I take issue with the assertion that household appliances stripped women of something noble. The post WWII adoption of household appliances, followed later by better legal protections and enhanced freedoms for women, have allowed women to self actualize to a greater degree. Women *remain free* to derive purpose and satisfaction from domestic labor, but now can be found excelling in academics, athletics, science, governance, every sphere. The notion that pre-industrial women had it better is misguided. They may have found purpose and meaning in their assigned role, but their freedom to do anything *but* that was nonexistent.
Considering the approaching horizon of automation replacing even more traditionally male tasks, I wonder, what are men less free to pursue now than they would be if some traditionally male tasks were replaced by automation or enhanced with technology? The remaining sphere for them is in contribution to the home economy.
I really appreciate this nuanced take, it's so very true. On the one hand, motherhood very much humbled me. I was an associate at a BigLaw firm when I had my son and never even questioned whether I could "have it all." I'm sorry to say I was rather dismissive of women who emphasized the importance of staying at home. Well, mea culpa! I've learned my lesson. I left my job to stay at home. With all that being said, nobody is going to convince me that going back to an era when women couldn't open their own bank accounts or vote or serve on a jury was better for society.
There was a story out of Texas not long ago about a man who gave his pregnant wife abortion pills. Under any fair regime, that would mean he should get an attempted murder charge, yes? But he didn't, of course. Just a slap on the wrist. This says so much about how our noble pro-life goals are playing out on the ground, and it's troubling.
Thanks you for sharing this. I think you make a good point that both men and women are struggling to understand their place in our culture (to say the least!).
You said that we need a healthy, strong vision of womanhood, expounded on what you described as the two sickly variations, and gave examples of people living those variations in our culture today. You went on to share your description of an authentically Christian view of womanhood, but stopped short of giving an example of how you believe that view could be, or is being, practically lived out in our culture. What do you think the application of an authentically Christian worldview of womanhood looks like in our culture, practically? And do you see any examples from today that you would hold up, like you did with the ones you described as sickly?
Thank you for the thoughtful, intelligent, fair analysis of a difficult situation. My first impulse is to suggest some answers, but my way hasn't been easy either. Best wishes.
Excellent analysis of errors on both sides. It can be so frustrating navigating the political sphere when neither side has a truly consistent moral/social/anthropological framework to use as a basis for policy decision making.
I take issue with the assertion that household appliances stripped women of something noble. The post WWII adoption of household appliances, followed later by better legal protections and enhanced freedoms for women, have allowed women to self actualize to a greater degree. Women *remain free* to derive purpose and satisfaction from domestic labor, but now can be found excelling in academics, athletics, science, governance, every sphere. The notion that pre-industrial women had it better is misguided. They may have found purpose and meaning in their assigned role, but their freedom to do anything *but* that was nonexistent.
Considering the approaching horizon of automation replacing even more traditionally male tasks, I wonder, what are men less free to pursue now than they would be if some traditionally male tasks were replaced by automation or enhanced with technology? The remaining sphere for them is in contribution to the home economy.
I really appreciate this nuanced take, it's so very true. On the one hand, motherhood very much humbled me. I was an associate at a BigLaw firm when I had my son and never even questioned whether I could "have it all." I'm sorry to say I was rather dismissive of women who emphasized the importance of staying at home. Well, mea culpa! I've learned my lesson. I left my job to stay at home. With all that being said, nobody is going to convince me that going back to an era when women couldn't open their own bank accounts or vote or serve on a jury was better for society.
There was a story out of Texas not long ago about a man who gave his pregnant wife abortion pills. Under any fair regime, that would mean he should get an attempted murder charge, yes? But he didn't, of course. Just a slap on the wrist. This says so much about how our noble pro-life goals are playing out on the ground, and it's troubling.
Thanks you for sharing this. I think you make a good point that both men and women are struggling to understand their place in our culture (to say the least!).
You said that we need a healthy, strong vision of womanhood, expounded on what you described as the two sickly variations, and gave examples of people living those variations in our culture today. You went on to share your description of an authentically Christian view of womanhood, but stopped short of giving an example of how you believe that view could be, or is being, practically lived out in our culture. What do you think the application of an authentically Christian worldview of womanhood looks like in our culture, practically? And do you see any examples from today that you would hold up, like you did with the ones you described as sickly?
I'll have to think about this, which probably means I should address your questions in a new piece. Keep your eyes out!
Incredibly poignant.
Beautifully written.
Thank you!
Thank you for the thoughtful, intelligent, fair analysis of a difficult situation. My first impulse is to suggest some answers, but my way hasn't been easy either. Best wishes.
Excellent analysis of errors on both sides. It can be so frustrating navigating the political sphere when neither side has a truly consistent moral/social/anthropological framework to use as a basis for policy decision making.