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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 305362)

Red herring.

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal (Post 305369)

whose red herring? yours?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 305372)

This:



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

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.

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.