Thread by @bethallisonbarr

I just read a thread arguing that birth control gives women options they 'naturally' shouldn't have, throwing Christian families into "artificial confusion."

I don't know enough about author to quote tweet him; nor do I want to drive folk to him. But I can't stay silent either.

His point--that women today have choices btw career & family, about education, etc., afforded them only by the "artificial" introduction of birth control that has disrupted the natural rhythms of marriage & motherhood--doesn't have the historical footing that he thinks it does.

Take work, for example. He links women's ability to "build a career" (as a choice instead of being a mom) to reliable birth control. Does this mean that women who worked before modern birth control were either celibate or beyond child-bearing years?

Does this mean that the stay-at-home married mother is the 'natural' destination for Christian women, unless they are derailed by choosing birth control (w/unlimited, cost-free sexual gratification) that affords women access to education and careers?

If this is what he is arguing (and I hope I read him wrong), then how does he account for the fact that women throughout history have always worked as they bore children, sometimes alongside their husbands and sometimes in their own ventures. Just read Margery Kempe.

How does he account for the fact that, even in modern U.S., the ability to NOT work and stay home with children is a luxury most families cannot afford. You can talk all you like about the sacrifices women should make by staying home, but in my home town of Waco, TX the cost...

of an average family home has increased 28% over the past year while minimum wage in Texas is only $7.25 an hour. minimum-wage.org/texas. Claiming that women making a choice to work is selfish and connected to a desire for sexual gratification over being a mom is ludicrous

It is also deeply rooted in Western notions of superiority and racism, not to mention historically deluded. The worst part of his thread, however, is his statement that having only a choice between "celibacy or babies" was "very good for us" bc "marriage and exclusivity flowed..

naturally out of them, together with culturally-appropriate gender roles. Marriage really is natural."

Y'all, go read chapter 6 of #MakingBiblicalWomanhood. Go read Merry Wiesner-Hanks Gender in History: Global Perspectives. Heck, go read anything by a reputable historian.

If you want to know what lays behind this tweet thread, go read ch 1 of #MakingBiblicalWomanhood. This is a prime example of hardline patriarchy that is nothing new (despite the author's claims). Aristotle said the same things about women more than 2 thousand years ago...

To quote myself: Patriarchy may be a part of Christian history, but that doesn't make it Christian.

Nor does it make it 'natural' nor even good for women.

(plus to think that a choice between celibacy and babies made men historically more prone to monogamy is not only inaccurate but super funny.....)