cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/index.php)
-   Chit Chat (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   How much education does a SAHM need? (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26013)

Tex 05-15-2009 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 305340)
Ironically, I think your own statements cross the line from "encouragement to be a mother" to "discouragement to being a professional."

You said if a woman "has to work, so be it." This is a common refrain in the church (and at BYU). This doesn't suggest "we encourage you to explore motherhood and the enjoyment and value that comes from staying at home," but it suggests "only in the worst possible scenario should you consider not staying at home." Those are entirely different statements with entirely different values attached to them. Those who DO work, then, are often made to feel as though they are doing wrong and often feel compelled to demonstrate why the acceptance of work was "necessary" and not just desirable.

Possibly. But this isn't new, and it certainly isn't isolated. These are feelings anyone gets when they make choices that appear to go against church counsel, like the boy who chooses not to go on a mission. Or a little less dramatic: the person who chooses to see R-rated films, or to gamble. Or to be truly trivial, witness the flap over Hinckley's "one earring" comment.

That doesn't excuse those who try to make others feel guilty about these things. That's wrong too. But it doesn't mean the church is coercing them or institutionalizing the guilt. No one will (or ought to) be denied a church calling, or a temple recommend, or be told to stop taking the sacrament because they see R-rated films or wear 2 earrings in one ear. Ditto mothers working outside the home.

They will instead be counseled to avoid it, and then it's up to the individual to decide how it applies to them.

RedHeadGal 05-16-2009 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 305343)
Possibly. But this isn't new, and it certainly isn't isolated. These are feelings anyone gets when they make choices that appear to go against church counsel, like the boy who chooses not to go on a mission. Or a little less dramatic: the person who chooses to see R-rated films, or to gamble. Or to be truly trivial, witness the flap over Hinckley's "one earring" comment.

That doesn't excuse those who try to make others feel guilty about these things. That's wrong too. But it doesn't mean the church is coercing them or institutionalizing the guilt. No one will (or ought to) be denied a church calling, or a temple recommend, or be told to stop taking the sacrament because they see R-rated films or wear 2 earrings in one ear. Ditto mothers working outside the home.

They will instead be counseled to avoid it, and then it's up to the individual to decide how it applies to them.

wow, I'm away for a couple of days, and it turns to this: whether a mother chooses to work outside the home or not is equivalent to whether she wears a single pair of earrings. Interesting.

Tex 05-16-2009 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal (Post 305360)
wow, I'm away for a couple of days, and it turns to this: whether a mother chooses to work outside the home or not is equivalent to whether she wears a single pair of earrings. Interesting.

Red herring.

Cali Coug 05-16-2009 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 305343)
Possibly. But this isn't new, and it certainly isn't isolated. These are feelings anyone gets when they make choices that appear to go against church counsel, like the boy who chooses not to go on a mission. Or a little less dramatic: the person who chooses to see R-rated films, or to gamble. Or to be truly trivial, witness the flap over Hinckley's "one earring" comment.

That doesn't excuse those who try to make others feel guilty about these things. That's wrong too. But it doesn't mean the church is coercing them or institutionalizing the guilt. No one will (or ought to) be denied a church calling, or a temple recommend, or be told to stop taking the sacrament because they see R-rated films or wear 2 earrings in one ear. Ditto mothers working outside the home.

They will instead be counseled to avoid it, and then it's up to the individual to decide how it applies to them.

Isn't the point that this isn't new and it isn't isolated? Isn't that kind of what we are talking about when we use the word "institutionalized?"

RedHeadGal 05-17-2009 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 305362)
Red herring.

whose red herring? yours?

Tex 05-18-2009 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal (Post 305369)
whose red herring? yours?

This:

Quote:

whether a mother chooses to work outside the home or not is equivalent to whether she wears a single pair of earring
is so not what I said. Is that what you honestly got out of it?

Mormon Red Death 05-18-2009 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 305292)
This is really unnecessary, Barbara, and I'm disappointed you want to go there. You've really joined the snark crowd the last couple of weeks.

please.. her suggestion for byu marketing was hilarious.

Mormon Red Death 05-18-2009 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-American (Post 305322)
My decision to go to law school makes for an insufficient example, but you brought it up, so I'll use it. For most of my college career, I very seriously considered going into academia. When I talked with friends and family about the decision, many if not most expressed concern over whether going into teaching would be the best decision in terms of raising a family, but every last one of them encouraged me to do what I thought was right. My grandfather, for example, is as big a proponent of this model of the family as anybody out there, and was only slightly less vocal in expressing his concern over whether this was right than in expressing his support of whatever I chose to do. One of the reasons I eventually decided to go into law (though, I note, not by any means the only one) is that I believe it will make for a better family life than academia. That was my choice alone; nobody ever tried to keep me from going into teaching.

Just curious but how would working 70 hours a week be more family friendly than teaching where you get 3 months off a year? Is it the money?

edit: Nevermind... I saw the thread below

RedHeadGal 05-18-2009 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 305372)
This:



is so not what I said. Is that what you honestly got out of it?

look, you showed up at the end of the thread and proclaimed that you hadn't read the first pages. Your reductive take on it at the end fails to address many of the comments made from the beginning.

It's difficult to navigate being an adult, LDS woman and pursuing non-family goals. For a variety of reasons, many of them related to the culture. It's also difficult to be an adult, LDS woman pursuing family goals. For different reaons, but again, many are related to the culture. Both of these circumstances are unique to women and deserve thoughtful consideration.

I agree with Mike that much of this is stating the obvious, but that doesn't prevent some from insisting that it's nothing.

Tex 05-18-2009 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal (Post 305388)
look, you showed up at the end of the thread and proclaimed that you hadn't read the first pages. Your reductive take on it at the end fails to address many of the comments made from the beginning.

You can assume, then, that my post was not intended to address your comments made from the beginning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal (Post 305388)
It's difficult to navigate being an adult, LDS woman and pursuing non-family goals. For a variety of reasons, many of them related to the culture. It's also difficult to be an adult, LDS woman pursuing family goals. For different reaons, but again, many are related to the culture. Both of these circumstances are unique to women and deserve thoughtful consideration.

I agree with Mike that much of this is stating the obvious, but that doesn't prevent some from insisting that it's nothing.

I don't know if you're insinuating that I'm one of those people, but I'm not. I don't approve of some of the judgmentalism that accompanies the culture, and have said so.

That said, I don't think the church has institutionalized that judgmentalism (as some have suggested), nor do I think it should apologize for what doctrine it sets forth on the matter.

JohnnyLingo 05-19-2009 04:08 PM

I'd just like to point out that the conflict between working and staying at home with the kids is not unique to the Latter-day Saint woman.

All-American 05-19-2009 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo (Post 305433)
I'd just like to point out that the conflict between working and staying at home with the kids is not unique to the Latter-day Saint woman.

True enough, but admittedly, the nature of the conflict has a doctrinal edge among Latter-day Saint women that can't be found elsewhere.

A universal issue, certainly, but we have a unique way of handling it.

MikeWaters 05-19-2009 04:22 PM

Back many years ago, ETB said that women should not be working outside of the home, barring extraordinary circumstances. I will need to find the exact quote. It created a lot of consternation. People don't like to feel like they are disobeying the prophet. So you get a lot of creative interpretation and rationalization.

I'm not sure if this was it or not, but along the same vein:
http://fc.byu.edu/jpages/ee/w_etb87.htm

Quote:

Now, my dear mothers, knowing of your divine role to bear and rear children and bring them back to Him, how will you accomplish this in the Lord's way? I say the Lord's way, because it is different from the world's way.

The Lord clearly defined the roles of mothers and fathers in providing for and rearing a righteous posterity. In the beginning, Adam--not Eve--was instructed to earn the bread by the sweat of his brow. Contrary to conventional wisdom, a mother's calling is in the home, not in the market place.

Again, in the Doctrine and Covenants, we read: "Women have claim on their husbands for their maintenance, until their husbands are taken" (D&C 83:2). This is the divine right of a wife and mother. She cares for and nourishes her children at home. Her husband earns the living for the family, which makes this nourishing possible. With that claim on their husbands for their financial support, the counsel of the Church has always been for mothers to spend their full time in the home in rearing and caring for their children.

We realize also that some of our choice sisters are widowed and divorced and that others find themselves in unusual circumstances where, out of necessity, they are required to work for a period of time. But these instances are the exception, not the rule.

In a home where there is an able-bodied husband, he is expected to be the breadwinner. Sometimes we hear of husbands who, because of economic conditions, have lost their jobs and expect their wives to go out of the home and work even though the husband is still capable of providing for his family. In these cases, we urge the husband to do all in his power to allow his wife to remain in the home caring for the children while he continues to provide for his family the best he can, even though the job be is able secure may not be ideal and family budgeting will have to be tighter.

Our beloved prophet Spencer W. Kimball had much to say about the role of mothers in the home and their callings and responsibilities. I am impressed tonight to share with you some of his inspired pronouncements. I fear that much of his counsel has gone unheeded, and families have suffered because of it. But I stand this evening as a second witness to the truthfulness of what President Spencer W. Kimball said. He spoke as a true prophet of God.

President Kimball declared: "Women are to take care of the family--the Lord has so stated--to be an assistant to the husband, to work with him, but not to earn the living, except in unusual circumstances. Men ought to be men indeed and earn the living under normal circumstances" (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 318 ).

President Kimball continues: "Too many mothers work away from home to furnish sweaters and music lessons and trips and fun for their children. Too many women spend their time in socializing, in politicking, in public services when they should be home to teach and train and receive and love their children into security" (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 319).

Remember the counsel of President Kimball to John and Mary: "Mary, you are to become a career woman in the greatest career on earth--that of homemaker, wife, and mother. It was never intended by the Lord that married women should compete with men in employment. They have a far greater and more important service to render.

Again President Kimball speaks: "The husband is expected to support his family and only in an emergency should a wife secure outside employment. Her place is in the home, to build the home into a haven of delight.

"Numerous divorces can be traced directly to the day when the wife left the home and went out into the world into employment. Two incomes raise the standard of living beyond its norm. Two spouses working prevent the complete and proper home life, break into the family prayers, create an independence which is not cooperative, causes distortion, limits the family, and frustrates the children already born" (Spencer W. Kimball, San Antonio Fireside, Dec. 3, 1977, pp. 9-10 ).

Finally President Kimball counsels: "I beg of you, you who could and should be bearing and rearing a family: Wives, come home from the typewriter, the laundry, the nursing, come home from the factory, the cafe. No career approaches in importance that of wife, homemaker, mother--cooking meals, washing dishes, making beds for one's precious husband and children. Come home, wives, to your husbands. Make home a heaven for them. Come home, wives, to your children, born and unborn. Wrap the motherly cloak about you and, unembarrassed, help in a major role to create the bodies for the immortal souls who anxiously await.

"When you have fully complemented your husband in home life and borne the children, growing up full of faith, integrity, responsibility, and goodness, then you have achieved your accomplishment supreme, without peer, and you will be the envy [of all] through time and eternity" (Spencer W. Kimball, San Antonio Fireside, Dec. 3, 1977, pp. 11-12).

CardiacCoug 05-20-2009 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 305154)
I'm not sure that I know any LDS female physicians. Not a one.

Seriously?

Our ward has 3 female physicians, including the Stake President's wife.

MikeWaters 05-20-2009 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug (Post 305455)
Seriously?

Our ward has 3 female physicians, including the Stake President's wife.

As in can't remember meeting one ever in my life.

I know of one that considered taking a job up here, but I never met her, nor did she take the job. (incidentally she was single).

Cali Coug 05-20-2009 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug (Post 305455)
Seriously?

Our ward has 3 female physicians, including the Stake President's wife.

I honestly don't think I have ever met one in any ward I have been in either. I have met a few female LDS attorneys,


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.