What a "woman's place" teaches us about a man's
A Christian response to the postmodern feminist fallacy on “gender roles”
One of the most common discussions on feminism in modern life concerns the question of whether womankind, ethically, “should have the right to work.”
In typical feminine fashion, women tend to have this debate on the grounds of how women feel more so than logic, with some responding hotly to the suggestion that a woman with a 9-5 is a “bad mother” and others to the notion that housewifery is dull, boring, and/or comparable to slavery.
Yet even the original question leaves us on unsure logical footing, as the grounds on which we decide whether anything “should” be so in a society needs to be established before we can answer the question as to whether a woman should have the “right to work.”
Now, the specifics as to what the right to work actually is, as well as what constitutes “work,” must also be established, of course.
So, because most people form their “shoulds” on the basis of an amalgamation of postmodern moral relativism and random personal preference and women have also always “worked,” technically speaking, we will soon find ourselves very deep within the reeds indeed.
You see, while women have most certainly always “worked,” what has not always been the case is for the the predominant moral voice in society to look with disdain upon the institution of sex-distinct “roles” for men and women.
So we are really arguing over whether the social expectation that women largely dwell in the domestic sphere and sex-specific career paths is morally correct.
You see, the contemporary moral zeitgeist would have you believe that the places men and women have “traditionally” taken in society are the result of intentional malice to oppress women and give men the advantage.
The vast majority of modern Westerners unconsciously agree with this perspective. Yet it comes with one, glaring error: the presumption that sex-specific roles are fabricated, rather than natural.
You may have quite the robust debate as to whether sex-specific roles are deliberately designed to keep women down, but this common misconception simply presumes it is true.
In reality, we are perfectly free to still consider, as common sense would easily dictate, that this may not be true. Right?
It is just as likely, if not far more so, that sex-specific roles have historically been based not on an male inherent desire to oppress women (also presumed by feminists), but as the result of the basic facts of life and observable human biology.
You do not need to be a historical, creationist Christian like myself to acknowledge that this is a perfectly rational suggested alternative to the presumption that sex roles are maliciously designed.
In fact, a quick perusal of civilized societies reveals that in cultures where strict sexual norms (i.e. “sex roles”) were quintessential, the expectation of adherence was placed as squarely on the shoulders of men as much as women — if not far more so on the men.
Fantasize about how male insecurity resulted in the cultural expectations that women remain in the domestic sphere all you like, women were simply not those doing the more backbreaking, oppressively humiliating work to build pre-industrial cities, infrastructure, and civilization, nor were women the ones heading out to battle to fight in hand-to-hand combat with archaic weaponry against bloodthirsty invading armies, where they could end up as a swift victim of instant corporal punishment should they chicken out and decide to run back to draw water and grind mill with the women.
Yeah…it’s always a wicked gut punch to turn around and consider what life was like for men in pre-industrial societies.
It is only in the industrialized, post-Enlightenment West that generations of women grew up believing that the potential of their human capital was equal to, and thus the same as, that of a man’s.
Equal moral worth as a human being and sameness in your most suitable place in society are very much not the same thing.
What’s more, women have also become convinced that it was actually “anti-woman” for men of yore to feel duty-bound to provide a home and a “place”—a means of provision and protection which all pre-industrial women in every culture ever has needed to have provided for her to provide.
What utter, privileged foolishness to sit atop the comfort and safety of a civilization built by the toiling masculine labor force whilst one is sipping lattes and feeling anxious about her white-collar creative career and casual sexual relationship while believing she is being oppressed by the kind of men who break their backs and risk their lives daily to keep the machine of civilized society churning, and all because most of them have a wife and children to provide for.
Now we arrive at the crux of why I care so very passionately about this issue: because homes, environments oriented around society’s physically weaker members, are the nucleus of families and the relational aspect of civilization.
Homes are the mark of civility and peace, where men can outwardly preserve those inward members who rely on the home to survive and thus, also contribute beautifully to its atmosphere and self-sustainability.
A home may be created by feminine presence, but it is chiefly powered by male provision.
The raw, brawny, male drive to work is chiefly driven by the need of his weaker human counterparts.
And it is this we have it to thank for the fact that so many billions of men throughout history have died defending their homeland, worked to keep little mouths fed, worked their hands to the bone to feed communities, poured themselves into the construction of government and civic structure so that women and children could live safely, and civilly, in a decent land.
And the best of these lands, it must be stated plainly, feared the Lord Almighty and His moral standard for the treatment of women and children.
Which is precisely why civilized Christian society has had social norms for men and women.
Simply by becoming distracted from the question as to where we should base our “shoulds” in society, as in “should a woman have a right to work,” so much destruction has been caused, to the family and thus society and mankind as a whole, because the natural balance of human life has been disrupted by fallacious logic.
This isn’t about our feelings or our personal situations in modern life and how our family earns its money. It’s about what we believe about who we are, and who men and women, the necessary creators of homes, families, communities, and societies, are to one another.
When we do not believe that men and women are different, and when we do not believe that how they organize their lives in sexual union and duty towards one another matters, we will reap the fruit of these deceptions.
And I don’t think I have to tell you what it will look like when that happens. We’re already living through it.
So let’s make sure to address this fallacy as much as we possibly can — and by so doing, turn many towards the One Who authored us all and Who designed the sanctity of home and family.
It continues to blow my mind that any human believes that they are God to give or take another human's "rights" or the fact a woman's role(s) continues to be a hot topic. Even though I can see where the idea of oppression comes from with caregivers jobs as those are the lowest paid. Women are naturally caregivers and managers of their home, family, and community.