Jump to content

Working mothers


Recommended Posts

On 6/10/2021 at 6:53 PM, 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. 

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.

 

 

And I think that this intrusion into personal lives is one of the reasons the Proc will never be canonized. Not to mention it confusing sex and gender. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

No assumptions are made.  The person best suited for the task just seems to assume that responsibility.  We don't even talk about it.  We play to our strengths rather than social or religious expectations.  One of many reasons why I love being gay.

And one of the reasons I sometimes secretly wish I were gay. I adore my super- manly husband but sometimes I long for a partner who understands something about being a woman…

Link to comment
On 6/11/2021 at 1:57 AM, 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?

Maybe it's backwards, maybe the human norm is that women who wish to work while they have young children and the rest of us need to be more accomodating. People need to shift mindsets from one-size-fits-all to nuance and adaptivity to further enrich each other's life experiences and potentials.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Maybe it's backwards, maybe the human norm is that women who wish to work while they have young children and the rest of us need to be more accomodating. People need to shift mindsets from one-size-fits-all to nuance and adaptivity to further enrich each other's life experiences and potentials.

Real life experience I am experiencing right now.

Family A is putting their child up for adoption. Family B and C both want it. 
 

Family B- Father works and mother stays at home and raises kids

Family C- Both mother and father work and child would be spending 8 hours a day at daycare with their other child (9am-5pm)

There are other factors, but for the sake of this post, let’s assume all else is held equal. Do you really believe both families would be equally affective in raising the child?

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Fether said:

Real life experience I am experiencing right now.

Family A is putting their child up for adoption. Family B and C both want it. 
 

Family B- Father works and mother stays at home and raises kids

Family C- Both mother and father work and child would be spending 8 hours a day at daycare with their other child (9am-5pm)

There are other factors, but for the sake of this post, let’s assume all else is held equal. Do you really believe both families would be equally affective in raising the child?

Can't say. Are the parents in the scenarios arranging work/childcare that way because they want to, or because they have no other choice? Is the child in need of close, special supervision that is not addressed by both scenarios?

Have you read Mary Shelley's Frankenstein? Tell me, what happened when Dr. Frankenstein treated life in his detached, over-generalized way? I think there is a lesson there. Human beings are not interchangeable and so much of their well-being is tied to their specific needs and so much of parenting is tied to responding to a child's specific needs. And parenting outcomes in a family are tied to the needs of the entire family being met.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Can't say. Are the parents in the scenarios arranging work/childcare that way because they want to, or because they have no other choice? Is the child in need of close, special supervision that is not addressed by both scenarios?

 

These would all be viable questions had we been talking about whether it is right for a mother to work while she has a child. If it were, I would concede that these are all great questions… but that is not the question. You are dodging it completely
 

The scenario is not about how do we best raise this child we now have. The question, which home is better fit to raise a child. A home where the parents have to send their child to daycare, or a home where the child can be raised by the parents entirely at home. You wouldn’t choose to give your child to a homeless man over a healthy and functional family living in a clean and safe home on the logic of “the homeless man is doing is best”. Just like you would choose an family where the mother can be home with the child all day every day and wouldn’t give your child to be raised by a family that will put him in a daycare to be raised along side 20 other kids by people paid $10 an hour.

I have stated in the past posts that it is not wrong for a mother to work, just that it is ideal and it should be the goal for the mother to stay home.

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

These would all be viable questions had we been talking about whether it is right for a mother to work while she has a child. If it were, I would concede that these are all great questions… but that is not the question. You are dodging it completely
 

The scenario is not about how do we best raise this child we now have. The question, which home is better fit to raise a child. A home where the parents have to send their child to daycare, or a home where the child can be raised by the parents entirely at home. You wouldn’t choose to give your child to a homeless man over a healthy and functional family living in a clean and safe home on the logic of “the homeless man is doing is best”. Just like you would choose an family where the mother can be home with the child all day every day and wouldn’t give your child to be raised by a family that will put him in a daycare to be raised along side 20 other kids by people paid $10 an hour.

I have stated in the past posts that it is not wrong for a mother to work, just that it is ideal and it should be the goal for the mother to stay home.

I disagree, I think they still apply.

I think that having parents who both work can be better for a child in the long term. But in real-life scenarios, there's exactly no case where the situation is otherwise equal. I would prefer to choose on a case by case basis.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Fether said:

Real life experience I am experiencing right now.

Family A is putting their child up for adoption. Family B and C both want it. 
 

Family B- Father works and mother stays at home and raises kids

Family C- Both mother and father work and child would be spending 8 hours a day at daycare with their other child (9am-5pm)

There are other factors, but for the sake of this post, let’s assume all else is held equal. Do you really believe both families would be equally affective in raising the child?

There are SO MANY factors that make up whether someone is a good parent.  Choosing to single out a single aspect really shows a complete lack of understanding on what makes good parents.  There are plenty of families where the father works and the wife stays home that are totally disfunctional and harmful to children.  It is like asking you which is better?

A stay at home mother and a father that works, but when he comes home he goes to his room and plays video games all night.

A mother and father that both work but when they are home they are constantly engaged with their kids, help them with their school work, take them to life enriching experiences on the weekends and are always there supporting their kids in all their activities.  

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, california boy said:

There are SO MANY factors that make up whether someone is a good parent.  Choosing to single out a single aspect really shows a complete lack of understanding on what makes good parents.  There are plenty of families where the father works and the wife stays home that are totally disfunctional and harmful to children.  It is like asking you which is better?

A stay at home mother and a father that works, but when he comes home he goes to his room and plays video games all night.

A mother and father that both work but when they are home they are constantly engaged with their kids, help them with their school work, take them to life enriching experiences on the weekends and are always there supporting their kids in all their activities.  

I’m glad we agree :)

Its a good thing that’s not what the debate is.

The debate is not whether you are a good mother if you work or not. It’s is a mother that can raise kids uninterrupted a better situation than a mother who has to put her kids in 7 hours of day care every day.

A father struggling with anger issues is not ideal, but does not mean they would be a bad father.

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Fether said:

I’m glad we agree :)

Its a good thing that’s not what the debate is.

The debate is not whether you are a good mother if you work or not. It’s is a mother that can raise kids uninterrupted a better situation than a mother who has to put her kids in 7 hours of day care every day.

A father struggling with anger issues is not ideal, but does not mean they would be a bad father.

I think that generally children benefit from a mother who is educated and earns income.

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think that generally children benefit from a mother who is educated and earns income.

If that comes with meaning the kid is also at daycare every day, I would disagree entirely

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I think that generally children benefit from a mother who is educated and earns income.

A person's earning potential and education have no bearing on being able to raise well rounded and confident young adults.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Fether said:

I’m glad we agree :)

Its a good thing that’s not what the debate is.

The debate is not whether you are a good mother if you work or not. It’s is a mother that can raise kids uninterrupted a better situation than a mother who has to put her kids in 7 hours of day care every day.

A father struggling with anger issues is not ideal, but does not mean they would be a bad father.

Well then, maybe the ideal family to place all children is where the father and the mother don't work.  The children would be getting the individed attention of both parents.  Would you agree with that statement?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Yes. Because I’ve seen both raise great, well-adjusted/attached kids. I’m grateful that before becoming a parent at a little older age I got to see most my friends manage several different work arrangements over the years. This includes both parents working full time, mom staying at home, dad staying at home, parents switching/overlapping work, etc. They all have great kids with differing concerns and needs. They’re all good parents. Not perfect, but good enough for their kids. It reduced the pressure for me to fit the “perfect” or “best” mould that’s usually culturally derived and focus more on what’s best for me and mine.
 

Right now that entails focusing more on mommy-ing and doing part-time work with a job I love to keep me sane. That shifted with the pandemic when it became clear it was better for my husband to do remote work to have more time during the day to be a dad too. And it’ll likely shift again once kids get older and don’t need as much from me during the day. 
 

with luv, 

BD

I think you're in a great field BD. It seems there is a shortage because it's so difficult to get therapists on short notice. But maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. 

Link to comment
On 6/26/2021 at 12:22 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

...I’m open to any later citations that might be offered that are more definitive than conjectural or subjective Kremlin-watching of the Church administration in the nature of the OP.  

“Kremlin-watching” eh? 

If you are referring to my OP in this thread, then you don’t understand the nature of the post.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

Well then, maybe the ideal family to place all children is where the father and the mother don't work.  The children would be getting the individed attention of both parents.  Would you agree with that statement?

My initial inclination is absolutely! If there is family C that is in a financial position where the husband can be home as well, then absolutely. And again, this is assuming a families a-c are exactly the same in all qualities except for their financial situation that demands who is working. 
 

But then again, I do think there is benefit in see the hard work of the father. But not needing to work doesn’t mean that lesson can’t be taught. Where as I believe a mother who works is have less opportunity to raise her kids.


primarily,  I agree with the principles taught in the family proclamation and I believe that translates to the ideal situation being the father is providing and the mother is taking care of the kids, which means not working.

I understand other interpret differently, and that they think I am wrong. All I have to say to them is I think they are wrong.

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
3 hours ago, pogi said:

“Kremlin-watching” eh? 

If you are referring to my OP in this thread, then you don’t understand the nature of the post.

 

Do you know the meaning of the term Kremlin-watching? It is synonymous with Kremlinology, which Wikipedia defines as follows:

Kremlinology is the study and analysis of the politics and policies of [Soviet] Russia. …  In popular culture, the term is sometimes used to mean any attempt to understand a secretive organization or process, such as plans for upcoming products or events, by interpreting indirect clues.

I’m applying the latter usage here. I’m saying that it has been a while since we have heard anything from the Brethren specifically on the subject of mother’s working outside the home. From this, you (and perhaps others here) have drawn the inference that the Church leaders have ditched the teaching by President Benson — and given somewhat muted and conditional validation by President Hinckley — that ideally a mother should be at home to rear and nurture children. I’m saying that since there has been no direct evidence for this conclusion, it can be no more than a subjective (and debatable) inference. 
 

Thus you appear to be engaging (in an analogous sense) in Kremlin-watching of the Church leadership. 

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

My initial inclination is absolutely! If there is family C that is in a financial position where the husband can be home as well, then absolutely. And again, this is assuming a families a-c are exactly the same in all qualities except for their financial situation that demands who is working. 

And what if the family is getting government aid so that both parents don't have to work?  Would that be better than only having one parent at home raising the kids?

2 hours ago, Fether said:

 

But then again, I do think there is benefit in see the hard work of the father. But not needing to work doesn’t mean that lesson can’t be taught. Where as I believe a mother who works is have less opportunity to raise her kids.

So it is only important for children to see a father working?  Mothers can't teach that lesson?

2 hours ago, Fether said:

primarily,  I agree with the principles taught in the family proclamation and I believe that translates to the ideal situation being the father is providing and the mother is taking care of the kids, which means not working.

So you think the family proclamation dictates that the wife is the one responsible for raising the children and the father's role is to earn the money?

 

2 hours ago, Fether said:

I understand other interpret differently, and that they think I am wrong. All I have to say to them is I think they are wrong.

I hope you don't feel like I am attacking your answers, I am just curious why you still hold such ridged ideas about gender assigned roles in how a family. functions.  My son earns enough money so that my daughte- in-law does not have to work.  Yet, they still put their children into daycare for part of the day.  They feel like it is important for their children to learn to interact and socialize with others outside the family structure.  By being able to spend time at a day care, they get that opportunity.  I guess what I am saying is a ridged mold doesn't seem to always be the best case for all families.  Claiming that the proclamation dictates how families should be raised seems like a family is disobeying the will of God by listening to their own feelings and guidance on what is best for their particular family.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Warlock said:

A person's earning potential and education have no bearing on being able to raise well rounded and confident young adults.

Totally disagree. Education can help parents be better parents. Earning an income can help a parent meet the needs of the family members.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, california boy said:

And what if the family is getting government aid so that both parents don't have to work?  Would that be better than only having one parent at home raising the kids?

Now you are stepping outside of the example. I’m saying families A,B, and C have exact same scenarios except for whether the father makes enough money for the mother to stay home. You are adding additional factors to family C that changes the example so you can drive your point.

10 hours ago, california boy said:

So it is only important for children to see a father working?  Mothers can't teach that lesson?

The mother can do it just fine without working. As I said before. It is the fathers ROLE to make money for the family.

 

10 hours ago, california boy said:

So you think the family proclamation dictates that the wife is the one responsible for raising the children and the father's role is to earn the money?

 

I believe the family proclamation dictates exactly what it dictates

”Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. 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. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.”

10 hours ago, california boy said:

I guess what I am saying is a ridged mold doesn't seem to always be the best case for all families.  Claiming that the proclamation dictates how families should be raised seems like a family is disobeying the will of God by listening to their own feelings and guidance on what is best for their particular family.

You are creating a straw man of my view. I have said countless times that this is not a ridged view, that a family is not disobeying God if they don’t match this exactly. 
 

The ideal situation is where the father makes enough money to provide for the family and the mother can spend time raising this kids. If this is not possible or, as you said, is not the best case for them, then they can change. There would be no ill judgement from me or God.

Similar to serving a mission. It is ideal that all young men seek to be worthy and serve a mission. But not doing so does not make you a lesser or unworthy son of God.

10 hours ago, california boy said:

am just curious why you still hold such ridged ideas about gender assigned roles in how a family

Because I believe the Prophets are the mouth piece of God, and I believe the Family Proclamation is the word of God

 

10 hours ago, california boy said:

My son earns enough money so that my daughte- in-law does not have to work.  Yet, they still put their children into daycare for part of the day.  They feel like it is important for their children to learn to interact and socialize with others outside the family structure.  By being able to spend time at a day care, they get that opportunity

I think what your children do is great! Optional enrollment into daycare on occasion for speciality is a good idea should the parents decide that is best. However, Daycare is not the only place to socialize. We take my kids out on play dates all the time, as well as a weekly preschool and nursery, my son and daughter have many many little friends.
 

The argument that a mother should work full time and put her kid in daycare is smart because it provides social opportunities is a weak arguement and only works when speaking of a mother and father who aren’t a magnifying their responsibility as parents. Again, not saying that mothers who HAVE to work to provide are failing as parents. They are doing their very best. I have a very soft spot in my heart for single mothers and those whose financial situation takes them from their family.

Link to comment

@FetherThis study may be of use. General conclusions: "(1) employment does not necessarily reduce children's time with parents, and (2) not all types of parental time benefit child development." From When does time matter? maternal employment, children's time with parents, and child development, by Amy Hsin and Christina Felfe.

When one parent does not work, that does not ensure that they'll spend more time with their children. And even if they do, that does not mean the time spent is beneficial. 

As a mother who was a SAHM for 19 years and then worked, I can attest to this anecdotally.  In my experience, having non-child-rearing occupations during the day benefit me in multiple ways, and then impact my ability to have good experiences with my children.

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

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