Editor’s Note: This is part three of three in a series from Rob Marco’s interview with Leila Lawler. Read parts one and two here.
In the final installment of the interview series, Leila comments on the hidden cycles of repression and financial burden so often overlooked in our social belief systems: that everyone ought to go to college, that the ability to divorce is true freedom, and that the dual-income home is necessary for happy living.
There seems to be a reactionary trend in recent years against higher education in favor of the trades among conservatives. This is understandable given the exponential cost of college combined with the left-leaning politics of universities today, not to mention that one can earn a good living in the trades.
How did you approach the issue of college with your children? Did you have conversations about their chosen field of study, return on investment, and maintaining their Catholicity during the college years, and whether or not to attend a public, private, or Catholic college? For those that did attend college, how did you approach the financial aspect?
Leila Marie Lawler: The relative expense of college tuition is an interesting phenomenon. Its trajectory tracks elite and upper-middle-class women working outside the home. The market responds to the available income. A man once said to me, “I couldn’t afford the tuitions if my wife didn’t work!” So it’s a self-fulfilling cycle, isn’t it? Women go to college to get degrees so they can get good jobs so that in 20 years their salaries can go to tuitions for their children—they have to work to afford future tuition. We were the last to enter a situation that was free of this influence. Yes, college is expensive, and I’m not sure what most who go there are getting out of it—for many reasons, but that’s probably beyond the scope of this interview!
One wonderful thing about being relatively poor and having a lot of children, if God sends them, is that you get good financial aid, especially if your children go to colleges that are financially sound. We always encouraged our seven children to consider all the possibilities and not to think that college is the one and only answer. Certainly, a trade is an honorable and worthwhile goal to achieve, I would say for most.
Sometimes the decision in our family came down to how much it cost, and that’s one solid sign of God’s will. Some of our children took a year or more to work before going and all worked during college as well. And yes, none of it is worth anything if one loses one’s faith! Also let’s keep in mind that a “relatively poor” family in America is fabulously rich by the standards of the rest of the world, and there are many ways to become educated.
I understand your parents divorced. How have you seen divorce destabilize families? Are homemakers with no education or work experience at risk of being destitute should their husband divorce them? Does financial independence incentivize women to initiate divorce?
Leila Marie Lawler: Divorce harms women and children economically. Very few women will emerge from a divorce financially stable. Yet it’s true that many go into marriage thinking they need their own money and means, in order to protect against the eventuality of a breakup. Tragically, that mentality contributes to the destruction of the marriage because it represents disunity on a deeper level, and a lack of trust.
I have heard many bitter survivors of bad marriages express the opinion that one must take steps to protect oneself. They even want to be included in marriage preparation programs to offer their warnings! Nevertheless, without total trust and reliance—on each other and on God—the marriage is already in danger.
I do point out that it only makes good sense for both husband and wife to have life insurance as soon as possible!
Many women feel they ought to contribute to the household income by picking up work they can do from home. Are there unforeseen issues with this? Are women in this position more susceptible to falling prey to things like multi-level marketing or low-paying endeavors that take them away from their primary duties? Is it better for the husband in these situations to pick up an extra job or more shifts instead?
Leila Marie Lawler: Yes, as I alluded to previously, it’s better for the husband to have another job. Women have ruined their families and lives by succumbing to the lie of multi-level marketing schemes in a good faith, yet misguided effort to be home while contributing.
I’m always surprised by how families don’t count the hidden costs of the wife working: the extra taxes, increased food bills, childcare, perceived need for vacations, expensive “me” time to counteract the stress, and so on.
Even if the couple split up the childcare, it’s a burden on their lives—they end up hardly seeing each other, and the children are simply shuffled around. Family life becomes endless scheduling and juggling. Even where there is a nanny, there will be times that obligations can’t be met because nannies don’t work when the children are sick.
It’s unsustainable to think that a working wife is compatible with family life, yet it’s also universal. I’ve also noticed that in a real pinch, it’s the mom at home—the neighbor, friend, or cousin—who takes up the slack. It’s the dirty little secret of the feminist agenda. That’s because a family just needs someone who is there and available.
The traditional model of a family business or farm is more forgiving. The wife can shoulder some tasks and fill in gaps (and so can the children!). Very often people arguing with me say that the ‘50s ideal of the idle housewife doesn’t fit with historical reality where women very much contributed to household income. Of course that’s a straw man. My response is to point out the vital difference between being beholden to an outside entity and to the family concern. The husband is not going to force his wife back to work when she’s had a baby, nor will he dock her benefits; but the corporation will. The dry-cleaning business can have the children playing out in back; the meat-packing plant cannot.
The greatest deception of feminism is to create so much drama around a woman’s needs and wants and her liberation from all the drudgery that no one asks who raises the children. In the end, it’s going to be…a woman. The only question is will it be a woman who loves the children and is queen of her home, however humble, or one who is paid a minimum wage to do the job? I can assure you that no feminist will come to the latter’s rescue, but nevertheless, she won’t be good for the children.
Conclusion: Author Commentary
Husbands and wives must be both industrious, creative, and sacrificial to make it in today’s economy. They must also be united, living out the “one flesh” union in the face of opposition by a culture that seeks to tear them apart and incite self-centered pursuits. Husbands will rise to the occasion to sacrifice for their family if they are supported and encouraged in doing so.
Mrs. Lawler’s insights into the issues surrounding feminism, work, and marriage may rub some the wrong way (as they did me when her and I became acquainted years ago), but if given an open mind and a fair shake, a couple that has bought into the mainstream may find another way of (more traditional) living that alleviates many of the stresses and anxieties we take for granted. But that takes faith and a degree of risk as well. Thankfully there are some more seasoned that have gone before us and know a thing or two about life and living.
Thank you, Mrs. Lawler, for taking the time to speak with me, and sharing your insights with the readers here.
Photo by Javier Allegue Barros on Unsplash
