Quoting Quiverfull: Working Outside of the Home is Forfeiting Femininity?

Quoting Quiverfull: Working Outside of the Home is Forfeiting Femininity? January 28, 2015

quotingquiverfullby Lady Lydia in her blog Home Living – Should Christian Ask Their Wives To Go To Work?

Editor’s note: Another Christian lady that seems to think that the standards practiced in the time of Queen Victoria still apply in today’s modern world over a hundred years later.

If a husband truly understands God’s word, he will not hint, ask, pressure, demand or command his wife to “get a job.”  He is less of a man if he does, because he is expecting her to be a provider. The Christian husband is supposed to be the provider.
When the wife becomes a co- provider, she takes on the responsibilities that God has given to her husband.  The man loses a piece of his masculinity and will be forever dependent on his wife’s salary, and she forfeits a part of her natural womanliness by leaving the feminine concerns of the home that were designed for her by God. The husband becomes dependent upon her salary and loses his sense of urgency and drive to earn a living.
Instead, a Christian husband should  be dependent upon his wife in the ways that require her feminine strengths to care for and guide the home.  Her  work  at home advances his health and well-being so that he may be motivated to make provision for his family.
QUOTING QUIVERFULL is a regular feature of NLQ – we present the actual words of noted Quiverfull leaders, influential bloggers and cultural enforcers and ask our readers: What do you think? Agree? Disagree? This is the place to state your opinion. Please, let’s keep it respectful – but at the same time, we encourage readers to examine the ideas of Quiverfull and Spiritual Abuse honestly and thoughtfully.

 

If this is your first time visiting NLQ please read our Welcome page and our Comment Policy!

Comments open below

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement by Kathryn Joyce

13:24 – A Story of Faith and Obsession by M Dolon Hickmon

"So the one who wash the car is the one who can discipline the spouse ..."

Open Thread – COVID 19 Stupidity ..."
"I grew up in a household with a similar parental dynamic, even though the only ..."

Complementarian Marriage, Abuse, Infidelity, and Unhappiness
"Gideon's portrayal is not at issue one way or another. What is at issue is ..."

It’s Sunday, Meaning Scofflaw Churches Are ..."
"My state (not exactly liberal) has barred religious gatherings. However, people are allowed to travel ..."

It’s Sunday, Meaning Scofflaw Churches Are ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Julia Childress

    She suffers from severe revisionism (if there is such a word). While affluent people may have been able to clearly delineate the male and female role, most women have always participated in what she would consider male duties. Until about 100 years ago, most Americans lived close to the land. In addition to bearing children, women kept chickens and sold eggs, collected firewood for sale, took in laundry, sewed and knitted, made food products to sell, cleaned rich people’s houses and cooked for them, and much more in order to bring additional income into the family. And you can believe that when the situation demanded, women plowed fields and harvested crops. If the family lived in a town, they might have a trade or a craft, and the women usually fully participated in making the product and “manning” the store. The family often lived in quarters above the shop. Until about 100 years ago, most fathers did not leave the homestead everyday to go to a job, so there were usually two parents around the homestead. Certainly the woman did most of the childcare and cooking, but she also made financial contributions that were significant. Where does Lydia think the old saw “men may work from sun to sun, but woman’s work is never done” came from?

  • Nea

    The Christian husband is supposed to be the provider
    Where I come from, there’s a name for women who sell their sexual availability solely to be “provided for.” And it ain’t “Christian wife.”

    “Lady” Lydia forgets, in her rush to polish those rose-colored glasses, that even the most dedicated of men can become unemployed. Or too sick to work. Or too injured in an accident to work. Or, y’know, DIE. My father is a loving, steady, excellent provider for his stay-at-home wife, my mother. That didn’t stop him from having the heart attack. (At least he survived. His father was also a loving, steady, excellent provider and he dropped dead in a field.)

    Also, “Lady” – I am willing to go mano-a-mano with you over cooking, cleaning, organization, decoration, and other home skills, and I’m quite confident I’ll win. You see, I have plenty of concerns for my home and lots of pleasure in it. And why not?

    After all, I own it.

  • Nea

    And that’s just the free women.

    “That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain’t I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed
    and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain’t I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man – when I could get it – and bear the lash as well! And ain’t I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain’t I a woman?” – Sojourner Truth

  • Allison the Great

    And this is one of the thousands of reasons why I hate gender roles. It is not feasible in today’s economy for the man to always be the one working while the woman is at home doing the housewife thing. Some families can do it, yes, but most of them cannot. It’s been that way since the dawn of time. It’s an impossible ideal that these idiots chase, and failure to live that ideal life means that they emasculate the men who can’t completely provide for an ever-growing family.

  • Aimee Shulman

    I feel like this person has never read the passage in Proverbs 31 about the “wife of noble character” who RUNS HER OWN BUSINESS AND DEALS IN REAL ESTATE and yet, somehow, is still praised as the most awesome wife and mother. I guess that’s a part of the Bible she is okay with dismissing.

  • Aimee Shulman

    “Presentism” is the word you’re looking for, I think. And yes, it’s very obvious that this woman is wholly ignorant of how society actually functioned for non-royalty before, like, 1954.

  • FrequentFlyer

    Whether it’s revisionism, presentism, classism, or racism I don’t know. Does this woman think that real life was like a 1950s sitcom until modern women suddenly decided to abandon their homes? Both of my grandmothers worked in the same cotton mills that my grandfathers did. Most of the women they knew did too. These women worked hard in and out if the home and (shockingly) were pillars if the church all of their lives. My grandfathers and the other men in the community didn’t lose any respect or become any less responsible because their wives had jobs. That’s just how it was.

  • Pardon my profanity: Where the h^ll do people like this come up with this sh*t? Just reading Proverbs 31 indicates that a “Biblical” woman is nothing short of Martha Steward on steroids. Then, Christ liberates women with Martha & Mary, but, godly women like this godly woman don’t seem to know much about Christ, just what they’re told. I guess that’s good. They can do what they are told, not think, treat ungodly women like me like dirt, and claim they were just following orders, al la that lovely umbrella of authority & protection.

    I do find the term “Victorian” era to be rather fascinating. It was named after a woman who had a bunch of children; buried a spouse who may or may not have been bi; ruled an empire; took a lusty Scotsman as a lover; lived in a man’s world; and enjoyed painting portraits of well-endowed naked young men. She know opera well enough to take the scores with her when watching one, and would force a conductor to stop a performance if he did not properly follow the tempo of her favorite – and one of mine – Tannhauser. She did not give a rip what people thought of her. She did what she wanted to do, after Albert died.

    Maybe we should all be Victorians.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Then, Christ liberates women with Martha & Mary

    How is praising one woman for sitting as his feet listening to him talk and scolding the other for doing the shit that needs to be done “liberating women”?

  • Baby_Raptor

    I’d be perfectly fine with “sacrificing” my period. Can having a job like a manly man take THAT away from me?

  • She wasn’t sitting at his feet, she was sitting by him, as his equal. They sat on cushions on on the floor – there were no chairs! It is one of the first times in recorded western civilization where a woman who was not a Greek prostitute was allowed to sit with the men-folk, and be part of their group. Women were NOT allowed to even interact with men at that time, especially in Jewish homes. Then, he told Martha to get out of the kitchen and do something else. It is one of the most amazing and most over-looked moments in the history of women. The problem is the fact that the average patriarchal twit not only doesn’t know the Bible, but are idiots when it comes to ancient history and sociology. It’s all about putting things into cultural perspective. Christ treated the two women as the same as men. Unless one went back to the OT and the judges, Jewish women were treated no differently than Athenian women – little more than dirt. It was revolutionary.

  • Astrin Ymris

    Wow! What biographies have you been reading? ;-D

    I think most serious scholars view it as unlikely that Victoria had a sexual relationship with John Brown, but she DID let him address her in informal and hectoring ways that she wouldn’t usually tolerate. She was 46 by the time he came into her service, and her autopsy revealed a prolapsed uterus and ventral hernia.

    I think Brown’s familiar manner filled some kind of need in her life, and yes, there may have been an erotic element to her affection for him. I doubt she’d have risked her good reputation by actual intercourse with a servant, even without the wear-and-tear caused by 9 pregnancies and an aging body.

  • ConcepcionImmaculadaPantalones

    Lucky for me I don’t have an adult man-child to worry about not emasculating. Working outside of the home is necessary if I want food, shelter, utilities, clothing, personal hygiene items, and any other stuff that it takes MONEY to obtain since most places don’t allow bartering where I’m at. But hey, I’d likely be a non-person to *lol* ”Lady Lydia’.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Talk about people not knowing their bible.

    Luke 10:39 39 She had a sister called Mary,who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said.

    She sat at his feet and listened to him talk. Meanwhile, Martha focused on worrying about feeding all the people in her house and Jesus told her off, claiming that Mary’s listening to him talk was more important.

    Luke 10: 41-42 41 “Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, 42 but few things are needed—or indeed only one.[a] Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”

    He didn’t care about treating her like a human. He cared about the fact that she was listening to him preach.

    It is one of the most amazing and most over-looked moments in the history of women.

    Something has to be provable to be part of history. There’s no proof anything in the bible ever happened.

    And honestly? If the best thing the god who supposedly created the universe and redeemed mankind can do is treat a female like a human being, you need a better god. Preferably one who actually cares enough to stop his followers treating females like shit. Instead you’re crowing like us being treated as human beings is somehow miraculous, instead of something that should be expected.

  • One word and you say I don’t know my Bible and history. They did not have chairs – only very wealthy people had chairs and furniture. Wealthy Romans would have their slaves carry their chairs from room to room. She sat at his feet, but she was sitting there with him – not looking up. There is a very big difference. They either sat on cushions or on the floor. It changes the context of the whole verse.

    http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5234/was-it-unusual-for-a-woman-mary-to-sit-at-jesus-feet-in-the-account-of-luke-1

  • I’ve read quite a bit about her. There is also the possibility that she and Johnny Brown were married. I’m not going to discount it. Her reputation suffered for her association with him. She basically locked herself away, in Scotland, for years. During that time, she was not well thought of, especially by those in politics. It was not until her later years that her reputation was rehabilitated.

    Don’t forget, the version of “Victorian” that is part of social and historical lore was more about culture and values for the middle class. Americans were far more “Victorian” than the Brits ever were. Victoria was the queen. She could do basically what she wanted and get away with it. She was also one of the wealthiest people in the world. No matter how her reputation might have suffered, she was the queen – for life. Only a revolution would have changed that – and there were several attempts on her life.

  • Baby_Raptor

    I’m not interested in the apologetics of someone who clearly wants to paint the best possible light of the verse. I want to see what the verse says.

    If they were sitting on the same level then there’s no way she could be sitting “at his feet.” That’s how height works.

    Also, I didn’t question your knowledge of history. I said not to claim unprovable things are history. Claiming that your personal interpretation of something that happened in your specific religion is one of the most important things to happen to half the human race–most of which shared neither your religion nor your interpretation–is the height of ego.

  • I really have done nothing to deserve being attacked this way. If I have insulted you, I apologize. I do not apologize for a life-time of studying history, nor the fact that I am a Christian. You can denigrate me about that if you want. That’s fine. I do try, thought, to be intellectually honest when writing about history.

  • Nea

    Gender roles are too rigid – you’re not a person, you’re an actor in a part you can’t escape. And the economy is too fluid – it’s no longer possible to go from high scho to the manufacturing plant in town and make enough for a lower middle class life.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Okay, here’s a comment about you: You have a persecution complex. When you have no actual arguments you resort to lying about your opponent in order to score points.

    I have not in any way insulted you for being a Christian, demanded that you apologize for anything or attacked you at all. I called you out for making broad claims that you really should not be making. That’s it. Claiming that your personal opinion on your personal religion is one of the most important things to happen to every female ever? Yeah, no. Projecting your beliefs on everyone else isn’t cool.

    Being intellectually honest requires facts. When you can prove that your bible is fact you can hail it as “history.” Til then, please refrain from talking about it like it is or like it should apply to the rest of us.

    Criticizing your beliefs is not attacking you. When you make ridiculous claims like “Jesus liberated women everywhere by telling someone that listening to him is the most important thing they can do” you’re going to get called out. If you can’t separate your beliefs from yourself, that’s not my problem.