"Replaceable Everywhere But at Home"

“No amount of money in the world can make up for parental absence. It’s one of life’s harshest realities.” Suzanne Venker

Mothers are replaceable everywhere but at home. It's a lovely sentiment that has been expressed far and wide in effort to remind mothers that their value in their home is immeasurable. It's a rallying cry against the shackles of feminism that have sought to encumber women for decades.

The thing is - the lie of feminism is a lie we are tempted to believe.

“You need to do more to prove yourself.”

“You are capable of so much more than ‘just being a mom.’”

“You didn’t go to college just to stay home and change diapers and make lunch.”

“You are so valuable to your employer and your work team is like family.”

All of these sentiments have become commonplace phrases and ideas that are pervasive in our post-feminist culture. It’s embedded in our thinking by default. It’s in the air we breathe.

So when the phrase, “You’re replaceable everywhere but at home” gained traction and started being shared in images on social media, it was a breath of fresh air for those of us who are choosing to swim upstream and BE at home intentionally in the years of raising our children. It is a reminder that anyone can do any job you may set your hand to EXCEPT be your child’s mother. It’s a fact, but it’s one we still need reminded of constantly as the flesh and the world tells us it’s not enough and we’re wasting our life and spinning our wheels.

But not everyone has found the sentiment to be encouraging. One such person who appears to be a closet feminist and a theological progressive says the saying is not true because it carries within it two faulty assumptions.

She asserts that 1: the moms who have nothing to devote their time to outside the home are giving of themselves more fully there.

and 2: that mothers devoting some of their time to places or things outside of homemaking and motherhood aren’t as good or content or present with their children or in their homes.

I’d like to address these implications. Truth be told - I initially thought her assertions preposterous. But upon further examination, she is exactly right.

Regarding the first: “the moms who have nothing to devote their time to outside the home are giving of themselves more fully there.”

Let’s first mention the obvious reality that you can be somewhere and not really “be” there. You could be on your phone all day at home and be doing a terrible job mothering and not really be there. Yes, that’s true. But that’s a bit of an “exception” and smart people don’t make arguments from the exception. If we want to seek to be wise and understand what is being said, we need to take something at face value and really respond to what is being said, not what is NOT being said.

Her big beef: that anyone would assert that a mom who is primarily focused on her home and is not primarily distracted with work outside the home could possibly have more to give to her home than a mother who is pulled between two worlds. To that I must say, duh? Obviously…? And what am I missing?

She mentions devotion. When we speak of “devotion” we are inherently speaking of priorities. We cannot have two first priorities. The reality is we are finite beings. One thing will take the lead. The question is: what deserves our primary focus and devotion?

Scripture gives us a clear outline for our affections even inside a marriage and family. We as women are to be first devoted to our husbands and second to our children. This is not to say husbands are more valuable than children or we should not take care of or love our children. It is an order of our loves and affections. God gives us instructions on this because He created us with limitations. We simply cannot love all things perfectly and equally. Similarly with our time and attention. When we are doing one thing, we are necessarily NOT doing another. A yes to one thing is a no to another thing.

I can unload the dishwasher and I can mop the floor but I cannot do both simultaneously. I must prioritize or pick one to do first. I must make one most important and then I can see to the other. But I also have limited amount of hours in a day. If I see to the dishwasher, the floor, the bathroom and laundry and mow the yard and plant all the flower beds, I will obviously have less and less time in the rest of my day for reading books. Each additional thing I add to my chore list takes from the remainder of my time. This is not a hard concept for us, but it is one which feminists deny regularly. “How dare you say I can’t be as devoted to my children and my husband in the 45 minutes we spend together after dinner time!” the average American woman screams.

Well, ma’am, it’s not that you can’t be devoted fully for that 45 minutes, but it’s that there’s only 45 minutes of time available to be devoted at all. And at the end of the day, can we call that sliver of a day “devotion” or is is rather more like leftovers?

That is the crux of the issue here.

Next, #2:

“that mothers devoting some of their time to places or things outside of homemaking and motherhood aren’t as good or content or present with their children or in their homes.”

This is a very poorly thought out sentiment, because there are several things being asserted.