MARIANNE writes:

I don’t know if you care to address this question, but here it is: what about those of us who are married, but do not have any children, and will not be having any children in the future (not by choice)? What is our role as women, and as wives? Should we be employed full-time in your view? The question is not a trick or trap for you, but something I wonder about.

Laura writes:

Infertility is such a hardship. If abortion were not so common, there would be many more children to adopt and infertile married couples could probably be guaranteed of having a full family. That’s one of the great evils of abortion.

For a childless woman, there are a number of possibilties. It’s perfectly reasonable for her to stay home and make a life for her and her husband, helping friends, volunteering at church or for other organizations, entertaining, pursuing individual interests or devoting time to contemplation and prayer. The volunteer opportunities are virtually limitless. There is no shortage of things to do.

The world is always in need of beautification, tenderness and prayer. The spirit of domesticity is transformative, when expressed in the right place and for the right reasons. It’s an inner quality that any woman, whether she has children or not, can cultivate and express. I know women who have no children who have a way of shedding their strength and generosity on others.

But it is also perfectly reasonable for a childless woman to work, and to become fully involved in her work. There is nothing at all wrong with that.

                               — Comments —

Carolyn writes:

Marianne inquires about your views on childless women being employed. You respond, after discussing running a household, entertaining, volunteering, prayer, etc., “But it is also perfectly reasonable for a childless woman to work, and to become fully involved in her work.” (Emphasis mine)

I can’t comment any better, and perhaps not as well as a commenter did on my blog:

LA says, in part:

“. . . Words express ideas. It seems to me that if we really thought that work in and around the home was real work, we would be saying that, and we would use a different word or phrase to distinguish work-for-pay.

“If we say ‘she doesn’t work’ when . . . ‘she’s not employed’ is a viable option already existing in our language, then I think it’s because we really think, at some level, that what she’s doing doesn’t really count as ‘work’ in the same way that employment would. And since language is not only the vehicle we use to express our ideas, but the thing with which we do our thinking, it seems that it would help to change the way we value work (and perhaps also people, who perform that work) if we could succeed in changing our vocabulary.”

Making a home, volunteering, and several of the other things you mention (certainly prayer!) are also valuable work.

Laura writes:

Correction noted. I’ve made the same point myself.

Obviously, I believe all the activities of home constitute work.

Jesse Powell writes:

Looking at statistics of how people lived say 100 or more years ago in America a rough breakdown of the life trajectories of women is that 80 percent of women got married and had children, 10 percent of women got married and had no children, and 10 percent of women never got married. Even though getting married and having children was certainly the typical role of women it was by no means universal. The number of married women that worked however was very low, say less than 3%. This indicates that in traditional society it was not usual for women to engage in paid employment when they were married even when they had no children.

My assumption of the cultural expectations for women is that a married woman with children would obviously have a valuable role as a mother in society. A married woman without children, probably most frequently caused by natural infertility, would serve her community and the families around her in a variety of volunteer oriented ways; she would have the freedom to contribute to the world in any way she chose with the support of her husband. It was only the unmarried woman that would be expected to work; such an unmarried woman could contribute to society by entering into professions that are particularly in need of women’s natural strengths such as being a teacher to younger children or perhaps by being a nurse.

Laura makes the comment, “But it is also perfectly reasonable for a childless woman to work, and to become fully involved in her work. There is nothing at all wrong with that.” I would like to quibble a bit with this comment. I think the man’s role in this situation needs to be taken into account. The man both culturally and from his own sense of identity will feel like it is his job to take care of his wife whether he has children with her or not. From the man’s point of view he is supporting his wife as a way of contributing to whatever good deeds his wife does on behalf of others. If a married woman contributes to others through volunteer activities then it is clear that her husband “gets credit” for the work his wife does since she is enabled to do her volunteer work based on his support. If the married woman is doing her own thing and getting paid to do it it is not so clear why the husband needs to be around at all. A woman displacing the man’s purpose and role by making her own money is a serious issue that needs to be considered before a childless married woman decides to throw herself into a career.

Presumably the need to work and make money is a restriction; it makes sense that a woman doing volunteer work can contribute to society more than a woman whose activities are dictated by her need to make money. Some women may indeed be able to contribute more through employment but this would be a minority. This minority of women who are married but childless and who have some special skill particularly suited to paid employment would have to make some arrangement with their husbands so that the husband’s earning power would not go to waste even though his wife isn’t going to need him anymore in the financial sense. Such an arrangement might well be found if the husband can be convinced his wife really does have a special gift that needs the vehicle of employment to be expressed. Still the psychology of the marital relationship might be harmed if the husband feels that his wife is no longer dependent upon him, that he is no longer “taking care of” the woman he has pledged his life to.

It needs to be remembered that a working woman is displacing the man’s role in a marital context even when a couple has no children. Making sure the man’s power and resources are not wasted in a situation where the wife wants to work is a task and a consideration that needs to be addressed.

Laura writes:

Mr. Powell makes important points. I entirely agree with him that the psychology of the marriage could be harmed if the woman works in a job. I do think it is preferable if the woman is not employed and does volunteer work of some kind that can easily accomodate her home responsibilities, vacations with her husband, time with her extended family, private time for her, etc. Even though she does not have children, it is of supreme importance that she maintain her marriage.

A woman at home today is in a very different situation from women in the past who had many other women as companions and real communities. So I can also understand that a woman might find the isolation very difficult.

Hurricane Betsy writes:

“Infertility is such a hardship. If abortion were not so common, there would be many more children to adopt and infertile married couples could probably be guaranteed of having a full family. That’s one of the great evils of abortion.”

Abortion is inherently evil virtually all the time. But not because it causes lack of babies for childless couples to adopt. Making barren people happy should never be one of the considerations in banning abortion!!! This should not even be mentioned. The purpose, the only purpose, of adoption is to find the best possible home for a homeless, parentless child. To match up the baby with the best home. No more, no less. Thank you.

 Laura writes:

I do not think abortion should be banned because of infertile couples. Yes, abortion is inherently evil, and even if there was no such thing as infertility, abortion is evil and should be banned. Also, adoption is not preferable to a couple marrying and raising a child.

But, the fact is, if abortion were banned again, women who felt they were in no position to raise their children, perhaps because they were teenagers and had no option to marry, would have choices other than back alley abortions, as feminists so often claim.

Betsy adds:

Society as a whole owes barren people nothing. Barrenness is not like physical or mental disability, where we have a duty to help.

Laura writes:

Mothers do not have a duty to give up children they would otherwise keep. But they do have a duty to refrain from destroying their children and to find them a home if they cannot provide one.

Please follow and like us: