The Attack on Motherhood
by David J. Stewart
Sylvia Ann Hewlett, the author of Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children, observes that men have an unfair advantage over women. Nowadays, she says, the rule of thumb seems to be that the more successful the woman, the less likely it is she will find a husband or bear a child. For men, the reverse is true. Ms. Hewlett, an economist, conducted a survey and found that 55 percent of 35-year-old career women are childless. Between a third and half of 40-year-old professional women are childless. The number of childless women age 40 to 44 has doubled in the past 20 years. And among corporate executives who earn $100,000 or more, she says, 49 percent of the women did not have children, compared with only 10 percent of the men.
America went nutty years ago! Today, insane is a better word. Ms. Hewlett states that professional men have an "unfair advantage" over women (based upon the given statistics). Millions of working women, who focused too much on their careers, suddenly have realized that they've squandered their fertility. Now they want children and all the money in the world cannot help them. What a tragedy! Most career men at the same age have children and family. The facts speak for themselves, career women suffer when it comes to relationships and family. One can debate as to "why" this is true, but it is never the less sadly true.
It's not just America. This has become a major problem in Japan (there's actually too few children). Now the Japanese government is trying to study ways to facilitate women having children while maintaining their careers. It is getting crazier every day in this world. Now we see women actually having their eggs removed from their body and frozen into storage (so they can have the eggs implanted 20 or 25 years down the road when their career is over). It's unthinkable! If a career is more important to you than being a mother, I truly feel sorry for you. You've been duped by the greedy corporations who don't want you to have children, they ONLY want to make more money. It's just a fact that career women (what some might call "dominant" or "professional" women) are much less likely to have any children and a family. Greedy men could care less about you, but I DO! That is why I wrote this webpage, because I want you to be happy. A woman's place is in the home, not behind a corporate desk. Is is it worth the price? Do you really need to work outside the home? Most working women choose to work a job, but do not have to. Remember: The greatest things in life are NOT things!
The following article is written very well, please take it to heart:
by Lavonne McClish
A full-page ad appeared in the "Career Women" section of the Denton, Texas, Record-Chronicle on March 29, 2000. The page was headlined, "Once upon a time...Women were housewives & mothers, but now we do it all!" I did not appreciate the implication that women who stay at home and take care of husband, house, and children do not work or are of less value than are "career women."
The headline is misleading. I am firmly convinced that, unless a "career woman" has an exceptionally flexible job and schedule, a very accommodating employer, and someone to care for her children who will bring them up exactly as she herself would (in which unlikely case she still is not actually bringing them up herself), she cannot "do it all"! Either her job will suffer, or else her home and children will suffer.
The future of our country depends on our teaching and training of these children right now—this task is critical. What more important "career" can one think of than that of nurturing, teaching, and training one's children (the next generation) in a secure, stable atmosphere, where discipline is administered with consistency and love? Do I want my child to absorb someone else's values (anyone else's—even a "nice" person's) other than my own Scripturally founded values? Remember, there would have been no Timothy without Lois and Eunice (2 Tim. 1:4–5). We who are mothers should remember that our children actually belong to God (in just as real a sense as Samuel did, 1 Sam. 1:1–26). God gave us the stewardship of their care, teaching, and training for a few years. What kind of "return" do we want to give back to God on His investment, when the days of our stewardship are completed and the child is mature? Should not we be "redeeming the time" against the day when our children are tested (Eph. 5:15–16)? We must be willing to pay whatever price it takes to "buy up" all the opportunities we can for preparing them for lives dedicated to the service of Christ, unto Whom we will give an account.
The idea that one can spend "quality time" with one's children (and thus somehow compensate for the missing "quantity time") is pure hogwash. The need children have for the attention of parents cannot be put off until a convenient time. I have worked outside my home (after my children were older), and I know how exhausted I was when I reached home after a stressful day. Had there been children to care for in the evening, I would have seriously short-changed them. During some of those years of working outside my home, I also cared for a young grandchild—taking her to work with me (in fact, taking her everywhere I went!), then caring for her in the evening at home. I am sure she did not get the patience and attention she deserved, but I did the best I could. Patience is hard to come by under those circumstances (1 Cor. 13:4–5).
Jesus once asked: "If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone?" (Luke 11:11–12). These words apply with equal force to a mother's concerns for her children. When we give our children the "leftovers" after we have given our best to others all day, are we not, in effect, giving them a stone, a serpent, or a scorpion? Unless a "working mother" (is there any other kind?) can afford to hire help, her attention is pulled in many different directions; all those mundane chores at home have to be done or at least supervised. There will often be school activities in the evening requiring parents' attendance, and/or children needing assistance with homework.
Can we not see the connection between the epidemic of violence among children in recent years and the fact that so many children are being brought up, not by conscientious parents, but by day care employees? Those day care centers with which I have had acquaintance are overcrowded and shorthanded, and many of the employees are there (at minimum wage) because they cannot find any other work. To a large number of them, it is just a job— a means of getting a paycheck. They put in their eight hours and get away as soon as possible. While some of them might like to give the children time and love, they are spread too thinly to do so.
Even worse, many children are at home alone with unsupervised television after school, on holidays, and in summer. From this "electronic babysitter" they get an education in such negative traits as disrespect for adults, disregard for the property of others, filthy language, sexually immoral behavior, dishonesty and deceit, self-centeredness, materialism, "might makes right"—in short, survival of the loudest and most aggressive. I have also seen this principle demonstrated in more than one day care center: The loudest, strongest, and most aggressive children are the dominant ones. The atmosphere is often rowdy, un-controlled, and even physically dangerous.
What can we be thinking when we turn the care and training of our precious children over to the bullying and bad influence of undisciplined peers, to complete strangers (some of whom have been discovered to be pedophiles) or worse, to the entertainment industry? Some of the "educational" programs are almost as bad as those on the commercial stations because of what they teach both explicitly and implicitly (e. g., evolution). If a parent watches such educational programs with his or her children, one can point out errors and take advantage of opportunities to teach. A parent may then exercise proper judgment as to what programs should be "off limits."
I am not condemning all mothers of young children who work outside their homes. I well know that many have no choice. But when a mother is able to choose, and she chooses to devote herself to caring for her family, why would anyone want to make her feel as if she is not worth very much, is lazy, or is shirking her responsibilities? Some have even called such women "freeloaders," have accused them of not carrying their own weight, or have said that caring for children is demeaning and a waste of intelligence and education. Nothing could be further from the truth! Any woman, who has stayed at home and devoted herself to caring for the physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual needs of one child or of several children, is doing a duty—a very taxing and exhausting duty at that—of inestimable value and far-reaching consequences. She uses both her education and her intelligence constantly! Hers is truly a labor of love. She should be encouraged and uplifted, not denigrated.
A mother knows her children and their needs in ways that no hired caregiver could possibly know them. She is there when they need her, not "by appointment only." She is obedient to the command that she be a keeper at home and that she is to love her children (Tit. 2:4–5). Love involves so much more than just words or emotions (1 Cor. 13:1–8). The stay-at-home mother fulfills her responsibility to teach her children at all hours of the day (Deu. 6:6–9). One cannot teach children merely by saying something such as "All right, now we are going to sit down for fifteen minutes, and I am going to teach you." While there is certainly a place for "scheduled" teaching, I believe a mother's (or a father's, for that matter) most valuable teaching is that which she does moment by moment, while going about her daily routine of activities. She teaches her children by her attitude, by the tone of her voice, by her patience (or lack of it), by the comments she makes, by the songs she sings, and by that to which she listens to on the radio or watches on TV, by her concern for others and the good deeds she does for them, and by her honesty (or the lack thereof [e.g., "Answer the door and tell whoever it is that Mother is not home!"]). Children can see through us; they know very well what is most important to us.
The stay-at-home mother and her family must be willing to forego many of the material things they might otherwise have with her extra income, but the trade-off is well worth it. Sadly, sometimes even Christian husbands will try to push their wives into taking a job and leaving their children. Solomon said that it is better to have a dinner of vegetables served with love and peace than to have a stalled ox served with hatred (Pro. 15:17). Paul wrote to the Philippians, "I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content" (4:11). He wrote to Timothy, "Godliness with contentment is great gain," and warned that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil; we should not trust in riches (1 Tim. 6:6, 10–11, 17–19).
Sometimes I think it is easier to be content with less than it is with more. The sad truth is, the more we have, the more we want. (In fact, we would all be better off if we did not have some of our possessions which take our attention away from spiritual things—or worse, plant evil thoughts and desires in our heads.) Could there be a relation between the material things—luxuries (now deemed "necessities") purchased with Mother's extra money and the fact that so many church members have their vision almost entirely focused on earthly, material, physical things—from sensual "worship" practices to questionable, worldly methods of reaching the "unchurched"? We so easily forget that this world is not our home, and that we can take none of our possessions with us (Job 1:21; 1 Tim. 2:4; 6:7; Heb. 11:8–10). Only those treasures which are stored in Heaven will survive (Mat. 6:19–21). My most prized physical treasures are my children and grandchildren, and I want them to go to Heaven more than I want anything else for them. Surely this is true of any sober-minded mother.
The Bible teaches that a woman's place is IN THE HOME, not the factory or office.
"I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully." -1st Timothy 5:14
So the Bible, God's inspired Word, teaches that it is God's will for women to get married, have children, guide the house and not cause trouble. God is saying that a woman should work in the home. "Guiding the house" means that she is to take care of the business of the home. A family and home has much to be done. Children need attending to and training. Dishes need to be washed. Clothes need to be cleaned and ironed. Healthy home-cooked meals need to be planned, gathered and prepared. Being a full-time mother is a tremendous amount of work! All the more reason why a mother should be at home. It is a shame that many children today are growing up on less than nutritious diets because mom is too busy to cook decent meals. With all the processed foods, should it be surprising that so many children are malnourished and obese? Not at all! Genesis 6:4 says that man's days would be six score (that's 120 years old)! The Hunza people living up in the Himalayan Mountains are reportedly living to be well over 100 and even 120. So why do we Americans die at a MUCH younger age? (for many reasons: lack of proper vitamins and minerals, poisons in our foods, stress, pollution, lack of bodily exercise, fluoridation of water, harmful medicines, dangerous vaccinations, cigarettes, alcohol, etc). It's amazing to me that people live beyond 50.
It is a mother's duty to learn about these things and to safeguard her home. Every mother should be an expert on nutrition and health. If I were a mother, I would try to become an expert (as much as possible) in all areas relevant to my family. It doesn't take a lot of money to properly feed your family. Junk food is much more expensive. There is NO GREATER title or job in the world than that of being a wife and mother. Society today is totally backwards. Women who stay at home and guide the house (as God wants them to) are often labeled as being "slaves, weak or stupid." On the contrary; they are obeying God's Word, the Bible. Any woman can apply for a job and work 9 to 5, but it takes a God-fearing woman to obey 1st Timothy 5:14. A mother needs to be at home with her children. A wife needs to prepare to meet her husband when he comes home tired from work. The house needs to be clean. If she is the proper kind of wife, her husband will be praised by others who notice her virtue and character (Proverb 31:23). A wife is to submit to her husband (1st Peter 3:1-5).
The true heroes in America are it's loyal hard-working mothers and wives who keep the home-fires burning! Phooey on the feminists who condemn the God-fearing mothers who stay at home to guide their homes, care for their children and love their husbands. America needs a revival of the importance of motherhood!!! It is appalling to know that so many parents entrust their children to strangers at some day-care center. Children belong at home. I believe that we as Christians need to step back for a moment and take a grave look at what's happening in America. The big picture is ugly. It's bad enough that mother's are being forced into the workplace due to the lack of decent paying jobs for men, now career women aren't even having children anymore. I heard today on the news that the "morning after" birth control pill is now going to be made freely available for over-the-counter purchase all across America. Somebody is really working overtime to prevent women from having children. Is this just another further attempt by the globalist elite to implement population control? I have no doubt. Why do you think abortion is legal? Population control, of course. But they make women believe that it's all about women's RIGHTS. And tens-of-millions of mothers fall right into the globalist's deceptive plot to reduce the population. I'll tell you right now, the rich people ruling this world could care less about your rights. If more mothers KNEW the truth, there would be a drastic reduction in abortions. It's not about women's rights, it's about population control. Do you really think God would allow his planet to become overpopulated? After all, it was God who told us to multiply and replenish the earth (Genesis 1:28). No, it is the paranoid and greedy world leaders that are worried (Luke 12:30). God tells us NOT to worry (Luke 12:29). God promises to meet our needs (Luke 12:31). Since foolish women are murdering their own babies, the rich don't have to do it for them. Chinese women weren't so compliant, so the government helped them out by ruthlessly murdering millions of children through FORCED abortions. Don't worry, it won't happen in America as long as millions of women keep killing their own children. There is something very wrong with this whole picture. I mean, how stupid can the public be? Don't you understand, we've been fed a bunch of lies for decades about everything from the origin of AIDS to abortion. It's all about population control. Don't fall into the trap of the rich, you should have many children and follow God's command in Genesis 1:28 to "multiply." I believe in BIG families, the bigger the better. Newly married couples should plan on having 6 or more children. There is no better way for a Christian mother to fight the devil, then to raise 6 to 10 God-fearing children! If people going through the Depression could raise a big family, so can people today. Don't let the agenda of the New World Order decide how many children you don't have. I am pro-family, and so is God.
You ladies who stay home and care for your family are to be greatly praised, thank you on behalf of America! May God bless you and multiply the fruit of your body for Jesus' sake.
"I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully." -1st Timothy 5:14
God bless you, Dave