Mr. Mom?
My husband read this to me the other day and I thought it was excellent...
"A man's provision must be both physical and spiritual. In the realm of the physical, it is his job to see that the family has what it needs to live and thrive. He sees that they have food, clothing, and shelter.
"This does not mean that we should embrace the stereotypical idea of the husband as 'the breadwinner.' That term has come to imply that it is his job to get out there in the world, earn some money, and buy the things the family needs. Meanwhile, the wife and children sit at home essentially unemployed and gratefully receive his provision.
"In the fully functionary historical household (in contrast to our contemporary urbanized version) the wife and children were very much employed in the tasks that provided for the family. They helped with planting and harvesting the garden; they canned food, cared for livestock, and made clothing. In short, they were essential to the household economy and played a crucial role in the provision for its physical needs. However, it was the father's job to provide them with tools to do so that, through their work, they could help the family provide for itself. Everybody had a part to play, but he was responsible for the whole process. Also, because of his physical strength, he had the most physically demanding jobs, like breaking the soil and pulling the stumps, and thus served a role that could not be filled by his wife or children. He was the provider, but he had a lot of help.
"Today, whether in an urban apartment or a rural homestead, men must embrace the role of physical provision for the family. The Mr. Mom household in which the woman works to support the family and the man runs the household and cares for the kids is a perversion of God's order. How is the man reflecting the fatherhood of God by acting like a mother? No, it is his calling to provide. Better a family lives poorly on the father's lean wages than that the gifted wife supplant him in his role."
-Family Man, Family Leader
"A man's provision must be both physical and spiritual. In the realm of the physical, it is his job to see that the family has what it needs to live and thrive. He sees that they have food, clothing, and shelter.
"This does not mean that we should embrace the stereotypical idea of the husband as 'the breadwinner.' That term has come to imply that it is his job to get out there in the world, earn some money, and buy the things the family needs. Meanwhile, the wife and children sit at home essentially unemployed and gratefully receive his provision.
"In the fully functionary historical household (in contrast to our contemporary urbanized version) the wife and children were very much employed in the tasks that provided for the family. They helped with planting and harvesting the garden; they canned food, cared for livestock, and made clothing. In short, they were essential to the household economy and played a crucial role in the provision for its physical needs. However, it was the father's job to provide them with tools to do so that, through their work, they could help the family provide for itself. Everybody had a part to play, but he was responsible for the whole process. Also, because of his physical strength, he had the most physically demanding jobs, like breaking the soil and pulling the stumps, and thus served a role that could not be filled by his wife or children. He was the provider, but he had a lot of help.
"Today, whether in an urban apartment or a rural homestead, men must embrace the role of physical provision for the family. The Mr. Mom household in which the woman works to support the family and the man runs the household and cares for the kids is a perversion of God's order. How is the man reflecting the fatherhood of God by acting like a mother? No, it is his calling to provide. Better a family lives poorly on the father's lean wages than that the gifted wife supplant him in his role."
-Family Man, Family Leader
posted by Crystal Paine at 11:42 PM
9 Comments:
I still remember, when I was in high school, the teacher of one of my homeschool classes talking about this very thing.
She had been a very powerful and highly-paid executive. Her husband made an adequate but humble salary. They discussed whether she should be the one to work, but decided against it for the reasons you are posting. She told this story to our entire class, and said she was so glad that they did it the way they did--God had blessed them in their decision.
I just cannot understand a woman not WANTING to take on the nurturing role. Are there really woman who want no part of that...or have they somehow surpressed that part of themselves?
please excuse my typos:o)
In response to Erin, I guess it depends on what you mean by "the nurturing role." I think most people have some nurturing qualities -- kindness and a desire to care for the dearest people in one's life. No one, not even a military general, is completely hardened. I certainly dote on my husband, my dog, and my niece and nephew in what I would call a "nurturing" way.
But I have honestly never wanted to take on a role that is primarily nurturing, i.e. I have never had a hankering to be a stay-at-home-mom. I haven't had to suppress any part of myself. In fact, I am allowing the full expression of qualities that would have lain dormant in me in previous eras when I might have had no option but to take on the stay-at-home-mom role.
Personally, I haven't observed anything in either my husband or myself that makes either one of us more suited for one role or the other. ebd
Happy Feminist, do you have children? Perhaps, for some, the significance of the "nurturing role" becomes more evident when children join the family. Then the question becomes, which spouse will have the primary care? Which spouse will make sure that the family has nutritious food to eat? Which spouse will look to all the little details that make the family run smoothly?
I look at the women around me--women who are not forced by their husbands, but who still desire to be the one to take on the more nurturing role within the family. Not that we don't want our husband's help! But we have something inside of us that WANTS to care for our homes and families in these ways. Frankly, cleaning, cooking and decorating don't interest my husband at all. But that's OK, because I'm counting on him to work hard in other areas. I think the fact that most couples gravitate towards the "traditional" nurturing and providing roles is evidence that there is something innate within us, leading us there.
Now certainly...most woman have other interests as well, as you said, that SHOULD be expressed. Lucky for us today...whereas families in the past had to spend all of their time just surviving, we have a lot more conveniences and a lot more time to pursue other things. While all the woman I know care about their nurturing roles, none of us have a one-track mind. We don't desire to spend ALL of our time swishing toilets. Every woman has different things she's interested in, and these, also have a place in her life.
I just wanted to add in clarification...I don't believe that woman are more uniquely suited for all the mundane tasks. There's not anything in us that makes us better at washing dishes than our husbands. But don't you agree that we probably focus more than our husbands do, on the overall nurture of the ones in our care, and on the smooth operation of the household?
quote from the post:
"In the fully functionary historical household (in contrast to our contemporary urbanized version) the wife and children were very much employed in the tasks that provided for the family. They helped with planting and harvesting the garden; they canned food, cared for livestock, and made clothing. In short, they were essential to the household economy and played a crucial role in the provision for its physical needs."
This is something I've learned since coming to your site, Crystal, and it has gone a long way in changing my thinking about the role of children in the family. You've said MANY times that children shouldn't be 'free-loading moochers' who don't contribute to the household in a meaningful way and I couldn't agree more. I also read an article that talked about how fullfilling it is for the kids to feel that they are an IMPORTANT member of the family and how it gives them good (I hate this word but I can't think of a better one) self-esteem....like they REALLY matter to the family.
Also, as a side-note....I don't view my housework as something 'to get done quickly so that I can get to the MORE IMPORTANT things in life'....I view my household tasks as a ministry and as an act of worship towards God....even scrubbing my toilets. (o:
In response to Erin -- no, I don't have kids. But I know myself. Although I appreciate and honor what SAHMs do (especially my own mother), I have never hankered after that role. But I definitely could see my husband taking on that role (and no he is not even slightly "effeminate" or "wimpy.")
I am not sure whether men and women in general have different innate tendencies in terms of family care. I just want to see a world where people are permitted without stigma to pursue interests and lifestyles that may deviate from the norm expected of their sex.
Interesting!! My dh said if I made more money than he did, he would be the one to stay home and homeschool the kids and take care of the house. He makes more money than I do so I do the bulk of the SAHM and homeschooling. I work at nights (not because I want to but because I have to). It is a long story so I won't go into it here. At this time I have to work at nights.
Anyway just interested in this topic.
Holly
HF- A world like that is a scary one to want. When we go against God's designed order there will be serious, serious consequences. Embracing Biblical roles are of vital importance. If we do not follow the pattern God has laid out in Scripture, it will lead to the demise of our society, as we are already seeing happen today. Men and women cannot have interchangeable roles.
<< Home