Fascinating Womanhood Review: Family Finances

by Samantha Field cross posted from her blog Defeating the Dragons

Occasionally during the course of her book, Helen gives her readers practical, “down-to-earth” level advice. This is one of those chapters, which is dedicated to telling women how they can help their husbands by “developing the womanly art of thrift.”


Like she usually does, she opens up her chapter by appealing to the Bible, which “makes it clear” that it is “the husband’s responsibility to provide the living.” However, also like she usually does, she doesn’t reference any particular passage, just expecting us to know what she’s talking about. However, I can think of a few examples that render this claim completely unfounded:


  • The Proverbs 31 Woman. She’s been used to bludgeon Christian women for decades, but one of the things that “the Bible makes clear” that she does is not just “practice the womanly art of thrift” but she also makes money. Proverbs 31 describes a woman who is like “the ships of the merchant,” whose “merchandise is profitable.”
  • Priscilla, who with her husband runs a profitable tent-making business. Paul frequently talks about how indebted he was to this married couple, and he always lists Priscilla first. Considering that the culture of the time always listed the head of the household first, Paul’s decision to lead with her name is significant. (Acts 18).
  • Lydia, the “seller of purple,” and traditionally considered the first Christian convert in Europe. Because of her wealth and her status as a free woman, she invited Paul and his companions into her home, which she would not have been able to do if she was under the legal control of a husband or father. She was clearly in control of her home, independent of any man (Acts 16).
  • Phoebe, who Paul describes as “minister” (the same word he uses to label other notable pastors) and a “leader” or “patron.” She was tasked with delivering his letter to Rome, a duty that also would have required her to read and interpret it for the church there. She was certainly not staying at home, behind closed doors, hiding behind her husband. (Romans 16)
  • Titus specifically tells Roman-Christian women to be “keepers at home,” which as I’ve written about before, was a charge to run a profitable family business; it was not something Paul wrote to make sure women stay in the kitchen.


“The Bible makes clear” Helen? I’m not sure what Bible she’s reading, but it’s not the one I’m pretty sure everyone else in the world has.


But, the biggest thing that bothers me about this chapter is how harshly she divides up people. The way she talks about married couples in this chapter is incredibly divisive. She boxes every single last human being on the planet into what she thinks is “biblical” without any sort of exceptions, without extending grace, without viewing difficult situations with compassion.


She is strictly addressing wives, here, and what she tells them is that they are to be given “allowances” to cover the “household budget”– which does not include anything outside of groceries and clothing. She forbids women from making any sort of purchase– at all– that doesn’t fit inside of “anything in regular demand.” Any kind of need, like furniture or repairs, is to be sought out and paid for only by the husband, and he has “major jurisdiction and final say.” She tells us that we’re not allowed to discuss these sorts of things with him– ever. If we do, we risk emasculating our husbands and “relieving him of his responsibilities” which, somehow results in husbands becoming incapable of handling money wisely.


This actually fits into Helen’s pattern, and is a direct result of how she views communication. To Helen, any possible sort of discussion (“conflict”) is to be avoided at all costs. If a conversation between a husband and a wife could lead to any sort of disagreement whatsoever, she absolutely forbids you from having it. To Helen, a marriage is only “successful” if the two never disagree, and the only way for that to happen is for one person to never have a say. In Helen’s world, that person is always the wife. The fact that one of the biggest sources of conflict in marriages is money (couples who fight over money once a week are 30% more likely to get divorced) has led Helen to believe that husbands and wives must never, ever talk about it. If you never even discuss money, you can’t fight over it, and presto-change-o, happy marriage!


For families in “financial distress” she tells women they they aren’t allowed to go get a job. Instead, we’re supposed to “reduce expenses” and “trim the luxuries” which… gah. The suggestions she makes for how women could do this? Selling their second car. Cancelling vacations. Don’t be tempted by advertisements. Which, in some situations could be perfectly reasonable advice. However, I’m becoming more and more convinced that Helen has never interacted with a poor person in her entire life. People who have two cars and can afford to sell one of them aren’t in financial distress, I’m sorry. Maybe someone who has two cars is living outside of their means, but that is nowhere near the sort of scale many families are facing when 20% of all children go hungry because they live in “very low food security households.” Selling your second car isn’t going to fix that.


And what are we supposed to do when men “make a mess of things”? When they don’t pay the mortgage, or the bills, when they overdraft their accounts?


Let go completely and turn your back on things. Don’t be anxious, checking the books to see if he added right, or is neglecting anything. If he make a mess of things, let him suffer the consequences, no matter what they are. That is the only way he will learn.


I might have thrown the book across the room at that line. Because he’s not the only one suffering consequences when the bank forecloses on your house because he didn’t pay the mortgage. This sort of comment doesn’t even begin to make sense, but she justifies it with “psychology”:


He will begin to feel responsible, to know that if anyone is to worry about the money, it will have to be him. And he will notice your relief, that you are happier. Let him know you are. As he sees you brighter he will try harder to make a go of things, to keep you happy.


Helen doesn’t live on this planet. I’m positive. If she did, she’d realize how ridiculous a statement this is. Sure, some people are motivated by wanting to make the people in their life happy. I’m one of them. But there are plenty of people who couldn’t give a damn, but she doesn’t even acknowledge their existence. This chapter, while Helen has presented it as practical advice, it is almost entirely inapplicable for huge sections of humanity. It is only relevant to the top 20% of all American households, and is wholly incapable of even making sense anyone who doesn’t have the luxury of two cars and a $70,000-a-year income. Helen, here, is displaying an astounding lack of compassion or even awareness that some families really are destitute. Her white, middle-class privilege is pouring out of her, and it’s more that just disappointing.


Helen isn’t alone in this attitude, which is heartbreaking. Many people in conservative evangelical America share the exact same blinders that Helen has on in this chapter. We’ve forgotten that Jesus said “the poor you will always have with you” and that our primary responsibility as the Church is to care for the widows, the orphans, and the poor. We don’t even know they exist anymore. Not really. Oh, we do the Christmas shoebox drives and the book drives and the canned food drives and the backpack drives– one for each season. And then we completely forget about them, except for those four times a year.


I want to be angry with Helen, but I can’t be angry with Helen without feeling anger towards the modern American church in general.

Intro | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6| Part 7

| Part 8 |  Part 9 | Part 10

Comments open below

Read everything by Samantha!

Samantha grew up in the homeschool, patriarchy, quiverfull, and fundamentalist movements, and experienced first-hand the terror and manipulation of spiritual abuse. She is now married to an amazing, gentle man who doesn’t really get what happened to her but loves her anyway. With him by her side and the strength of God’s promises, she is slowly healing.

Samantha blogs at Defeating The Dragons and is a member of The Spiritual Abuse Survivor Blogs Network

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment‘ by Janet Heimlich

Quivering Daughters‘ by Hillary McFarland

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement‘ by Kathryn Joyce


About Suzanne Calulu
  • Edie Moore McGee

    I think this particular brand of Christianity attracts a lot of frightened women who don’t want any real-world responsibility outside of what they feel they can manage as mothers. So they cede everything to men who may, or may not, be capable of carrying the ball, so to speak. It’s easier to live by a rulebook than to have to make it up as you go along, which is what the rest of us have to do.

    • NeaDods

      Making it up as you go along also requires a certain comfort with nuance and vague situations. We know from Michael Pearl that such things terrify and trouble him, leading him to flee to the familiar — a quick-to-punish authority with a clearly defines rule book, so there’ stone of that pesky thinking and uncertainty.

  • Madame

    I do agree with “cultivating thriftiness”. It’s helped me tremendously when our budget has been really low. There’s nothing wrong with learning how to stretch your dollars.

    I take issue with her notion that a woman cannot take control of money issues. As Samantha said, the man is not the only one suffering when he mismanages the family finances, so if he isn’t handling them right, why shouldn’t she? I pay our bills and rent, and things run a lot more smoothly than when I have to keep reminding my husband. It suits my controlling personality :)

  • http://www.nightphoenix.com Amaranth

    My husband works two jobs, however we’re fortunate in that I’m able to be a stay-at-home mom.

    Helen’s advice makes no sense, even in a family where one person works and the other stays home. Because my husband is at work during the hours when most places and financial institutions are open. He can’t sit there at his job making phone calls to get a bill straightened out or to arrange house repairs. He can’t leave his job in order to take the cars to get their oil changed…heck, he only gets a half hour lunch break. That’s not even time enough to drive to the bank and back.

    So I make the phone calls during the day. I go to the bank. I arrange the AC repair person. I go out and buy the furniture, or the new washer, and I’m the one who signs the paperwork and oversees the installation.

    If my religion forbade me from doing such “manly” things, those things simply would not get done…not because my husband “refuses to take charge” or some rubbish, but because he WORKS at a JOB during the day!

  • texcee

    We went through a period a few years ago in which I was out of work and our only steady income was my husband’s Social Security disability check. This was during the time when the recession was at its worst. We lived on that check and whatever we could sell on eBay. We ended up having to declare bankruptcy. My husband can’t work because of a debilitating heart condition so telling him to get out and find a job is a joke. It has been up to me to support our family. But I couldn’t find a job anywhere. Even Wal-Mart turned me down (I have a college degree and am a legal secretary — overqualified). We economized every way we could think of and we just managed to keep a roof over our heads and our cars (nope, not new ones either — the old used Chevy’s we’d been driving for a while). Still, we were exponentially better off than lower income people. Folks like Helen must live in a privileged world indeed not to realize that women have ALWAYS worked outside the home in order to provide for their families. As pointed out above, it’s even Biblical.

  • Pingback: Trackback