Follow us @WheatnTweet!
We Don’t Value Motherhood
By: hawkgrrrl
There was a fascinating post at FMH in response to Hillary Rosen’s statement that SAHM Ann Romney hadn’t worked a day in her life. For the record, Ann did not employ a nanny as some have assumed although it’s clear that the Romneys weren’t living hand-to-mouth despite their evident frugal streak that I demonstrated ably at By Common Consent. From the excellent FMH OP by founder FMHLisa:
We invest time and money and energy and resources into things we truly value. . . We invest almost nothing in making sure that mothers are secure and have the time energy and education they need to do the (MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL) work of mothering.
I do realize that this is an incredibly complex and difficult problem . . . But it’s a dirty darn lie that “we” collectively value mothering. It’s a lie if you’re a Democrat and it’s a lie if you’re a Republican. Mothering is all about individual sacrifice, individual risk, individual success or failure. Society benefits greatly for that individual success. Society suffers greatly from that individual failure. In return society gives us: “your work is the MOST valuable”, which is hard to make soup with.
I’d like to take a closer look at a few of these assertions. First of all, we need to bear in mind that we are talking very specifically about not just parenting, but motherhood. And not just motherhood either, but stay-at-home motherhood. Here are 3 assertions I think don’t bear out on closer examination:
- Society benefits greatly for that individual success. Does society benefit greatly from parenting (and specifically the SAHM parenting model)? I’ll hesitantly say yes to society benefiting from parenting (although I don’t agree that SAHM parenting provides a unique advantage to society at large). Even limiting it to parenting, I would put one big fat caveat on it: who defines success? If we’re talking about literally putting our money where our (collective) mouth is, that success has to be defined as raising adults that contribute economically to society. The most direct benefit of a stay-at-home parent is to the immediate family. It’s usually an economic sacrifice a couple makes that enables the one working parent to have more freedom and support while the one providing that support has freedom to focus on the home and children. The equation trades time for money. It centralizes resources by dividing responsibilities into two categories.
- Society suffers greatly from that individual failure. We (as society) suffer when parents (whether they stay at home or not) raise criminals or people who cost the system more than they contribute. Of course, does that mean that we should turn like rabid wolves on the parents of criminals? Are parents always the cause? How do we measure it and reward it with any standard of fairness? And does SAHM parenting provide an advantage? Are there more criminals being raised by working parents? Are children of working parents more likely to be an economic drain on society. Here, studies would say the opposite is true, that working parents statistically produce less future economic burden. However, correlation is not causation. It’s an unfortunate truth that many SAHM households (not necessarily in the church) are also low income households, and poverty creates the disadvantage. The higher income of a dual career household improves that situation.
- In return society gives us: “your work is the MOST valuable”, which is hard to make soup with. Lastly, I’m not sure “society” does this. I actually think society is pretty ambivalent on stay-at-home motherhood at this point. This pseudo-quote sounds a lot more like what the church tells women (not contemporary Republicans or the Democrats or Americans at large). I think politicians and government folks are more likely to agree with Mitt Romney’s statement that welfare recipients (including single moms) should have the dignity of work (meaning directly contributing back to the economic system that is feeding them). Creating a system to provide care for the children of single working parents is the lynch pin to making this possible.
Because this model (and role division in general) builds more dependence, church retention rates and engagement may be highest among those who rely on the church community to support the family. And there is social support for SAHMs within the church: play groups, activities and hobbies to keep women feeling connected to the adult word, and a cadre of sisters to provide emotional and social support.
The church will benefit (just as nations do) if parents raise children who become full tithe payers which perpetuates the viability of the economic system. Being a SAHM creates barriers to exit the church by making it more compelling to stay with a strong support network rather than lose that support for one’s chosen lifestyle. This is similar to (but less effective than) polygamy. If you were practicing polygamy, you had some pretty high barriers to exit. It was a lifestyle that carried a lot of advantages inside the system and nearly insurmountable disadvantages outside of it.
Perhaps a better question is whether the church puts its money where its mouth is. Many women (or those who share personal stories in online discussion) who’ve requested financial assistance from the church have been told by their bishop to get a job (for which their time as a SAHM has left them very disadvantaged) or to rely on other family members (which, depending on the situation can feel like a further degradation). Whether these stories are typical, I can’t say. But that they happen at all feels unnecessary.
For the church this also becomes an economic calculation. Church welfare is a socialist system. We all donate (in tithing), but individuals in need receive payments from that pool. Of course, as with all socialist systems, those that contribute the least financially need and receive the most financial benefit. Which is why it feels like a slippery slope to advise women to make decisions that reduce their individual economic independence unless a complete safety net is assumed in how the church handles our collective donations. Personally, I don’t mind fully supporting displaced, divorced, or widowed SAHMs who don’t have great economic choices, even though my choices have differed from theirs.
What would you propose to solve this problem? Should the church do more for women in these situations? Should society? Should we encourage more financial independence and resilience and change our rhetoric toward women in the church? Are SAHMs the modern equivalent of plural wives? Is the church’s rhetoric primarily designed to create retention through fostering dependence? Discuss.
A while back in ward conference the stake president made a comment that church aid is used to help people, not to sustain a lifestyle.
I think when you get down to it, being a SAHM is considered a lifestyle (and not that heavenly calling we’re told it is). So when things fall apart and you need help, it’s assumed you need to tap out all your other resources first just like everyone else.
Like this comment?
3
Honestly, I wish the church ran a daycare system (though I personally would never use it, as if it’s church run it’ll probably be badly run) in wards that being a SAHM is not the norm if they truly wanted to show the support of families they claim to have. Ya know, put their money where their mouth is.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
6
#1 hit it right on the head.
If my husband were to die or become unable to work, it would take me about 24 hours to start looking for employment to support my family. Once I had found employment and it still didn’t cover my basic expenses, and if extended family were not in a position to help out, then I might approach the bishop for assistance. So I kind of expect that from other people.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
7
Hawk, all I can say is that I’ve had a number of working women tell me that they resent being asked to work more hours so they can subsidize other women to stay at home and not work.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
4
The $1,000 Child Tax Credit ain’t nothing; you could make soup for a child every day of the year with that.
It’s been very much in the background, but the politics of the Child Tax Credit, Additional Child Tax Credit, and Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit have fascinated me. In his 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama said we were going to nearly double the Child Care Tax Credit and left unmentioned that the Child Tax Credit was set to revert from $1,000 to the $500 per child it had been before 2001. This would have been a shift of about thirty billion dollars away from the President’s political opponents (single-income, dual-parent households with three or more children) and toward his supporters (dual-income or single-parent households with one or two children).
It didn’t happen, though. A bill increasing the Child Care Tax Credit was introduced in the House and referred to committee in May 2010, and that was the last of that, and the $1,000 Child Tax Credit was extended by Congress through 2012 as part of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. Will it revert to $500 in 2013, or be extended again?
Like this comment?
0
Technical point: it’s fast offering funds that are used to help the poor, not tithing. I suppose it’s possible that in general the church may shift tithing funds to welfare issues, but on the local level, bishops are generally counseled over time to keep direct cash aid within fast offering contributions.
This is a great discussion. I have generally thought that SAHM choices benefit the family first. They are not a guarantee of perfect children, any more than not staying at home is a guarantee of failing children.
I’m not suggesting that parenting (including SAHM parenting) does not matter, but there are far too many variables to blame parents for the presence of criminals in the world. No parent has that kind of power.
Like this comment?
3
OP:hawkgrrrl,
Please don’t make Ann Romney a model of a SAHM:
“As First Lady of Massachusetts, she served as the governor’s liaison for federal faith-based initiatives. She was involved in a number of children’s charities, including Operation Kids, and was an active participant in her husband’s 2008 presidential run, where she became the most visible of all the Republican candidates’ wives in campaigning”. (Wikipedia)
Like this comment?
3
Let’s hear a little on the WHAOD (Work His Ass Off Dad). When I became a man, I was told I would work 8+hrs a day for 45 years. My paycheck would mostly go to: buying bedrooms for my kids, a second car for my wife, a washing machine, a drying machine, a dishwasher, a vacuum, a steam iron. ( I got a power lawn mower). :) :)(maybe)
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
7
I think Bob has an interesting point. What does this SAHM thing look like from the WHAOD perspective…?
I would tend to agree that SAHM benefits the family first and foremost.
As far as Church assistance, I think the Church talks out of both sides of it’s mouth. If they wanted to institute real change and help, they would and very well could. I’m not even getting into the shopping mall here. They give superficial help when it suits them, and possibly for individuals in the Church that are truly in need.
Like this comment?
3
What does this SAHM thing look like from the WHAOD perspective…?
Well, to piece together quotes from my husband, he gets:
“I have four awesome children who are well taken care of by someone I completely respect and trust. I always say the best part of my day is coming home. I get to have really hot sex with my really hot wife. If my children have a problem my wife takes care of things if I am at work so I never have to cancel an important meeting. I know my children are getting a great education because my wife takes care of it, I know our finances are in order because my wife handles it and keeps me up to date on it even if I promptly forget what an IRA is. My wife is supportive of my career so I don’t feel torn in two. When I get home I help pick up kids from soccer practice or help make dinner and we all sit down to eat as a family and I get to see my children grow up to be awesome people. Sometimes it seems busy but I manage to get to the gym 3 times a week put in an hour every day on the xbox and dedicate some time to other interests and hobbies. When I see my 12 year old son look at me for approval and know he wants to grow up to be just like me I am happy to be the man who pays the mortgage on a house rather than a single man with a little more free time, a little more free money and a little more casual sex. My coworkers here in Seattle are rarely family men and their lives seem lonely to me. Sometimes life sucks for all of us, but I love having the support of my wife and I really love my kids.”
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
11
jks, FTW.
Like this comment?
1
I’m a WHAOD married to a WHAOSAHM. I’m well aware that I have the less mentally taxing and physically exhausting side of the deal, although I’m pretty beat at the end of a day. I never consider the income I earn to be “MY” paycheck. When we buy appliances, it is OUR combined savings we use to replace old ones without going into debt if possible. It is OUR combined savings that we use to tithe and pay fast offerings. I do have a life insurance policy, but it would still leave a lot of challenges. I don’t think either of us expect the church to be the solution to an unexpected death.
I wonder of the church could do more by not giving ridiculous visiting teaching assignments to SAHMs. It’s great when fellow SAHM’s can get together and let kids have a play date and visit teach at the same time. I don’t think it’s great to send a SAHM with kids out to visit women who don’t really need or want a visit, expecting that they drag the kids along with them or find a sitter. OR, to visit women with a jillion trinkets or who are flat out uncomfortable having small children in their homes.
One societal benefit that is enhance with a SAHM, that is difficult but not impossible to counter with a SAHD is reported increased IQ to children from longer durations of breastfeeding, compared to children nourished with formula. How is this a factor in IQ development? That is an interesting question to answer. Society will certainly benefit by raising a workforce with higher IQ.
Like this comment?
2
#10:jks,
That’s nice jks. Now I want to talk to your husband…alone.
#12:Rigel,
Breastfeeding does not increase IQ. If being a SAHMs and breastfeeding could do this, the 3rd world would be much smarted than us, they are not.
Like this comment?
4
Maybe I should clarify…What I meant was, what it looks like from a Dad’s perspective along these lines:
- What if the Father would like to stay at home and care for/raise kids;
- The pressure not to lose your job because you are the only earner;
Things like that. I have no doubt that men are appreciative of their wives and all that they do, however, another thought is, what is the reason for men (including those in the Church) putting off marriage and families in such large numbers?
Like this comment?
1
While I can’t laud the efforts of mothers, be they SAHM or employed outside the home, I wouldn’t mind at least a nod for the single Dads who like myself are the primary caregiver to minor children.
With the exception of a good friend who is EQ Prez, my ward acts like we no longer exist.
Like this comment?
3
I meant laud mothers enough
Like this comment?
2
KT – why men postpone marriage or otherwise won’t commit: With a 50% chance that the marriage will fail and the man will lose virtually all his assets and fork over the bulk of his earnings in alimony and child support, regardless of how much of a lying, cheating, stealing no-good skank that the ex proves to be, what sane man would risk it?
Like this comment?
1
Bob,
I appreciate your challenge to not accept medical studies at face value. They often will include the caution that further studies are needed. But when one study reviews 11 previous studies and includes a look at 7000 children over 11 different sites, I think the data can be useful. Your conclusion is not unreasonable–was it the breastfeeding that was associated with 5.2 higher IQ points? The study concluded that 40% of that increase was attributed to maternal bonding, but 60% (3.2 points) was attributed to the nutritional value of the milk. The influence of maternal smoking and education, birth order, birth weight, and family income were also factored out.
Not a huge increase, but if we are asking the question of whether society benefits from parenting, its worth considering that maternal bonding and breastfeeding together can make a positive contribution.
Like this comment?
1
Please don’t make Ann Romney a model of a SAHM…As First Lady of Massachusetts
Ann Romney was First Lady of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007. Her sons were born between 1970 and 1981. So in 2003, the youngest would have been 22.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
6
#18,19:Rigel Hawthorne,
Let me say both your comments were honest retorts to what I said. You used your ‘facts’ to counter my ‘feelings statements’. I too do this all the time on these blogs, and look at it as fair. I think this useful when done.
Like this comment?
0
I work within this space (single-parented at-risk children in economic distress) and I see what I see. I still don’t think the issues are economic. They are economic to the middle class, which I’m fond of saying are the angriest members of our society – mad at the rich and mad at the poor alike.
Almost without exception, those who receive assistance are embarrassed to be such a drain on society, because they know that is how they are regarded. The system creates a LOT of incentives for poor people to remain poor. That is a whole book, not a blog post, and certainly not a comment.
I get really ticked when people assert with their red faces that people who receive assistance are somehow morally subpar. I think we had a talk about this at conference, with laborers at the beginning of the day (who had a wonderful opportunity to be paid for their job) mad about laborers at the end of the day who received the same thing. I was CHEEEEERING. You go Holland!
The issues of contributing to society are wholly separate, IMO, from economic issues and I’m just so tired of everything having to boil down to a dollar value. I am a working mom, and I’ve had to leave my children in order to make sure we eat. It is much harder to be there for things that they need someone to be there for, and those things make for stable adults who have fewer health problems (which BTW is the benefit for breastfeeding, not IQ), a better sense of their place in the world, better emotional health, better communication skills, and better problem resolution abilities. I spend a lot of time praying that the time I’m there is sufficient.
Before the working moms unload on me (I’m one of you, just in case that wasn’t obvious in what I already said), for crying out loud, OF COURSE I’m not saying that any lazy, TV-watching, kids-yelling, bon-bon-eating person with female organs is all that is required for children to arrive neatly-combed and diplomaed into adulthood. But we increase the stability of children when they have a strong parental influence all day (as is age-appropriate), especially in the earliest years.
I KNOW we are all doing our best. I’m saying that in ideal situations, a nurturing influence (male or female) during the under-7 years who is able to address situations immediately with very impressionable children creates the best hope for self-calming adults. Lack of self-speech, or the ability to consider consequences and make short-term sacrifices, is the single most important component holding a family in the grip of generational poverty. Moms who are focused on this can do this. And moms who are supported by dads and a society to do this don’t lose their minds.
I know, hawkgrrrl, that you are not a fan of role division, but I am, not just because the church “says so” but because in cultures where there is a lot of poverty, when this nuclear unit can function with role division, poverty goes. ETB said that you don’t take people out of the slums, you take the slums out of people. That’s what we have to do. I think role-division can really help with this, and the benefits to society are no less crucial just because they’re less measurable.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
5
Douglas says “…regardless of how much of a lying, cheating, stealing no-good skank that the ex proves to be…”
Ouch! That must have touched a raw nerve.
But I think you have a very valid point. In today’s world what motivation does a man have to get married and have kids?
In the old days it made sense to have kids. They helped around the farm and with the extra hands, the father was able to expand his acreage. When they grew up, one of the boys would take over the family farm and the parents would have a place to live until that passed on. Now the parents pay for the kid’s college education and then they take off and start their own careers. When the parents get old, the kids stick them in a home.
So if you don’t believe in the whole eternal family thing it really doesn’t make logical sense to get married or have kids.
Like this comment?
1
“But I think you have a very valid point. In today’s world what motivation does a man have to get married and have kids?”
“So if you don’t believe in the whole eternal family thing it really doesn’t make logical sense to get married or have kids.”
It’s hard to not think these are tongue-in-cheek, but I’ll bite. This thinking reminds me of the idea that morality comes from religion, i.e. people will only do good because heavenly police are watching. People who don’t believe in being and doing good because it is the best way to live are missing the whole point of religion. Being and doing good to get a reward is childish.
I don’t believe in any life after this one. I love my wife and my sons. Eternity has no affect on my love for them no matter what challenges come before us.
Logic tells me sharing life with others is a whole lot better than thinking life is about collecting widgets.
Like this comment?
1
I thought it was due to the rise of yw vowing to serve a mission.
Like this comment?
0
Bonnie: “I know, hawkgrrrl, that you are not a fan of role division.” I actually do think role division (splitting up parenting duties) is great; it just needs to be done based on needs within each family. I don’t like role prescription (you have female/male plumbing therefore you must do/enjoy/be good at these specific duties). Limiting or dictating people’s choices is where we get onto a slippery slope.
Like this comment?
1
I appreciate the correction, Hawk. Prescription is a better word. I also appreciate the consistent message from church leadership that individual needs may vary. The child-centered, family-unity-centered message of the PotF which replaces economics with family as the center of a healthy focus has very real long-term effects on society in addition to the obvious short-term benefits for families. Besides, there is the general rule that when we act counter-intuitively to secular values and embrace the counsel of a prophet, we invite the windows of heaven to open. Life is an act of faith.
Like this comment?
3
Brian,
It was mostly tongue-in-cheek…mostly…
Like this comment?
1
The child-centered, family-unity-centered message of the PotF which replaces economics with family as the center of a healthy focus has very real long-term effects on society in addition to the obvious short-term benefits for families. Besides, there is the general rule that when we act counter-intuitively to secular values and embrace the counsel of a prophet, we invite the windows of heaven to open. Life is an act of faith.
This is one of the best quotes I have read about this topic. Fantastic. The Church teaches that the value is not economic, it’s eternal.
Like this comment?
1
On another note: I’ve been a SAHM since my first was born over 13 years ago, and I get kinda tired of the insistence that SAHMs can’t also be educationally and professionally prepared for eventualities. I realize being a SAHM is not the same as being a professional. But I think there is a lot more nuance and a lot more possibility tnan is often explored in posts like this. I also think that the doomsday approach to SAHMhood is both a misrepresentation of what I think we get in terms of counsel from the Church, and also a misrepresentation of how a lot of us choose to live our lives prepared for eventualities.
As a little anecdotal case study: I’m one of four sisters. All of us are SAHMs. All of us have university degrees (some of us more than one). Three of the four of us were married before age 21 (it took me a while to find my hubby), and all of us started our families within two years of getting married, and have had children quickly and in succession. We each have at least three children (one has five, one has seven, and one is probably not done. I have health issues and haven’t been able to have more).
All of us use our degrees in some way (two for pay on the side and two in volunteer mode). As such, all of us have active résumés.
All of us have made sacrifices and deliberate choices to be home.
The idea that we would be both educated and SAHMs was never explicitly taught or pounded into our heads. It was just part of our family culture that both were important and we have figured out how to do both along the way. (e.g., One sister got two degrees a few classes at a time while having her first four kids in six years.) Again, I believe it’s also part of our Church’s teachings to seek God’s guidance about how to balance our roles with the need to be self-reliant. It’s not the either/or it’s often presented to be.
Lastly, I wish the rhetoric in feminist dialogue could change from wanting the government or the Church to somehow make things better for women. I want *women* to believe that motherhood has value, and talk about that value, AND also understand the doctrine of self-reliance, and then believe in the principle of revelation that they can figure out how to both be there as much as possible for their kids and also not have to fear the future. We are not victims. We have choices, more choices than any women ever have in the history of mankind. And we have great teachings in the Church that can help us navigate how to make such choices in ways that are both eternally sound and smart in a practical sense.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
7
I agree that society at large doesn’t value mothering, but a few comments on these specific points. And I refuse to use the working vs. SAHM terminology, because I have never been a nonworking mother.
“I don’t agree that SAHM parenting provides a unique advantage to society at large”
I see at least two benefits to society. First is that, at least in my experience, parents at home do a lot of the heavy lifting on volunteer work to run the PTA, band boosters, etc. Sure a lot of employed parents chip in…but the chairs and presidents have typically been a mom who has younger kids still at home and not a fulltime job yet. And has done great work. Part of my motivation for preferring part-time employment is so that I have time to serve in my community, outside of church; I spend about 30 hours a month on volunteer work, which I couldn’t if I was employed fulltime.
Another major factor is that a mom at home is not competing for a job with health insurance, making coverage more available to others. While I have held full-time benefits-eligible positions, those have been jobs that wouldn’t have existed if I hadn’t written the grant. I’ve never taken a job away from a provider and their family who needed health insurance.
“It’s usually an economic sacrifice a couple makes”
Actually, there are a lot of second-income calculators online that suggest that it is not always an economic sacrifice for a family with young children to have one parent at home during that season of their lives. The costs of daycare, transportation, etc. means that a second job is NOT always a net benefit. Of course some people love their paid work, and some see it as an investment for the future, guaranteeing that they will have a job when it becomes more cost-effective. But a lot of families are more sound financially with one parent at home, especially if that parent can also sew/cook/invest/do home repairs or otherwise save money. I did a lot of painting rooms with a baby in a backpack, and canned tomatoes with a toddler standing on a chair taking a bite out of each one.
“The equation trades time for money.”
All work is trading time for money. It is just a matter of whether it is money earned or money saved. If I raise food in the garden, that is just as much work and as valuable to my family as if I had a paid job where the money allowed me to buy food. Perhaps more valuable, because it is not taxed.
“The higher income of a dual career household improves that situation.”
Not sure this is always true. It was challenged in Elizabeth Warren’s THE TWO-INCOME TRAP and Linda Kelley’s TWO INCOMES AND STILL BROKE?
The subtitle of the Kelley book is, “It’s not how much you earn, it’s how much you keep.” And that is a real issue for many.
“Because this model (and role division in general) builds more dependence,”
This is true, and why it strengthens a marriage. The dependence is not all one way. My husband could not do the paid work he does without me. He knows it and is very appreciative.
And I agree that it is wonderful that we can all figure out our unique paths to these issues, over which only we have stewardship and for which we can receive revelation.
Like this comment?
2
Michelle “We are not victims. We have choices.” Love this quote. I absolutely agree that the real power is in making and owning our choices, and I’m no fan of government intervention. If the church states a preference (which they do), I think they should be ready to put their money where their mouth is, but I like you also feel we don’t do people any favors when we don’t teach self-reliance.
I think it’s important for more women like you to share your story because statistics often show a correlation with SAHMs and lower education levels (therefore, fewer future choices) and with taking time out to be a SAHM and trying to return to the career world being a disadvantage. On the latter, it doesn’t need to be that way, but only 40 years ago, women who got pregnant could be fired (essentially the Church Educational System still does this once the child is born or downgrades the woman from paid teacher to a secretarial duty). The system was created around a male workforce, and it’s still transitioning toward something more equal.
Naismith – I think you are absolutely right about the dependence being a two way street. It does make me nervous because the OP I was responding to points out the inequity of fiscal insecurity in that symbiotic relationship. But what would happen to the WYOAD (was that the acronym introduced above for working dads?) if the SAHMs supporting them suddenly took off with the pool boy? They would struggle equally.
My points on that front are: 1) the value of that dependence is primarily experienced by the family, not society at large, and 2) the value of a SAHP is not unique to SAHMs, a SAHD does the same thing.
I’m not convinced about your views on not taking a job away from a provider, though. Health insurance still has to cover all family members. The only advantage to them is for people to be single, young, and fit. And providers who can’t find a job are probably not hindered by dual income households disproportionately, at least not in our day and age. That’s an argument that worked in the 1950s maybe. In our current economy, people are unemployed (or underemployed) because they are trained in fields where there aren’t enough jobs or because they were hit by a timing problem. All workers compete based on their skills and experience as well as being in the right place, right time.
Like this comment?
1
It doesn’t seem that anyone who is at least nominally LDS faults Sister Romney in any way for having “chosen” the SAHM route. But let’s also consider times and circumstances. It was de rigeur for an LDS woman, once married, to get in the family way ASAP and start cranking out the kiddies. As my bro-in-law put in in 2001, my sister (who was completing nursing school at the time) ALREADY had a “full-time” job…a three-year old girl! Though it’s fairly certain that the Romney’s had “sufficient for their needs” and not much else, it’s also certain that Mitt and Ann knew that as long as they did the right thing that (1) Mitt would finish whatever school was necessary, and (2) Ann wouldn’t have to worry about babysitting, taking it wash, scrubbing floors at night, or doing other things her fellow SAHM ‘sisters’ at BYU would have to do to make ends meet!
Let’s also be fair about another aspect of the Romney’s lifestyle then and even now, considering their means…they seem to always live at least two notches below what their income could support, even without borrowing! That’s quite alright, IMO. Not unlike Warren Buffet, who could live in a NYC penthouse of his choosing but instead maintains a relatively modest home in Omaha, or the late Sam Walton, while a billionaire in his own right still drove himself to work in a ten-year old pickup at age seventy. No “bling” or supporting a “posse” with these folks!
Like this comment?
1
I really like where you’ve taken this, Douglas. There seems to be some kind of assumption that unless one has lived the same lifestyle with the same concerns as others, one can’t empathize with those others. Hogwash. The only way we can evaluate another, if we’re bound to do it at all, is by comparison to what they might have done.
Like this comment?
1
On the latter, it doesn’t need to be that way, but only 40 years ago, women who got pregnant could be fired (essentially the Church Educational System still does this once the child is born or downgrades the woman from paid teacher to a secretarial duty). The system was created around a male workforce, and it’s still transitioning toward something more equal.
OK, but once again, I think the best way for change to happen where it needs to is at the individual level. In fact, if any change is going to happen in organizations, I think it women will be pivotal in that — not for the sake of organizational ‘equality’ per se, but because they are passionate advocates of the power of family and motherhood in our society.
I was interviewed on a local NPR story about trends of women who drop out of school because of family reasons. I had a lot to say (that never appeared in the story ;) ) about how I think that part of the reason this happens is because women feel like they have to choose between being a mom and getting education/having a career. I think many women feel ashamed of their family goals because there is so much societal pressure for women to be career-oriented. I’ve talked to SO many college students who feel this way, and this should not be, especially among fellow LDS. Valuing motherhood has to start first at a philosophical level, and I don’t see that in the society at large and even within Church culture. Too many people look down on women who want to get married and start their families young. They try to encourage them to “wait” and “do their own thing” before ‘getting tied down.’ I think we have to be more deliberate about valuing motherhood in our dialogue first and foremost if we want to be able to then help women who are already passionate about motherhood to also think about self-reliance and creative ways to keep an active résumé, etc. as appropriate for their lives. I call it dancing in the tension, but you can’t do that if you don’t start with a solid understanding of doctrine, and motherhood is some of the most important doctrine there is.
In a secular sense, I also think that too many women in the workforce are too worried about “equality” in the workforce rather than thinking about a larger picture, about doing their part to help reduce the “mommyhood tax,” etc. (I’ve got an article in the works on that topic, in fact.)
Like this comment?
0
#34:Michelle,
Just because I tell my son or daughter to live some life before becoming a Mom or Dad, does not mean I don’t love them or I don’t honor Motherhood or Fatherhood. It’s just I Know that once your become a mom or dad, it’s hard to live a private life.
Like this comment?
0
Bob, I still think their agency ought to be respected on this score. I think we ought to teach them to get revelation, and then give them the space to get it. I have seen too many young adults feel conflicted when they feel they are getting answers and feeling pressure from parents and others to do something else.
Like this comment?
0
I am a SAHM with four young kids. I once ran an at-home business and a few years later, had a part-time job. It was a difficult juggling act for me personally, and my husband and I have agreed that I will not have any outside jobs for the time being. There is no set date for me to get out there and “earn my keep” as it were.
I feel I need to comment on what was mentioned at the start about the church’s policy on supporting single mothers. My parents divorced when I was 12. I am painfully all to aware of the precarious position a woman with little qualifications and no husband can put her in. My mother worked very hard to provide for us kids, and was helped out by the church. I have talked to her about this experience, and she was never made to feel guilty or ashamed of needing this assistance. She was given it freely and happily.
I think there is a tendency for us humans to paint pictures with a broad brush; every Bishop relates to his congregation differently and it is down to the individuals involved to rely on the Spirit for direction in such matters. Unfortunately, not everyone does.
As far as I can see (and I haven’t researched this thoroughly), general authorities and Sister Beck have repeatedly stated that women are struggling all over the world. There is compassion in these statements and I fully believe that the Lord wants to see us thriving and happy, regardless of our personal financial circumstances.
Like this comment?
2
“As far as I can see (and I haven’t researched this thoroughly), general authorities and Sister Beck have repeatedly stated that women are struggling all over the world. There is compassion in these statements and I fully believe that the Lord wants to see us thriving and happy, regardless of our personal financial circumstances.”
Thank you for your comment. I agree.
Like this comment?
0