Response to "Traditional Families Are More Productive in the Long Run."

       In this blog, Lori focuses on an article called "Families With a Stay-At-Home Parent Are Better Off, According to a Nobel Prize Winner in Economics." The full article can be read here: https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/families-with-a-stay-at-home-parent-are-better-off-according-to-a-nobel/.

       Lori begins with a quote from the article: 

       “In simple English, it turns out that households with a homemaker who specializes in childrearing, while the other parent focuses completely on their career, tend to be more productive in the long run.” ......The author supports the notion of women being keepers at home and men being the providers and gives plenty of evidence why this is best.

       I read the article and I'm not sure what "evidence" she is referring to. It's not at all detailed in its argument, or even very clear. For example, how is "productivity" defined and measured? As a result, it's difficult to evaluate the claim. From a purely monetary perspective, it may very well be most efficient for one spouse to work and the other to stay home and take care of the children. My wife and I do exactly that; we considered both continuing to work and getting childcare, but decided against it after seeing the cost. Having her stay home is what works for us, but ultimately it will be dependent on each family's unique situation and is up to them to decide. An academic study of this nature, even if it makes valid points, can only apply to averages and cannot be used to tell each individual families what they must do. 

        Also, the article goes out of its way to avoid saying which gender should work and which should stay home. It simply says one should do the former and the other should do the latter. I think Lori was too giddy over finding something that "agrees" with her to notice this small detail. 

       She continues with another quote from the article: 

  

“In his 1981 book A Treatise on the Family, Becker analyzed the household as a sort of factory, producing goods and services such as meals, shelter, and child care. One of the interesting discoveries found was that, in order to maximize household output and wealth, once a family has kids, it’s generally better for one parent to stay home and run the household while the other parent with the higher income potential focuses 100 percent on work and maximizing their career."

There are a few disturbing points in this paragraph. First, the comparison of a household to a factory producing goods and services. To be clear, I have no problem with this assumption being used by the economist who drew these conclusions. That is, after all, not a statement about how family dynamics should be, but a deliberate oversimplification to make data-based analysis possible. However, when Lori presents it as evidence that "God's ways" (actually Lori's ways) are best, she is making a somewhat different point. She comes across as saying that the traditional family structure should be chosen because the goal is to maximize economic output. A simpler way to say that would be that it's all about money. Now, to be clear, I don't think she actually views the purpose of the family in this way, but she certainly could have clarified. And she does not. 

       The other disturbing point is that the article suggests one spouse ought to focus "100%" on their career. This point will be elaborated on later, and it doesn't improve at all. And again, although I don't think Lori believes fathers should completely ignore their children, it's unfortunate that she doesn't attempt to clarify that point. 

       And yet another quote from the article: 

       “When the members of a household specialize in their respective fields, they’re able to maximize the total output of their economic production. A breadwinner who doesn’t have to worry about housework can dedicate their focus on optimizing their career track. For example, a husband whose wife is a full-time homemaker can dedicate his focus completely on his work outside of the home. If their child falls ill, the breadwinner won’t have to worry about asking his employers for time off to stay home and care for the sick child.”

       I suspect the economist used this oversimplified model in which one spouse focuses on career and nothing else only for the sake of developing a usable model. Certainly it is not being suggested that if the working spouse does a load of dishes in the evening, it would ruin their career track. But this oversimplified model happens to line up precisely with what Lori really does believe is the ideal. In other words, she has taken a simplistic model meant only for illustrating a broader point and declared that the model itself should be followed precisely! 

       And here I must make the obvious point: I work 40 hours a week, roughly 9 to 5. Just what am I doing in the evenings and weekends that prevents me from being able to participate in taking care of the children and home? Is Lori suggesting husbands should be spending evenings and weekends at work? Obviously not, but then she must be saying that those times must belong entirely to the man so he can relax. Lori claims feminists "devalue" homemakers, and yet here she is saying only those who have a career deserve to relax and take a break! As anyone who has stayed home full time knows, it's just as exhausting as any career, but the difference is that you don't get breaks on weekends, evenings, or even in the middle of the night. And, from an economic standpoint, I have to ask how one spouse sitting on their butt every evening and weekend and not contributing to the household somehow is more efficient! 

       Next, we're back to Lori's own words: 

When the wife is a homemaker and stays home to care for her home and children, the husband can pour all of his energies into his job and not have to worry about sick children, running them to sports activities, cooking, and cleaning. There’s a good reason that God said that it was not good for a man to live alone, thus he needed a help meet.

      When the Bible refers to Eve as Adam's "help meet" in Genesis,it meant "equal partner", not "domestic servant." It was about Eve coming alongside Adam to have dominion over the world with him. It was not about her cooking his meals and doing his laundry. But when has Lori's biblical interpretation ever been reliable?   

      I gave her the benefit of the doubt before, but now she really did come out and say it. She believes it's better if husbands focus entirely and only on their jobs; no "worrying" about sick children, cooking, or cleaning. It's funny how she complains about people who supposedly denigrate these activities when it's a woman doing them, but at the thought of a man doing them, suddenly she describes them as nuisances that he shouldn't have to "worry" about. Which is it, Lori? Is raising children the greatest and most important job, or not? 

       But this isn't all she says. She wants the husband to never have to worry about taking his children to sports activities. What exactly is left, in Lori's model, to allow fathers to spend time with their children? They shouldn't take care of them when they're sick, shouldn't help with and be present for their extracurricular activities, shouldn't help feed them or put them to bed. I desperately hope Lori is just poorly communicating her point, but doesn't it seem as though she is pushing fathers to be workaholics and as uninvolved in their children's lives as possible? I suppose this is the result if you arbitrarily define any activity related to the care of children as "feminine." 

       Yes, I work hard all day and would love to relax when I come home in the evening, but much of the time I am able to spend with my children involves dinnertime and getting them ready for bed. If I considered myself too "manly" to be involved in such things, it would be much more difficult to develop a relationship with them. Not only that, but my kids would also get the idea that I'm either incapable or unwilling to take care of them. How is that a good thing? 

Bearing and raising children along with running a household is a lot of work but so it working in the workforce to provide for one’s family. When each spouse knows their role and works hard at it, much good is accomplished. There is beauty in order. Marriages are stronger and children are happier. Men and women weren’t created to do it all. A man who works hard for his family should not have to come home and clean the home and care for the children. If he does, great but if he doesn’t, that’s great too since he’s working hard so his wife can stay home full time with the children to care for them and the home.

Lori makes sure we don't misunderstand her point. Children and housework are nothing but a "nuisance" to men. If a man is a responsible adult and contributes to the household in which he lives and his own children, this should be considered a "bonus", as if he should be praised for going above and beyond, rather than simply being a responsible, normal, loving human being. No, Lori, if a man insists on only working his 40 hours a week and then sits on his butt and plays video games or watches TV every evening and weekend, he is not "working hard." He is a lazy bum who is taking advantage of the other members of his household. 

       Notice how she also says "there is beauty in order." This is one of her favorite false dichotomies. In her mind, there is either her way, or chaos. Unless the roles are clearly defined by her, there are no roles at all. Let me clarify: in my family, there are clearly defined roles. But they were mutually agreed upon by my wife and me, and are based on our own strengths and weaknesses rather than Lori's gender stereotypes. For example, my wife does the majority of the cooking because she's better at it, while I handle the finances because my degree is in business. On the other hand, I used to work for a cleaning company, so I do a lot of the cleaning, while she is more naturally talented at household repairs. And we both involve the other in decisions as well as try to learn in the areas in which we have weaknesses. This, to me, is most efficient, not randomly assigning responsibilities based on gender in a way that completely ignores individuality as well as strengths and weaknesses. I would argue that this results in greater order than what Lori suggests, because it is based on common sense instead of prejudice. 

       To conclude: I'm not an economist, so ultimately I can't comment on what type of household is most economically productive (though it should be noted that the opinion of one economist, singled out by Lori for obvious reasons, is hardly conclusive). But I can't imagine anyone thinking economic output should be the measure of a successful family. I would rather build healthy relationships and make sure I love my wife and kids as well as I can than be obsessed with playing arbitrary roles and maximizing "productivity." 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/traditional-families-are-more-productive-in-the-long-run/

Response to "Her Advice to a New Wife."

       You just know this is going to be a bad one! 

       This blog was guest-written by Celina Eve. I'm not sure exactly who this is, but it seems to just be one of Lori's followers. She shares the advice she gives to new wives based on her 22 years of experience in marriage. There's a little wisdom and a whole lot of the worst possible advice. 

 Never say no to sex. It’s the glue that will bond you together through thick and thin. Even on the days where you’re not into it, put your husband’s needs above your own. You’ll be glad you did in the long run.

Never. Full stop. Not even "make sure you have sex regularly," or "don't withhold sex as a manipulative tactic", but simply "never say no." She allows for no exceptions. Not if you just gave birth, not if you just had surgery, not if you have a migraine, not if the baby woke up 12 times last night and you're exhausted. No, sex is not "the glue that will bond you together." Friendship, love, and respect are far better candidates than sex. Of course, these things are impossible in an intentionally imbalanced relationship in which your partner owns your body. If your marriage depends on sex to hold it together, this is a clear sign of deficiency in the relationship. I'm not saying sex isn't important, and to many people it is very important. But it is not the most important part of a marriage. 

       I would also add that this is a clear example of the one-sided nature of love and care in the type of marriage Lori wants everyone to have. It is a beautiful thing when two people put each other's needs above their own. But this is not what Celina is talking about here. She is saying only the wife should put her husband's needs above her own. This arrangement is designed precisely so that the husband puts his own needs at the top as well. Of course, it also must be said that no true loving husband would ever demand that his wife have sex with him whenever he wants. As much as Lori talks about why women should choose their husband "wisely," her advice drives them toward the self-centered, predatory type! 

       Before moving on, I should note that this is where those who tirelessly defend Lori would say here something like "obviously she doesn't literally mean 'never'" and claim that the words are being taken out of context. I'd love to see someone try to claim that here. It couldn't be more plain. 

 Take a humble place in your marriage and submit to your husband’s headship. Discuss things once and then then let him have the final say. Respect him. Build him up to others. Never tear him down. Be sweet towards him and hold your tongue. Pray daily for him and don’t argue with him.

"Headship", a phrase that cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. When Paul calls husbands the "head" of their wives, he specifically avoids the Greek word that means authority and instead uses one that implies coming alongside her and caring for her. But that doesn't stop these people from starting with their own idea of male authority and then *magically* finding it in the Bible. 

       This case is similar to the last one. Humility is good, but both spouses should have it. She advocates one-sided humility, one-sided respect. There is not a shred of biblical support for the idea that husbands should have the final word. And wives having the policy of sharing their opinion only once and then letting it go might seem to promote "harmony" and "efficiency", but all it really does is create dis-functionality and increase the risk of things going very wrong due to a bad decision. There is nothing about women that make them any less capable of making good decisions than men. Both must have an equal voice. And even in situation in which one clearly has more knowledge or experience than the other, though usually one ought to defer to the other, this doesn't mean they have a right to silence the other or claim some sort of authority that does not exist. 

       She goes on to include several other points, such as keeping the house clean and planting a garden. Of course, there's nothing wrong with these, except the (unbiblical) idea that the responsibility for these things falls on women alone. She also includes advice about keeping in-laws from interfering in your marriage in an inappropriate way, which is great. But the first two points completely ruin the rest. 

       She ends with the following: 

Find an older godly woman who has a biblically healthy marriage and has raised a family. You’ll need a living example as a young wife yourself.

I can't believe it! Lori willingly published an argument against following her own teaching! Lori's ideas on marriage are anything but biblical; they are the centuries-old fantasies of men who thought they were God and that women exist to please them, and found a way (as so many have on so many topics) to twist the Bible to agree with their arrogant, selfish ideas. It is a true tragedy when anyone falls for this, especially women. 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/her-advice-to-a-new-wife/

Response to "The Government is Preventing Them from Getting Married!"

       My title isn't technically correct...Lori actually wrote "geting married". Apparently she is just as careful with her proofreading as she is with her biblical interpretation. 

       This blog was written in response to the following comment from one of Lori's fans: 

“Hey Lori! Love your posts! Could you make one about wedding cancellations in light of COVID? I’m supposed to be getting married in nine weeks and we are unsure about whether to cancel or not. (Our state has even stopped allowing people to get marriage licenses.) As a couple who have remained pure for our wedding, we are obviously super against having to postpone/wait any longer. Also, we want to start having children! I know a lot of young women are facing this situation. (I have a few friends in similar situations and we all follow you on here.) Could you do a post about what your thoughts are on getting married and starting to have babies in this situation when the government is trying to prevent us from getting married?”

Lori's response is on topic at first but then quickly falls off the rails. I suspect this is one of those times when she wasn't sure what to write about and had to come up with something in a hurry. She says: 

It reminded me of the verse in the Bible that states that in the last days, they will forbid people from marrying (1 Timothy 4:3).

Once again, Lori reveals how little she knows about the Bible. This verse has nothing to do with the government forbidding people from marrying (and I would argue that the government is not doing this, but that's another topic). In context, Paul is talking about certain religious groups forbidding marriage and teaching people to abstain from certain foods. In other words, Paul is talking about those who try to keep Christians under the Old Testament law when Jesus clearly freed us from it. There were many movements in the early church like this, and Paul spends a lot of time in the New Testament refuting various false teachings such as this. Lori, please remember you can't just pick a verse out of a hat and use it to say whatever you want it to say. It has an actual intended meaning, and you would do us all a favor if you would make an attempt to learn what that is. 

       Lori continues:

My encouragement to all of you who are in this situation is to go to your pastor and have him marry you as soon as possible, especially if you are in a state that has a Democrat as a governor since who knows when they will allow freedom to the people.

I just wanted to say here that it's rather idiotic for Lori to pretend this is somehow limited to Democrat governors. I live in a state with a Republican governor that is on lockdown, and I know we're not the only state. Not to mention the fact that her favorite president, Trump is entirely on board with the lockdowns as well. Of course, there is no mention of Trump's involvement in that decision! 

Have your family and close friends in a backyard or home for your wedding. These will be the witnesses of your vows to each other. God tells us that it is better to marry than to burn and there’s nothing about government involvement in any of this process. You can become one flesh without government approval! Once everything opens up, you can go to the justice and get a marriage certificate and even have a more fancy wedding if you want, although you may be pregnant by then but so what!

Once again, Lori reminds us that she believes it's best to get married as soon as possible to avoid premarital sex. In fact, sometimes it sounds like she believes the primary purpose of marriage is to prevent people from having sex outside of marriage. And the comment about possibly being pregnant at a future wedding ceremony is just creepy...why is Lori so obsessed with women getting pregnant, especially as early in the marriage as possible? 

About having babies, as long as the good Lord is blessing your womb, then keep having babies! NONE of us know what the future holds but babies are one of His greatest blessings! Women have been having them through all of the difficult times since time began. It’s part of being a woman and allowing your body to do as God has created it. Have as many as He wants to bless you with!

To be clear, I certainly don't think this current epidemic is the end of the world, or that we should fear having children. However, there may be some who are hesitant and would like to wait until things settle down, and there's nothing wrong with that. Lori thinks everyone should throw caution to the wind when it comes to having children and just have as many as possible. In many cases, this is not a very loving choice. Children are more than quotas, and there's nothing wrong with waiting until you're ready to have them. (well, now that I have kids, I don't think it's possible to be entirely ready, but you know what I mean!. 

There’s a young woman I know who is pregnant with her fourth. Her oldest isn’t even four years old yet! She LOVES being married and having children. She smiles at the future, because she knows God is in control and ALWAYS will be. There is no need to live in fear but live boldly by faith in Almighty God. Just make sure that you don’t ever neglect your husband. You were created to be HIS help meet first. Enjoy your husband and children, Don’t wait! Life is short. If you have a man who wants to marry you and have children, marry him and have children!

This is a perfect example of what I meant when I said this blog falls off the rails. I'm not sure exactly what her topic is in this last paragraph. She begins with more fantasizing about pregnant women, briefly mentions the need for wives to not neglect their husbands, and then somehow ends up at who to choose for a spouse. And it's here that I will conclude. "If you have a man who wants to marry you and have children, marry him and have children"?!? If her criteria were made more any more broad than this it would include any mammal. Her end goal simply is as many marriages as possible, and the people involved are nothing more than means to that end. It doesn't matter to her whether two people love each other, work well together, have similar goals, etc. Of course, if you view marriage as nothing more than a cold contract most closely resembling an employer/employee relationship, I suppose it really doesn't matter who you marry. 


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/the-government-is-preventing-them-from-getting-married/