Response to "Telling Young Women to Get Married and Have Children is Wrong?"

       Lori is still offended by the article she came across last week (about which she already wrote in another blog). In this blog, she focuses her outrage on the following paragraph from the article: 

“If you hear someone tell you that complementarity means you have to get married, have dozens of babies, be a stay-at-home housewife, clean toilets, completely forego a career, chuck your brain, tolerate abuse, watch Leave It to Beaver reruns, bury your gifts, deny your personality, and bobble-head nod ‘yes’ to everything men say, don’t believe her. That’s a straw (wo)man misrepresentation. It’s not complementarianism. I should know. I’m a complementarian. And I helped coin the term.”

As I mentioned when I covered Lori's previous blog written in response to this article, it's fascinating to me that complementarianism is not extreme enough for Lori. Though there are variations, generally a complementarian is someone who believes that men and women are technically equal in value (though act as though this is not the case) but different in role. They push for women to remain in the home, men to be leaders and protectors, etc. And yet, Lori finds fault even with a complementarian. For this reason, I have begun to refer to Lori's beliefs as "patriarchal." 

       Though I disagree with the complementarian position, I can certainly agree with what the author of the article has written above. It's good to know she doesn't believe women are required to have dozens of babies, turn off their brains, tolerate abuse, etc. But, of course, Lori has a problem with this: 

It sounds like she greatly dislikes biblical womanhood, that’s for sure. What about God commanding young women to marry, bear children, and guide the home and give no occasion for the adversary to speak reproachfully (1 Timothy 5:14)? What about older women teaching younger women to love their children and be keepers at home so they don’t blaspheme the Word of God (Titus 2:3-5)?

Briefly, Lori refuses to accept the fact that these verses are doing the exact opposite of what she thinks: urging Christians to conform to the culture! In Paul's time, women already got married, had children, and were keepers at home. Paul was concerned that the new equality brought by Christianity would compel women to break out of the cultural norms and turn people away from the Gospel because of their socially subversive behavior. That is why Paul also urges slaves to obey their masters. He wasn't endorsing slavery, and neither is he endorsing women being confined to the home. He simply considered the Gospel to be of such importance that it was worth following the social customs of the time (within reason) to avoid turning people off. 

       However, I want to focus on the fact that embedded in this paragraph is one of the key problems we see over and over again from Lori. If we're being generous, we might give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she simply misunderstands; however, it's far more likely that the "misunderstanding" is deliberate. The problem I'm referring to is that Lori takes a message that says "you don't have to do ____" and turns it around to mean "____ is bad." Instances of this are abundant in Lori's writings. For example, when accused of teaching that women's only purpose is to have babies, she retorts that babies are a gift from God! This is beside the point: to say that women don't exist only to have babies is not to say children are bad. It's simply to say that women don't exist only to have babies. But Lori's thinking is far too dogmatic and black-and-white to understand this. 

       Similarly, Lori assumes the woman writing the article hates those things she mentions, such as getting married, having babies, staying at home, etc. But the author did not say there was anything wrong with those things; she simply said it's not as if these are the only things every woman is permitted to do. Of course, there are major problems with some of the other things she mentioned, such as tolerating abuse, but we'll come to those soon. 

Has she ever taught women to be a keeper at home? I seriously doubt it by this comment. She actually seems to mock it.

Again, she is not mocking women who choose to be a keeper at home. She is simply saying that it's okay for a woman to not be a keeper at home. But Lori is so accustomed to harshly telling women that they have only one option and are wrong if they choose any other that she automatically interprets this woman's remarks as having the same tone as her own. She can only comprehend the words of bondage and limitation and does not even recognize the language of liberation. 

Does she believe that mothers at home don’t have a brain? Do only those women who pursue higher education and careers have a brain? It sure seems that this is what she is saying in her quote. I can tell you that I have learned a whole lot more on my own and from godly male preachers of the Word than I ever did in all of my years in the public school system and in the Christian college I attended. There are MANY intelligent women who are home full time with their children!

This is where it just gets weird. Lori is accusing someone else of saying women don't have brains? I'm fairly certain no one has outdone Lori in putting down and devaluing women, or relegated them to tasks that don't require them to think any thoughts other than those of their husbands. This author never came close to suggesting that women don't have brains, and I think Lori knows it. Rather, she was criticizing those who do suggest that women should not think for themselves but should listen uncritically to whatever men say. You know, like Lori does. And yet, Lori, the great opponent of women, shows how intelligent she really believes women to be by pretending to be a defender of women, and expecting everyone to fall for it. 

Who has ever told women to tolerate abuse as Mary claimed? I am accused of this often. I have never written that women should tolerate physical abuse. You see, we must define what abuse means since many women have told me that their husbands abuse them when in fact, they didn’t. If they are being physically abused, they need to call the authorities and seek help. If they are being emotionally or mentally abused, they need to seek out a wise, older, godly woman to receive counsel from. She will be able to tell if it truly is abuse. If it is, she can help her and encourage her in the situation.

Here is an example of why Lori's teachings are so dangerous. She twists reality to be whatever she needs it to be in order to be right. If she alone has the right to determine whether something is abuse, she can pressure women to tolerate it but then turn around and say she never did so because she didn't consider it to be abuse! I might as well say I'm a vegetarian while taking a bite of bacon, and, when confronted, simply say that bacon is a vegetable. This is a tactic of abusers: they twist reality and reserve for themselves the right to decide what is and is not abuse. Lori has admitted before that she does not consider hitting to be abuse. I would very much like to ask Lori what she does consider to be abuse. And I wouldn't be surprised if she were reluctant to give any concrete example, since this would mean she would be unable to dismiss any future instances by saying it isn't abuse. 

I am not sure what is wrong with Leave It to Beaver reruns or any of the old shows that showed a traditional family that Mary somewhat mocked. I love the old shows where decency was normal, wives were home full time caring for their families, and the husbands were working hard to provide. I see nothing wrong with them at all. They are far superior to any shows on the major networks these days.

Again, this shows how completely Lori didn't understand what she read. The author didn't say there's anything wrong with these shows. She simply said that biblical womanhood doesn't mean you must do nothing but watch these shows. I like Star Wars, but imagine if I said you hate Star Wars if you don't watch it 24/7. This is essentially what Lori is saying. 

       And let's not overlook how absurd it is that Lori even thinks it's worth taking the time to defend TV shows during an otherwise serious discussion. She can't resist the opportunity to remind us of her opinion about the current state of television. What a privilege not to have more important things to worry about! 

Lastly, a mother can use her gifts in her home with her children. Her personality can shine forth in her everyday interaction with her husband, children, and those to whom she comes in contact with. 

Lori has craftily composed this paragraph to sound positive, but it is all about restrictions. She is saying a mother should not use her gifts except in the home with her children. Her personality must be tied to her husband and children (and the few other people her husband allows her to see, though too many likely would mean she's not fulfilling her duties at home).  

Yes, a wife should be saying “yes” to her husband on a regular basis. This is what submission looks like, for goodness sake.

This is in response to the sentence in the article that said women are not required to "bobble-head nod ‘yes’ to everything men say." Lori disagrees even with this statement. Without having the guts to say it directly, she declares that women should nod their heads and mindlessly say yes to everything men say. 

       No, despite Lori's claim, this is not what biblical submission looks like. Biblical submission is not hierarchical and has nothing to do with authority at all. It is mutual. It is all about thinking of the needs of and taking care of one another. And it is not something that is required only of women. The essence of this kind of submission is found in verses such as Romans 12:10: "Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves." This is a command to both men and women! "Submission", in fact, likely isn't the best word for the Greek hupotasso anyway. It is frustrating that Lori and others deliberately act as though challenges based on translation from one language to another should be ignored. 

       So, to answer the question in the title of Lori's blog: no, the article does not suggest that getting married and having children is wrong, but that telling women they exist only to do so certainly is wrong. The idea that this is all they exist for is a cultural idea, having been present in a host of societies throughout history. However, the biblical picture is very different; it affirms the equality of men and women and declares both to be equal image-bearers of God, having a far greater purpose than what Lori would like us to think. Lori unjustly paints God as a sexist in order to defend her own outrageous views. She would do well to read Isaiah 5:20: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/telling-young-women-to-get-married-and-have-children-is-wrong/