To the women of the board

[_EAllusion]

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.

I like how this post starts out identifying a problem with parents (i.e. men and women) not spending enough time with their children and somehow pivots to arguing this means women, and women specifically, should be stay at home parents. God forbid a man do something domestic.

[_harmony]

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.

I like how this post starts out identifying a problem with parents (i.e. men and women) not spending enough time with their children and somehow pivots to arguing this means women, and women specifically, should be stay at home parents. God forbid a man do something domestic.

After 19 years of 8 kids, 24/7, I'd have been eternally grateful to have to cope for only 4 hrs a day. When my youngest went to 1st grade, I went back to college. My oldest went on his mission. It took me 7 years, but I earned those 3 degrees, and my older kids were absolutely necessary to my success. My house had it's moments of possible condemnation by the board of health, my meals might have more often than I'd been comfortable with been hotdogs and potato salad, and I didn't read a novel in 7 years... but we were all in it together, and we all succeeded.

Benson was definitely not my fav church president.

[_Jason Bourne]

The advice to not work outside of the home is so U.S. centric that it's laughable.

I still remember one of the investigators on my mission who read that pamphlet "A Las Madres en Sion" (I assume it's "To the Mothers in Zion" in English, but I've never seen the English version). In it Ezra Taft Benson gives the some advice to mothers, one of which is to not work outside the home. The investigator was married with four kids. I asked him what he thought of the pamphlet. His thoughts were basically (paraphrasing), "It's a nice pamphlet with some good advice, but that whole not working out of the home thing can't happen, we need to eat."

And that's pretty much the situation for almost every family in a 3rd world country, if you want to eat, you both work. Maybe the children will REALLY feel the spirit while they slowly starve to death, but I doubt it.

There is no question the LDS Church has taught and still teaches that it is best for a mother to be in the home. Personally I believe that while children are young it is a positive thing to have one parent in the home. That said, as I noted above I think choice as to what works best for the family is up to the family.

That said, I have to say that in spite of the post above I have never heard council to have a mother stay at home while the family starves. In fact even when I have heard strong rhetoric there has been the qualifier that if the family needs a mother to work to provide the necessities of life they should. But not for the luxuries.

Aristotle, have you really heard differently?

[_Aristotle Smith]

The advice to not work outside of the home is so U.S. centric that it's laughable.

I still remember one of the investigators on my mission who read that pamphlet "A Las Madres en Sion" (I assume it's "To the Mothers in Zion" in English, but I've never seen the English version). In it Ezra Taft Benson gives the some advice to mothers, one of which is to not work outside the home. The investigator was married with four kids. I asked him what he thought of the pamphlet. His thoughts were basically (paraphrasing), "It's a nice pamphlet with some good advice, but that whole not working out of the home thing can't happen, we need to eat."

And that's pretty much the situation for almost every family in a 3rd world country, if you want to eat, you both work. Maybe the children will REALLY feel the spirit while they slowly starve to death, but I doubt it.

There is no question the LDS Church has taught and still teaches that it is best for a mother to be in the home. Personally I believe that while children are young it is a positive thing to have one parent in the home. That said, as I noted above I think choice as to what works best for the family is up to the family.

That said, I have to say that in spite of the post above I have never heard council to have a mother stay at home while the family starves. In fact even when I have heard strong rhetoric there has been the qualifier that if the family needs a mother to work to provide the necessities of life they should. But not for the luxuries.

Aristotle, have you really heard differently?

No I haven't, but that wasn't my point. My point was: "The advice to not work outside of the home is so U.S. centric that it's laughable." If the church wants to claim to be global, it has to address global needs, not continue to dispense U.S. centric advice and trust that everyone else will modify the U.S. centric advice according to local circumstances.

I trust that the GAs would consider the actions of 3rd world families with both parents working to be fully justified.

[_why me]

I benefited greatly when my stay-at-home mother started working and stopped spending evenings drinking too much with the neighbors out of boredom.

Can't speak for others.

As I have stated people need to be taught how to be good parents. However, I showed the situation in Finland where children are mainly put in day care and now when they are teenagers they are being parented not by parents but by bad influenced 'friends' acting as parents. The reason: because parents parented their children only four hours a day at a time when they were too tired to be parents.

[_Jersey Girl]

I have so many opinions about this, Scottie. I'm not LDS but I think, due to my profession, that I qualify for offering comment.

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.

Good intro, good approach. :-)

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.

I agree that the different genders hold gender specific traits, however, it's not a black/white given. The differences are due to brain functioning, hormones, socialization and get this, evolution.

Men, typically, are the ones that want to earn the paycheck.

Hunters.

Women, typically, are the ones that want to nurture the family.

Gatherers.

It's not a matter of what men or women "want to" do, Scottie. It is a matter of what they are built/wired to do.

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.

That's because every child benefits from the security of a nest.

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

I don't think it's a matter of the teaching being "wrong". I think there are multiple reasons why women might find it offensive or limiting. I should probably wait until I have more time to prepare a response but since that's not going to happen, here goes an off the cuff list:

1. Not all women want to have and raise children.
2. The message itself is that "there are limits to what you are permitted to do".
3. The limitations ignore the many talents of women and their potential to contribute to society as a whole.
4. Since the limitations/permissions are transmitted primarily from males, women resent being dictated to by males. (Well, this one does :-)
5. The limitations ignore the multi-layered dreams and hopes of women.
6. The limitations don't allow for the possibilty of women fulfilling more than one role in their lives.


I could do better than this, I don't have time.

Let me say this, but quickly. I do believe that the best situation for a child is to be raised by a primary caretaker for the first 5 years of their lives. I believe that beastie mentioned the importance of the first 3 years, however, I would extend that to age 5 or possibly 6. Basically, when the child is in school full time. It has to do with how children develop a sense of security, self esteem, positive self image, confidence, and social learning via the process of assimilation and accomodation.

The bonding experience is relevant to how the child will come to view themselves, people they encounter, and the self esteem that allows to them to approach the world with confidence. The optimum (oh, here I go) bonding experience begins with immediate family, then grandparents, other relatives, people in the community such as pediatrician, teachers, baby sitters, etc. Think of it a series of concentric circles with the family in the center. The child's social sphere increases with their increasing social experiences. The anchor for the child, the safe haven, the solid footing, the foundation of the universe, if you will, is the parents.

That said, what a child needs most in order to thrive, is one person to fall in love with them, who thinks the sun rises and sets on them, who is faithful to respond to their call for interaction. I can tell you that I have met numerous fathers who are willing and able to fill this role better than their wives.

Falling in love with a child isn't gender specific.

Each parent, in a two parent home, has a stake in the child's well being and I think the problem with the LDS teaching is that it attempts to place a role on each gender that isn't particularly necessary and ignores the individuals that fill those roles.

Generally speaking, women are natural nurturers, men are natural providers. The woman's brain is built for multi-tasking,the male's brain is built for a linear, more single focused response. Women are talented in the area of intuitive response, men are talented (I love this line by Dave Ramsey so I'm stealing it) in their ability to "kill it and drag it home".

That doesn't mean that there are no men who aren't able to intuit the needs, feelings of others or that women cannot bring home provisions for the family tribe. Of course, they can and of course, they do.

I would have less of a problem with the churches teaching if it wasn't so locked into assignment by gender and more supportive of this if it were more child-focused. In other words, what the child needs and let the family choose who provides it and how.

What matters most to the child is that he/she is loved and cared for consistently by (we hope) someone who has fallen head over heels with him/her.

(I said I didn't have time for more than a quick reply, I obviously lied. ;-)

[_EAllusion]

As I have stated people need to be taught how to be good parents. However, I showed the situation in Finland where children are mainly put in day care and now when they are teenagers they are being parented not by parents but by bad influenced 'friends' acting as parents. The reason: because parents parented their children only four hours a day at a time when they were too tired to be parents.

You're not arguing that parents should spend more time at home. You are arguing that women should be homemakers. These are quite distinct things. Men can stay at home too.

[_Jersey Girl]

I benefited greatly when my stay-at-home mother started working and stopped spending evenings drinking too much with the neighbors out of boredom.

Can't speak for others.

As I have stated people need to be taught how to be good parents. However, I showed the situation in Finland where children are mainly put in day care and now when they are teenagers they are being parented not by parents but by bad influenced 'friends' acting as parents. The reason: because parents parented their children only four hours a day at a time when they were too tired to be parents.

How would you suggest that people be taught how to be good parents?

[_why me]

No I haven't, but that wasn't my point. My point was: "The advice to not work outside of the home is so U.S. centric that it's laughable." If the church wants to claim to be global, it has to address global needs, not continue to dispense U.S. centric advice and trust that everyone else will modify the U.S. centric advice according to local circumstances.

I trust that the GAs would consider the actions of 3rd world families with both parents working to be fully justified.

The united states used to a one parent income society. But likewise for most of the western world. In third world countries, women were mainly having children, especially in the islamic countries. Now, the world has changed. Two incomes are needed to survive in most cases. The LDS church knows this. To compare the situation today in america to 40 years ago is laughable. It is even laughable to compare the US today to 20 years ago.

Women need to work to survive and to support their families. Thus, one can be a Mormon woman and still work with small children at home. Mrs. Consig may not realize that times have changed. The situation is more complicated and adjustments have to be made. Likewise for many women here. Lets listen to bob dylan sing the times they are a changing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrIPQxrog8M

The critics here have not realized that the times are changing. Capitalism is bankrupt and people are working their butts off to survive. What should the LDS church do? Women need to work. But is it best for the kids...no. Who is parenting the kids?

[_Jersey Girl]

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.

Tell me what day care professionals do?