What do you think?
Rate this book
Eve in Exile and the Restoration of Femininity
The swooning Victorian ladies and the 1950s housewives genuinely needed to be liberated. That much is indisputable. So, First-Wave feminists held rallies for women's suffrage. Second-Wave feminists marched for Prohibition, jobs, and abortion. Today, Third-Wave feminists stand firmly for nobody's quite sure what. But modern women -- who use psychotherapeutic antidepressants at a rate never before seen in history -- need liberating now more than ever. The truth is, feminists don't know what liberation is. They have led us into a very boring dead end.Eve in Exile sets aside all stereotypes of mid-century housewives, of China-doll femininity, of Victorians fainting, of women not allowed to think for themselves or talk to the men about anything interesting or important. It dismisses the pencil-skirted and stiletto-heeled executives of TV, the outspoken feminists freed from all that hinders them, the brave career women in charge of their own destinies. Once those fictionalized stereotypes are out of the way -- whether they're things that make you gag or things you think look pretty fun -- Christians can focus on real women. What did God make real women for?
"Well-researched...this book has enough sass to keep it lighthearted, and lots of vision about building the culture of the home and bringing dignity instead of disgrace to the vocations of wife and mother." --~Touchstone Magazine
"A total pleasure. This book is an excellent treatise on both society s and current cultural Christianity s view on women gone wrong and how we should fix it... I laughed. I cried. I highlighted. I wanted to high-five someone several times while reading this." ~Summer White Jaeger, co-host of Sheologians
"This is my new go-to recommendation for a book on biblical femininity. Merkle is excellently nuanced and not inappropriately prescriptive, while still being clear and unshrinkingly scripture-based. --~Rachel Schultz, author and blogger at On Homemaking
"Winsome, witty, and conversational, Eve in Exile is also a grand and inspiring call for women to reject the selfish pursuits of feminism and give their lives away to serve family and home for the sake of Christ." ~Nicole Mahaney Whitacre, co-author of Girl Talk and True Beauty
"Fresh and edifying perspective on a woman s role in the world. Without relying on any of the usual mommy-blog tropes, Merkle gives us a reason to be truly excited about what we get to do and be as Christian women living in the 21 century." --~Tilly Dillehay, author and blogger at While We Practical Theology for Busy Pilgrims
This book is published by Canon Press. At Canon Press, we’re gospel no matter who you are or what you do, you’re called to be increasing in Biblical faithfulness. That’s because Jesus’s death and resurrection changed All of Christ, for all of life, for all the world.
As the wisest man said, “Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart; for God has already accepted your works” (Eccl. 9:7).We believe reformation and revival start from faith in the Lord with joyful obedience to the Bible, and that is what makes everyday tasks significant and transforms culture. Because of these beliefs, we offer books on Christian living, encouragement, contentment, raising kids, healthy marriages, educational choices, classical education, homeschooling, politics, government, feminism, identity, manhood, womanhood, singleness, virtue, and so much more.
"Well-researched...this book has enough sass to keep it lighthearted, and lots of vision about building the culture of the home and bringing dignity instead of disgrace to the vocations of wife and mother." --~Touchstone Magazine
"A total pleasure. This book is an excellent treatise on both society s and current cultural Christianity s view on women gone wrong and how we should fix it... I laughed. I cried. I highlighted. I wanted to high-five someone several times while reading this." ~Summer White Jaeger, co-host of Sheologians
"This is my new go-to recommendation for a book on biblical femininity. Merkle is excellently nuanced and not inappropriately prescriptive, while still being clear and unshrinkingly scripture-based. --~Rachel Schultz, author and blogger at On Homemaking
"Winsome, witty, and conversational, Eve in Exile is also a grand and inspiring call for women to reject the selfish pursuits of feminism and give their lives away to serve family and home for the sake of Christ." ~Nicole Mahaney Whitacre, co-author of Girl Talk and True Beauty
"Fresh and edifying perspective on a woman s role in the world. Without relying on any of the usual mommy-blog tropes, Merkle gives us a reason to be truly excited about what we get to do and be as Christian women living in the 21 century." --~Tilly Dillehay, author and blogger at While We Practical Theology for Busy Pilgrims
This book is published by Canon Press. At Canon Press, we’re gospel no matter who you are or what you do, you’re called to be increasing in Biblical faithfulness. That’s because Jesus’s death and resurrection changed All of Christ, for all of life, for all the world.
As the wisest man said, “Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart; for God has already accepted your works” (Eccl. 9:7).We believe reformation and revival start from faith in the Lord with joyful obedience to the Bible, and that is what makes everyday tasks significant and transforms culture. Because of these beliefs, we offer books on Christian living, encouragement, contentment, raising kids, healthy marriages, educational choices, classical education, homeschooling, politics, government, feminism, identity, manhood, womanhood, singleness, virtue, and so much more.
212 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 27, 2016
929 people are currently reading
6023 people want to read
About the author
Rebekah Merkle
17 books299 followersRebekah Merkle has dabbled in a number of occupations ranging from running her own clothing label to designing fabrics to becoming a full-time high school humanities teacher. Her designs have been featured in a number of magazines and she has edited a Brit Lit curriculum for Canon Press, but by far her proudest accomplishment is her crew of five outrageous, hilarious, high-speed teenage children, and her favorite role is that of wife to her similarly outrageous, hilarious, and high-speed husband Ben Merkle.
Rebekah is the daughter of Douglas Wilson and is the sister of Rachel Jankovic & N.D. Wilson
Rebekah is the daughter of Douglas Wilson and is the sister of Rachel Jankovic & N.D. Wilson
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 981 reviews
March 22, 2018
Wow, where to begin? There are some authentic gems of wisdom in this book, but they're buried under a mountain range of sheer horsecrappery that is so formidable, entire parties of hikers have gotten lost in it and resorted to cannibalism rather than having to read another word of this book. Merkle's writing voice is the sort of tone deaf that makes you have to take breaks - not because she is so very very cutting edge and counterculturally witty and smart and we lowly readers JUST CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH, though she clearly fancies herself as such, but because she is just cringingly awkward and insensitive toward just about every group of people she touches with her words herein. I think some of it might be a feeble attempt at humor (?), but it falls completely flat as she ridicules feminists, liberal women, conservative women, underachieving housewives who have it super easy and should be fixing five course meals every day because that's God's will for every woman ever created - she has a lot of condescension and tongue clucks for all women, really, and she sure thinks she's the one to tell you what's what.
Let's just get the remaining negative things out of the way so that I can tell you what I did like: Merkle's treatment of research, facts, and statistics is dubious and flexible at best, dishonest and manipulative at worst. She so frequently bends data and history to fit her angle and her message that my fear is that a young woman who is not familiar with the historical events and data in this book (and might be reading this book explicitly for that purpose) might swallow Merkle's distortions without a second thought and thus be somewhat misled. She really needed an editor to critically look at the (sparse) research portions and fact check her. In some areas, she reports facts but twists the truth in her treatment of these facts in the surrounding narrative. Quoting every instance of Merkle's mishandling of historical evidence and facts would be daunting and I honestly don't have the space in this review, but one example is when she quotes a study that said that 21% of women were taking antidepressants in the 1963 and 26% of women were taking them in the present day (2016 if we go by her publication date). She used this to drive home her point that women are vastly unhappier now than they were in 1963, and her reasoning is that this increase in unhappiness was because more women began to work outside the home. Whether this is true or not (and it might very well be!), her evidence doesn't imply causation *or even correlation,* because there are too many variables to draw the kind of conclusion she is trying to cobble together. For one, the medications she is comparing are extremely different from one another. She equates 1960s tranquilizers (she does not provide medication names - surprise) that are designed to decrease anxiety and often produced lethargy and actually worsened depression, with modern antidepressants that are geared toward healing a chemical imbalance in the brain, leading to increased productivity and quality of life. Not only are the types of drugs definitely not comparable, Merkle also fails to take into account the social stigma of psychiatric medications in the 60s vs. 2016, and how many women were afraid or unable to see a doctor for mental health purposes in each era, and how that might affect the data. Finally, the figures she reports - 21% vs 26% - is a tiny increase that is almost negligible when you factor in the above variables. Merkle's aim is to win your agreement at all costs, even if it means distorting the data, which is really sad because she has a few good points buried in all the mess. The sad thing is, her actual point itself might not be wrong - it might be true that women ARE unhappier now - but the evidence she chose is so mishandled that it does little to prove her point and actually makes her come across as less credible.
Another type of textual evidence mistreated by Merkle - and if you're a believer, a more important one - is Scripture. At one point, she cites 1 Timothy 2:12 - Paul's declaration that, at least in the cultural context of the church he was talking about, he does not permit a woman to teach or assume authority over a man. Merkle amputates the latter bit of this verse in order to bend it into supporting her strange agenda, which is that women should not be in a capacity of teaching *at all,* though Paul limits his instructions by saying that women should not teach *men.* Even without the cultural context of this verse, or any research into the translation or other factors, the wording obviously doesn't prevent women from engaging in teaching and leadership and ministry directed toward other women, children, etc. What's odd about her interpretation is that Merkle herself is a high school humanities teacher and sets herself up as a teacher and leader in that she writes books. If her interpretation of the Scriptures is that women are forbidden to use our voices and must be silent, not in leadership in any capacity, and not permitted to teach or preach in any capacity using words (that’s the man’s job, instead we must sing the Gospel through food and housecleaning), the author violates her own interpretation herself. Because books are, like, made of words and stuff. This is just one instance of the mishandling of Scripture in Eve in Exile; you can find a few more where she fails to take into account the cultural context of a passage, belittles other interpretations (suggesting that anyone who sees something different in the text or translation than she does is doing "gymnastical" readings) and upholds her own personal interpretation as the be-all and end-all, one true reading of the Bible, etc. Just more irresponsible reading and poor research.
Another thing that bothered me deeply about Merkle's take on the role of women was her way of making sweeping blanket statements that in some cases only apply to very privileged, married women with a husband and children. She all but ignores single women, young girls, women who cannot bear children, empty nesters, widows, and women in long term relationships but still unmarried - some of these women she tosses a crumb of acknowledgement to as an afterthought in a few places, but some are never even mentioned, as if they don't exist in Merkle's view of what a woman should be. Trans women and gay women she does mention, and with such disdain that it's actually embarrassing. Merkle tries so hard to be funny in these references in particular, but her misguided attempts at humor are completely transparent and only serve to reveal a very present transphobia and homophobia that is downright disturbing in a follower of Jesus. We are called to extend our hand to the marginalized - at least that's what Jesus did - not make fun of them. Even if you disagree with the way someone lives their life, it is no reason to be nasty to them. Does she really think that will lead anyone to Christ?
Before I run out of space, I do want to mention the things I loved. Merkle hits on a few ideas that I really think are pure gold and need to be called out as such. One is the idea that homemaking has been unfairly cast as demeaning and inferior to work outside the home for decades, and this is untrue and to everyone's detriment. I agree wholeheartedly. One way in which feminism has failed in its mission to allow every woman a choice as to the direction of her life is that it has swung too far the other way, unfairly and inaccurately painting a life as a stay at home mom as dreary and entrapping and completely inferior to a life working outside the home, and chastising women who choose it, rather than acknowledging that voluntarily choosing to work within the home and pour into your children and your family is a valid choice that some women might genuinely want to make, and should be able to make freely. Merkle rightly calls out that our culture of extremes for women is a culture of landmines for women. Anywhere we step at this point in history seems to incite ridicule and shame from somewhere. She is right that this needs to change. As with any extremes, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle, and I think Merkle is correct that women (and for that matter, humans) have not collectively landed upon the balance between ambition and humility, home and work, etc. that God has for us yet.
There is also a lot of truth in the way she describes women's giftings and the ability to beautify and glorify and amplify. She is right that there is a lot of power in this, and while I agree that this is something women share, I do wonder about women who don't see themselves in this description/have different gifts, and how she would place those women. I do think that in the feminist search for total equality with men, many women have somehow forgotten to cherish and appreciate our own uniqueness. However, her descriptions of women's giftings and encouragement toward them somehow still stray off the path for me because in some sections, she veers a little too close to husband worship. There is a distinct lack of encouraging women to look to God for her calling and role and purpose, and instead this is replaced with encouragement to look to your husband to literally "[set] the brackets around your calling." I mean, whoa. She goes on to prod women to build their entire lives around the preferences and whims of her husband and calls this their calling and role. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a beautiful thing for a wife to know and understand and seek what makes her husband happy and healthy and to serve him in those ways (and he her). But to place a woman's identity and her calling solely in the middle of who her husband is and what kind of sandwich he likes (that is literally one of the examples she uses) negates a woman's direct connection to Christ and His leading for her life. Merkle stumbles into a false hierarchy in these sections wherein a wife pretty much worships her husband and the husband worships God. This is dangerous and scary theology. I do love her descriptions of how women need to reclaim their ability to translate holiness into beauty and grace, but I wish she hadn't fused it to a garbage pile of idolatry disguised as a marriage.
I really loved her description of the lost art of authentic homemaking - how her husband's grandmother worked shoulder to shoulder with her husband, working hard together and in partnership toward building something beautiful and true in their family. I love this, and I agree it is a better picture of true homemaking than a housewife who is meant only to look pretty and not realize her true potential - which depending on the woman, could very well be homemaking - but could also be something else entirely, which I think Merkle does not allow for, preferring to pigeonhole every woman in existence into her definition of what it means to be one. This she does rather than acknowledge that God's plan for one woman might look quite different from her sister next to her.
The thing is, I really do think a book LIKE this needs to be written - but maybe not by Merkle. I think the role and calling of women has been decided by everyone else since the dawn of time...except of course, the woman herself as she wrestles it out with God. The flaw with Merkle's conclusion is that she becomes one more voice trying to force all women into a box, except this time the box is of Merkle's choosing and informed by her personal interpretation of the Scriptures, rather than the patriarchy's or the feminists' or what have you. It still falls flat because no book and no public figure and no movement can ever hope to dictate to women what our personal roles and callings are except for God Himself. And we would do well to remember that.
Ultimately, I don't recommend this book, but I do hope it will pave the way for better ones in the same vein. Yes, women do need to bloom into who we were made to be, but only some women will find who they are made to be depicted in this book - if they can find it at all amid the piles of insults, homophobia, transphobia, hostility, and disdain for everyone who isn't the writer herself. I have been trying to put my finger on exactly why this book so missed the mark for me when it actually did have several points I agreed with, and I think I have managed to finally discern why. The stark hard truth of Eve in Exile is that Merkle is missing love, and as such, this book is nothing but a clanging cymbal.
Let's just get the remaining negative things out of the way so that I can tell you what I did like: Merkle's treatment of research, facts, and statistics is dubious and flexible at best, dishonest and manipulative at worst. She so frequently bends data and history to fit her angle and her message that my fear is that a young woman who is not familiar with the historical events and data in this book (and might be reading this book explicitly for that purpose) might swallow Merkle's distortions without a second thought and thus be somewhat misled. She really needed an editor to critically look at the (sparse) research portions and fact check her. In some areas, she reports facts but twists the truth in her treatment of these facts in the surrounding narrative. Quoting every instance of Merkle's mishandling of historical evidence and facts would be daunting and I honestly don't have the space in this review, but one example is when she quotes a study that said that 21% of women were taking antidepressants in the 1963 and 26% of women were taking them in the present day (2016 if we go by her publication date). She used this to drive home her point that women are vastly unhappier now than they were in 1963, and her reasoning is that this increase in unhappiness was because more women began to work outside the home. Whether this is true or not (and it might very well be!), her evidence doesn't imply causation *or even correlation,* because there are too many variables to draw the kind of conclusion she is trying to cobble together. For one, the medications she is comparing are extremely different from one another. She equates 1960s tranquilizers (she does not provide medication names - surprise) that are designed to decrease anxiety and often produced lethargy and actually worsened depression, with modern antidepressants that are geared toward healing a chemical imbalance in the brain, leading to increased productivity and quality of life. Not only are the types of drugs definitely not comparable, Merkle also fails to take into account the social stigma of psychiatric medications in the 60s vs. 2016, and how many women were afraid or unable to see a doctor for mental health purposes in each era, and how that might affect the data. Finally, the figures she reports - 21% vs 26% - is a tiny increase that is almost negligible when you factor in the above variables. Merkle's aim is to win your agreement at all costs, even if it means distorting the data, which is really sad because she has a few good points buried in all the mess. The sad thing is, her actual point itself might not be wrong - it might be true that women ARE unhappier now - but the evidence she chose is so mishandled that it does little to prove her point and actually makes her come across as less credible.
Another type of textual evidence mistreated by Merkle - and if you're a believer, a more important one - is Scripture. At one point, she cites 1 Timothy 2:12 - Paul's declaration that, at least in the cultural context of the church he was talking about, he does not permit a woman to teach or assume authority over a man. Merkle amputates the latter bit of this verse in order to bend it into supporting her strange agenda, which is that women should not be in a capacity of teaching *at all,* though Paul limits his instructions by saying that women should not teach *men.* Even without the cultural context of this verse, or any research into the translation or other factors, the wording obviously doesn't prevent women from engaging in teaching and leadership and ministry directed toward other women, children, etc. What's odd about her interpretation is that Merkle herself is a high school humanities teacher and sets herself up as a teacher and leader in that she writes books. If her interpretation of the Scriptures is that women are forbidden to use our voices and must be silent, not in leadership in any capacity, and not permitted to teach or preach in any capacity using words (that’s the man’s job, instead we must sing the Gospel through food and housecleaning), the author violates her own interpretation herself. Because books are, like, made of words and stuff. This is just one instance of the mishandling of Scripture in Eve in Exile; you can find a few more where she fails to take into account the cultural context of a passage, belittles other interpretations (suggesting that anyone who sees something different in the text or translation than she does is doing "gymnastical" readings) and upholds her own personal interpretation as the be-all and end-all, one true reading of the Bible, etc. Just more irresponsible reading and poor research.
Another thing that bothered me deeply about Merkle's take on the role of women was her way of making sweeping blanket statements that in some cases only apply to very privileged, married women with a husband and children. She all but ignores single women, young girls, women who cannot bear children, empty nesters, widows, and women in long term relationships but still unmarried - some of these women she tosses a crumb of acknowledgement to as an afterthought in a few places, but some are never even mentioned, as if they don't exist in Merkle's view of what a woman should be. Trans women and gay women she does mention, and with such disdain that it's actually embarrassing. Merkle tries so hard to be funny in these references in particular, but her misguided attempts at humor are completely transparent and only serve to reveal a very present transphobia and homophobia that is downright disturbing in a follower of Jesus. We are called to extend our hand to the marginalized - at least that's what Jesus did - not make fun of them. Even if you disagree with the way someone lives their life, it is no reason to be nasty to them. Does she really think that will lead anyone to Christ?
Before I run out of space, I do want to mention the things I loved. Merkle hits on a few ideas that I really think are pure gold and need to be called out as such. One is the idea that homemaking has been unfairly cast as demeaning and inferior to work outside the home for decades, and this is untrue and to everyone's detriment. I agree wholeheartedly. One way in which feminism has failed in its mission to allow every woman a choice as to the direction of her life is that it has swung too far the other way, unfairly and inaccurately painting a life as a stay at home mom as dreary and entrapping and completely inferior to a life working outside the home, and chastising women who choose it, rather than acknowledging that voluntarily choosing to work within the home and pour into your children and your family is a valid choice that some women might genuinely want to make, and should be able to make freely. Merkle rightly calls out that our culture of extremes for women is a culture of landmines for women. Anywhere we step at this point in history seems to incite ridicule and shame from somewhere. She is right that this needs to change. As with any extremes, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle, and I think Merkle is correct that women (and for that matter, humans) have not collectively landed upon the balance between ambition and humility, home and work, etc. that God has for us yet.
There is also a lot of truth in the way she describes women's giftings and the ability to beautify and glorify and amplify. She is right that there is a lot of power in this, and while I agree that this is something women share, I do wonder about women who don't see themselves in this description/have different gifts, and how she would place those women. I do think that in the feminist search for total equality with men, many women have somehow forgotten to cherish and appreciate our own uniqueness. However, her descriptions of women's giftings and encouragement toward them somehow still stray off the path for me because in some sections, she veers a little too close to husband worship. There is a distinct lack of encouraging women to look to God for her calling and role and purpose, and instead this is replaced with encouragement to look to your husband to literally "[set] the brackets around your calling." I mean, whoa. She goes on to prod women to build their entire lives around the preferences and whims of her husband and calls this their calling and role. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a beautiful thing for a wife to know and understand and seek what makes her husband happy and healthy and to serve him in those ways (and he her). But to place a woman's identity and her calling solely in the middle of who her husband is and what kind of sandwich he likes (that is literally one of the examples she uses) negates a woman's direct connection to Christ and His leading for her life. Merkle stumbles into a false hierarchy in these sections wherein a wife pretty much worships her husband and the husband worships God. This is dangerous and scary theology. I do love her descriptions of how women need to reclaim their ability to translate holiness into beauty and grace, but I wish she hadn't fused it to a garbage pile of idolatry disguised as a marriage.
I really loved her description of the lost art of authentic homemaking - how her husband's grandmother worked shoulder to shoulder with her husband, working hard together and in partnership toward building something beautiful and true in their family. I love this, and I agree it is a better picture of true homemaking than a housewife who is meant only to look pretty and not realize her true potential - which depending on the woman, could very well be homemaking - but could also be something else entirely, which I think Merkle does not allow for, preferring to pigeonhole every woman in existence into her definition of what it means to be one. This she does rather than acknowledge that God's plan for one woman might look quite different from her sister next to her.
The thing is, I really do think a book LIKE this needs to be written - but maybe not by Merkle. I think the role and calling of women has been decided by everyone else since the dawn of time...except of course, the woman herself as she wrestles it out with God. The flaw with Merkle's conclusion is that she becomes one more voice trying to force all women into a box, except this time the box is of Merkle's choosing and informed by her personal interpretation of the Scriptures, rather than the patriarchy's or the feminists' or what have you. It still falls flat because no book and no public figure and no movement can ever hope to dictate to women what our personal roles and callings are except for God Himself. And we would do well to remember that.
Ultimately, I don't recommend this book, but I do hope it will pave the way for better ones in the same vein. Yes, women do need to bloom into who we were made to be, but only some women will find who they are made to be depicted in this book - if they can find it at all amid the piles of insults, homophobia, transphobia, hostility, and disdain for everyone who isn't the writer herself. I have been trying to put my finger on exactly why this book so missed the mark for me when it actually did have several points I agreed with, and I think I have managed to finally discern why. The stark hard truth of Eve in Exile is that Merkle is missing love, and as such, this book is nothing but a clanging cymbal.
February 7, 2017
I read portions of this in manuscript, but have been working away at the final version since it came out. And it is, of course, fantastic. Now one of you will say to me that I am rating it this way because it was written by my daughter. But the fact that Bekah wrote this does not make me rate it this way. It would be fantastic (and greatly needed) regardless.
This book will be a great encouragement to women who want to think, live, and adorn biblically. I recommend it particularly to girls in high school and college -- a great time to get your thinking straight on these issues.
This book will be a great encouragement to women who want to think, live, and adorn biblically. I recommend it particularly to girls in high school and college -- a great time to get your thinking straight on these issues.
November 27, 2016
I was eager to read this book, though I went into it knowing that I would probably disagree with a fair portion of it. I spent a significant time in the same community as the author, and while I knew that feminism was considered bad, I didn't have a clear picture of what exactly the problem with it was. Reading this book did not necessarily change my mind, but it gave me a better understanding of where some of my friends are coming from.
The book seemed to have three major goals: to give a brief history of feminism, to give the stay-at-home-mom some good PR for once, and to discuss (albeit tangentially) the role of women in the church. I'm only going to talk about the first two in this review, since I don't think the discussion of the role of women in the church was fleshed out enough to interact with, since it boils down to "the text says this, so duh." (Part of me is sympathetic to this sort of exegesis, because I have seen certain feminists who have definitely failed to interact with Scripture with humility. That said, I've also met genuine Christians who love Scripture and believe it is inspired who nevertheless have come to the conclusion that women may serve in church leadership, so I do think there is a profitable conversation to be had -- but I digress.)
I know the history section was supposed to be a quick overview, but I still felt like it was too simplistic. I was particularly unconvinced by the chapter about 1st-wave feminism and its ties to abortion, and I wished there had been more sources cited so that I could follow up. My understanding is that most of the 1st-wavers considered abortion a societal evil. Even Margaret Sanger (!) was against abortion, and that stance was part of her mission to educate women about birth control. I am not defending all of Sanger's beliefs, and perhaps one could say that she was short-sighted or inconsistent, but I think it's important to remember that she considered abortion barbaric. (Also, if you're pro-life, it's fun to tell pro-choicers that their hero actually agreed with you.)
Even more interesting is the fact that Betty Friedan was not initially pro-abortion but was finally swayed by two men (Lader and Nathanson--the second of which later repented and became a pro-life advocate) who fed her a bunch of propaganda about the number of back-alley abortions that were actually occurring. She had to be convinced that abortion should be legalized -- it wasn't her secret agenda from the start. Now obviously, in the end, she *was* convinced, and abortion and feminism did become linked, but I'm not willing to say that abortion rights and feminism are automatically a package deal. You can have one without the other. In general, I think my main disagreement with Merkle is her idea that you can't team up with someone unless you're doing what you're doing for the same reason. I don't have a problem supporting certain "feminist" ideas or even being lumped together with the feminists at certain, strategic times, even if we might disagree on the reasons why. Ideally, it would be great if we agreed, but I think I'm just too much of a pragmatist.
I appreciated Merkle's emphasis on the importance of the home, and her defense of stay-at-home moms. She is quite right that they have often been unfairly maligned or made to feel useless in society. That said, I don't think the way to fix that is to make working women feel like they're actually the useless ones. I was especially uncomfortable with the racehorse analogy -- that career women are like racehorses cooped up in the backyard who will run around aimlessly but never be satisfied, while stay-at-home moms are racehorses who have been given the freedom to run to their heart's content -- particularly because of its implication that single women will forever be in the backyard.
I was intrigued by her four duties of women (fill, help, submit, glorify), and I wish I had time to go into all of them. Two quick things. First, I was a little disappointed that the "help" section did not include a discussion of the word "ezer" ("helper") in the Bible, which really helped shape how I view my relationship to my husband. Second, the "glorify" section dovetailed nicely into an ongoing discussion I've been having with my husband. He would probably agree with most of what Merkle said because bless him, he thinks I really do glorify his life. I often push back against the blanket assumption that women glorify, partly because I am wary of virtue becoming associated with "having good taste." I know many women might, say, nicely decorate their kitchens because they want to reflect God's beauty -- but then that can turn into a nicely-decorated kitchen becoming associated with a godly woman, which is all backwards. I'm not sure I disagree with Merkle (and my own husband) on this point, but I am just cautious about it.
I have a lot more I could say -- things I agreed with and disagreed with -- but ironically, I think I'm going to go bake something for my husband now. (It's only fair; he made dinner.)
The book seemed to have three major goals: to give a brief history of feminism, to give the stay-at-home-mom some good PR for once, and to discuss (albeit tangentially) the role of women in the church. I'm only going to talk about the first two in this review, since I don't think the discussion of the role of women in the church was fleshed out enough to interact with, since it boils down to "the text says this, so duh." (Part of me is sympathetic to this sort of exegesis, because I have seen certain feminists who have definitely failed to interact with Scripture with humility. That said, I've also met genuine Christians who love Scripture and believe it is inspired who nevertheless have come to the conclusion that women may serve in church leadership, so I do think there is a profitable conversation to be had -- but I digress.)
I know the history section was supposed to be a quick overview, but I still felt like it was too simplistic. I was particularly unconvinced by the chapter about 1st-wave feminism and its ties to abortion, and I wished there had been more sources cited so that I could follow up. My understanding is that most of the 1st-wavers considered abortion a societal evil. Even Margaret Sanger (!) was against abortion, and that stance was part of her mission to educate women about birth control. I am not defending all of Sanger's beliefs, and perhaps one could say that she was short-sighted or inconsistent, but I think it's important to remember that she considered abortion barbaric. (Also, if you're pro-life, it's fun to tell pro-choicers that their hero actually agreed with you.)
Even more interesting is the fact that Betty Friedan was not initially pro-abortion but was finally swayed by two men (Lader and Nathanson--the second of which later repented and became a pro-life advocate) who fed her a bunch of propaganda about the number of back-alley abortions that were actually occurring. She had to be convinced that abortion should be legalized -- it wasn't her secret agenda from the start. Now obviously, in the end, she *was* convinced, and abortion and feminism did become linked, but I'm not willing to say that abortion rights and feminism are automatically a package deal. You can have one without the other. In general, I think my main disagreement with Merkle is her idea that you can't team up with someone unless you're doing what you're doing for the same reason. I don't have a problem supporting certain "feminist" ideas or even being lumped together with the feminists at certain, strategic times, even if we might disagree on the reasons why. Ideally, it would be great if we agreed, but I think I'm just too much of a pragmatist.
I appreciated Merkle's emphasis on the importance of the home, and her defense of stay-at-home moms. She is quite right that they have often been unfairly maligned or made to feel useless in society. That said, I don't think the way to fix that is to make working women feel like they're actually the useless ones. I was especially uncomfortable with the racehorse analogy -- that career women are like racehorses cooped up in the backyard who will run around aimlessly but never be satisfied, while stay-at-home moms are racehorses who have been given the freedom to run to their heart's content -- particularly because of its implication that single women will forever be in the backyard.
I was intrigued by her four duties of women (fill, help, submit, glorify), and I wish I had time to go into all of them. Two quick things. First, I was a little disappointed that the "help" section did not include a discussion of the word "ezer" ("helper") in the Bible, which really helped shape how I view my relationship to my husband. Second, the "glorify" section dovetailed nicely into an ongoing discussion I've been having with my husband. He would probably agree with most of what Merkle said because bless him, he thinks I really do glorify his life. I often push back against the blanket assumption that women glorify, partly because I am wary of virtue becoming associated with "having good taste." I know many women might, say, nicely decorate their kitchens because they want to reflect God's beauty -- but then that can turn into a nicely-decorated kitchen becoming associated with a godly woman, which is all backwards. I'm not sure I disagree with Merkle (and my own husband) on this point, but I am just cautious about it.
I have a lot more I could say -- things I agreed with and disagreed with -- but ironically, I think I'm going to go bake something for my husband now. (It's only fair; he made dinner.)
May 14, 2022
2022: Listened in the Canon+ app after watching the documentary (also on the app). This is without a doubt one of my favorite books. Fantastic!
Listened to the audio-book in 2019. The second part is wonderful!
Read again in the summer of 2018. Excellent and most needed in this generation.
2016: What a book! It is like a cold bucket of water thrown over the comfortable and conservative Christian women of our times (which we know are times in which the biblical role of women is being attacked from all fronts -including women in the church!). This book is a wake-up call to embrace our calling in this world, in our churches, in our homes and thus start rebuilding what the Feminists have torn apart. It is also a call to fight hard and to advance the kingdom of God steadfastly and cheerfully with all boldness.
This is a book that will be hard to quote on Pinterest or Twitter, because it doesn't give simplistic and easy answers. Hard questions have been asked to the women who embrace the historical and biblical role in their homes and churches, and Rebekah Merkle has done an amazing job in giving answers to those questions with biblical and historical arguments.
Rebekah Merkle has written in an intelligent, powerful, and captivating way a book that all Christian women (married or single, young or old) need to read soon.
NOTE: I was provided an advanced reader copy and they didn't ask me to write favorable review, but I felt compelled to do so, because it really is a great book!
Listened to the audio-book in 2019. The second part is wonderful!
Read again in the summer of 2018. Excellent and most needed in this generation.
2016: What a book! It is like a cold bucket of water thrown over the comfortable and conservative Christian women of our times (which we know are times in which the biblical role of women is being attacked from all fronts -including women in the church!). This book is a wake-up call to embrace our calling in this world, in our churches, in our homes and thus start rebuilding what the Feminists have torn apart. It is also a call to fight hard and to advance the kingdom of God steadfastly and cheerfully with all boldness.
This is a book that will be hard to quote on Pinterest or Twitter, because it doesn't give simplistic and easy answers. Hard questions have been asked to the women who embrace the historical and biblical role in their homes and churches, and Rebekah Merkle has done an amazing job in giving answers to those questions with biblical and historical arguments.
Rebekah Merkle has written in an intelligent, powerful, and captivating way a book that all Christian women (married or single, young or old) need to read soon.
NOTE: I was provided an advanced reader copy and they didn't ask me to write favorable review, but I felt compelled to do so, because it really is a great book!
August 10, 2025
This book was hard to get through, for many reasons. Although theologically I did not disagree with much in this book, I give it one star for the hateful way it is written. Go read anything by Rosaria Butterfield as it is 1,000% better. Let me explain three problems I had with this book. The one thing I did appreciate about the book. And several things I hope this book paves the way for.
First, the “research”. There was huge lack of clarity and constant vague statements. The most factual and interesting chapter was the recap of the first and second wave of feminism. If this is the most interesting and truthful information, (not useless postulating) then there are way better books to read on this topic-albeit they do not have Christian authors. The rest of the book takes on more of a personal essay form that would be appropriate for a blog or a podcast, (which I hear the author has, but I haven't listened) not a non-fiction book.
Secondly, the attitude of the author was a constant annoyance to me. From the author who is writing about femininity and its powerful and persuasiveness, she sure does lack it. She tells the reader to, "get out more" as a solution for women who are struggling to understand that women's role is not as a pastor, page 172. Some may call it wit, but I see it as insensitive and tactless. A good Christian book should be able to be read anywhere in the world because it centers around truth about God and the Bible. I could not recommend this to an unbeliever or a believer who has questions about feminism or womanhood. It mocks transgender and gay people. This is not the way to spread the love of Christ. While I know what the Bible says about homosexuality. and gender is not fluid, I would not shame someone for being of the world, when they are not a Christian. I would slowly walk through how sinful we ALL are and how great it is He saves us AS we are. And the sanctification comes after. We do not have to have our gender and sexuality worked out before coming to God. If you struggle with those specific sins I would not read this book as it would probably turn you away from Christ rather than towards him. That’s how badly this book is written.
Thirdly, Chapter 7: Excusing Boredom has so many personal pronouns, I'm swimming in them. She starts the chapter with this sentence (if you can call it that), "But just because I understand and sympathize with the women who felt bored and under challenged doesn't mean I think it was excusable" (pg 81). What the what? I read the book and I don't know what she's talking about. As I mentioned, vague.
I did enjoy Chapter 13: Subduing Made Real. I think it fights against American-Christianity. She states, " A sloppy, lazy, underachieving attitude is not glorifying to God and is not a joyful or fulfilling approach to life." She also touches on the business that woman involve themselves in with things that are worldly and have no place in the eternal. Instead of figuring out how to make our jobs take less time so that we can have more time to lounge, we should be using all that time we saved in order to build the Kingdom of God (she wrote build "something". I'm adding the Kingdom of God because it's less vague and more biblical. Does she mean build a table or actual eternal things...who knows?). That is my only real take-way in 200+ pages.
I hope this book paves the way for more books about the topic of feminism and being a Christian. Where do the two agree and where do the two disagree.
I would support a book with
A. More factual evidence
B. More Biblical evidence.
C. A gentle correction and tone.
D. Speaking to all women, not just women who are married with kids.
E. A book that non Christians can read and see Jesus and see womanhood as a gift. Specifically that jesus cares deeply for women.
F. Things that feminists have right.
G. Does not demean transgender or lesbian women but shows them Jesus.
First, the “research”. There was huge lack of clarity and constant vague statements. The most factual and interesting chapter was the recap of the first and second wave of feminism. If this is the most interesting and truthful information, (not useless postulating) then there are way better books to read on this topic-albeit they do not have Christian authors. The rest of the book takes on more of a personal essay form that would be appropriate for a blog or a podcast, (which I hear the author has, but I haven't listened) not a non-fiction book.
Secondly, the attitude of the author was a constant annoyance to me. From the author who is writing about femininity and its powerful and persuasiveness, she sure does lack it. She tells the reader to, "get out more" as a solution for women who are struggling to understand that women's role is not as a pastor, page 172. Some may call it wit, but I see it as insensitive and tactless. A good Christian book should be able to be read anywhere in the world because it centers around truth about God and the Bible. I could not recommend this to an unbeliever or a believer who has questions about feminism or womanhood. It mocks transgender and gay people. This is not the way to spread the love of Christ. While I know what the Bible says about homosexuality. and gender is not fluid, I would not shame someone for being of the world, when they are not a Christian. I would slowly walk through how sinful we ALL are and how great it is He saves us AS we are. And the sanctification comes after. We do not have to have our gender and sexuality worked out before coming to God. If you struggle with those specific sins I would not read this book as it would probably turn you away from Christ rather than towards him. That’s how badly this book is written.
Thirdly, Chapter 7: Excusing Boredom has so many personal pronouns, I'm swimming in them. She starts the chapter with this sentence (if you can call it that), "But just because I understand and sympathize with the women who felt bored and under challenged doesn't mean I think it was excusable" (pg 81). What the what? I read the book and I don't know what she's talking about. As I mentioned, vague.
I did enjoy Chapter 13: Subduing Made Real. I think it fights against American-Christianity. She states, " A sloppy, lazy, underachieving attitude is not glorifying to God and is not a joyful or fulfilling approach to life." She also touches on the business that woman involve themselves in with things that are worldly and have no place in the eternal. Instead of figuring out how to make our jobs take less time so that we can have more time to lounge, we should be using all that time we saved in order to build the Kingdom of God (she wrote build "something". I'm adding the Kingdom of God because it's less vague and more biblical. Does she mean build a table or actual eternal things...who knows?). That is my only real take-way in 200+ pages.
I hope this book paves the way for more books about the topic of feminism and being a Christian. Where do the two agree and where do the two disagree.
I would support a book with
A. More factual evidence
B. More Biblical evidence.
C. A gentle correction and tone.
D. Speaking to all women, not just women who are married with kids.
E. A book that non Christians can read and see Jesus and see womanhood as a gift. Specifically that jesus cares deeply for women.
F. Things that feminists have right.
G. Does not demean transgender or lesbian women but shows them Jesus.
October 30, 2016
If I were a woman, this book would make me very excited about being a woman. Instead, it's just made me excited to marry one.
June 12, 2017
I've recently begun speaking out as a feminist, so I decided to read this book to better understand those women who disagree with me. Has it convinced me to reject feminism and embrace traditional gender roles? Resoundingly and emphatically, no.
But, it did accomplish one thing: It helped me understand those who think differently. So I'm glad for that.
Judging by the many positive reviews, it's clear that this book is resonating with some women. What does this tell me? That some women truly do long for the traditional picture of stay-at-home motherhood, ultra femininity, and even the conservative family structure with the husband taking the helm. Understandably, these women feel uncomfortable with modern feminism, and even looked down upon by our culture at large.
This saddens me, and demonstrates a failure on the part of third-wave feminists to effectively achieve our primary goal: Honoring and protecting the choices and preferences of all women, including stay-at-home, non-career mothers. This lifestyle is as dignified and important as any, which should go without saying. We need to do a better job at communicating this to women who want traditional roles: Their preferences here are valid and beautiful and deserve celebration.
Perhaps that is why so many conservative readers love this book, because that's exactly what it teaches. The author does a wonderful job at injecting meaning and glory into the life of the housewife, which I can imagine feels deeply validating, liberating, and inspiring to those who identify with such a calling.
But this, I'm afraid, is where my positive words for this book end.
Because this is
not
all
women.
The model of marriage she describes, with men at the head, and women centering their lives around the home, is not something I, personally, could ever willingly submit to. Without will, submission becomes slavery.
And yes, I use that strong word intentionally. Just reading the author's descriptions of so-called "Godly/Biblical womanhood" is physically stressful for me, because of how deeply it goes against my nature.
Funny how that's the whole basis of her argument (on top of "the Bible says so"): That this is women's nature. Maybe it is for some women that truly identify with, and find fulfillment in, the submissive helper role.
But even with her emphasis on the inherent equality of men and women, this role is still abhorrent to me. It has been ever since I first encountered it a decade ago, as an adolescent, while reading an even worse book called So Much More (the reading of which caused psychological damage that took years to undo).
I'd be willing to guess this is similar to the reason many women become feminists: Our given gender role just doesn't work for us.
The author's model of womanhood is especially unimpressive since (and this is where I'll loose a lot of conservative Christians) her only arguments for that model are from the Bible. An ancient text written in a different time for different people in different cultures.
Sorry, but that's not a sufficiently convincing way to prove that your model of womanhood is universally true... especially for those of us who fundamentally do not identify with it. And especially more for those of us who are more convinced by empirical evidence than by alleged revelation.
I'm not against revelation; only when it conflicts with empirical evidence. Or with basic human decency, which I feel is under threat by the disturbing arguments of this book.
Again, many women are in fact liberated by this traditional view of womanhood. Good for them. But many others feel suffocated by it, no matter how nicely one tries to spruce it up. There's simply no way you can present "submission to husbands" without making me want to gag. Sorry, it's not going to happen.
Now, there is another major aspect to this book that I need to address: And that is her take on the history of feminism, and why, to her understanding, Christians should not be a part of it.
A few things.
First, I admit that I'm not deeply educated on the history of feminism... yet. Her description of its major events and key players felt overly simplistic to me, but I'm curious to explore the subject more and see if that is or is not the case.
Either way, I agree with her that feminism appears to have some disgusting roots. (For example, Mary Shelley having an affair with a married man in the name of "free love", which ended with that man's wife committing suicide? NOT. OKAY.) And certainly there are aspects of feminism I don't align with, such as its take on abortion.
But this is where the author and I don't agree: You do not have to align with everything in a movement in order to participate in it.
If that were the case, I wouldn't be a Christian, frankly, because there are plenty of Christian teachings and denominations that I disagree with. But it's the unifying heart and soul of Christianity I connect with.
It's the same with feminism. Heck, feminists frequently disagree with each other. That's good and healthy for any movement! You don't want groupthink; you want a group of people who challenge each other, who sharpen each other like iron, who grow and improve together. You need a variety of perspectives and opinions to do that. Conflicting ideas can and should coexist, as long as everyone is united around a core goal (full gender equality).
Third wave feminism has done the best at this. You might even say that the core goal of third wave feminism is to incorporate the full breadth of women's perspectives and experiences, including those that the author brings up here.
Which brings me full circle, and to what I believe is the book's largest weakness: The author failed to fully research modern feminism. On the back cover, it says "Today, Third-Wave feminists stand firmly for nobody's quite sure what." But a few minutes of Googling will show that's not the case; third wave feminism does have clear goals.
In fact, most of her grievances with feminism seem to be with second wave mentalities, which modern feminists admit were a bit of an extreme pendulum swing. There was a sense of separation from motherhood and reproductive biology, looking down on homemaking, and a departing from femininity.
But third wave feminism is trying to bring us to a health balance ...
One where women are enabled to be mothers and have passions and vocations.
One where women have the freedom and dignity to choose careers, or a stay-at-home lifestyle, or a hybrid of both, and that none of these choices would be looked down upon.
One where the full breadth of femininity is embraced and praised, from ultra-femme ladies who love makeup and dresses, to tomboys and sports lovers, from quiet, submissive followers to bold, natural leaders, and everyone and everything in between.
Third wave feminism is, among other things, about accepting that there is more than one way to be a woman, and that all of our various personalities, passions, and gifts are good, valid, and encouraged.
What disturbs me about this book isn't that women would want the model of womanhood described in these pages. If it brings you meaning, purpose, and fulfillment in life, then by all means, do it! Be the lovely, submissive, glorifying woman that you feel called to be.
What disturbs me is this utterly false assertion that every woman must and should align with this.
I am deeply concerned for young girls reading this book, just like when 13-year-old me read So Much More, who will have their true calling and potential stifled by an arbitrary formula that, rather than liberating them, will rob them of their confidence, autonomy, and ability to think and dream for themselves.
I am concerned for the many girls who should be doctors or scientists or politicians or soldiers or astronauts, those who are meant to change the world, who are held back tragically because they thought those roles were for men.
The author is right to say that the home is just as important as the career world, but she is wrong to think that rigidly enforced, unnecessary gender roles are still the answer. They're not. The traditional family has evolved; it has not fallen apart. There are stay-at-home dads, and parents who work from home, and adults who choose not to have children because... they don't want to. (There are 7 billion people in the world. We're fine on babies.) There's more than one way to do this.
Yes, our society prospers when everyone is fulfilling their truest, best role. But those roles are not dependent on gender. Every human being is unique. And when you try to force people into roles they were not designed for, you don't create freedom.
You create oppression.
And that is exactly what this kind of theology has a history of doing.
But, it did accomplish one thing: It helped me understand those who think differently. So I'm glad for that.
Judging by the many positive reviews, it's clear that this book is resonating with some women. What does this tell me? That some women truly do long for the traditional picture of stay-at-home motherhood, ultra femininity, and even the conservative family structure with the husband taking the helm. Understandably, these women feel uncomfortable with modern feminism, and even looked down upon by our culture at large.
This saddens me, and demonstrates a failure on the part of third-wave feminists to effectively achieve our primary goal: Honoring and protecting the choices and preferences of all women, including stay-at-home, non-career mothers. This lifestyle is as dignified and important as any, which should go without saying. We need to do a better job at communicating this to women who want traditional roles: Their preferences here are valid and beautiful and deserve celebration.
Perhaps that is why so many conservative readers love this book, because that's exactly what it teaches. The author does a wonderful job at injecting meaning and glory into the life of the housewife, which I can imagine feels deeply validating, liberating, and inspiring to those who identify with such a calling.
But this, I'm afraid, is where my positive words for this book end.
Because this is
not
all
women.
The model of marriage she describes, with men at the head, and women centering their lives around the home, is not something I, personally, could ever willingly submit to. Without will, submission becomes slavery.
And yes, I use that strong word intentionally. Just reading the author's descriptions of so-called "Godly/Biblical womanhood" is physically stressful for me, because of how deeply it goes against my nature.
Funny how that's the whole basis of her argument (on top of "the Bible says so"): That this is women's nature. Maybe it is for some women that truly identify with, and find fulfillment in, the submissive helper role.
But even with her emphasis on the inherent equality of men and women, this role is still abhorrent to me. It has been ever since I first encountered it a decade ago, as an adolescent, while reading an even worse book called So Much More (the reading of which caused psychological damage that took years to undo).
I'd be willing to guess this is similar to the reason many women become feminists: Our given gender role just doesn't work for us.
The author's model of womanhood is especially unimpressive since (and this is where I'll loose a lot of conservative Christians) her only arguments for that model are from the Bible. An ancient text written in a different time for different people in different cultures.
Sorry, but that's not a sufficiently convincing way to prove that your model of womanhood is universally true... especially for those of us who fundamentally do not identify with it. And especially more for those of us who are more convinced by empirical evidence than by alleged revelation.
I'm not against revelation; only when it conflicts with empirical evidence. Or with basic human decency, which I feel is under threat by the disturbing arguments of this book.
Again, many women are in fact liberated by this traditional view of womanhood. Good for them. But many others feel suffocated by it, no matter how nicely one tries to spruce it up. There's simply no way you can present "submission to husbands" without making me want to gag. Sorry, it's not going to happen.
Now, there is another major aspect to this book that I need to address: And that is her take on the history of feminism, and why, to her understanding, Christians should not be a part of it.
A few things.
First, I admit that I'm not deeply educated on the history of feminism... yet. Her description of its major events and key players felt overly simplistic to me, but I'm curious to explore the subject more and see if that is or is not the case.
Either way, I agree with her that feminism appears to have some disgusting roots. (For example, Mary Shelley having an affair with a married man in the name of "free love", which ended with that man's wife committing suicide? NOT. OKAY.) And certainly there are aspects of feminism I don't align with, such as its take on abortion.
But this is where the author and I don't agree: You do not have to align with everything in a movement in order to participate in it.
If that were the case, I wouldn't be a Christian, frankly, because there are plenty of Christian teachings and denominations that I disagree with. But it's the unifying heart and soul of Christianity I connect with.
It's the same with feminism. Heck, feminists frequently disagree with each other. That's good and healthy for any movement! You don't want groupthink; you want a group of people who challenge each other, who sharpen each other like iron, who grow and improve together. You need a variety of perspectives and opinions to do that. Conflicting ideas can and should coexist, as long as everyone is united around a core goal (full gender equality).
Third wave feminism has done the best at this. You might even say that the core goal of third wave feminism is to incorporate the full breadth of women's perspectives and experiences, including those that the author brings up here.
Which brings me full circle, and to what I believe is the book's largest weakness: The author failed to fully research modern feminism. On the back cover, it says "Today, Third-Wave feminists stand firmly for nobody's quite sure what." But a few minutes of Googling will show that's not the case; third wave feminism does have clear goals.
In fact, most of her grievances with feminism seem to be with second wave mentalities, which modern feminists admit were a bit of an extreme pendulum swing. There was a sense of separation from motherhood and reproductive biology, looking down on homemaking, and a departing from femininity.
But third wave feminism is trying to bring us to a health balance ...
One where women are enabled to be mothers and have passions and vocations.
One where women have the freedom and dignity to choose careers, or a stay-at-home lifestyle, or a hybrid of both, and that none of these choices would be looked down upon.
One where the full breadth of femininity is embraced and praised, from ultra-femme ladies who love makeup and dresses, to tomboys and sports lovers, from quiet, submissive followers to bold, natural leaders, and everyone and everything in between.
Third wave feminism is, among other things, about accepting that there is more than one way to be a woman, and that all of our various personalities, passions, and gifts are good, valid, and encouraged.
What disturbs me about this book isn't that women would want the model of womanhood described in these pages. If it brings you meaning, purpose, and fulfillment in life, then by all means, do it! Be the lovely, submissive, glorifying woman that you feel called to be.
What disturbs me is this utterly false assertion that every woman must and should align with this.
I am deeply concerned for young girls reading this book, just like when 13-year-old me read So Much More, who will have their true calling and potential stifled by an arbitrary formula that, rather than liberating them, will rob them of their confidence, autonomy, and ability to think and dream for themselves.
I am concerned for the many girls who should be doctors or scientists or politicians or soldiers or astronauts, those who are meant to change the world, who are held back tragically because they thought those roles were for men.
The author is right to say that the home is just as important as the career world, but she is wrong to think that rigidly enforced, unnecessary gender roles are still the answer. They're not. The traditional family has evolved; it has not fallen apart. There are stay-at-home dads, and parents who work from home, and adults who choose not to have children because... they don't want to. (There are 7 billion people in the world. We're fine on babies.) There's more than one way to do this.
Yes, our society prospers when everyone is fulfilling their truest, best role. But those roles are not dependent on gender. Every human being is unique. And when you try to force people into roles they were not designed for, you don't create freedom.
You create oppression.
And that is exactly what this kind of theology has a history of doing.
September 17, 2017
This book blew me away! It celebrated Biblical womanhood in a way that I didn't even really know was possible. It made me rethink some things in my own life. It explored topics, such as challenging verses in the Bible, that I was afraid to go down and completely turned them on their head, making our role as women more beautiful than I ever thought possible. Merkle really dug down deep to a whole new level!
July 14, 2022
I ended up thinking a lot about rhetoric, intended audience, and persuasion while reading this book. Merkle commits several big rhetorical no-nos in the first half of the book if she is seeking to persuade people who disagree, who are on the fence, or who have accidentally drifted on the cultural current. I know she is an intelligent English teacher and that she would know about these fallacies, so I was baffled and honestly frustrated at their inclusion. So I thought her aim must be to preach to the choir.
...Yet even then I don't find these techniques to be effective. (Heck, I'm the choir. I theologically agree with her on every point, but by the end of the first couple sections of the book, her presentation had nearly lost all my goodwill.)
Here were my concerns (with one example for each, though there were more instances of each):
1. Ad hominem. In her chapter about Mary Wollstonecraft, all she does is point toward Wollstonecraft's biography. Yes, this is an accurate biography, and yes, these things are valuable to know: in fact, it matches, detail-for-detail, the brief bio I give my own Brit Lit students about Wollstonecraft. However, nowhere in the chapter does Merkle ever share what Wollstonecraft was saying in "Vindication of the Rights of Woman." And many of Wollstonecraft's points are legit, meritorious, and accepted as common knowledge among all Western people today, Christian or no. Merkle even argues for similar points in the section about how women should view college later in the book. My beef, then, is that Merkle never once actually shares what Wollstonecraft was for--only what kind of person she was, which is failing to engage with her actual arguments. It's dismissing someone's point because of their identity, not because their point is actually invalid. It's akin to someone saying, "Well you're just saying that because you're a white straight male"--not dealing with the points, valid or invalid, that person makes, but saying truth cannot be theirs because of their label.
2. Straw men - Rather than state her opponents' positions in ways that the opponents themselves would agree with, giving their arguments a fair sounding before taking them down, Merkle gives the most easily knock-down-able version of several feminist arguments. Sometimes she fails to share their arguments at all, resorting to mockery instead, like when she describes third-wave feminism as "generally just a lot of muddle and lack of momentum, with feminists running in circles and bumping into each other and jumping on board with issues like the fight for transgendered bathrooms" (89). While this may be true, would a third-wave feminist say this is a fair treatment of her position? (And this is really the only "treatment" of third-wave that this book has.) Would we like opponents to do this to the pro-life cause, for example? To categorize us with these broad-brush, oversimplified, demeaning strokes? No way would we want to be treated like that. And if we are on the side of truth, we need not resort to this.
3. Oversimplifying complex issues: In the conclusion to her book, Merkle blames feminists for almost every cultural ill in what she hyperbolically calls "the smoking crater that is our nation" (197). While I can nod at the claim that extreme feminism likely contributed to many things I consider to be detrimental, I did not like how she placed the blame for so many complex, multifaceted issues squarely on feminists' shoulders: not mentioning many other groups and factors that contributed to these issues.
"But sarcasm/mockery/satire is a legitimate way to handle debate." Well, I do agree that these things can have a place, and that some ridiculous things are worth mocking--but not IN PLACE OF dealing with the real arguments of real people. Not being content with mockery alone. Christians do not like it when people treat us this way, erecting straw men just to make fun of us for believing that way, refusing to actually engage with the truth we are speaking. Should we treat them this way, then?
Carolyn McCulley's Radical Womanhood gives a far more thorough, fair, and rhetorically sound treatment of the history of feminism. She arrives at all the same conclusions as Merkle, but she does so in a more scholarly, respectable way, without that feeling of impatience and eye-rolling that permeates Merkle's history.
Though I found myself frustrated and disappointed while Merkle dealt with what she was against, I was just as much served and encouraged when she talked about what she was for. When she gets down into the nitty-gritty of "Living Out Our Design" (the title of the fourth section of the book), she is inspiring, enlightening, and refreshing. My soul soared, and I was freshly invigorated. It makes me glad I stuck with the book through to the end.
But that's just the thing. I DID almost stop reading because I couldn't figure out why an intelligent person who knows the rhetorical/logical fallacies would repeatedly use them to such a degree through the first sections of the book. No matter how right you actually are and who your audience is, it gives the appearance of fighting dirty.
...Yet even then I don't find these techniques to be effective. (Heck, I'm the choir. I theologically agree with her on every point, but by the end of the first couple sections of the book, her presentation had nearly lost all my goodwill.)
Here were my concerns (with one example for each, though there were more instances of each):
1. Ad hominem. In her chapter about Mary Wollstonecraft, all she does is point toward Wollstonecraft's biography. Yes, this is an accurate biography, and yes, these things are valuable to know: in fact, it matches, detail-for-detail, the brief bio I give my own Brit Lit students about Wollstonecraft. However, nowhere in the chapter does Merkle ever share what Wollstonecraft was saying in "Vindication of the Rights of Woman." And many of Wollstonecraft's points are legit, meritorious, and accepted as common knowledge among all Western people today, Christian or no. Merkle even argues for similar points in the section about how women should view college later in the book. My beef, then, is that Merkle never once actually shares what Wollstonecraft was for--only what kind of person she was, which is failing to engage with her actual arguments. It's dismissing someone's point because of their identity, not because their point is actually invalid. It's akin to someone saying, "Well you're just saying that because you're a white straight male"--not dealing with the points, valid or invalid, that person makes, but saying truth cannot be theirs because of their label.
2. Straw men - Rather than state her opponents' positions in ways that the opponents themselves would agree with, giving their arguments a fair sounding before taking them down, Merkle gives the most easily knock-down-able version of several feminist arguments. Sometimes she fails to share their arguments at all, resorting to mockery instead, like when she describes third-wave feminism as "generally just a lot of muddle and lack of momentum, with feminists running in circles and bumping into each other and jumping on board with issues like the fight for transgendered bathrooms" (89). While this may be true, would a third-wave feminist say this is a fair treatment of her position? (And this is really the only "treatment" of third-wave that this book has.) Would we like opponents to do this to the pro-life cause, for example? To categorize us with these broad-brush, oversimplified, demeaning strokes? No way would we want to be treated like that. And if we are on the side of truth, we need not resort to this.
3. Oversimplifying complex issues: In the conclusion to her book, Merkle blames feminists for almost every cultural ill in what she hyperbolically calls "the smoking crater that is our nation" (197). While I can nod at the claim that extreme feminism likely contributed to many things I consider to be detrimental, I did not like how she placed the blame for so many complex, multifaceted issues squarely on feminists' shoulders: not mentioning many other groups and factors that contributed to these issues.
"But sarcasm/mockery/satire is a legitimate way to handle debate." Well, I do agree that these things can have a place, and that some ridiculous things are worth mocking--but not IN PLACE OF dealing with the real arguments of real people. Not being content with mockery alone. Christians do not like it when people treat us this way, erecting straw men just to make fun of us for believing that way, refusing to actually engage with the truth we are speaking. Should we treat them this way, then?
Carolyn McCulley's Radical Womanhood gives a far more thorough, fair, and rhetorically sound treatment of the history of feminism. She arrives at all the same conclusions as Merkle, but she does so in a more scholarly, respectable way, without that feeling of impatience and eye-rolling that permeates Merkle's history.
Though I found myself frustrated and disappointed while Merkle dealt with what she was against, I was just as much served and encouraged when she talked about what she was for. When she gets down into the nitty-gritty of "Living Out Our Design" (the title of the fourth section of the book), she is inspiring, enlightening, and refreshing. My soul soared, and I was freshly invigorated. It makes me glad I stuck with the book through to the end.
But that's just the thing. I DID almost stop reading because I couldn't figure out why an intelligent person who knows the rhetorical/logical fallacies would repeatedly use them to such a degree through the first sections of the book. No matter how right you actually are and who your audience is, it gives the appearance of fighting dirty.
January 5, 2021
Another must read.
December 17, 2020
I read this book in ebook form on my phone, otherwise I would burn my copy. That is how damaging I think it is.
The author's tone is asinine. Her grip on history is tenuous at best, and her logic is faulty.
I can agree on the macro level: men and women are biologically different, and men and women were given different (but equal in stature) roles by God. It's pretty hard to argue with biology and God.
Other than that, this book is sarcastic and demeaning toward any woman who might have a slightly different view than the author. She blames women for all the social ills of 21st century Western civilization, which is neither accurate nor fair. She mocks working women even as she says that working women ought not mock housewives.
I was particularly disturbed by the ideas expressed in chapter 14. The author seems to think that a college education is necessary for the housewife so that she can beautify her home, cook fancy dinners for her husband, and teach her children. She spends the chapter making fun of women who take their education to the corporate world AND women who decide not to continue their college education in favor of marriage and family--even giving an anecdote of her college professor brother offering those girls T-shirts printed with the phrase "For breeding purposes only." How incredibly disgusting!
At the beginning of the book, the author makes fun of women living in "Pretendyville"--the women who put their hair in victory rolls or go to Austen-esque balls for fun and feel like they were born in the wrong era. And yet the author seems to live in a Pretendyville all her own, where women work to beautify the home, spend hours creating menus and decadent meals, and put artistry into every item of clothing their families wore, just like her great-grandmother did on the cattle ranch circa 1918. Anything less is living in defiance of God's purposes for creating women.
I could go on. The problems I have with this book are pretty much innumerable, but I think that's enough to convey how damaging I think this book is and why. Sometimes it made me want to bash my head against something, and sometimes it made me want to throw my device across the room. I recommend this book to absolutely no one.
I recommend Rosaria Butterfield as an alternative.
The author's tone is asinine. Her grip on history is tenuous at best, and her logic is faulty.
I can agree on the macro level: men and women are biologically different, and men and women were given different (but equal in stature) roles by God. It's pretty hard to argue with biology and God.
Other than that, this book is sarcastic and demeaning toward any woman who might have a slightly different view than the author. She blames women for all the social ills of 21st century Western civilization, which is neither accurate nor fair. She mocks working women even as she says that working women ought not mock housewives.
I was particularly disturbed by the ideas expressed in chapter 14. The author seems to think that a college education is necessary for the housewife so that she can beautify her home, cook fancy dinners for her husband, and teach her children. She spends the chapter making fun of women who take their education to the corporate world AND women who decide not to continue their college education in favor of marriage and family--even giving an anecdote of her college professor brother offering those girls T-shirts printed with the phrase "For breeding purposes only." How incredibly disgusting!
At the beginning of the book, the author makes fun of women living in "Pretendyville"--the women who put their hair in victory rolls or go to Austen-esque balls for fun and feel like they were born in the wrong era. And yet the author seems to live in a Pretendyville all her own, where women work to beautify the home, spend hours creating menus and decadent meals, and put artistry into every item of clothing their families wore, just like her great-grandmother did on the cattle ranch circa 1918. Anything less is living in defiance of God's purposes for creating women.
I could go on. The problems I have with this book are pretty much innumerable, but I think that's enough to convey how damaging I think this book is and why. Sometimes it made me want to bash my head against something, and sometimes it made me want to throw my device across the room. I recommend this book to absolutely no one.
I recommend Rosaria Butterfield as an alternative.
Read
February 9, 2025I’m leaving up my 2017 review for historical reasons, but in the intervening years I have been really disappointed and concerned by what I’ve heard from friends coming out of Merkle’s school/church/publishing company circles. “By their fruits you shall know them.” Also, as I’ve dug a lot deeper into the history of some of the movements she touches on in this book (like the female suffrage movement), I’ve become less and less confident in some of her presentations of them. I’m sure I’d still like some elements of this book and it definitely impacted me at the time, but I can sadly no longer recommend Merkle’s work.
2017 review:
If you're tired of restrictive gender stereotypes
If you secretly wonder what women are actually for
If you call yourself a Christian feminist or if those words make you want to throw up
THIS BOOK IS FOR YOU.
I believe this book will be remembered as a watershed. It's fast, funny, smart, painful, generous, practical, and full of soaring imagination. And it does what very few Christians are doing right now. It rejects the rightist and leftist views of femininity, which are hopelessly loaded down with ungodly cultural baggage, and articulates a picture of creational femininity. And that picture is scarily good. How did we miss this?
This is good news. This is how the gospel frees women from the gender crisis.
2017 review:
If you're tired of restrictive gender stereotypes
If you secretly wonder what women are actually for
If you call yourself a Christian feminist or if those words make you want to throw up
THIS BOOK IS FOR YOU.
I believe this book will be remembered as a watershed. It's fast, funny, smart, painful, generous, practical, and full of soaring imagination. And it does what very few Christians are doing right now. It rejects the rightist and leftist views of femininity, which are hopelessly loaded down with ungodly cultural baggage, and articulates a picture of creational femininity. And that picture is scarily good. How did we miss this?
This is good news. This is how the gospel frees women from the gender crisis.
March 6, 2017
A quick and horrifying read! I actually agree that it's wrong to demean women who are stay at home moms and who devote themselves to running a household and raising children. However, this book and it's insistence that God created women for this specific purpose and that if you want anything outside of this, it's just because society tells you that you are supposed to is so dismissive and insulting to my own experiences. I could not disagree more with her theory that the reason housewives in the 50s were unsatisfied is because their lives were so easy that they were bored. How demeaning that is to women who worked relentlessly doing housework and caring for children. They were not lacking for things to do, it's that what they were required to do was mundane and tedious in of itself.
For her to say that it's obvious because women are still unfulfilled even though they are working means that they were happier at home is ludicrous. Women, today, suffer from stress and unhappiness more because they are still expected to do the vast majority of the chores/child rearing/household organizing and planning even though they have actual jobs on top of that. Women today have higher expectations placed on them and mothers have higher pressures on them than ever before so of course, that's stressful. It doesn't mean a longing to return to being housewives and not worrying our pretty little heads about it.
The author claims that today's feminists don't know what they're fighting for but they've been extremely clear about this. They are fighting for reproductive freedoms, maternity (paternity) leave, subsidized and high quality child care, the freedom to walk down a city block without being harassed , and an end to rape culture. (There are more issues but these are the most important to most)
Her chapters on submissiveness just made me sad. If this is typical of Christianity, then I can understand why so many don't identify with this religion and leave it.
The author's viewpoints make women seem simple and shallow when we are complicated individuals and not programmed to all be a certain way. Discouraging and disheartening.
I will give the book credit for saying that the past and the 50s were not this glory time for women that so many today make it out to be. So kudos for that.
For her to say that it's obvious because women are still unfulfilled even though they are working means that they were happier at home is ludicrous. Women, today, suffer from stress and unhappiness more because they are still expected to do the vast majority of the chores/child rearing/household organizing and planning even though they have actual jobs on top of that. Women today have higher expectations placed on them and mothers have higher pressures on them than ever before so of course, that's stressful. It doesn't mean a longing to return to being housewives and not worrying our pretty little heads about it.
The author claims that today's feminists don't know what they're fighting for but they've been extremely clear about this. They are fighting for reproductive freedoms, maternity (paternity) leave, subsidized and high quality child care, the freedom to walk down a city block without being harassed , and an end to rape culture. (There are more issues but these are the most important to most)
Her chapters on submissiveness just made me sad. If this is typical of Christianity, then I can understand why so many don't identify with this religion and leave it.
The author's viewpoints make women seem simple and shallow when we are complicated individuals and not programmed to all be a certain way. Discouraging and disheartening.
I will give the book credit for saying that the past and the 50s were not this glory time for women that so many today make it out to be. So kudos for that.
Want to read
November 5, 2022Reviews at Sheologians, WORLD, and 9Marks.
Interviews here and here. Short video clip here. Here are some samples of Bekah's writing, both regarding RHE's righteous fury: here and here.
Some reviewers have said that the book is against mothers who work outside the home. But the author is a mother who works outside the home. So.
TGC reviews the film version here (alongside Matt Walsh's What Is a Woman?).
Interviews here and here. Short video clip here. Here are some samples of Bekah's writing, both regarding RHE's righteous fury: here and here.
Some reviewers have said that the book is against mothers who work outside the home. But the author is a mother who works outside the home. So.
TGC reviews the film version here (alongside Matt Walsh's What Is a Woman?).
October 28, 2017
4.5/5 stars.
I picked up this book from the library after several girls who I trust recommended it to me! I've been interested in reading more about feminism lately, specifically it's negative effects and how it matches up to a biblical perspective on womanhood. "Eve In Exile" looked interesting to me because it attempts to answer the question of what God made women to do and accomplish.
I have to say, this book was really excellent and worth a read! But first, to get a couple minor disagreements out of the way...there were a couple points the author made in this book that I would contest. The first is in an earlier chapter where she is discussing some of the "experts" who have come out criticizing modern feminism in more recent years - the author suggests that we can't really take these women expert's opinions seriously because by achieving the "feminist ideal" of high profile careers, they have bought into feminism themselves, and their points are moot.
I don't agree with that. I think anyone, no matter their apparent "qualifications" or lack thereof, has a perfect right and inherent qualification to speak against feminism, including men. I think no matter who you are in today's culture, you cannot escape being affected by feminism in some way, which gives you a right to speak about it.
In "Eve In Exile" Merkle also restrains a lot of her discussion to the effects of women being taken out of the home by 1960's feminism, but I do think there are a lot of other effects that she doesn't really address in this book, which is what "experts" are often discussing (ex: the downplaying of the importance of men and boys to society). I think all these elements are worth discussing. You don't have to be a certain kind of woman to observe some of the negative impacts and speak against them. You don't even have to be a woman. I don't think it's necessarily fair to shut down discussion based on arbitrary "qualifications".
The second thing I wanted to give an opinion on was her timeline and discussion of the history of feminism in this book. It was interesting, and I could see the connections she was trying to draw. I thought she made some good points, such as not getting caught up in how "ideal" it would have been in this-or-that century. Often we get wrong ideas about how things really were in history because of romanticized versions we see in movies or books, and she rightly criticizes some non-feminist women for not looking at history accurately.
However, I read this book at the same time as I was reading "The Flipside Of Feminism" by Phyllis Schlaffley, which also gives a brief history of modern feminism. It was interesting to read these two analyses side by side, because the perspectives are pretty different. In "Eve In Exile", Merkle assumes that there must have been widespread dissatisfaction among American housewives in their vocations as wives and mothers and in how they were treated by men, and Friedan's "The Feminine Mystique" tapped into that. The only evidence she gives for this assumption is that "The Feminine Mystique" sold so many copies, but I don't think the number of books sold necessarily means anything. Controversial books naturally sell a lot of copies...it doesn't mean everyone who reads it agrees with it. In Schlaffley's book, she argues that this "dissatisfaction" was present for some women, but wasn't nearly as widespread as feminists would like us to believe. This makes me wonder if Merkle may have fallen into the same trap of accepting as fact the characterization of all women being stuck as dissatisfied housewives in the 1960's, which is often portrayed in books and movies, when perhaps we should take a closer look. I'm more apt to buy Schlaffley's view of the history of feminist revolution in the 60's, since she actually lived through it.
All that said, I still appreciated reading Merkle's opinions about the history of feminism, because she made some good points about the different ways men and women have turned aside from God's design for women over the centuries, which was a necessary backdrop for the rest of her book. In this book Merkle presents biblically-based arguments about the role women are actually made to play, and why it's a role filled with honor, and a role that can provide deep satisfaction when we view it rightly. I also really appreciated the few practical examples she gave on the things we women could accomplish in our God-given spheres as wives and mothers when we take our creativity and intellects and really apply them to these roles.
Merkle holds a high view of the role of women and reading this book really inspired me to think of my role in the home differently as well. She encourages us to view our modern conveniences and the extra time they give us as a true gift from God, and an opportunity to apply our creative powers as women to accomplish even more for the Lord within the context of managing our families and our homes. This book gave me so much to think about, and is definitely worth a re-read...it's now on my to-buy list, since the copy I read was from the library!
I picked up this book from the library after several girls who I trust recommended it to me! I've been interested in reading more about feminism lately, specifically it's negative effects and how it matches up to a biblical perspective on womanhood. "Eve In Exile" looked interesting to me because it attempts to answer the question of what God made women to do and accomplish.
I have to say, this book was really excellent and worth a read! But first, to get a couple minor disagreements out of the way...there were a couple points the author made in this book that I would contest. The first is in an earlier chapter where she is discussing some of the "experts" who have come out criticizing modern feminism in more recent years - the author suggests that we can't really take these women expert's opinions seriously because by achieving the "feminist ideal" of high profile careers, they have bought into feminism themselves, and their points are moot.
I don't agree with that. I think anyone, no matter their apparent "qualifications" or lack thereof, has a perfect right and inherent qualification to speak against feminism, including men. I think no matter who you are in today's culture, you cannot escape being affected by feminism in some way, which gives you a right to speak about it.
In "Eve In Exile" Merkle also restrains a lot of her discussion to the effects of women being taken out of the home by 1960's feminism, but I do think there are a lot of other effects that she doesn't really address in this book, which is what "experts" are often discussing (ex: the downplaying of the importance of men and boys to society). I think all these elements are worth discussing. You don't have to be a certain kind of woman to observe some of the negative impacts and speak against them. You don't even have to be a woman. I don't think it's necessarily fair to shut down discussion based on arbitrary "qualifications".
The second thing I wanted to give an opinion on was her timeline and discussion of the history of feminism in this book. It was interesting, and I could see the connections she was trying to draw. I thought she made some good points, such as not getting caught up in how "ideal" it would have been in this-or-that century. Often we get wrong ideas about how things really were in history because of romanticized versions we see in movies or books, and she rightly criticizes some non-feminist women for not looking at history accurately.
However, I read this book at the same time as I was reading "The Flipside Of Feminism" by Phyllis Schlaffley, which also gives a brief history of modern feminism. It was interesting to read these two analyses side by side, because the perspectives are pretty different. In "Eve In Exile", Merkle assumes that there must have been widespread dissatisfaction among American housewives in their vocations as wives and mothers and in how they were treated by men, and Friedan's "The Feminine Mystique" tapped into that. The only evidence she gives for this assumption is that "The Feminine Mystique" sold so many copies, but I don't think the number of books sold necessarily means anything. Controversial books naturally sell a lot of copies...it doesn't mean everyone who reads it agrees with it. In Schlaffley's book, she argues that this "dissatisfaction" was present for some women, but wasn't nearly as widespread as feminists would like us to believe. This makes me wonder if Merkle may have fallen into the same trap of accepting as fact the characterization of all women being stuck as dissatisfied housewives in the 1960's, which is often portrayed in books and movies, when perhaps we should take a closer look. I'm more apt to buy Schlaffley's view of the history of feminist revolution in the 60's, since she actually lived through it.
All that said, I still appreciated reading Merkle's opinions about the history of feminism, because she made some good points about the different ways men and women have turned aside from God's design for women over the centuries, which was a necessary backdrop for the rest of her book. In this book Merkle presents biblically-based arguments about the role women are actually made to play, and why it's a role filled with honor, and a role that can provide deep satisfaction when we view it rightly. I also really appreciated the few practical examples she gave on the things we women could accomplish in our God-given spheres as wives and mothers when we take our creativity and intellects and really apply them to these roles.
Merkle holds a high view of the role of women and reading this book really inspired me to think of my role in the home differently as well. She encourages us to view our modern conveniences and the extra time they give us as a true gift from God, and an opportunity to apply our creative powers as women to accomplish even more for the Lord within the context of managing our families and our homes. This book gave me so much to think about, and is definitely worth a re-read...it's now on my to-buy list, since the copy I read was from the library!
January 11, 2023
A good friend had read it and wanted to chat about it, so I prioritized its place in the stack - it was my main afternoon break book.
I enjoyed it! I particularly appreciated her fly-by history of feminism which was not dismissive and not reactionary. Reactionary anti-feminism was more the approach she was addressing in the book rather than feminism alone. The book is not written for feminists but rather for women who have taken an unthinking “if it’s the opposite of feminism then it’s good” mindset. As such, I commend it to any Christian woman who wants a sensible, practical, complementarian view that doesn’t marginalize or trivialize women’s role in the world.
I enjoyed it! I particularly appreciated her fly-by history of feminism which was not dismissive and not reactionary. Reactionary anti-feminism was more the approach she was addressing in the book rather than feminism alone. The book is not written for feminists but rather for women who have taken an unthinking “if it’s the opposite of feminism then it’s good” mindset. As such, I commend it to any Christian woman who wants a sensible, practical, complementarian view that doesn’t marginalize or trivialize women’s role in the world.
July 14, 2017
I have a few quibbles about some of the arguments and implications of the book. (Mainly holding out the carrot of emotional fulfillment for women who choose to be homemakers, or implying that depression rates are so high among women today because of a shirking of god-given responsibilities.) Most of this seems to amount to a poor use of statistics, a tendency to oversimplify the historical record, and some post hoc fallacies. However, the overall argument of the book is sound and much needed in our current cultural climate.
November 16, 2022
In one word? Phenomenal.
What I got: A clear view of what it means to accept God's calling for women, an encouragement, a new way of looking at things, an overview of the feminist movement and who and what that involved, what it means to really live a fulfilled life explained clearly and practically, and I enjoyed a beautifully written and clear read.
My advice to you? Read it. Just do. If you're a women, you must and if you're a man you probably should too.
What I got: A clear view of what it means to accept God's calling for women, an encouragement, a new way of looking at things, an overview of the feminist movement and who and what that involved, what it means to really live a fulfilled life explained clearly and practically, and I enjoyed a beautifully written and clear read.
My advice to you? Read it. Just do. If you're a women, you must and if you're a man you probably should too.
September 13, 2022
Highly recommend! A dang good grounded and balanced view of the reality of feminism and our true role as women.
April 16, 2024
Very much enjoyed this book!
May 22, 2023
Third time. Chef's kiss.
-------------------------------------------
Read for the second time while driving alone to Portland to take my Idaho Real Estate Exam. Even better than the first time, since I was listening to Merkle read it aloud.
Thorough history backing up well-articulated and complex thoughts.
-------------------------------------------
Absolutely, battered-in-breadcrumbs, with a side of mash-potatoes fantastic. Just the other day, I had a co-worker ask me what I was doing for college, and I told him I was going to get a degree in Liberal Arts, with a plan to teach and be a mom. He visibly shuddered. He told me that he was disgusted and sad for people who threw away their lives into motherhood. I felt instantly weary, and sorry for his unfortunate mother. Mrs. Merkle's book embodied a lot of what she tells us in our classes, just fleshed out and in clearer context. I loved the historical sections, the tone- the whole caboodle, honestly.
Mrs. Merkle is a woman who taught herself how to make darling French-y clothing, vases, kitchen floor mosaics, College floor illustrations of random saints, some sort of Eton sport desserts that taste like contagious laughter. She gave birth to the neatest and most eclectic group of people I've ever met, throws the best darn surprise birthday parties, and still manages to teach at least four classes a day in outrageous heels.
Role model is a word that doesn't even come planetarilly close to describing her effect on my life.
-------------------------------------------
Read for the second time while driving alone to Portland to take my Idaho Real Estate Exam. Even better than the first time, since I was listening to Merkle read it aloud.
Thorough history backing up well-articulated and complex thoughts.
-------------------------------------------
Absolutely, battered-in-breadcrumbs, with a side of mash-potatoes fantastic. Just the other day, I had a co-worker ask me what I was doing for college, and I told him I was going to get a degree in Liberal Arts, with a plan to teach and be a mom. He visibly shuddered. He told me that he was disgusted and sad for people who threw away their lives into motherhood. I felt instantly weary, and sorry for his unfortunate mother. Mrs. Merkle's book embodied a lot of what she tells us in our classes, just fleshed out and in clearer context. I loved the historical sections, the tone- the whole caboodle, honestly.
Mrs. Merkle is a woman who taught herself how to make darling French-y clothing, vases, kitchen floor mosaics, College floor illustrations of random saints, some sort of Eton sport desserts that taste like contagious laughter. She gave birth to the neatest and most eclectic group of people I've ever met, throws the best darn surprise birthday parties, and still manages to teach at least four classes a day in outrageous heels.
Role model is a word that doesn't even come planetarilly close to describing her effect on my life.
July 28, 2019
I devoured this book over the weekend. Ate it up, soaked it in. So, so good.
"You take the truth of the gospel and you translate it into beautiful and compelling and incarnate life which preaches the goodness of God to everyone surrounding you. Every Christian woman is called to this, regardless of her particular station in life."
"You take the truth of the gospel and you translate it into beautiful and compelling and incarnate life which preaches the goodness of God to everyone surrounding you. Every Christian woman is called to this, regardless of her particular station in life."
August 26, 2022
One of the best books I’ve ever read!!
June 26, 2024
I’m going to get a bit personal in this review. I once lived as a missionary in an orphanage in Central America. This orphanage was led by a man whose frequent abusive teachings—and the resulting harm inflicted on many—were the poisonous fruit of a deeply rooted misogyny which this man truly believed was biblical.
This was the first book from this author that I have read, and yet everything in it was familiar. I’ve heard it all directly from the mouths of abusers and their flying monkeys. They are the same teachings, albeit more elegantly expressed in this book.
In that orphanage we were repeatedly told things like,
“Every bad decision I ever made was because I listened to my wife,”
and
“The world is in the terrible state it’s in because of bossy women trying to run things instead of staying where they belong—in the casa, killing cockroaches, having babies, and cooking tortillas.”
We find this same contempt for women in Eve in Exile, which reads,
“As we look around us at our various societal ills, and there are many, the majority of our most pressing moral issues are the direct result of the women of this nation fighting for what they have declared to be their ‘rights,’ ”
and
“Women were created primarily to fill the earth with babies” but “American women have been in full-scale rebellion against the Creation Mandate since the First Wave of Feminism.” Any form of birth control is a denial of the woman’s God-given “role.”
This man would also praise his self-admittedly abusive mother as a “good woman” because she went to bed every night with bloody knuckles from a hard day’s work. Women were made to work hard, he would say, so hard that they should feel ashamed if they went to bed at night without pain from their day’s labor.
From the book: Women were created by God to "work like crazy...contrary to the beliefs of traditionalists who think that “weaker vessel” means that women are too tender to do anything much, women are actually capable of killing themselves for others." If they’re bored or unfulfilled at home it’s because they aren’t working hard enough or creatively enough.
And that is Eve in Exile in a nutshell, along with some bonus dominion theology thrown in at the end: “We need to rebuild a nation. God has called us to take dominion over an entire planet, and we should start with the mess that is right in front of us.”
I won’t go into the book’s questionable timeline of women’s suffrage, as other reviewers have already addressed that well.
I did agree with a few things in the book, such as the support of women receiving a good education—although this seems to be primarily so they can better serve their husbands and homes.
I’m just not a fan of the dangerous content coming out of New Saint Andrews and Christ Church Moscow, ID, by Merkle, her father Douglas Wilson, her sister Rachel Yankovic, or anyone else associated with their brand. Merkle and all of her family very much believe in a modern patriarchal society where men control and women obey. And make no mistake—while they seem extreme, they have deep ties to many mainstream evangelical platforms and are heavily influential in various branches of the classical homeschooling movement.
And while they may present these beliefs in a humorous and slightly more palatable way than some of their more fringe followers (i.e. The Transformed Wife), the fact that they know Latin and Greek and can deftly wield a thesaurus does not make the message underlying this book any less evil than the abusive theology I witnessed years ago in a rural orphanage full of vulnerable boys and girls.
This was the first book from this author that I have read, and yet everything in it was familiar. I’ve heard it all directly from the mouths of abusers and their flying monkeys. They are the same teachings, albeit more elegantly expressed in this book.
In that orphanage we were repeatedly told things like,
“Every bad decision I ever made was because I listened to my wife,”
and
“The world is in the terrible state it’s in because of bossy women trying to run things instead of staying where they belong—in the casa, killing cockroaches, having babies, and cooking tortillas.”
We find this same contempt for women in Eve in Exile, which reads,
“As we look around us at our various societal ills, and there are many, the majority of our most pressing moral issues are the direct result of the women of this nation fighting for what they have declared to be their ‘rights,’ ”
and
“Women were created primarily to fill the earth with babies” but “American women have been in full-scale rebellion against the Creation Mandate since the First Wave of Feminism.” Any form of birth control is a denial of the woman’s God-given “role.”
This man would also praise his self-admittedly abusive mother as a “good woman” because she went to bed every night with bloody knuckles from a hard day’s work. Women were made to work hard, he would say, so hard that they should feel ashamed if they went to bed at night without pain from their day’s labor.
From the book: Women were created by God to "work like crazy...contrary to the beliefs of traditionalists who think that “weaker vessel” means that women are too tender to do anything much, women are actually capable of killing themselves for others." If they’re bored or unfulfilled at home it’s because they aren’t working hard enough or creatively enough.
And that is Eve in Exile in a nutshell, along with some bonus dominion theology thrown in at the end: “We need to rebuild a nation. God has called us to take dominion over an entire planet, and we should start with the mess that is right in front of us.”
I won’t go into the book’s questionable timeline of women’s suffrage, as other reviewers have already addressed that well.
I did agree with a few things in the book, such as the support of women receiving a good education—although this seems to be primarily so they can better serve their husbands and homes.
I’m just not a fan of the dangerous content coming out of New Saint Andrews and Christ Church Moscow, ID, by Merkle, her father Douglas Wilson, her sister Rachel Yankovic, or anyone else associated with their brand. Merkle and all of her family very much believe in a modern patriarchal society where men control and women obey. And make no mistake—while they seem extreme, they have deep ties to many mainstream evangelical platforms and are heavily influential in various branches of the classical homeschooling movement.
And while they may present these beliefs in a humorous and slightly more palatable way than some of their more fringe followers (i.e. The Transformed Wife), the fact that they know Latin and Greek and can deftly wield a thesaurus does not make the message underlying this book any less evil than the abusive theology I witnessed years ago in a rural orphanage full of vulnerable boys and girls.
May 13, 2020
I wanted to read this because I know there’s been pretty strong opinions out there about the author and I wanted to read the work for myself. Unfortunately, it came in already at a disadvantage because:
1. I don’t really like the writing style most women choose to write in. I don’t know what it is or why I am like this, but my eyes glazed over several times reading this, which is no fault of the author’s, I’ve had this happen with other works that I know the content is objectively good, I just can’t get “there.”
2. I thought this was a Bible study. Given the fact that the first explicit scripture reference happened on page 101 (ch 8), I wouldn’t consider this a Bible study, but rather a position paper where she lays out her ideal of a Christian worldview when history is held against God’s word. In that way, it was a little bit more academic, but not the way John Knox is academic, if that make sense.
I also think one of the bigger issues I had was the retelling of history, which took up the first half of the book, because she completely left out (whether intentionally or unintentionally) women of color. In all of the scenarios in dealing with how feminism has changed the way women view their roles at home, at no point in the historic moments she pointed out were women of color predominantly SAHMs. Moreover, many of them were largely responsible for the comfort of white women and making their lives easier, and quite frankly, doing their homemaking. I point this out because there was a few moments in the book where Rebekah had brought up outliers to what she was talking about (barren women or single women, most often) and how they had to adapt what she was saying for how it would work for them, which I think is a good distinction. But in the end, it made the difference of WOC being forgotten more glaring to me.
I don’t know that I had any major theological issues with the book, but I think that’s largely because it wasn’t making an earth shattering theological point, she was mainly trying to affirm and encourage women and telling them how she thinks they should do that. While I didn’t really enjoy the way she did that, I am assuming the best in seeing that as a desire from her.
Ultimately, there are parts of this book that I agreed with and parts of it that I disagreed with. I could tell she had a heart for wanting SAHMs to feel valued. As someone who was raised in a culture that very much idolized SAHMs, it did feel a little bit over the top defensive that being a SAHM was the best choice (not saying it’s not a good choice, but the best choice is the one that honors God, which I think Rebekah would agree with). I give it 2 stars instead of 1 because it was better than I thought it was going to be. I give it 2 stars instead of 3 because it still wasn’t that great of a read to me and that partly comes down to my personal taste. I think a better read would be Identity Theft by Melissa Krueger (although that funnily enough is also not my favorite writing style LOL) or Women of the Word by Jen Wilkin if you’re looking for something a little more theologically minded specifically geared towards women. Although, honestly, I’d be just fine reading something from Ligonier because it doesn’t always have to be a women’s book.
1. I don’t really like the writing style most women choose to write in. I don’t know what it is or why I am like this, but my eyes glazed over several times reading this, which is no fault of the author’s, I’ve had this happen with other works that I know the content is objectively good, I just can’t get “there.”
2. I thought this was a Bible study. Given the fact that the first explicit scripture reference happened on page 101 (ch 8), I wouldn’t consider this a Bible study, but rather a position paper where she lays out her ideal of a Christian worldview when history is held against God’s word. In that way, it was a little bit more academic, but not the way John Knox is academic, if that make sense.
I also think one of the bigger issues I had was the retelling of history, which took up the first half of the book, because she completely left out (whether intentionally or unintentionally) women of color. In all of the scenarios in dealing with how feminism has changed the way women view their roles at home, at no point in the historic moments she pointed out were women of color predominantly SAHMs. Moreover, many of them were largely responsible for the comfort of white women and making their lives easier, and quite frankly, doing their homemaking. I point this out because there was a few moments in the book where Rebekah had brought up outliers to what she was talking about (barren women or single women, most often) and how they had to adapt what she was saying for how it would work for them, which I think is a good distinction. But in the end, it made the difference of WOC being forgotten more glaring to me.
I don’t know that I had any major theological issues with the book, but I think that’s largely because it wasn’t making an earth shattering theological point, she was mainly trying to affirm and encourage women and telling them how she thinks they should do that. While I didn’t really enjoy the way she did that, I am assuming the best in seeing that as a desire from her.
Ultimately, there are parts of this book that I agreed with and parts of it that I disagreed with. I could tell she had a heart for wanting SAHMs to feel valued. As someone who was raised in a culture that very much idolized SAHMs, it did feel a little bit over the top defensive that being a SAHM was the best choice (not saying it’s not a good choice, but the best choice is the one that honors God, which I think Rebekah would agree with). I give it 2 stars instead of 1 because it was better than I thought it was going to be. I give it 2 stars instead of 3 because it still wasn’t that great of a read to me and that partly comes down to my personal taste. I think a better read would be Identity Theft by Melissa Krueger (although that funnily enough is also not my favorite writing style LOL) or Women of the Word by Jen Wilkin if you’re looking for something a little more theologically minded specifically geared towards women. Although, honestly, I’d be just fine reading something from Ligonier because it doesn’t always have to be a women’s book.
November 10, 2023
A must read for all women.
September 27, 2021
Excellent.
Longer review to come. :)
Longer review to come. :)
March 12, 2025
Oh, my goodness!!!!
I LOVE Rebekah Merkle's writing style, and listening to the book with the author reading, it was so funnnnn 🤩
I LOVE Rebekah Merkle's writing style, and listening to the book with the author reading, it was so funnnnn 🤩
May 17, 2022
3.5 rounded to 4 stars
I wanted to give this book a higher rating. Because the content is excellent and the author does a stupendous job approaching the problem of what femininity has become. My issue was that she only stopped there, merely brushing over solutions. She gives an idea of the solution, but fails to show examples of it in practicality, excusing it by saying she doesn't want to give guidelines for something that shouldn't be a legalistic thing. And I agree with that, but saying only the bare minimum doesn't solve anything either.
Another thing I wished was done was show instances of Biblical women fulfilling the goals Merkle keeps driving at. There are gazillion instances of this in the Old and New Testaments, and she doesn't really mention a single one in detail. I'd understand if this was a series, but even so, you could tell it in one book, but she doesn't. And I sorely missed that. Especially with the potential for showing what single women could do—a potential she never actually states in detail, just vague statements.
This book is excellent and definitely one I'm going to read again in future. It has much to teach regarding what we as women are called to do. Unfortunately, Merkle leaves Eve in exile, and never really shows us how Eve turns the exile in the wilderness into a paradise that reflects the one to come. This book has so much potential, but that potential isn't really reached. Maybe there should be a sequel at least. ;)
I wanted to give this book a higher rating. Because the content is excellent and the author does a stupendous job approaching the problem of what femininity has become. My issue was that she only stopped there, merely brushing over solutions. She gives an idea of the solution, but fails to show examples of it in practicality, excusing it by saying she doesn't want to give guidelines for something that shouldn't be a legalistic thing. And I agree with that, but saying only the bare minimum doesn't solve anything either.
Another thing I wished was done was show instances of Biblical women fulfilling the goals Merkle keeps driving at. There are gazillion instances of this in the Old and New Testaments, and she doesn't really mention a single one in detail. I'd understand if this was a series, but even so, you could tell it in one book, but she doesn't. And I sorely missed that. Especially with the potential for showing what single women could do—a potential she never actually states in detail, just vague statements.
This book is excellent and definitely one I'm going to read again in future. It has much to teach regarding what we as women are called to do. Unfortunately, Merkle leaves Eve in exile, and never really shows us how Eve turns the exile in the wilderness into a paradise that reflects the one to come. This book has so much potential, but that potential isn't really reached. Maybe there should be a sequel at least. ;)
June 5, 2021
i read this book because i tend to view womanhood as something i have to work around. i have an especially hard time wrapping my hard head around 'domesticity' and scripture's call to women to 'keep the home.' it's always seemed so bland and small.
i realize the message of this book (and the fact that i agree with it) isn't cheered on by most women today -- even christian women. rebekah tells the history of the feminist movement (righteous parts included, like suffrage and anti-abuse) and how its river has broken off into tributaries that reach into our lives and taint how we think. 'homemaking' gets pitted against 'career' and 'success' in a way thay doesn't really offer women a lot of freedom to try something better.
like, what if we really are called to the home? and what if the home is the force behind the Kingdom we're building? and what if the differences that make us women are beautiful, poetic harmonies without which we'd just have one, long, bland (equal) note?
all that's to say, i read it because i needed it, and whether anyone agrees or not, i'm suddenly more thankful that the Creator made a helper for adam named eve.
i realize the message of this book (and the fact that i agree with it) isn't cheered on by most women today -- even christian women. rebekah tells the history of the feminist movement (righteous parts included, like suffrage and anti-abuse) and how its river has broken off into tributaries that reach into our lives and taint how we think. 'homemaking' gets pitted against 'career' and 'success' in a way thay doesn't really offer women a lot of freedom to try something better.
like, what if we really are called to the home? and what if the home is the force behind the Kingdom we're building? and what if the differences that make us women are beautiful, poetic harmonies without which we'd just have one, long, bland (equal) note?
all that's to say, i read it because i needed it, and whether anyone agrees or not, i'm suddenly more thankful that the Creator made a helper for adam named eve.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 981 reviews