Working mothers

[Fether]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

It doesn’t detail how a mother is meant to nurture her children.  One of the studies in the link above talks about the benefits of structured time over unstructured.  Because of my stay at home mother’s health, we had very limited extracurricular activities or going over to friends’ houses or friends coming to ours when I was a teen and no longer in a neighborhood friends could walk over to our home. Never had help with homework either though didn’t really need it.  Parental structured time was with chores though I spent a lot of time talking with Mom about what she was studying.  I made sure my kids had both outside the home activities when they desired it.  Can’t include my daughter as an adult because she got hit with major health issues when 12, but my son appears to have much less insecurity than my siblings (save for the youngest who was left to do what he pleased which was go play baseball with his friends, got himself into little league, learn how to really read with Sports Illustrated) even though his mother had similar health issues (in case that was the source of the insecurity).

So you believe a mother who stays at home raising her kids can fulfill that duty just as well should she choose to work instead of be home?

[Rain]

7 hours ago, Fether said:

How would you interpret that portion of the family proclamation I quoted?

I would interpret it the same as any scripture or talk from confrence - counsel with the Lord to see how (in what ways) it best fits you and your family.  

7 hours ago, Fether said:

So you believe a mother who stays at home raising her kids can fulfill that duty just as well should she choose to work instead of be home?

I don't.   I believe that the best way to fufill the nurturing of my children was to be a stay at home mom.  But I believe the best way for my friend Amy was to have a career and her husband be a SAHD.  And I believe the way for my sister-in-law was for both of them to work. 

It's not an either or both situation.  It is  what is best for each mom individually. It is an individual situation that should be counseled with the Lord.

And any mother looking at it as a "duty" rather a way to nurture ought to be talking with God to see if she is really doing it the way He would like her to.  We all have things we don't like to do as a parent, but overall if it is considered a duty something is wrong.

Edited June 10, 2021 by Rain

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

don't.   I believe that the best way to fufill the nurturing of my children was to be a stay at home mom.  But I believe the best way for my friend Amy was to have a career and her husband be a SAHD.  And I believe the way for my sister-in-law was for both to them to work. 

It's not an either situation.  Itvis not what is best for every mom. It is an individual situation that should be counseled with the Lord.

And any mother looking at it as a "duty" rather a way to nurture ought to be talking with God to see if she is really doing it the way He would like her to.  We all have things we don't like to do as a parent, but overall if it is considered a duty something is wrong.

I agree, but what is happening with my generation is that this exception you bring up is becoming the norm. And I don’t know that any of us can justly look at a situation and judge it. But we can look at the world as a whole and see that there is a problem because this exception is becoming the norm.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

So you believe a mother who stays at home raising her kids can fulfill that duty just as well should she choose to work instead of be home?

Depends on the situation and the choices she and her family makes.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, pogi said:

President Johnson is married to Douglass Johnson - owner of a successful car dealership (America Auto Group).  I doubt that she was working as an attorney out of necessity to a afford a life "above survival level".  

It sounds like you are saying that President Johnson is the lesser option and would have never been found worthy to hold her calling if the people were willing to live a higher law and be more righteous.  Am I reading you wrong?  Is calling President Johnson as Primary President a sign of spiritual digression in the church, or inability/unwillingness to live a higher law?

 

Hopefully the church is learning that they should mind their own business and let women and couples work this out for themselves. And sure, demographically there are many more single women members.  So women need to prepare for a working outside the home life.  And even if they don't need to, if they want to they should stop being shamed for it.  And young women should not be so brainwashed to think that there primary role in life is to make babies.

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, Fether said:

But A mother working? Unless it is a matter of necessity, I have to ask myself why does she feel her energy is better spent making money than raising her kids? There may be other exceptions here or there, but when the exceptions become the norm, something had to be wrong.

Dad could stay at home and raise the kids as well. That can work quite fine. One of my employees had this arrangement.  Mom had the higher earning power so they decided because THEY wanted one parent home that dad would be the one.

[Rain]

5 hours ago, Fether said:

I agree, but what is happening with my generation is that this exception you bring up is becoming the norm. And I don’t know that any of us can justly look at a situation and judge it. But we can look at the world as a whole and see that there is a problem because this exception is becoming the norm.

Yes, it is not within our authority to judge. 

I do know my daughter and her friends are doing better with it than I and my friends did.  I just assumed it meant stay at home and be a mom.  I never prayed about it.  My daughter and her friends are praying and fasting and studying their blessings. 

What great mom they will be because they put so much thought and prayer into it!

 

Edited June 10, 2021 by Rain

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Depends on the situation and the choices she and her family makes.

So true, if a mother wants to be a stay at home and loves it, think of the wonderful things that can happen. But if she really doesn't want to be there and has aspirations beyond that, or feels stifled, I wonder if it's the best situation. Or maybe make it workable and she works part time or maybe work a solution with her husband so they both spend quality time with their children and make sure the care for their child is safe/loving/stimulating. 

[Rain]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

So true, if a mother wants to be a stay at home and loves it, think of the wonderful things that can happen. But if she really doesn't want to be there and has aspirations beyond that, or feels stifled, I wonder if it's the best situation. Or maybe make it workable and she works part time or maybe work a solution with her husband so they both spend quality time with their children and make sure the care for their child is safe/loving/stimulating. 

I don't think it works just with how she feels.  Many people can feel that way in any number of situations, but it doesn't mean you are doing the wrong things.  It could mean you have the wrong attitude.

That's why it is important to work it out with Heavenly Father. If you are unhappy it might mean you are doing it wrong, but it also might mean you need an attitude adjustment or that something is physically wrong or their other emotions making it more complicated.

[MrShorty]

8 hours ago, Fether said:

How would you interpret that portion of the family proclamation I quoted?

If I need to square my egalitarianism with The Proclamation, I zero in on the individual adaptation clause (the best discussion of this that I've seen is https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/07/28/a-quick-query-about-the-proclamation-on-the-family/) It comes down to this. Does the individual adaptation clause mean that what was previously described is the one right way for couples to do things except under duress?  Or does it mean that what was previously described is only one possible way and couples are free to divy up responsibilities as they see fit?

[Tacenda]

Just now, Rain said:

I don't think it works just with how she feels.  Many people can feel that way in any number of situations, but it doesn't mean you are doing the wrong things.  It could mean you have the wrong attitude.

That's why it is important to work it out with Heavenly Father. If you are unhappy it might mean you are doing it wrong, but it also might mean you need an attitude adjustment or that something is physically wrong or their other emotions making it more complicated.

I was a young mom during Pres. Benson's era and heard the message to stay home with my children. I quit my job right after having my first child and stayed that way until my last child (5th) entered 1st grade. But would watch other's children to supplement our income and always believed it was best for mothers to stay at home, or better than daycare. But I think that's too black and white now, and some women just cannot be home all day and for those women, maybe their children will be with a very depressed mother. So another environment may be better for the children.

[Glenn101]

21 hours ago, pogi said:

President Johnson is married to Douglass Johnson - owner of a successful car dealership (America Auto Group).  I doubt that she was working as an attorney out of necessity to a afford a life "above survival level".  

It sounds like you are saying that President Johnson is the lesser option and would have never been found worthy to hold her calling if the people were willing to live a higher law and be more righteous.  Am I reading you wrong?  Is calling President Johnson as Primary President a sign of spiritual digression in the church, or inability/unwillingness to live a higher law?

 

I was making no value or moral judgements on President Johnson or on the possibility of spiritual digression in the church and its leaders. My point was and is that God looks with compassion on His children and their circumstances. Just look at how the Word of Wisdom was implemented, "not by commandment," but "adapted to the capacity of the weak."

I do think that the calling of President Johnson is part of some changes in thinking by the leaders of the church.

Glenn

[Fether]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Depends on the situation and the choices she and her family makes.

So you believe there could be situations where the mother could be more nurturing outside of the home than inside the home. Should that be normalized? Do you believe that would/should be 50/50? Or do you think it would be problematic if 50% of mothers felt their time was spent better away from their family than with it?

[Calm]

9 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Or does it mean that what was previously described is only one possible way and couples are free to divy up responsibilities as they see fit?

I would put it to others besides my children who would understand the context I mean better as seriously consider (ponder, pray, study, ask around for experiences) if you can make the previously described work for you with at least as much as effort put into other scenarios, though to my kids I would say look to see if you can make it work first before examining other options...not meaning don’t look at other options if you think it can work, but rather try to avoid setting up expectations or bias against staying at home or pro working before looking at staying at home.

Edited June 10, 2021 by Calm

[Fether]

9 hours ago, MrShorty said:

If I need to square my egalitarianism with The Proclamation, I zero in on the individual adaptation clause (the best discussion of this that I've seen is https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/07/28/a-quick-query-about-the-proclamation-on-the-family/) It comes down to this. Does the individual adaptation clause mean that what was previously described is the one right way for couples to do things except under duress?  Or does it mean that what was previously described is only one possible way and couples are free to divy up responsibilities as they see fit?

I agree completely. But what I am seeing is that this individualism clause is taking priority over the overall principle of gender roles and duties.
 

It’s happening in other aspects of the gospel. Everywhere, the exceptions are becoming more important and accepted than the principle. Prophets have taught and the church has published manuals teach we should not put off families for financial or educational reasons, but everyone still had an individual reason to wait. The Prophets have taught that every able young man should prepare to serve a mission, yet everyone has a good reason to not serve a mission or says “I’ll serve a mission at home / on my sports team / at school”. We should seek to accept our callings, but everyone has a reason to It accept the calling they don’t want.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Fether said:

So you believe there could be situations where the mother could be more nurturing outside of the home than inside the home.

Yes, there are some mothers that might get lost in the unstructured nature of staying at home and end up ignoring kids more than being with them where working required them to think about how to spend their time and therefore they paid attention to needs rather than just assuming they would notice them.  

3 minutes ago, Fether said:

Should that be normalized? Do you believe that would/should be 50/50? Or do you think it would be problematic if 50% of mothers felt their time was spent better away from their family than with it?

Putting numbers on what I think should be a case by case does not make sense to me.

[Fether]

9 hours ago, Rain said:

Yes, it is not within our authority to judge. 

I do know my daughter and her friends are doing better with it than I and my friends did.  I just assumed it meant stay at home and be a mom.  I never prayed about it.  My daughter and her friends are praying and fasting and studying their blessings. 

What great mom they will be because they put so much thought and prayer into it!

 

I agree, I wouldn't and haven’t (intentionally) extended judgement to such individuals. But we can at least see that an unproportionate amount of mothers are choosing to work outside of their home. The “exceptions” are being claimed by everyone. This is what is concerning. I’m not saying there should be a witch hunt of sorts, but rather let’s look at ourselves and ask if we are really qualified for such exceptions or do we just value our career over our children?

[Fether]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yes, there are some mothers that might get lost in the unstructured nature of staying at home and end up ignoring kids more than being with them where working required them to think about how to spend their time and therefore they paid attention to needs rather than just assuming they would notice them.  

Putting numbers on what I think should be a case by case does not make sense to me.

Then maybe help me understand this.

There clearly a principle being taught and there are exceptions to said principle. Shouldn’t we rightfully expect a majority to follow the principle and only a small number to take up the exception? Like 1-30% of mothers to choose work outside the home because of their situation? But it is more than that, and  most of which don’t even want to follow the principle? Am I wrong in Expecting that? If there are so many people qualifying g for the exception, is it still an exception?

Edited June 10, 2021 by Fether

[Calm]

The problem with saying majority is it assumes there are enough consistencies across the board to lump women into categories.  The older I get, the more unique each person’s situation appears to me.  I honestly don’t know given today’s varied circumstances what a good percentage of stay at home moms should be. It would be different influences in a rural area vs an urban, a low income vs higher, a higher educated vs lower, a mother who grew up in a large family vs small, or had parents around vs did not, had health/emotional issues that were helped by having reasons to push oneself out of one’s comfort zone, had grandparents or close friends that bonded well with kids, had grandparents that couldn’t handle kids, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Calm

[bluebell]

I chose to be a stay at home mom because I had a mother who worked (both my parents had to work) and I despised it.  I have horrible memories from different day cares and, once I was old enough to be home on my own, sad memories of coming home to an empty house.  I hated everything about it and knew that I would not have my kids in daycare or coming home to no one else there.  

But that's me.  Those are my choices and they come from my personal experiences.  Other kids (and other daycares) probably have good memories with those things, and other women have their own experiences as well to help them make their choices. 

Most of us are just trying to do our best and not mess our kids up along the way.  None of us are going to get it right all the time and there isn't a child in existence that couldn't make a list of all the many ways their parents messed up if they felt like it, but I really do believe that if we sincerely love our children and want what is best for them, and if we stay close to the Spirit, then it'll turn out o.k. 

Through the Atonement, our sincere efforts will be enough, whether we work outside the home or don't.

Edited June 11, 2021 by bluebell

[MustardSeed]

 

16 hours ago, Fether said:

I agree, but what is happening with my generation is that this exception you bring up is becoming the norm. And I don’t know that any of us can justly look at a situation and judge it. But we can look at the world as a whole and see that there is a problem because this exception is becoming the norm.

CFR that there is a problem due to women working being a norm.  I'm sure it's out there, but if we are going to debate, let's use real data.

I have long felt that the church extended its reach determining that my life as a mother was only nurturing if I was not employed.  Fortunately by the time I decided to open up shop I was old enough to not be concerned with what people thought of me in that department. 

My personal opinion of the Proclamation was that it created a lot of undue feelings of unworthiness for many women who already tend to feel inadequate.

 

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by MustardSeed

[Fether]

1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

 

CFR that there is a problem due to women working being a norm.  I'm sure it's out there, but if we are going to debate, let's use real data.

I have long felt that the church extended its reach determining that my life as a mother was only nurturing if I was not employed.  Fortunately by the time I decided to open up shop I was old enough to not be concerned with what people thought of me in that department. 

 

 

Again, I’m not yet concerned about individuals. Right now, just stats.

That being said, before I look for stats, I would ask if we should expect that stats to show that only a minority of mothers should be working. If we pulled stats and it showed 50%+ of mothers were working, should that be concerning? Should we expect the exception to be a minority, and if it isn’t, is something wrong?

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

I agree, I wouldn't and haven’t (intentionally) extended judgement to such individuals. But we can at least see that an unproportionate amount of mothers are choosing to work outside of their home. The “exceptions” are being claimed by everyone. This is what is concerning. I’m not saying there should be a witch hunt of sorts, but rather let’s look at ourselves and ask if we are really qualified for such exceptions or do we just value our career over our children?

The proclamation doesn't talk about "working outside the home".  It says "Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children."  

It is not an "exception" if a mother prays over whether she should work or not, feels like she should and then does everything she can to nuture them while she is with them and searches for places and people that can continue that nurturing while she is not.  If you are making sure your children are nurtured while you are working you are doing exactly what the proclamation says.

So who cares if moms are working outside the home? If they are following the proclamation in nurturing it shouldn't matter to anyone how many stay home.  

I am grateful I was able to stay home.  I have had many opportunities both with my children and with the other parts of my mission in life because I did.  But that is  MY mission and how I personally was supposed to nurture my children. Working moms have their own mission in how to do it.

 

[MustardSeed]

6 minutes ago, Fether said:

Again, I’m not yet concerned about individuals. Right now, just stats.

That being said, before I look for stats, I would ask if we should expect that stats to show that only a minority of mothers should be working. If we pulled stats and it showed 50%+ of mothers were working, should that be concerning? Should we expect the exception to be a minority, and if it isn’t, is something wrong?

I assume and probably incorrectly that more than 50% of moms work.  But how do we know that this creates a problem?

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, Fether said:

would ask if we should expect that stats to show that only a minority of mothers should be working.

I would be surprised if so. While not always intentionally, it is all about what one chooses to measure and then emphasize and unless starting from scratch, I bet most researchers are pretty good at guessing what their research will find based on similar studies they are trying to refine. And then there is the choice of analysis of how separated out you choose your results to be. 
 

For example, one of the studies in the above link concluded there was no benefit for mothers for obesity iirc. But if one broke it down, it was a negative for at home who then became working mothers, their kids were more likely to be obese. There was other stuff where stats in general showed no difference because the subgroups balanced out, negative for one group, positive for another. 
 

And I have heard enough from social science students about pressure from mentors or other academics on studies likely to prove problems. Had a woman I visit taught who had her masters thesis disapproved after it was approved once it was cited in Parliament to support the position that home care was better than day care for kids.  (Our ward included most students at the UoC in Calgary). 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Calm