there’s a reason she’s called a *1950’s* housewife
i have a few more thoughts on “the excellent wife,” which i talked more about in earlier posts, and then i’ll be done with the topic … well, at least for now. in the end of the chapter i’ve been referring to, “home: the wife’s domain,” the author states:
the world makes fun of the june cleavers - that devoted television wife and mother from the 1950’s. the world is deceived. you can … begin today to be the excelled wife of proverbs 31, as you “look well to the ways of your household and do not eat the bread of idle-ness.”
there’s that hair on my neck bristling again. i’ve already talked about why the woman referenced in proverbs 31 is a horrible example of why wives and mothers should tend only to the house. she wasn’t idle because she was busy out buying property, (likely) running a business, buying and selling, etc. but what about this idea that we should seek to regress upon the progress made by the women who have gone before us, the women who emerged on the other side of the “1950’s housewife”? these suffragists fought for our equality - an idea that is actually biblical, by the way. much more so than the ideas the author of TEW has extrapolated out from a few out-of-context verses. we have the right and privledge - as women - to do whatever we want. to choose to stay home with our kids - or not. to dust and vaccuum - or hire a housekeeper.
to be clear, i’m not against the idea that “a women’s place is in the home” just because it’s politically incorrect. if something is inherently right or wrong, it’s right or wrong outside of the judgement of political correctness. but that’s just the thing - there’s nothing i’ve seen in my faith that would lead me to believe that a woman must stay home with her kids and tend to the house. it’s not an issue of right or wrong, it’s an issue of what each person thinks is right for their family - and each person should be able to draw their own conclusions.
interestingly, i doubt that even those who seem to hold this ideal - those who are religiously conservative or fundamentalist - really ascribe to it in the absolute fervor suggested by the author of TEW. one need only look to the voracity at which recent VP candidate, sarah palin was defended by just such groups (i wasn’t going to go there, but then i had to …). politics aside - as that is really not the point of this particular post - parallels were drawn between palin and biblical figures like the prophetess deborah (another - wait for it! - powerful woman referenced in the bible). if the stay-at-home mom issue were really one of black and white terms, the same stay-at-home moms who defended palin for her choice to run for office would’ve booed her out of town. (thankfully, it didn’t matter either way ;-). so it appears to me that the conept of “home: the wife’s domain,” is one that may be professed with fervor, but in reality, held to with much less commitment.
(stay tuned for my closing arguments to come in a later post.)
March 26 2009 07:27 pm | career and family and marriage and politics and religion