Egg Storage is Misguided Solution
by Candice Watters on 01/12/2008 at 4:59 PM
When I was 21, nothing sounded better than a mega-watt career with the potential to "change the world." Especially since I didn't have a boyfriend, or even a potential boyfriend. Things were utterly fruitless in the romance category. Thankfully I did get a job -– entry level -– and set to work to turn it into a career. To me it was exciting, glamorous, dream-fulfilling. And I was willing to work long hours to make it happen.
I didn't find out till later that hard work is, well, hard. It's a lot more fun to be COO of your home and family with a bit of external work thrown in. It's a lot more creative, too. That's been my experience, anyway. That's why I so often encourage women not to put so much emphasis on their education and career goals that they forget about their family ones. Just because you don't have any prospects right now doesn't mean you shouldn't be prepared.
A few weeks ago, I read an article in the Wall Street Journal that confirmed my hunch about career pursuits that displace or preclude marriage and babies. In "The Next Sexual Revolution," Ronald W. Dworkin writes about the trend in our country to delay childbearing for the sake of career and thanks to ever amazing breakthroughs for extending fertility. Case-in-point, "vitrification," or egg storage. Though it's still in development, Dworkin writes,
Success is inevitable, and when it arrives, the sociological consequences will be enormous. Right now, one in five children world-wide is born to women over 35. When mass egg storage becomes feasible, that number will likely increase dramatically, and include not just women in their late 30s and 40s, but also women in their 50s, even 60s.
One result, he says, is that even more women will delay childbearing and with more hope that they’ll still be able to have babies later in life.
Freezing unfertilized eggs gives women a way out of a complicated cultural maze. … Our culture encourages women to pursue high-powered careers. … The culture paints a rosy image about career and family. Then biological truth breaks through, by which time these women have lost a decade of their best childbearing years.
The prospect of egg storage promises to change all that. Dworkin writes, "Women who opt to freeze their unfertilized eggs will gain those years back –- and more -– giving them the freedom to leisurely follow the male career trajectory."
It's at this point in the article that he reveals a well-kept secret:
… most middle-aged people know that many careers can be pretty dull, without much chance to create. Following rules and procedures until midnight in a law firm may seem acceptable when you're 25, but not when you're 50.
He goes on to say that this is why many 50-year-old women will, given the technological ability, decide to start families after all.
What bothers me is that he, and seemingly our whole culture, is OK with that; accepting the "career first, babies later" time-line as just the way things are, rather than encouraging young women to consider the benefits of flipping that order.
Why not tell women who are just exiting college that some things, in this case family, really is as important, if not more so, than career. And in many cases, it's more exciting and rewarding, too. Not only that, but when you have babies first, then build careers later, it's a lot easier on your body, your pocketbook and your future. (Ever seen a 60-year-old first-time mother trying to tumble in a mommy-and-me gym class?)
Don't let the new-fangled medical "solutions" fool you. Women should give as much attention and intentionality to their plans for marriage and children as they do their education and careers.
1. Mike Theemling said the following at 5:09 PM on Jan 12:
If technology does provide that ability someday and if women want to pursue it, that's their choice and from a moral standpoint don't see anything inherently wrong with it.
However, the problem lies that when a women gets older she becomes less attractive physically and thus will probably have a harder time finding a marriage partner.
The end result may be that if a woman wants to raise a family she may not be able to find a father to assist, regardless of her age. And if she decides to have a child anyway ala Murphy Brown then she has at that point in my opinion crossed a moral boundary.
2. John said the following at 5:51 PM on Jan 12:
Science fiction is no where near as scary and disgusting as what science is actually capable today and in the future.
Thank God He's in charge.
3. Lisa said the following at 7:40 PM on Jan 12:
I had my baby at the age of forty. Motherhood is great at any age, but I wouldn't advise any woman to count on egg storage as a way to extend fertility. The technology is still undeveloped, and from my understanding of it, there is real doubt that it will ever succeed. Freezing eggs is not the same as freezing embryos. (not that I support freezing embryos either) Even though I was blessed to be able to conceive naturally and bear a child at an older age, I will still encourage my child to begin her family as soon as possible. I will try to help her obtain training and job skills that do not interfere with the desire to have a family. If she is extremely self-motivated and wants to pursue a high powered career, so be it, but I will gently encourage her as she is growing up to value family over career.
4. Nikki said the following at 8:13 PM on Jan 12:
As far as I know, egg storage is still (at this early stage in its development) quite risky. Many women's eggs end up being nonviable after freezing. Anyways, I doubt I have any moral objection to it (and it didn't look like you did, either). But it is wise to keep some things in mind. Even if we do end up being able to bear children at age 60, why would we want to? Unless the average lifespan is lengthened significantly (proportionately to lengthening of the childbearing years), there will be many motherless children. It's true: perhaps if I was an old maid with no other hope for the future, I would like to see SOME of my child's life, even if I can't see ALL of it. This is still selfish reasoning though. I can see a lot of practical and logistical problems, and I think the childbearing-then-career path is by far the wiser.
5. Joy said the following at 8:17 PM on Jan 12:
Could it be possible that people want to be able to focus on their families? I know if I had young children first, it would be much harder to be a dedicated employee because my family would come first.
6. Rosabacio said the following at 8:33 PM on Jan 12:
Not everyone has had the option to start a family at an early age. As I said in an earlier post, I was saved later in life and at the age of 35 after being saved for 10 years I have had not one suitor. Soooo what do I do? I certainly don't think it's wise to be in a career that goes nowhere in the hopes that a man will marry me. I have to make money to take care of myself so why not do something I'm passionate about? We can all hope and pray God will provide for a woman in her 20's but what happens if He doesn't?
Also, we shouldn't forget the blessing of adoption. Even in a woman's 20's infertility happens.
Infertility isn't just a problem for older women. There are thousands of babies who need homes in this country and worldwide.
7. Chris said the following at 8:55 PM on Jan 12:
Mike Theemling writes:
However, the problem lies that when a women gets older she becomes less attractive physically and thus will probably have a harder time finding a marriage partner.
I suppose if one is just out to make babies with a mate selected on the basis of societal definitions of beauty, then your age/attractiveness thing is probably correct.
But any man worth his salt knows to look beyond physical attractiveness.
8. Rachael said the following at 9:14 PM on Jan 12:
Yes, I agree with Rosabacio in that there's always the adoption option!
And a child could be blessed to have older parents...potentially more maturity and wisdom there (well I do wonder if sometimes people never 'mature').
And many KUDOS to the grandparents out there who are taking care of their grandchildren for whatever reason!! I just have so much respect for an older woman I know who is looking after her 9-year-old grandaughter (not sure if by blood). I guess this girl has had a tough life, but I don't know the details. They are involved with nursing home/rehabilitation center ministry and is a very caring woman. Such an inspiration!!
And remember Abraham & Sarah, who laughed at the possibility of her giving birth at such a ripe old age...and God really used that son, Isaac, and he established his covenant with him (Gen. 17:19).
Well, I don't think too many of us will be giving birth at age 90, though :) Anyway God works miracles.
9. Mike Theemling said the following at 9:18 PM on Jan 12:
Here's something interesting I just thought of:
For those who thought it was "OK" for single people to adopt (I generally am against it) what's the difference between a single person wanting to adopt a child and a single person (be it female or male) wanting to use a frozen egg to have a child?
Are the two equivalent? If so, why?
10. anu said the following at 9:33 PM on Jan 12:
Apparently men have absolutely no part in raising children.
Society has realized that children need loving care, time, and attention. The problem with articles like this is that they completely let men off the hook when it comes raising families, besides a paycheck. Men AND women should be encouraged to choose careers that leave time for family. If both partners in the marriage do this, the work/life balance would be much easier and success in both would be very possible.
11. Rosabacio said the following at 10:10 PM on Jan 12:
"However, the problem lies that when a women gets older she becomes less attractive physically and thus will probably have a harder time finding a marriage partner."
Mike, I would like to know how many 'older' women you know? Because I personally know several women 35+ who are beautiful! My own mother who is 62 gets several glances from men younger than myself. But then again beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
12. Tiffany said the following at 11:16 PM on Jan 12:
The difference between adoption and having a child via a frozen egg is that the adopted child is already in need. The egg is not yet a person; the child is. A living, breathing, little person who needs someone to take care of him/her. I'm all about adoption being a way to have children. I actually think that some families should adopt rather than have more children naturally. As Christians, we are to care for the orphans and widows.
As for the blog, I have to say that I disagree. Different people, especially women, are called to different things. Some are called to stay at home and raise their family. Some are called teach in the public school or serve as a social worker for children with abusive parents or fight for Biblical justice as a lawyer. I think that it would be wrong for a person called to serve God in a career to stay at home, and I think that it would be wrong for a woman called to serve in her home to abandon it for the workplace. But I don't think that anyone can say that either is more "right" than the other. God didn't make us boring robots who all do the same thing; He calls us to serve Him in the way that most glorifies Him.
13. Stanhope said the following at 12:43 AM on Jan 13:
It's pretty apparent that Candice finds babies "more exciting" than a career (she tells us so, over and over and over again). But it's also obvious that Candice doesn't speak for all women. Just looking around at my own MBA class, there are plenty of women who'd rather spend their 20s and 30s applying their skills and ambitions to the challenges and rewards of a lucrative career. Here's how one of them put it: "I'd rather be sitting in business class on the flight to London than sitting in a minivan on the way to WalMart." Hard to argue with that point. Even if you happen to like spending time with small children, there's no getting around the fact that it is often filled with mind-numbingly boring and rote tasks.
Vitrification is just a few years away -- and it may be just as profound a sociological advance as birth control was.
A final note to Mike Theemling: if a woman goes through the trouble of freezing her eggs for later use, I doubt if the lack of a male would prevent her from having children. In fact, since she's likely to be more financially secure than she was in her 20s or 30s, more women may choose not to rush into parenthood too early.
14. Kelly said the following at 7:25 AM on Jan 13:
I love science and how God uses it in our world.
I think the egg-storage idea is FABULOUS for women like me. I'm hitting 30 this year. I'm panicking because I have always wanted children but have no husband. I feel my eggs withering inside of me; 30 is that 'magic age' when everything starts to decline.
Technology could give me the means to plan for a future family when none seems possible right now. Some of you will read this comment and tell me, "Have faith! God will provide if it's his will for you to have children!"
I see it more as God provides the technology for me to be able to have children if I am someday lucky enough to have a husband.
For those of you who suggest adoption: in a world of abortion and massive costs to adopt from another country (I know, my friend has explored this in detail), it's really not possible for the average person. There are just not enough local babies and bringing foreign babies into the country is so expensive.
15. k. said the following at 10:32 AM on Jan 13:
Freezing eggs might very well be a "misguided solution" for Candice and many others out there. However, it might also be a sensible solution for others. I wish we could get past this we-must-all-march-in-lockstep mentality. Candice--just because you did something, doesn't mean it's right for everybody else!
16. farmer Tom said the following at 12:40 PM on Jan 13:
Once again our culture and even some of you in the church are so entangled in putting career and financial prosperity ahead of marriage and family that you would consider tinkering with the designs of the Creator God to fulfill your consuming desire to control the natural order of life.
God intended for the marriage relationship to be established when one was young, ie "the wife of your youth". Children are the natural result of the marriage relationship.
Yet in this culture we have allowed the sexual relationship to occur outside the marriage relationship, interfered with the natural results of that act with birth control, then try to use the same principles of control over the time of pro-creation. If God had intended for women in their late forties and fifties to bear children, he would have made it easy . Tampering with God's time table and plan will always lead to more trial, tribulation and heartbreak than simply doing what God intended in the first place.
Get married young, have lots of kids, then worry about financial security when they are grown.
To many of you and those in our culture are trying to put the wagon in front of the horse. The horse doesn't appreciate it and the results are less than satisfactory.
17. John said the following at 1:13 PM on Jan 13:
This is why science should have very strict ethical rules.
Only married couples should be allowed to adopt!
Adoption should be a hugely important FIRST option for infertile couples, ESPECIALLY christian couples.
Christians should not be playing roulette with frozen anything!
I heard a family on FOF talk about how "sad" it was because some embryos died during their treatment.
WHY IN THE WORLD IS A CHRISTIAN KILLING LIFE IN ORDER TO HAVE LIFE!?!
18. farmer Tom said the following at 2:49 PM on Jan 13:
One other short comment and I know most of you think that's impossible, but,
I personally enjoy the natural process of making babies. The very idea of skipping that in favor of a petri-dish and some frozen eggs, is just wrong.
God created the sexual relationship in marriage. He says in Hebrews "that marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled." Why are we trying to fertilize eggs in the test tube, when it is properly done in the marriage bed?
19. Marisa said the following at 4:58 PM on Jan 13:
I appreciate how Boundless encourages people to prize marriage and family. I think the Word highly esteems raising children, whom it says are a blessing from Him, and God illustrates the relationship of Christ and the Church with that of a bride and bridegroom-- how romantic! God created Eve for Adam, and called it VERY good.
All that to say... what if marriage DOESN'T happen when you think it will, even though you value it, and sincerely desire it?
I never realized I had assumptions about my future until those expectations were disappointed. As I grew up, the normal progression I saw in family friends was this: college, marriage, babies. I guess I thought that would happen to me too (rather, that God would order my steps in the same way, for nothing just “happens”), but it hasn't. I never considered the possibility that I might not end up married right after college. I graduated at 20 (pretty young) and am finishing a master's degree and working, and I'm single. And I have no idea what God intends to do with my life.
I would much rather be a wife and mom, a helpmeet to my husband. I see it as a very high calling! I'm not super ambitious career-wise, or out to prove myself to the world. (Hardly a poster-child for the feminist movement…) Sometimes I feel stuck with embarking on a career because it's not like I can just stay home and be a homemaker, but I’m working on having a better attitude—joyful acceptance vs. begrudging resignation. God is teaching me a lot through my circumstances during this time. As long as I’m striving to be obedient with what He’s called me to *today*, I’ll consider it good.
Bottom line: I'm not choosing career over family because I want to.
So how can I “intentionally” prepare for marriage and children?
20. Leah said the following at 5:50 PM on Jan 13:
Rosabacio- I don't think Candice is saying not to follow a promising career in case you have the possibility of starting a family. I think she's saying that, given the opportunity, women should focus more on starting a family than career. You don't appear to have been given that opportunity yet :)
Rachael- I don't think Candice is saying older people shouldn't have babies! It seems she's saying we shouldn't purposely delay having children just to pursue a career. Not only are there physical aspects- as you get older, the likelihood of miscarriage and birth defects grows, and the likelihood of even getting pregnant decreases- but there are the emotional aspects too. I think my parents- 27 years older than me- are a lot more aware and in touch with my world than the parents of my friend who are 48 years older than her. And it's not because they are inattentive- they are wonderful parents, very attentive and get along very well with their daughters. I honestly think it's simply an age thing.
21. Kellie said the following at 7:54 PM on Jan 13:
I agree that woman should consider having children prior to 30 or 35 if possible. But I disagree with the push on Boundless for married couples to have children right away because you might not be able to later. I believe that couples should wait on the Lord for the best time to have children and not to worry. God will provide children when the time is right.
22. Jo said the following at 11:33 PM on Jan 13:
mike - yes there is a difference. adoption is taking on a child who already exists and giving him a home, whereas using a frozen egg is creating a child where there wasn't one before.
23. Ro said the following at 7:43 AM on Jan 14:
Candice
I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say I don’t know what position I would be in without your writings. I think they steer me closer towards the right track when you hear such anti-marriage messages these days.
My parents have always encouraged my career above marriage and babies for me. They continue to chastise me to be more and more established in my career and to not focus on marriage, but to focus on my career instead. This saddens me, because I can hear the tick of the biological clock and want a little time to meet a Godly man and form a healthy marriage bond before having children. It hurts me when people say that you will find someone when you are not looking, or “when you stop looking” because I know this is not true. It feels hurtful to be criticized for looking for someone, and for wanting to be a wife rather than a career women.
It hurts me that so many people did not have to look for partners – but had them dropped in their laps by God. And because of this they criticize my attempts at seeking a Godly spouse or a Godly marriage.
And I wish I could want marriage less. Because it feels like then I would deserve it?
Also I get tired of people telling me how hard marriage is, so I should enjoy my singleness. Marriage may be really difficult, but knowing that does not help me to enjoy my singleness anymore. People in relationships seem to have no compassion towards the older single girl at all…Nor do they have compassion when a boyfriend breaks up with you…….
You guys at Boundless are doing an awesome job. Keep up the good work, because there are those like me who really needed your love and compassion that you so graciously offered to us single girls...
I'm at the point where I fervently pray for the desire for marriage, companionship and children (discipling the next generation) leaves me, because I'd rather not deal with the pain anymore. Its not just the pain of loneliness, its also the pain of constant rejection, as each guy you feel drawn to rejects you. I know I shouldn't want the desire for marriage to leave me, but it just takes up too much energy battling the loneliness. I'm just honestly stating where I'm at, and hope that encourages others to be honest about their struggles/how they cope with not being able to choose family over a career, because the choice is denied them...
24. Nicole said the following at 12:23 PM on Jan 14:
"Why not tell women who are just exiting college that some things, in this case family, really is as important, if not more so, than career. And in many cases, it's more exciting and rewarding, too. Not only that, but when you have babies first, then build careers later, it's a lot easier on your body, your pocketbook and your future. (Ever seen a 60-year-old first-time mother trying to tumble in a mommy-and-me gym class?)"
Why not tell men also, so that women don't find themselves at 30, without a husband because no one took the time to pursue them. I don't see how women can turn this ship around without addressing the other half of the population also. I guess I just get tired of hearing how women need to change things, to put marriage/family first. It is a societal issue, not just a gender issue.
25. Karen said the following at 12:38 PM on Jan 14:
I struggle with keeping up with my young nephews, and I'm still under thirty. I can't imagine being 40, 50, or 60 and striving to keep up with my own baby...women that age should be becoming graceful grandmas who get to hand the kids back to their parents when they're tired! :^)
26. Jason Ganzer said the following at 12:44 PM on Jan 14:
I think it is also important for young unmarried people to focus on their career and not to worry about marriage or planning for a future with children aside from saving money.
We shouldn't alter our life for something that may never happen. We should serve God faithfully where we are now rather than on a future that may not be in God's plans.
Yes, we should be prepared, but one shouldn't pass up opportunities that would hinder them from having children when they don't even have a husband.
My basic point is, love God where you are today, be content with what he has given you. Be a good steward of things like your money so you will be prepared when things do happen but don't make life decisions around that.
27. Karen said the following at 12:46 PM on Jan 14:
Marisa, thank you for your comment. I know a lot of young women who feel the same as you do; I used to be one of them. There are many women who are "stuck" being a career girl because a husband has just not come along. I can tell you that God does and will bring peace to your heart in this situation. You will probably eventually enjoy what you do (find a job you really like, it helps) and if He wants you to be married, it WILL happen. Don't start feeling desperate and don't date just anyone. In my case I graduated from college, earned a master's degree, and had been out from under my parent's roof for 8 years before the Lord brought my fiance and I together in a way I would never have expected. (He was the last person I would have thought of dating, but I think he's amazingly wonderful now!). I hope this encourages you a bit. :^)
28. P&P said the following at 2:22 PM on Jan 14:
This past weekend I saw the film "Persepolis," which is based on the life story of an Iranian woman growing up during the 1979 revolution and ensuing war with Iraq. She decided to marry at 21, against her mothers' wishes. The mother wanted her to get an education and become a professional before she settled down to marry.
I think it's interesting that a woman who had been raised in such a conservative culture would be encouraged to expand her horizons, while a culture as liberal as ours still encourages women to marry young and stay at home.
By the way, mom was right - the woman's marriage didn't last a year.
29. John said the following at 3:09 PM on Jan 14:
PP,
"Conservative culture"?
Sharia law and treating women as second class citizens is anything but conservative.
Our very liberal culture does not encourage women to marry young and stay at home.
What planet are you on?
30. Kellie said the following at 3:12 PM on Jan 14:
P&P, I don't think our culture really encourages early marriage and staying at home for woman. Even most churches today are accepting of the working mom and getting married a little later on.
31. utang ekpo said the following at 3:59 PM on Jan 14:
stanhope: life with kids of any age from 12-0months is anything but "mindnumbling boring and rote" I can say this with experience with many little cousins that I have lived with from newborn to 12 in various ages. If having a child someday is something that one wants to do and not only that but if you want your children to be Godly it would involve spending time teaching, caring for them and nurturing them as a momther. cos women nurture better and men protect better. but if you become a surgeon then your time with your kids would definitely be substantially decreased because you are on call all the time.
I think its impt to say these to women because we becaome "sterile," so to speak, faster. The man who wants to be a father definitely in the future should plan to save his money better since he should have the responsibility and leadership to be most concerned and responsible when there is no food in the table. ( not saying he has to provide it all- but it should disturb him the most because he should provide. so single men start saving for that house now..
32. farmer Tom said the following at 5:36 PM on Jan 14:
I believe that couples should wait on the Lord for the best time to have children and not to worry. God will provide children when the time is right.
By wait, you mean use birth control till both of you decide it's time for children, or you allow God to control when you have children by relying on Him to bring conception or not??
Just asking, cause that sounded oh so spiritual, but you didn't tell us if you were trusting God and a pill for your
family planning!!
33. Kellie said the following at 6:20 PM on Jan 14:
Farmer Tom,
Actually a method of natural birth control, if you must pry. :-) My husband and I decided (with lots of prayer) prior to getting married that it would be best if we waited a few years. Of course, if God wanted us to have a child in that time, He could have. I really just mean that a married couple should not try for a child for fear of infertility.
34. Stephanie said the following at 6:27 PM on Jan 14:
I must admit that I haven't read all the posts above mine - but I think I have gotten the just of most of the arguments. I'll just add another thought to the mix....
First of all, a little background on me. I am a registered nurse who works in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. I have seen the wonders of advancements in medical technology. However, with many of these advancements come more and more difficult ethical questions.
As Christians, we are called not to shy away from those ethical questions, but to apply a Biblical worldview to theses questions. In other words - the Bible dosn't specifically say anything about whether it is right or wrong for a woman to freeze her eggs - however, there are biblical principles and teachings that you can look to to get the answer to hard questions like these.
I am very glad that Candice brought this topic up. The Church is often much too silent on these types of issues. But issues like these are becoming increasingly important in the lives of Christians. It is essential that we look to the Bible and solid Biblical teaching to make ethical decisions - not emotions.
This summer I read a wonderful book called "How to be a Christian in a Brave New World" - it is co-authored by Joni Eareckson Tada (a very godly woman who also happens to be a quadrapeligic and a huge advocate for the rights of disabled persons)and Dr. Nigel Cameron (a boiethics professor). It is a fabulously easy-to-read book that addresses issues like the one brought up here.
~Stephanie, RN BSN
35. farmer Tom said the following at 7:18 PM on Jan 14:
Kellie,
My comment was not really directed at you, I really don't need the details, that's between you and God.
I was trying to remind everyone here that we claim to believe in a sovereign God who is deeply interested in us and our lives, that He knows the very hairs on our head, yet we fail to trust him with the little things like marriage and family because we think we can control those things.
36. k. said the following at 7:33 PM on Jan 14:
Farmer Tom -- I doubt very much that God finds Himself helpless in the face of a pill. If it's really His will that someone get pregnant while on the pill, she'll get pregnant. (Stomach flu, forgetfulness, antibiotics, etc.) He created the world; overcoming a pill really isn't much of a problem.
You're rather rigid in your approach to life. Has it occurred to you that maybe God meant you to be farmer with four children, but He meant me to be a career woman who just turned 30, who's also planning her wedding? Your choices aren't mandatory for everybody, you know.
Not that I expect you to be impressed by my reasoning: I'm the type of woman who makes you fall over and froth at the mouth, and you make me want to roll my eyes into the next STATE. But God planned different paths for both of us...I'd be a rotten farmer, and you'd be equally lousy at living my life. Why don't we just heave a sigh of relief at our respective lots in life, and leave it at that?
37. Tracy L said the following at 8:13 PM on Jan 14:
I honestly think that fewer women are "intentionally" postponing marriage and childbirth than these types of articles love to suggest. The missing piece in all of this is HOW does a woman seek marriage with intentionality? If a woman wants to be a doctor, lawyer or businesswoman (none of which are prohibited biblically -- check out the Proverbs 31 woman), the path is pretty straightforward. The steps are: get good grades in college, study hard for the MCAT/LSAT/GMAT and go to the best medical/law/business school you can get into. Many women (myself included) pursue these straightforward paths hoping (and praying) that they will meet the husband along the way. For the luckiest few, that's exactly what happens. When I look though my monthly B-school alumni magazine, the pages are filled with wedding and baby photos of former classmates who married each other. Nevertheless -- for those of us who remain, the path to the wife/mother role seems mysterious and elusive. Comparatively speaking, in today's world, the path to the executive suite is simply the easier path to take. So, instead of criticizing single women for allegedly placing career above marriage/babies, why not provide a road map as straightforward as the career road map?
38. Tracy L said the following at 8:23 PM on Jan 14:
...forgot to add this. For the record, I hope that the egg freezing is perfected particularly for those women who remain single and childless into their 30s and 40s despite their best efforts to marry and have children. I never intended to be single this long - but if the husband does ever show up, I will thank God for any medical technology that will allow us to have our own biological children. I would also love to adopt -- I agree that it is a noble and Christian thing to do. However it won't replace my longing for my own biological child.
39. Lynne said the following at 9:50 PM on Jan 14:
To utang and stanhope:
Describing the 0-12 months stage as mind-numbing and rote, doesn't instantly confer "unfit" status on a mother. It's more likely a reflection of a couple of other things, extroversion, need for new ideas/intellectual stimulation, abiiity to cope with lack of sleep.
I love my children dearly (1 and 7), but I crave adult conversation about topics not related to parenting and development when I have extended time with them. It's just a reflection of me, not an indicator of my overall mothering skills.
As the gadfly voice of the working mother at times on these blogs, I come back to saying: God has created us uniquely, our walks with him, our families, how we live out our faith and priorities will look different at times.
Desire for children, desire to stay home with them, desire to homeschool, none of these are proxies for a person's walk and relationships with God.
But then again I work fulltime, so that completely invalidates my opinion to a significant percentage of the readers here. : )
40. H. A. P. said the following at 4:42 AM on Jan 15:
Thank you farmer Tom for your input! You have stated most of what my husband and I believe exactly. Not everyone will agree with choices we've made but that doesn't bother us at all. We both began in our teens preparing for our future family. He by working his way into a good career, paying off his car, and putting enough money in the bank for us to live on for several years. I learned a trade that allowed me to have a business that I can run from home. When we met in our mid-twenties, our hearts said one thing...FAMILY! We are married five months and I've currently four months pregnant! We couldn't be happier!
41. Jennifer E. Jones said the following at 5:41 AM on Jan 15:
Chiming in kinda late on this one, but it's given me a chance to read most of the posts.
Why is it assumed that career and family are mutually exclusive? I know plenty of people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s with (seemingly) great marriages, wonderful and well-adjusted kids and thriving careers. You don't have to choose one or the other.
Single sisters, we are not as helpless as we look. There's online dating, church groups, grocery stores, concerts... (didn't we recently do a post on where to meet other singles?).
When's the last time you asked a friend or family member to set you up on a blind date? The point is that we've got to get out there.
Go as far in your education as you possibly can. If you don't meet your future spouse in class, then you've got a degree that will help your career.
Work hard at your job but don't forget to make plans with your friends to go out that night. You might meet someone. You never know.
I'm not saying that it's easy to have it all, but perhaps the abundant life God calls us to can include both a career and a family.
42. Tracy L said the following at 1:34 PM on Jan 15:
Jennifer E. Jones: Well said, I agree wholeheartedly. Marriage, motherhood and marketplace involvement are not necessarily mutually exclusive (Proverbs 31).
Lynne: Here here!! Thank you for your minority opinion.
43. Louise said the following at 2:01 PM on Jan 15:
Lynne, I work full time too, but I am childfree by choice.
I'm sure it's a toss up as to which one of us is the worse sinner.
44. Sarah said the following at 2:06 PM on Jan 15:
I have yet to see a passage in the Bible that suggests that it is ungodly for a woman to have a career, if she feels called to it. No, there isn't much about women having jobs outside of the home either, but in biblical times things keeping the wives at home appears to be a function of culture, not an order by God. The Proverbs 31 says to praise the woman for her works at the city gate. I don't believe submission = life at home without a career unless the Lord has told a woman otherwise. Paul talks about women bringing up children and beeing wives, but he mentions "other good deeds" as well. God has given women many gifts and it would seem counterintuitive to tell a woman not to use them, whether these gifts include cooking, raising children, owning a company, becoming a doctor, or anything else.
45. Ted Slater said the following at 2:27 PM on Jan 15:
Sarah, you wrote, "The Proverbs 31 says to praise the woman for her works at the city gate."
For sake of discussion, who was her "employer," the one she submitted to in matters of business? Her "helpmeet"? Or some other man?
46. Jane2 said the following at 2:59 PM on Jan 15:
Sarah-
Regarding the use of Proverbs 31:31.
"Her husband is respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land (Prov 31:23)."
Proverbs 31:31 says to "Give her the reward she has earned,and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.
Her works will bring her praise at the city gate by her husband. She is not working at the city gate.
47. dana111 said the following at 4:21 PM on Jan 15:
It amazes me that I know several non-christian women (some of which even claim to be atheist) that have a more biblically based view about marriage, children, and career than those of us in the church!! I have a friend who does not attend church and, at times, scoffs at the very idea of God. And yet, she has confided to me that she would give up her career in a heartbeat if her and her husband could conceive. She is plagued with infertility, and her and her husband have tried several different ways to get pregnant. On the other hand, I know a Christian couple who have vowed to never have children, even if it means being slaves to birth control pills for the majority of their marriage. Is it shocking for a woman to desire marriage and family over her career? For us as christians, it really shouldn't be. All women are not called to be mothers. That is true. But, as christians, we should have a more godly view of marriage and family, and be willing to give up our petty hopes and dreams if and when God calls us to something more.
48. Lisa said the following at 4:50 PM on Jan 15:
Mr. Slater,
That is an interesting question. To be honest, I've always considered her self-employed. It talks about how she obtains wool and flax and makes cloth, about how she secures her provisions from afar, about how she rises early and distributes food to her household. She picks out a field to purchase. (no indication anyone tells her which field to buy) She plants a vineyard out of her earnings. Later on it says that she makes garments and sells them. It takes alot of initiative and wisdom to be successful in private business, and motivation as well. Just my opinion, but I don't see anything that says she answers to anyone as far as matters of business are concerned.
49. Kellie said the following at 5:29 PM on Jan 15:
Lynne and Jennifer, thanks for your posts!
50. dana111 said the following at 9:42 PM on Jan 15:
"But as for you, teach what accords with sound [1] doctrine. 2 Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. 3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. 6 Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. 7 Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, 8 and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us."
Titus 2:1-9
I hope that we are fulfilling this biblical command by teaching sound and godly doctrine, including the things that may make others upset.
51. Stanhope said the following at 10:19 PM on Jan 15:
Lynn, I agree completely. I love my nieces to pieces, but I can't imagine a whole day alone with them. After about 3 hours of baby-talk and primary colors, I'm hitting the door for a steak and a good martini.
Dana: "slave to birth control"? Is that kinda like being a "slave to seat belts" or a "slave to regular brushing"?
Choosing to adopt prudent and preventative behavior is not exactly slavery, is it?
52. Leah said the following at 1:18 AM on Jan 16:
Jennifer E Jones- ultimately, you do have to choose one over the other. The woman who chooses her career will never be able to attend all her children's award ceremonies, special school assemblies, dance concerts, piano recitals, or soccer matches because she will be working 9-5 and attending events to gain more clients. The woman who chooses her family will not be able to work 5 days a week 9-5 and attend all after-hours work functions because she will be at her daughter's hockey match or son's band concert.
The woman who chooses her career may have delightful children who understand Mum isn't always there and may be well-adjusted. But that's just it. They're well adjusted to the fact Mum is not always there. Children who have full-time working mothers are not always terrors who do badly at school. They just miss out on a bit more family time.
53. Ted Slater said the following at 9:12 AM on Jan 16:
Stanhope -- you're free, of course, not to have kids. My sister and her husband don't have any kids. I think they're missing out, but I'm not going to dismiss them.
The thing is, Scripture doesn't call them a "blessing" for nothing. I sure know that my daughters have enriched my life. More than even a good steak and beverage. Of course, I can have my kids and eat my steak too.
By the way, hanging out with your nieces is *nothing* like hanging out with your own children. When the smell of your daughter's wet diaper brings to mind fond memories, you know you're in a whole new realm of love not experienced by the child-less.
54. Louise said the following at 10:07 AM on Jan 16:
Men with school aged children also need to make the same daily choices...ie working late a particular day or leaving early to attend a child's function.
55. Christina said the following at 12:46 PM on Jan 16:
Lisa,
The woman described in Proverbs 31 is the ideal house wife =p
She is the perfect manager of the home. While her husband is away, she manages all the affairs of their home. He makes the money, she uses it in a thrifty and productive way. This woman is the model that inspired the saying "Behind every great man is a strong woman" (or something like that).
Her "employer", her authority, is her husband. Not herself. But she is admired because her husband would not be able to do the work he does and be respected as an elder of the city gate without his wife's wonderful and productive work.
Her praise will be brought to the city gate where her husband will hear and bring it home to her. He is a very fortunate man whose money is invested by a wise mind and she brings him wealth far superior to rubies =p
56. Kellie said the following at 1:40 PM on Jan 16:
Leah,
Not every SAHM attends all of her childs events, not every working woman without a family attends all work functions. I think Jennifer is suggesting that a working mom is not a horrible person (much less a horrible Christian), that many moms do work because they have to and they and their families will still thrive.
57. Lisa said the following at 1:56 PM on Jan 16:
Christina,
I disagree with you. I never said she wasn't also a housewife. I still say she is self-employed. The verses describe all her activities--it is clear she makes at least some of her own money from her own activities. I didn't mean to imply that she doesn't also submit to her husband. After all, he is the head of their household. But he is not always there to tell her what to do, she has to use her own judgement when she is conducting her business. I really don't want to argue anymore about it. I believe what I believe, and no one will change my mind about it. That's what really bothers me about Evangelicals. No one can have an opinion without someone else saying it's wrong.
58. Lisa said the following at 4:06 PM on Jan 16:
I've just been to a website called, The International Institute for Christian Culture. There is an article by the Rev. Brian M Abshire, Ph.D. called "The Proverbs 31 Woman as Entrepreneur." He touches on many things in this article. He touches on how single women should best prepare themselves to be married (he doesn't believe single women should train for the professions at all) Probably no one who posts on Boundless is going to like very much of what he has to say, but I thought that it was very interesting. (I'm not saying that I quite agree with everything he says either, just that I thought it was interesting.)
59. k. said the following at 7:26 PM on Jan 16:
Lisa -- Well, being told you're wrong is hardly restricted to evangelical circles. :) At any rate, I agree with you about Ms Proverbs 31, and think you make some good points.
60. Emily said the following at 9:16 PM on Jan 16:
Reality check for the Future Homemakers of America. How many of you know couples where the wife had to work to help pay the bills?
I know several people who have been homemakers and have entered the workforce because a) their husbands were laid off b) they were having financial trouble.
I understand that my response doesn't have a lot to do with egg storage. I am honestly a little bit freaked out about it. But hey, if a friend wants to do that, I am 100% behind her.
Anyways, I am a big fan of homemaking. I would love to be a homemaker. But, if I have the intelligence to pursue a master's level degree and qualify for a job that may help contribute to my hypothetical family's piggy bank - then by all means, I am going to use my God given gifts.
Well, I gotta go warm my eggs and fluff my feathers for my hypothetical rooster.
I hope this gets posted. A merry heart doth a good medicine.
P.S. Ro - if you are reading this - God cares about where you are at in your life. Maybe you are just surrounded by people who are negative energy.
61. Stanhope said the following at 11:35 PM on Jan 16:
Ted: Of course we all have the freedom to not have children. (Was that fact ever in dispute?)
But that's missing the point. Children are a lifestyle decision. Some people want them, others don't. Some people wish they had them, others wish they didn't. There's no reason for anyone to presume that their own lifestyle preferences or circumstances are necessarily right for everyone else. It'd be better if the 'I-chose-X,-thus-everyone-else-should-choose-X' contingent could keep that in mind.
The diaper-sniffing thing was funny tho. I know a guy who swears that the smell of dumpster garbage brings up nostalgic memories of his second-grade playground.
62. Louise said the following at 8:15 AM on Jan 17:
Mr. Slater, your sister and brother-in-law may very well feel that you and your wife are the ones who are "missing out."
But that is besides the point. If you are ultimately happy with you personal life decisions, then good for you!
63. dana111 said the following at 9:03 AM on Jan 17:
Stanhope said:
"Slave to birth control"? Is that kinda like being a "slave to seat belts" or a "slave to regular brushing"?
Choosing to adopt prudent and preventative behavior is not exactly slavery, is it?"
You are funny! But, my post was concerning a CHRISTIAN couple who have decided (rather selfishly, I might add) to NOT HAVE CHILDREN EVER because they don't want to give up their lifestyle. That, in my opinion, is not "prudent" behavior. That is selfishness. Maybe they are not "slaves to birth control." Maybe they are just slaves to fear, slaves to their own will, slaves to having their own way and slaves to not trusting God to bless them in whatever way he deems fit.
64. Christina said the following at 9:25 AM on Jan 17:
Lisa,
I'm an evangelical? I'm a Christian...and I read my bible everyday...is that what makes me an evangelical? I was stating a "fact". You were stating an opinion. As backup of my fact, read the first half of Proverbs 31. The verses we are discussing are simply the last 3rd of the chapter.
Anyway, you can't always be right. I know I could be wrong on my interpretation, except that the verses are explicitly describing the perfect wife.
I wasn't trying to contradict whether she works outside the home or not. From a historical and cultural viewpoint, though, women used their skills in making clothing and making food and planting and growing and making wise investments in new fields as a means to sell in the marketplace as well as feed their families. So, yes, you are right. God blessed her productivity and gave her excess to sell. And she was good at that. A very wise woman.
That doesn't mean she wasn't a housewife =p Her job was in the management of her home and she utilized her skills to produce more and invested her time wisely. She was not employed outside of her home and answered to no one but her husband and God. Family and home, then, were her highest priority. I'm assuming this is why the woman of Proverbs 31 came up? To substantiate that a woman can both be family and career oriented? She did not have another man other than her husband as her "boss", and just because she worked without his supervision doesn't mean he wasn't her "boss".
This woman had the freedom of her time to dedicate to family and when their needs were met, she was free to help make money. Those were her priorities and she didn't have to choose. In today's work environment, that is not true. Cleaning your home, feeding your children, supporting your children, and spending time with your husband are not your priorities from your boss's perspective. Going to work until all tasks are complete, attending after-hour meetings, company parties, and chatting up new clients are not your priorities from your husband's perspective.
You have to choose nowadays, and your choice is going to have consequences on one or the other.
This woman didn't have that problem, and because she was very productive with her time, she brought much honor to her home, her husband, and herself.
65. Christina said the following at 9:28 AM on Jan 17:
Ack...I was approaching this argument all wrong...it seems, Lisa, that neither one of were "wrong" because we both have the same idea. Just one touched on one part better than the other. You touched on her productivity outside the home more than the home aspect whereas i went the other way.
My last post should be more balanced =p
66. Christina said the following at 11:28 AM on Jan 17:
Christina, I agree with you totally about how a husband's priorities and a boss's priorities are different. That's why I have always wanted to be a stay-at-home mother--and I am. I was trying to answer Mr. Slater's question is all. No harm done.
67. Netanya said the following at 8:02 PM on Jan 17:
I keep hearing over and over -- not just here but in other "mainstream" Christian books/blogs/radio -- how it's only right for married couples, not singles, to adopt. After all, a mother and a father is better for a child than a single parent. Here's my take on it:
James 1:27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
Matt. 10:42 whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.
There's thousands of orphans is the world. While it would be nice to sit and wait for all the married people to take care of the problem, they aren't. I'd tend to think that, if a single person (man or woman) has the means to adopt and take on a few of the world's refuse, they are fulfilling one of God's commands, giving the child a better life than they would have had otherwise. It's sad, but not everyone will have both a Mom and a Dad, but - what - you're going to use that as an excuse to leave kids in an orphanage or on the street where they'd receive less attention than in a single parent home?
Of course, only God knows the motives behind people's actions. Probably not everyone adopts because they love the kids. Just for the record - I just don't think single women going the in-vitro route is the best thing.
68. John said the following at 5:51 AM on Jan 20:
It's Mrs. Proverbs.
Not "Ms. Proverbs."
She wasn't a femenist.
69. John said the following at 5:58 AM on Jan 20:
Stanhope,
You have not the smallest clue as to how awesome taking care of your own children is.
It is anything but "mind-numbingly boring" or "rote".
Everyday is a new adventure!
Egg storage is misguided, for everybody, not just Candice.
That's the point of the post.
70. Becca said the following at 12:41 PM on Jan 20:
John,
While "Ms." was a title embraced by feminists 30 years ago, I don't think it's as inherently ideologically loaded as you seem to think it is.
Check out the American Heritage definition.
Firstly, it points out that the term originated about 20 years earlier than the feminist movement.
Secondly, it prominently features a secondary definition that seems to capture k's usage without a trace of implied feminism (though it is pretty cute and colloquial):
"Used in informal titles for a woman to indicate the epitomizing of an attribute or activity: Ms. Fashionable; Ms. Volleyball."
And if all that wasn't enough to calm you down - I noticed recently that the form you have to fill out in order to download mp3s of archived FotF radio broadcasts offers the option of using "Ms." as one's title!
Folks should do their research before they get so cranky!
71. John said the following at 8:56 PM on Jan 20:
Folks should do their research before they try to make snide remarks, thus appearing very silly.
"Ms." is used in place of Miss or Mrs. so you can't tell if someone is married.
Mrs. Proverbs was married.
Simple enough?
72. Becca said the following at 4:15 PM on Jan 21:
Still cranky, John?
It's used in place of Miss or Mrs. in one usage, and as a term of its own - one that allows the creation of cute and descriptive names for abstract characters - in another.
It's a useful term - seems a bit silly to demonize it by restricting it to an ideology that most readers of this blog are hostile to.
(And I write this more out of a love of language than a love of feminism).
73. John said the following at 5:48 AM on Jan 23:
Still cranky, Becca?
Typical liberal tactic, I use the word for what I want it to mean, not what it actually means.
Been used since the garden.
74. John said the following at 10:21 AM on Jan 26:
Becca,
I forgot to point out that it seems a bit silly to change the meanings of words to suit your preferences/arguments for the sake of holding on to your incorrect position.
(I write this more out of love for truth than self-absorbtion. That's the difference between you and me)
75. Melissa said the following at 7:47 AM on Apr 3:
What women tend to forget is that it's not just the bearing of a child, but also having the energy to raise and play alongside that child. Right now I'm having a hard time keeping up with my daughter in my mid twenties and I can only imagine that my energy will drain more as I grow older. I think that in this "have it all" society, we tend to forget that everything comes at a cost. I would not be fair to children to have parents in their sixties, because those parents wouldn't be able to be there for that child when s/he gets older. What's more, they'll never see their own grandchildren. What a shame.
76. a sassy sister said the following at 9:27 AM on Apr 3:
John,
your message may be very well truthful but your self-righteous, condescending attitude makes it very difficult for someone to listen to you. I am in no way advocating you to back down from what you believe. But making attacks against a complete stranger's character instead of demonstrating the fallacy of their argument does no good. Neither does name calling.
77. Christy said the following at 11:34 PM on Apr 3:
So, the point of life for women is to spend about 18 years being a child, to get married as soon as possible, and to have the next generation pretty shortly after that? All so we can be a helper to a man on his chosen path to serve God in the world, and so we can raise boys to work and girls to get married and have more babies? I see that marriage and children are blessings and a very good thing, the foundational unit of society even. But i don't see how a woman's part of the cultural mandate given by God in Genesis is solely the "be fruitful and multiply" bit. Why would a woman's creativity, ambition, drive only get to fully express itself in the context of her household and family life? it certainly can and should be evident in the family, but why do work and family life have to be mutually exclusive? Either a woman must be climbing the corporate ladder, not having kids til 40, and then missing all their soccer games...or they are always watching their children, playing with them, carting them around to camp and band rehersal, feeding them, etc. If the proverbs 31 woman really was doing all those things, then she must have been leaving her kids with grandma sometimes, or even hiring a babysitter, or (God forbid!) a daycare center twice a week so she could do her other good work in the community. Of course it benefited her family...any good work will benefit the family. I know i'm thankful that there were women who took time away from their children a couple times a week to work at the library where i had such a wonderful time as a child. And when my mom worked two days a week, my siblings and i alternated between my aunt and my grandmother as caregivers. it was wonderful. Why does it have to come across as an all or nothing thing - either a mother is always with her children, or she is somehow lacking as a stay-at-home mother? My Dad had a "full-time" job? But that doesn't mean he wasn't a huge part of my life. He was my softball coach for years, and a children's church leader every wednesday. He intentionally participated in life with his family. I agree that *some* women do neglect their families for the sake of a job that doesn't fulfill. I also think that *some* women settle into family life thinking it will be the perfect job and they are also left unfulfilled. God has given humans-male and female-in their different roles, capacities and callings, a command to care for, steward, subdue, cultivate the earth. And that means family...and business, politics, recreation, agriculture, architecture, art, woodworking, writing, etc-all for the glory of GOD! So why do we put each other down for trying to serve God in the "wrong" way? I think a better response would be to spur one another on toward good works, to let iron sharpen iron. When a woman talks about her job, to not assume she is running from marriage and family, or ignoring her kids, or hiding in fear. Instead, perhaps ask her how she is serving the Kingdom, and maybe later asking what she is consciously doing to plan for future family life, or how she schedules her kids' events with work, or what more she seeks out of her life. Let's help each other to think through our choices, to seek God, and to pursue holiness instead of throwing insults and insinuations and assuming we have the ultimate interpretation of scripture and can learn nothing new. A well-reasoned, logical, and humbly persuasive argument using scripture in its context will go a lot further. There are cultural, biblical, logical reasons for women to stay at home with their children. There are also cultural, biblical, and logical reasons for women to be working. And it's not about compromise for the sake of compromise, it's about seeking Truth for the sake of unity and peace.