Thank you, definitely some new perspectives to consider. I think I was looking at it as beneficial primarily because of the careers women are drawn to, they're typically in education and caretaker positions. What impact do you think taking more women out of the workforce would have on these positions and the people who depend on them?
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Wow
- Thread starter NickF
- Start date
The more women come out of the workforce, the fewer education and caretaker positions are required. Because the women that leave the workforce are in a position to educate their own children and care for their own sick and elderly. Obviously they would still access schooling and healthcare, but if children enter education at 5 or 6 instead of childcare at 1, there is less demand for preschool teachers. And if the elderly stay at home until they really need medical care, not just help with normal tasks, then there is less demand for rest-homes.
Also, we have far too many people in our society employed in bureaucratic jobs of no real value. If there was a greater need for people in education and caretaker this would become more economically attractive and people (male and female) who would otherwise have become paper-pushers would go into those careers. If there was a mass resignation of thousands of women from education and caretaking there would be a short-term disruption, but a gradual societal change would have no negative impact.
Remember the value is not just having mothers at home, but grandmothers and aunts too. If grandma doesn't have to work, then the children still don't have to go to preschool even if the mother has a job. Any woman of any age who can move out of the workforce and into full-time family life has a positive impact on the family - but a negative impact on the economic measures the government is interested in.
A lot of women become midwives after their children have grown up. Maybe their older children are now adults and their youngest is in secondary school. It means they've passed the small children part, they've got time and experience with pregnancy, birth, and babies. Having children early doesn't need to stop you in that career at all.
Personally I'd love to live in a society such as that. Sadly I think we're just advancing too quickly.
Are we "advancing"? What is "progress"?
Progress is not progress unless it is going towards a goal. What is the goal our society is progressing towards?
Progress is not progress unless it is going towards a goal. What is the goal our society is progressing towards?
Yes, I agree. That's why I said "sadly" because it's forcing people to adapt to things that are not natural in the persuit of these so called "advancements." Feels like it's forcing women into waiting to start a family. While I'm all for some women pursuing the option of waiting until they're financially secure to have children by their own choice, I don't think it's fair to pressure them to be less family oriented in the process.
A member here I am friends with is now a midwife. She has grown children, and little ones too.
She is amazing! Very appreciated by her clients.
I'd like to chip in here with a comment about something which was brought to my attention recently. Before I do that however, I wish to point out that both my wives have university educations and are self-employed, so I hope you understand I have no issue with some women working outside the home per se. I was discussing this very issue of women/wives working outside the home with a church leader here and in the course of our discussion he said he was very concerned at the growing incidence of pregnancies - and in particular incestuous pregnancies - with young women in the assembly. To say I was surprised to hear him say that would be more than a small understatement; I was shocked. He explained that with more wives/mothers working outside the home the problem is growing and they see it even in the assembly. It's anecdotal but that was his observation. I post this comment because there are broader issues to consider with women/wives/mothers working than just the financial ones. The collapse of marriage and family so evident in society today should sound alarm bells and cause us all to look at this matter in the light of Holy Scripture. The roles and responsibilities for men, women, and children are clearly laid out for us all by the very One who created men, women, and children and Him to whom we must all give account. What the ungodly do is their business and they will suffer the consequences for their rejection of the truth, but we are to represent God to this fallen world in the way we live. We ought not to live in contradiction to His Word even when that puts us at odds with the world around. Yes, there are financial challenges but there are many other matters to consider, and all must be scrutinized carefully within the framework of God's Word. Shalom
Generally speaking, all personal accident insurance is extremely cheap in the US. I have accident insurance in addition to my health insurance. As an example, if one of my children breaks an arm, my accident insurance will kick in and cover me 100%. I think I pay less than a dollar per person per month. Health insurance here in the US would be equivalent to auto insurance that covers new tires, oil changes, transmission failure, etc.
Exactly my point. Accident insurance makes sense - it's true insurance.
But "insurance" that covers expected regular expenditure? That's not really insurance any more, it's something else - more like a maintenance contract - and may not be economic.
Socialist countries manage to do this (giving everyone healthcare for a flat rate, paid through taxes) by driving down the cost of delivering the service through a range of means. New Zealand for instance has a single monopoly buyer of most medicines - Pharmac - which drives a hard bargaining process with all pharmaceutical companies, and bulk buys everything for the lowest cost possible. That has many disadvantages in specific details, but overall it does keep the cost of the healthcare system down and contribute to keeping taxes low enough to make it affordable for everyone. Big Pharma hates it - part of US / NZ trade tension is a long-term US desire to break Pharmac.
The USA on the other hand seems to try and give people healthcare for a flat rate, labelling it "insurance" - but in a competitive free market, in which all the healthcare organisations want to make fat profits. That's a recipe for a very expensive disaster.
Note that our system is falling apart as I speak due to government mismanagement. I'm not saying it's the way to go. But there is an interesting comparison to be made.
1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
So when is a woman's opinion actually her own?
Secular humanist communism at a global level.
An opinion is always one’s own. I don’t get what this question has to do with the scripture you’re referencing.
I wasn't referencing any scripture really. If your stance is that women can't be in authority or leadership positions due to to our inability to recognize when we're being lied to, then when are our opinions ever our own? How would we go about forming them of our own volition?
I think you are taking this to an extreme that @NickF did not actually say @LovesDogs.
Rather than commenting on his statement or giving yet another opinion myself, I'd rather like to hear what you interpret 1 Timothy 2:14 to mean.
Rather than commenting on his statement or giving yet another opinion myself, I'd rather like to hear what you interpret 1 Timothy 2:14 to mean.
I disagree, I think I know exactly what he is saying but I won't continue to banter.
Right! The claim that the reason for this aspect of God's commanded heirarchy is due to women's lack of discernment does not follow necessarily from 1 Timothy. It would require additional assumption about the connection between propensity to be deceived and lack of discernment. Lack of discernment is not the only factor influencing this propensity (in men or women.)
But really fascinating points so thank you all.
You quoted me, referencing a scripture. So yes you were. You may not have thought you were. We could be operating with a different definition of the word “opinion”.
You can have your own opinion and it could be correct or incorrect. I personally don’t put any weight on someone’s “opinion”. I care about truth.
Women are not to be in authority because God says so. That’s not my opinion. That’s His word on the matter. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Him. The above scripture is a plausible reason for God’s prohibition. But to be honest I don’t care if there is a reasonable answer. His word on the matter is enough for me.
You can formulate your own opinions all day long. If you think you are unaffected by outside factors and incapable of being swayed then you’re fantastically deluded or naive.
Being lied to does not abrogate your freedom in voicing and holding an opinion.
So either you’re not communicating what you’re really asking, or I’m not understanding what your question actually is.