Is there a moral to the children's story of The Little Red Hen?

Don’t expect to sit around and let others do the work while you reap the rewards.

Clearly, this was a parable for Communism.

I think it means “you reap what you sew.”

The little red hen was no dummy. In her mind, after the first “not I” from all three, she planned her strategy to get revenge on the lazy three. And did she ever. The little red hen ate all the bread she made and did not share with her friends…..the slakers.

Sure, you reap what you do or do not sow, but should this be a proper question put to a child, when a child needs to be a child and not concerned with adult confusion at an early age?

No.

It’s the poster story for being co-dependent.
Doing everything for those that don’t reciprocate and then feeling victimized. lol

The Little Red Hen needed therapy.

2nd Answer…...

On second thought, I would share with the lazy three, but with only a very small portion of the bread. Why? It would ease my mind of not being a greedy person and the Lord would haunt me forever, if I did not.

@LostInParadise, that’s certainly why my mother told it to me. She practically said so. I was the eldest of four, but not especially domestically inclined. She told it from memory, with all the traditional verbiage and repetition that underscore the message, and then she pretty much spelled out the message.

However, the lesson was lost because she kept right on feeding us our supper whether we had helped in the kitchen or not. So what I got out of it was: “Mothers might feel put upon, but they don’t make good on their threats.” I could live with that.

Pitch in and help! Don’t just sit there on your lazy ass and expect to share the goodies. As if I ever had a choice. The stupid hen should have been more demanding (in a nice way.) There was never a question of not helping when asked at my house.

I think it has a moral and a very meaningful one. It is that you are not entitled to what you did not help produce.

@marinelife, only those who work shall eat?

@Jeruba That’s another way of looking at it, I guess.

@marinelife, I’ve always been troubled by the moral quandary that follows from that principle. What does it mean if we don’t take care of those who are unable to work? What all counts as “work”? Exactly how do we arrive at a determination of who’s able to work and who isn’t? Are those who can’t work entitled to all the same benefits as those who do, or aren’t they, and who decides? And do we truly mean to starve the idle? What if we decide to give to those who aren’t technically entitled? The more we look at it, the muddier it gets, in my opinion.

@Jeruba I agree. I do believe in social programs for helping those in need, and I don’t believe in tests beforehand.

That is why I don’t really think that whole argument applies here.

@Jeruba Only those who can and choose too work will eat, I thought..

Don’t take advantage, it feels better to take part of the spoils if you’ve shared in the toil. I happened to have loved that story as a kid! It’s how my grandparents got me to feel proud of working and helping instead of being pampered all the time.