In his address during the Sunday Morning Session of the recent General Conference President Nelson said:
“Thirty-six years ago, in 1979, President Spencer W. Kimball made a profound prophecy about the impact that covenant-keeping women would have on the future of the Lord’s Church. He prophesied: “Much of the major growth that is coming to the Church in the last days will come because many of the good women of the world … will be drawn to the Church in large numbers. This will happen to the degree that the women of the Church reflect righteousness and articulateness in their lives and to the degree that the women of the Church are seen as distinct and different—in happy ways—from the women of the world.””
Sheri L. Dew used the same quote in her address “We Are Women of God” during the October 1999 General Women’s Meeting, and the quote originates from President Kimball’s address “The Role Of Righteous Women” given in 1979, as President Nelson remarked, at a Women’s Fireside. Because President Kimball was himself in hospital, his address was read by his wife Camilla Kimball.
I remember hearing Sheri Dew use the quote and I have heard it many times since. Each time I wonder just what precisely those ‘happy ways’ are meant to be. With President Nelson’s address the question screams ever more loudly: what happy ways? How are the women in the church distinct and different in happy ways?
It is only now, being both too young and geographically far from the events surrounding the ERA and church opposition to it in the 70s USA, that I am aware of the context of the original address. It seems that 1979 was an important year so far as activism inside the church was concerned. In September 1979 ERA supporter Sonia Johnson addressed the American Psychological Association on the topic “Patriarchal Panic: Sexual Politics in the Mormon Church”, which had received media attention, and was apparently the catalyst for her excommunication by the end of that year. That context certainly alters my view of the original statement, as does my reading of the full address, surrounded on either side by the suggestion that women who want anything outside home and family are selfish and after the adulation of the world:
“…Let other women pursue heedlessly what they perceive as their selfish interests. You can be a much needed force for love and truth and righteousness on this planet. Let others selfishly pursue false values, but God has given to you the tremendous tasks of nurturing families, friends, and neighbors, just as men are to provide. But both husband and wife are to be parents!
“Finally, my dear sisters, may I suggest to you something that has not been said before or at least in quite this way. Much of the major growth that is coming to the Church in the last days will come because many of the good women of the world (in whom there is often such an inner sense of spirituality) will be drawn to the Church in large numbers. This will happen to the degree that the women of the Church reflect righteousness and articulateness in their lives and to the degree that the women of the Church are seen as distinct and different—in happy ways—from the women of the world.
“Among the real heroines in the world who will come into the Church are women who are more concerned with being righteous than with being selfish. These real heroines have true humility, which places a higher value on integrity than on visibility…”
Sheri Dew uses the quote supporting changes being made to RS (the introduction of what became known as Home, Family and Personal Enrichment Meeting replacing what had been Homemaking Meeting), speaking about forsaking the world and building up our heavenly as opposed to earthly kingdoms because “[w]e no longer have the luxury of spending our energy on anything that does not lead us and our families to Christ.” Sadly their vision for the great good Relief Society might achieve with this change would appear to remain largely unfulfilled some 16 years later.
And so to President Nelson’s address. Perhaps the problem is that I am not the only one unable to understand what is meant by ‘happy ways’. President Nelson follows the quote with:
“Your virtue, light, love, knowledge, courage, character, faith, and righteous lives will draw good women of the world, along with their families, to the Church in unprecedented numbers!”
Are these the happy ways? I don’t know about you, but I see these qualities in many men and women outside the LDS church. They are certainly far from being unique. They can be found in Quakers, Methodists, Baptists, Anglicans, Catholics, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and yes Atheists. Do those qualities attract me? Well, yes. On that basis perhaps I should be investigating their beliefs and practices. Distinct and different? Not so much. And with the frustration I’ve experienced, can I honestly say the LDS church has anything better to offer them?
President Nelson’s address was frustrating in many, many ways, some of which have been addressed in other posts: here, here and here for instance. But for me the biggest personal irony came less than a week after his address was given: my observation that female autonomy to act within the temple (the only place women get to perform ordinances) has been eroded. It doesn’t bode well for the future, and it hurt my heart to see it. My take away to President Nelson’s plea that “We need your strength, your conversion, your conviction, your ability to lead, your wisdom, and your voices.” Only insofar as we are doing those things to facilitate the actions of men.
- What do you think the happy ways are?
- Do you feel happy or frustrated in your interactions at church?
- What do you make of the context of the original statement?
- What have you observed?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
You say: “…my observation that female autonomy to act within the temple … has been eroded.” What happened? Can you elaborate? I haven’t been to the temple recently–did something change?
Amy,
At the end of an endowment session it used to be one of the women temple workers would indicate to the waiting women when to approach the veil, and a male temple worker would do the same for the men. This was no longer the case. The woman temple worker had to keep catching the eye of the male temple worker to indicate that there were spaces available so that he would then indicate to the women when to approach the veil, in addition to indicating to the men. It was painful to watch.
I don’t know why the change, or what the practice is or has been in other temples, but I wasn’t the only one to notice the change.
A small thing perhaps. But why?
It seems that when you live in a majority LDS community you get the belief, often expressed in conference, that all good resides in the church, and that the world is evil, and attacking families and values. Perhaps having Las Vegas just down the road?
In the week after listening to conference, I went to a family gathering (all non members) and my wife and I both commented on how the young fathers played with their children, there were no drunken brawls, in fact these non members behaved at least as well as you would expect a similar group of Mormons to behave.
When the quote from elder Nelsons talk is put in context it is not very hopeful. I think the idea that LDS women, and people in general, are somehow extraordinary “in a happy way” is a result of the isolation described above.
Should a Prophet be more aware of reality?
When we put my parents in a nursing home, we found a book on family life in the church, that explains that a woman will not be happy unless she has a man who is her master, and rules over her. My parents were converts, in an area where there were no other members and were trying to behave like Mormons should. This was their reference.
This is from the era when Elder Nelson was in his prime and he probably supported that view and is having trouble changing, if he is trying.
Perhaps a Prophet can be equally unaware of reality with regard to the place of women in the world and the church.
Putting that quote in the context of the ERA battle certainly does add a different layer of meaning.
I remember reading a booklet by Spencer W. Kimball on the roles of men and women in marriage, though I can’t remember the name. It had lots of cringe-inducing advice, like wives having a warm supper ready when the man came home from work, letting him relax and tell you about his day before bombarding him with complaints about your day, etc. Maybe those are the happy ways he was referring to?
I imagine Pres. Kimball’s audience would have understood it to mean, don’t work outside the home, choose to be a homemaker, and choose to have children. Today, the audience probably takes it to mean women generally living the gospel and having the light of Christ in their lives, and not so much about career and family choices.
Thanks for pointing out that temple incident…have not seen it but will keep my eyes open next month.
Hedgehog, that is not the case in the Provo Temple. The person inviting the women to the veil is still the female veil coordinator.
Egocentric view of the universe and echoes of the Rameumptom.
We are extra special.
We are not a part of those old traditions (apostasy).
We understand God’s nature better than anyone else.
In short, the goodness that exists outside Mormonism isn’t God telling us we’re part of something bigger.
All (sigh) – no one in the Church EVER said that we LDS have exclusive province on righteousness. On the contrary, we get reminded CONSTANTLY (especially in LDS Conference PH session) wherein we need to improve and/or repent. I’m sorry that SOME members act as if they TOO walk on water. With my considerable experience and not just with watercraft I can say that were I to attempt same I’d sink (unless I had a glass sheet cleverly just under the water like Ric Ocasek did in his “Magic” video from the mid-80s).
One of the uniquely Mormon traits often parodied in media is that we are naive, gullible, and optimistic. I’m not sure that’s entirely accurate in what I see. I find that the Mormons I know are very “in the world” but just don’t revel in it; they are aware, but don’t participate in some of it. They go to the work functions, but they drink a diet coke. We are more like recovering alcoholics than overgrown boy scouts (at least those I know). I suppose choosing not to participate in some of these activities can be seen as the “unhappy” ways.
Geoff, thanks for that perspective. You may well be right on the effect of being the majority in a community (and even Las Vegas…).
“When we put my parents in a nursing home, we found a book on family life in the church, that explains that a woman will not be happy unless she has a man who is her master, and rules over her. My parents were converts, in an area where there were no other members and were trying to behave like Mormons should. This was their reference.”
Ouch! How old was this book?
Joel, I think you are right that the meanings that are perhaps attributed to it today, are very different to the meanings 36 years ago. That booklet sounds like it came straight out of the 1950s.
Thanks Naismith. I’d be very interested to know how widespread this might be.
Marivene. Good to know. Lets hope it stays that way.
Vinz, it can certainly come across that way sometimes. I am more and more inclined to see all good people as being part of the broader church of Christ the scriptures mention.
Douglas: “no one in the Church EVER said that we LDS have exclusive province on righteousness.”
Perhaps not, but we do hear an awful lot about the evil world.
hawkgrrrl: “I suppose choosing not to participate in some of these activities can be seen as the “unhappy” ways.”
Quite possibly, especially if a big fuss is made about it. Though I think not drinking alcohol is more socially accepted now, and smoking regarded as antisocial.
My feelings about the “happy ways” are that he is telling us to stop complaining. We are expected to put on a happy face, and tell every one how happy we are and not say differently if we are not. For many years I’ve wondered why I was so unhappy when I had all of the wonderful blessings of the gospel and a great family. Many people say that their biggest regret at the end of their life would be not spending enough time with loved ones. I have spent my time, doing all I could for my family. I regret so very much not having a career, I think it would have taught my children so much more.
I feel sorry for a lot of the mormon woman here in New Zealand. Many of them would love to stay at home and not have to work, but for many this is not possible.
It is just too expensive here. Many people have to have the husband and wife work just to get by. These are not people who can afford to buy homes but are forced to rent, so its not because they choose to live an exstravigant life.
My wife and I choose to live in a community where house prices are low so that we can afford to have here stay at home with our 3, soon to be 4 children. I have a good job so we get by ok but many people in our ward have to both work, as well paid employment is rare in our small town.
The world is changing and having the wife at home to raise the 8 children is not a reality in NZ unless you have a high paid job. Its an ideal that is still heard through church communications, that is almost non existant here.
Hedgehog, Women stiil occupying that invitational role in my middle of the U.S. temple. Occasionally a brother will cover for a sister or vice versa if the temple shift that day is shorthanded so the the other can take care of other helpful patron assistance. What to do in such cases is determined by the local temple president and then the respective male and female veil coordinators of a particular session will decide if one of them will do that inviting solo, which they occasionally do, usually to keep patrons from having to wait longer.
Hope this helps.
Eva, that is interesting. If that is what was going on in the session I attended it wasn’t working very well for sure. It was a really busy session with a lot of men as well as women, and the male worker had his hands full keeping up with the men. The female worker seemed pretty irritated at times that she couldn’t just indicate to the women herself, and had to keep indicating to the male worker that he needed to. It was slowing things down rather than speeding them up. It’s not something I’ve ever seen before, and the conversation between the two women beside me appeared to indicate that it was due to a change in rules, though the details of the change weren’t discussed.
Susan, a fair reading. There have certainly been a lot of talks that have more explicitly made those points about being happy. I imagine most people have some regrets about what might have been. I guess we can’t know how things would have worked out otherwise. But as someone who has also spent the last nearly 18 years as a SAHM, I have more than a little sympathy for your position.
Aotearoa Abinadi, that’s also the case here in Britain for many people. My husband and I were fortunate in that we got on the property ladder before prices more than tripled, and were careful to base our borrowings at the time on a single salary. But yes, not a lot of well-paid employment in this city either. We also still hear all that stuff through church channels, including a few stake conferences ago, speakers encouraging large families. President Kimball’s address did actually make some passing remark about understanding the position of those who need to work. But it was very much an attitude of only if it is a necessity.
My dad is currently serving in a temple presidency, and I read him the comment regarding the woman having to rely on the male temple working to beckon sisters forward. He and my mom laughed. They said in their temple it can be the case that the woman beckons both men and women forward. He assured me that the temple handbook does not require the arrangement Hedgehog describes. It’s possible that someone has decided independently to put such a policy in place, but if so it is an isolated move.
Thanks Lori. It gives me hope if this is an isolated case. It was really weird to watch the sister trying to catch the male worker’s attention. Hoping it can die a quick death.
I am one of those women who joined the church during Pres. Kimball’s tenure because of his teachings about women and especially equal partnership in marriage.
Back in the 1970s, I was a dues-paying member of the National Organization for Women. But I was very disillusioned at how my feminist friends treated motherhood. They didn’t seem to grasp how much work it really is.
What the church was saying made more sense to me. The idea that a husband and wife can contribute equally to the marriage partnership even though he may be out earning money and she may be lying on the couch all day puking with pregnancy.
So yes, I was happy with a husband who was willing to support me financially during those seasons of gestational disability.
The emphasis on homemaking skills in the 70s and 80s also made me happy. I was glad to earn so many things that helped me cook yummy and inexpensive meals, helped our credit score and estate planning, and various other tips and aspects of household management. Those things have played a major role in our family’s financial well-being.
When I had our last children in the 1990s, I was in a playgroup with all non-LDS women, and it was interesting to see the contrast. They had no sense that their homemaking contributed to the family–they felt like a drag on the finances. None of them had planned being at home fulltime, but were stuck there due to a variety of reasons (e.g., childcare didn’t work out). They hadn’t seen amazing role models like I had at BYU women’s conference, etc. They thought that only uneducated women woudl be dumb housewives, and they hated to think of themselves that way.
They were amazed at my happiness with being a mom at home for a short season of my life, my confidence that I would be able to return to the workforce (which did work out for me and them), my certainty that I was in the right place at the right time (which came from my prayerful decisions).
And they also loved the service that we get to do through the church. When I mentioned that our RS was bringing our monthly meal to a cancer patient residence, they asked if they could help too. They didn’t have an outlet for that kind of charitable service.
I think today one of the big things is motherhood or not. In the US, we have a record number of women who are not having children.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/09/childless-more-women-are-not-having-kids-says-census_n_7032258.html
And while there are reasons, it is not always a happy thing. And I know so many young moms who insist that nobody can have more than one child…but then later I realize they were gritting their teeth as they said it. They may want to take some time off or want to have a second child, but it goes against everything they were taught and profess to believe in and agreed with their spouse. And of course if they have an accident, they will have to have an abortion, no question, and that can be very unhappy.
I agree that there are lots of wonderful people out there, most of my friends are not LDS. And a lot of them share many of our views.
But I think LDS women may be happy-different in that they are not pressured into childlessness, abortion, or having to be employed fulltime if they do not choose to. That their homemaking efforts are respected as valuable work. And most especially that through the spirit, they can know if they are pursuing the path that the Lord would have them follow at that time. That sense of confidence is pretty wonderful.
I forgot to say…I love Las Vegas and isn’t there a temple there?
I lived in the “southern” part of Virginia and really couldn’t see a difference between the happy, religious, stay-at-home moms there and our own. In fact one of them, my neighbor back there, regularly posts LDS quotes about stay-at-home mothers to her facebook page.
The happy, religious, working moms were more at peace with their decision and didn’t have the cultural-baggage-of-mommy-guilt I carried. Many of the nonreligious people I worked with were wonderful, family-oriented, happy people. There was a *small* contingent (maybe 2 I’ve known in 15 years in 4 states) of women who eschewed marriage/motherhood because it tied them down . . . I guess that’s who he’s talking about as “the world”
Naismith, thanks for your comment and different view point. It sounds to me like you were observing a reaction to the whole 1950s thing. Interesting. It isn’t something I’ve observed though. I was a child in the 70s. Most of my school friends’ mothers were at home. I guess I don’t really know how they felt about it. By the time I was at university, there was movement towards making the workplace more woman friendly in Britain and Europe, so I think we don’t have perhaps the same issues you observe in the US. Indeed, in Europe now generous parental leave is a thing, so that men are also able to spend time with their new babies. Couples can decide how to split the parental leave between them. I think in Europe generally there is value placed on rearing young children. Also sickness benefits help those who are ill during pregnancy. I grew up listening to the BBC radio 4 programme ‘Woman’s Hour’ and still listen to it, and lots of feminist stuff gets discussed. But the importance of child-rearing, and women being able to make the choice is also something that’s covered.
I think cost is a big issue (see AA’s comment and my response to him)for couples deciding on the number of children, so here it was found during the last labour government, one of the unforseen circumstances of a policy where childcare places were subsidised by government in the form of tax credits, couples decided to have more children because they were then able to afford the childcare for more than one child. Both parents needed to work to cover housing costs. The increased birthrate came as a surprise.
“But I think LDS women may be happy-different in that they are not pressured into childlessness, abortion, or having to be employed fulltime if they do not choose to. That their homemaking efforts are respected as valuable work. And most especially that through the spirit, they can know if they are pursuing the path that the Lord would have them follow at that time. That sense of confidence is pretty wonderful.”
So far as this goes I wouldn’t disagree with you (with caveats about housing costs removing the choice of not working in some cases), but I don’t think it is unique to LDS women. Women of other faiths also experience these things.
I do think it somewhat ironic, given your support of the old homemaking programme that Sheri Dew used the quote at a time when it was abolished.
Kristine A. Yes. I don’t think we’re the only religious group to support women or mothers. Here there is the longstanding ‘Mother’s Union’ (http://www.mothersunion.org/) and ‘Women’s Institute’ (http://www.thewi.org.uk/).
Naismith,
I do find it interesting that people outside of Utah may feel pressured into childlessness, abortion, or having to be employed full-time if they do not choose to. As someone who has lived most of my life in the Mormon corridor, I find there is extreme pressure here to have a large number of children, to not get an abortion even if it means putting your own life at risk, and to never be employed full-time even if you choose to. I wish that we could find a happy middle ground. Maybe being in the Church outside of Utah is that happy middle ground. I’m not sure.
Naismith, you are not alone in being disillusioned by how second wave feminists treated motherhood. Good thing we’re on the 3rd and 4th waves, that value individual definition of your womanhood and freedom of choice in how/when to be a mother above all else. SAHM? Great! Working mom? Great! All moms need support, esp those who have the least support (lower class, WoC, working, etc.)!
When I had my first child, I was working a desk job outside the Mormon Corridor. Without fail, every female coworker under the age of 35 thought I was nuts for planning to be a SAHM. I attempted to explain the circumstances, since it honestly had been an incredibly difficult decision for me, but these coworkers all felt I was throwing my life away. Coworkers over 40, though, were very supportive of the decision, and many said that I’d likely never regret it. As Naismith said, there definitely is cultural pressure for a young woman to keep career goals firm while having a family.
One of the difficulties wih our rhetoric is that employment outside the home for mothers is only appropriate in one situation – financial need to supply basic needs. Any desire a woman may have to work outside the home is considered inappropriate, and sometimes even sinful. President Hunter stated that a *single* woman has “every right to engage in a profession that allows her to magnify her talents and gifts.” The assumption is that motherhood is clearly the ideal profession for a married woman to magnify her gifts and talents. The ideal of being a SAHM seems to be one of the “happy ways” we are distinct from the world. Putting on a happy face when you feel that your gifts and talents are ill-suited to motherhood, though, can be a bit of a struggle.
EBK, I think there was a fair amount of pressure towards large families at church in my part of Britain back in the 70s. Not sure who was responsible for our area at the time. But there were a lot of other cultural strictures enforced as well (like beards being denounced from the pulpit at stake conference by the visiting Apostle). I’m the eldest of 7, and there were quite a few other large families in the stake as well. I also wish we could find a happy middle ground. I had a conversation with my mother on just that a few months back.
Mary Ann, “Without fail, every female coworker under the age of 35 thought I was nuts for planning to be a SAHM.” That’s interesting. Perhaps I move in the wrong circles here. Mostly what I have seen is a respect for the ability to be able to choose. Perhaps it’s generational? I am now getting to the point were I need to think about what I plan to do with the next 20 years or so of my life,
notnow that my kids are older. I would like to see more support structures in place for that particular change.“Putting on a happy face when you feel that your gifts and talents are ill-suited to motherhood, though, can be a bit of a struggle.” Yes indeed.
“SAHM? Great! Working mom? Great!”
Do you have a reference for a feminist book or whatever that states that philosophy? That is not what I hear from the feminist groups where I live, nor have I read much. I would love to share that with younger women who do not feel that anything less than full-time employment is an option. The more predominant view is what is reflected in Linda Hirshman’s “Get to Work: A Manifesto For Women of the World,” which has been selected by some college campuses as their One Book required reading.
The particular career one chooses can greatly affect the ability to maintain a career throughout one’s life. For example, a stake president’s daughter finished her degree in Pharmacy before their first child was born, and now she can pick up as many (or few) shifts as she wants at a professional salary. But at the state university some of my children attended, the advisement department was not allowed to mention that fact. They could only talk about full-time lifelong professions. This is setting them up for more frustration and sense of failure should full-time employment not be optimal for a season given their particular situation in the future.
Thanks Mary Ann, for making me feel less alone at the reaction of people in my workplace experience as well. Even my own mother informed me that I was “ruining my life” when expecting the fourth child.
However, I never got the message about career being only something for those in need. Of the women who graduated from BYU with me in the early 1980s, all of us returned to employment when the kids were older. Some have been elected to their school board or other local office.
In the early 1980s, an LDS woman was elected to the US Senate from Georgia. Paula Hawkins. She was the first woman elected to the Senate who had a husband, forcing them to change the name of the spouse’s lounge. She spoke at BYU Women’s Conference and while she was a republican and I would not have voted for her, she was a great example of having a post-childrearing career and I thought was being recommended to us as a role model?
And then there was Pres. Hinckley’s talk about the nurse with three children who had a flexibly career.
And we have to be careful about assuming that families with two earners are always better off financially. Depending on the cost and availability of childcare, and if the parent at home also does some money-saving things around the home, then it might actually be better for a family financially to have someone at home for a season.
Hedgehog,
In the area that I grew up in, 7 children was considered an average amount of children. There were many families with more than 10 children. One with 19 children (all biologically from the same mother and father). This is still a normal thing where I live (though less so now than when I was growing up). When I went to my 5 year high school reunion (that would make everyone about 23 at the time), there were 4 different women there who already had 3 children. I’m perfectly happy with people having as many children as they can take care of, but there is a weird pressure here in some Salt Lake City suburbs to have as many as you physically can. I still know a number of Mormon women who believe that birth control is contrary to God’s will. Obviously this is not the Church’s stance, but culture plays a lot into the pressure that builds.
Naismith,
I am such a big fan of the idea of telling women all of their options and letting them decide for themselves. I always believed growing up that my options were full-time employment or no employment. The only women I knew who had part-time employment were doing unskilled work (mostly lunch lady duty at the schools). That just didn’t interest me. I heard this both at school and at work. If I wanted to be a professional anything, it was full-time or nothing. And what I heard in lessons at church was not working was the only righteous option.
There is still a lot of pressure against women with children at home working outside of the home here, unless there is a financial need. The company I work for is approximately 15 years old, and has ranged between 50-100 employees in the last 10 years with a lot of turnover. Right now the most senior employee (besides the two owners) has been here for 5 years. In that time I would guess that close to 1,000 people have worked for this company, and due to the nature of the work, more than half of them are women. I am the first and only employee they have ever had that had a baby and then returned to work. Ever. The company is currently 55% female and 45% male. Of the females, only 13% are Mormon and only 3% have young children at home. Of the males, 44% are Mormon and 25% have young children at home. I can promise that there is absolutely no pressure here for women to have children and continue working. It just does not exist. The opposite is true where I live.
EBK, thanks so much for sharing your perspective.
I am also a HUGE FAN of letting women decide for themselves. But hearing that from me is not helpful to younger women because I am a shriveled up old lady who Doesn’t Understand How Things Are Nowadays. If this is really the predominant view of 3d and 4th wave feminism, I would love to give them a book or weblink that advocates for that view.
As for professionals having to be fulltime, that is a common and sadly erroneous assumption. I simply don’t tell clients that I am part-time lest they think I am less serious, and the reality (and a major reason that my employer permits a part-time schedule) is that during a crunch time, I will do Whatever It Takes to get things done.
When I was at BYU hearing various speakers encouraging women to get a good education so that they could spend the least time away from family, I had a neighbor who was a nurse anesthetist. That is one of the three nursing specialties whose average salary is greater than that of primary care physicians. She was a mom most of the time, but worked like two shifts a week at the local hospital, and that was enough to provide for their living expenses. That was a great role model as far as how being a part-time professional could work well for parents.
Naismith, EBK thanks for the comments.
EBK, those numbers are mind-boggling. In Britain anything above 4 was considered excessively large. Possibly even 4 now, though that still feels fairly normal to me. I have 2 in any case, though my kids have over 30 cousins: one of my brothers has 8 children, and another 6. So by British standards, large families continue here too, for some members. Though British large is clearly not Utah large!
Naismith, on the one hand I could have done with some presentation of possible jobs I would have enjoyed that could have been done part-time and that would have employed my skills and interests back when I had to make choices in the latter part of the 80s. On the other hand I do feel that I was guided in making the choices I made, as well. So there’s that. Certainly my skills, interests and education have been invaluable in helping my kids who are similarly inclined. I’m now at the point where my last employed experience is 18 years ago, and the job I did has changed significantly, due technological/database/internet advances. Plus I’m not sure I’d want to go back to it anyway. Pretty much the only careers advocated for women by the church at the time I was making choices were teaching or nursing (there was a general conference talk sometime in the late 80s saying just that), neither of which lent themselves to my skills or interests. And those were the only examples I saw in church as well.
I think its a great idea to present information about how flexible schedules are with regards to part-time/full-time work in different career paths, but it seriously frustrates me that this is mainly talked about to help women choose careers that will aid them in child-rearing. Shouldn’t the goal to have a flexible career that allows for the maximum time at home be the same for both fathers and mothers?
The expected family size depends greatly on where you are, and even what part of town you’re in (urban tends to be less, suburban tends to be greater). In Omaha, four kids is normal. In Denver, two is normal for non-religious people, if you even choose to have kids (it was very common there to have pets instead). In the ward, 2-4 was pretty normal (one family had 7, and that seemed really big). Where we’ve lived in two different suburbs of Salt Lake, larger families are much more common. We haven’t quite had the experience of EBK, but girls my age (mid-thirties) are usually in the 4-6 range. It is not unusual for older couples in the neighborhood to have raised 8-10 kids.
Hedgehog, none of those younger coworkers were religious. In my ward, it was much more common for women to stay at home once they started having kids. I was essentially straddling two different worlds. Most non-religious women were also extremely concerned that I would give up a career with a husband in med school, considering the high likelihood of him eventually running off with a hot, young nurse. 😉
“Shouldn’t the goal to have a flexible career that allows for the maximum time at home be the same for both fathers and mothers?”
Not according to the Proclamation on teh Family. Fathers are there to work, mothers are there to rear children.
In a truly egalitarian society, yes Delina, you are correct. But the church has never claimed to be egalitarian.
Delina, it won’t happen as long as the gender roles in the church remain divided, with men as primary providers and women as primary caregivers. I am seeing a lot more younger women doing part-time jobs (only working a few days a month) while doing the SAHM gig. Nursing is by far the most common, though I’ve also seen substitute teaching, paraprofessionals in schools, pharmacy, photography, etc. But… a lot of the girls here in Utah pull it off because they have family support nearby (usually grandma watches the kids). If they were away from family, it’d be much harder. Although men taking more time as caregivers is becoming more common generally, it still seems to be rare among churchmembers that I’ve seen.
Sorry, posted without seeing MH’s comment.
The church *can’t* claim to be egalitarian. The church operates on a self-proclaimed patriarchal order. By anthropological definition, you cannot have a society be both patriarchal and egalitarian.
Mary Ann,
Just like you can’t have a couple who is equal with one person presiding and yet here we are . . .
Delina, there is something to be said for that. One of my friends who I infected with my thoughts on doing what suits your family is a part-time professional but so was her husband, see
http://equallysharedparenting.com/
However, I blame the differences not so much on the PotF but rather on the dumb-ass creator who made our bodies so different as male and female, with a greater biological burden on the women in many cases. My screen name is from a science fiction series that features a society where babies still have to be conceived like we do, but who are soon surgically transferred over to a “uterine replicator” machine that brings the little ones to their birth without as much strain and pain on the mom. And of course other sci-fi books imagine genderless or temporary-gender societies for gestation.
And the stats suggest that breastfeeding rates are highest among moms who are available to their babies more often–some infants will not take a bottle of expressed milk.
I’ve coresponded with a Registered Dietician who makes a good living coaching pregnant professionals through their nausea and vomiting…but unfortunately, her typical client has already had an abortion when they panicked because it was much worse than they thought it would be. And it can be bad. Earlier this month I spent time talking to a young woman who is expecting her first and is having a hard time getting out of a fetal position, a not-uncommon reaction.
The PotF does a great job of ensuring that women are protected and provided for during pregnancy. I know that I could not have had the children that I felt I should have, without that spousal support and divine guidance.
Since responsibility in the church is often delegated–no bishop does it all himself!–I don’t think the PotF precludes a woman delegating to childcare or whatever she prayerfully thinks is right for her family at that point in time.
But we do have these darn biological differences to deal with, which cannot be waved away by a change in church policy.
Naismith I agree that biology makes a difference with regards to the demands of parenthood and how much it will naturally affect our work schedule. But I guess my real question is, if we believe that fatherhood is just as important and motherhood, then why shouldn’t men be expected/advised to pick careers where they can have flexible schedules or that offer part time opportunities while allowing for being home with children part time?
Why is the father being home with children less desirable? If we are preaching ideals then why isn’t the ideal that two parents both equally share in the home time and in providing financial means for the family? If a nurse anesthetist can provide enough for their families necessities working only a few shifts a week, why aren’t the men also encouraged to follow that route of only working a few shifts a week? Why if we believe both fathers and mothers are essential in the raising of children and a parent is always going to be staying at home with the children all day is it ideal that it always be the mother instead of both parents taking turns throughout the day/week?
“if we believe that fatherhood is just as important and motherhood…” Who believes this? Certainly not the Q12…..Mothers are waaaayyyy more important (because they nurture better, blah blah blah.)
Delina and MH,
I think the Church does think fatherhood is just as important as motherhood, they just define them differently. I would think that fatherhood and motherhood essentially entail the same thing (other than the differences that are biologically necessary. The Church, however, defines fatherhood as providing and motherhood as nurturing. So fatherhood is just as important as motherhood translates to it is just as important for fathers to work full time as it is for mothers to stay home with their children full time.
Thanks for the interesting discussion Delina, Naismith, Mary Ann, EBK, MH (I don’t think I missed anyone).
So, on both parents having flexible work schedules and sharing childcare. This is something the the two youngest of my brothers and their wives have managed to pull off to some extent. What a difference a decade makes! But also, they both had my parents close by, who were in a position to provide occasional emergency childcare (having retired).
So,in one case both parents are police officers and have their shifts arranged so as to allow one or other of them to be at home. Occasional childcare required if either of them are required to attend court.
In the other case the wife is a junior doctor at a hospital. My youngest brother was able to negotiate working 4 rather than 5 days a week with his new employers (who really wanted him), so spends midweek at home. They are able to juggle a mix of caring for their young children themselves, nursery places, and occasional backup from family close by.
Like Mary Ann mentioned, family back up seems to be important in the cases I’ve seen of others the same age or younger than my brothers who manage to pull off the working part time thing. In cases where the mother works full or part-time, and the father full-time the grandparents seem to do much of the childcare. And in most of those cases the wife worked part time in the care sector: nursing, physio or other child health professional. Very often it can be the cost of childcare that makes it very difficult for mothers to work.
I was living a long way from family when my children were small. We’re closer now, but still not close enough for that kind of support. Besides which, at the time my children were young both my parents were working themselves, and would not have been in a position to help. My mother resumed working outside home when my youngest brother was in school. A model that relies on extended family support is not sustainable across generations where both mothers and fathers work.
Naismith, debilitating sickness during pregnancy is something that gets coverage on the Woman’s Hour radio programme I mentioned. Most recently earlier this year (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05r0b39). There is a support organisation for women who suffer from this (https://www.pregnancysicknesssupport.org.uk/).