Last instance of counsel for mothers not to work?

[katherine the great]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Explain, please....

It was a joke. 

[katherine the great]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Has someone expressed this position?

Of the 8 Gui women, none of them is bored to death and locked in the home with the chores and the kids while hubby is at work. They’ve been very active and creative partnering with other mothers for joint teaching and kid activities, self-improvement, social stuff with friends and their kids, creative activities, Church, school volunteer,  and community service, etc. My hat is off to them....and to all moms who sacrifice and give so much to those they love.

Sister Gui has many kindergartners whose parents drop them off at daycare at 6am so mom and dad can make the long commute to their lucrative jobs in Seattle, then picked up by a bus and dropped off at school at 9am, picked up by grandma or a neighbor after school and/or taken back to daycare until 6pm, and then maybe see mommy and daddy who stopped by the gym on the way home from work for a couple of hours before putting the kids to bed, and then getting up and doing it all over again the next day. The kids are a mess, and no wonder. 

No one has expressed this position explicitly but as the OP referenced the working of "women" rather than "mothers with young children" I was curious to know if anyone here holds that view.

I'm happy for your 8 Gui women. I think that women who can tap into a good network of other like-minded women in the community frequently enough to keep them happy and fulfilled are very fortunate indeed. I've noticed this in large families of close knit women: Many LDS, African American, Latinas and Romani women are the groups I have noticed the most throughout my life. I was recently struck by a comment I read while reading the biography of Ina Coolbrith (California's first Poet Laureate and also the clandestine niece of Joseph Smith). One of her friends mentioned in a letter from a visit to Utah that the plural wives he had observed seemed very downtrodden, unhappy and dour when alone or around their husbands. But then observed that they lit up like Christmas trees when they were socializing with the other wives. Those were not his exact words but that was the gist. I think the Relief Society has tried to emulate nature's extended family network through providing women with a support system-a noble goal. In some places it's fantastic but that was not my experience. I hope that you don't assume that because your daughters were able to find that kind of support that it is available to all women. For many reasons that's simply not always the case. I did all of those things when my children were young and they were helpful in some ways. I still felt like I was on the outside looking in (although I'm quite sure my friends did not perceive of me in that way). I never had the sense of being an "insider" until I fulfilled my dream of becoming an anthropologist. For me, it wasn't so much the being around women (any women) as it was having conversations I found interesting and intellectually stimulating. In actuality, I'm still somewhat of an outsider in my field because I'm LDS but it just doesn't seem to matter during our discussions. In no way do I regret staying home with my children for all those years. I had and have a fierce love for them and I'm incredibly close to all five of them but I don't judge women who want to work and have a family simultaneously--I get it. I think its very sad if they MUST work when they don't want to.

As to Sister Gui's students, that's pretty extreme. It sounds like they aren't getting enough sleep or parent time. Its hard for me to wrap my mind around that kind of frenetic lifestyle, but it does seem pretty common in the big cities. I think many of her students will probably look back on their time with her as a lovely constant in their lives. <3

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, Waylon said:

Therein lies the rub regarding the SAHM model.  It only works if the economy is set up for single earning families, and our economy is increasingly set up for dual income families.  But, for the economy to be set up for single earner families, many women who do have beautiful gifts and dreams would not be able to pursue such gifts and dreams so the system would work (such as my wife, who is a very talented computer programmer).  What is the right answer?  I don't know.  

I am retracting my statement about feminism.  I think that was unfair for me to say.  I appreciate and support all of the good that feminism has done for women everywhere.

I kind of wonder something else about these prophetic warnings about working mothers from the 1970s and how they have dwindled over the years.  In addition to the macroeconomic issues I have brought up, were perhaps the warnings also due to the fact that back in the 1960s and 1970s the workplace was actually dangerous for women, both physically and spiritually speaking?  My understanding is, in the old days, working women were very often targets for harassment and immorality and were too often in the workplace seen as objects rather than people or professionals (think Hearts in Atlantis).  With anti-harassment laws in place, perhaps the warnings have dwindled as the workplace has become safer for women, and the risk of both assault and consensual immorality has decreased as men and women have become more used to working with one another side by side for hours every day?  Just an observation and a theory as to why the warnings were strong in the 1970s but have dwindled ever since.

My thoughts exactly. I get sick to my stomach when I think about the sexual harassment that was just the "cost of doing business" for so many working women. I think the church has always been concerned with creating a very stable environment for children to grow up in, but unless we totally sequester ourselves, we have to change with the times. And I agree that the more time men and women spend together in the workplace the more we will be able to create healthy work environments that can extend to more healthy home environments. Its an imperfect system but its what we have. 

[Stargazer]

On 8/2/2018 at 7:05 PM, The Nehor said:

I admit I question the idiot in my ward who claims revelation told him to lease a very expensive car so he can drive for Uber on the weekends as his primary and sole source of income. Does this make me a bad person?  

So, how is it working out for him?

There's one of our regular posters who drives for Uber.  I am not sure if he does it as his sole source of income, however.  I toyed with the idea for a time, and found that there were people who drove for both Uber and the other one (forget the name), and many made their regular living at it.

I was told by experienced Uber drivers that if I used my van, and specialized in driving Friday night to Sunday night (when all the drunks are out partying), I could make a pretty decent income.  So your "idiot" might not be quite as nuts as you think.

[Stargazer]

On 8/2/2018 at 8:11 PM, strappinglad said:

50 years ago my first home had a 25000 mortgage at 12% . Payments were in the $250 / month range. Now a home mortgage runs over 200,000 at 3+/- % and payments can be $1500 / month. Imagine if/when interest rates roll to 10% . I'm told the average price for a home in San Fran is over 600,000. We live in financial stress times.

San Fran is an anomaly.  But that aside, you really can't quote things in old dollars like that, and get a real comparison.  When my parents bought a home in 1960 for $12,000 (Orange County, California) the median household income was only $6,000.  To get a true idea of what all that means, you need to adjust for inflation.  Telling your kids that gas used to cost 29 cents per gallon without adjusting for inflation gives them a false idea of prices.

Use the Inflation Calculator: https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

$0.29 per gallon gas in 1960 is $2.47 today, so the price increase isn't so very dramatic.  And a lot of the increase in that is probably taxes in any case.

$12,000 in 1960 is $102K today.  $25,000 is $212K.

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

As to Sister Gui's students, that's pretty extreme. It sounds like they aren't getting enough sleep or parent time. Its hard for me to wrap my mind around that kind of frenetic lifestyle, but it does seem pretty common in the big cities. I think many of her students will probably look back on their time with her as a lovely constant in their live

Our district has a networking system for kindergarten teachers...almost 100. This has been a major topic of discussion among them this year. Virtually all of them report this as a growing issue of concern in their classrooms. Recently they are seeing increasing numbers of dysfunctional 5-year-olds coming into school unprepared socially, emotionally, academically, and developmentally. 

Our district is starting a new program called Kindergarten Academy...a 90-day classroom experience for 4-year-olds to help get them ready for the rigor and trauma of kindergarten. We do not live in a big city. I suspect our community is not unique in this regard.

Edited August 4, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

It was a joke. 

Thanks. Unfortunately, there are more and more people holding that view of life.

[strappinglad]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

$12,000 in 1960 is $102K today.  $25,000 is $212K.

So true ,but the difference is/will be the interest rate. 10-12 % was common in my early years, At one point the rate climbed to 20% and thousands lost their homes. In the early 2000's that ugly housing mess reverberated all across the world. Today the markets have stabilized somewhat but that can all change if someone decides the interest rates need to go up. The couple that can afford a $ 200,000 mortgage at 3% will go broke trying to pay that same mortgage at 6-8 % . There is a massive debt pile for both consumers and governments at every level. It is a sword of Damocles( to mix metaphors.)

Edited August 4, 2018 by strappinglad

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Our district is starting a new program called Kindergarten Academy...a 90-day classroom experience for 4-year-olds to help get them ready for the rigor and trauma of kindergarten. We do not live in a big city. I suspect our community is not unique in this regard.

I'm sorry, I thought you said the parents commute to Seattle for work.

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. Unfortunately, there are more and more people holding that view of life.

"If we can laugh at it, we can live with it"  -Brad Wilcox

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, katherine the great said:

I'm sorry, I thought you said the parents commute to Seattle for work.

We live an hour from Seattle, sometimes 3 hours depending on how awful the traffic is, but lots of folks make the commute because housing prices are outa sight and reach the closer you get to the city. 

Edited August 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Yirgacheffe]

On 8/2/2018 at 1:44 PM, JAHS said:

I think you are right about this. I live in California and it is very unusual to find an active LDS family where the mother is not employed, unless their husbands are doctors, dentists, or lawyers.
The church has pushed for families to try and be more self-sufficient, which would most likely include having both parents work.

in 2009 Elder Bishop Richard C. Edgley said regarding self-sufficiency:
"Bishops, the sisters have a role in this effort. Because of the economy, many mothers are finding it necessary to make budget and other living adjustments. Some are even finding it necessary to leave the home to find work. The Relief Society sisters, with their specially endowed, compassionate hearts, can help. They can help identify the needy. They can teach. They can babysit, console, comfort, and encourage. They can make a difference." 

This Is Your Phone Call

For a long time now church leaders have not come out and flatly told mothers to not work outside the home.  I think even rather than be on church welfare they would rather the mother get a job to make the family more self-sufficient.

So the church is still saying mom should only work if it is financially necessary.

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, Stargazer said:

So, how is it working out for him?

There's one of our regular posters who drives for Uber.  I am not sure if he does it as his sole source of income, however.  I toyed with the idea for a time, and found that there were people who drove for both Uber and the other one (forget the name), and many made their regular living at it.

I was told by experienced Uber drivers that if I used my van, and specialized in driving Friday night to Sunday night (when all the drunks are out partying), I could make a pretty decent income.  So your "idiot" might not be quite as nuts as you think.

No idea. Have not seen him.

Uber is a very time intensive method of converting car equity into cash plus a tiny bit more. After you factor in car depreciation, regular maintenance (changing oil every few months, replace brakes twice a year, etc.) and fuel costs people are rarely making over minimum wage. Add in that most drivers are not insured for what they are doing and one accident could break you as a driver.

I would add that he is an idiot because he is leasing a high dollar car specifically for this and the mile limitations on that thing will choke you.

I personally suspect Uber and Lyft are just running this to get the structure in place so they can go nuts with self-driving cars. It might even be profitable if you can get rid of the driver.

[JAHS]

8 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

So the church is still saying mom should only work if it is financially necessary.

Yes, but I think it's mostly that the mother does not put herslf in a position where she is not at home to nurture and care for her children when they need it.
"Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children."" (Proclamation on the Family)

The church has always encouraged women to get an education to prepare them for life, to teach their children, and when necessary to provide for temporal needs.
Women and Education - June 26, 2015

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

So the church is still saying mom should only work if it is financially necessary.

.........when there are still children in the home. It’s simply a combination of wisdom and common sense.

[The Nehor]

22 hours ago, strappinglad said:

So true ,but the difference is/will be the interest rate. 10-12 % was common in my early years, At one point the rate climbed to 20% and thousands lost their homes. In the early 2000's that ugly housing mess reverberated all across the world. Today the markets have stabilized somewhat but that can all change if someone decides the interest rates need to go up. The couple that can afford a $ 200,000 mortgage at 3% will go broke trying to pay that same mortgage at 6-8 % . There is a massive debt pile for both consumers and governments at every level. It is a sword of Damocles( to mix metaphors.)

Don’t get a variable interest rate on your mortgage and don’t plan your finances around being able to refinance and you should be fine absent stuff like long term unemployment.

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

.........when there are still children in the home. It’s simply a combination of wisdom and common sense.

I think this and other similar thoughts from others is one of the things that really doesn't sit well with me on this thread. The assumption of the ideal parameters for all parents out there. One where men work, women stay at home (at least while children are young/in the formative years). I have no problem with those who chose this and loved it. But I do have a problem with some of the underlying and anectdotal evidence being given about how well children outside this model are being raised. For the record, I never had a stay-at-home mom growing up. My husband's mother was never a SAHM either. I didn't like the set up for other reasons, but there are things that I really liked about my mom working too. For one, she was better to be around when she was a working mother. I also got new experiences with family cultures (largely middle eastern due to where we were living at the time). My husband didn't mind it at all. We have very different families beyond that simple fact that our parents both worked. Which is more of the point. Whether both parents work or not isn't a great indication that the children are at risk or not.  If we go on anectdote, we are bound to run into bias confirmation. There were stories of parents who are basically never home (not the same as simply working mothers with reasonable commutes) to point to the potential detriments. Yet I know of people with SAHM moms who's children struggled heavily and are not emotionally healthy. Again that says nothing about whether it's wise or not to be at home with the children all the time. 

 The stats and research that I see are often mixed and nuanced (based, for example, of socioeconomic factors and whether they chose to be working or SAHM v forced by circumstance) as to child/family outcomes, behavioral problems, etc. I personally find other points of wisdom in questions and concerns like: do the parents have choice in their situation and how do we foster the capacity for more women to make healthy choices for their families and their relationships? Does SAHM come at the cost of Never At Home Dad to make it work? Do the children have a secure attachment to their parents and feel secure in their world? Are the parents emotionally healthy and stable?

I've seen many models to work-home balances in my circles. The best ones, to me, are the ones that are chosen and supported by both parents, give time for both parents to be present in their children's lives, and where the parents feel fulfilled as parents while having the time and space to be individuals and partners as well. What that looks like from family to family often varies. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 6, 2018 by BlueDreams

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I think this and other similar thoughts from others is one of the things that really doesn't sit well with me on this thread. The assumption of the ideal parameters for all parents out there. One where men work, women stay at home (at least while children are young/in the formative years). I have no problem with those who chose this and loved it. But I do have a problem with some of the underlying and anectdotal evidence being given about how well children outside this model are being raised. For the record, I never had a stay-at-home mom growing up. My husband's mother was never a SAHM either. I didn't like the set up for other reasons, but there are things that I really liked about my mom working too. For one, she was better to be around when she was a working mother. I also got new experiences with family cultures (largely middle eastern due to where we were living at the time). My husband didn't mind it at all. We have very different families beyond that simple fact that our parents both worked. Which is more of the point. Whether both parents work or not isn't a great indication that the children are at risk or not.  If we go on anectdote, we are bound to run into bias confirmation. There were stories of parents who are basically never home (not the same as simply working mothers with reasonable commutes) to point to the potential detriments. Yet I know of people with SAHM moms who's children struggled heavily and are not emotionally healthy. Again that says nothing about whether it's wise or not to be at home with the children all the time. 

 The stats and research that I see are often mixed and nuanced (based, for example, of socioeconomic factors and whether they chose to be working or SAHM v forced by circumstance) as to child/family outcomes, behavioral problems, etc. I personally find other points of wisdom in questions and concerns like: do the parents have choice in their situation and how do we foster the capacity for more women to make healthy choices for their families and their relationships? Does SAHM come at the cost of Never At Home Dad to make it work? Do the children have a secure attachment to their parents and feel secure in their world? Are the parents emotionally healthy and stable?

I've seen many models to work-home balances in my circles. The best ones, to me, are the ones that are chosen and supported by both parents, give time for both parents to be present in their children's lives, and where the parents feel fulfilled as parents while having the time and space to be individuals and partners as well. What that looks like from family to family often varies. 

 

With luv,

BD

That’s all fine, and of course there is a variety of models with varying degrees of success, however that can be measured. Based on my experience as a parent and grand-parent and over four decades in the public schools (anecdotal of course) I’m quite comfortable with my confirmational bias about the overarching truths of the Family Proclamation as it stands. 

Edited August 6, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[BlueDreams]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

That’s all fine, and of course there is a variety of models with varying degrees of success, however that can be measured. Based on my experience as a parent and grand-parent and over four decades in the public schools (anecdotal of course) I’m quite comfortable with my confirmational bias about the overarching truths of the Family Proclamation as it stands. 

You're welcome to maintain your bias. Based off of my personal and spiritual experiences, your bias won't work for me, my family, or with the work God wants me to do. Though the family Proclamation isn't a main source of direction for me on the daily, the last time I read it - knowing my plans for the near future - I felt completely in line with that as well. I will not be a SAHM for the most part. That's the point I'm making...propping up your bias as the best model is not accurate. It can be extremely unhelpful. From a young age, because of my PB and other personality traits, I knew this model of mothering you and Rongo and others often promoted wouldn't work for me. I didn't have a lot of role models that acknowledged there could be goodness in other ways...minus a sunday school teacher whose story of going back to work to be a better, healthier mom was one of the few that stuck out for me as a teen.  So when I was young I often felt a little conflicted with how my PB described my life and the cultural attributions for ideal womanhood and motherhood people often promoted in place that definitely grabbed onto the more conservative interpretations of our faith. 

On the bolded, I'm trying to understand what you said. Do you mind clarifying?

 

With luv,

BD

[changed]

 

I am a mother of 3 who did the stay-at-home thing while the kids were small, and am now working full time (overload actually).  

There are pros and cons to both, and it depends on the family.  My marriage was on the rocks for a bit - my (LDS) husband has a lot more respect for me now that I am working than when I was at home taking care of kids.  I did not like being "dependent" on my husband, did not feel like being a stay-at-home mom was "equally yoked", it felt like I was a dependent...  Now that I am working I am much closer to my spouse and kids.  Me and my husband can both complain and talk about our work with one another, the kids are proud of me and have learned to be more independent (forced to do their own laundry, and cook their own food at times)... honestly, working has created a healthier family for us.

To each their own.  A career is a beautiful thing though - to not be dependent on anyone, to give others space to grow and become independent themselves, respect, gives you an identity - I am encouraging my daughters to get a degree and a career before starting a family.  

Dependent→independent→interdependent

interdependent is the best place for a marriage in my opinion.

 

 

[Rain]

13 minutes ago, changed said:

 

I am a mother of 3 who did the stay-at-home thing while the kids were small, and am now working full time (overload actually).  

There are pros and cons to both, and it depends on the family.  My marriage was on the rocks for a bit - my (LDS) husband has a lot more respect for me now that I am working than when I was at home taking care of kids.  I did not like being "dependent" on my husband, did not feel like being a stay-at-home mom was "equally yoked", it felt like I was a dependent...  Now that I am working I am much closer to my spouse and kids.  Me and my husband can both complain and talk about our work with one another, the kids are proud of me and have learned to be more independent (forced to do their own laundry, and cook their own food at times)... honestly, working has created a healthier family for us.

To each their own.  A career is a beautiful thing though - to not be dependent on anyone, to give others space to grow and become independent themselves, respect, gives you an identity - I am encouraging my daughters to get a degree and a career before starting a family.  

Dependent→independent→interdependent

interdependent is the best place for a marriage in my opinion.

 

 

I think how a husband reacts and thinks makes a huge difference. My husband treats me as an equal in every way and he always has. We work really well together in our goals. While he is grateful that I have chosen to be a SAHM he has always been clear on the idea that he would like me to be happy so staying home or not is my choice. And now that I am doing more work in the community he picks up some of the stuff that is usually done by a SAHM.  He has always valued my point of view on many things. 

When I look at the husband's of some of my friends in makes total sense to me why they don't want to be a SAHM (beyond the idea that women have many gifts besides mothering).

Please know I am not specifically putting your husband down Changed. It just spurred the idea of how I often don't see husband's that respect their wives as a total person and not just a mom and wife. 

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

On the bolded, I'm trying to understand what you said. Do you mind clarifying?

 

 

I read it as a statement (or question) on "measuring" success. What do the studies measure? The children's school performance, general health and nutrition? Ability to cooperate with teachers and peers? (etc.)  Sometimes the things that are measured in studies are not necessarily the most important things to individual parents. For instance, some parents would measure a person's religious activity rate as an adult as the best indicator of good parenting when they were young. Others would use the highest educational lever or salary or even their self reported levels of happiness and satisfaction as an adult.

I've come to the conclusion (mainly from twins separated at birth studies) that as long as children's environments meet their needs for nurturing and good health, their genetics are the best indicator of how they will behave as adults.

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, changed said:

Now that I am working I am much closer to my spouse and kids.  Me and my husband can both complain and talk about our work with one another, the kids are proud of me and have learned to be more independent (forced to do their own laundry, and cook their own food at times)... honestly, working has created a healthier family for us.

Interesting. I noticed that with my children too. They have all told me that they're proud of me for having a career. They never seemed "unproud" of me as a SAHM but they seemed very pleased when I started working and told me that. Little, subtle things.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

You're welcome to maintain your bias. Based off of my personal and spiritual experiences, your bias won't work for me, my family, or with the work God wants me to do. Though the family Proclamation isn't a main source of direction for me on the daily, the last time I read it - knowing my plans for the near future - I felt completely in line with that as well. I will not be a SAHM for the most part. That's the point I'm making...propping up your bias as the best model is not accurate. It can be extremely unhelpful. From a young age, because of my PB and other personality traits, I knew this model of mothering you and Rongo and others often promoted wouldn't work for me. I didn't have a lot of role models that acknowledged there could be goodness in other ways...minus a sunday school teacher whose story of going back to work to be a better, healthier mom was one of the few that stuck out for me as a teen.  So when I was young I often felt a little conflicted with how my PB described my life and the cultural attributions for ideal womanhood and motherhood people often promoted in place that definitely grabbed onto the more conservative interpretations of our faith. 

On the bolded, I'm trying to understand what you said. Do you mind clarifying?

 

With luv,

BD

Best wishes on your personal quest. We all try to do our best operating our “confirmation bias,” don’t we.

The bolded part....there are many ways to approach parenthood responsibly. I don’t know how success can be accurately and fairly measured because we vary so widely in what we call happiness. I believe the Family Proclamation is the touchstone.

 

[changed]

6 hours ago, Rain said:

When I look at the husband's of some of my friends in makes total sense to me why they don't want to be a SAHM (beyond the idea that women have many gifts besides mothering).

Please know I am not specifically putting your husband down Changed. It just spurred the idea of how I often don't see husband's that respect their wives as a total person and not just a mom and wife. 

 

I do not see it as putting anyone down - it is just a natural human reaction.  

I also think it is natural to be closer to those who lead similar lives as yourself.  The more you have in common with your spouse (such as work), the closer you can become.  Now that I am working full time my marriage has improved quite a bit.