Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Better At Home

Better At Home
By LadyLydiaSpeaks

The home is uniquely suited to the woman's guidance. If it truly is a home, and not a place just to sleep and eat, a woman will really enjoy being in it and caring for it. New readers to this site might conclude that being a home maker means being stuck in the house all day. It is in fact, less confining and more varying than the factory worker or the office worker, for here she is free to determine what is the best way to conduct her day. If she needs to go shopping, she may, and if she needs to rest, she may do that.

There is a tendency to read many things about the role of women, especially in a religious sense, and get the wrong idea. Sometimes it is easy to conclude that it is okay for a woman to stay home, as long as she is producing something of monetary value, or running a small business of her own. However, Christ liberated women when His inspired word was written, including Titus 2, which instructed women to care for husbands, children and the house.

There is nothing wrong with a woman having a business as long as she does not feel pressure and it does not interefere with caring for her family and her house. It is actually a shame and a poor reflection on her own religion if her home is neglected, but it is not a shame if she does not have a business at home. Having something to make and sell at home should be a source of relaxation and pleasure, not a source of stress and pressure. It should be only for the purpose of having a little extra money, and not for the purpose of providing a living or replacing a man's work.

If she is to do a really great job at these things, (homemaking) then she cannot have the distraction and competition from too many money making actitivities. What usually happens in trying to create a home industry (which there is nothing wrong with) is that it either gets neglected, or it becomes the most important thing to do. Dishes go unwashed, children are not supervised, and the laundry piles up. Proper meals are never cooked, and the homemaker is always rushing around playing catch-up, trying to make it appear that she has been homemaking all day.

It is better to concentrate on doing the things that make your home a pleasure to be in, than trying to hold down two full time jobs: one of home making and the other of earning money. Many young women think that homemakers clean house all day without pay. However, the women of the 1950's were very smart. They took care of their husband's earnings, and sometimes doubled it by spending wisely. They knew if they were careless and lived a wild life, they could ruin their husbands and waste the paycheck. They "got paid" by their savings accounts and the riches that they collected by making a home.

Later on, some of their houses increased in value and they could sell them and retire somewhere. In the 1950's very few women worked. Single women worked but as soon as they could, they got married and gave up their jobs, and were relieved to do it. Today they are being given a spin. "Why do you want to "give up" a job, "just" to stay home?" they are asked. When it is put like that, it sounds terrible, but what if someone said, "Why do you want to give up your comfortable, lovely home, just to work an ordinary job?"

For certain, many women work because they think they are getting something they cannot get at home: a paycheck, a retirement account, medical care, and other benefits. However, if a woman will work outside the home, a husband these days will certainly let her, knowing he won't have to work as hard or be as concerned with caring for the family. He will rest on his laurels, so to speak, and get less ambitious. He won't even mind earning less than his wife. He loses his pride in being the provider...or maybe today the young men have never felt that certain pride.

I was taken aback to hear a man complain how high his house payments were. He said that his house payments were $1,000.00 a month and they were about to lose their house. I asked him why. He said, "Because Betty, my wife, only makes $1200.00 a month!" Now I have heard it all. Some men, dependent upon their wive's salaries, have sunken to a new low, and women who work have helped them down the ladder by making the men dependent on their salaries.

Women need to let men know they expect them to be the providers and they will be the caretakers of the home. Taylor Caldwell's essay, "Women's Lib," written in the early 1960's showed how women working would make men dependent on them, and where it would lead. Today we see that she was right.

It is also hard on a woman's nerves and on her physical stamina to work a job day in and day out, and then have to take care of the home. While many men are now staying home because their wives have a bigger salary, it is not the best for them emotionally. Women are natural at nurturing and it is healthier for them to be home with their children. Too many times women are pressured into putting their children into daycare so they can hold down a full time jobs.

Women can get all the benefits they need, when their husbands really work. Retirement accounts double and triple, and the benefits in a husband's income are available for the whole family. By being the homemaker, the wife gives the husband a chance to excel in being the provider. There are many people who say that "it works for them" when the woman works, but they will find out just how much physical toll this will take on the woman. Men were created to work "by the sweat of their brow" but the last will and testament of Christ nowhere commands the women to be the providers. Rather, there is a distinct command to "marry, bear children, and keep house." I Timothy 5:14

One can see clearly the results of this: a very busy woman. If she is busy sewing and cooking and cleaning or just being there to guard it, she will not have time for wasteful living. I see young women going into drinking establishments, and as I pass by I think of all the women who stay home and care for their houses. If these women would also do that, they would not have time for social drinking. At home, a woman contributes to the world more than the eye can see at the moment. There is something far greater taking place than just cleaning house. She is passing on spiritual values to her family and her friends. She is showing a greater purpose in life--that of making a beautiful home. That is something that cannot be learned in colleges or schools or places of employment.

Recently in a college history textbook, I read an interesting part that explained to me why so many young women do not think that homemaking and wifehood is the highest a woman could possibly achieve in life. It said, amazingly with no proof and no documentation, that in the 19th century women were not allowed to work. It then went on to claim that the only thing a woman could do was keep house because she was afraid to do otherwise. Young women read these books and do not read the Bible, so they believe that homemaking is drudgery and working outside the home is better. Many of them have breakdowns from the pressure to have careers, which they were not physically created for in the first place. As can be shown historically, most women did not WANT to work, and knew that the more seriously they attended their responsibilities at home, the less likely it would be to have seek employment elsewhere.

Health also can be maintained better at home. When she is not well, she can take it easier. She may get horribly behind in her work but she will never lose her job. She does not have to share her working space with other people with different habits and she can control the atmosphere of her home. Lenin, Marx, and other communists, wrote that housework was demeaning, and that women ought to be liberated from it. These teachings have not been challenged enough and continue to make headway. I wrote an article earlier called "Do What God Says Do and Let Him Take Care of the Rest." It is a challenge to women to go ahead and step out on faith and become the women God made them to be.

Concerning children: there were women of the Bible who had only one, or two children, and some who had none, yet they were counted worthy. Adam and Eve only had 3 sons that were recorded (it isn't mentioned how many daughters they had, but we observe that before Jacob, most recorded families were small compared to his), and Rebecca and Isaac only had one set of twins. Noah had only three children. Jacob's family of 11 is the first really big family recorded, and one of the few large families really mentioned, but then the Bible goes on to show small families again. Moses had only two children, and yet Moses was used by God and was a great man. There were several "one-child" families, as well as some who had no children. This did not mean they could not fulfill the roles they were given. Sometimes people mistakenly think that everyone in the Bible had large families, however the Bible is worded in such a way as to refer to all descendents as "children." It may list the "children" of the patriarch, but the original language in many cases means "descendents." A patriarch would refer to his grandchildren and great grandchildren as his "children." If one will look carefully they will see that although it was a blessing to have large families, many people mentioned in the Bible had only one or two children. Most people desired large families, and women desired to have children more than they desired any other accomplishment, but there were some women with no children who still had a purpose. It is the same in any generation.

Even without children, there is a huge responsiblity when you live in a house. Things have to be looked after, and you can find yourself busy all the time. Each person has the responsiblity to work with what she has been given--whether a lot of children, few children, or no children, and do it to the very best of their ability. Childless women can be happy knowing that God may be using them for something else. Women without children are able to do more for others around them, and can put more time and effort into their marriages and their houses. Those with children can be happy knowing that they have a worthwhile work ahead of them in training those children. There are advantages in both states.

Generally, home is a better place to be. It is here that women can rest, and they can prepare natural foods into good meals, and where they can be at ease.

Happy Homemaking
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

No comments: