Ooh, good stuff on the internet!

I was doing my usual meandering around the internet this morning when I found a series of really cool blog posts that I totally agree with. They're about the role of women and moms.

You know I'm a stay-at-home mom and I'm pretty vocal about my support for that choice. But it's really about the kids having a parent with them, not about "my role as a woman." So I'm okay with stay-at-home dads and working moms. I don't see that it makes a huge difference. We've had some debate on that topic in the combox recently, which has been fun.

This woman here agrees with me. Start with her post In which I am a working mother and proud of it. And then, if that piques your interest, try this: In which I wonder what it means to be "keeper of the home." And if you're not tired of the topic, read her conclusion here: In which I am a keeper of my home.

The summary is more or less this: God does not give us a commandment that women have to stay home. We do what we do because we feel it is God's will for us for that time, and it can change without changing our essence.

At some point I really should start writing about this issue more myself. When I was younger, I was only ever exposed to the "liberal" point of view, which seemed to consider stay-at-home moms poor, oppressed slaves to the housework, while working women were triumphant and happy in their freedom from having to be with their kids. So naturally I spent my time emphasizing the importance of women who stay home with their kids. But now I keep reading fundamentalist blog after fundamentalist blog (seriously, why do I read this stuff? it's a sickness) and seeing people lay down the law on everyone and insisting that not only do women not need a career, regardless of their season of life, but they don't need an education either, and while we're at it, they should be under the headship of a man from cradle to grave. And that gets my dander up even worse, so that I start sounding like quite the liberal feminist. I see it as a matter of balance, and I have to defend that balance from both extremes.

Speaking of extremes. Check out this list of questions a dad should ask a young man who shows interest in his daughter. The Spanish Inquisition has nothing on this guy.

I did have John call my dad before he escorted me to a dance in freshman year. In retrospect, it was kind of silly to make him do that, seeing as it wasn't even really meant as a date. But my dad's only real question was, "Are you a Knight of Columbus? No? Oh, too bad." He may have asked some other stuff. But the conversation took five minutes, because (as my dad told me later), "If a guy holds up to your standards, there's no chance of him falling short of mine."

Let me tell you, if I were a guy and knew an interview like that was in store for me, I'd probably flee the country. My goodness. Some favorites: "Describe your standards of dress for women." (Isn't that more a question you would ask a woman?) "Have you ever been exposed to pornography? If so, explain the extent and the circumstances." (Awkward.) "What has been your prior experience with dating and romance? Have you ever kissed or been physically intimate in any way with a girl/woman? If so, explain the circumstances." (I'm not sure it's a father-in-law's business if the guy has kissed someone before. I could see the girl herself wanting to ask. But since this blog says that the "first affectionate touch" should be within marriage, well ... I guess it seemed an acceptable thing to ask.)

Well, I guess I've given you plenty to read. Enjoy, and I'd love to hear your opinions when you get back.