KL meanders about as she attempts to find a rationale for criticizing yesterday’s column besides “I don’t like being criticized by implication”:
I found your recent article entitled The Value of Marriage ridiculous and chauvinistic. Not to mention, totally un-Biblical. I find it hard to believe that in this so-called forward thinking culture, this idea is still played around with.
Yes, Scripture is quite clear on its requirement for a woman to obtain a university degree, preferably in English, Sociology or Education, start her career, have children and put them in a Godly day care center. It’s all right there in the Bible! And no one has ever assigned a monetary value to sex; it’s a well-known fact that Rahab the prostitute only bartered honey and bananas in return for her favors.
First, I am a woman. Second, I am in a career. Third, I am married. Fourth, I am a walking Christian. The important things in my life start with God, then my husband, then my family, then my friends, and last my career/myself.
I am so shocked! A career woman who doesn’t like hearing that men don’t value women’s careers! I find it amusing that her career ranks both second as well as fifth with her. Now, perhaps her priorities are indeed in what I would consider to be in order, (although I seriously doubt she puts her friends ahead of her job), but does she really think she’s as valuable to her employer as the single atheist male who puts his job first instead of fifth. What is it about women that they cannot seem to grasp the concept of opportunity cost?
I know many women like me. Their ages are different -young to old. Some have been married years, others months. Some have kids, some are waiting. Guess what!? They’re all doing well. Even with careers. Our husbands are wonderful men. They are not controlled by us, before you suggest that. They are men of the Lord who lead our families with fortitude.
As usual, the woman thinks personal anecdotes are an apt response to statistical data. One might as well respond to the economist who states that Americans are wealthier than Colombians based on per capita Gross Domestic Product by announcing that the economist is full of it because you happen to know a rich Colombian drug dealer, thereby proving Colombians are wealther than Americans. The chance that all those husbands are wonderful men and that all those marriages will do well is remote indeed, but possible… and also statistically irrelevant.
Why is it you suggest that women shouldn’t work and be married at the same time? So, a man can be happily married, have kids, have a career, and so forth and still be in God’s will? Yet, a woman can not? Apparently her only value is popping out kids, bowing to her husband’s whim, and so forth. Pretty stereo typical male ideology there.
What does God have to do with it? Precisely none of my valuation argument in yesterday’s column was based on God’s Will, except that Christian and other religious men retain a duty to marry in a society where it makes no logical sense for a man to marry otherwise. Marriage provides a man with nothing except increased financial and emotional risk today… he can already obtain sex, children, companionship, emotional bonding, a modern dowry equivalent and/or household services without having to commit to a state marriage contract. I defy anyone to give a single reason why a modern American man should marry that does not ultimately rest on a religious rationale.
That’s a shame, because I know many brilliant amazing women who contribute to this world by having a career. They make things a little brighter and contribute a lot of good. Not to mention, most of the women I know capably handle all these things quite well. (Before you suggest the said couple’s sex life suffers, allow me to correct you again.) Women are capable of handling these things with grace and dignity. Women are smart with brains – and many want to use what God gave them to glorify Him.
No, you don’t. I’ll bet there isn’t a single thing that any of those women have done that I, or the average individual, would consider amazing, and the probability is high that none of those women have an IQ in excess of 150. As for their satisfactory sex lives, better ask the men before you reach any conclusions….
I am tired of hearing men extol the virtues of women being at home. Yes, her life should revolve around you. Isn’t that a little selfish and controlling on the men’s end?? I have no issue with women who stay at home. That’s great. My own mother is a home maker and we are very close. But, women should be allowed to use their brains and contribute to society without judgment if they so desire – especially by the Christians.
Precisely how is it selfish and controlling for a man who is seldom at home himself to provide his wife the means to stay at home and manage the household? One could more easily make the argument that the man is serving the wife, especially if she is the one spending the majority of the money that he earns? And who has more control, the housewife who homeschools her children and decides personally what they will be learning or the working mother who hands over her children to day care and the public schools?
The point is that working women don’t contribute anything vital to society while inordinately tending to deprive it of the one thing it needs to sustain itself, children.
Try reading Galatians 3:28 and 1 Peter 3:7. God says all are created equal. So, God does not priortize the white male over all else, or veiw him as more valued. Women can be married happily and have kids and have a career and have a walk with God. And do it well. The key is to rely on the POWER of God. We can do all things through Him who gives us strength (Phil. 4:13).
Nice try at playing the race card, but it won’t fly here. And while it is possible to do all those things, it is extremely unlikely and the facts demonstrate that the chances are that opportunity cost will quickly catch up with women attempting to have it all. As for KL’s unique interpretation, I would think that the POWER of God isn’t much more likely to help a woman there than it is to help her cut out still-beating hearts while sacrificing virgins to Quetzacoatl. At least not the Christian God, anyhow.
Finally, there are many amazing women who have contributed to the world as a whole. Had they stayed home, and not used their brains and talent, we would have missed out. Try Elizabeth I, Marie Curie, Amelia Earhart, Rosa Parks, countless female missionaries. Some maried, some not. But each is an example of an amazing woman who had a brain! Not to mention, the countless ladies out there who raise amazing kids, have great marriages, and careers. Or our female soldiers who fight to defend our freedom.
Yes, it’s very difficult to get lost and get yourself killed, wherever would the world be without Amelia Earhart? Probably still crossing the Great Plains in covered wagons, I suppose. And female soldiers aren’t even allowed in combat, assuming that we were actually defending our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan anyhow. While I’m sure that all these “amazing” women had brains, this missive has to make one wonder precisely what KL is attempting to use as a substitute.
Say… you don’t think this KL is actually Katherine Lopez from National Review, do you? That would explain why they’ve never asked me to write for them, wouldn’t it….