To the women of the board

[_Scottie]

Before I ask my question, I would like to state that I am doing this in a respectful manner with a genuine curiosity as to how you feel. I'm an not making any judgement calls.

That being said, why is there so much animosity towards the brethren for requesting that women stay home and raise the children? At the risk of sounding sexist, I do believe that the different genders have qualities that are different. Men, typically, are the ones that want to earn the paycheck. Women, typically, are the ones that want to nurture the family.

When I was growing up, I had a working mother. In the field she was in, she typically had Fridays off. Those were the best days for me! There was something wonderful about coming home and having my mom there. It wasn't necessarily bad on the days she had to work, but Fridays were just that much more special to me. Had circumstances allowed, I would have loved my Mother to be home every day.

Perhaps the women of the board could help me to understand why the teaching to stay home and raise the children is so wrong?

[_Some Schmo]

I won't pretend to speak for the women, but I get the feeling it has something to do with being told what to do and what women should value rather than leaving the choice in their hands. It's making them feel inadequate if their choice is a professional career over child rearing.

That would be my guess, anyway. I think I would feel that way.

[_just me]

I might need to give more thought to this before I give a really good response. But here are my initial thoughts.

First, let me say that the biggest issue is that this teaching leads to a woman who is financially crippled and totally financially dependant on someone else. This can be unhealthy for a number of reasons. Reasons I would hope would be obvious.

Second, the way in which this counsel is given is very sexist. Many of the reasons Benson (or whoever it was) gave for staying home indicate that a woman is just too weak to work outside the home. She might get an ego, she might have an affair, etc, etc. Aren't men just as susceptible to these things as women? Yes. So it is sexist.

Why are 80+ year old men dictating what it means to be a woman? What the hell do they know about being a woman? Nothing.

In the early times of the Relief Society it was not a counsel of the church for women to "stay at home." The Relief Society had a hospital for crying out loud! Many women were encouraged to become midwives, nurses and even doctors! They ran their own Society and they published their own magazines, etc. They were independant. They even had a wheat granary (or whatever holds wheat) and sold it to the church. Pursuing outside vocations and interests was not seen as a conflict with the duties of raising children. Of course, when you are sharing a husband you probably don't have much choice but to earn your family some money.

It seems that this counsel really started to kick into gear when the rest of the world started in on it. After WWII and then it ratcheted it up again during the ERA movement.

Households operate a lot easier today. Laundry doesn't require a vagina. Dishes and cooking do not require breasts. Running a vacuum can be done by virtually anyone. You get my drift. People used to spend a whole day washing laundry and the entire next day ironing it. We are lucky to live in an age where it is much easier to stay clean.

Not only does the church tell women to stay at home and raise babies, it also tells us not to put off having babies for worldly reasons. This has caused a great deal of women to shoot themselves in the foot by not completing their education. Even those who do may not ever work in their field after college. If this woman ever needs to go to work, she tends to end up in low wage dead-end jobs. This goes back to how economically crippling this counsel is.

Many women do not enjoy being home raising babies 24/7. It can be lonely, it can be boring, it can be an unfulfilling and thankless job. That is not to say there aren't women who LOVE it and would never change a thing. There are! And they shouldn't be belittled for their choice to be a SAHM.
But there are women who truly enjoy working outside the home. Sadly, if they are LDS they often feel guilty about this...not just LDS moms, but that is who we are talking about here. I know several working LDS moms who will say they wish they could stay home, but when I ask they will admit that they actually wouldn't like it because they really love working. To me, that is sad.

The church suggests a cookie-cutter approach to life. I think that today more people DON'T fit the mold than do.

There is nothing about working outside the home that makes you unable to nurture your children. Just like fathers are perfectly able to nurture their children even though they work outside the home. There are plenty of SAHM who are not very good at nurturing, too. A capability of bearing children does not make you a "good" nurturer.

[_bcspace]

That being said, why is there so much animosity towards the brethren for requesting that women stay home and raise the children? At the risk of sounding sexist, I do believe that the different genders have qualities that are different. Men, typically, are the ones that want to earn the paycheck. Women, typically, are the ones that want to nurture the family.

I don't sense a whole lot of animosity towards it in the Church. Obviously one will not likely find themselves in the Church if they have such animosity.

[_Scottie]

Thank you for your thoughts, Just Me.

That was a great post! It makes a lot of sense.

[_MsJack]

Well said, just me.

In the early times of the Relief Society it was not a counsel of the church for women to "stay at home."

Yup. These were some of the things the Relief Society was preaching in the 1800s:

• “It has been the popular cry that no woman could be a good, true, loving wife, and at the same time successfully follow any profession. If so, neither can a man do justice to any professional calling and prove a kind, affectionate, and loving husband.” ~ “Heart vs. Head,” Exponent, 15 Nov. 1874, 92.
• “If there be some women in whom the love of learning extinguishes all other love, then the heaven-appointed sphere of that woman is not the nursery. It may be the library, the laboratory, the observatory.” ~ “Education of Women,” Exponent, 1 Apr. 1873, 163.
• “[T]rain [you]rself to fill any position and place of trust and honor as appropriately and with as much dignity as [you]r brother man.” ~ “Man’s Flattery of Woman,” Young Woman’s Journal 1 (Mar. 1890): 192.

(Cited in Women & Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism, Chapter 3)

All I'm asking is for the LDS church to go back to teaching things like that instead of things like this:

• “The husband is expected to support his family and only in an emergency should a wife secure outside employment. Her place is in the home, to build the home into a heaven of delight. . . . I beg of you, you who could and should be bearing and rearing a family: Wives, come home from the typewriter, the laundry, the nursing, come home from the factory, the café. No career approaches in importance that of wife, homemaker, mother—cooking meals, washing dishes, making beds for one’s precious husband and children.” ~ Spencer W. Kimball, “The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood,” Ensign, Mar. 1976, 73 [cited in the 2003 Eternal Marriage Student Manual]
• “It is well-nigh impossible to be a full-time homemaker and a full-time employee.” ~ Gordon B. Hinckley, “Women of the Church,” Ensign, Nov. 1996, 69 [cited in the 2003 Eternal Marriage Student Manual].
• “Do you wish to marry a girl whose education has been far superior to your own?” ~ Gordon B. Hinckley, “Rise Up, O Men of God,” Ensign, Nov. 2006, 61.

[_why me]

Children today would be less screwed up if mothers knew how to be mothers and if fathers knew how to be fathers. The fact is: the skill of being a good parent is in short supply. And mothers and fathers have less time to be with their children when they are working outside the home.

In some parts of Europe, both the man and the woman can work long hours. The child is in daycare from 7am. One parent picks up the child at 5pm. By 8pm, the child is in bed.

And if this is the majority of cases, the child is being more or less raised by daycare professionals. Much better to be at home with a loving mom with other loving moms next door.

[_why me]

Well said, just me.

In the early times of the Relief Society it was not a counsel of the church for women to "stay at home."

Yup. These were some of the things the Relief Society was preaching in the 1800s:

• “It has been the popular cry that no woman could be a good, true, loving wife, and at the same time successfully follow any profession. If so, neither can a man do justice to any professional calling and prove a kind, affectionate, and loving husband.” ~ “Heart vs. Head,” Exponent, 15 Nov. 1874, 92.
• “If there be some women in whom the love of learning extinguishes all other love, then the heaven-appointed sphere of that woman is not the nursery. It may be the library, the laboratory, the observatory.” ~ “Education of Women,” Exponent, 1 Apr. 1873, 163.
• “[T]rain [you]rself to fill any position and place of trust and honor as appropriately and with as much dignity as [you]r brother man.” ~ “Man’s Flattery of Woman,” Young Woman’s Journal 1 (Mar. 1890): 192.

(Cited in Women & Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism, Chapter 3)

All I'm asking is for the LDS church to go back to teaching things like that instead of things like this:

• “The husband is expected to support his family and only in an emergency should a wife secure outside employment. Her place is in the home, to build the home into a heaven of delight. . . . I beg of you, you who could and should be bearing and rearing a family: Wives, come home from the typewriter, the laundry, the nursing, come home from the factory, the café. No career approaches in importance that of wife, homemaker, mother—cooking meals, washing dishes, making beds for one’s precious husband and children.” ~ Spencer W. Kimball, “The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood,” Ensign, Mar. 1976, 73 [cited in the 2003 Eternal Marriage Student Manual]
• “It is well-nigh impossible to be a full-time homemaker and a full-time employee.” ~ Gordon B. Hinckley, “Women of the Church,” Ensign, Nov. 1996, 69 [cited in the 2003 Eternal Marriage Student Manual].
• “Do you wish to marry a girl whose education has been far superior to your own?” ~ Gordon B. Hinckley, “Rise Up, O Men of God,” Ensign, Nov. 2006, 61.

Times have changed. Have children now benefitted from both parents working? I don't think so. It seems that many kids are screwed up big time. But that is just my opinion.

[_Scottie]

Children today would be less screwed up if mothers knew how to be mothers and if fathers knew how to be fathers. The fact is: the skill of being a good parent is in short supply. And mothers and fathers have less time to be with their children when they are working outside the home.

In some parts of Europe, both the man and the woman can work long hours. The child is in daycare from 7am. One parent picks up the child at 5pm. By 8pm, the child is in bed.

And if this is the majority of cases, the child is being more or less raised by daycare professionals. Much better to be at home with a loving mom with other loving moms next door.

The majority of the cases?? What?? Where are you getting that?

[_Scottie]

Times have changed. Have children now benefitted from both parents working? I don't think so. It seems that many kids are screwed up big time. But that is just my opinion.

50 years ago it was the "rock & roll" screwing the kids up.

20 years ago it was the video games screwing kids up.

There is always something screwing the kids up.

And, yet, society still seems to function pretty well.