While it’s true that a wife should be oriented toward her husband, her household, and especially her children, it is false that simply having a job ipso facto divides her loyalties.
Very good episode. I feel like we live in a time where everyone has become colorblind and can only see black and white. No nuance. It’s either this or that. Did you baptize your children? Heresy and eternal damnation for you, buddy!
Please don't ever conflate a job with a business. They are completely different. A business owner risks his capital to try and make money, an employee has an explicit or implicit contract that doesn't have that risk profile.
In America, 150-200 years ago, 98% of the people were self-employed or apprenticed, so only 2% of the people had a job. Jobs are relatively new. In the American past we had two types of slavery, the kind you hear about mostly and indentured servitude. As many bible commentators explain, Rome had a different kind of slavery, and the Hebrews had their system of servitude. The new slavery is called a job. You are giving your labor to someone else in exchange for something (the contract you mentioned) and it's nice that you can choose to leave when you want (the flipside being they can choose to have you leave when they want).
Biblically, men tithed on their increase, not their income. Increase is a profit on their labor, while income is just the amount of money that labor is worth. In America, they had to pass the 16th Amendment (illegally) to be able to even tax income from jobs because it was such a new concept. Biblically also, men are their business (sole proprietorship), they own it and are responsible to God for all that it does or doesn't do (which is why the corporate structure that removes accountability is unbiblical). There is also 1 Cor 7:21, "Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. "
While I have more arguments related to this podcast, I won't write that book now. Just asking that you please don't conflate being a businessman with being an employee.
[Full Disclosure: I have had various businesses in the past, and also jobs all my life. My current job is a blessing from God.]
Lance, I'm not sure what this really has to do with our episode, which is chiefly concerned with contracts and covenants, not jobs and businesses—let alone taxation. Your comment seems very axe-grindy.
No Bnonn, it's a definition thing. Many times in the podcast you equated a woman in a job with a woman in a business, i.e. a servant vs a Proverbs 31 woman. A servant has an implicit or explicit contract that deals with who is in authority, a businesswoman wouldn't be in that position. She would be working a family business under the covenant with her husband.
No, we equated women under contract then with women under contract now. We didn't say the Proverbs 31 woman had a job. We said she was working in the family business (i.e., been under covenant), but would have had business deals (i.e., been under contract), and that these are not mutually exclusive.
I fell out of love immediately all my instincts about my wife was proven to be real through the series and serious investigations the hackers i hired carried out. They tapped her phone with my consent and never left boundaries of their job description. They sent me every transcripts of her chats and calls and made sure they never invaded my wife's privacy not more than the necessary ones i had authorized. I didn't know my exact feelings after the whole evidence was glaring in my face but i knew at some point i felt sad and also happy because I couldn't imagine myself continue living with someone that had so much joy killing me slowly with her affairs with her co-worker whom she had been funding their escapades using our joint account and kept making me look like a fool with her excuses each time i requested to know how the unnecessary amounts were been spent.
If you ever find yourself in such situation with a cheating spouse, please do well to contact Refund Polici Recovery Services via the contacts below and i hope this helps other victims positively out there because nobody deserves to be treated like a fool.
I think your question actually kind of reinforces our point.
If Bnonn brought someone to do *all* these things (as a cluster, 'wifey' things, although Bnonn tends to make his own coffee) *in our home*, yes, I'd find it upsetting, because it would be putting her into a quasi-covenantal-type situation and relationship. That would be weird.
And we can see how quasi-covenantal relationships like this often happen in the workplace. Men and their secretaries/PAs are a cliche for a reason: when a woman is acting in a holistically 'wifey' manner, mingling office work with fetching coffees and dropping off clothes and buying the mother-in-law birthday presents and reminding him to get something to eat, well, boundaries get crossed. In the best circumstances it leads to marriage; in many, it leads to affairs.
But when Bnonn goes to the coffee shop and a woman serves him coffee, or to a restaurant where a female chef cooks for him, or a drycleaner's where a woman cleans his jacket; I have zero problems with that. I wouldn't even have a problem with it if we discovered all these jobs were being done by the same very busy shift-working woman.
Similarly, if he brought a woman into our home to do strictly *one* job, such as deep-cleaning the house once a week or teaching the kids maths, I'd be delighted. That wouldn't be infringing on my role as a wife on the whole, any more than it'd be infringing on his role as a husband if we hired a guy to do the lawns or clean the gutters (again, I suspect he'd be delighted).
Contracts, not covenants.
Historically, too, households were bigger than the nuclear family. So it was very common for women and men who weren't married to serve each other in various ways through the sheer convenience of division of labour. People can't have been getting too tetchy over which husband tanned the goat hides, or whether the stew for dinner was made by a wife or a maidservant.
When a man goes outside the home for a work position, he is also starting a relationship and will be with the same people each day, all day. How is that situation not equally problematic? How is he not 'neglecting' the home, as you said in an earlier comment, by being away from it 8+ hours a day? Your argument not only pathologises women at work; it pathologises work in general.
But I'm not sure I can have a productive exchange with someone who puts logic in scare quotes, as if it's an invalid form of reasoning or constitutes cheating. Nor with someone who appears to believe my husband is a shill and a cypher for having a view that you believe "men" don't hold.
Very good episode. I feel like we live in a time where everyone has become colorblind and can only see black and white. No nuance. It’s either this or that. Did you baptize your children? Heresy and eternal damnation for you, buddy!
Just listened to this, laughed out loud many times. You guys are so much fun. Thank you!
Please don't ever conflate a job with a business. They are completely different. A business owner risks his capital to try and make money, an employee has an explicit or implicit contract that doesn't have that risk profile.
In America, 150-200 years ago, 98% of the people were self-employed or apprenticed, so only 2% of the people had a job. Jobs are relatively new. In the American past we had two types of slavery, the kind you hear about mostly and indentured servitude. As many bible commentators explain, Rome had a different kind of slavery, and the Hebrews had their system of servitude. The new slavery is called a job. You are giving your labor to someone else in exchange for something (the contract you mentioned) and it's nice that you can choose to leave when you want (the flipside being they can choose to have you leave when they want).
Biblically, men tithed on their increase, not their income. Increase is a profit on their labor, while income is just the amount of money that labor is worth. In America, they had to pass the 16th Amendment (illegally) to be able to even tax income from jobs because it was such a new concept. Biblically also, men are their business (sole proprietorship), they own it and are responsible to God for all that it does or doesn't do (which is why the corporate structure that removes accountability is unbiblical). There is also 1 Cor 7:21, "Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. "
While I have more arguments related to this podcast, I won't write that book now. Just asking that you please don't conflate being a businessman with being an employee.
[Full Disclosure: I have had various businesses in the past, and also jobs all my life. My current job is a blessing from God.]
Lance, I'm not sure what this really has to do with our episode, which is chiefly concerned with contracts and covenants, not jobs and businesses—let alone taxation. Your comment seems very axe-grindy.
No Bnonn, it's a definition thing. Many times in the podcast you equated a woman in a job with a woman in a business, i.e. a servant vs a Proverbs 31 woman. A servant has an implicit or explicit contract that deals with who is in authority, a businesswoman wouldn't be in that position. She would be working a family business under the covenant with her husband.
No, we equated women under contract then with women under contract now. We didn't say the Proverbs 31 woman had a job. We said she was working in the family business (i.e., been under covenant), but would have had business deals (i.e., been under contract), and that these are not mutually exclusive.
I fell out of love immediately all my instincts about my wife was proven to be real through the series and serious investigations the hackers i hired carried out. They tapped her phone with my consent and never left boundaries of their job description. They sent me every transcripts of her chats and calls and made sure they never invaded my wife's privacy not more than the necessary ones i had authorized. I didn't know my exact feelings after the whole evidence was glaring in my face but i knew at some point i felt sad and also happy because I couldn't imagine myself continue living with someone that had so much joy killing me slowly with her affairs with her co-worker whom she had been funding their escapades using our joint account and kept making me look like a fool with her excuses each time i requested to know how the unnecessary amounts were been spent.
If you ever find yourself in such situation with a cheating spouse, please do well to contact Refund Polici Recovery Services via the contacts below and i hope this helps other victims positively out there because nobody deserves to be treated like a fool.
E meil- RefunddPolici ATgmail Dot Com
Telgram- RefunddPolici
Did you listen to the podcast Jason?
I think your question actually kind of reinforces our point.
If Bnonn brought someone to do *all* these things (as a cluster, 'wifey' things, although Bnonn tends to make his own coffee) *in our home*, yes, I'd find it upsetting, because it would be putting her into a quasi-covenantal-type situation and relationship. That would be weird.
And we can see how quasi-covenantal relationships like this often happen in the workplace. Men and their secretaries/PAs are a cliche for a reason: when a woman is acting in a holistically 'wifey' manner, mingling office work with fetching coffees and dropping off clothes and buying the mother-in-law birthday presents and reminding him to get something to eat, well, boundaries get crossed. In the best circumstances it leads to marriage; in many, it leads to affairs.
But when Bnonn goes to the coffee shop and a woman serves him coffee, or to a restaurant where a female chef cooks for him, or a drycleaner's where a woman cleans his jacket; I have zero problems with that. I wouldn't even have a problem with it if we discovered all these jobs were being done by the same very busy shift-working woman.
Similarly, if he brought a woman into our home to do strictly *one* job, such as deep-cleaning the house once a week or teaching the kids maths, I'd be delighted. That wouldn't be infringing on my role as a wife on the whole, any more than it'd be infringing on his role as a husband if we hired a guy to do the lawns or clean the gutters (again, I suspect he'd be delighted).
Contracts, not covenants.
Historically, too, households were bigger than the nuclear family. So it was very common for women and men who weren't married to serve each other in various ways through the sheer convenience of division of labour. People can't have been getting too tetchy over which husband tanned the goat hides, or whether the stew for dinner was made by a wife or a maidservant.
When a man goes outside the home for a work position, he is also starting a relationship and will be with the same people each day, all day. How is that situation not equally problematic? How is he not 'neglecting' the home, as you said in an earlier comment, by being away from it 8+ hours a day? Your argument not only pathologises women at work; it pathologises work in general.
But I'm not sure I can have a productive exchange with someone who puts logic in scare quotes, as if it's an invalid form of reasoning or constitutes cheating. Nor with someone who appears to believe my husband is a shill and a cypher for having a view that you believe "men" don't hold.