Being a Keeper at Home is Unproductive and Barbarous?

Being a Keeper at Home is Unproductive and Barbarous?

Do you know who proclaimed these words, that being a keeper at home is unproductive and barbarous? Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Russian Communist Party, leader of the Bolshevik Revolution and architect and first head of the Soviet state, whereas God, the Creator of women, instructs them to be keepers at home. Once a people decide to do away with God and His Word, chaos and evil reigns as it does in communist countries and our country. You can argue with God’s plan for women all you want but God’s ways are always perfect for us for all time.

Here are two statements that Vladimir Lenin had to say about this topic.

“We must now say proudly and without any exaggeration that apart from Soviet Russia, there is not a country in the world where women enjoy full equality and where women are not placed in the humiliating position felt particularly in day-to-day family life.  This is one of our first and most important tasks…Housework is the most unproductive, the most barbarous and the most arduous work a woman can do. It is exceptionally petty and does not include anything that would in any way promote the development of the woman…The building of socialism will begin only when we have achieved the complete equality of women and when we undertake the new work together with women who have been emancipated from that petty stultifying, unproductive work…We are setting up model institutions, dining-rooms and nurseries, that will emancipate women from housework…These institutions that liberate women from their position as household slaves are springing up where it is in any way possible…Our task is to make politics available to every working woman.” 1

Do you understand what this means, women? All of you who are fighting for “equality” and “equal pay” and the right to vote and leadership positions for women in politics and government are fighting against God and destroying countries. Nothing good has happened since women left their homes and their children in the hands of strangers at preschools and public schools for these to teach and raise. God wants women at home full time raising their children in the nurture and the admonition of the Lord, not strangers, and certainly not a godless government.

God designed women for a very important reason and purpose: to bear and raise the next generation. Do you understand that nothing you can do can compare to this if you have been blessed with children? All children need and want their mothers home full time making their homes places of beauty, security, and peace.

“The chief thing is to get women to take part in socially productive labor, to liberate them from ‘domestic slavery,’ to free them from their stupefying [idiotic] and humiliating subjugation to the eternal drudgery of the kitchen and the nursery. This struggle will be a long one, and it demands a radical reconstruction, both of social technique and of morale. But it will end in the complete triumph of Communism.” 2

This is scary stuff and it’s happening in our country right now and most of us have fallen for these lies. Rebel against the thought that being a homemaker is “domestic slavery” and find and show joy in doing the mundane but significant in God’s eyes. The majority of women today, even Christian women, don’t feel worthwhile if they aren’t making money but God has never given the job of making money to women. There isn’t one verse in the entire Bible that commands women to be the providers. He gave this to men:

 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return (Genesis 3:17-19).

What is the women’s job God has given them?

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee (Genesis 3:16). Her important job is to have children, raise them, and live in subjection to her husband as a keeper at home and looking well to the ways of her household.

These roles are perfect, women. These roles raise up godly offspring if done joyfully to the Lord. Love your role at home. Enjoying making your home a welcoming place of beauty and peace for all who live there. Stick close to the Lord’s ways for you and be an example to a wicked culture. It wasn’t God or even feminism who was behind the mass exodus of women from the home. It was the enemy of their soul. Nothing is new under the sun. The same Devil who persuaded Eve to rebel against God has never let up trying to persuade women from their God ordained roles. No one can replace you in your home.

Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.
1 Corinthians 15:58

1. Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 30, p. 4
2. Vladimir, Lenin. “International Working Women’s Day speech”, 1920

19 thoughts on “Being a Keeper at Home is Unproductive and Barbarous?

  1. Excellent! Satan and Stalin are great at taking the focus of women off of the primary prize of a a child’s life and soul and placing it upon mundane housework. Is the soul of the woman to be freed by avoiding housework while the souls of her children turned over to the state to raise and brain wash as it pleases?

    And once she completes this grand adventure of being freed from family responsibilities she soon finds herself in bondage to another boss, another set of mundane tasks to do each day, another master called “mammon.” What truly sets one free is not the tasks one does or the type of life one lives, but in resting in the perfect will of the Creator who knows our hearts and will give each of His Children the best gifts… the gifts of life, love and all wrapped up in healthy, productive, disciplined and God-fearing children.

    Children are to be a parent’s reward… their young children, adult children and grand children. Each one shining brightly because of the love and sacrifice placed into them by mother and father sold out in doing things God’s ways. I can say from being that the top of a profession that there is no second best to the time, energy and love one pours into their family. Christians should learn this lesson young before it is too late and the heart ache of loving a child’s heart begins to harm your own life.

    1. Thank you for working so hard and providing for our family so I could be home full time with our precious children! It is all I ever wanted to do and loved doing it. xoxox

  2. What a sad story Dani, it proves me one more time that a Mom full-time at home is priceless ! My Mom did this for me and my siblings, I am so grateful that she sacrificed herself for us… I am doing the same for our sons, and what a joy ☺!!!
    Speaking of USSR, our oldest son (17) is committed to the LORD, wishes to do God’s will with his life, and plans to go to Ukraine for 2 months this summer to help missionaries there. To God be the glory !
    Blessings to you and your husband !

    1. Thank you dear Daniele! Good to hear from you and your family!
      We reap what we sow (we can’t run from that truth!) and
      YOU are obviously reaping JOY ! May our LORD be praised! 🙂
      Blessings to your family!

    1. Thanks Ken for those comments! I loved being home with my children…my daughter is following the same path:) Even though she went to school to learn a trade, she has the desire to stay home,and her husband works hard so that can be accomplished,oh how I wish all mama’s would stay home,it is such a noble calling!!

    2. Yes, I can’t imagine giving my kids away for days and nights without end to a government institution to raise them. My heart would break. But for them it was kind of normal life.

      I am so grateful that my husband made it possible for me always to be home with our kids.

      Keep up the good work!

      Your blog is the biggest blessing to me and my family!

  3. I agree with the premise of this post, that women are to be keepers at home and I am saddened that it is looked down on. It is the most rewarding and important job there is. Most problems in our society can be traced right back to the home. If we get our job right, the jails will be empty. As Melinda said in her comment, it is such a noble calling.

    But one question here; maybe I am simply mis-reading. Is fighting for the right to vote going against God? It seems to me that come election time, the more conservative voices we have, the better. Do you and Ken agree? I am interested in your thoughts. Blessings to you both.

    1. The sole reason women fought for the right to vote was because they didn’t respect men’s vote and believed they knew better, Tam. Women voting hasn’t made one single thing better. Presidents Clinton and Obama were elected due to women voting and women are more traditionally for abortion, against the right to bear arms, etc. than men and against many things conservatives value. God made men the leaders for a reason. They tend to me more long-term oriented whereas women short-term (“It’s my body and I should do as I want!” instead of seeing the value of human life).

      Ken and I do vote but I vote the way he does so as not to negate his vote since he is the head over me. Thankfully, we have always seen eye to eye on this issue but women “fighting” for their right to vote isn’t the grand thing that feminists proclaim it is, that’s for sure.

      1. Lori, I have a question for you regarding that comment. You say women vote against the “right to bear arms”. Is this an American thing – bearing arms? Does this mean the legal right to wander around in public carrying a gun? Or am I misunderstanding? If that is indeed what it means, why on earth would any Christian be in support of that? The Bible makes it clear that we are to be peacemakers, and treat one another with kindness and love, and not commit murder. How does having a gun help with any of that?

        I understand that it is American culture to have guns, but I’m really not sure WHY. Here in New Zealand, we have very strict gun laws in place, and the vast majority of people do not have guns. NO ONE carries a gun in a public place – (unless they’re on a hunting trip, but even then, it has to be locked away in the boot of the car separate from the bolt and ammunition until they get to their destination) even most of our Police are not armed.

        Please help me understand why a woman, particularly a Christian woman, should be encouraging the “right to bear arms”?

        1. It’s in our Constitution, KAK. It’s not so people can murder people but for protection from intruders and murderers. If guns are outlawed, the only people who would have them would be criminals and good people couldn’t protect themselves then. In all of the mass murders if only one person was carrying a gun, they could have protected the many that were murdered. In fact, there were a few attempted mass murders but the mass murderer was killed before he could murder many.

          1. I understand that it’s in your constitution, but that’s not what I’m asking. My question is about why a Christian should be encouraging the use of guns.

            Let’s put it another way: if Jesus was an American, would he be carrying a gun? I don’t believe he would. Jesus taught us to “turn the other cheek” and that vengeance belongs to the Lord. He taught love, not violence. Jesus allowed himself to be crucified. Everything he taught flies in the face of Christians carrying guns, even under the guise of personal protection.

            Lori, if an intruder was in your house, and you had a gun, would you use it to kill the intruder? I know I would, especially if I believed my children were in danger. I would then be guilty of murder (at least, the ways the laws are written here, I would be). But even worse, I believe I would have committed a grave sin, and be in danger of losing my salvation. I don’t know that I could live with myself, if I killed someone, even in “self-defence”. I would rather not have the gun in the first place and trust in God for protection. (That’s not to say that He would not allow us to be murdered – perhaps He would – but if He did, it would be in His plan for some reason.)

          2. Of course, I would use a gun if someone’s intent was to kidnap or murder my child! And I would NOT lose my salvation over this. The only way we would lose our salvation is if we stopped believing for only unbelief is the unpardonable sin. If I intentionally allowed my child to be killed and had the means to stop it (a gun) but didn’t, this is when I couldn’t live with myself. Jesus even told His Disciples to take a sword with them: “And He said to them, ‘But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.'” (Luke 22:36)

            From a commentary on this verse: “This, then, is not to be considered as a specific, positive ‘command’ to procure a sword, but an intimation that great dangers were before them; that their manner of life would be changed, and that they would need the provisions ‘appropriate to that kind of life.’ The ‘common’ preparation for that manner of life consisted in money, provisions, and arms; and he foretells them of that manner of life by giving them directions commonly understood to be appropriate to it. It amounts, then, to a ‘prediction’ that they would soon leave the places which they had been accustomed to, and go into scenes of poverty, want, and danger, where they would feel the necessity of money, provisions, and the means of defense. All, therefore, that the passage justifies is:

            1. That it is proper for people to provide beforehand for their wants, and for ministers and missionaries as well as any others.

            2. That self-defense is lawful.

            Men encompassed with danger may lawfully ‘defend’ their lives. It does not prove that it is lawful to make ‘offensive’ war on a nation or an individual.” (Barnes’ Notes on the Bible)

  4. Thank you for explaining that, Lori.
    I don’t agree with having guns, and probably never will, but that is most likely to do with the fact that the culture here surrounding guns is so different from the way you have grown up. Probably if I had grown up in a country where it was normal to carry guns, I would think the way you do, too. Here, it is not a “right” to bear arms. As far as I know, it never was. So that of course has shaped my thinking.

    1. I see your point of view because I come from a country with very strict gun regulations and very low levels of violent crime (far less than in US: in any given year, in the whole country we have less homicides than a big US city, despite population differences ).

      So I have been wondering why they haven’t stricter gun regulations, until I came across an article explaining why.

      According to the author, the majority of gun violence occurs just in a limited number of cities (like Detroit or Chicago). Within these cities, gun violence occurs in specific areas, so outside these specific areas, there is safety. And even within these violent areas, gun murders happen within a limited, specific group of individuals (usually, drug dealers). So the average American is unaffected by violence and simply doesn’t get why removing his gun would make the country safer. It’s true, that even removing this sort of violence from the counting, gun homicide rates are higher than in the least violent countries (where I live mass shootings are virtually inexistent and the very few intruders usually have fake guns or knives because they know that homeowners don’t have guns), but again there is some predictability in gun homicides (e.g. the abusive husband who shoots his wife) so it’s difficult for the average person to make a link between easy gun access and a violence which largely doesn’t affect them.

      1. Except that Chicago has the strictest gun restrictions in the country with the most violence. The only ones that strict gun restrictions affect are law abiding citizens. Criminals will always be able to get guns somehow. Guns aren’t the issue. It’s the breakdown of the family and morality that are the issue.

    2. Thanks, KAK and Lori, for your comments on the right to bear arms. Owning a gun here is not a right but a privilege.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *