NOT ONE BIBLE VERSE INSTRUCTS WOMEN TO HAVE CAREERS

Of course, careers for women came from a godless, heathen world! There is nothing in the Bible that encourages or instructs women to leave their homes for hours every day, their children with strangers to raise, and go to a job. If there is one, I have never read it. Yes, there are some women in the Bible who made things in their homes and sold them like Lydia and the Proverbs 31 woman but not one left their home all day long with their children in the care of others and worked for a boss for five days a week.

Yes, some were midwives but they were at home unless they were delivering a baby. They didn’t keep office hours that kept them away from their family for hours every day. Priscilla worked alongside her husband making tents but again, this wasn’t in a factory where she had to be away from her home all day long. She was being a help meet to her husband. Deborah was a judge in Israel but it doesn’t say anything about her holding regular office hours, working for a boss, and nothing about her having children but she was referred to as the Mother of Israel.

Are older women, as written in the Bible, to be known for their careers? No! They should be known for bringing up children, lodging strangers, washing the saints’ feet, relieving the afflicted, diligently following every good work (1 Timothy 5:10) and teaching the younger women (Titus 2:4). There’s nothing about them having careers.

Widows are not commanded to go out and pursue careers. Their families are the ones who should care for them and if the widow doesn’t have family, then the churches are to care for the widows. (Notice 1 Timothy 5:4 states who in the family should care for widows; "children or nephews” not "children or nieces” ”“ the female children would most likely be married and have husbands who would provide whereas the nephews should help provide, not the nieces.) This is how God set it all up for the provision of women.

Men are the ones in the Bible that God commands to be the providers. This is God’s perfect will from the beginning of time and He reminds us that His commands are not burdensome. Nothing is impossible with Him and if He wants women home with their families, He will provide a way. He instructs us to ask for wisdom and He will give it freely!

There are several problems I see with women having careers, even when they are single. After spending all the time and money in pursuing their career, it’s difficult to give it up once the children come along, if and when they do. Also, many husbands like the money their wives make and don’t want them to stop so they insist on their wives keeping the job even when it becomes a strain on the wife. Married women who don’t have children still come home exhausted after working all day. They don’t have the energy to care for their homes or husbands like they would like to do, unless they are high energy women.

I believe one of the main causes of divorce today is due to women having careers. Women put all of their time and energy into their careers and neglect their husbands. They were created to be their husband’s help meet but they fail to do what God has called them to do because they can’t do everything and are too tired and exhausted to be helpers to their husbands. This is a recipe for failure and marriage is important to the Lord so it should be a priority for us; for marriage is an example to a lost world of Christ and His Church! Plus, when women have careers, they know that they have the freedom to divorce their husbands since they aren’t dependent upon their husbands for provision but God created wives to be dependent upon their husbands. This is a good thing, contrary to popular opinion.

Women who have careers typically have to work for a boss and the boss is usually a man, therefore, she is living in submission to a man who isn’t her husband which is not God’s plan. Plus, women don’t have the physical makeup that a man has and God created women with a more sensitive and emotional nature in order to be home with their children and/or caring for others, not out in the workforce.

What about single women who never get married? God’s instructions to them are to be holy in body and spirit. No, they don’t have to live underneath their father’s authority their entire lives. I know there are some who believe this but I don’t see this being instructed in the Bible although for protection and provision it is a good idea. She does need to know about the dangers of pursuing a career in case she does eventually get married.

But what about the women who do remain single their entire lives and don’t get married? What if careers are causing many more women to not get married since they don’t "need” a man to take care of them? What if this pursuit by women for careers makes them unattractive to men since they become forceful and independent? God’s plan from the beginning is for men and women to marry. He created men to need a help meet.

Colleges and universities don’t help women acquire meek and gentle spirits. Quite the contrary! They teach them to be strong (apart from the Lord), independent (they don’t need a husband), speak their minds, and stand up for themselves which is completely opposite of what the Lord wants for women. They don’t teach them to be gentle, submissive help meets to their husbands or how to raise godly offspring. Neither do they teach them anything about godly womanhood; no, not even the Christian colleges and universities since they push careers on the women.

There are many things women can do who aren’t married without getting a job. Culture tell us that there’s only option for young women today but it’s not. The young, unmarried Duggar and Bates women take courses on-line, serve their families, go on mission’s trips, assist midwives, serve their communities, find ways to make money from home, and many other things that help others instead of pursuing careers which take them away from their homes. This seems the way it should be, in my opinion.

Women working have taken many jobs away from men. Men NEED to work. God created them to have jobs and this usually defines them, whereas women define themselves by their relationships. Men don’t have to take off time when they bear children, their children get sick (if they have a wife at home), and they don’t feel guilt leaving their children all day long like women do because women know deep down that they are the ones who are supposed to be home with their own children.

I believe all godly women need to live their lives as if they may get married and have children some day. The worse thing would be to pursue a college education, amass a large debt, and place this burden upon their husbands when they get married, thus continuing to have to work after having children to pay off their debt. This is insanity to me! There are too many women that tell me they want to come home but are unable due to debt, their living style is too high, or their husbands want them to work because they make a large salary.

Finally, we are to live our lives according to God’s Word, not culture’s path. Young women, prayerfully consider the path you want to take. I encourage you to study God’s Word (all of the verses pertaining to godly womanhood) and make your decisions from doing this instead of watching the way our society’s women are going which has only led to the destruction of our culture. Children grow up to be much more productive members of society when they are loved and nurtured by their mothers during their childhood.

Please, don’t ask me about women being nurses (Do you know how hard it is for women to be on their feet for twelve hour shifts?), teachers, dental assistants or having careers such as these. I can assure you that not all of the women in the world are going to go home full time by reading this post or my blog. There will always be plenty of female nurses and teachers since there are many women who have no desire to be home full time, many more who are not believers so they don’t care about God’s will for their lives, and others who are not convicted that they should be home for their families and not have careers. There’s no need to hyperventilate about it!

Thankfully, I am not the judge of the world. I am only teaching my convictions based upon what I have read in the Word and obeying what the Lord has instructed older women to teach younger women, namely, to be keepers at home so they won’t blaspheme the Word of God which is a terrible thing to do.

Lori Alexander

___________________________

Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are ye not much better than they?
Matthew 6:26

Labor not for the meat which perishes, but for the meat which endures unto everlasting life.
John 6:27

I wonder what will a widow do then to her children, let them starve do death, or is their a difference between a career and a job.

Also, I am thinking about Ruth, what she did to support herself and Naomi.

passerby,

Your question, "I wonder what will a widow do then to her children, let them starve do death, or is their a difference between a career and a job", was addressed in the OP;

"Widows are not commanded to go out and pursue careers. Their families are the ones who should care for them and if the widow doesn’t have family, then the churches are to care for the widows. (Notice 1 Timothy 5:4 states who in the family should care for widows; "children or nephews” not "children or nieces” ”“ the female children would most likely be married and have husbands who would provide whereas the nephews should help provide, not the nieces.) This is how God set it all up for the provision of women."

Re: Ruth

Undeniably, there are exceptions to the rule. But what we have done is made the exception the rule.

We are not to be as the pharisees, getting riled by a healing taking place on the Sabbath. Yet even the pharisees wouldn't leave a helpless animal in the pit if it had fallen in on the Sabbath. They'd come to its aid.

If those who are called Christians obeyed their Lord in the matter of taking care of their own, these needs would mostly be taken care of. But most churches have adopted the philosophy and practice of the culture rather than doing what He says.

Yet, thankfully there are some who follow this rule, and so preserve His Word as a light and a testimony in the darkness which is without form and void.

May we return, along with our women, to the Word and to the Testimony. Until then we will see no revival of the Christian faith and practice once for all delivered to the holy and separate ones.

The spirit which now works in the children of disobedience is running roughshod over the church and making them disobedient children.

"Widows are not commanded to go out and pursue careers. Their families are the ones who should care for them and if the widow doesn’t have family, then the churches are to care for the widows. (Notice 1 Timothy 5:4 states who in the family should care for widows; "children or nephews” not "children or nieces” ”“ the female children would most likely be married and have husbands who would provide whereas the nephews should help provide, not the nieces.) This is how God set it all up for the provision of women."

1 Timothy 5:4-16 English Standard Version (ESV)

"But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for this is pleasing in the sight of God."

How about if the widow's children are not yet adult, should they work for the household.

Just how many churches do support widows, how about Lori Anderson?

Re: "Just how many churches do support widows..."

I answered this in my previous post;

"...most churches have adopted the philosophy and practice of the culture rather than doing what He says."

I personally know widows who have children who are not adults and are cared for by their church.

I also personally know several women whose husbands left them with children and no support. The churches take care of them as well.

As I said, most churches do not practice His Word regarding this. And again, as I said, 'undeniably there are exceptions'.

That being so, it still doesn't negate God's Word which is explicitly stated. But the 'church culture' has adopted the world's culture as the norm. This ought not to be!

Other related factors have not even been mentioned, i.e. social security, life insurance, pensions, legal procedures, etc.

But, for sure, the current trend among modern churches is that they've drifted far away from following God's Word. Not only on issues related to this, but on many issues.

One can only say with Joshua, "as for me and my house we will serve the Lord."

I also view that woman leadership not only in the churches is a sign of a decadent state. I just have some reservations with regards to prohibiting a woman from working for personal or family needs.

But pursuing a career for self-actualization, fame, wealth, earthly advocacy, independence, or power is not of faith, it is wordly path, it is a bondage.

I think youre full of bologna...all of you who propagate this big step backwards.

Think a moment on what this no-career means.

Women need no college, they need no higher education.
They need no voting rights because they need not be counted in our society as a 'voice'.

They need no insights into the various health, education or societal affairs seeing as they are keepers at home, meaning their focus is upon non-worldly instruction or teachings derived strictly from their husbands or the scriptures or their church.

They need no computer since they are merely trespassers into our 'world' where they are too uneducated to offer an educated opinion.

I expect every women agreeing with this tripe to vacate Sermon index forum.

I expect every woman who thinks a woman with a career is only in it for self actualization, fame, wealth, advocacy and independence to understand she is judging all other women of impure motive while using this worlds technology to forward that thought.

Im saying to men and women, don't you see the hypocrisy of telling women to step back 200 years...while you in a cavalier way use modern conveniences to do it? Using your education, technology, freedoms, voice and privilege?

Is there no man here that wonders about God's providence and his way of advancing the Church in a world that he permits to operate as it does?

I personally think those of you who are advocating such nonsense to realize the kind of world you sentimentalize but would never want to live in.

Before you call me a feminist propagator, you might want to consider how you have used this worlds wisdom, technology, culture, government, education to propagate this supposed holy step back for women.

This whole thing is rive with glaring hypocrisy.

My wife is well educated and has a masters in Engineering from a top US university. She quit her job after our first Child was born. She wanted to be a stay at home mother. It is a choice she made and I gave her the freedom to choose.

So I believe I can comment on this topic better than most people here.

God looks into the motive rather than action. For example it is clear that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). But many who are divorced will defend by saying the circumstances of divorce is more important.

I believe there is no difference in God's eyes between a women who does some business from home or goes to work in a field. Many Jewish women work in fields as mentioned in Ruth. If a women can work in the fields of others, why not in the office of others? Proverbs 31:16 says she works in fields. Proverbs 31:24 - says she sells garments. I believe she should be standing in market to sell them not just a garage sale!

The point is not whether a women goes to work in a regular job or works from home. In Gods eyes they are all same. The point is, can a women work to earn money in addition to fulfilling her responsibilities in home. The answer is Yes, but when needed.

If there is a need in the family where the Husband is not earning enough then the wife can definitely join to assist him in running the family. I believe that is what Proverbs 31 women did. If that proverb was written in todays time, there will be a mention of doing a regular job as well.

But if the purpose of a women working is to get an identity that is other than being a respected Mother or wife, then it is wrong. Most working women do it because it is an identity for them. They love the social identity of being employed by major companies like Apple or Amazon etc. They take pride in their social position. This is definitely wrong.

Another common motivation is the love for luxurious life. Many families have both husband and wife working, so that they can afford a bigger house, better car, eat out more etc.

None of these things I could afford, I live paycheck to paycheck. But as long as my needs are met, I do not find any reason for my wife to work. But tomorrow I run into a financial struggle where I cannot meet the ends of my family, i have no reason to prevent my wife from jumping in to help. This is what any Godly women will do.

I have seen families where the man of the house alone worked and educated wife stayed at home to home school Children. I have seen how much God used such families to bless the Church.

I have also seen families in which Husband was not skilled enough to meet the family needs. Hence wife had to work and Children when to public Schools. But God preserved their Children and also made such a family a blessing.

But I have never seen a house in which husband and wife worked for social status or luxury and then were also a blessing. Or have produced Godly offspring.

Also the point about Widows living under the mercy of Church is so stupid. It is letter and not spirit. The Spirit of Paul is that Church should not be burdened and that is why he says that if a widow has relatives then let them take care. If a widow can live at the mercy of relatives then why not by her own hand? The point is not to be a burden for the Church. We miss the spirit and cling on to word here.

I tell my wife all the time to keep her self updated in Technologies so that if something happens to me, then she can run the family using her education and skills. This is far more superior in God's eyes than she living as a burden to some relative or burdening the Church.

It is spirit that gives life, letter only causes death.

Sree: Beautifully said...and it offers a much more realistic work of God in the world and the Church than a so-called exodus of women from the careers and jobs so many of them have.

Savannah states

NOT ONE BIBLE VERSE INSTRUCTS WOMEN TO HAVE CAREERS

Nor is there one Bible verse instructing them not to.

Savannah states

Plus, when women have careers, they know that they have the freedom to divorce their husbands since they aren’t dependent upon their husbands for provision but God created wives to be dependent upon their husbands.

Are you serious?!?!?! Ladies are not cattle to be completely dependent upon someone like a pet dog is for its next meal. If a lady has it within her abilities and desire to pursue careers then they should by all means be encouraged to fulfill and pursue all that God has place in their hearts. You are concerned that because they have the ability to make a livable wage they might leave their husband?!?!?! It seems that what you are promoting is a lot closer to slavery than a marriage.

The Proverbs 31 woman has been mentioned a few times in this thread. It is obvious that she held several independent businesses. She was a consummate entrepreneur and engaged with many hours of business every day!

It states ...

She considers a field and buys it; OUT OF HER EARNINGS she plants a vineyard.

Perhaps you will recall in Acts that Paul partnered with a career man and woman in Priscilla and Aquilla? Again, a manufacturing enterprise by which she was gainfully employed. Paul not only seems fine with it ... he joined the staff of the company!

After 200 years of cultivated feminine strength in America, French journalist Alexis de Tocqueville concluded his great work Democracy in America: "[I]f I were asked, now that I am drawing to the close of this work, in which I have spoken of so many important things done by the Americans, to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply: To the superiority of their women.”

There is a great heritage of strength and even power that should be our birthright as American daughters. But how many of us are making good on that birthright? How many of us could claim to be as selflessly intrepid as the pilgrim women? How many of us are as brave as the wives of the signers? How many as enterprising and resourceful as those who helped build colonial culture and economy? How many as unflappable and capable as the women who civilized the Wild West? How many as poised and gracious as the White House hostesses and army wives whose savoir faire helped advance their husbands? How many as wise and educated as our founding mothers?

In many ways, our pajama-wearing, text-messaging, Me-generation is America’s weak generation of women. To paraphrase de Tocqueville’s quote, if you were to ask us now to what we would attribute the singular weakness and growing apostasy of America, we might say, to the selfishness and pettiness of their women. We’ve forgotten how to build strength into a nation; our idea of "power” is to leave the next generation for others to raise, ramrod through Health Care Bills most Americans don’t want, and put men out of a job.

But we will continue to feel good about where we are now as long as we continue to be ignorant about where we came from. It’s certainly easier to be excited about how "intelligent,” "educated,” and "valued” women are when we lose the historical point of comparison.

Examining Feminism’s Inheritance

"I disagree with the ideas behind radical feminism,” people sometimes write to us, "but you have to admit feminism has brought womanhood some good things.” Some warn us against throwing the baby out with the bathwater, hating political feminism while refusing to be grateful for the strengths it has infused into us and our peers. If we examine four of the most popular claims people make, though, we may begin to be grateful for something completely different.

Claim 1: "Before feminism, women were not as valued and did not have as many rights.”

Before feminism, the Bible declared men’s and women’s equal standing and value before God ”“ and in fact teaches this more consistently than any other religious or secular doctrine. In Scripture, man’s work and woman’s work are equally valid ”“ wifehood, motherhood, homemaking, and femininity are not belittled, and women are not guilt-manipulated into living and acting like men. On the contrary; woman’s distinctiveness from man is praised and honored, and her unique role is held vital. Women were to be protected and cherished, to "attain honor” (Prov. 11:16) and be "praised in the gates” (Prov. 31:31). It wasn’t until the advent of women’s "liberation” that women were told, "Your value as a woman is determined by how well you can perform as a man. Being a woman is no longer enough.” And it wasn’t until feminism had raised up "an epidemic of thugs, dolts, and cads” that women as a mass began to be "valued” as objects to be used and discarded.

As for our new rights ”“ where did these rights come from? All rights must be bestowed by some Higher Source, which Susan B. Anthony was not. God is the author of our rights, as our founders recognized ”“ not feminism ”“ and it was He who gave women property rights, marital rights, and divorce rights (for example). The Bible was there first.

Millennia before feminism, the Bible also gave the world strict laws to protect women from abuse, rape, incest, abandonment, injustice, and more. Moreover, it gave women something our legal system doesn’t: a whole system of provisions for women who end up in hard circumstances.

And there were societies long before suffrage-era America, attempting to construct themselves along biblical lines, which put these rights, laws, and provisions into action. One of these societies was Reformation-era Geneva, which "came to be known as ‘the paradise of women.’ There were good reasons for this. John Calvin was strongly protective of "women’s rights.” Under his guidance, church consistories went after wife abusers. They prosecuted guardians who had misappropriated trust funds of widows and orphans. …Rules were published to protect both men and women in marriage… Deserted wives were protected, and so on.”

Yes, we will always be able to find single examples of women being mistreated in any era. But speaking historically as well as theologically, Christianity is the only social, spiritual, and political force that gives women true value and rights. It is the anti-Christian religions (including Marxism, Islam, and feminism) that demean, undervalue, and exploit women; throughout history, it was the Christian societies that truly valued women, protected women, and honored women (insofar as those societies were faithful to the Bible’s actual teachings).

Claim 2: Women are better educated today, thanks to feminism.

Women have more educational opportunities today, thanks to the cheap and almost-instant accessibility of information. So do men. But women are not necessarily making better use of their opportunities than they ever did (and feminism did not help Al Gore invent the Internet.)

There have never been enough deeply wise and learned women, and, certainly, some societies produced fewer than others, but we believe, historically, the chief barrier between a woman and her education is her own apathy and mental laziness.

Hannah More, regarded by Britain’s intelligentsia as one of the most learned people of her time (1745 ”“ 1833), chided: "She who regrets being doomed to a state of dark and gloomy ignorance, by the injustice, or tyranny of the men, complains of an evil which does not exist.”

The Bible offers as much praise for women who are intelligent, wise, capable, prudent, gifted, well-spoken, prolific, and diplomatic, as it does men ”“ and casts an intimidating vision for all that godly womanhood requires. Once again, the Bible was there long before feminism, telling girls not to be ignorant, foolish, lazy, myopic, or easily led (Prov. 9:13, Prov. 31:27, Lam. 1:9, 2 Tim. 3:6).

And history is replete with examples of Christian men who knew they needed to educate their daughters thoroughly. The Lady Jane Greys, Anne Bradstreets, Mercy Otis Warrens, Abigail Adamses, Hannah Mores, and others from the panoply of educated women in history did not come out of a vacuum. They were the products of Christian families that understood the importance of learned women to a Christian society.

In 1688, Francois Fenelon wrote an entire book to rebut those who "exclaim, ‘Why make them learned? Curiosity renders them vain and conceited: it is sufficient if they be one day able to govern their families, and implicitly obey their husbands!’”(an excuse he attributed mainly to "maternal caprice.”) His central thesis: "Great reservoirs of intellect can and must be cultivated in daughters. This will sustain them as well as equip them for the challenges of productive womanhood.”

Granted, there have always been boorish men who preferred stupid women, and there have always been women eager to accommodate them. Our society is no enlightened exception. And people who want to complain about the devaluation of female intellect in the past should consider that feminism’s sons are hardly known for valuing women’s brains over women’s bodies.

Feminism hasn’t stemmed the tide of boors and bimbos in society, or stopped girls from being too undisciplined to educate themselves. What feminism has done, chiefly, is change the goal of a woman’s education ”“ for which we will decline to thank it.

Education expert John Taylor Gatto writes about the actual decline of education over the last 200 years, for men and women, through government schooling: "Anyone who reads can compare what the American present does in isolating children from their natural sources of education, modeling them on a niggardly last, to what the American past proved about human capabilities. The magnitude of the forced schooling institution’s strange accomplishment has been monumental. No wonder history has been outlawed.”

Claim 3: Thanks to feminism, women can now work and earn money.

Woman’s work has moved into a different sphere since feminism started creeping into American thinking, but so has industry in general. Part of the reason we are confused about woman’s relation to "work” today is because economy, industry, and work were redefined during the industrial revolution, when biblical domestic economy was moved into workstations and factories. Woman’s work at home, which had previously included broad opportunities for gainful employment in the family endeavors, dwindled to household chores and caring for children…until that last, too, was removed from the sphere of the home. The women’s movement was enlisted as an important player in this change, helping to bury the family economy by equating "real” work with jobs outside the home.

Anthropologist Allan Carlson notes: "Industrialization tore asunder this settled, family-oriented European world. In historian John Demos’ words: ‘Family life was wrenched apart from the world of work ”” a veritable sea-change in social history.’ …The reciprocal, complementary tasks of husbands and wives in household production were quickly leveled, and questions grew about gender roles in the new order. …In the industrial milieu, the inward-looking, autonomous, cooperative family changed into a collection of individuals in potential, and often real, competition with each other.”

Prior to both of these social movements, women worked. Their work was carried on in the household workplace (which could include fields, vineyards, family storefronts or offices, workshops, etc.), but was not limited to household chores. Women were productive members of society, producing goods of tangible value, bringing in money, and expanding the family holdings. In Scripture (just look at Proverbs 31), and in Christian societies in history, woman’s work included business transactions, production of goods, making investments, developing skills in diverse fields, and earning money ”“ from home.

One such example is Eliza Lucas Pinckney, who at age 16 (in 1739) not only accepted the work of maintaining her family’s three plantations in her father’s absence, but used the fields to experiment with crops to strengthen the fledgling nation’s economy, including oaks for lumber when American would need fleets. According to Cokie Roberts, "Among her many accomplishments was the successful cultivation of indigo in South Carolina, which provided a source of income to the Mother Country that one historian of the era judged more important than the silver mines of Peru or Mexico to Spain. When Eliza Pinckney died, George Washington insisted on acting as a pallbearer at her funeral.” Though Cokie Roberts’ comments between the lines try to revise feminism into Eliza’s motives, Eliza’s own words breathe a focus on home and family; a desire to stay in her "proper province,” submitted to her father and then her husband. It would take a feminist to see a contradiction in her words and actions.

It would also take a feminist to think that Eliza and her contemporaries needed liberation.

Claim 4: Feminism gives us power.

Woman’s power is innate. Women are hugely influential, and always have been ”“ for better or for worse. We have always had the power to build up or to destroy (Prov. 14:1). Much of the power we’re seeing women wield today, from the house to the House, is more of the latter ”“ of course, the power to destroy generally makes itself more obvious, giving women the impression of being stronger.

We really should consider, as well, how much women have influenced every society, and when looking at cultures which marginalized women, to consider how much their women played a part in that.

We don’t mean to downplay the fact that there is real oppression and exploitation in this world, and there are real victims. But often, women are the ones who perpetuate their own exploitation and oppression. This is one case where "it takes two to tango”; it takes both to perpetuate pornography, unhealthy fashion trends, a sexually exploitive culture, and endless other harms to women. Male-female inter-connectivity and inter-dependency make it impossible for men to get away with much that women don’t allow. Women have always known, as Abigail Adams wrote to her husband, "…notwithstanding all your wise Laws and Maxims we have it in our power not only to free ourselves but to subdue our Masters, and without violence throw both your natural and legal authority at our feet.”And she wasn’t talking about feminist insurrections.

Up From Liberation

The good news is this: we have God-given strength that we can use to rebuild and restore what feminism has taken away from us.

In muffling the truth and cutting us off from our heritage of strong, intelligent womanhood, they have defrauded even those of us who wanted no part of feminism. In exchange, they gave us "Women’s Studies” ”“ a faulty concept, because it divorces "woman” from her context and tries to study her as an individual entity, as if "woman” can be understood apart from "human” and extracted from her environment. Avoiding what the best women in history have done, focusing on victims overcoming victimhood, "women’s studies” largely consists of erecting imaginary glass ceilings, planting territorial flags on discoveries feminism did not make, and recruiting spokeswomen from among its antithesis.

Thankfully, the Bible is our source of vision and inspiration. Even when we seem to have no good examples before us, Scripture is always there. Even when society is in shambles, the blueprint for rebuilding it is in front of us.

We have been given the opportunity to rebuild a culture of femininity from scratch. Let us be thankful that we have examples from previous generations of women to learn from, but let’s not restrict ourselves to copying the past. A biblical culture of femininity must be built on the right foundations ”“ not Regency or Victorian England, not enlightenment romanticism, not fantasy lore, not 1st, 2nd, or 3rd wave feminism, and not Nancy Pelosi.

by Anna Sofia & Elizabeth Botkin

Savannah: This article was really well done, I learned from it.

thanks