What Would Happen to the Structure of the Christian Family If Most Men Became House Husbands?

[Robertt]

I'm trying to subscribe as I'm watching about the Avery case in Wisconsin.

It's obvious that the two are not guilty

But also that since I watched the Kyle Rittenhouse trial....

Then that guy who crashed through the Christmas Parade and murdered the Dancing Grannies.

I am positive that there's no way I would ever step foot into their state.

I'm absolutely disgusted with their "justice".

ok no idea about American News.... i only get my news from good sources like people on here lol

 

[seoulsearch]

I know one challenge I could foresee for myself in a gender role reversal situation.

Now, this is strictly me speaking for myself. I know others won't agree with my stance and that's fine -- I encourage everyone to go with what God calls them to do, and I will do the same. So I'm not looking for opinions about my own view in this post -- I'm just giving an example of how it applies to me in the hopes that others will give their own examples.

I was raised with tithing, but I know not every Christian believes in it, and I do understand that. Like I said, you go with what God leads you to do, and I will do the same. As for me, I was taught from the day I started working that God gets His share first (even before taxes,) then you "render to Caesar what is Caesar's", and then you ask God to bless the rest and that's what you have to live on. I will always pay a tithe, no matter what situation I am in. It's just what I believe in. If I were to marry and we were both working, I would pay my tithe on my earnings if my husband did not want to pay a tithe on his -- and if I felt convicted, I would pay a tithe on his earnings out of my own as well as mine.

But if I were the sole provider, all the income I would bring in would be tithed on first, then taxes, and then we would learn to budget and live on the rest. For me, this would be non-negotiable.

Now as the spiritual leader of the household, I know that technically, my husband could say, "No, we are not going to tithe on your wages," and I would have to respect and abide by that.

But in all honesty, if that were the case, I would hope we would have settled that decision BEFORE marrying and in that case, I just wouldn't marry and would move on.

Because this just happens to be a spiritual principle I believe in so strongly that I would rather stay single than have someone override a lifelong spiritual decision I have believed in since childhood.

But that's just me.

What challenges would you face in the case of a having a providing wife and a house husband?

 

[seoulsearch]

What does it matter what I think?
Have you taken all these questions before the Lord?
He is the One Who can answer them for you.

What you are asking here about injured, disabled, ect is FAR DIFFERENT from the man being a stay at home husband because it's what he wants to do.

I ask these questions because I like to get people thinking in directions they're not used to thinking.

This thread/discussion applies to any man who might want to be a house husband for any reason, including men who are single and injured/disabled to the point of not being able to work.

A single, disabled/injured man might very well still like to get married -- we have heard from a few here before in other threads -- and someone in that situation might need to be a house husband not just out of want, but by necessity.

To me personally, it would be callous and cruel not to mention those who might fit this description and they should most definitely be included in this conversation.

Again, this is my own belief, but I believe men who are differently-abled can provide for their families in other ways (such as domestic care) rather than traditional financial provision.

But that's just me.

 

[Robertt]

i wouldn't marry a person who tithes as a rule. i would marry someone who gives what is in their heart to give. that may be a tithe or more or less.

tithing is so complicated when you read all the scriptures..

but this one is my favourite.
firstly the tithe is to be EATEN by YOU. not given to the Priest.

But secondly.
Jerusalem is too far to take my tithe to so i buying some Fermented Drink

Deut 14
22 Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. 23 Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and olive oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the LORD your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the LORD your God always. 24 But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the LORD your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the LORD will choose to put his Name is so far away), 25 then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the LORD your God will choose. 26 Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice

 

[seoulsearch]

i wouldn't marry a person who tithes as a rule. i would marry someone who gives what is in their heart to give. that may be a tithe or more or less.

tithing is so complicated when you read all the scriptures..

but this one is my favourite.
firstly the tithe is to be EATEN by YOU. not given to the Priest.

But secondly.
Jerusalem is too far to take my tithe to so i buying some Fermented Drink

Deut 14
22 Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. 23 Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and olive oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the LORD your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the LORD your God always. 24 But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the LORD your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the LORD will choose to put his Name is so far away), 25 then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the LORD your God will choose. 26 Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice

I understand, which is again why I encourage others to go with what they believe God is leading them to do.

In my family, it's not the amount that's important, it was the principle of giving back to God first. Not because He needs or demands any of our money, but because it's an outward sign of thanks and respect.

We had a thread in the forums recently about giving a gift to someone and if they don't show much thanks, was it giving your pearls to swine?

I think of my own relationship with God when I read about things like this. How thankful am I to God, and am I making Him feel like He's wasting His time with me by throwing His pearls before a hog? Everyone has their own ways of thanking God -- tithing happens to be one of my ways.

I choose money because that's an area that keeps me reliant on Him, and I choose a certain amount because it holds me accountable and forces me to work on spiritual discipline.

Are there times when I don't want to give? Of course! I'm human just like anyone else. But I try my best to stick with what I told God I would do, because it's my own personal way of allowing God to keep at me as far as bulding my own spiritual muscles.

I understand most don't agree with this and that's ok! You have your own walk with God, and that's perfectly understandable. And I have my own as well.

But now you can see part of the reason why I'm currently single -- and honestly not too broken up about it anymore.

 

[cinder]

What I've seen and heard, most house hubands (and a decent number of house wives) don't "pull their weight" in the traditional homemaking departments. I don't know that it couldn't work (in some ways yes I'd love to have a man who would cook and clean and take care of the dog and do all those other little household projects I'd like done for me), but I think the two big challenges in such an arrangement (which I suspect may be rooted in the difference between men and women) would be 1) the man seeing and getting done what needs to be done in the way of domestic chores and childcare duties and 2) the man being able to find a sense of satisfaction and fullfilment in such a role (something I believe many women have struggled with as well) and in my house there would also be 3) man dealing with frustrated me when I can't find anything because he put it all away when he tidied. .

 

[Gideon300]

Hey Everyone,

The last thread asking about how many men would not want their wives to work brought out an interesting answer. At least one very courageous man in the poll voted that he would like to be a house husband with a wife who provides.

I have seen many a passionate, heated speeches over the years about how evil feminist women who wanted to work destroyed the Godly structure of the family -- and I can understand the reasons as to why some feel this way. ANY agenda pushed too far over the line is eventually going to topple something.

But I have never, to my knowledge, ever seen a discussion about what would happen if the opposite occurred -- what if men took up in droves and insisted on being house husbands?

The thing is, I personally believe it's already happened in many cases -- it's just not formalized or at the forefront of legal battles in the news. Now I must issue a disclaimer here: because I am a woman, it's most often women who talk to me about their lives, and I have known many women who have a house husband by default. In most cases, it was either because he didn't want to work, or he lost his job, couldn't find another and gave up trying, so now he stays at home all day, mostly watching TV.

However, as with anything situation, there are always some good people mixed in. I have also known a few wonderful house husbands who very much take care of the housework, cooking, and shuttling kids to and from school and all their activities while their wife works. After all, we are all called to different positions in life.

I grew up in a family of movers and shakers -- type-A personalities with business-minded, supernatural energy levels and work ethics that were applied to anything they approached -- whether it was making it to the top of a company or moving stones to finally balance a church budget, they would set a goal and worked tirelessly towards it.

It took me a lifetime to finally figure out that this is not me, and even longer to try to communicate to my family that I am not one of those go, go, GO! - type people -- BUT, I AM happiest when I'm working as a useful, productive assistant to someone who is like them (a morally strong, hard-working leader.) I am more than willing to work my tail off for someone I believe in to the best of my abilities.

And I also came to realize that many men might not be type-A CEO's either, but are probably more than happy working and serving in assistant-type jobs and/or more domestic roles. Not everyone has to conquer some type of profession in order to do what God has called them to do.

I have only read the bare bones basics about groups such as Men Going Their Own Way, but it seems that their common foundation is (though I'm sure they don't see it this way,) based on fear -- the fear of failing, the fear of not being what society expects them to be, and the fear of not finding a woman who is willing to get close to them -- therefore, they want to set their own rules, do their own thing, and live life on their own terms. I think nearly every human being feels this way to an extent, but as we know, extremes hurt everyone.

I have to wonder if, as this fear grows, whether ingrained or pushed over the lines by societal pressure, more and more men will wish they could find a woman who would "take care of things," most especially if they were raised by strong mothers who actually DID take care of everything as they were growing up. I know I have seemed to find this often within the dating pool -- a subset of men, or maybe men who are just more vulnerable, who are looking for a partner who can step forward and ease, or take a good chunk of the burdens of life off their shoulders.

And I do think this could work in some situations.

But yet, this is something I never see talked about in Christian circles:

* What would happen to the structure of the family if more and more men want to step back and take lesser roles within the family?

* How does this affect their spiritual leadership?

* Is it ok if a man leads in every other way except financial responsibility? How would that play out?


I personally believe that God might have very well called some men to be house husbands, and some women to be providers for their families. But I do think they would be facing some possibly unique challenges or approaches as far as establishing the working roles within the family.

Perhaps I could be wrong.

I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts.

I'm carer for my fiancee. We get home help with some housework and some personal care that I prefer not to do. We also have home delivered meals 3 times a week.

The reason I'm carer is that my fiancee had an operation that left her with some physical problems. She tried to arrange home care prior to going into hospital, but it all went wrong somewhere. So for 3 weeks, I looked after her myself. None of the chores were difficult. It was, however, relentless. It was a week before I found time to put the shopping away. It was like having a young child except she's 5'9" tall!

Being retired made it possible. I lived alone for many years, so I know how to take care of myself. Housework is not hard, especially with decent appliances.

If God calls a man to stay at home, fine. It will work. If not, it will be a disaster. It's only since the industrial revolution that men became separated from their families for half the day. Men should be raising the children as well as mothers, especially as the children get older.

Western society is increasingly controlled by women, which God says is out of order. Don't believe me? Check out the department store. How much floor space is devoted to women's wear? How much to children's wear, almost always bought by women? Check out the men's department. Nothing like as much.

Men are saying that its all too hard and opting out of relationships completely. Western worldly women have been complaining about misogyny for decades. Well, now they've got it for real. I hope they are happy.

 

[MsMediator]

I prefer to marry a man who is passionate about his work, whatever it is. I don't mind if he is a househusband if there are young kids. Nowadays there are remote jobs so by the time kids are more independent I would prefer if he had a job. I just fear a househusband would be idle and the wife ends up doing the household tasks anyway.

 

[Runningman]

I think the best approach to having a family is being flexible. It isn’t really helpful to be rigid if we can’t adapt to changing circumstances. Someone needs to provide for the family and someone needs to take care of the young children. That’s just the bottom line.

Whether a biological male does it or a biological female does it is less important from a Western cultural perspective. Some cultures aren’t anywhere close to being like the West where women with children aren’t expected to be employed nor do they want to be.

There are still broad swaths of Western society that are more traditional. So in a sense, as the cultural fabric of the West undergoes this relatively recent change there will be some instability.

Unlike some cultures, many sectors of Western society do not support traditional family ideals. As employers target women for hire, this reduces the available jobs for men who are looking to be a traditional family provider. At some point it just may not be feasible to be a male bread-winner as women have begun dominating more and more of the work force.

 

[Lynx]

But going back to the original set of questions I listed in Post #10, what do you believe should then happen with men who become disabled, injured, or no longer able to work if their only role is to provide?

That's another thing about my reply in your previous thread about women working: Not only will I have to wait and see who I meet and marry, I'll also have to wait and see what kind of shape I'll be in when that happens. I might be all stove up by then and we don't have a choice.

I plan to not be though. I hope to not be. But you never know what will happen between now and then.

 

[Moses_Young]

Hey Everyone,

The last thread asking about how many men would not want their wives to work brought out an interesting answer. At least one very courageous man in the poll voted that he would like to be a house husband with a wife who provides.

I have seen many a passionate, heated speeches over the years about how evil feminist women who wanted to work destroyed the Godly structure of the family -- and I can understand the reasons as to why some feel this way. ANY agenda pushed too far over the line is eventually going to topple something.

But I have never, to my knowledge, ever seen a discussion about what would happen if the opposite occurred -- what if men took up in droves and insisted on being house husbands?

The thing is, I personally believe it's already happened in many cases -- it's just not formalized or at the forefront of legal battles in the news. Now I must issue a disclaimer here: because I am a woman, it's most often women who talk to me about their lives, and I have known many women who have a house husband by default. In most cases, it was either because he didn't want to work, or he lost his job, couldn't find another and gave up trying, so now he stays at home all day, mostly watching TV.

However, as with anything situation, there are always some good people mixed in. I have also known a few wonderful house husbands who very much take care of the housework, cooking, and shuttling kids to and from school and all their activities while their wife works. After all, we are all called to different positions in life.

I grew up in a family of movers and shakers -- type-A personalities with business-minded, supernatural energy levels and work ethics that were applied to anything they approached -- whether it was making it to the top of a company or moving stones to finally balance a church budget, they would set a goal and worked tirelessly towards it.

It took me a lifetime to finally figure out that this is not me, and even longer to try to communicate to my family that I am not one of those go, go, GO! - type people -- BUT, I AM happiest when I'm working as a useful, productive assistant to someone who is like them (a morally strong, hard-working leader.) I am more than willing to work my tail off for someone I believe in to the best of my abilities.

And I also came to realize that many men might not be type-A CEO's either, but are probably more than happy working and serving in assistant-type jobs and/or more domestic roles. Not everyone has to conquer some type of profession in order to do what God has called them to do.

I have only read the bare bones basics about groups such as Men Going Their Own Way, but it seems that their common foundation is (though I'm sure they don't see it this way,) based on fear -- the fear of failing, the fear of not being what society expects them to be, and the fear of not finding a woman who is willing to get close to them -- therefore, they want to set their own rules, do their own thing, and live life on their own terms. I think nearly every human being feels this way to an extent, but as we know, extremes hurt everyone.

I have to wonder if, as this fear grows, whether ingrained or pushed over the lines by societal pressure, more and more men will wish they could find a woman who would "take care of things," most especially if they were raised by strong mothers who actually DID take care of everything as they were growing up. I know I have seemed to find this often within the dating pool -- a subset of men, or maybe men who are just more vulnerable, who are looking for a partner who can step forward and ease, or take a good chunk of the burdens of life off their shoulders.

And I do think this could work in some situations.

But yet, this is something I never see talked about in Christian circles:

* What would happen to the structure of the family if more and more men want to step back and take lesser roles within the family?

* How does this affect their spiritual leadership?

* Is it ok if a man leads in every other way except financial responsibility? How would that play out?


I personally believe that God might have very well called some men to be house husbands, and some women to be providers for their families. But I do think they would be facing some possibly unique challenges or approaches as far as establishing the working roles within the family.

Perhaps I could be wrong.

I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts.

I think the society would go extinct within 6 generations. Women would have fewer babies, because they were working, and women generally have different priorities to men (lifestyle above family size). Lots of jobs would not be done as well, simply because (most) women would not be able to do them as well as (most) men (think police, firemen, judges etc.) Houses would be filled with quarreling, because (most) men have different standards of tidiness to (most) women, and would likely become lazy in the absence of financial responsibility and free time during the day - (most) men simply can't address the basic needs of children as well as (most) women.

With all the fighting, most women would seek divorce - what benefit would there be for a woman in remaining married? Children would grow up fatherless (or motherless). Either way, children would grow up to resent one or the other parent. Morale in the society would drop, and crime would increase. Those who could see the devastating effects would leave the society, speeding its collapse. Crime would increase and become organised, and more violent (though less overt). Children would be the most affected (think prostitution, drugs and child-trafficking).

Organised crime would merge with government and take over society. The working women would become little more than slaves of the organised crime that was essentially enslaving the society. As time went on, costs would increase and rights for workers be eroded, and it would likely come to a point where the men had to work also, just to make ends meet. At this point, there would probably be more people in the society than was needed by the organised crime gang that controlled it, and a way to cull the population would be invented. The culling would likely take place via some sort of medical treatment - an inoculation against disease, perhaps?

The medical treatment would ideally be voluntary, but also be so strongly encouraged that most people felt obliged to take it. It would likely be administered based on one's deemed usefulness (by the criminal government) to the society. Those the government considered most useless would be dealt the most deadly inoculations (fastest killing). with those deemed most useful (high ranking police, politicians etc.) given the slowest-killing inoculations. The inoculations would be designed to only kill after 6 months or more, and by a variety of methods (e.g. heart attack, stroke, cancer), so no one could readily link the inoculations to the deaths that would follow. After a period of between 3 and 5 years, a new society would be formed by the family and friends of the organised crime gang that had taken over the previous society.

 

[Runningman]

I think the society would go extinct within 6 generations. Women would have fewer babies, because they were working, and women generally have different priorities to men (lifestyle above family size). Lots of jobs would not be done as well, simply because (most) women would not be able to do them as well as (most) men (think police, firemen, judges etc.) Houses would be filled with quarreling, because (most) men have different standards of tidiness to (most) women, and would likely become lazy in the absence of financial responsibility and free time during the day - (most) men simply can't address the basic needs of children as well as (most) women.

With all the fighting, most women would seek divorce - what benefit would there be for a woman in remaining married? Children would grow up fatherless (or motherless). Either way, children would grow up to resent one or the other parent. Morale in the society would drop, and crime would increase. Those who could see the devastating effects would leave the society, speeding its collapse. Crime would increase and become organised, and more violent (though less overt). Children would be the most affected (think prostitution, drugs and child-trafficking).

Organised crime would merge with government and take over society. The working women would become little more than slaves of the organised crime that was essentially enslaving the society. As time went on, costs would increase and rights for workers be eroded, and it would likely come to a point where the men had to work also, just to make ends meet. At this point, there would probably be more people in the society than was needed by the organised crime gang that controlled it, and a way to cull the population would be invented. The culling would likely take place via some sort of medical treatment - an inoculation against disease, perhaps?

The medical treatment would ideally be voluntary, but also be so strongly encouraged that most people felt obliged to take it. It would likely be administered based on one's deemed usefulness (by the criminal government) to the society. Those the government considered most useless would be dealt the most deadly inoculations (fastest killing). with those deemed most useful (high ranking police, politicians etc.) given the slowest-killing inoculations. The inoculations would be designed to only kill after 6 months or more, and by a variety of methods (e.g. heart attack, stroke, cancer), so no one could readily link the inoculations to the deaths that would follow. After a period of between 3 and 5 years, a new society would be formed by the family and friends of the organised crime gang that had taken over the previous society.

I loved that. Very entertaining though very well may be true. Maybe write a novel on this subject because you’re quite articulate, clear, and logical.

 

[seoulsearch]

I think the society would go extinct within 6 generations. Women would have fewer babies, because they were working, and women generally have different priorities to men (lifestyle above family size). Lots of jobs would not be done as well, simply because (most) women would not be able to do them as well as (most) men (think police, firemen, judges etc.) Houses would be filled with quarreling, because (most) men have different standards of tidiness to (most) women, and would likely become lazy in the absence of financial responsibility and free time during the day - (most) men simply can't address the basic needs of children as well as (most) women.

With all the fighting, most women would seek divorce - what benefit would there be for a woman in remaining married? Children would grow up fatherless (or motherless). Either way, children would grow up to resent one or the other parent. Morale in the society would drop, and crime would increase. Those who could see the devastating effects would leave the society, speeding its collapse. Crime would increase and become organised, and more violent (though less overt). Children would be the most affected (think prostitution, drugs and child-trafficking).

Organised crime would merge with government and take over society. The working women would become little more than slaves of the organised crime that was essentially enslaving the society. As time went on, costs would increase and rights for workers be eroded, and it would likely come to a point where the men had to work also, just to make ends meet. At this point, there would probably be more people in the society than was needed by the organised crime gang that controlled it, and a way to cull the population would be invented. The culling would likely take place via some sort of medical treatment - an inoculation against disease, perhaps?

The medical treatment would ideally be voluntary, but also be so strongly encouraged that most people felt obliged to take it. It would likely be administered based on one's deemed usefulness (by the criminal government) to the society. Those the government considered most useless would be dealt the most deadly inoculations (fastest killing). with those deemed most useful (high ranking police, politicians etc.) given the slowest-killing inoculations. The inoculations would be designed to only kill after 6 months or more, and by a variety of methods (e.g. heart attack, stroke, cancer), so no one could readily link the inoculations to the deaths that would follow. After a period of between 3 and 5 years, a new society would be formed by the family and friends of the organised crime gang that had taken over the previous society.

These are definitely interesting thoughts.

I personally think the shift is already happening. (Again, just from my own point of view,) fewer and fewer men are the heads of households due to a myriad of factors. If I think of all the people I know or have known throughout the years and their families, parents, etc., I can think of only a few that were headed by men (and even if a man was present, he might not have been the leader, whether due to him abdicating his role or a woman taking over.)

My first instinct is to say that the population wouldn't die off -- because people seem to find ways to have sex no matter what -- but then I have to think of Japan (which is facing that very problem because young people aren't dating or marrying,) and the fact that America is pushing several agendas (gay marriage) that won't produce children.

We've had a lot of thoughts lately running through Singles that Christian men can't find Christian women.

As a single Christian woman, I often feel like I'm caught in the crossfire between the ashes of a movement I never participated in, and men who feel they are caught in the middle of the fallout, but will associate me as a proponent due to gender association.

Sadly, the result for both men and women appears to be the same -- isolation.

And in many cases, a nearly impossible hindrance on both sides to recognize or seek out the hidden gems among the rubble.

Maybe I'm just an optimist (which I'm not exactly known for being,) but I still believe they are out there.

 

[JohnDB]

As a general rule men have a more difficult time being the natural nurturing parent in a two parent household.

That's not to say that men don't nurture....just that it's not a normal "go to" for them.

Where again mothers (generally speaking) have all sorts of hard wired instincts to nurture and cuddle with babies. A woman who hears a baby cry instantly will leak if she is lactating. Guys don't have that kind of strong reaction. Usually they just roll their eyes and get whatever necessary to solve the problem. Not that the guys mind so much but....again guys tend to gravitate towards building, problem solving, and overcoming struggles. (Natural hard-wiring)

Men also tend to carry the burden of provision for the family....whether that's a career (customary) or some other means.

In my unique situation....I'm developing a new career because I want to...not out of financial necessity. (And all that hard wiring God gave me) but I am enjoying the work...moreso than I thought I would.
I'm so not cut out for hanging around the house all day and it's not been all that pleasant. I've had fun with crafts and hobbies...but I've only had my wife and myself to give them to. I need more!

I need apprentices to pretend I'm abusing as the grumpy old man while I teach them skills that put them miles above their contemporaries in capabilities....I need to do exceptional work that makes others cringe because they can't compete. I'm unsettled if I can't do the work of two or more people while producing superior quality.

 

[seoulsearch]

I need apprentices to pretend I'm abusing as the grumpy old man while I teach them skills that put them miles above their contemporaries in capabilities....I need to do exceptional work that makes others cringe because they can't compete. I'm unsettled if I can't do the work of two or more people while producing superior quality.

Are you going to pull a Mr. Miyagi and make some poor, unsuspecting millenials repeat hours of "wax on, wax off," leaving you with a polished-looking car and a freshly painted fence?

(Somehow, I'm pretty sure they/we couldn't perform these duties up to your standards!)

Boy will they be surprised after all the work is done and you start throwing punches at them to test their new waxing skills.

 

[Bluesproverb]

Hey Everyone,

The last thread asking about how many men would not want their wives to work brought out an interesting answer. At least one very courageous man in the poll voted that he would like to be a house husband with a wife who provides.

I have seen many a passionate, heated speeches over the years about how evil feminist women who wanted to work destroyed the Godly structure of the family -- and I can understand the reasons as to why some feel this way. ANY agenda pushed too far over the line is eventually going to topple something.

But I have never, to my knowledge, ever seen a discussion about what would happen if the opposite occurred -- what if men took up in droves and insisted on being house husbands?

The thing is, I personally believe it's already happened in many cases -- it's just not formalized or at the forefront of legal battles in the news. Now I must issue a disclaimer here: because I am a woman, it's most often women who talk to me about their lives, and I have known many women who have a house husband by default. In most cases, it was either because he didn't want to work, or he lost his job, couldn't find another and gave up trying, so now he stays at home all day, mostly watching TV.

However, as with anything situation, there are always some good people mixed in. I have also known a few wonderful house husbands who very much take care of the housework, cooking, and shuttling kids to and from school and all their activities while their wife works. After all, we are all called to different positions in life.

I grew up in a family of movers and shakers -- type-A personalities with business-minded, supernatural energy levels and work ethics that were applied to anything they approached -- whether it was making it to the top of a company or moving stones to finally balance a church budget, they would set a goal and worked tirelessly towards it.

It took me a lifetime to finally figure out that this is not me, and even longer to try to communicate to my family that I am not one of those go, go, GO! - type people -- BUT, I AM happiest when I'm working as a useful, productive assistant to someone who is like them (a morally strong, hard-working leader.) I am more than willing to work my tail off for someone I believe in to the best of my abilities.

And I also came to realize that many men might not be type-A CEO's either, but are probably more than happy working and serving in assistant-type jobs and/or more domestic roles. Not everyone has to conquer some type of profession in order to do what God has called them to do.

I have only read the bare bones basics about groups such as Men Going Their Own Way, but it seems that their common foundation is (though I'm sure they don't see it this way,) based on fear -- the fear of failing, the fear of not being what society expects them to be, and the fear of not finding a woman who is willing to get close to them -- therefore, they want to set their own rules, do their own thing, and live life on their own terms. I think nearly every human being feels this way to an extent, but as we know, extremes hurt everyone.

I have to wonder if, as this fear grows, whether ingrained or pushed over the lines by societal pressure, more and more men will wish they could find a woman who would "take care of things," most especially if they were raised by strong mothers who actually DID take care of everything as they were growing up. I know I have seemed to find this often within the dating pool -- a subset of men, or maybe men who are just more vulnerable, who are looking for a partner who can step forward and ease, or take a good chunk of the burdens of life off their shoulders.

And I do think this could work in some situations.

But yet, this is something I never see talked about in Christian circles:

* What would happen to the structure of the family if more and more men want to step back and take lesser roles within the family?

* How does this affect their spiritual leadership?

* Is it ok if a man leads in every other way except financial responsibility? How would that play out?


I personally believe that God might have very well called some men to be house husbands, and some women to be providers for their families. But I do think they would be facing some possibly unique challenges or approaches as far as establishing the working roles within the family.

Perhaps I could be wrong.

I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts.

I don't think we are able to rightly presume there is no such thing now, a Christian house husband.

I know of 2.

And it is entirely biblical. Because we are all one in Jesus. No male,female, Greek, Jew.

 

[Bluesproverb]

Are you going to pull a Mr. Miyagi and make some poor, unsuspecting millenials repeat hours of "wax on, wax off," leaving you with a polished-looking car and a freshly painted fence?

(Somehow, I'm pretty sure they/we couldn't perform these duties up to your standards!)

Boy will they be surprised after all the work is done and you start throwing punches at them to test their new waxing skills.

Wax on wax off is for beginners. 😉

Then you graduate to bigger and better things. Besides just a shiny highly polished car.

Nap time schmap time. I've got skills!

 

[JohnDB]

Are you going to pull a Mr. Miyagi and make some poor, unsuspecting millenials repeat hours of "wax on, wax off," leaving you with a polished-looking car and a freshly painted fence?

(Somehow, I'm pretty sure they/we couldn't perform these duties up to your standards!)

Boy will they be surprised after all the work is done and you start throwing punches at them to test their new waxing skills.

We have danish, croissants, Sourdough, braided rye, sausages, custards, buttercream, and all sorts of fun things. Roll on....roll off. Chop....puree....stir

And apparently they have me a young, Asian lady to be my BA. She might find the whole karate kid thing....prejudicial.

 

[seoulsearch]

Roll on....roll off. Chop....puree....stir. And apparently they have me a young, Asian lady to be my BA. She might find the whole karate kid thing....prejudicial.

I can just see it now, John in a test kitchen holding a rolling pin (as a weapon, not a kitchen tool) over some poor, unsuspecting millennial while screaming, "CHOP ON, CHOP OFF!"

CHOP CHOP!

Gee, that doesn't sound like a typical Asian stereotype AT ALL.

 

[Bluesproverb]

I can just see it now, John in a test kitchen holding a rolling pin (as a weapon, not a kitchen tool) over some poor, unsuspecting millennial while screaming, "CHOP ON, CHOP OFF!"

CHOP CHOP!

Gee, that doesn't sound like a typical Asian stereotype AT ALL.

'' I told you! No wire hangers Julienne!'' 😂