Jump to content

Working mothers


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

You must live in a wealthy area because, in my ward, most women work. 
 

And I would support them, because it sounds you are in a very poor area. And as I mentioned before, I would support that.

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, Fether said:

And I would support them, because it sounds you are in a very poor area. And as I mentioned before, I would support that.

I’m in a standard middle class area. Starter homes mixed with larger. Housing and rent have doubled in the last five years. 

Edited by bsjkki
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I’m in a standard middle class area. Starter homes mixed with larger. Housing and rent have doubled in the last five years. 

2x-3x w/ ~0 availability.  We're setting up to have homeless families, who have some cash in the bank.

Edited by Chum
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Fether said:

My concern is that we are all being taught that a career and making money is more meaningful than raising kids.

Where are we all being taught that? I’ve never heard anyone inside or outside the church teach this and I’m pretty old. And why are you so obsessed with women who choose to work? I wonder how many people consider the fact that people who are working are paying into their own retirement and Social Security funds. Where is a woman’s financial protection for her future if she never works? If she does choose to stay home full-time (which I fully support), I hope she is socking away a portion of her husband’s paycheck every month for her own future. Sometimes through no fault of their own, women are widowed or get dumped and they need to protect themselves. Your plan doesn’t factor that in. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Fether said:

That’s a different conversation entirely. I’m going off the basis that the Family Proclamation is inspired of God and true. My question is about why people go against this. Your question centers in the reality of the doctrines taught in the proclamation.

I was quoting you. You said:

Quote

To me, it seems that a mother working is an exception and should not be the rule. 

My question goes exactly to what YOU said. 

Quote

That’s a different conversation entirely. I’m going off the basis that the Family Proclamation is inspired of God and true.

 

I am too.

Quote

My question is about why people go against this. Your question centers in the reality of the doctrines taught in the proclamation.

I've yet to see where you showed mothers working outside the home was going against this.  

But if this isn't what you are talking about would you please explain differently what you are talking about.

And then show where in the proclamation it shows where moms shouldn't work outside the home or whatever else it is you are talking about where people are going against it.

Edited by Rain
Link to comment
19 hours ago, rongo said:

There are reasons for it, but I think both the letter and the spirit of the Proclamation explain this.

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.

I know that several in this thread have said that mothers working can still nurture, but the reality is that the nurturing and the "mom time" is not the same when children are with others more than with her. And, mom gets home tired and spent --- what kids get from mom is completely different when being mother is her sole focus vs. a section of the pie chart.

Some moms also get energized by working outside the home and then end up being better moms. 

It doesn't need to be the same nurturing.  What is important is that moms understand nurturing their children is the primary priority.  

And if you read through conference lessons etc, then we find that family is the man's primary priority as well.  

Though honestly I personally think the best way to do it is God is your only priority and then you do whatever it is that He would have you do.  

Quote

There are spiritual intangibles for the mere presence of mom at home with the kids. President Kimball told of staying with a family during a stake conference, and he typed at the kitchen table all day while the children kept coming in and calling for mom. She answered them and they went on about their business; they never needed anything specific from her, they just needed to know she was there and reassure themselves.

As a stay at home mom and homemaker I am very aware there are spiritual intangibles for me being home.  The more I learn about people and what Heavenly Father wants me to do though, I realize that there are spiritual intangibles in all parts of life.  You've probably felt them at work with teaching your students as well.  

Quote

I think there are real spiritual and emotional/psychological benefits and advantages to mothers being home with their developing children, where possible. It is not at all the same level of nurturing if they are in day care or with babysitters (even extended family), or raised by father at home, in my opinion. 

I can tell you my husband is a far better nurturer of our children than I am.  

Quote

I agree with @Fether that the exception has become the rule in the Church, and I think we're seeing the fruits of this among Millennials, GenZ, and GenAlpha. And it's just snowballing more. 

You haven't mentioned what those fruits are, but I don't think you understand what an incredible and unfair burden talk like this puts on moms.  Seriously, my deepest sorrows have been over my feelings and actions of faith could change the actions of my children. It was such a relief when I finally allowed myself to believe my faith couldn't change their agency.

Children need their parents, but parents can't be perfect.  Counseling with Heavenly Father how you parent will get you to the best place you can be as a parent.  Heavenly Father wanted me to stay home.  Who am I to throw myself into the counsel between God and any other parent? 

Edited by Rain
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Rain said:

is God is your only priority

Needs are so diverse and ever changing, speaking of priorities is problematic in my view.  A couple may say their relationship is their priority because they understand that being on the same wavelength and supporting each other allows them to be the best parents, the best children, siblings, friends, employees, etc, but children may hear that and understand it to mean they come second or worst, when they really need their parents to be there, if their parents are also needed elsewhere, they can expect their parents to choose to help each other before being there for the kid.

We need to be very careful in talking about priorities, IMO, and in viewing them.  What is most important should depend on the circumstances of that moment, not on a rigid hierarchy of cares.

So I feel uncomfortable saying God is my only priority.  I think I would phrase it as saying I listen to God first because I know he will direct me to where I am most needed and tell me how I can help most effectively.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Fether said:

You either cannot read or have not read all that I have said. Or perhaps you feel you can only be right if I fit a basic sexist and misogynist identity. 
 

my view is this:
There is a rule and a preferred outcome in a family. The father presides and provides for the family, the mother focuses an nurturing the kids. Ideally, they stick within those roles and assist the other in those roles. I have no problem with mothers working when they feel it is necessary, nor do intend on judging them.

My concern is that we are all being taught that a career and making money is more meaningful than raising kids.

Please show where anyone inside (or even outside) the church has said this. This is a formal call for references.

4 hours ago, Fether said:

And the sophistry that a woman can be more nurturing to their kids while at work.

CFR where someone has said this.

4 hours ago, Fether said:

I don’t know a single woman who believes a day care or a paid baby sitter can raise their kid better than they could.

I do. Several.

Most don't feel that way, but it doesn't have anything to do with what I have said.   

4 hours ago, Fether said:

Nor do I believe this, no matter how good or expensive said daycare was. If a mother had to work to help provide for their family, then by all means, work. I will be there to support them in their decision and will defend them should anyone belittle them in their decision. 

Is money the only reason you wouldn't judge them?

4 hours ago, Fether said:

But if a mother hands her kids off to an inferior source of nurturing so they can work because it gives them a sense of meaning, gives them a break, or for money or luxury, than that is wrong, they are being selfish, and they are failing in their divine role

Sometimes when my husband came home from work or home for a trip I left the house to have a break and let him take care of them.  Other times when we went out on dates we left them with my mom or his dad or babysitters.  Was this wrong?  Selfish?  Does it mean I was failing?  

If not is it time that makes a difference?  If so, how much time is that?  What if I worked 6 hours a week would that be selfish?  What if I didn't work , but spent a day away every month with my friends would that then be selfish? 

4 hours ago, Fether said:

maybe this is happening, maybe it is not. But when I see that over 50% of Latter-day Saint mothers work, it suggests to me that something is wrong. If I can be convinced that 50+% of all Latter-day Saint mothers need to work to help provide for their family, I will give up this argument. But to me this exception is no longer and exception, rather just an individual preference that ignores divine roles

What if a mother fasts and prays and feels Heavenly Father directing her to work even if the family doesn't need it monetarily?  Is it ok that divine counsel ignores divine roles?

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Needs are so diverse and ever changing, speaking of priorities is problematic in my view.  A couple may say their relationship is their priority because they understand that being on the same wavelength and supporting each other allows them to be the best parents, the best children, siblings, friends, employees, etc, but children may hear that and understand it to mean they come second or worst, when they really need their parents to be there, if their parents are also needed elsewhere, they can expect their parents to choose to help each other before being there for the kid.

We need to be very careful in talking about priorities, IMO, and in viewing them.  What is most important should depend on the circumstances of that moment, not on a rigid hierarchy of cares.

So I feel uncomfortable saying God is my only priority.  I think I would phrase it as saying I listen to God first because I know he will direct me to where I am most needed and tell me how I can help most effectively.

I can see that.  It means the same thing to me, but I do know I have to be aware of who my audience is.  

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, Rain said:

I can see that.  It means the same thing to me, but I do know I have to be aware of who my audience is.  

I am probably over aware of it due to certain experiences.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I know 4 stay at home dads. I guarantee, their family is structured the best way for their families well-being. Are they not fulfilling their divine role? Are they failing?

Not in my experience. One of my friends fills this role and they are happy. Definitely happier than me.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I know 4 stay at home dads. I guarantee, their family is structured the best way for their families well-being. Are they not fulfilling their divine role? Are they failing?

As I've thought about the question, this, in many ways, is the most succinct way of expressing the question. I know what I think the answer is (they are not failing), but I don't really know what the Church or its leaders believe the answer is.

Edit to add: I expect I know that leaders' pastoral response would be -- you're doing the best you can and that's good enough without any sort of condemnation. However, I don't expect that the pastoral response would adequately address the theological/philosophical side of the question.

Edited by MrShorty
Link to comment
11 hours ago, MrShorty said:

As I've thought about the question, this, in many ways, is the most succinct way of expressing the question. I know what I think the answer is (they are not failing), but I don't really know what the Church or its leaders believe the answer is.

Edit to add: I expect I know that leaders' pastoral response would be -- you're doing the best you can and that's good enough without any sort of condemnation. However, I don't expect that the pastoral response would adequately address the theological/philosophical side of the question.

What theology? What philosophy?

Link to comment

@The Nehor In my mind, this entire discussion boils down to the competing theologies/philosophies of complementarianism and egalitarianism

theopedia articles:
https://www.theopedia.com/egalitarianism
https://www.theopedia.com/complementarianism

In Church practice, we are quite clearly complementarian in that we only ordain men to priesthood and most Church government offices/positions. As it relates to the home, though, what do we really believe? In my view, the Family Proclamation (especially due to the individual adaptation clause) is ambiguous enough to make it unclear which competing side of the fence we stand on. IMO, the scenario of SAHD + breadwinner wife/mother quite clearly illustrates the question. If we believe that it is completely appropriate for a couple to choose this approach, then we are quite clearly egalitarian as far as roles in the home go. If we believe that it is inappropriate (except in extreme circumstances) for a couple to choose this approach, then we are complementarian.

Link to comment
18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Try having a large family on the US median income. Not easy but can be done. Now imagine trying to do it with only one income when a lot of those median income people are doing it with two. Some can but to imagine that all families in the church can is just silly.

There are a lot of things wrong. I also know women who want some kind of job. It is an intense need and its denial can lead to misery. I have seen many women fill this need while being a mother in many different ways from part-time work while kids are in school to full careers to volunteerism to having a househusband. There are probably all kinds of other variations.

Being a busybody about the choices of others is probably not healthy.

 

My dad fell out of a tree at 17 and broke his back. He had several surgeries throughout his life and was in extreme pain from scar tissue. He would come home with his clothes drenched because of the pain and the doctor told him he needed to go on disability. It just got continually worse, before that he had up to 3 jobs at once. So he ended up staying home and it was such a shock to his system because in his mind he was the provider and his ego was on the line for his generation. My mom went to work full time. This was when I was either about to graduate high school or maybe a junior, and I'd come home during lunch time and see him playing solitaire watching tv, he was so depressed. But eventually he found things to do, like he'd make homemade soups or sweet and sour chicken so dinner would be ready. He got on some medications that allowed him to function and live a good life and it turned out well. So every situation is as you said, different. 

Link to comment
On 6/12/2021 at 1:33 PM, bsjkki said:

I find it an inspired document that families can read, seek the spirit, and interpret its counsel for their individual circumstances. You seem to be saying there is only one way to interpret this document and that your traditional view of gender roles is the only correct view, regardless  of realities within family life. 
 

You also seem to be saying, working mothers are inferior nurturers. I reject that characterization. 
 

 

I ran out of reactions but I want to give this two thumbs way up!!!

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

It’s not a sin for women to work. 

It is not usually a sin. I would say that, absent other situations that might make it a sin, it is not a sin.

Almost anything innocent can be turned into a sin in the wrong conditions.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is not usually a sin. I would say that, absent other situations that might make it a sin, it is not a sin.

Almost anything innocent can be turned into a sin in the wrong conditions.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

As a woman who has raised her children and half those years being a sahm and half not, my anecdotal experience is plenty of judgement that suggests some see earning as a sin.  
And if I had a dollar for every time people said to my husband, “it’s so great that you let mustard pursue her dreams” well then perhaps neither of us would have any reason to work again. 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

At the risk of opening a can of worms alleviating childcare concerns was one of the advantages of plural marriage.

Here’s a worm for you:  Outside of Tanzania, polygyny consistently seems to have an adverse effect on children’s mortality. But hey! It’s free babysitting! 

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

As a woman who has raised her children and half those years being a sahm and half not, my anecdotal experience is plenty of judgement that suggests some see earning as a sin.  
And if I had a dollar for every time people said to my husband, “it’s so great that you let mustard pursue her dreams” well then perhaps neither of us would have any reason to work again. 

Anecdotally speaking (if that’s a thing), do you see a difference in the quality of humans you produced while staying at home v. working?

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Here’s a worm for you:  Outside of Tanzania, polygyny consistently seems to have an adverse effect on children’s mortality. But hey! It’s free babysitting! 

I am watching a historic Chinese drama and all the wives and concubines are trying to kill off or discredit the others’ children. Then there is the issue of unfavored wives/concubines being more or less treated as servants, starved, etc.  Not saying this is standard, just that many cultures wives do not cooperate, but compete. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...