Should anyone care about historical hate speech by senior Church leadership?

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

You won’t be able to say that your wife going back to work will lead to "Improved well-being of the mother = improved relationships all around = happy home" until you try it out and see what happens. In the meantime this is all theoretical. 

But please return and report what impact your wife going back to work when your little one starts first grade has on the family. And be sure to give us frequent updates. So we can use that as anecdotal evidence. 

If you want more anectdotal evidence beyond those who've already given some, you're welcome to mine as well. I chose from day one that I wouldn't quit my job. I chose a job that gives me a lot of flexibility too though and I've upped the hours based on what felt right...it was only zero hours for about 3 months. Our kid is turning 4 this year. She's absolutely fine, because she also has a dad that from day 1 was involved and does his fair share of nurturing and parenting. Course, covid oddly helped. I joke we're both largely SAHP's since both of us can work largely remote. I go into the office more than him even though I work less.  He supports me and I support him. We have a fabulous marriage, one of joint partnership and equity and that I'm deeply proud of. I'm so glad that I purposely made sure to take steps back and let my husband be a nurturing dad in his own way. I don't feel guilty or wrong or worried when I leave the home, I know she's with a very capable and loving parent, who taught her her ABC's, the fun of building things, and how to spell her name. She runs to both of us for comfort, both of us for the individual things we do for her, and feels confident to go out to preschool and the world knowing we'll be back for her always. The house doesn't fall apart when I leave, because he does his part, cares for our kid and any other domestic needed thing. There's not an inherent conflict in our work dynamics because we openly talk and decide together what we need to do for both our individual goals, our careers, and our kid(s).  

 

I don't want something different. There have been harder hairy days, sure, but I feel whole as a person with my work and I value what I do not just for my daughter but for my community and self, which currently includes some working pay. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Peacefully]

11 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 Jumping in after reading through the last few pages.

Here's the problem I'm seeing: minus the feeling and personal bias you hold toward this, you're not giving any really good stats, figures, and umph to claims minus loose anectdotal assertions you've tied to the change in women working out of the home more often. Your one site isn't a "study" but a series of quotes from old sources (in terms of social research) that is usually quoting other unnamed research. You're making a lofty claim, one that is going to be inherently offensive, with crap evidence. But you keep asserting it sometimes almost as fact and then almost at the same moment as if it were just your opinion...but a really solid opinion that it has to be a factor because it "correlates" with the divorce rate.  

Correlation does not equal causation is an a research adage as old a time. And this correlation is fairly weak. yes, Divorce spiked at the same time that working moms started to increase from around the late 1970-1980. But this ignores that divorce had been rising for decades (albeit slowly and minus 1950's) before then and didn't have much of a correlation with working women before this. It ignores that divorce finished spiking by 1980 and started to drop significantly (we are by no means are "sky high"  divorce rates at this point)....even though workforce participation by women continued to rise well after, before it starts to dip gradually around the early 2000s. It ignores any other theory or possibly connection between these numbers, including reverse cause. Namely divorced women most often have to work to make ends meet....so if divorce rises working women would naturally rise with it. Or the obvious one of greater legal ability to divorce in a generation where there were also more couples at the right age to divorce in a uniquely large generation. Or that there were shifting values and expectations in marriage that settled into slightly healthier patterns after a while. Or that working moms often still carry disproportionate workloads in the home even if working equal hours, creating greater stress and higher chances of resentment since apparently a man can pick up a mop. Or that those who would have divorced simply stopped marrying as much from either self awareness or less pressure to have to marry. Etc. I could go on and on with so many other potential reasons.

There's also quite a few counterfactuals too. For example currently the rate of marriage is highest among high income, highly educated couples. It's also that demo who generally have more working moms and less divorce.  

But none of this is really engaged with beyond vaguely noting there may be other reasons and then focusing on your pet theory affirmed by namely your anecdotal experience as both a child and I assume a father in a household with a SAHM. And any info or theories that are given that conflict with this are dismissed (such as pointing to reasons such as abuse

I don't want to put words in your mouth. I know you've used means to soften this by insisting there's issues with men as well, there's other unnamed issues that could also be at play (the only ones actually named tend to fit your religious/social stances already), it's moreso a specific type of working mom (aka the ones choosing to work "rather than nurture" their children), etc. Personally this doesn't do enough to make this position if not inherently sexist to some degree then at least deeply problematic. Because at the end of the day, the only correction for this trend if it were a cause would be for women (not men) to stay home with their kids and forgo work unless absolutely necessary where they will magically pick up a decent earning job that will fill in the financial gap with often with little to no work history and no recent work history. (Again, this last assertion made without evidence beyond "common knowledge," a knowledge I have never seen and runs counter to just about every last bit of info and experiences I've seen). There's no other solution given to this. 

You are allowed to your opinion. You can believe it till the end of your days. But that doesn't make you're opinion a good one. I get that you value SAHM's and working dads. Kudos. If that works for a family, great. What you're doing isn't just valuing but elevating by devaluing or gently denigrating any chosen path that's not that one. (note I said chosen v. forced into due to exceptions). That's not going to fly well. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

This deserves a mic drop. I’ve been reading through all of these posts but this is the best rebuttal to Grug’s baseless assertion that I’ve seen. I often felt “less than” when I joined the church because I was a working mom. Yes, it was out of necessity, but I also wanted to work. Both my daughter and my son are hard-workers and I think it comes from seeing both parents work hard. Now, after 30 years in the same industry, I’m very proud of my accomplishments, and I’m so thankful I grew up in a time of greater equality for women. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Sigh.  Here is your quote I originally responded to:

The only part that you claim as your opinion is that it is not just a factor, "but a major factor".  

To even imply that working mothers (without qualification) are contributing to the absolutely catastrophic decay of the family is really quite a thing to say.  Stating that it is your opinion that it is not just a factor but a "major" factor, doesn't soften the nature of the statement, it just makes it worse.  It is still your opinion, is it not?  Provide a CFR which demonstrates that working mothers (without condition) are "definitely" a factor in the catastrophic decay of the family unit which contributes to teenage delinquency.  Still waiting.  Then please try and support your opinion, if you can, while you are at it. 

I hope you can eventually find your way out of this mess of ideas you hold. 

 

I thought you weren’t going to reply to me anymore? Just couldn’t help yourself I guess. I'll be honest, your digs and straw-man arguments are starting to really rub me the wrong way. I actually hoped you wouldn’t respond to me again. At least not for a while. 

While I suspect that you will keep the digs and straw-man attacks coming, I will respond one more time, mostly for the benefit of those who are readying our exchange, and because I find your repeated misrepresentations of my statements rather annoying. But also in the hopes that you will decide to be reasonable and retract your misrepresentations of what I said and your false claim that my opinion is nothing more than "unsupportable nonsense."

Here’s the original quote of mine, which you separated into two, and then attacked with straw-man arguments. 

"I work with teens, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that the decay of the family has been absolutely catastrophic for many of them. 

How much of this can be attributed to women leaving the home unnecessarily and how much of it is due to other factors is hard to say. But it’s definitely a factor, a major one in my opinion.”

You’ll notice first of all that I never used the phrase "absolutely catastrophic decay of the family" that you claim I did, I simply said "decay of the family." I said that it his been my observation, in my substantial experience in working with teens and preteens, that "the decay of the family has been absolutely catastrophic for many of them."

Now it seems that the phrases "absolute certainty" and "absolutely catastrophic" triggered you. Perhaps this was a poor choice of words on more part. What I meant was that in my experience in working with teens I have clearly and unmistakably observed that the decay of the family has had a very negative, if not devastating, impact on many of them. 

And while I didn’t provide any references to support this assertion, other than my own first hand knowledge, I am certainly capable of doing so. Studies abound showing how negative breaking up the family through divorce impacts kids. And studies abound showing how other aspects of family decay, such as parent absence and neglect, also negatively impact children. If you insist, I can provide references to back this up. But I won’t provide another reference until you retract your misquotes, straw-man claims, and your false claim that my opinion is "unsupportable nonsense." 

Now for the second half of my quote, which was:

"How much of this can be attributed to women leaving the home unnecessarily and how much of it is due to other factors is hard to say. But it’s definitely a factor, a major one in my opinion.”

You’ll notice that I first asked a question about how much "women leaving the home unnecessarily" is a contributing factor in the decay of the family. And then somehow you twisted that into me declaring that it was the primary factor and that I was claiming that the moment a mother leaves the house to go to work, her kids are doomed to suffer "absolutely catastrophic" consequences. That was a straw-man. 

In the next part I did make a claim, that it was my opinion that "women leaving the home unnecessarily" is "definitely a factor." And I Iater backed up this claim with the study I shared with Bluebell, which shows a clear correlation between wives and mothers working outside the home and a significant spike in divorce rate. 

And the last things I said, which you went bananas over, was that women leaving the home unnecessarily was a "major [factor in the decay of the family] in my opinion."

This was clearly stated as a qualified opinion, not an unqualified declaration of fact. And major does not mean sole or even primary. It just means substantial.

And considering that one study I shared shows that mother absence negatively affects the academic performance of their children and another study I shared shows that there is a significant increase in the divorce rate among working women, your charge that my opinion is "unsupportable nonsense" is actually itself unsupportable nonsense. So please retract this bogus claim. 

 

 

 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

27 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

If you want more anectdotal evidence beyond those who've already given some, you're welcome to mine as well. I chose from day one that I wouldn't quit my job. I chose a job that gives me a lot of flexibility too though and I've upped the hours based on what felt right...it was only zero hours for about 3 months. Our kid is turning 4 this year. She's absolutely fine, because she also has a dad that from day 1 was involved and does his fair share of nurturing and parenting. Course, covid oddly helped. I joke we're both largely SAHP's since both of us can work largely remote. I go into the office more than him even though I work less.  He supports me and I support him. We have a fabulous marriage, one of joint partnership and equity and that I'm deeply proud of. I'm so glad that I purposely made sure to take steps back and let my husband be a nurturing dad in his own way. I don't feel guilty or wrong or worried when I leave the home, I know she's with a very capable and loving parent, who taught her her ABC's, the fun of building things, and how to spell her name. She runs to both of us for comfort, both of us for the individual things we do for her, and feels confident to go out to preschool and the world knowing we'll be back for her always. The house doesn't fall apart when I leave, because he does his part, cares for our kid and any other domestic needed thing. There's not an inherent conflict in our work dynamics because we openly talk and decide together what we need to do for both our individual goals, our careers, and our kid(s).  

 

I don't want something different. There have been harder hairy days, sure, but I feel whole as a person with my work and I value what I do not just for my daughter but for my community and self, which currently includes some working pay. 

 

With luv,

BD

I’m glad that your experience has been good so far. And I hope it stays that way. But with all due respect, you can’t possibly predict what kind of consequences this decision may or may not have down the road. Nor can you say with certainty that there aren’t any negative consequences now, that you just haven’t noticed. Time will tell. 

But I sincerely hope it all works out for you and wish you nothing but the best. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Your one site isn't a "study" but a series of quotes from old sources (in terms of social research) that is usually quoting other unnamed research.

I disagree with your characterization of the link I shared. You’re right it’s not a single study, it’s a completion of quotes from multiple studies. The sources are all named and documented, so the original studies can all be tracked down. 

And in addition to these studies, we have the words of our apostles and other church leaders warning us over and over again how unnecessary mother absence will have serious consequences on marriages, families, and society at large. You are free to consider their warnings to be outdated and sexist, but I believe them.

Are there exceptions to the rule and do many duel income families make it work? Sure. But to me it’s clear that the warning of the negative impacts this would have on society are coming to pass. 

I would also like to remind everyone here that it was Calm who initially brought up the connection between women working and the increased divorce rate and not me. She considered the spike in divorce rate to be worth it for equalities sake. Then I agreed with her on the connection she pointed out, but disagreed that it was worth it. 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Meadowchik]

Personally in retrospect being a SAHM for 19 was a detriment to my health, my marriage and my children's well being. I believe we would all benefited had I worked some or all of that time. And now that I must work, I would be much better positioned in the work force had I started when my kids were all in school.

But when I made those decisions even though I knew I was suffering I believed that even suffering (including my kids' and husband's) would ultimately be for the best because I was obeying God's will. 

What a damaging power poor guidance had on me and my family.

 

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I would also like to remind everyone here that it was Calm who initially brought up the connection between women working and the increased divorce rate and not me. She considered the spike in divorce rate to be worth it for equalities sake. Then I agreed with her on the connection she pointed out, but disagreed that it was worth it. 

Let’s see exactly what I said…

Quote

education of women is a wonderful thing, but it has also had an effect on divorce rates (a cost that is worth it imo as the damage from keeping women from equality is more damaging to everyone’s soul than the cost of having fewer mothers fully in the home caring for children and if we get our act together we can have both fully educated and mothers able and willing to be in the home while needed where we can’t recover the cost of the damage that inequality cuts into people’s souls).  So the view of progress depends a great deal on what metrics are chosen.

Nowhere did I imply there was some sort of “spike” or if the effect was an enduring or substantial one (couldn’t say as I haven’t studied it in depth) and my guess is there is such a mass of complicating factors such as change in tech and society, birth control improvements, etc, so many variables I am not sure how you could tease out the amount though I am guessing someone has tried.  Yes, some families are no longer intact because an educated woman who can get a decent paying job is likely to be more capable of leaving an abusive marriage than one who fears they will still need to be dependent on their ex, a dangerous situation.  That can be viewed as a “cost” but a cost better paid for than not because the cost of staying is much higher.

Nor is there any implication in my words the the overall net effect on families is a negative, quite the contrary.  Mothers being viewed as equal partners in the family relationship can only have positive effects in my view.   Having better educated mothers generally means better educated children, better health care, better nutrition…my guess there is better communication between parents as well which likely decreases divorce.   

I worded it poorly not to be explicit about the positives that came along with any costs and my point was we could remove even those costs if we really cared about keeping mothers in the home with young children. 
 

You, Grug, took it into a very different direction than I was thinking and that is on you.  There is a reason why they went after your posts.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Calm

[Navidad]

On 1/29/2023 at 12:47 PM, MrShorty said:

@Navidad I can't find a specific place where Mason wrote that. I thought it was in Planted, but cannot find a specific reference to Planted for it. A deeper search attributes the phrase to an L P Hartley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Go-Between ), but I'm certain that Mason (or some similar LDS author/speaker) has used the phrase when talking about studying LDS history.

Thanks my friend. I wasn't challenging you, I was just curious as to where he might have used the phrase. Famed American/British historian David Lowenthal used the phrase twice in two editions of a book he wrote. He won a rather prestigious medal for the second edition. It is likely that Patrick and many others (including me 😀) have used the term.

I think the world of Patrick by the way. Excellent historian and a wonderful guy!

[Grug the Neanderthal]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

education of women is a wonderful thing, but it has also had an effect on divorce rates (a cost that is worth it imo as the damage from keeping women from equality is more damaging to everyone’s soul than the cost of having fewer mothers fully in the home caring for children and if we get our act together we can have both fully educated and mothers able and willing to be in the home while needed where we can’t recover the cost of the damage that inequality cuts into people’s souls).  So the view of progress depends a great deal on what metrics are chosen.

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I worded it poorly not to be explicit about the positives that came along with any costs and my point was we could remove even those costs if we really cared about keeping mothers in the home with young children. 

Calm, I get that you would very much like to take some these words back or qualify them because of the direction the discussion went after I agreed with the negative aspects you brought up in this post. But let’s look carefully at exactly what you said:

You made the statement that "women’s education… has also had an effect on divorce rates" and referred to this as a "cost." In making this statement, you made a clear connection between women’s education and a "spike" or increase in the "divorce rate." And you also clearly viewed the increase in the "divorce rate" as a negative consequence of "women’s education" by referring to the higher divorce rate as a "cost."

And yet we have people coming after me, for agreeing with you that women’s education has led to an increase in the divorce rate. People are denying that what you first pointed at as a statement of fact is true. 

Secondly, you also stated that "women's education" has been "damaging" because of the "cost of having fewer mothers fully in the home caring for children." This is again making a negative correlation between women’s education by stating that this has resulted in "having fewer mothers fully in the home caring for children," which you said was "damaging" and a "cost." 

You then provide a solution to the second cost of the damaging effects of "having fewer mothers fully in the home caring for children," by stating "if we get our act together we can have both fully educated and mothers able and willing to be in the home while needed." Which you obviously still believe is the solution to the problem, when you just said "we could remove even those costs if we really cared about keeping mothers in the home with young children."

I agree that women should be educated. I agree with you that the women’s education has had the two negative consequences that you mentioned. I agree with you that the solution to the "costs" you mentioned is for fully educated mothers to be "able and willing to be in the home while needed" by "keeping mothers in the home with young children."

Where I disagree is were you claimed that the two costs (negative consequences) you mentioned were worth it for the sake of equality and undoing the damage you believed was caused by women not being educated. 

5 hours ago, Calm said:

You, Grug, took it into a very different direction than I was thinking and that is on you.  There is a reason why they went after your posts.

Yeah, I get that. I made the counterargument that the two negative effects you pointed out weren’t worth it. And then proceeded to defend my position when challenged. 

But the fact remains that the you were the one who first stated that the increased divorce rate and the damage of mothers leaving the home while they were still needed were costs of women’s education. 

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Peacefully said:

This deserves a mic drop. I’ve been reading through all of these posts but this is the best rebuttal to Grug’s baseless assertion that I’ve seen. I often felt “less than” when I joined the church because I was a working mom. Yes, it was out of necessity, but I also wanted to work. Both my daughter and my son are hard-workers and I think it comes from seeing both parents work hard. Now, after 30 years in the same industry, I’m very proud of my accomplishments, and I’m so thankful I grew up in a time of greater equality for women. 

👏 This 

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, pogi said:

I'm not sure how you get there.  Neanderthal is speaking about working mothers in general, and you both seem to be suggesting that working mothers unavoidably results in latchkey kids or single parent homes, divorce, delinquent, depressed and messed up kids, etc.  It simply doesn't seem to work that way in my observation. for the mothers that I know who work. 

I know lots of mothers who work and coordinate their work with their kids schooling/work/extra-curricular activities, or provide other methods of parental supervision for their kids when their schedules don't perfectly coincide.  Many choose to work for the school district to have matching breaks.  Others take the summer off.  Others choose jobs with really flexible schedules or choose to work places that they can telecommute (becoming very popular).  Many choose to become independent bloggers, or copywriters, or medical transcriptionists, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.  The possibilities seem to be endless to allow women to work by choice and provide supervision for their children.    Between work and school and extra-curricular activities for kids, there is often very little time where other methods of supervision need to be arranged.  Some only choose to work part-time.    

These dire warnings catastrophe over the general condition of women working is turning me off.  There are so many options to make it work. 

I know multiple mothers who work and all of them are home when their kids are.  There is one exception and she works four hours in the evening when her husband is home with their kids.

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Yes, of course. The main benefit is more money, but at what cost? 

This is not always true. Often the main benefit is the mental health of the mother. 

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m done here.  This is the most sexist baseless and assumptive thread I’ve seen here. 

It really is a wonder to behold. I don’t even work outside of the home and never have but even I find it offensive. 

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Peacefully said:

This deserves a mic drop. I’ve been reading through all of these posts but this is the best rebuttal to Grug’s baseless assertion that I’ve seen. I often felt “less than” when I joined the church because I was a working mom. Yes, it was out of necessity, but I also wanted to work. Both my daughter and my son are hard-workers and I think it comes from seeing both parents work hard. Now, after 30 years in the same industry, I’m very proud of my accomplishments, and I’m so thankful I grew up in a time of greater equality for women. 

Dang. I’m out of rep points. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Often the main benefit is the mental health of the mother. 

I think that's debatable. I think the primary motivating factor for most mothers who choose to work rather that stay home to devote their full attention to nurturing their children is the increase income. 

As for mental health, what impact does society demeaning stay at home moms have on the mental health of mothers by telling them that they aren’t as good as mothers who are also juggling careers? 

I won’t argue that many mothers who work find their careers fulfilling, but at what cost? And what about those women who would prefer to stay home but work because they feel societal pressure to do so? And what about women women who find juggling work and motherhood overwhelming, damaging their mental health?

[Islander]

On 1/23/2023 at 7:28 AM, The Great Pretender said:

During the Saturday Morning Session of General Conference on October 1, 2022, President Nelson said, “Any kind of abuse ... is an abomination to the Lord.”

That's a heartwarming soundbite, but what if some statements of prophets, seers, and revelators of yesteryear now qualify as abuse and/or hate speech according to dictionary definitions in 2023? Should it no longer matter because we've moved on?

Hate speech is rather political quicksand hanging on a purely subjective hook. I tend to ignore such "descriptions".

Now, lies and error are a different breed, especially when it comes to a GA. Simply because it places those statements outside of the truth of God. And that is extremely problematic. Whenever a GA makes a statement that over time proves to be totally wrong, it hammers away the credibility of the office. Whenever a "revelation" is uttered from the pulpit that has to be retracted or proven wrong, is one more block of the edifice that is removed. When President Nelson stated that  “Any kind of abuse ... is an abomination to the Lord.” he is stating a universal truth that extends across time, past and future. Has the definition of "abuse" changed over time as far as God is concerned? So, if a GA did not know what "abuse" was, what does that say about his alleged gift of prophesy and seership? Arguing that such events are inconsequential because the foundational gospel truths have not change is rather poor apologetics.

Just some thoughts.

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Calm, I get that you would very much like to take some these words back or qualify them because of the direction the discussion went after I agreed with the negative aspects you brought up in this post. But let’s look carefully at exactly what you said:

You made the statement that "women’s education… has also had an effect on divorce rates" and referred to this as a "cost." In making this statement, you made a clear connection between women’s education and a "spike" or increase in the "divorce rate." And you also clearly viewed the increase in the "divorce rate" as a negative consequence of "women’s education" by referring to the higher divorce rate as a "cost."

And yet we have people coming after me, for agreeing with you that women’s education has led to an increase in the divorce rate. People are denying that what you first pointed at as a statement of fact is true. 

Secondly, you also stated that "women's education" has been "damaging" because of the "cost of having fewer mothers fully in the home caring for children." This is again making a negative correlation between women’s education by stating that this has resulted in "having fewer mothers fully in the home caring for children," which you said was "damaging" and a "cost." 

You then provide a solution to the second cost of the damaging effects of "having fewer mothers fully in the home caring for children," by stating "if we get our act together we can have both fully educated and mothers able and willing to be in the home while needed." Which you obviously still believe is the solution to the problem, when you just said "we could remove even those costs if we really cared about keeping mothers in the home with young children."

I agree that women should be educated. I agree with you that the women’s education has had the two negative consequences that you mentioned. I agree with you that the solution to the "costs" you mentioned is for fully educated mothers to be "able and willing to be in the home while needed" by "keeping mothers in the home with young children."

Where I disagree is were you claimed that the two costs (negative consequences) you mentioned were worth it for the sake of equality and undoing the damage you believed was caused by women not being educated. 

Yeah, I get that. I made the counterargument that the two negative effects you pointed out weren’t worth it. And then proceeded to defend my position when challenged. 

But the fact remains that the you were the one who first stated that the increased divorce rate and the damage of mothers leaving the home while they were still needed were costs of women’s education. 

Wow. (And not a good wow). 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Wow. (And not a good wow). 

Please explain. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Secondly, you also stated that "women's education" has been "damaging" because of the "cost of having fewer mothers fully in the home caring for children." This is again making a negative correlation between women’s education by stating that this has resulted in "having fewer mothers fully in the home caring for children," which you said was "damaging" and a "cost." 

I know what I meant when I wrote it.  I was thinking specifically of abusive marriages and how education of women would affect that type of marriage where they would leave the marriage which would have the effect of adding to divorce rates. I was not thinking of all marriages in that sentence nor thinking of the effect of education in healthy marriages, which most likely increases stability and therefore decrease divorce rates. 

Something can have contrary effects when it is applied to different situations.  Adding a cup of sugar to a cake may improve its taste while adding a cup of sugar to gravy could make it taste terrible.  

And something can be defined as damaging in general (divorce) when it is beneficial in a specific case (ending an abusive relationship).  Or up close appears to be damaging (a stomach cut open) when in greater context is beneficial (surgery to remove cancer).

Later in the post when I was speaking of the global effect, I was including in my thoughts all marriages and families as overall generally benefiting from a mother’s education, especially benefiting from the equality of a mother with the father.  I see no way where this could damage the well-being of a child or make it harder for a marriage to stay intact if the mother was seen as equal to the father unless the marriage was already significantly dysfunctional.

American society itself has also been imo highly dysfunctional when it comes to mothers as it has idealized them by making it seem like all a woman needs to be in life is a mother, that is the ultimate and primary role she has instead of it being one of many roles and society has trivialized the role as well by typically not providing support for women in motherhood roles by often shaming those who find value in other ways in their lives even when they also invest tremendously in their family.  Ideal:  No one could fill the void a mother would leave.  Reality: when someone did fill the void of what a mother did, women’s work were some of the lowest paid jobs out there.  It was seen as unskilled labor.  And experience and talents developed by mothers aren’t typically seen as giving them any sort of edge in the workforce if one looks at the difficulty at times of reentry.  But the longer women are a major part of the work force, the more options will become, I believe, available for mothers because women themselves will generally be striving to give everyone in their family a better life (for example, my husband the entrepreneur professor sees a good percentage of women as highly entrepreneurial) and there will be men who will support their efforts.

Yes, some women will walk out of the marriage if educated where they wouldn’t have if they weren’t, if one is measuring just that one variable (asking divorced women if they would have stayed if no education or whatever measure amounts to that) one would see what appears to be an increase in divorce rate because of education .  And divorce will most likely mean an educated mother enters the work force because she can earn a better wage than welfare and therefore ends up less time at home with her kids when taking on a traditional job.  I was, btw, remembering experiences of women I knew in this case including near relatives.  The majority took the kids with them as they were either dumped by men no longer invested in the family or were fleeing an abusive relationship, a much smaller number left because they were unfulfilled and wanted a more interesting life.  My guess is educated women can probably create opportunities of fulfillment better in their homes than uneducated women, such as small businesses operating out of their home or finding work as aids in schools or tutors, do accounting for husbands or friends, catering, etc.  I know a lot of women who are earning income by teaching out of their home.

There are ways a marriage may be stronger if a woman is educated and that would cause the divorce rate to decrease.  The important value is the combination and I was not intending to say in those earlier sentences the combination was an increase of divorces.  Instead I was moving from one effect of education, that on abusive abusive marriages to the more global effect.  I am not surprised the sentences didn’t read that way as I was unclear, but that doesn’t change the intent and given my ending conclusions, I think one could get to my actual intent through them unless one focused too much on the earlier part and ignored the development. 

Something can be both damaging and healing at the same time.  A action may cause increases in both negative and positive effects, what matters is the whole picture. That is why I said the cost was worth it, not only for women but for families and societies. The benefits that come from women’s education way outweigh any costs, whatever they are, any damages whatever they are and that includes for families as educated women are more likely to have healthier children, the children will be better educated, relationships will typically have less financial stress, etc.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Please explain. 

This--"Calm, I get that you would very much like to take some these words back or qualify them-was such an unreasonable thing to say, that it was kind of shocking.  You've made a lot of irrational arguments but that was just jerky.  

You picked your screen name well.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I think that's debatable. I think the primary motivating factor for most mothers who choose to work rather that stay home to devote their full attention to nurturing their children is the increase income. 

As for mental health, what impact does society demeaning stay at home moms have on the mental health of mothers by telling them that they aren’t as good as mothers who are also juggling careers? 

I won’t argue that many mothers who work find their careers fulfilling, but at what cost? And what about those women who would prefer to stay home but work because they feel societal pressure to do so? And what about women women who find juggling work and motherhood overwhelming, damaging their mental health?

Everything that you've repeatedly said is debatable.  

But to the bold, I don't personally know any women who work because of societal pressure.  Hopefully--if that's actually a thing--they can get some counseling or something and not let peer pressure (regardless of what part of society it's coming from) make their decisions for them.

To the underlined, since our discussion is about women who work but don't have to, if they are suffering that much for no reason they should probably quit.

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I’m glad that your experience has been good so far. And I hope it stays that way. But with all due respect, you can’t possibly predict what kind of consequences this decision may or may not have down the road. Nor can you say with certainty that there aren’t any negative consequences now, that you just haven’t noticed. Time will tell. 

But I sincerely hope it all works out for you and wish you nothing but the best. 

She can predict the consequences of her choices a lot better than you can though, right?

[BlueDreams]

9 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I’m glad that your experience has been good so far. And I hope it stays that way. But with all due respect, you can’t possibly predict what kind of consequences this decision may or may not have down the road. Nor can you say with certainty that there aren’t any negative consequences now, that you just haven’t noticed. Time will tell. 

But I sincerely hope it all works out for you and wish you nothing but the best. 

Lol! I may not have a crystal ball, but I'll wager that I have a better understanding of what places a marriage at risk than you do. My job is basically helping couples have healthy relationships, with a focus on sexual issues. My masters is in marriage and family therapy. I got said degree at BYU, which had the top program in the US at the time. My obsession, due to my generationally problematic family was what made people tic and what was attributed to a healthy marriage, probability wise. At this point it's not hard for me to pinpoint a fatally flawed marriage or at least a marriage in serious risk in my office. 

In my years as a therapist, a woman choosing to work had absolutely no correlation to whether a marriage was fatally flawed or at risk. In all my studies I met no research that would point to that. The only time I've seen work be a problem is when one partner works too much or in high demand fields and it's causing stress or distance in their family relationships. Or when work is triangulated to ignore emotional/relational problems. But that happens more often with men than women. I don't think that's necessarily an inherent gender difference, just that different socialization pressures leaves it more likely to be men. 

Most the problems are pretty simple: conflict styles, abuse/control patterns, unresolved baggage that enters the marriage, stress management patterns, infidelity, etc. Some things increase likelihood of said problems, such as marrying young, marrying someone they don't really know (usually super fast relationships, but also longer ones with aloof/long-distance partners), marrying for social pressure or ulterior reasons (ex. wanting stability, wanting a baby), etc.

I don't have any of these in my relationship.  Closest one is a fast marriage....but I knew him pretty well by the time I said yes over the alter. A plane can always crash, but a well built one flying on a good weather day is extremely unlikely to do so. That's my marriage. I'm not worried at all.

Certain couples with certain relationship styles come with their own strengths and potential weaknesses. That includes traditional set ups where mom is at home, dad works. The biggest ones I've seen entail disconnection because they get so focused on their roles they lose track of being partners or themselves. Another is falling into dependency and/or conflict about things like finances because it's "his" money and the one hand doesn't fully see of value the other. Another is work load at home begins to fall heavily on the woman. With kids it can be a stronger connection to mom than dad or an idealized play-based relationship with dad v mom. A big one that happened for my grandma was basically getting trapped in a bad relationship for decades. I could give you another list of potential problems/weaknesses for large families, never having kids, blended family, working moms and dads, etc. Each couple will need to balance and be aware of potential risks and benefits in deciding what's best for them and theirs. I don't have a need to denigrate a decision that's not mine. My SAHM's are not more or less than my working mom friends. 

8 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I disagree with your characterization of the link I shared. You’re right it’s not a single study, it’s a completion of quotes from multiple studies. The sources are all named and documented, so the original studies can all be tracked down. 

You can disagree. It's still certifiably crap research. I would have been seriously dinged if I gave something that fundamentally flawed and biased as a source for my ideas.  

8 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

And in addition to these studies, we have the words of our apostles and other church leaders warning us over and over again how unnecessary mother absence will have serious consequences on marriages, families, and society at large. You are free to consider their warnings to be outdated and sexist, but I believe them.

Are there exceptions to the rule and do many duel income families make it work? Sure. But to me it’s clear that the warning of the negative impacts this would have on society are coming to pass. 

Funny story, I was always uncomfortable with the Proc, because it seemed to only be interpreted the way you picture it from my generally more conservative church leaders growing up. But in a sunday school lesson while I sat with my then fiance, I read it and realized that we were planning to follow the advice given to a tee...even though people like you would not see it that way. Turns out I have more of a problem with its most common interpretations that were particularly prominent when I was pretty young...not with the actual principle. I believe firmly in Prophets and apostles. One of my favorite sections is moses 5, when it describes the interconnected and equitable relationship of Adame and Eve. And I believe in continuing revelation and restoration. I don't need the advice from the 70's/80's to become crystallized for all time. Which is why they've likely shifted talks and guidance to be more inclusive and careful with their messages in the last 10-15 years especially. It's becomes more and more apparent that this view you describe is oversimplistic, fuels unnecessary conflict, and quite often is just not true. 

As I mentioned, each work and family decision has it's strengths and weaknesses. NONE of them are a good measuring stick for child and family outcomes. NONE of them. Stable homes, with loving parents, who teach them their values, support them when they struggle, and are flexible enough to shift plans when needed....those are great patterns and it can happen in a large family or a small. A family with 2 working parents or ones with more traditional parental roles. 

8 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I would also like to remind everyone here that it was Calm who initially brought up the connection between women working and the increased divorce rate and not me. She considered the spike in divorce rate to be worth it for equalities sake. Then I agreed with her on the connection she pointed out, but disagreed that it was worth it. 

I didn't take Calm's initial words the way you did. Especially after she clarified and made it absolutely clear what she meant. It seems only respectful to take her at her word and not yours. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Buckeye]

I’ll throw in my anecdote. As background, my wife and I grew up in the church, met at byu, got married after I served a mission and before she could, and have five active children - some at home, one at byu, one on a mission. Both our extended families are large (5-7 siblings) and everyone is active and married in the temple save one sibling. None of us feels particularly noteworthy but we’re the ones people in the ward would think “are fully on the covenant path”. 
 

Working outside the home is one of the best things my wife has chosen. Initially we handicapped her - I rushed getting to law school and we agreed she’d graduate with a marriage/family degree rather than what she really was interested in because that was all she could squeeze. As such, while at home with five young ones she was also getting teaching certificates and a masters degree online. It was rough at times. But so worth it.
 

She’s an educator who works outside. I’m an attorney blessed to work at home. While no situation is perfect, ours is as good as we could design in the current world. I absolutely love being home when the kids arrive from school. I get time with them, which I rarely have in the church since I’ve always been given administrative callings that take me away. She was with them full time while they were young and still manages to get to all sports, band, etc activities. If she were at home now she’s be completely bored,  not to mention frustrated with my being here. 🙂

Over the years we’ve heard a few typical criticisms - “doesn’t your husband earn a good salary”, “I’m surprised your wife trusts you to grocery shop”, etc. Mostly I believe these come from people wrestling with their own circumstances and choices. 

I’m very confident our children are blessed from us both working outside the home. To put things in a gospel perspective, they have two strong witnesses of the joy that comes through fulfilling a parent’s responsibility to provide, protect, preside, and most importantly nurture. 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Buckeye

[smac97]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

It really is a wonder to behold. I don’t even work outside of the home and never have but even I find it offensive. 

I'm curious.  Are you finding my remarks out-of-turn / problematic / offensive?  If so, I'd like to understand that more.

Thanks,

-Smac