Mona Lisa Smile

The parts of this post in italics come from a discussion forum assignment I submitted during the first trimester of my Diploma of Education. We were required to watch and review a film with an educational theme.

I chose the film “Mona Lisa Smile” because I had heard about its theme of women’s choices regarding family and career. I heard that some students in this film told their teacher that they did not want to become career women. Feminism and women’s choices regarding careers, education and family are topics I have been very interested in since I attended the University of Tasmania. In my Bachelor of Arts, feminism was taught in nearly every course. It was presented as providing unmitigated advances for women. Due to this exposure to feminism I have thought and read about it extensively, and concluded that many aspects of this philosophy are not Biblical.

As a cinematic product, it is clear that the film “Mona Lisa Smile” caters for the interests and perspectives of modern viewers. “Mona Lisa Smile” presents premarital sex in a positive or neutral light, through including it in the life Miss Watson who is the hero of the film. This is not presented as having negative consequences or as being wrong. This is in line with the perceptions about sexuality that now dominate in our society.

“Mona Lisa Smile” perpetrates negative and stereotypical perceptions of 1950s life that are commonly held. It also presents the idea, which is prominent today, that aiming to be solely a mother and wife limits of the potential of a woman’s life. “Mona Lisa Smile” clearly presents the idea that it is wrong to encourage women to be solely wives and mothers. At the same time, it challenges the notion that it being a wife and a mother is necessarily limiting in the stereotypical sense. Joan expresses this when she says of her choice not to become a lawyer: “I know exactly what I’m doing and it doesn’t make me any less smart”. Joan’s challenge to Miss Watson to look past the caricatures of housewives as people with “no depth, no intellect, no interests” and her accusation that “you didn’t come to Wellesley to help people find their way, I think you came to Wellesley to help people find your way” express a frustrated attempt to break through stereotypes to the heart of women’s choice. This presentation of the idea that it is wrong for women’s choices to be limited to either full time homemaking or careers is an expression of the modern conflicts and issues women face. Its exploration of this topic is meaningful in the current context.

I found the scene with Joan and Miss Watson intensely moving. One of my main griefs with regard to modern feminism is its limitation of women's choice in the area of homemaking and motherhood. While it is argued by many that women now have more choice, in reality it is harder for women to choose to prioritise home and family. If it is possible for women to "do it all" and do it well, why would any woman have an "excuse" not to "develop her full potential" in the paid workforce and contribute financially to the household?

Many women who would love to care for their own children at home are now pressured to place them in daycare centres with professional strangers. The cruel irony of this is that many of them end up little better off financially after paying childcare fees and the various other work related expenses, including buying more expensive food because they do not have time to cook. Women who prioritise unpaid work at home often feel as though their work is not valued, or is even despised. As Joan said in the Mona Lisa Smile, she would regret the loss of a happy family life more than she would regret the loss of a career. Joan knew she could not have it all, and her choice to prioritise home and family is one that many women today wish they felt able to make.

Feminism's elevation of paid employment over homemaking is also anti-biblical. The Bible exhorts women to be homemakers, or "keepers at home" (see Titus 2). In 1 Timothy 5:9 - 10 God sets out those lifestyle attributes that indicate that a woman has led a godly life. Amongst them are bringing up children, serving others in the church, and helping the needy. Men are exhorted to provide for their families (1 Tim. 5:8). In all of this, our priority is to please God and live a life that glorifies him. Both paid and unpaid work are valuable, as long as they lead to a lifestyle that reflects God's priorities for family and church life.

A woman's work at home is not only essential to family life, it is also essential to the health of the church and the furtherance of the gospel. A vision that is any narrower than this is not biblical. Women are to be hospitable servants of the church, whose homes are havens for the needy. The stereotype of a 1950s house wife who cares only for gaining the latest appliance, as caricatured in Mona Lisa Smile, is one example of homemaking that is unbiblical and lacking in vision. If women have only this narrow and selfish vision, it is no wonder they are dissatisfied. Women can best fulfill their God-given potential when they prioritise the home and the biblically mandated activities that happen there, and when they do not feel pressured into any paid work that interferes with this. To the extent that feminism advocates that women abandon the roles they will find the most fulfillment and effectiveness in, it is anti-woman and destructive to the kingdom of God.