The Idol of the Proverbs 31 Woman

In studying marriage and the changes it has gone through between the Biblical definition and the Marriage 2.0 definition, I’ve found it interesting to dig back and see what marriage was like before the feminists got hold of it. Given that, perhaps the best place to start in Scripture seems to be Proverbs 31 in looking at the so-called Proverbs 31 woman. This is true since feminists of all stripes have grabbed onto it and have twisted it into more knots than a bag of pretzels. I have no interest in a full dissertation on that section of Scripture (Proverbs 31:10-31) at this time, but am interested in its historical interpretation and the deviation from it.

The Evangelical Feminist Idol
I’ve referred to it as the “Proverbs 31 Idol” in the past simply with the view of what the modern evangelical feminists have done with the Scripture. They point to it as their justification for Marriage 2.0 and career (the feminist merit badge). Empathologism writes:

Proverbs 31 has been up-defined far beyond what it actually says. The narrative of the evangelical feminist is that they fear the abuses of the man to whom they would otherwise submit, and look here at this woman in 31, she didn’t submit in fact she ran her own fields, etc. etc. The scripture fits perfectly well with Ephesians ordered marriage if they would allow it to do so. It highlights a woman doing what a woman should do under an Ephesians ordered marriage, there is no conflict there, no contradiction.

There is a Proverbs 31 Ministry which embodies these twisted and warped things attached to Proverbs 31 by traditional feminists. Comparing their principles with the full counsel of Scripture reveals that they are seriously off message. There is nothing about the Proverbs 31 woman that is inconsistent with the rest of the counsel of Scripture on marriage.

The Ignored Quality of The Proverbs 31 Woman
I’ve observed that the tipping point for marriage moving away from the Biblical model to Marriage 2.0 was a global event in society. The Industrial Revolution shifted things from an agrarian/tradesman model to an industrial model where tradesmen and craftsmen were replaced by the laborer. This shift not only brought the husband outside of the home for extended periods of time (12-15 hours), but also brought the previous production of the wife for the family out into the factory. If she did not work in the factory (she and the children might if the family was poor), she was relieved of much of her work-load. As Alexandra Kollontai writes:

The woman did everything that the modern working and peasant woman has to do, but besides this cooking, washing, cleaning and mending, she spun wool and linen, wove cloth and garments, knitted stockings, made lace, prepared – as far as her resources permitted – all sorts of pickles, jams and other preserves for winter, and manufactured, her own candles. It is difficult to make a complete list of all her duties. That is how our mothers and grandmothers lived.
…
But capitalism has changed all this. All that was formerly produced in the bosom of the family is now being manufactured on a mass scale in workshops and factories. The machine has superseded the wife. What housekeeper would now bother to make candles, spin wool or weave, cloth? All these products can be bought in the shop next door, formerly every girl would learn to knit stockings. Nowadays, what working woman would think of making her own?

Proverbs 31 tells us similar things:

She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. She is like the merchants’ ships; she bringeth her food from afar. (v13-14)

She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. (v16)

She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. (v19)

She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet. (v21)

She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple. (v22)

She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. (v24)

It should be obvious that a wife should be a net producer in her family and not a net consumer. But given the average situation, it left women at home with a lot of time on their hands and very little to do towards the provision for their families. This time period marks the rise in power of traditional feminism, the increasing feminisation of the Church, and its growth in influence into the government and secular realm. Douglas Wilson summarizes the situation that has resulted from the rise of industrialism:

The first was the rise of a sentimental and domestic feminism. Prior to the industrial revolution, the role of women in America was at the center of the economy. Women managed the home, manufactured the cloth,
processed the food, fed the entire family, etc.

But with the rise of industrialized wealth, the role of women shifted from producing to consuming. The women were, in effect, disestablished—and became decorative. Middle class women became a new leisure class, with money to spend, and time to fill.

Analysis Of The Roles
These camps are delineated today by the conflict that occurs between traditional and secular feminists. These role choices are the stay-at-home wife, or the career wife. Alexandra Kollontai was able to point out in 1920 the effect that having a working mother had on the family:

The family breaks down as more and more women go out to work. How can one talk about family life when the man and woman work different shifts, and where the wife does not even have the time to prepare a decent meal for her offspring? How can one talk of parents when the mother and father are out working all day and cannot find the time to spend even a few minutes with their children? . . . Nowadays the working woman hastens out of the house early in the morning when the factory whistle blows. When evening comes and the whistle sounds again, she hurries home to scramble through the most pressing of her domestic tasks. Then it’s oil to work again the next morning, and she is tired from lack of sleep. For the married working woman, life is as had as the workhouse. It is not surprising therefore that family ties should loosen and the family begin to fall apart.

As communist propaganda, it is very predictive, since feminism has its influences in Marxism/Communism. Kollontai foresees the destruction of the family and the upbringing of the children by the State. She sees the freedom of women from house work and ties to a husband as an important step.

Is the current state of the average stay-at-home wife, whose husband works while she does not produce for the family, any better? As described in the “Proverbs 31 woman”, the noble wife used to provide for the family along with the husband. Note that child care and cleaning are not mentioned in that passage, but legitimate production and provision of goods. Besides the issue of idle hands that has already been presented, the other problem that is created is one of entitlement (“deserving and demanding”). It is an issue that frequently comes with the lack of recognition of grace, especially when it comes to the feeling that one deserves something (or has a sense of entitlement). This sense of entitlement that is in these idle women is not supported by Scripture:

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12)

And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. (1 Timothy 5:13)

And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart. (She is loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house: Now is she without, now in the streets, and lieth in wait at every corner.) (Proverbs 7:10-12)

The sense of entitlement to arrogance which has marked most all women in their attitudes towards men has come from this very thing. Lgrobins deals with the case of Lydia:

Don’t certain women think the same thing about men? That men should always be making money, always slaving away for them, or they have no value.

This single change in the dynamic of Marriage 1.0 where the wife is not expected to provide in a marriage is perhaps the most devastating in the change-over to Marriage 2.0, and the most damaging upon men. While wives might have started out being gracious for the uneven sacrifice that men undertook in this new form of marriage, they have become entitled and arrogant and have used government and the Church to get it no matter what the cost.

It has come to pass that every woman deserves a workhorse slave husband of her very own when she’s ready for him and how dare there be men that don’t give it over gladly to them! They just aren’t good men! Good men know that they exist on the earth for the sole purpose to fear women and keep their commandments! That’s the Marriage 2.0 way!

Neither group can lay legitimate claim to the “Proverb 31 woman” today.