The love of a mother is no more or less important than the love of a father. We all know this. But then, in general, mothers should be under no greater burden than fathers to abandon their callings for the sake of their children. The asymmetry in our responses to working mothers and fathers, then, suggests that other factors are in play. In an evangelical Protestant context, the context I have in view here, there is good reason to suspect that these other factors include a tendency to devalue the gifts and contributions of women particularly in positions of teaching and leadership.”
Professor of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame
Why, instead of the conclusion that Rea draws in his last sentence above, don’t we conclude that the reason Evangelical Protestants don’t want women in social order leadership is,
1.) The Scriptures forbid it.
2.) We so value women and their role in hearth and home that we don’t want to treat them like roses used as kindling to start a fire by exiling women from hearth and home in order to embrace the curse of men to till the ground by the sweat of their brow?
3.) We understand and affirm that men and women were not created to be interchangeable cogs as if both sexes were created to do the same thing.
Overall I would say it is Rea, and people like him, who are devaluing the gifts and contributions of women. It is people like Rea who are taking from children their Mothers who are to be the leaders and teachers of the most impressionable in our social order.
Look, the hidden goal of feminism, as a created tool of the NWO, since it’s rise at the turn of the 20th century and its acceleration in the 60’s and 70’s was to destroy the family. By getting women out of the home and into the workforce (i.e. — Rosie the Riveter) via the NWO’s instigation of WW I and especially WW II multiple ends were served, one of which was getting women out from under their husband’s authority and another was separating Mothers from their children — their instinctual impulse. In such a way two things happened. First, children would more naturally become defacto wards of the state (from daycare to Government schools) as two income families increasingly predominated across the landscape of America. Second, women would become less dependent upon their husbands and so have the resources to leave at the smallest provocation. In all this the family would become more destabilized and the State would expand in power where the family decreased in power. Feminism serves the end of the rapacious state. Indeed, it might be well said that state legislation that supports feminism is a case where the State is raping women. For those women who support feminist legislation one might rightfully say that, metaphorically speaking, “those women enjoy rape.”
So, it is in the interest of the tyrant State to breathe life into feminism because by doing so the tyrant State breaks down a potential adversary insuring that the family, as a potential alternate power center does not arise to challenge the tyrant State. This explains why the we have gone from the Trustee family model in the West to the Trustee family model and now ever increasingly to the Atomistic family style. The elimination of the family is life for the tyrant state.
The tyrant state does not want a Christian home where wives and mothers as homemakers are paid and amply taken care of and provided for by a loving Christian husband. Unless there were extenuating circumstances, why should a Christian wife and mother want to work for a different covenant head in the workforce when she can take care of her covenant head and family at home?
I have no doubt that situations will arise where women have to work outside of the home in addition to their work as caring and nurturing wives and mothers in the home. Further, I am convinced where women can do the same work as men they should be paid commensurate with their work.
Having said that, and having worked for the Airlines industry for 15 years I know for a fact that in many career occupations that require strength, women, on the whole, (again exceptions probably exist) can not do the work that a man can do and so shouldn’t be paid what a man is paid.
Men are not women and women are not men and to say that they automatically should be paid equally reinforces the egalitarian agenda.
Now, there are industries where women should might well be paid more than men. Nursing, for example, were predominated by women early on and this because women were seen as natural nurturers and caretakers.
Having conceded that, the best and safest place for a woman is in the home. Women being forced outside the home are being cheated.
There was a time when this kind of thinking was not controversial in the least and was embraced, above all, by women.
No system of philosophy has ever yet worked out in behalf of woman the practical results for good which Christianity has conferred on her. Christianity has raised woman from slavery and made her the thoughtful companion of man; finds her the mere toy, or the victim of his passions, and it places her by his side, his truest friend, his most faithful counselor, his helpmeet in every worthy and honorable task. It protects her far more effectually than any other system. It cultivates, strengthens, elevates, purifies all her highest endowments, and holds out to her aspirations the most sublime for that future state of existence, where precious rewards are promised to every faithful discharge of duty, even the most humble. But, while conferring on her these priceless blessings, it also enjoins the submission of the wife to the husband, and allots a subordinate position to the whole sex while here on earth. No woman calling herself a Christian, acknowledging her duties as such, can, therefore, consistently deny the obligation of a limited subordination laid upon her by her Lord and His Church.
Susan Fenimore Cooper