Women In The Workforce Damages Children Redux

[divinenature]

It's not as if the church does not encourage financial independence and security. Goodness. They have a whole website dedicated to it. They have employment specialists in each ward. The bishops certainly do not encourage families to be on church assistance and make sure that you understand it is a very temporary help.

There is no one size fits all fix. Many families will be better off spiritually, financially, individually and in their family relations by having both parents earning an income or pursuing their passions/goals/dreams. It is great that some families are able to have a non-income earning SAHP (stay-at-home parent) and the SAHP doesn't end up worse off for it. That just isn't always the case. There are also cases where the SAHP is worse off emotionally, spiritually and financially when all is said and done.

Poverty is bad for people. That is probably the best thing to take away from the study. Poverty isn't pleasant. Poverty sucks.

Financial security isn't evil or wicked. Money isn't bad. Working for money isn't wrong.

There is such thing as balance. Somehow a man is allowed to work and still be a good dad. Funny enough, a woman can work and still be a good mom. It's a miracle!

[Log]

As farming out childcare duties seems to be implicated in damaging children, it appears that those families which can function without both parents in the marketplace might have cause to reevaluate their potential or actual decision to have both parents working. Especially if the reason for both parents working is, in the words of whatever-his-name-is, "comfort".

Everyone is always the exception to everything; yet, it seems to me that the more time you spend justifying your deeds, lifestyle, or what have you, the more you think they apparently need justifying.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Log

[MorningStar]

Do you mean to say that, by failing to follow the almighty dollar with pure fidelity, your family's lives have been blessed? Blasphemy! Do you not know financial security is the highest good anyone can strive for?

Yes, I don't define success by money.

[Log]

DivineNature, this reference is for you, to add a bit of balance to your post.

[katherine the great]

As farming out childcare duties seems to be implicated in damaging children,

I don't think the study claimed that as children in expensive daycare situations did not seem to score lower on the tests than other children. It seems to be the quality of the daycare that is being criticized.

[3DOP]

Hi 3DOP

I read Pope Pius XII address to Catholic women's organizations and while he does indeed promote women being in the home he also seems to, like John Paul II believe that women can make a valuable contribution to society outside the home. Both appear to see women as possessing qualities that are needed in the public sphere. Pius presents it as something unmarried women and women with more time on their hands (grown children?) should apply themselves to and at one one point asks if it may be Divine Providence that just as women are entering the public sector there is a large group of women who may find themselves widowed or unable marry. (was there a shortage of marriageable men at the end of WWII?) John Paul sees it more as a universal challenge for not only all women but all people. But both present it as a situation where the participation of women in political and social life will primarily be beneficial for children.

I don't know anything about this being binding on conscience, but I would think that these two men considered these issues carefully and I'm sure prayed for guidance before they gave their addresses and so what they said would at least be important enough to reflect on and "taken to heart" so to speak. But I have noticed that religious "leader's" words are often given light weight or shunted aside as not doctrine or just opinion when their words are found disagreeable.

Hi again Yirgacheffe.

You have now brought the testimony of two authoritative witnesses, one of which had been my own. I must now retract what I have said publicly on this subject. I cannot admit that I have already changed my mind personally, but you have more accurately represented than I have what recent popes have taught. My intention is to reflect as suggested until I can figure out a way to hopefully reconcile my own convictions with theirs. It appears that my thinking has been insufficiently nuanced, or just plain wrong. Ouch. This is a bitter pill but I see nothing else for it. I do not know your religious beliefs, but I appreciate the "fraternal correction", and I will take the words you have brought to my attention to heart.

[divinenature]

DivineNature, this reference is for you, to add a bit of balance to your post.

How does this relate to me or my post in any way? In what way is this helpful to people living in poverty?

The title of this thread is incredibly sexist and inflammatory. Why is all the burden put on women? You could have said "Parents in the Workforce Damages Children" or "Subsidized Childcare damages Families," but you decided to foist all the responsibility on the mothers.

You also seem to be assuming that everyone with a dual income is doing it for trips to Hawaii and fancy dinners at restaurants. This is not true for those living in poverty. They don't go to Hawaii and they don't go to fancy dinners. Not to mention there is nothing wrong with going to Hawaii or out to fancy restaurants. I am not in a position to do that kind of thing, but I am sure the General Authorities of the church are. I don't see anyone accusing them of chasing Babylon. People in my ward go on trips and have nice cars and nice clothes and they have temple recommends. The church leaders don't seem to have a problem with it. As a matter of fact, I think that the Stake President is usually one of the wealthiest members of the stake. That has always held true in the stakes I've lived in, though I'm sure there are exceptions.

[Log]

Well, DN, if you don't see the applicability of President Kimball's talk to the sentiments expressed in your post, then perhaps others will. Have a blessed day.

[Nominee]

Why is all the burden put on women?

I am a woman and I do not consider mothering my children a burden. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3)

You could have said "Parents in the Workforce Damages Children" or "Subsidized Childcare damages Families," but you decided to foist all the responsibility on the mothers.

My understanding is that he uses the word "Women" not to be sexist and inflammatory but because the original post ends with this:

This seems to be empirical data in support of the Proclamation on the Family. What's your take?

Which makes the thread title and the use of the word "Women" sensible as the Proclamation on the Family states, "Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." And, of course, mothers are women.

[katherine the great]

How does this relate to me or my post in any way? In what way is this helpful to people living in poverty?

I was kind of wondering the same thing. The article seemed much more about storing up treasure in heaven than criticizing people for wanting to live above the poverty level. I think Log is really up on his high horse now. Time to come down.

[Nominee]

There is nothing wrong with wanting to live above the poverty line and I don't hear anyone criticizing it. That unfairly simplifies. I don't think this thread is about poverty vs wealth. It is more about caring for your own children at home at the expense of wealth vs wealth gained by putting your children in daycare. Which complicates the topic just a bit in comparison. I don't think Log even mentions wealth in the OP. That did not come about by those here who chose less wealth for more parenting time. Criticism began with those defending daycare with dual income or higher income brackets being the reason. In my opinion, the more money you have the more good you can do with it! But I only earn as much as my parenting allows right now because my mothering comes first. When my availability expands, so will my income. And I am looking forward to that!

[Bond...James Bond]

So long as you refuse to let pesky facts hinder you, you'll do just fine.

Right. Like this thread isn't full of anecdotal evidence.

Edited March 31, 2012 by Bond...James Bond

[Log]

Nominee, thank you so much for your posts. You see clearly the issues at play here, and I think have said some penetrating things which I lack the skill (and tact) to say.

[Bond...James Bond]

Do you mean to say that, by failing to follow the almighty dollar with pure fidelity, your family's lives have been blessed? Blasphemy! Do you not know financial security is the highest good anyone can strive for?

How about a middle ground where people are allowed to work 40 hrs a week and then spend 16 hrs a day with their kids + weekends? Is 128 hrs a week that different from 168 hrs a week of child nurturing?

[Nominee]

Nominee, thank you so much for your posts. You see clearly the issues at play here, and I think have said some penetrating things which I lack the skill (and tact) to say.

Sometimes it just takes a woman's touch.

[divinenature]

Well, DN, if you don't see the applicability of President Kimball's talk to the sentiments expressed in your post, then perhaps others will. Have a blessed day.

So, you linked to an article with no purpose whatsoever? Were you attempting to shame me? I really would like to know your purpose in posting it, regardless of what other people may see in it. Katherine the Great couldn't see why you posted it, either.

How does it apply to my comments?

[juliann]

These are very emotional, personal decisions, but there are two principles that we should always keep in mind. First, no woman should ever feel the need to apologize or feel that her contribution is less significant because she is devoting her primary efforts to raising and nurturing children. Nothing could be more significant in our Father in Heaven’s plan. Second, we should all be careful not to be judgmental or assume that sisters are less valiant if the decision is made to work outside the home. We rarely understand or fully appreciate people’s circumstances. Husbands and wives should prayerfully counsel together, understanding they are accountable to God for their decisions.

<a href="http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/04/lds-women-are-incredible?lang=eng&query=l.+(name%3a"Quentin+L.+Cook">http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/04/lds-women-are-incredible?lang=eng&query=l.+(name%3a"Quentin+L.+Cook")

[Log]

So, you linked to an article with no purpose whatsoever?

No, I had a purpose.

Were you attempting to shame me?

Not really.

I really would like to know your purpose in posting it, regardless of what other people may see in it. Katherine the Great couldn't see why you posted it, either.

How does it apply to my comments?

If you think it doesn't, then it doesn't. I think it does - that is, principles contained therein apply directly to the contest of values apparent in this thread among even the LDS, and some of the sentiments expressed in your post. However, since you're in defense mode, and already attributing bad motives to me, I shall decline your invitation to explain exactly what those principles are, where they apply, and why. I really don't feel like arguing - contention sucks.

Edited March 31, 2012 by Log

[Yirgacheffe]

Hi again Yirgacheffe.

You have now brought the testimony of two authoritative witnesses, one of which had been my own. I must now retract what I have said publicly on this subject. I cannot admit that I have already changed my mind personally, but you have more accurately represented than I have what recent popes have taught. My intention is to reflect as suggested until I can figure out a way to hopefully reconcile my own convictions with theirs. It appears that my thinking has been insufficiently nuanced, or just plain wrong. Ouch. This is a bitter pill but I see nothing else for it. I do not know your religious beliefs, but I appreciate the "fraternal correction", and I will take the words you have brought to my attention to heart.

Well I didn't present any testimony, just my impression of what they said. This was the first thing I've read by Pope Pius, the John Paul letter was given to my by my next door neighbor a number of years ago after a block party took a turn into religion and then a turn for the worse. Frankly though I don't see why this should be a bitter pill, maybe you should look at it as a new light to view the women in your life. It's obvious you love, respect and admire your wife, maybe there is even more there than you realize.

[Calm]

How about a middle ground where people are allowed to work 40 hrs a week and then spend 16 hrs a day with their kids + weekends? Is 128 hrs a week that different from 168 hrs a week of child nurturing?

You would think with all this communication technology out there we would be further along in using it to allow for more flexible, adaptable hours for parents and caregivers.

I remember the prediction that computers were going to allow kids to be taught at home at their own speeds and levels, that adults would work primarily out of their home, etc. from those movies I saw in elementary school about what the future was going to be like. We seem to be way behind some predictions (if they will ever happen) and way ahead in other ways.

[bcuzbcuz]

It would be interesting to see the actual study though to decide whether or not the report is actually accurate.

I agree totally. I often wonder if the professional opinionated commentators actually read the articles they summarize or whether they simply cherry pick ideas that confirm their already entrenched opinions.

Your comments are refreshingly open. Poverty is more than a double-edged sword. Not only are basic needs sorely won and benefits denied but our societies stand on the sidelines and point fingers of derision and scorn. A single parent struggling to raise a family and keep food on the table needs more than platitudes to make ends meet. The luxury of choice, of daycare or not, can all too often be ripped from their hands with crass reality demanding their time elsewhere than in the home.

I feel it is society's responsibility to care for the weak. Those of us with resources to spare must provide that care, including access to quality childcare. Merely providing subsidies as crumbs from our table, that makes shabby daycare the rule rather than the exception, IMO is disgusting. It wouldn't surprise me that poor quality daycare is detrimental to children. But those who simplisticly see the solution by having women retreat back into the home is a solution lacking in nuance and long range planning. We might as well suggest that single mothers could take care of their children and stay at home by finding a rich husband and becoming wife number two or three in a resurrection of polygamy.

[BlueDreams]

As farming out childcare duties seems to be implicated in damaging children, it appears that those families which can function without both parents in the marketplace might have cause to reevaluate their potential or actual decision to have both parents working. Especially if the reason for both parents working is, in the words of whatever-his-name-is, "comfort".

By the sources you pulled up.....When I went on a quick google search quickly for about 5 or so minute, I found far more diversity in research and opinions about the matter than has been presented.

From a NYT article:

Now a new report from that research - the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development's Study of Early Child Care - has tracked the same children through early elementary school and found that by third grade, those who had spent long hours in child care continued to score higher in math and reading skills and that their higher likelihood of aggressive behavior had dissipated. But it also found that they still had poorer work habits and social skills.

Researchers cautioned that the findings should not be a cause of alarm, since the effects of child care were found to be small.

"It isn't that these kids are more likely to have clinical levels of behavior problems," said Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, a professor of child development at Columbia University. "You're getting a slight uptick, but it's still in the normal range."

Generally, the effects of child care were much smaller than the effects of good or bad parenting.

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

Log: Everyone is always the exception to everything; yet, it seems to me that the more time you spend justifying your deeds, lifestyle, or what have you, the more you think they apparently need justifying.

Except isn't this entire thread basically based on people justifying their own deeds and lifestyle? You're not exactly advocating working outside the home for women or even proclaiming some form of neutrality when pointing out these stats. A number of the posts I read indicated judgment about women who choose to work outside the home that basically falls down the line of not caring enough about their children or some form of selfishness. Aren't these all simply justifications for one particular lifestyle....one particular lifestyle that today only a minority of mothers fit into. And yet staying at home has become the standard barer for good parenting...well really mothering.

I remember the prediction that computers were going to allow kids to be taught at home at their own speeds and levels, that adults would work primarily out of their home, etc. from those movies I saw in elementary school about what the future was going to be like. We seem to be way behind some predictions (if they will ever happen) and way ahead in other ways.

Depends who you work for. My parents both at least partially work at home. My mom gets I think one or two days. It used to be more, but she got a promotion and that's temporarily changed for a bit. But my step-dad, works primarily at home now. It is rare that I don't see him at home and usually that's for business trips. They still need to have the youngest ones at daycare since they don't know the meaning of business calls and not interrupting them. But for the rest, one of them is usually at home when they're home. My neighbor also works primarily from home. For my parents this has been a recent change (last 4 or so years). So technology is changing things on this note. Still not wide spread, but it is growing.

BTW my parents love working at home. Especially my step. In the end, the guy really is a homebody and it works.

With luv,

BD

Edited March 31, 2012 by BlueDreams

[bcuzbcuz]

My wife has always worked. We have almost always had two incomes. Here are the blessings:

1. My kids are independent - they know how to cook, clean, do laundry, etc

2. We have always had enough money to live comfortably

3. My wife is happy and fulfilled in her career, and not miserable because she is forced to stay home

My kids and home life are great. Sure, the house is sometimes untidy, but I can live with that.

H.

I think your post is of note because of the details you point out. A woman's place is not only in the home. Some here have made it sound like the home is a failure if the woman finds enjoyment and fulfillment outside the home. Furthermore, they seem to claim that the children are doomed to failure should the mother work. Thank you for your post.

[Log]

Hi BD,

My sources are a lot more recent than your cited NYT article. Nevertheless, you can always say "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics!"

Edited March 31, 2012 by Log

[Calm]

Especially my step. In the end, the guy really is a homebody and it works.

My son is much the same way. He is a computer programmer with a very flexible boss (who likes flexibility himself so he better be). I will be happier for him when they get into a home where he can work in a study rather than on a kitchen table though. OTOH, his wife is not someone who is interested in working outside the home, used to work in daycare and will never put her own kids in it (though she might start a private one when they get their own home as she has a great relationship with several families whose kids she tended, it is the lack of being able to select what kids along with what parents she wants to deal with that drives her attitude against other daycares....preschool is different in her view though)

Edited March 31, 2012 by calmoriah