Should Stay-At-Home Moms Be Banned?

stay-at-home-mom-2.jpgRecently, feminist author  Sarrah Le Marquand  made headlines when she reinvigorated a debate over motherhood. She went beyond the traditional fight for paid maternity leave. She demanded that her Australian government outlaw stay-at-home moms.

She writes,

“Rather than wail about the supposed liberation in a woman’s right to choose to shun employment, we should make it a legal requirement that all parents of children school-age or older are gainfully employed.”

She goes on to say that it is, “only when we evenly divide responsibility for workplace participation between the two genders [that] will we see a more equitable division between men and women in all parts of Australian life.” In an attempt to control how men and women function in society, Le Marquand wants to establish new regulations that will ensure equality.
She has good reasons to be concerned. According to the Pew Research Center the number of stay at home moms has increased in recent years to 30%. More women than men want to stay home with their children. And more men than women feel compelled to work to provide for their families.

Only 31% of women who live comfortably view working full time as their ideal. And only 23% of married women view working full time as ideal. When given a choice, women prefer to stay home.

This reality creates a problem for Le Marquand and other feminist like  Simone de Beauvoir who once said, “No woman should be authorized to stay home to raise her children. Women should not have that choice, because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”  Both have concluded that women lack the intelligence to choose wisely. Thus,  choice must be removed.

stay-at-home-momLe Marquand argues that requiring mothers to work makes economic sense, but such thinking is woefully short sighted. Economic value cannot be measured via the size of one’s paycheck. For example, a doctor who is in medical school makes very little money. Yet, the person’s earning potential will grow exponentially once she is out of school. Lack of gainfully employment does not necessarily imply that a person is not contributing to a nation’s economic well-being.

Quite frankly, raising the next generation by ensuring that children are equipped to contribute to society and to the workforce allows the mother to do more for her nation’s well-being than her spouse does. By running her home well, she empowers both her kids and her spouse to engage society in a more meaningfully manner and to work more effectively.  To miss this fact is to doom your economy. The demographic disasters that are currently brewing in Japan, China, and all across Europe reveal that motherhood is important. Maximizing a workforce today at the expense of investing in future generations always has disastrous consequences.

Moreover, the equality of function that Le Marquand demands does not exist. Yes, both men and women are fully equal (Gen 1:27). Both are created in the image of God. But equality of value does not equal equality of function. And we do not want such distinctions to disappear. For example, both a CPA and a medical doctor are equally valuable in God’s eyes. Both are fully human and should be treat as immensely valuable. But you would not want the CPA diagnosing your latest sickness. Nor, would we want a medical doctor filing our taxes.

Men and women function differently because they were designed differently. Women are naturally more nurturing than men. During the pregnancy and while breastfeeding, a mother’s body produces Oxytocin enabling her to quickly bond with her infant. As a result, Greg Johnson has discovered that mothers are often better equipped to interpret the meaning of their child’s cries.  Mothers also possess a heightened ability to process and interpret sensory nerve input, enabling them to quickly respond to their child’s actions and facial expressions. Even those who wish to argue against the presence of these differences cannot ultimately escape them. As Emma M. Seppala concluded, “While women’s expression involved nurturing and bonding, men’s compassion was expressed through protecting and ensuring survival.” Women tend to be better equipped biologically and sociologically than men to care for their children. As Social Scientist David Wilcox notes,

Taken together, mothers’ comparative advantage in breastfeeding, understanding their children, and nurturing makes it functional for societies to organize the bulk of childbearing around the mother.

As the Pew Research Center discovered – most women will prefer being a stay-at-home mom over being a bread winner. This ability to care for the next generation does not preclude mothers from contributing directly to their nation’s economy as seen in Proverbs 31.  As women make the choice to focus primarily on raising the next generation, they are expressing their unique and feminine capacity for nurturing the next generation. This is not a bad thing that must be legislated against. It is a natural function of femininity that should be embraced – not just for the benefit of children but also for all of society.

Are ready for some more stay-at-home moms?

The True Story Behind Beauty and the Beast


beauty-and-the-beast-2The Beauty and the Best
is truly a story as old as time. Disney has produced the story multiple times: first as an animated film, then as a Broadway musical, and now as a live-action film. And with each ensuing production,  Disney twists the plot around just a smidgen more. Before deciding on which version you like the most, I encourage think through these 5 major chnages that Disney made to Gabrielle-Suzanne de Villenuve’s  short story.

1. There are no Gaston, LeFou, or Monsieur D’arque in the original story.

59c375deb87209241bcbb6e40b1e6be3

Though Belle has multiple suitors because she is pretty, good-natured, and comes from a wealthy family, none of them are named Gaston. Like in the movie, Belle turns down all of her suitors because she “thought herself too young to marry,” especially given her tight relationship with her father  (p.4).

Consequently, the book contains none of Gaston most outlandish and entertaining lines. As expected, LeFou is also absent from the original story. (The story does however feature a plethora of foolish people who could serve as the inspiration for LeFou) Without question, Disney also choose to give LeFou a homosexual background for its own purposes. Disney did not bend their latest film back towards to the original narrative. The company is increasingly bending the narrative to fit their story.

2. Belle is not an only child.

She actually has two older sisters and three brothers. The two older sisters are extremely vain and openly chase after wealth and prestige at the expenses of their family. Belle’s brothers are decent people. They work faithfully to support their father and volunteer to fight the Beast when they first hear of the Belle’s predicament.

3. Cogsworth, Lumiere, and all their other friends are not in the original.

HsaZ3nvQGrWx

Yes, these popular and quintessential characters did not make the original story. Things like oats being in the stable, food on showing up on the table, and new clothes being laid out on the bed happen magically. But, all these magical happenings are the work of a fairy and not animated and slightly cursed household items.

4. No magical rose and a New Plot

The crux of the Disney plot does not exist in the original story. Rather as Belle’s father prepares to leave the Beast’s castle,  he grabs a bunch of roses for Belle from the Beast’s garden.

Up to this point, the Beast had been secretly caring for the Belle’s father. But when the Beast sees the merchant taking the roses, the Beast angrily shows himself for the first time. Then, he claims that the Belle’s Father has repaid hospitality with theft. The Beast then demands that the merchant or one of his daughters must die within three months’ time to atone for the merchant’s sin. The merchant returns home with his horrible news in a fright, fully intending to return to the Beast’s castle. But Belle has other plans. And thus, the story of the Belle and the Beast begins in earnest.

5. True love equals self-denial.

Both Belle and the Beast have to deny themselves to find true happiness. In addition to his ugliness, the Beast also has to act dumb or be punished again by the evil fairy. And Belle has to get to the point where she is willing to look past the Beast’s ugliness.

This takes a good deal of time. Belle turns down multiple marriage offers from the Beast because he is so hideous. Finally when the beast is at the point of death, Belle relents and realizes that true beauty is found in the heart. She ignores her impulses and pledges herself to the man who had shown, “me so much kindness.” And the rest is history!

Belle’s vain, selfish sisters who almost destroyed Belle’s relationship with the Beast are then turned into statues by the good fairy (almost the opposite of the Disney ending). And, Belle? She lives happily ever after with the Beast (now turned prince) and her father.

To get your own copy of the original story Click Here

Life For Christians After Beauty and The Beast

beauty-and-the-beastLast week, the evangelical world was shocked to learn that Disney has incorporated a pro-homosexual message into their upcoming movie, Beauty and The Beast.  But that is not all. We have also learned that the Disney T.V. show Star vs. the Forces of Evil contains a scene where several couples (including homosexual couples) are showing kissing in the background. Evangelicals are left wondering, “Has Disney lost its mind?”

Unfortunately, the answer is no. In fact, Disney probably has a better understanding of the American culture than most churches do.  

According to Barna researchers, only 36% of Americans went to church this Sunday. Instead of looking to the Bible for guidance about life 91% of  Americans look within themselves to find the answers to life biggest questions. As they looked within, most of them (69%) have discovered that any kind of sexual expression between two consenting adults is ok. And 71% of them approve of divorce and 63% are ok with sexual fantasies.

The LGBT lifestyle and sexual revolution ethic are no longer extreme in the mind of most Americans. Christianity is the extreme. Today, 60% of Americans consider attempting to convert others to your religion to be extreme action. And 52% think condemning same sex relationships because of religious convictions is also extreme. 

We have even seen this shift in politics. Both major political parties have embraced the revolution, praising the homosexual lifestyle.  In short, Christians no longer dominate the morality of America. Trump’s arrival in the White House has not changed that reality as Disney has reminded us.

p9399_p_v8_afNow in all fairness, Disney’s shift away from normative, conservative, evangelical thought is nothing new. As early as 1940, Jiminy Cricket was telling children, “To always let your conscience be your guide.” But now, Disney no longer feels that it  has to tiptoe around Christian values. Mickey and company have gauged the cultural winds and determined that  is they have the power to directly challenge the biblical family norms they once had to respect.

Going forward, I think we should skip Beauty and the Best. I do believe that watching sinful thing after sinful thing will adversely effect our souls and actions. To some degree, Disney understands this reality too (though the corporation clearly does not view its agenda as morally wrong). Disney want us to accept and to respond to the message of the movie in a positive way. But we cannot because we serve a power greater than the emotions of our fellow men and women.

As Paul encourages us in Romans 12:2 to

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

Perhaps by doing so, we will be able to send Disney a message. But I suspect our boycott will not hurt Disney too much financially since Bible believing Christians are a minority culture. However, punishing Disney should not be are ultimate goal. Protecting our souls and the souls of our children is our primary purpose. As we loving sit out, we will hopefully have opportunities to discuss our convictions and to share our faith with our families and with the watching world.

As we set ourselves apart, we must be careful not to make the homosexual agenda the measure of our success. We must flee sin in all of its forms and protect our children from all the various lusts of the world. We must stop approving of sitcoms that make light of heterosexual immorality, divorce, and affairs. We must stop pretending that pornography has no effect upon our relationships.  We must stop lying, cheating, and excusing sins as ‘ok’ because we like them. We must fill our mind with the Scriptures and with movies, songs, and books that are consistent with the divine narrative of the Bible.

We do not have to avoid all secular media going forward to be good Christians. But, we do have to be wise and discerning when we select movies, T. V. shows, albums, and books for ourselves and our kids. We must avoid things that lead us and our kids to embrace sin and to minimize truth. Such discernment will probably leave us with fewer and fewer options because our American culture is no longer synonymous with our Christian culture. 

The world where college students can convince their atheistic professors of the existence of God is increasingly shrinking. The world where Disney characters wrestle with same sex attraction is growing. We are living in a digital Babylon. Disney understands this new reality. Do you?