to know from the people who chose to use a headcovering, if they are in a church that practices it, or they do it all by themselves(I think there are a few who do it "alone")? 

One thing to add to the pot of family members working was that years ago the kids worked alongside the parents. Even if the farmer husband was gone all day, most likely the kids were with him. Our teenage sons enjoy working in our business with us(for real!) even if it is housecleaning, because they're paid, and they actually like working with us, and I enjoy working with them. It can be stressful sometimes, since you have the family dynamic of "brotherly love" and teenage whining that crops up, but generally they're learning about how to work, and do work that isn't really glamorous. 

Ha, that said, in the light of feminism-istical stuff, I am still the "bathroom B***h" on the team, I get to clean up the ooky-ness. Sigh!


----------



## MicheleMomof4 (Jul 17, 2002)

I wonder why so many assume if a single parent is working, they are working 60 hours plus a week? We are a one income family. My DH works 32-40 hours a week. It is not only my job to care for the children, clean the house and such. But also to be very wise with money (still learning) so that it takes my DH further from working himself to death rather than deeper. People regardless of one or two incomes, have a very skewered view on 'stuff anymore. We do without by choice. No one here is less of a human for that. There is regularly only one person in this household whom gets new clothing rather than used, that is my teen aged son. And even then its is done on clearance, sales or from his own pocket. When we can find it used we do. We have never owned a new car in our lives and never plan on it. The cost involved is too much us as a family. We have now one credit card of $300 limit that we use for gas and pay off at the end of the month. This is our first one in many many many years. My son is getting close to college age and we may have to borrow to send him where he wants. So we were concerned that our credit is not high enough, hence the card. 
I also find it interesting when it is said that I like traditional roles, that some assume that means 1950's. Maybe someone else said that, but for me and my family......we refer to traditional in a Biblical sense. Where the father is the head of the household and the mother is his helpmeet. This does not mean the mother does not work outside of the home or only in the home. It means she works for the good of the home, not for the good of a personal desire to achieve for herself only. We teach our girls the greatest honor they could ever do is to be a loving God fearing wife and mother. If they wish to have a profession, then we teach them that is secondary to being those things. We strive to keep God at the front of our home, in the front of our aspirations, at the front of our desires. Our needs and wants are secondary to what HE has called us to do. Everything we do is for HIS glory and only HIS. Anything else is prideful. I understand that Willow at this point has passed out, rolled over and went into shock, LOL She is concerned that girls like this will be doormats. And I can ensure you from my standpoint, there is no issue and nor will we allow that to happen. I want children full of God not full of themselves. We also want our children to be able to stand strong in their Faith when they believe that there is a wrong in the world. You can't do that being a doormat. 
We have a strong sense of family, not just Mom at home. You can still achieve that with one parent working , just have to have goals in line.
God Bless,
Michele


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I understand that Willow at this point has passed out, rolled over and went into shock, LOL


LOL!

Actually I feel I know you pretty well, Michele, and trust that you and your hubby love your kids ... I have a feeling they will turn out OK.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

wyld thang said:


> I'd be interested to know from the people who chose to use a headcovering, if they are in a church that practices it, or they do it all by themselves(I think there are a few who do it "alone")?
> 
> One thing to add to the pot of family members working was that years ago the kids worked alongside the parents. Even if the farmer husband was gone all day, most likely the kids were with him. Our teenage sons enjoy working in our business with us(for real!) even if it is housecleaning, because they're paid, and they actually like working with us, and I enjoy working with them. It can be stressful sometimes, since you have the family dynamic of "brotherly love" and teenage whining that crops up, but generally they're learning about how to work, and do work that isn't really glamorous.


I am the only covering person in our church and in our town.


My dh works very long hours as a farmer, but he is in the house for all three meals, he quits what he is doing and comes in for family devotionals and bedtime routines, and he does usually have one or more children with him while he is working. During the winter he has less to do and helps with the homeschooling. Even though his hours are longer and his pay is less, he spends more time with the children now than he did when he was in the corporate world.


----------



## Jesus Saves (May 31, 2005)

wyld thang said:


> I'd be interested to know from the people who chose to use a headcovering, if they are in a church that practices it, or they do it all by themselves(I think there are a few who do it "alone")?



I am the only one of 700+ right now that covers. So far I have had only one lady gasp and ask my husband (not me) if we were "going" amish. She is someone who likes to stir up trouble. I just gave her some scripture. Her children laugh at me tho when they see me. I think next week I will see if her children ask me any questions. They are asking behind my back, so maybe they will just ask ME. :shrug:


----------



## Sharon in NY (May 11, 2002)

MicheleMomof4 said:


> I wonder why so many assume if a single parent is working, they are working 60 hours plus a week? We are a one income family. My DH works 32-40 hours a week. It is not only my job to care for the children, clean the house and such. But also to be very wise with money (still learning) so that it takes my DH further from working himself to death rather than deeper. People regardless of one or two incomes, have a very skewered view on 'stuff anymore. We do without by choice. No one here is less of a human for that. There is regularly only one person in this household whom gets new clothing rather than used, that is my teen aged son. And even then its is done on clearance, sales or from his own pocket. When we can find it used we do. We have never owned a new car in our lives and never plan on it. The cost involved is too much us as a family. We have now one credit card of $300 limit that we use for gas and pay off at the end of the month. This is our first one in many many many years. My son is getting close to college age and we may have to borrow to send him where he wants. So we were concerned that our credit is not high enough, hence the card.
> I also find it interesting when it is said that I like traditional roles, that some assume that means 1950's. Maybe someone else said that, but for me and my family......we refer to traditional in a Biblical sense. Where the father is the head of the household and the mother is his helpmeet. This does not mean the mother does not work outside of the home or only in the home. It means she works for the good of the home, not for the good of a personal desire to achieve for herself only. We teach our girls the greatest honor they could ever do is to be a loving God fearing wife and mother. If they wish to have a profession, then we teach them that is secondary to being those things. We strive to keep God at the front of our home, in the front of our aspirations, at the front of our desires. Our needs and wants are secondary to what HE has called us to do. Everything we do is for HIS glory and only HIS. Anything else is prideful. I understand that Willow at this point has passed out, rolled over and went into shock, LOL She is concerned that girls like this will be doormats. And I can ensure you from my standpoint, there is no issue and nor will we allow that to happen. I want children full of God not full of themselves. We also want our children to be able to stand strong in their Faith when they believe that there is a wrong in the world. You can't do that being a doormat.
> We have a strong sense of family, not just Mom at home. You can still achieve that with one parent working , just have to have goals in line.
> God Bless,
> Michele


I'm not assuming that, but over the years here I've seen many families talk about the long, long hours their husbands work so that the wife can stay home, so I suspect at least some do. And there may be compelling reasons for that - for example, if you have very young, breastfeeding children, or if the husband can make much more money than the wife, or if you simply like it that way. My only point on this subject is that in some cases, it might be wiser to have the wife work part time, perhaps in the evenings or on some weekends, to allow the husband to spend time with his kids. While I absolutely believe someone should be home, I do not believe, except with very young children who are tied to their mothers by the biology of nursing, that children are best off exclusively with their Moms. 

But I present this as a caveat, not a claim that the AH Mom idea is bad.

I think your family sounds wonderful and entirely admirable, Michele.

Sharon


----------



## Sharon in NY (May 11, 2002)

wyld thang said:


> I'd be interested to know from the people who chose to use a headcovering, if they are in a church that practices it, or they do it all by themselves(I think there are a few who do it "alone")?
> 
> One thing to add to the pot of family members working was that years ago the kids worked alongside the parents. Even if the farmer husband was gone all day, most likely the kids were with him. Our teenage sons enjoy working in our business with us(for real!) even if it is housecleaning, because they're paid, and they actually like working with us, and I enjoy working with them. It can be stressful sometimes, since you have the family dynamic of "brotherly love" and teenage whining that crops up, but generally they're learning about how to work, and do work that isn't really glamorous.
> 
> Ha, that said, in the light of feminism-istical stuff, I am still the "bathroom B***h" on the team, I get to clean up the ooky-ness. Sigh!


In our synagogue, women cover far less often than men do. There are some men who do full-time kippah wearing, and as far as I know, I am the only woman who has ever considered it. The reason, I suspect, is for the same reason that people instinctively reject anything that is about "modesty" - becuase they think that calling for modesty represents sexual repression. But I don't do it because I believe my hair is immodest - I do it to remind myself that prayer is supposed to be daily, integrated and part of my life. 

There's another reason we cover our heads - we live in a predominantly Christian area, where many people are unfamiliar with Judaism. We find that people are more aware of the issues, and more conscious of them, when confronted with a visual reminder of our Jewishness. For example, we've had someone disregard our family's request that our son not be part of the school Santa visit at his special needs school - but that hasn't happened since the visual reminder was present. The kippot operate as a visual reference point reminding people that we are a little different - and reminding us that we are a little different. 

One of the requirements of Judaism is that we not give a false impression - for example, that one not sit around wearing a kippah, looking like an observant Jew, and eating at McDonalds, because you might accidentally give the false impression that the food was kosher. Nor would you wear a kippah to a place like Hooters, or something. And so every time we consider (not often, but it does happen) going some place where we'd be unwilling to wear our headcoverings, we have a real conversation about whether it is worth it to take them off. It makes us think twice about whether it is appropriate for us to model Judaism while doing or visiting certain places and things. 

I know just what you mean about the bathroom. Actually, I kind of like cleaning the bathroom, because when you are done, it really looks clean. But with four little boys, three either newly or incompletely toilet trained, let me just say my enthusiasm for the job has dropped a good bit  .

Sharon


----------



## Sharon in NY (May 11, 2002)

Reptyle said:


> I'd like to see the studies done on this and possibly statistics as well.


Me too. I don't think there's any question that if one parent is going to be home, infants and nursing toddlers need to be with their mothers. And for women who practice extended breastfeeding (a good thing) and have multiple children, this may mean that it simply makes sense for them to be home for long stretches. But beyond that, I'm not aware of any evidence that children are better off with mothers than fathers.

Some of the anthropological research I've read from Hunter-gatherer societies (and that was most of us for a long time) suggest that because hunting is done much less often than gathering, young children of both genders spend a lot of time with their fathers, grandfathers and uncles. While hunting isn't compatible with young kids, hunters of large mammals don't go out every day, and hunting is to some degree seasonal in most societies. So men are actually more available to tend weaned children than many women are. Women would take young toddlers and infants with them, leaving older kids with the men.

In agricultural societies, war is a very occasional thing (in most of history, there wasn't a standing army per se - and waging war in the winter didn't work, so if Daddy went away to war, it was for a couple of months in the summer, and the rest of the time he was integrated into the household fully), and women do field work as well as housework, during heavy seasons, so again, the family is pretty well integrated into one another's lives. Even war doesn't disrupt family life that much - sons went off with fathers in many cases by teh time they were 12 or so. 

As for jobs far away - through most of human history, that was quite unusual. It is true that fathers might come to the new world and make money to bring back wife and children, but that's comparatively a drop in the bucket with the universal norm, which is parents and children together, unless their lives are disrupted by death (which they were fairly frequently).

And there's no evidence that I know of that these kinds of seperations are *optimal* or not traumatic - certainly, there are good studies suggesting that fathers (or mothers) being off at war is really bad for young children. I would suggest that for families where fathers are gone all the time, that that's probably bad for young children too - not as bad as being off at war, but not good. 

Sharon


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

Sharon in NY said:


> One of the requirements of Judaism is that we not give a false impression - for example, that one not sit around wearing a kippah, looking like an observant Jew, and eating at McDonalds, because you might accidentally give the false impression that the food was kosher. Nor would you wear a kippah to a place like Hooters, or something. And so every time we consider (not often, but it does happen) going some place where we'd be unwilling to wear our headcoverings, we have a real conversation about whether it is worth it to take them off. It makes us think twice about whether it is appropriate for us to model Judaism while doing or visiting certain places and things. Sharon


This is what I was trying to say early on in this conversation, when I was talking about the message that a head covering sends and how it affects not just my actions, but peoples perceptions, and how it is a witness for Christ. Different theology, same thinking.


----------



## jessepona (Sep 7, 2005)

I just wanted to say that I have really enjoyed this thread, I know that it has drifted from the original post, but I think I've learned a lot about different women's perspectives on womens roles in and out of the home from reading it. I tend to agree with willow and the need for men to be able to be more involved in child rearing. I have a part time job outside and I've found that not only does this allow me to pursue a career I find interesting, it allows my husband to have 1 on 1 time with his daughter. 

Anyway, I just wanted to say that I really appreciate this thread. It has definitely let me see where you all are coming from.


----------



## MicheleMomof4 (Jul 17, 2002)

Sharon,
I don't pretend to know if there are any studies about a mother being the one who is better to care for a child, but I can give what my opinion on it is. Take it for its worth. 
God designed us, women, to be the nurturers of the family, so it could be said in a child's tender years that if only one parent could be home this is the one who would be most built for this job. Now that is not to discount many men who are nurturers and do very well at this. I am just talking in general terms. Also I don't know if I agree that it is good for a mother to work part time instead of a father working a little longer hours to make that wage. Here is why, if there is one thing I have learned is kids need stability and structure. So having a routine in which a part time job could wreck havoc on is not to the best interest of a child. Now I understand that there are times when it is becessary. I don't begrudge anyone who has to work. I challenge the idea that the women who work today *have* to. I think a lot of families could cut back and bring Mom home and lessen Dad's outside hours greatly. Consumption is the problem. Anyways, got off on a rabbit trail there. Another reason it maybe more feasible for the father to work more is that in this world today he still would more than likely earn more than the mother. Therefore her 8 hours a day is maybe his 5 hours.
All that being said, I was a single working mother before. I understand that it is necessary for some women to go work out in the world. Without their wages, their children would go hungry. I think in a family setting of a mother and father that often they are consumed by 'stuff' and work hours not to support a family, but rather to support their 'stuff'. It saddens me to think that children will be without a father for extended hours so that they live in a house that is too big, drive a car that in unneeded, to shop for over priced clothes in a mall. Those things are fine, if the means to get them does not compromise the families structure. 
Clear as mud, eh? LOL
God Bless,
Michele


----------



## LynninTX (Jun 23, 2004)

Interesting reading I must say!

I cover. I only know 1 older woman in the area who also covers. 

I am a stay at home mom and love my role. No way do I want to be out in the *working world* what I am doing at home has a much greater eternal value. 

My dh left the corporate world 3 yrs ago because we felt he needed a more active DAILY role in our dc's lives. He was always a very hands on dad, but his job increasingly required long 6 day weeks. 

Now he does a variety of jobs depending on the season. Pool season is best for us. He cleans pools. We homeschool yr round so that our boys (14, 12, & 5) can work with him. Each older boy goes 2 days per week (their *route*) April-Oct. They learn to deal with customers and to work and how to be a man. Recently dh has added the 5yo 2-3 days a week... he is great at letting him help where he can. 

Because we homeschool we can adjust our bedtimes somewhat so the dc DO see dad even on late nights. If dad is home I am chopped liver to our 3 & 5yo boys LOL

During the winter/spring dh still manages to take the bigger boys 1 day each per week. He has some pools and works for a water store. Spring is tax season... sadly last yr he could not take the boys there as a part time employee was not *fit* for our boys to be around (crude & rude).

We both embrace our roles and there is some crossover as needed. But dh does not nurse babies and I do not pound t posts. LOL

I love my role and I LOVE staying HOME!


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I can understand the nursing babies thing, but what's so hard about pounding T-posts?! Sheesh! 

Seriously ... kudos to the parents who have made spending time with their kids a priority!


----------



## Betho (Dec 27, 2006)

I don't cover or do the "Christian modesty" thing but my greatest wish in life is to be able to stay home with my daughter and be a SAHM. More than anything. I just hope and pray that God will grant me that desire someday before my daughter gets too old. I had the first 6 months of her life and I wish more than anything I could stay home until she's grown.


----------



## LynninTX (Jun 23, 2004)

LOL lets dh show off his muscles... 

Plus I am not tall enough and do not have the arm muscles for the sledge hammer in the air.

We all have our things.

Oh agreeing with the poster above... we have never owned a *new* vehicle.... I recall once my dh's boss pulled in behind him, pointed at the car and asked "don't we pay you enough?".... dh replied I prefer new baby smell to new car smell. 

My dc love *shopping in the totes.... and everyone loves figuring out how many dc have worn each outfit. 

My 19mo son is wearing some outfits my 21yo son.

My dc are playing with the same legos, blocks, & cars my oldest boys had.....

so much of it is choices.....


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Plus I am not tall enough and do not have the arm muscles for the sledge hammer in the air.


Sledgehammer?! ACK! Gotta get a post pounder ... like a pipe with a cap on top, slips down over the post, has handles on the side that you use to drive the post in. 

But hey, if you can get someone do it for you ...


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

I maybe should not admit this......but I refuse to milk the cows. My statement is "I've been milked by 11 kids, over the course of 21 years - I've done my time in the dairy business."

If there was a reason why dh or the boys could not milk, I would. If I could not find someone else to do it, LOL.


----------



## MicheleMomof4 (Jul 17, 2002)

Oh my word. LOL My drink just about came flying out my nose Rocky! LOL
God Bless,
Michele


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

sorry :angel:


----------



## Sharon in NY (May 11, 2002)

RockyGlen said:


> I maybe should not admit this......but I refuse to milk the cows. My statement is "I've been milked by 11 kids, over the course of 21 years - I've done my time in the dairy business."
> 
> If there was a reason why dh or the boys could not milk, I would. If I could not find someone else to do it, LOL.


This made me laugh really hard. I've been pregnant or nursing now for 8 1/2 straight years, got at least another year to go, and I know just what you mean.

Which reminds me, during the Great Depression, when milk prices skyrocketed, a consumer group arose in urban Buffalo to stabilize those prices, mostly made up of Mothers struggling to feed their families. The spokesman for the dairy council said something like "You women know nothing about making milk, I defy one of you to tell me you've ever milked anything." And a woman stood up and said, "I've raised 6 children to adulthood, and it is safe to say that I know something about making milk." I've never forgotten that quote.

Sharon, another human dairy animal


----------



## Sharon in NY (May 11, 2002)

MicheleMomof4 said:


> Sharon,
> I don't pretend to know if there are any studies about a mother being the one who is better to care for a child, but I can give what my opinion on it is. Take it for its worth.
> God designed us, women, to be the nurturers of the family, so it could be said in a child's tender years that if only one parent could be home this is the one who would be most built for this job. Now that is not to discount many men who are nurturers and do very well at this. I am just talking in general terms. Also I don't know if I agree that it is good for a mother to work part time instead of a father working a little longer hours to make that wage. Here is why, if there is one thing I have learned is kids need stability and structure. So having a routine in which a part time job could wreck havoc on is not to the best interest of a child. Now I understand that there are times when it is becessary. I don't begrudge anyone who has to work. I challenge the idea that the women who work today *have* to. I think a lot of families could cut back and bring Mom home and lessen Dad's outside hours greatly. Consumption is the problem. Anyways, got off on a rabbit trail there. Another reason it maybe more feasible for the father to work more is that in this world today he still would more than likely earn more than the mother. Therefore her 8 hours a day is maybe his 5 hours.
> All that being said, I was a single working mother before. I understand that it is necessary for some women to go work out in the world. Without their wages, their children would go hungry. I think in a family setting of a mother and father that often they are consumed by 'stuff' and work hours not to support a family, but rather to support their 'stuff'. It saddens me to think that children will be without a father for extended hours so that they live in a house that is too big, drive a car that in unneeded, to shop for over priced clothes in a mall. Those things are fine, if the means to get them does not compromise the families structure.
> ...


Thanks, as always, for the wise analysis. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I do think your point about stability is well taken - and is actually one of the reasons I think men are so important. Integrating them into the routines of daily life is one of the deep connections of family life. So, for example, my BIL the electrician works shorter hours than he did before they had kids, and puts my nieces to bed every night. The way they can do this is by conserving financially (not as much as I'd like to see them do, but I'm not in charge  ), but also by having my sister waitress a couple of nights a week. And because she does this, they changed the family routine so that Daddy always puts the kids to bed. Honestly, I think the fact that there is a chunk of their lives, even at these very young ages (3 and 1) that belongs to Daddy is always to their benefit. 

I agree with you that the optimal answer is to cut back and need less, and have everyone work less. But for those who are already close to the bone, I guess I'd like to see both parents more evenly integrated, perhaps because I don't think women are meant to nurture more than men. I'm reminded of a story I read once where an interviewer was asking young children at an Orthodox Jewish school what they'd like to be when they grew up. She asked the girls, and they universally said, "A mother." The interviewer said that she was about to become all outraged, when one of the teachers suggested that she ask the boys what they want to be. And to a child, they answered, "A father." I always thought there was something wonderful about that - it isn't that these children's fathers and some mothers don't have jobs, either paid or otherwise, but the whole notion that the first and central work of parents is to *be parents* seems to me sort of the point of the whole thing.

But again, also as clear as mud.

Cheers,

Sharon


----------



## LynninTX (Jun 23, 2004)

Ricky Glen too funny!!!!!!!!!

My older 3 dc at home milk the goats... I totally understand the *milking* thing!

All added together I have *milked* over 15yrs and counting....

Willow Girl - to quote my dh "why spend $$ on a post driver when I have a sledge and it works great" (shhh except the day he got his hand somehow... it is all healed... and after I treated and bandaged... he finished driving the posts one handed....)


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

pounding t-posts with a post pounder is a lot safe and quicker ;0) heh


----------



## LamiPub (Nov 10, 2006)

Sorry don't have a lot of time for research at this time. Here is just a quick piece for those who asked. 

Changes in parenting intensity have not been impressive. More men are taking parental leave, but women's leaves are still six times longer than men's. Many men take leaves at the same time as their wives. Even in families where Swedish fathers have taken leave and expressed a desire to be the primary caretaker of their new infants, the traditional parenting differences have emerged nonetheless. For example, one study found that the mother in these homes "displayed affectionate behavior, vocalized, smiled, tended, held, disciplined and soothed the infant more than the father did." 

One supporter of the Swedish gender-equality goals calls the results "a disappointment if not a downright failure." The source of the disappointment is the female desire to nurture. Though they take more leave and do more parenting, Swedish women are far less likely than men to report pleasure at returning to work at the end of their parental leaves. In this country, women do far more childcare than men, and when men do care for children they are more apt to play than to do less agreeable chores. Nonetheless, fathers report significantly lower satisfaction with parenting than mothers do.

The roots of these differences are in biology. Testosterone inhibits nurturing both within and between the sexes. Thus, for example, females exposed to high levels of testosterone are less interested in babies, and those with a defect such that they have no testosterone show an exaggerated interest in babies.

Oxytocin is the chemical that promotes bonding and a calm, relaxed emotional state. In virgin female monkeys, injection of this hormone produces maternal behavior and a friendly demeanor. In humans, women have more neural receptors for oxytocin than men do, and the number of receptors further increases during pregnancy. 

Mothers' love for their young children is fully reciprocated. Young children find mom more comforting than dad. Moreover, mothers are better than fathers at distinguishing a cry of pain from one of hunger or of anger, and women in general are better than men at reading body language and other nonverbal signals.


----------



## emulkahi1 (Apr 22, 2006)

Interesting post Lami, though while reading how the "traditional parenting roles emerged nontheless" I was reminded of something a friend of mine told me after having her first child. She said "You become your mother once you have kids." In other words, she found herself repeating the same behaviors she remembered her mother doing for her and her sisters when they were small. So, given that, the statement that "These differences are rooted in biology" seemed hasty, based solely on the Swedish study. How did they rule out that the reversion into traditional roles wasn't simply a result of the new parents repeating what they'd learned from thier parents when _they_ were children?

Also, a male friend of mine is the apple of his 1 1/2 yr old daughter's eye. LOL--the poor Mom gets her feelings hurt sometimes because the little girl's preference for her father, over her mother, is so blatantly obvious (toddlers and tact are not a common combination, apparently, lol ). So in that case, the young child does not "find mom more comforting than dad." She is a normal baby in all other ways, so I would assume that her preference is not necessarily an isolated incidence. 
(edited to add: It just occurred to me that it might be significant that this particular dad is a prof. firefighter who works 24 hrs for several days in a row, but is then off for several more days. Therefore he gets to spend solid time with his baby while the mother is working. He is the one responsible for her care during those days, and she shows a preference (right now at least) for him....). 

The monkey study, however, is interesting.

I would like to say though that it does not necessarily convince me that "babies and young children are, in most cases, better off under their mothers' care." And this is because human fathers can make a conscious decision to be nurturing, when their situation requires it. (Just as mothers who are more interested in their own needs can make the choice _not_ to be nurturing). We are given free will and choices so that we can rise above, when we so decide, the whimsies of our hormones, etc. Therefore, I would make the argument that an interested father can provide care that is equal in quality to that of a mother. 

Anyway, just some thoughts on the subject. 

Erin


----------



## LamiPub (Nov 10, 2006)

You may have missed my point. In an earlier post I stated, *"In most cases infants and young children do better under their mother's care. This does not mean that the presence of their father in their lives is not also important. The family unit is important..."* I was asked to "prove" this. I am usually not the type to go on a major google hunt to find tons of studies to prove a point on a personal family discussion board I wanted to read, discuss and participate (not debate) in. I am not writing a paper and I am not out to "change the world" or get a peer review. However, out of respect, because some asked and I thought this was an interesting subject I provided one piece to share for interest and discussion (with some scientific study behind it which was requested), . I am not saying that fathers are not loving or necessary. Never did say that...again see previous statement. I was just saying that it was better for infants and young children (in most cases..NOT ALL BUT MOST) to have the *majority* of their care with the natural nurturing and caregiving behavior of their mothers/women in those earlier years. I also stated that their father is a vital and important role in their lives and growth even when the father is gone most the day. It is my opinion that it is a fact that women and men ARE different and instead of trying to "prove" men can be just like women and women can be just like men that *their differences are not a bad thing but a good thing for families and society and both necessary* imo. IT IS WHAT IT IS. Why be threatened by it? To state women are more nurturing is not saying that men are incapable of loving and caring for their babies. Even in the animal kingdom in MOST species it is the female who cares for the young in the early years. If men were the same as women they of course would be able to conceive, carry, give birth to and nurse the young. I believe there is a reason why only one sex can do this. But please understand I am in no way implying that fathers are not needed in their children's lives. Here is a link to another article (just for thought not necessarily endorsing all of it and neither do I see a lot of "facts" in it) that brings up the differences among the sexes and still makes a very good statement on the importance of fathers. 

http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19960501-000041.html


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

Lamipub,

The very IDEA that you would suggest that A) men and women are "different" and B) that these general differences would lend one or the other gender to being adept at different things isn't backed up by anything at all! Good Grief!

Oh... except recent science and the Good Book... I meant nothing outside of that.

R


----------



## emulkahi1 (Apr 22, 2006)

Ok, whoa. I definitely didn't mean to be offensive with my above post Lami. I've really been enjoying this thread's positive nature and wouldn't want to be the one to change that. I guess when I am presented with a study, I just like to think it through. Do their conclusions make sense? Did they account for all variables? Do the conclusions make any leaps of faith that aren't backed up by their evidence? That sort of thing....And that was what I was doing. NOT trying to shoot you down, or take anything out of context, or anything of that nature. Maybe my wording was too blunt and for that I apologize.

I didn't think that you were saying that fathers weren't important either, and I am sorry if my words up above made you feel otherwise. 

Just for the record, I DO believe that men and women were built "differently" with different God-given talents. I truly admire and respect those that honor those talents that are specific to themselves in their daily lives and I definitely think that equality shouldn't mean women becoming exactly like men. (Hard to summarize all of my thoughts on this subject into a sentence or two!!). I guess I also just wanted to point out that, while it might be true that women are the gender that is put together for child rearing, it is quite possible--given our human ability to make conscious choices--that a child could quite easily be just as well off with an interested and caring father. I stand behind that point...but by doing so, again, I am not trying to get on anyone's case. 

Erin


----------



## LamiPub (Nov 10, 2006)

Oh, I wasn't offended at all. I appreciate "bluntness" or plain speaking (I tend to do that myself) as long as it doesn't deviate to some emotional, personal vendetta. I saw nothing personal in your post and did not feel you were trying to shoot me down. I have no problems with your point and am not even going to "challenge" you to "prove" it with documented, factual studies.  I usually appreciate a well thought out and respectful point. If I didn't it wouldn't make sense to be posting on a public forum.

I agree that, as you stated, "while it might be true that women are the gender that is put together for child rearing, it is quite possible--given our human ability to make conscious choices--that a child could quite easily be just as well off with an interested and caring father". The difference was my statements were made regarding a general and natural way of things vs. someone having to make a conscious choice to change and become aware of certain things in their nature to do something which comes naturally (again speaking "generally" or "majority" here) to another. I did not mean it was not possible just that it wasn't "natural". After all that is what separates man from animal. Usually in animals if the mother dies or leaves the newborn or young die. Thankfully in humans men can and do step in and can make that conscious choice for the benefit of their young. So if men want to go around making conscious changes and choices to do something that they weren't naturally "made" to do because they are the primary caregiver I find that commendable. Because of the natural differences in men and women I felt the link to the article I posted above would be very helpful for those men who did find themselves in the primary caregiver position. In most families with both father and mother living in the same household I just don't see the need for or the benefit of men changing their natural tendencies.


----------



## Audrey (Jun 19, 2002)

I am learning so much from all of you and as someone has said this has given me much to think about. 

I really enjoyed Sharon's POV about the endless housework. She said that by doing those things we are providing "security, good health, comfort, and pleasure". Thank you for reminding me of that! 

On that same note though isn't that what we are all trying to do in our own way whether the mother works or not? Isn't that what a father that works long hours is also trying to do? No matter how we choose to go about it, we are seeking happiness for ourselves and our families. No one sets out to create suffering. I think the concepts of happiness and suffering are pretty subjective anyway. What makes me happy may make someone else unhappy. What may seem selfish or inattentive to one may be another's best effort toward happiness. 

So that's why I am thankful we do have a choice. And I mean for everyone(head covering or not, submissive or not, working or not) as long as that choice doesn't infringe on anyone else. The thing I see in common with all these things is that all the people contributing to this thread care so much. And to me that
is a beautiful thing. 

Audrey


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Don't forget that in large families or tribal life, older siblings or aunties and grandmas actually have more "face time" with young children than the parents. Even the Duggars practice this ;0). I noticed on the show that an older sib is responsible for a younger sib, both to keep track of everybody and to teach the younger kids. As far as I could tell mom was the general in that army. I think once I saw her with a child on her lap. I think the idea we have of mom as primary uber-caregiver came in with the "cult of womanhood" in the 19th century(something like that). I am not criticizing mom as be-all and end-all, but rather just trying to point out history--well, I don't know what I'm trying to say.

Jane Goodall wrote a book about her raising her baby son just like the chimps she was studying. SHe got a lot of flak for it, but what she learned really "worked"--basically it's "attachment parenting".


----------



## emulkahi1 (Apr 22, 2006)

Lami--Ok, good. I am relieved you weren't offended. I felt bad about that. (It wouldn't have been the first time that my tendency to think things through out loud has gotten me into trouble, lol  ). I do agree that being aware of the way the biology of our bodies affects us can be helpful, especially when the role one is in might go against that grain. It is easier (for me anyway), if I am struggling with something, to have patience with myself if I know that there is a reason for the struggle. 

Anyway, I'll shut my mouth now and continue to enjoy the discussion  :dance:.

Erin


----------



## Reptyle (Jul 28, 2005)

WindowOrMirror said:


> Lamipub,
> 
> The very IDEA that you would suggest that A) men and women are "different" and B) that these general differences would lend one or the other gender to being adept at different things isn't backed up by anything at all! Good Grief!
> 
> ...



Welllllll, without use of a stensil I understand it's fairly hard for women to write their names in the snow...Maybe there is some truth to the theory. lol


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Don't forget that in large families or tribal life, older siblings or aunties and grandmas actually have more "face time" with young children than the parents. Even the Duggars practice this ;0). I noticed on the show that an older sib is responsible for a younger sib, both to keep track of everybody and to teach the younger kids.


This bothers me a bit. I think parents should have as many children as THEY, THE PARENTS can take care of ... when they have to start relying on their older children to raise their younger ones, maybe it's time to quit?!

I can recall my mother talking about resenting the fact she grew up having to take care of her 6 younger siblings (there were 8 in all) and had to leave school after 8th grade and go to work to help her mother support the family. She said she'd had enough of changing diapers by the time she married at 17 and didn't want any kids, although she somehow got stuck with me. Whoops!  

Apparently the feeling was shared to varying degrees by her siblings, as none had more than 3 kids (and this was in the 1950s-60s, when larger families still were common).


----------



## Tracy Rimmer (May 9, 2002)

There are many things that men can do that women cannot. And vice versa. The two that come to mind are 1) men cannot give birth, and 2) women cannot father a child.

The fact that women are uniquely designed to carry the children, dictates that, to a certain extent, the natural order of things is that women nurture and men provide for the women who carry on their line. Why is this so unacceptable to many women?

I believe strongly in equal rights. I believe that, in many ways, we've always had equal rights -- until modern times (i.e., the past 250 or so years). Women have died in war, lead armies and fought for their tribes as men have (Joan of Arc, Boudicea, Zenobia, Samsi and the Amazon warrior women -- yes, they really did exist outside of nasty 70's "B" movies). Women have always been "providers". Most of our cultures originated in hunter-gatherer and later, agricultural societies. Do you think the men did all the work? Read some history.

Women have worked "outside the home" for eons. It's only been the fairly recent (in terms of history of mankind) trade in gold and other precious metals in the form of coins that "working outside the home" took on whole new meanings. Meanings that required long absences from the homesite, and therefore, the children and elderly who required care, that women have taken on a role INSIDE the home almost exclusively. This "traditional" woman is not really so "traditional" at all. Women traded, women conducted business, women were "breadmakers" as well as "breadwinners" -- right beside men.

I find it hilarious that Gloria Steinhem and her ilk fought so hard against this "traditional" role... when in fact, what they were fighting against was a relatively modern view of women -- and one that they managed to turn enough against with their strident feminist screams and bra-burning that we may never, ever achieve "equality" again.

I also find it hilarious that those who scream loudest for the cause of "feminism" are the often the least feminine, and the first in line to criticize their "sisters" for making their own choices to live their life as they choose. After all, isn't that what they've been saying that they want since the sixties? Our right to choose? So, judging their "sisters" who choose to have the men of their household take on the role of breadwinner, while they carry out their chosen role as nurturer doesn't count as "free choice"? 

Strange. Very, very strange. Almost makes you wonder exactly what it is that they really want. Kind of makes them look like they don't even know. And who is going to take anyone seriously if they can't even decide what it is that they want?


----------



## TxCloverAngel (Jun 20, 2005)

couldnt have said it better Tracy.


----------



## saramark (Nov 2, 2004)

very interesting post.
I do headcover and I am the only one in my church who does. Our church is about 400 members.
Talking about husbands working long hours- my husband works 2-3 8 hour days a week. That is all we need him to work to pay the bills. We would rather go without and allow Daddy to be home. We also are able to save a lot of money as I am home to cook dinner, clean house, homeschool, and care for the children.
I agree that every two parent family can afford one parent to stay home. No one needs the second income.
sara


----------



## Sharon in NY (May 11, 2002)

Tracy Rimmer said:


> There are many things that men can do that women cannot. And vice versa. The two that come to mind are 1) men cannot give birth, and 2) women cannot father a child.
> 
> The fact that women are uniquely designed to carry the children, dictates that, to a certain extent, the natural order of things is that women nurture and men provide for the women who carry on their line. Why is this so unacceptable to many women?
> 
> ...


Now saying that women had the "right" to do half the work doesn't seem to me a strong statement in favor of "rights" - the women also had no protection from rape in marriage, their husbands could legally beat them, they had no right to take their children if they were abused, had no say in civic affairs, no right to vote, in many places no right to own property or bring court cases. A girl who was raped in many places could be required to marry her rapist. In many societies men were literate, women rarely. A woman whose husband died was entirely vulnerable to the charitable system, because in most cases she couldn't earn a living.

So perhaps we ought to have a more balanced perspective. Yes, women, within specific spheres have always had the right to work. They haven't always had the right to *stop* working (husband can beat them, sometimes to death), but they can work in the fields. And yes, the occasional queen or exceptional woman could lead an army. Shocking that women might want to have a few options between working in a marriage with a husband who may or may not rape and beat her (but had every right to), and being born queen of Russia and leading an army. 

The simple fact is that your version of feminism is as much a parody as feminisms that denigrate women's choice to stay home, and it is as derogatory to other women as the feminism you deplore. It is an account in which people who believed that women should have equal political rights and, generally speaking a range of choices that *included* staying home (it was feminists, for example, who in many cases fought to get courts to cease impoverishing women who were divorced and left with children, who started battered women's shelters and supported the notion that women who stayed home shouldn't be dumped on the labor market and left, particularly if they had young children). Yes, there were mistakes in feminism - but the parodic account you offer has very little to do with feminism and a lot to with tv news accounts of it. Do you think that the media account of Christianity is real accurate? Why buy their version of feminism?

This is Archie Bunker's version of feminism, complete with the accusation of being unfeminine, and having a covert agenda. And it is wrong. 

Sharon in upstate NY


----------



## hisenthlay (Feb 23, 2005)

Thank you, Sharon--well-put.

And so to sort of combine the messages in Tracy's post and Sharon's, this is what I see--as Tracy said, women have always worked out, fought, provided for their families. And as Sharon said, the difference is that now, women can work out or stay home as they choose, with full rights under the law, and legal protection against violence for herself and her children. 

So I'd ask again--why is it that when women choose to work out of the home (as they have for "eons"), they are so often accused of "denigrating the family," while almost nobody thinks to query whether the man's work hours also play some part in denigrating the family? Almost nobody gives new _fathers_ this disapproving little lecture: "Oh, are you going back to work full-time? Aren't you worried about putting Junior in daycare? I just couldn't stand to leave my children with strangers, so _I_ stayed home...." Yes, breastfeeding is a part of it (even though not as many people breastfeed as they should), but what about after that? Don't fathers bear equal responsibility in raising children up to honorable adulthood? Don't children need (ideally) to spend quality time with their fathers, to have him as a strong daily influence in their lives? Everything can't always be "ideal", of course, but shouldn't we strive for that? Shouldn't we as a society push fathers--and, moreover, the labor structure in America--to find ways for fathers to be a bigger part of family life? Wouldn't we all benefit from that?


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

hisenthlay said:


> So I'd ask again--why is it that when women choose to work out of the home (as they have for "eons"), they are so often accused of "denigrating the family," while almost nobody thinks to query whether the man's work hours also play some part in denigrating the family? Almost nobody gives new _fathers_ this disapproving little lecture: "Oh, are you going back to work full-time? Aren't you worried about putting Junior in daycare? I just couldn't stand to leave my children with strangers, so _I_ stayed home...."


When a father works, he is viewed as being responsible and providing for his family. It is not an issue of choosing to leave the kids and work, because he has presumably always been working. It is viewed as him making a sacrifice for his family. 

When a mother chooses to work it is usually because she wants to for herself (whether it is because she wants more stuff or wants the fulfillment) - some women do have to work, I guess, but I think the vast majority just want to - she is choosing to work away from home and family rather than work at and for home and family. It is viewed as sacrificing family for self. 

I really don't care which parent stays home - but I do think that children should be raised by parents, not day care centers and schools. Anything less, when there is a choice, is not responsible parenting - in my opinion. There is not always a choice, I know that. But when there is, I think children should be THE priority, not just one of the top priorities.


----------



## hisenthlay (Feb 23, 2005)

RockyGlen said:


> When a father works, he is viewed as being responsible and providing for his family. It is not an issue of choosing to leave the kids and work, because he has presumably always been working. It is viewed as him making a sacrifice for his family.
> 
> When a mother chooses to work it is usually because she wants to for herself (whether it is because she wants more stuff or wants the fulfillment) - some women do have to work, I guess, but I think the vast majority just want to - she is choosing to work away from home and family rather than work at and for home and family. It is viewed as sacrificing family for self.


 Hm. I just really disagree with this whole outlook, I guess. :shrug: 


> ...because he has presumably always been working


 "Always" as in that individual man worked both before and after the child was born? Because most women nowadays (and for eons?) also work before children are born, so she has "always" been working too. She may choose to take a break from work after birth, but men also take medical leaves--there's nothing that says that a person, once absent from the workforce from 8 weeks to 6 months (let's say), should be presumed not to work again. Whether a man remains at work, or a woman goes back to work after the birth--both are equally "choices" that they are making. If by "always" you mean that men have always worked throughout the ages to provide while women have not, I think we have pretty much agreed that that is historically inaccurate.


> It is viewed as him making a sacrifice for his family....
> When a mother chooses to work it is usually because she wants to for herself...


 Why? I don't see this at all. I see men and women working for exactly the same reasons everyday--they both want to provide for their families, they both get some fulfillment out of working, derive some of their personal self-worth from their jobs, enjoy the toys it allows them to buy, etc.... Not all good reasons, but the same reasons. In fact, I often see men much more focused on the personal advancement, status, fancy toys end of things--the women that I work with seem, on average, to have a more balanced perspective. 


> some women do have to work, I guess, but I think the vast majority just want to - she is choosing to work away from home and family rather than work at and for home and family.


 Would you say the same of men? Some men do have to work, I guess? Many could work far, far less, and spend more time at home with family, but I guess they just want to work. Maybe if they put more effort into home economy, thriftiness, etc., they could stay home more--I guess they just don't care about their families as much as they could. I don't agree with the assumption that men "have" to work and women "choose" to work. Both sexes _choose_ to work, or not. 


> I really don't care which parent stays home - but I do think that children should be raised by parents, not day care centers and schools. Anything less, when there is a choice, is not responsible parenting - in my opinion. There is not always a choice, I know that.


 This is a false dichotomy--either one parent stays home full-time while the other works full-time, or both parents work full-time and children are raised by day care/school. If, for example, both parents could work 60% schedules (say 3 days per week), then you could end up with 0-3 days/week where the kids are in some non-parental care. Benefits are an issue, and that is one of my complaints about the current system, but that can be worked around in many cases. But in theory you have approximately as much or more salary than one parent could make working full time, but you're better off because BOTH parents can spend substantial time raising their children, BOTH parents take part in the "fulfillment" or "sacrifice" of work (it seems, under your analysis, that women are fulfilled by work and men sacrifice to do it, but either way...), and if, heaven forbid, something should happen to either one of them, the other will be far better able to provide for the children for as long as needed. Win win win. This 60% schedule is just an example--but there are many alternative workarounds that parents can come up with. As you say, there is not always this choice, but as you also say, "Anything less, when there is a choice, is not responsible parenting - in my opinion." Now, *I* wouldn't put it that strongly, because I think it's too accusatory of people who have maybe never considered all the angles, and fails to take into account differences among families (like maybe the dad's a real jerk and it's in everyone's best interest that he be out of the house as much as possible, or something)--but generally, I would say that having both parents raise the children as much as possible is the ideal to strive towards.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

I was speaking historically, and we do not all agree that the historical interpretation of women working is wrong. I think that women have always worked hard, and not always just doing housework. I do not beleive that women have ever been the principal provider for the family. Whether that was due to a male dominated society, or cultural norms, or what, I don't know.

I have to take my kids to the dentist - I'll add more later.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

One more quick thought before I run out the door.

I guess I should have said a parent needs to be home when the child is home - whether both work, or only one works.

As an employer - the work schedules you talk about are not going to happen. I need to be able to depend on my employess and I need them there when the work needs done. If a worker can only work three days a week so he can do childcare the other three, he could not be working here, as I would then have to have another employee, etc. And what if the spouses work schedule changed, necessitating my employee to change his schedule. I'm rushing here and the thoughts are flying off the top of my head, but my first thought is NO WAY - what a nightmare.


----------



## Snugglebunny (Oct 20, 2004)

I don't understand why so many view a woman staying home as being lesser, while for some reason a woman working is more fulfilling. I have trouble understanding why no woman wouldn't choose to stay home instead of adding MORE work to her schedule by having to comply with the demands of an outside job, employer, commute, fashion, etc. Personally, I'm glad I don't have to try. I have enough to do here, let alone working outside the home on top of it!

I am glad I don't have to worry about finding child care or calling in to work because my child is sick. I am glad I am free to take the kids to the doctor and make sure my house is as clean as possible, or drive to my husband's work because he's forgotten his wallet. I am glad I can run all those silly little errands without being pressed for time, and go to the store when I need to go without worry. Not to say my day isn't busy, but I'm glad I don't have to work on top of it all - I'd likely fall apart.

Tell me, then, if working outside the home is so wonderful, why are more women on antidepressants, why are more women going crazy trying to do it all - feeling guilty for being at work, then feeling guilty for being home?

What is wrong with just staying home, making a home. MAKING a home for the entire family to enjoy, to relax and have a place to not be rushed. What is wrong with a child coming home to a relaxed home after school instead of going to another child care center till someone can pick them up?

It is an honorable and fulfilling thing to stay home and make a place of peace for your family.


----------



## trixiwick (Jun 9, 2004)

Snugglebunny said:


> I don't understand why so many view a woman staying home as being lesser, while for some reason a woman working is more fulfilling. I have trouble understanding why no woman wouldn't choose to stay home instead of adding MORE work to her schedule by having to comply with the demands of an outside job, employer, commute, fashion, etc. Personally, I'm glad I don't have to try. I have enough to do here, let alone working outside the home on top of it!
> 
> I am glad I don't have to worry about finding child care or calling in to work because my child is sick. I am glad I am free to take the kids to the doctor and make sure my house is as clean as possible, or drive to my husband's work because he's forgotten his wallet. I am glad I can run all those silly little errands without being pressed for time, and go to the store when I need to go without worry. Not to say my day isn't busy, but I'm glad I don't have to work on top of it all - I'd likely fall apart.
> 
> ...


Look, it's obvious that you believe that your way is the best way. I'm glad you're happy with the choice that you made, and I'm fine with it too (I'm sure you'll be glad to know  ). The one potential problem I see is the position of total dependency that it puts you in, but if you're OK with that, then you are. I'm sure you've thought about it. I don't have any interest in changing your mind or trying to make you live a different life.

At the same time, understand that not everyone is just like you, nor should they be. Some women go nuts staying home all the time. Some feel that simply raising their own children and taking care of their own house is not enough of a contribution to the larger world. Some want the measure of independence that comes with earning your own bread rather than depending on a man for it. Some want to show their children that women are capable of more than one thing. Some are driven to prove themselves in the larger world, doing and being appreciated for whatever it is they excel at. Some are aware that their child-raising years may only last 18-25 years, and would like to have a plan to make themselves useful for the remainder of their lives. 

All I would like is for everyone to be free to make the choices that make them happy, and not be bullied into choices that would not.


----------



## Ashtina98 (Aug 10, 2007)

Trixiwick, you seem to be under the assumption that all women who choose to stay home with their kids will forever be dependent on their husbands. I do have a college degree, my sister has Masters degree and yet we both have chosen to stay home with our children and take care of our households while our husbands work because we feel that is what is best for our families. If for any reason we needed to work to support ourselves or our families we both have the capability to do that. I do understand that it is not for everyone but I also feel, as many do, that it benefits the children more to have a parent at home with them; and in most cases the nurturer is the mother.

Dee


----------



## trixiwick (Jun 9, 2004)

Ashtina98 said:


> Trixiwick, you seem to be under the assumption that all women who choose to stay home with their kids will forever be dependent on their husbands. I do have a college degree, my sister has Masters degree and yet we both have chosen to stay home with our children and take care of our households while our husbands work because we feel that is what is best for our families. If for any reason we needed to work to support ourselves or our families we both have the capability to do that. I do understand that it is not for everyone but I also feel, as many do, that it benefits the children more to have a parent at home with them; and in most cases the nurturer is the mother.


I'm not assuming that SAHMs are incapable of being self-supporting, only that while they are SAHMs (unless they have a significant home-based business), they are in a dependent state. I also have known many, many women who found themselves not nearly as employable as they thought they were after a divorce or a husband's early death, and in the position of not being able to do anything like supporting their family's needs alone. I know it works out for some, but I think it doesn't work out for many more. Me, I would personally consider the risk too great to pull out of the game completely for that long. But then, I'm really, really, really anti-dependence, and I know not everyone is like that.

Again, not trying to judge or control anyone else's choices - just pointing out that we all think differently and therefore one size definitely does NOT fit all.


----------



## Jesus Saves (May 31, 2005)

Snugglebunny said:


> I don't understand why so many view a woman staying home as being lesser, while for some reason a woman working is more fulfilling. I have trouble understanding why no woman wouldn't choose to stay home instead of adding MORE work to her schedule by having to comply with the demands of an outside job, employer, commute, fashion, etc. Personally, I'm glad I don't have to try. I have enough to do here, let alone working outside the home on top of it!
> 
> I am glad I don't have to worry about finding child care or calling in to work because my child is sick. I am glad I am free to take the kids to the doctor and make sure my house is as clean as possible, or drive to my husband's work because he's forgotten his wallet. I am glad I can run all those silly little errands without being pressed for time, and go to the store when I need to go without worry. Not to say my day isn't busy, but I'm glad I don't have to work on top of it all - I'd likely fall apart.
> 
> ...



I agree with you. In this day and age, this is a dying art. I guess I want to preserve that way of life. I like homeschooling, having a safe, clean, peaceful home for hubby to come home to, having healthy meals, taking care of things during the day that need be, etc. I'm sure there are some who can do this and work also, but I could not. I could not give my 100% to my family AND a job. I just couldn't. Something would be lacking. I don't want to cheat my family. I would rather live on one income and downsize to fit that income. :shrug:


----------



## hisenthlay (Feb 23, 2005)

RockyGlen said:


> As an employer - the work schedules you talk about are not going to happen. I need to be able to depend on my employess and I need them there when the work needs done. If a worker can only work three days a week so he can do childcare the other three, he could not be working here, as I would then have to have another employee, etc. And what if the spouses work schedule changed, necessitating my employee to change his schedule. I'm rushing here and the thoughts are flying off the top of my head, but my first thought is NO WAY - what a nightmare.


 These schedules are more common and workable than you might think. Any kind of shiftwork can pretty easily be done on a % schedule. As an employer, instead of hiring two full-time employees, you hire one full-time and two half-time, or whatever the case may be. Many employers do this already because they do not pay the part-time workers benefits, so they get the same amount of work for lower cost. I don't care for that practice particularly, but saying that it's "not going to happen" is simply counterfactual.

Work that is measured by output and hours (the type I do) is also easily converted to part-time. Right now, I have a certain number of projects ongoing, and I have to clock a certain number of hours a year. If I wanted to go to a 60% schedule (which is allowed at my office--with full benefits, happily), I would simply take on fewer projects, and reduce my hours accordingly. I also have the option of working at home fairly frequently.

I also know of partnership arrangements (like a medical partnership, etc.) where the members simply work out between themselves how they want to provide the necessary coverage. One I am familiar with has each doc work two weeks straight, and have the entire third week off--that's what they chose for themselves. 

Another option is purely output-oriented work, where the employer doesn't care when/where you do the work, as long as it's well-done and finished by the deadline. A lot of work-at-home jobs are like this. 

My husband and I both chose our jobs with a strong emphasis on the availability of family friendly schedules. The law of supply and demand applies to all of this much like anything else--if good employees start demanding such arrangements in greater numbers, employers may find it in their best interests to provide them. Employers are starting to get the message that happy employees are good employees, and mothers and fathers who feel bitter and guilty about missing their children's lives are not good employees. As an example of this, my office has good paid parental leave for mothers and fathers, provides quality emergency childcare in case your regular plans fall through, allows part-time schedules with benefits and continued opportunities for advancement, allows working at home, allows fairly flexible schedules (e.g. most of the time, I can work M-F 7am-5pm, or 10am-7pm, or any time around that range, leave early or come late any time for appointments now and then, make up lost hours on evenings or weekends if I want, etc.--as long as I do a good job and get my work done and am generally around during normalish business hours, nobody's going to complain--there are jam-packed busy times when the flexibility goes by the wayside sometimes, but that's the exception, not the rule). And this is not some touchy-feely mom & pop hippy shop--we are a giant international corporation, and the powers that be have decided that this is what's good for business. Good for them, good for us.


----------



## Snugglebunny (Oct 20, 2004)

For one thing, I don't believe a good reason to start working is 'just in case something bad should happen', especially when there is plenty of things that need doing at home.

Also, I don't know about the rest of the country, but around here the only part-time jobs are working retail or Fast Food where weekends are required. Everything else is full time, and employers don't usually enjoy 'mothers hours' either. If I tried working 'shift work' it would mean never having any 'family time', and never seeing my husband, and hoping he doesn't have to go out of state for training or that a server doesn't go down at his job, requiring him to work late.

BTW - I wasn't attempting to sound judgemental or anything, I'm just speaking from my practical standpoint, as a person who honestly has trouble understanding sometimes. Hope I didn't offend or anything. Still civil.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

hisenthlay said:


> I don't care for that practice particularly, but saying that it's "not going to happen" is simply counterfactual.


Actuall, it is factual. We are an employer, and it is not going to happen. That is what I meant. Our employees are very happy here, and we have extremely low turnover. We have one single dad who leaves at noon on every other Friday - that was the agreement when he was hired. Other than that, why should we hire three workers when one is all that is required? H

ow does the employer benefit from these flex schedules? It means more paperwork and more aggravation for the employer. When we can find workers who are willing to work the hours that we need worked, why would we complicate our lives and business by working like you suggest? This is an honest question - what benefit is there to the employer? I can see if people demand it and they can't find appropriate employees unless they give in on these issues, but why would a company run things that way if they don't need to? This sounds confrontational and I don't mean it to - I really do want to know the answer as to how it benefits the company. 

If it works for you and your company - that's great! But I just don't see how it would work for most blue collar workers. Just as an example, it's hard to be a construction worker from home - and I doubt the boss is going to understand that you want to work 3 twelve hour shifts when everyone else on the crew works 5 eight hour shifts.


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

trixiwick--sahm's (or sahd's) are not necessarily dependent even during the time they stay at home. They are full partners with different duties--a common practice in the business world.

And some keep mentioning dad's having to work too long and too hard away from home unless mommy takes a job. Hogwash. A common 40hr job is enough for dad. Spend less. Do more.

Each family will do what it thinks best. Let's just admit we do that instead of making up excuses.


----------



## Sharon in NY (May 11, 2002)

Snugglebunny said:


> I don't understand why so many view a woman staying home as being lesser, while for some reason a woman working is more fulfilling. I have trouble understanding why no woman wouldn't choose to stay home instead of adding MORE work to her schedule by having to comply with the demands of an outside job, employer, commute, fashion, etc. Personally, I'm glad I don't have to try. I have enough to do here, let alone working outside the home on top of it!
> 
> I am glad I don't have to worry about finding child care or calling in to work because my child is sick. I am glad I am free to take the kids to the doctor and make sure my house is as clean as possible, or drive to my husband's work because he's forgotten his wallet. I am glad I can run all those silly little errands without being pressed for time, and go to the store when I need to go without worry. Not to say my day isn't busy, but I'm glad I don't have to work on top of it all - I'd likely fall apart.
> 
> ...


Snugglebunny, I agree with you that absolutely no one should demean the choice - by either parent - to stay home with their kids - or for that matter, with their goats, their hobby farm, or their garden. I also believe that when women were told that their lives would be better if they went out to work, the people who told them were either a, wrong or b. selling something. What most women got was more money (but not enough), higher costs of living, and a lot more work. 

I've met women who treat working outside as though it makes you better, and I think that's wrong. I also see women (even here) act as though every woman who works a job is doing it for the porsche, rather than for things like health insurance. I think the whole "Mommy Wars" thing is foolish and mean-spirited and I don't understand it at all.

What some of us here object to (and I'm not sure how much I do), is the idea that with strong gender roles have historically come strong social pressures keeping people in those roles. For some people, they fit very well. Others chafe against them. In some cases, the rules required to keep people in those roles are genuinely inhumane - it isn't, for example, an accident that women historically ceased to be people legally, and were considered to be legally part of their husbands. I think some people who disapprove of feminism want to pretend that the past was glorious for women, while some feminists want to pretend that everything about it was bad - neither is accurate.

The question that interests me, and that I think is so useful in these conversations is this one: can we have a society that doesn't have the prescriptive, repressive qualities of past societies, values homemaking, and allows families to make a range of choices? I'd like to think yes. Personally, I feel very strongly that when there are children, someone needs to be doing the domestic work, and when possible (there are exceptions in cases of illness, single poor parents, etc...) the people doing *most* of this work should be family. But there's a good bit of flexibility in that - what I'd like to see is a family unit whose primary goal is the well-being of all the members of that unit - that is, who are making their decisions not on perceived economic pressures, or status, or habit, but on what is genuinely best for all the members of the family, with the children's needs at the center.

I want to see a society that values homemaking, because I think the environmental and political costs of no one really doing homemaking have been huge. But I don't just want to send women home - I want a greater degree of flexibility - do you think that's possible?

Personally, I think the devaluation of domestic work (and that includes traditionally male domestic work) is mostly an economic problem - that in fact, it isn't "feminists vs. anti-feminists" at all, but "consumerist culture vs. moral culture." That is, it isn't feminists who benefit the most from having women in the workforce, outsourcing domestic labor, the growth in consumerism that this requires, etc... It is corporations. They are the ones who get new workers, new markets, people who need fancier outfits, the destructure of the culture of thrift and care. I think that's why the popular vision of feminism is so distorted - because it is seen through the lens of corporatism. Until 1900, economic analyses included domestic labor as essential to the economy - in 1900 it got kicked out, as though it didn't "count." That's not feminism, that's capitalism at work.

Which is why I hate the Mommy Wars so much - because they pit feminists, who often are trying to resist the larger culture's devalution of women and their work, with many conservative women who are trying to preserve these things. We're logical allies, convinced that the "other side" is made up of bad guys.

Just my .02

Sharon


----------



## Sharon in NY (May 11, 2002)

hisenthlay said:


> These schedules are more common and workable than you might think. Any kind of shiftwork can pretty easily be done on a % schedule. As an employer, instead of hiring two full-time employees, you hire one full-time and two half-time, or whatever the case may be. Many employers do this already because they do not pay the part-time workers benefits, so they get the same amount of work for lower cost. I don't care for that practice particularly, but saying that it's "not going to happen" is simply counterfactual.
> 
> Work that is measured by output and hours (the type I do) is also easily converted to part-time. Right now, I have a certain number of projects ongoing, and I have to clock a certain number of hours a year. If I wanted to go to a 60% schedule (which is allowed at my office--with full benefits, happily), I would simply take on fewer projects, and reduce my hours accordingly. I also have the option of working at home fairly frequently.


Hisenthlay, I almost never disagree with you, but here I do a bit  . I think that to a large degree, that flexibility you describe has class overtones - that is, I think many higher paid, or white collar workers can get those kinds of jobs, but others can't. For example, my sister works as a waitress evenings. Her husband works as an electrician days - and she's had to quit 3 waitressing jobs because they keep scheduling her for times she cannot or will not work. She always presents herself as available at these times and dates, and many places will hire her with those restrictions - but they almost never will stick to the bargain in the long term.

My neighbor is a medical technician - she has the same difficulties. She tells her bosses (who are consistently short employees, so would have incentives to accomodate her) that she can work X hours (she works forty hours, she just has to work around her homeschooling schedule), and they keep scheduling her for times she can't work. There isn't another hospital within 30 miles, and the cost of gas makes it hard for her to change jobs. In neither case are they asking for weird hours, or only to work every third thursday, or to have every weekend off - but they are asking for consistent hours. 

A friend of mine just quit her job as a web technician, because the job involved travelling to several sites, and two of the clients consistently demanded that she stay longer - she has to be home when the bus gets there, but as she was getting ready to leave, the client would ask "could you just stay." She asked her boss to back her, but he was very lukewarm about it, and it was becoming a huge struggle, so she quit.

I can recite 10 or more additional stories in this regard. My husband and I are very fortunate to have the flexibility we do, but I know many people who would like it and can't find it. And you do have to take into account the costs of such jobs - the commute, the clothes, the meals, the disruptions of family life. I think some of the time, it really isn't worth it. Which is not to say it never is - but I do think that the jobs are harder to find then your account allows for.

Sharon


----------



## hisenthlay (Feb 23, 2005)

RockyGlen said:


> Actuall, it is factual. We are an employer, and it is not going to happen. That is what I meant. Our employees are very happy here, and we have extremely low turnover. We have one single dad who leaves at noon on every other Friday - that was the agreement when he was hired. Other than that, why should we hire three workers when one is all that is required? H
> 
> ow does the employer benefit from these flex schedules? It means more paperwork and more aggravation for the employer. When we can find workers who are willing to work the hours that we need worked, why would we complicate our lives and business by working like you suggest? This is an honest question - what benefit is there to the employer? I can see if people demand it and they can't find appropriate employees unless they give in on these issues, but why would a company run things that way if they don't need to? This sounds confrontational and I don't mean it to - I really do want to know the answer as to how it benefits the company.
> 
> If it works for you and your company - that's great! But I just don't see how it would work for most blue collar workers. Just as an example, it's hard to be a construction worker from home - and I doubt the boss is going to understand that you want to work 3 twelve hour shifts when everyone else on the crew works 5 eight hour shifts.


No, that schedule wouldn't work, but if Joe, Jack, and Jane worked 8 hour shifts every MWF, and Sue, Sam, and Steve worked TThS, the work could probably still get done in a reasonable fashion. You don't have to imagine this as something that's constantly shifting, constantly juggling random schedules--the employees want stability, too. Where my dad works, for example, the office support staff is on this sort of schedule. 

I'm sorry I don't have time to go looking for them now, but it seems I've heard study after study in the news supporting the benefits of family-friendly work policies--studies that show, among other things, that workers who are allowed time for their lives outside work are more productive on average, completing _more work_ in _less time_ than people who work longer hours. Also, when employees are allowed more work-life balance, there is less turnover, fewer sick days, better work atmosphere, and more creativity and personal investment in the work. This is a little off-topic, but I've even heard of some major corporations encouraging employees to take naps during the day, because it's been found to increase total productivity. Fortune 500 companies wouldn't be doing this, by and large, if it weren't good for the bottom line. 

I agree not all work is entirely conducive to this, but much more _is_ than is currently being taken advantage of. 

You also answered your own question pretty well, about why you would hire employees on alternative schedules if it seemed inconvenient to you--you wouldn't, unless for some reason you had to (employee demand, govt regulations, etc.). This is why I believe that employees _should_ demand these types of schedules if it's at all possible for them. I'm also the grandaughter/neice/cousin/etc. to coal miners and steel mill workers, and I believe that employees can be the source of great and important change. Employers found it inconvenient to go to the 5 day work week, and give up child labor, etc.--but now these things are more or less a matter of course. I think the American family is in crisis, and I believe that mothers and fathers should demand change for the welfare of their children and society.

Now, I understand Snugglebunny's point--in some places, decent jobs are scarce and labor plentiful, and you're lucky to work at all, and you're not going to be "demanding" much of anything. That's a problem, and obviously you have to make the best of what you have to work with--no criticism is meant towards anyone in that situation.


----------



## hisenthlay (Feb 23, 2005)

Sharon, looks like we were posting at the same time. I agree with what you're saying, and I don't mean to imply that these sorts of jobs are a dime a dozen and people are remiss for not finding them. I mentioned (several days ago here) that I realize we are lucky to have the flexibility we do, and we are going to make the most of it. There are certainly class issues here, and that's an uncomfortable truth. The most heartening thing I can say about that is that I've heard that big companies are sometimes the standard-bearers in progressive changes, and that many of these policies eventually filter down to other types of work. It sounds suspiciously like trickle-down economics to me, but.... Now, personally, I fantasize about regulations (much like child labor laws, etc.) that mandate certain family friendly policies and would apply across classes. I know those suggestions are about as popular here as a turd in the punchbowl, and possibly for good reason, so I limit my suggestions to personal efforts of employees, doing the best they can under the circumstances. Maybe that will be enough, but it seems pretty clear (IMHO) that things WON'T get better unless people stop assuming that the way it is is the way it _has_ to be (or worse, SHOULD be)....


----------



## LamiPub (Nov 10, 2006)

Well I am a sahm and very independent. It is a bit naive and ignorant to assume SAHM are dependent on someone else. To run a home and family efficiently takes quite a bit of independence, stamina, and intelligience. I didn't need my dh to support me before we were married and I don't need him now just to support me. I am quite capable of supporting myself and the children and he is capable of supporting himself and the children. We are married because we WANT (that silly "choice" thing again)to be with each other. Do we have needs that we meet for each other? Sure, that is a nice bonus of being with someone you love. If, heaven forbid, one of us was suddenly left without the other it would be sad but we wouldn't be sitting on our thumbs wondering how in the world our needs will be taken care of. This "CHOICE" thing just seems to fly right over many people's heads. Besides you would be suprised how much money a SAHM can make. I had worked before marriage and children and had plenty of "my own" money and property before marriage and in addition to saving and running the family budget as a SAHM I also have opportunities of making money. I also have no worries about going back and entering the workforce outside the home if I HAD to. Thankfully I don't have to at this time and am glad I still get to choose and stay at home.


----------



## trixiwick (Jun 9, 2004)

nodak3 said:


> trixiwick--sahm's (or sahd's) are not necessarily dependent even during the time they stay at home. They are full partners with different duties--a common practice in the business world.
> 
> And some keep mentioning dad's having to work too long and too hard away from home unless mommy takes a job. Hogwash. A common 40hr job is enough for dad. Spend less. Do more.
> 
> Each family will do what it thinks best. Let's just admit we do that instead of making up excuses.


You can define the word "independent" to suit your own needs, but if you aren't financially supporting yourself, you're not independent in my book. We may not wish that the necessities of life cost money, but they do. We may think it unfair that traditional women's work has been socially deemed as unworthy of financial compensation, but that's the truth. If someone else is paying for the food and shelter (and could choose to stop doing so at any moment, or die unexpectedly), you are dependent. I'm seeing some reluctance to admit this, but it's real, and wishing otherwise will not change that. If a person is comfortable with that kind of dependency and willing to assume the risks that come with it, I think it's a valid choice. But *every * choice comes with tradeoffs. Why pretend otherwise?

I agree with your other point - that a working father can do fine of 40 hours of work and support a family with modest means. I do think it puts some pressure on him to be the sole breadwinner, in this uncertain era of layoffs and takeovers. Staying in a steady job for a whole career isn't as easy as it used to be.


----------



## Tracy Rimmer (May 9, 2002)

trixiwick said:


> You can define the word "independent" to suit your own needs, but if you aren't financially supporting yourself, you're not independent in my book. We may not wish that the necessities of life cost money, but they do. We may think it unfair that traditional women's work has been socially deemed as unworthy of financial compensation, but that's the truth. If someone else is paying for the food and shelter (and could choose to stop doing so at any moment, or die unexpectedly), you are dependent. I'm seeing some reluctance to admit this, but it's real, and wishing otherwise will not change that. If a person is comfortable with that kind of dependency and willing to assume the risks that come with it, I think it's a valid choice. But *every * choice comes with tradeoffs. Why pretend otherwise?


What you're talking about isn't about "dependence". It's about trust. I TRUST that my DH is the man I thought he was when I married him and when we discussed what we would like our future lifestyle to be. I TRUSTED that my judgement of who he was was spot-on, that I wasn't deluding myself and being used. I TRUST him. If you don't have that, then, you're right, you're in trouble.

And while I agree with you that a sudden death could change my situation drastically, I also TRUST myself, and have made all of the plans that a reasonable, thinking adult should make for if that should happen. My DH carries life insurance, quite a good policy, that we pay for independent of the coverage he gets through his work -- because I recognize that choosing to be a SAHM carried a certain risk to my career choices, long term. We insured our mortgage when we had one, our children for burial coverage, me for enough to see my family through should anything happen to me. That's what ADULTS do, whether they're the working parent or the SAH parent.

Being a SAH parent doesn't mean you stop having a brain -- and while future employers may believe that that is true, and your job options MAY be limited because of this, good planning nullifies this as a problem.

I *CHOOSE* to be dependent on my DH. I CHOOSE this because 1) I'm not an idiot and I thought long and hard about who he was as a person before putting my trust in the fact that his first consideration is and always will be me and our children, and 2) I have full faith in the contingency plans, which includes the aforementioned insurance policies and the fact that I deliberately chose to take my career in a direction where extended absences from my chosen field matter less than say if I worked in IT or a similar, fast-changing field.

What I'm seeing on this thread is not about feminism, or about reliance on self, but about trust and, perhaps more importantly, mistrust. If you can't trust the person you're married to to do what is best for you, then you're married to the wrong person.

While many talk about a woman's being financially "dependent" on her husband, and how wrong or risky that is, I wonder why those women believe that those of us who CHOOSE this lifestyle are complete idiots when it comes to our own personal security and the security of our children?


----------



## Ashtina98 (Aug 10, 2007)

Trixiwick,

Yes, I am financially "dependent" on my husband. However, he is dependent on me as well in other ways. He depends on me to take care of our children and make sure that their needs are met, since he leaves for work at 6 am he is not able to get the girls up and ready for school in the morning and have them there at 8 am, he "depends" on me to do that. Because he does not get home until 4pm he "depends" on me to pick the girls up from school at 3pm. He "depends" on me to make sure his clothes are clean, his house is clean and the animals are tended to during the day. He also "depends" on me to fix dinner in the evening as he is currently working on his Masters degree and his evenings are full with play time with the girls and homework. I guess you could say that my husband and I are "dependent" on one another in different ways. I believe that is what family is all about, not about a house full of independent people but about those who love each other depending on one another to make the family unit stronger!

Dee


----------



## Deb862 (Jun 22, 2005)

Good point, Dee. I was just about to say that with all this talk of a woman's "dependence" on her husband when she is a SAHM there has been no consideration to the other side of that as well. I know that my DH is extremely "dependent" on me for running of the household, including paying bills, etc. Dependent to the point that when there was a brief 2-month period where he had to take on my responsibilities he was completely lost and things/bills did not get taken care of properly. 

I must say also that I am probably one of the most independent, strong-willed women you could meet and I totally agree that when there are children one of the partners should be a SAHP. I don't view it as being "dependent" but rather a partnership. While it is true that if the money-earning spouse dies or somehow becomes unable to provide in that way the SAHP or "dependent" parent would feel the financial pinch; however, being the strong-willed and independent person I am I also know that I will do whatever is necessary for my family at the time and will make ends meet however possible. I think that BOTH partners should have a "back-up" plan in case the other is no longer there to perform their function in the partnership. That's only good sense, as both are "dependent" on each other. IMHO, many people (both men and women) have sacrified the well-being of their families/children in order to not be financially "dependent," and I think that's sad. Of course, some have no other choice but that's a whole other conversation...


----------



## trixiwick (Jun 9, 2004)

Tracy Rimmer said:


> While many talk about a woman's being financially "dependent" on her husband, and how wrong or risky that is, I wonder why those women believe that those of us who CHOOSE this lifestyle are complete idiots when it comes to our own personal security and the security of our children?


I have been quite, quite clear about respecting other people's choices, only stating that *all* choices carry risks. If you've made plans about your family's financial welfare should the current plan fall through for some reason, I think that's great. But the truth is, lots of people make no such plans, and I have known many for whom it worked out very poorly. Sometimes it's a case of marrying the wrong person, sometimes the job held by the breadwinner falls through, sometimes sickness or death intevenes. I don't think that simply being unprepared and living in denial is very smart, and I've seen too many people do it.

It's like a full-time-working mom insisting, "I spend every bit as much time with my children as a SAHM does!" Honestly? I doubt it. A SAHM who says "I am every bit as independent as a woman with a full-time job" gets the same skepticism from me. Again...I doubt it.

But if, as you say, independence isn't even the point, then this wouldn't even apply. :shrug:


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

trixiwick--the least independent women and men I know are those in marriages where both spouses work outside the home! Why? Because BOTH of them are depending on the other's income. I have yet to meet the two paycheck family where one check is just banked. Seems they always use BOTH checks to meet the bills.

Now what happens if one spouse leaves, dies, or is laid off? THEY ARE UP THE FINANCIAL CREEK!

With a stay at home spouse, you can have two people hunting a job in the case of layoff, with only one job needed to provide. In the case of death or divorce, the survivor/divorcee need only find ONE job to meet the bills, not two.

The truth is, in a two paycheck family you still have women depending on the man's check, plus add in the man depending on the woman's check.

Women are employed for a number of reasons, but avoiding dependence on their spouse financially is a crock sold to us a long time ago by some ardent feminists who did not want women to have the option of staying home (read Simone de Beauvoir). 

Marriage is ALWAYS a relationship of dependence--for the male, the female, and the children. Finanacial, emotional, spiritual dependence happens whenever folks can or do "count on each other." 

Having an outside job in no way reduces that dependence. It only fosters a false sense of security.

How much better to choose a spouse with care, get that insurance, stay trained, and then work out or not according to your own choice with falsely claiming it is to be "independent."


----------



## trixiwick (Jun 9, 2004)

I think you're kidding yourself. I can name you (but won't  ) DOZENS of women on this very site that had to go on food stamps/welfare after their husband's income went away for some reason or another. This is exactly the kind of denial I'm talking about. Take the risk with eyes wide open, or don't take it, but don't claim it simply doesn't exist.

I also think it's silly to say that two-income families are in the same potentially disastrous boat as one-income families. Would you rather have two legs or one? A person can obviously search for a new job while still employed, so that's a baseless objection. Maybe you know a lot of families who live to the limit of their means, but generally, I don't. We certainly don't. If DH or I lost our jobs, we would of course have to tighten our belts a bit, but either one of us could keep it going until the other was on his/her feet. We actually are together because we want to be, not because neither of us could survive without the other.

If you think financial independence is a crock, that's up to you. I hope it works out for you. It's definitely not the way I was raised, and I am thankful for that.


----------



## Snugglebunny (Oct 20, 2004)

There is a whole different trust at issue here - for me, being dependant on my DH's income is also proof of trust in God. If something happens to my DH or his job, I trust that God will still provide for this family - even if it means going on welfare until I get back on my feet (and there is no shame in needing to - just ask my Mom who had to for a few years).

So what? If something happened to my wonderful and amazing DH the last thing I'd care about is whether or not I go on welfare, and if I had a job I'd probably lose it anyway - since I highly doubt I could work clearheaded if something happened to him.

If something happened to him there is no doubt I would survive and me and my kids would be fine financially (though emotionally wrecked). If something happened to me - well that's a different story! DH freely admits he couldn't survive without me and raise the kids on his own.

And I know plenty who were in more dire straits being two income forced into one (through divorce or otherwise). My own SIL is near bankruptcy after her divorce. Two incomes do not guarantee financial security by any means, unless you happen to be some highly paid professional.

Dependance on your spouse is one of those things that makes a marriage stronger, because you need to trust them and give control to them. They are completely responsible for something you can't help them with.


----------



## Sharon in NY (May 11, 2002)

nodak3 said:


> trixiwick--the least independent women and men I know are those in marriages where both spouses work outside the home! Why? Because BOTH of them are depending on the other's income. I have yet to meet the two paycheck family where one check is just banked. Seems they always use BOTH checks to meet the bills.
> 
> Now what happens if one spouse leaves, dies, or is laid off? THEY ARE UP THE FINANCIAL CREEK!
> 
> ...


Nodak's point is an excellent one. For example, both my spouse and I work - I farm and write, he teaches. We also both have extremely flexible schedules, and have chosen to have one of us taking care of our kids at all times. Which means both of us choose to work less, and make less and live on the minimum in exchange for time together and with our family. If he died, I'd be just as screwed as a SAHM in many ways - that is, I would suddenly have to change my life. But it would be perfectly possible.

Now there is a point to be made about employability and job skills - I think there's a real issue here. That does not mean that all families need two incomes, but it does mean that either before marriage or during it, families need to pay attention to the employability of both spouses - but if you assume that both spouses are smart, competent people, that seems a given.

But here's the other question - I know what kind of daycare I could afford for my four children - mediocre. And I know how much another car, work clothing, etc... would cost me. So if I went back to work full time, my husband would have to work longer hours, and while not all daycare is bad, the kind we could afford would be. So I would be putting my children in mediocre childcare so that I could potentially avoid the risk that my husband, a healthy 37 year old with no history of health problems, or I, a healthy 35 year old might die suddenly. Now this is certainly possible, but is a comparatively small risk. So why would I trade a certainty (a less secure, less appropriate environment for my kids) for a small possibility?

The notion that independence means "absolutely no risk" seems false to me - it is true that my family has chosen interdependence, and not duplicating each other's work, over duplicating it, but I don't think that constitutes "dependence" so much as a different version of independence. It is true that I'm much more dependent on my husband, and potentially on my family if something were to happen to him. But if I were employed, I would be dependent on daycare providers, corporations and people I hired to do the jobs I can't. I'd be more dependent on the formal economy, and less dependent on people I loved - but that seems backwards to me. I think my chances of security are much greater if I am dependent on people I love and who love me. 

Sharon


----------



## Sharon in NY (May 11, 2002)

trixiwick said:


> I think you're kidding yourself. I can name you (but won't  ) DOZENS of women on this very site that had to go on food stamps/welfare after their husband's income went away for some reason or another. This is exactly the kind of denial I'm talking about. Take the risk with eyes wide open, or don't take it, but don't claim it simply doesn't exist.
> 
> I also think it's silly to say that two-income families are in the same potentially disastrous boat as one-income families. Would you rather have two legs or one? A person can obviously search for a new job while still employed, so that's a baseless objection. Maybe you know a lot of families who live to the limit of their means, but generally, I don't. We certainly don't. If DH or I lost our jobs, we would of course have to tighten our belts a bit, but either one of us could keep it going until the other was on his/her feet. We actually are together because we want to be, not because neither of us could survive without the other.
> 
> If you think financial independence is a crock, that's up to you. I hope it works out for you. It's definitely not the way I was raised, and I am thankful for that.


You know, at some point in most marriages, there will come a moment of real dependence - probably several. Perhaps you are in late pregnancy, or just had a new baby, and you *need* your husband to get along, because right now you can't hold down a job and breastfeed or give birth. Or perhaps it will come late in your marriage, at the end of his life, when he needs you to live. Or after surgery, cancer, severe depression or loss, when one of you simply cannot hold up their end. Or maybe it will never happen for someone - no kids, you both drop dead simultaneously in the pink. But for most of us, it does, and it is part of the marriage. I don't know about other people, but one of my most treasured dreams is that the two of us will live long lives, and one of us will die in the other's arms. 

Most marriages are a mix of dependency and independence, and the participants find what is comfortable for them. But I do think the fact that you need each other doesn't reduce the marriage in any sense. 

Underlying your posts is the assumption that childcare, education and homemaking are outsourceable, secondary work that can be handed to other people with no consequences, while allowing someone else to handle the income production renders you dependent. But I don't know a lot of parents who feel that welfare of their children, and the food they eat, the education they receive, etc... are secondary to a *possible* outcome. 

Let us speak in generalities as they apply to most people. Most families live at and above their income. The National consumer credit buearau estimates that most people spend, annually speaking, .5% more money then they earn, and the nation as a whole has a negative personal savings rate. That means that the average person is in debt, living beyond their needs, and their savings are outweighed by their total debt (this doesn't include mortgage debt, and for the record, this is the first time in recorded financial history this has happened). 

Most people, when they work outside the home, commensurately decrease their work inside of the home - they cook fewer meals and eat more fast food. They clean less and hire people to do some of it, etc... So those acts have consequences too - environmental, political, social, medical - for example, American children are decreasing in height, an objective measure of nutrition - that is, we're getting shorter because we're not as healthy, because people are buying fast food. And since most two family households aren't rich, they pay even poorer people to do this work, who then put their kids in even poorer daycare and eat even poorer meals.... The average working family does about 30 hours of home work, the average family with a person at home does about 53 hours. And that also comes with heavy emissions consequences - besides the secondary commute, two income families tend to have more labor saving devices and conveniences, which emit greenhouse gasses, burn oil and pollute.

The idea that going to work is consequenceless, and not working is rich in consequences is, I think wrong, particularly given the environmental issues. IMHO, of course, welfare exists as a short-term transition for precisely those situations in which some comparatively unlikely circumstance befall people (the most likely on is critical illness, which causes, among other things, 50% of all home foreclosures, and often involves both partners losing income, as someone is needed as a caregiver). The difficulty, of course, is not welfare, but the divorce rate. If welfare existed for those who were struck down by illness, sudden death and the rare divorce due to abuse, it wouldn't be a problem, but it gets more socially burdensome (not much though) if a lot of people are unemployed and difficult to employ and 50% of everyone gets divorced - even though most people who experience a death, critical illness or divorce never use welfare at all.

My personal take is that if you can reduce the divorce issue (either by making it more possible for families to stay together or providing better economic solutions in divorce) or even if you don't, if you do a full accounting, having catastrophic, short term supports like unemployment and welfare simply make sense - they aren't ever going to be burdensome on a large society, and the economic burden of things like health consequences of fast food and not breastfeeding, weak educations, and global warming are vastly greater than the economic burden of helping those unlucky enough to experience a crisis during their parenting years.

Sharon


----------



## trixiwick (Jun 9, 2004)

Sharon, you're choosing to add things to my posts that were never there - in particular, the assumption that working full-time is "consequenceless." As I think I am now saying for the third time, EVERY choice has its associated costs and consequences. I even used the example of the working mother who claims to spend as much time with her children as a SAHM does, which I think is really unlikely. There is no perfect choice. There is only what is best for each person. You are correct that every relationship consists of a spectrum of independence/dependence, and the right answer is whatever you are comfortable with.

At the same time, I think it's irresponsible not to have a Plan B, or to say, "My plan B is welfare." Which is to say - "Work would ruin my quality of life, and I'd really rather it ruin yours and then take your money when I need it."  There are a lot of better ways to get around it, IMO - Tracy's plan of a good insurance policy, hisenthlay's flex-time plan, and LamiPub's (I think it was her) home-based business. I'm the first one to say that the wage system is the essence of unfairness to women, because it divided the work world neatly into work that provided income and independence (work traditionally done by men) and work that did not (work traditionally done by women) and that therefore needed to be done on a servitude basis with hopes for reciprocity but no power to enforce it. But it's the world we're living in. :shrug: Same thing with divorce - I wish that divorce wasn't as commonplace as the common cold, but that isn't how it is, nor do I see likelihood for improvement any time soon.

We part company completely on the issue of whether or not welfare can bring a country down. I think the death of the American work ethic and the fact that shame about handouts has largely been replaced with a sense of entitlement has spelled the end for this country. When Mexico, China and India take over the world, they will have earned it because they worked for it, and we weren't willing to. Slight thread drift.


----------



## MicheleMomof4 (Jul 17, 2002)

> I also think it's silly to say that two-income families are in the same potentially disastrous boat as one-income families.


I think logically they are worse off. A family where both work usually means that there is more debt and bills to be paid. Should they both be earning and come up short, where does the extra get made up at? In a one income family if a huge debt comes it is feasible for the non-working parent to get a job for the time it takes to pay back the debt. Your playing it too close when your both working and both spending what you earn. I am one of the few of my friends who is a SAHM, those who work have a bigger mortgage than mine (their income is bigger), more car payments than mine (again, based on a combined income larger than ours) and so on. Should they have an illness or a death, the other is left with a larger hole than I would be in the same situation. 
Like someone else said, we planned for if something unspeakable happens. We have life insurance, disability insurance, long term care insurance. You name it. Plus we have savings. We did not go into this not realizing the risks. I am sure there are many whom did not plan as well, but truly that is a not a dependence issue but a investment one. This is no different than a single person planning for retirement or saving for a rainy day. 
God Bless,
Michele


----------



## trixiwick (Jun 9, 2004)

MicheleMomof4 said:


> I think logically they are worse off. A family where both work usually means that there is more debt and bills to be paid. Should they both be earning and come up short, where does the extra get made up at? In a one income family if a huge debt comes it is feasible for the non-working parent to get a job for the time it takes to pay back the debt. Your playing it too close when your both working and both spending what you earn. I am one of the few of my friends who is a SAHM, those who work have a bigger mortgage than mine (their income is bigger), more car payments than mine (again, based on a combined income larger than ours) and so on. Should they have an illness or a death, the other is left with a larger hole than I would be in the same situation.
> Like someone else said, we planned for if something unspeakable happens. We have life insurance, disability insurance, long term care insurance. You name it. Plus we have savings. We did not go into this not realizing the risks. I am sure there are many whom did not plan as well, but truly that is a not a dependence issue but a investment one. This is no different than a single person planning for retirement or saving for a rainy day.
> God Bless,
> Michele


I agree with a lot of your post. I haven't seen any evidence that the first assertion is true - that two-income families incur more debt. Maybe studies exist on the subject, but I haven't seen them. It's certainly true that if the breadwinner of a one-income family loses their job, there are now two people who can search...but one may be less than optimally employable, and it doesn't seem as secure to me as the other person already having a job and, hopefully, insurance for the family.

In any case, again, my point was not that there's a "right" and "wrong" way to do it, but only that there are costs and risks with every choice. You sound like you've given your choices a lot of thought and made intelligent plans for the future, and I respect that a great deal.


----------



## Sharon in NY (May 11, 2002)

trixiwick said:


> Sharon, you're choosing to add things to my posts that were never there - in particular, the assumption that working full-time is "consequenceless." As I think I am now saying for the third time, EVERY choice has its associated costs and consequences. I even used the example of the working mother who claims to spend as much time with her children as a SAHM does, which I think is really unlikely. There is no perfect choice. There is only what is best for each person. You are correct that every relationship consists of a spectrum of independence/dependence, and the right answer is whatever you are comfortable with.
> 
> At the same time, I think it's irresponsible not to have a Plan B, or to say, "My plan B is welfare." Which is to say - "Work would ruin my quality of life, and I'd really rather it ruin yours and then take your money when I need it."  There are a lot of better ways to get around it, IMO - Tracy's plan of a good insurance policy, hisenthlay's flex-time plan, and LamiPub's (I think it was her) home-based business. I'm the first one to say that the wage system is the essence of unfairness to women, because it divided the work world neatly into work that provided income and independence (work traditionally done by men) and work that did not (work traditionally done by women) and that therefore needed to be done on a servitude basis with hopes for reciprocity but no power to enforce it. But it's the world we're living in. :shrug: Same thing with divorce - I wish that divorce wasn't as commonplace as the common cold, but that isn't how it is, nor do I see likelihood for improvement any time soon.
> 
> We part company completely on the issue of whether or not welfare can bring a country down. I think the death of the American work ethic and the fact that shame about handouts has largely been replaced with a sense of entitlement has spelled the end for this country. When Mexico, China and India take over the world, they will have earned it because they worked for it, and we weren't willing to. Slight thread drift.


Trixi, I guess where I get confused is your "independent/dependent" absolutism - you've said that a woman who doesn't have a job is dependent - all women are dependent, as are all men. It depends on what you choose to be dependent on. So I guess I don't understand how having a job makes you "independent." I guess that's why I believe you seem to think that you seem to be downplaying the consequences of working - because you are presenting possible risks as equal to real ones.

I don't disagree that not having to take welfare is better than having to take it. And since most families *don't* ever take welfare (whereas most families do take unemployment, subsidized student loans, tax breaks, etc... which are just as much subsidized by the mass), that part seems to be working ok. I agree that a fallback position is preferrable - but it isn't preferrable to costing the society as a whole more in the long term, for a potential loss that is unlikely. That is, I don't think it is a good idea to make the US pay the 2-20% of the GDP that global warming is going to cost us, fueled in part by the fact that we moved to a society where everyone was employed and thus commuting and car owning, when we could spend the less than 1% on helping out some folks, male and female, if they are unlucky enough to have their spouse hit by a bus. It just doesn't make any rational sense at all. 

I guess I don't see welfare as notably different than unemployment (which you may also oppose, I don't know) - in both cases, the people who participate generally (but not always) pay more in to the system then they ever take out - that is, former welfare recipients alone can support the comparatively tiny portion of the welfare budget, and the average welfare recipient will pay more than four times what she took out into the system. So I don't see why the last remnent of a system that treats domestic labor as having economic value for the society should be singled out.

Now if I remember correctly (and forgive me if I'm mistaking you for someone else, or remembering a prior conversation we never had  ) you don't believe in social programs of any sort, so presumably you'd be as opposed to unemployment, social security and other solutions as to welfare - in that case, perhaps that's fair. If you aren't going to single out mothers, then I'll agree with you - except that governments are still going to shoulder costs of things like global warming, no? That is, everyone isn't responsible personally to rebuild their piece of the New Orleans levies, right? So again, if the total cost of having 50% of the population in the labor force (and I do not specify the gender of those staying home here at all) is going to radically exceed the cost of enabling them to leave, why not encourage it? In simple accounting terms, it seems that it might make sense? Or are you arguing that the moral consequences of accepting social welfare programs are so great that it is better to go on doing harm in other ways? 

Sharon


----------



## Sharon in NY (May 11, 2002)

trixiwick said:


> I agree with a lot of your post. I haven't seen any evidence that the first assertion is true - that two-income families incur more debt. Maybe studies exist on the subject, but I haven't seen them. It's certainly true that if the breadwinner of a one-income family loses their job, there are now two people who can search...but one may be less than optimally employable, and it doesn't seem as secure to me as the other person already having a job and, hopefully, insurance for the family.
> 
> In any case, again, my point was not that there's a "right" and "wrong" way to do it, but only that there are costs and risks with every choice. You sound like you've given your choices a lot of thought and made intelligent plans for the future, and I respect that a great deal.


Well, it is a bit dated, but in Juliet Schor's book _The Overspent American_, she noted that as of 1994, while single parent families carried more personal consumer debt, the total amount of debt carried by two parents families was greater, because mortgage size tended to be dramatically greater. My personal guess is that that would only have increased in the last few years of housing bubbles and inflated markets, but I don't actually have data to back that up. 

Sharon


----------



## MicheleMomof4 (Jul 17, 2002)

Trix,
Oh I think there is a ton of proof out there. How many married couple where one works gets a home mortgage based on just one of their incomes? They base it on their combined income on how much they can borrow. I am sure we could find that data to back that up, should I get my head around what the terminology is to use to search for it. Maybe, debt to income ratio? Or something along those lines.
But anywho, I wanted to make something clear I didn't in the first post I made about this. When I say that a couple who both works is in a riskier situation, I clearly mean if they have not made plans for the unplanned stuff that occurs in life. My hope is that SAH parents and working parents alike would get their ducks in a row and cover themselves should something happen. In that aspect, since both are working they would more than likely have to buy more insurance to replace the missing income. But you get the point.
I get that you are saying their is risks in every choice. But what I think some are wanting to show is that simply having a job does not mean your covered . KWIM? 
God Bless,
Michele


----------



## trixiwick (Jun 9, 2004)

I'm trying to actually find some numbers to suggest which type of household actually incurs more debt, the one- or two-income. Unfortunately, a book called "The Two-Income Trap" seems to be all Google has to offer me, which talks about the fact that many two-income middle-class households are financial messes (we already knew that), but doesn't talk about one-income households at all. :shrug: The author also makes the odd argument that the two-income families are in financial trouble not because of indulgent McMansion-and-iPhone overspending but because of higher fixed costs (mortgages, education, healthcare) but also somehow that they could manage better on just one income (even though two-income households earn 75% more). :shrug: I just gave myself a headache.

As to your question about my feelings about welfare programs, Sharon, yes, you're correct in remembering that I am generally opposed. Unemployment and SSI are different because people are paying into them as opposed to simply receiving "free" handouts. But Social Security is a great example of a pay-in system that looks very much like it will be defaulted upon, and that's another problem with governmental "communal pots." They tend to get looted, and always for the benefit of society's least productive people. I don't think that's in society's best interest.

I do think it's tough on women who want to do nothing but raise their kids, but I also have a hard time swallowing the idea that raising your own kids provides a benefit to me. It's kind of like cooking your own dinner - I'm glad you're doing it, but I don't get to eat it. If your subsistence consists of taking care of yourself, I think that's better than, well, NOT taking care of yourself. But if it provides no value to me, why would you expect me to support you? (and I don't mean you personally, of course) The good thing about capitalism, despite its failings, is that it ideally is a system that determines fair value _by mutual agreement_. I may think I'm worth a quarter-mil a year to my employer, but if I can find no employer who agrees with that, I'm out of luck. If I'm worth that much, surely someone else will agree?

Welfare programs take away the freedom of choice that exists in capitalism and in freely given charity. Worse, it creates a sense of entitlement that gives people the impression that wanting something for nothing is normal and fine, and I think that wrecks society in countless ways.

Here, I'll throw a bone in the direction of the original topic and mention that I'm headed to Malaysia at the end of this month and will probably want to cover my hair while I'm there. Annoying, but necessary!


----------



## trixiwick (Jun 9, 2004)

MicheleMomof4 said:


> I get that you are saying their is risks in every choice. But what I think some are wanting to show is that simply having a job does not mean your covered . KWIM?


I do. A paying job is one leg to stand on, but the more legs, the better. Any leg can get kicked out from under you. DH and I also have plans B and C, and they have certainly included not getting into a lifestyle that can only be supported with two incomes. My parents did the same thing, and their peers are now remarking on how "lucky" they are.


----------



## MicheleMomof4 (Jul 17, 2002)

Here let me throw in another wrench into the mess. I will be so bold to suggest that more one income families are more likely to strive to be debt free than a two income one , as the one income knows their income in limited and will always be. I would almost bet you a doughnut if I could eat those things, that most middle class income 2 working parent families these days are only at best paying the interest on their stuff. 
Now.......good grief we are a long way off from head covering aren't we? LOL
God Bless,
Michele


----------



## trixiwick (Jun 9, 2004)

OK, this is driving me nuts. I can come up with NOTHING except this one blasted woman's book, which doesn't have one thing to say about single-earner families. Is she the daughter of Google's founder or something? Does anyone know how to exclude something from a search (e.g., "NOT 'Elizabeth Warren')?


----------



## Snugglebunny (Oct 20, 2004)

I have to disagree with you there, Michele - I don't think income has any effect on a family's abilty to live debt free. However, I don't think two parents working has any effect on guarenteeing a secure future either. No matter who you are or who is/isn't working, any number of legs can get kicked out from under you. The difference is what your priorities are. I choose to stay home because I believe my family deserves a clean, peaceful home, homemade baking more than they need my meager income. I stay home because I believe a psychological quality of life is far more important than any financial assets or false security. I believe that having both parents home and relaxed and enjoying life instead of playing evening 'catch up' is most important to my boys, eternally so.


----------



## hisenthlay (Feb 23, 2005)

I think putting - in front of the words (-Warren) works, or you could just click on advanced search (http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en) and there's an option for it there. :angel: 

Intuitively and anecdotally, though, the proposition makes sense. If people in general are living above their means, than two income earners will be living above the means of their two incomes. And when most dual-earner couples I know go to buy a house, car, toys, etc., they look at what they can afford on their combined income. We don't do that, but hey, we're abnormal in a lot of ways.


----------



## trixiwick (Jun 9, 2004)

Thanks, hisenthlay - I figured it out eventually. I'm still not able to find any decent numbers. It seems to be that the dollar amount of debt carried by two-income households is higher, but - well, they earn 75% more, so duh. :shrug: I'd rather see a comparison of bankruptcy rates, welfare dependency, and such - in other words, who is suffering bad results from getting in over their heads financially? A two-income couple buying an house they can afford is not a nightmare scenario. How often does it end in default and bankruptcy? Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## jerzeygurl (Jan 21, 2005)

i think the assumption that a sahm mom is a non income earner is bogus

not sure if that is being suggested here?

a penny saved is a penny earned for one....

and someone has to feed the proverbial hogs ect.....

if one bakes 4 loaves of artesian bread that would sell for 5 bucks or more....at a cost of 25 cents a piece....is that not earning????

is not growing a garden and canning the produce earning????

200 fryers in the freezer is earnings the list goes on and on....

eh count the savings on child care as considerable earnings IMO

many dh's depend on thier dw


----------



## trixiwick (Jun 9, 2004)

jerzeygurl said:


> i think the assumption that a sahm mom is a non income earner is bogus
> 
> not sure if that is being suggested here?


No, that's not what I have suggested. I have already mentioned the option of earning money from home as a good one for SAHMs to help provide a bit more security for themselves and their families. 

My main point was that complete financial dependency is risky. I do know that after a divorce, men's standard of living skyrockets while women's plummets. Since most kids end up with Mom, I guess children suffer, too. I suspect death of the breadwinner has the same effect. I'd just like women who haven't thought about a Plan B to think about it some rather than act as though no one has ever had Plan A fall through.


----------



## hisenthlay (Feb 23, 2005)

jerzey--there's a difference between "earning income" and providing value and wealth to the family. All of the things you mention are certainly providing great value, and nobody here has disputed that. However, they are not "earning income" unless perhaps the SAH partner is saving money that is placed into an interest bearing account or other investment, thereby earning income that would not otherwise have accrued to the family. In+come = bringing in $$, not conserving it. (Kinda like that old Jack Handy/Deep Thoughts line--"To understand mankind, we must look at the origin of the word itself--mank, and ind. The meaning of these words is a mystery, and that's why, so is mankind."  ) 

I don't think anyone is suggesting SAH spouses don't contribute a lot of wealth to the family.


----------



## Snugglebunny (Oct 20, 2004)

I would have to say that if a woman's only reason for working is a fear of financial dependancy, that's a pretty sad reason to be working. That's like, not riding a car because you MIGHT get into an accident.


----------



## Sharon in NY (May 11, 2002)

trixiwick said:


> I'm trying to actually find some numbers to suggest which type of household actually incurs more debt, the one- or two-income. Unfortunately, a book called "The Two-Income Trap" seems to be all Google has to offer me, which talks about the fact that many two-income middle-class households are financial messes (we already knew that), but doesn't talk about one-income households at all. :shrug: The author also makes the odd argument that the two-income families are in financial trouble not because of indulgent McMansion-and-iPhone overspending but because of higher fixed costs (mortgages, education, healthcare) but also somehow that they could manage better on just one income (even though two-income households earn 75% more). :shrug: I just gave myself a headache.
> 
> As to your question about my feelings about welfare programs, Sharon, yes, you're correct in remembering that I am generally opposed. Unemployment and SSI are different because people are paying into them as opposed to simply receiving "free" handouts. But Social Security is a great example of a pay-in system that looks very much like it will be defaulted upon, and that's another problem with governmental "communal pots." They tend to get looted, and always for the benefit of society's least productive people. I don't think that's in society's best interest.
> 
> ...


I miss Malaysia, and did cover my hair in the rural areas, although not in Penang or KL. Lovely, lovely place - have a terrific trip.

I can't help you with current data on single income families vs. double - 

I guess my problem with the pure capitalism solution is that the dice are loaded - because capitalism as it is practiced externalizes many costs, including, for example, the costs and value of women's domestic labor, the pollution consequences of capitalism, etc... I don't think the solutions work. The reality is that it does benefit you if we encourage people to make fewer emissions, since you pay the costs of cleaning up the mess afterward, and the costs are always higher than not making the mess to begin with. So I guess I don't see how it presents a just or even useful solution - a capitalism in which we all paid full costs might perhaps work, but then such a system wouldn't be nearly as profitable as one that extends costs out on the whole of society, regardless of ability to pay, rather than applies them to those who make most of the money. 

Again, I think if you take a very absolutist position on this subject - everyone pays for everything they get, exactly what they get, and nothing else, and doesn't get anything for free at all - not school, healthcare, social welfare, social security, roads, libraries, you name it - and capitalism is regulated so that all costs are real costs, you might actually have a point. In such a system, it wouldn't be of any benefit to you personally if I raise my kids or if I leave them in cheap daycare, except perhaps in a purely philosophical sense - and maybe not even that. But in the existing capitalist model, it strikes me that your system is unbalanced - it demands you pay true costs in some places, disproportionately on women, and not in others. So, for example, a woman who takes welfare (and it is always women) after her husband dies is not entitled, but a man who takes unemployment is? Both families paid into both systems, and over their lifetime, statistically speaking, both will pay well over their contribution. But one gets a bad rap and the other doesn't, despite the fact that they are similar, because one involves women doing women's work. 

In a system that dealt with global warming based on ability to pay *and* included full real costs of emissions, it probably wouldn't matter at all whether I stay home or go to work. But in a system that can externalize those costs, it really does matter - it is universally more expensive to clean up the messes than to make them. 

The same is true with a host of other issues - breastfeeding, for example. In society that didn't externalize the cost of women's labor and also based itself on ability to pay would probably not have much effect on you whether I nurse or not. But in a society that externalizes those costs, and also includes the moral preference to not let the babies of the poor drop dead, it is cheaper for you to pay to support women to stay home than it to deal with the consequences afterwards.

The problem is that the consensus of value you describe is a false one - it isn't real capitalism in any sense, as long as you can externalize costs and spread them out into the society for some people, but not others. 

Sharon


----------



## trixiwick (Jun 9, 2004)

Snugglebunny said:


> I would have to say that if a woman's only reason for working is a fear of financial dependancy, that's a pretty sad reason to be working. That's like, not riding a car because you MIGHT get into an accident.


I don't agree. You work for the same reason that you stand upright: because you are a human being who wants to take care of herself. But then, I really don't think we will agree on this, based on our different feelings about welfare. :shrug:


----------



## trixiwick (Jun 9, 2004)

Sharon - you raise a lot of good points. No, the system isn't perfect, and I'm with you on the externalizing of costs. If I were planning a new system, I would think in terms completely different than the ones that exist now. In order to justify getting paid cash money, I think you need to provide value to someone else and not just, in essence, cook your own dinner. I'd like to see both men and women adding value to society at large. That would mean that men would take on more responsibility for themselves rather than relying on their wives to do all of the unpaid support work, which would free up women to make societal contributions to others and get fairly compensated for them. I would like to see every adult human who is physically and mentally able to do so make a contribution to this nation's pot, rather than just rely on someone else who is, or simply decline to take out. 

Working from home is becoming ever more doable, and long commutes may be a thing of the past before too much longer as we hit peak oil. I think what hisenthlay and her husband are trying to work out sounds very good. I agree with you that it's an option mostly for fairly elite workers right now, but so were vacation days at one time. Things like that do trickle down. I just don't like to see people say "Consume less" (which I agree with) as a mandate to "Stop working and contribute as little as possible to society" (which I don't). Like it or not, "consumption" and "progress" have gone hand in hand, and when you remove the carrot from in front of people, they may very well just sit down and open up their mouths like baby birds.


----------



## Ashtina98 (Aug 10, 2007)

"Stop working and contribute as little as possible to society" 

I'm not sure I understand where you are going with this. Are you trying to say that a SAH parent is contributing as little as possible to society? If that is the case I absolutely disagree. By staying at home we are raising a generation of children that are stable, well adjusted and ready to make decisions for themselves. Now for my daughters that means if they want to go to College (which I absolutely support as between my husband and I we have numerous degrees) to pursue their desired profession, we support that. If they choose to stay at home with their children we will also support that. There is definitely a benefit to society when children are raised by loving parents who support them rather than raised by daycare centers!

If on the other hand I am reading your post all wrong I apologize!  

Dee


----------



## Snugglebunny (Oct 20, 2004)

I feel welfare is a good option for those who NEED it (unlike others who use it as a crutch because they feel it's owed them - I know people from both cases). A mother who has just come out of an abusive marriage, for example, is a mother who needs it. (My mother many years ago).

You feel the need to 'take care of yourself'. Well, never mind your children and husband apparently. You need to take care of yourself. Okay. Independance it is, despite what others might need from you.

Isn't sacrifice better then? Isn't serving others 'contributing to society'? Being able to go into a store with a smile and peaceful attitude rather than stressed and short tempered because you just got out of work and have only 15 minutes to find dinner? Doesn't that 'contribute to society'? What makes you think a woman at home contributes LESS to society than a woman at work? How does a 9-5 job 'contribute to society'?

How much better for a woman to volunteer an hour or two per week while her children are at school? How much better for her to help her neighbor? How much better for her to have patience with her children because she wasn't encumbered by an employer?


----------



## LynninTX (Jun 23, 2004)

Just to add.... when the husband dies besides life insure which we have... there IS SS that kids in if you have dc at home. We carry insur on BOTH of us as my dh would need to hire some help and go to part time work to continue to care for our dc and homeschool them which we are committed to. 

I am dependent... I have no problem being so. 
My dh is dependent... I pay all the bills and run the house. He has no problem being dependent on me. 
Our dc are deppendent on us.
We are both dependent on God. 

Dependence is not a scary thing to us. 

Many yrs ago I was a single mom for 2 yrs. I was a working mom for about 8 months. I came close to losing my job early on because when my son started day care he started getting sick incl severe ear infections. I had to take time off. I could not take all the time off I wanted to ... and needed to with him. I failed both my son & my job. I was never so happy as I was when I quit after marrying my dh and could stay home and RAISE and CARE for my child as needed.


----------



## YounGrey (Jun 7, 2007)

Sounds a bit extreme to me, but I respect you for it.


----------



## trixiwick (Jun 9, 2004)

Snugglebunny said:


> I feel welfare is a good option for those who NEED it (unlike others who use it as a crutch because they feel it's owed them - I know people from both cases). A mother who has just come out of an abusive marriage, for example, is a mother who needs it. (My mother many years ago).
> 
> You feel the need to 'take care of yourself'. Well, never mind your children and husband apparently. You need to take care of yourself. Okay. Independance it is, despite what others might need from you.
> 
> ...


I think you are wrong about every single thing you say. You have not posted one sentence above that I think has a shred of truth to it. You want society to pay you for not being hateful and obnoxious, because your good mood is a public service? You think welfare exists to insulate people from the outcomes of their own poor choices? You think a free and willing economic exchange between two parties with something to offer one another is a bad thing, but lifelong dependency is fine? 

Your life plan to be "unencumbered by an employer" yet still get the sustenance you need REQUIRES that other people be "encumbered" by employers and ruin their lives in order to benefit you. I think that's horrible. I also can't imagine how someone can raise productive children who are useful for society in this way. "Do as I say, not as I do"?


----------

