How much education does a SAHM need?
 

SAHM = stay at home Mom.

I think being a SAHM is a noble thing. I don't look down at any woman that chooses this.

But a SAHM can mean different things to different people. If you have 2 kids, 2 years apart, and you go back to work when the youngest is 5, then you have invested 7 years.

On the other hand, SAHM might mean to other women "I will never work, ever."

If you are sure you are going to be one of the latter kind of SAHMs, do you need a professional or graduate degree?

There is a young woman in my ward who was considering going to a specialized engineering university. But in her recent talk, she said she wants to be a SAHM. Do those two things really fit together? Maybe, I don't know.

I certainly believe an educated mother is a more effective parent.

How well received would a talk from a YM be, who says she intends to be a working mother? I wonder.

I see no on took this bait. What does that last sentence mean, btw? I can't make sense of it.

I'm not convinced that more education makes a better parent. Good parenting involves a unique skill set that is probably not enhanced by most traditional education. Very smart, very educated people could be poor parents, and vice versa.

As to the question about what we teach our LDS YW, that's a quite separate. IMO, much of this question turns on ambition. I would define that as a desire to pursue a more worldly set of goals: professional goals, monetary goals, status goals, maybe service in a larger, more organized sense. I don't think ambition is necessarily bad (it can be, but that's another topic), and LDS to some extent expect YM to have it because we expect that their role will be to provide for families. That's harder to do when you are not pursuing goals with ambition. I imagine that natural ambition varies quite a bit from person to person anyway, but I bet we try to cultivate it among YM who don't seem to have much.

For YW, however, we sort of set them up to have goals: education and family. Worthy goals, yes. But we seem to seek either to gut their ambition or not to instill it. Yes, go ahead and get that electical engineering degree, but that's okay if you never use it and stay home with your kids--that's your best roll anyway. And maybe it is. But it puts some women in a tough position. Some actually have to work for various reasons, and I think some have ambition that can't be gutted.

Who would argue that we should seek to instill more ambition in our YW? It will come as no surprise that I would, I'm sure. I taught YW several years ago, and these were my main themes at that time. First, I wanted them to understand that it was time to make up their minds for themselves as to the gospel because they were about to be on their own. Second, I wanted them to understand that regardless of family-oriented goals, their main role in life was to be an agent for themselves, to make their own choices and to take care of themselves. To be self-reliant. To me, that requires some ambition because even if you are a SAHM, you have to know that you can provide for yourself.

seriously, why dignify his transparent (and rather pathetic) attempt at trolling with a response?

It's no secret that our society has lost sight of the inherent value of education. There is wealth and beauty that comes only from extending the depths and breadths of one's understanding - but so few of us can see that anymore. Mike's commentary is reflective of our increasingly shallow, vocationally-motivated mindset.

there's nothing trolling about this--we have an entire cadre of LDS girls with no intention of becoming educated, or if educated, only moderately so, and if "very" educated, then not using that education in a vocation.

This girl's mother is a lawyer who never practiced law (to my knowledge) while her husband delivered pizzas and newspapers to support the family (they have some unique circumstances, which would explain some of this, which I won't bother with).

If you send your daughter to BYU, expect her to get much negative reinforcement if she is not on the SAHM-track.

More--

In my work, obviously, many of my colleagues are highly educated professional women. Some are my equals. Some are my superiors, etc. Just like you would expect.

But then contrast this with my ward--many professional men. Zero professional women (that I am aware of). Zero. Even the professional men are not married to professional women.

Obviously, it is the choice of women in this cultural group (Mormons) not to pursue professional careers (for the most part).

This is what I worry about: do we, as a church, lose the women who choose to become professionals? i.e. are they now inactive, gone? And if so, is that a good thing? Is their a way to keep them?

My brother-in-law works in DC. He is single. He says he is not attracted to most of the LDS women there. Why? Basically because they are aggressive professionals.

If LDS men won't marry LDS professional women, then what is to become of these women, in terms of staying in the church?

If you do a survey of the professionals here, you will likely see they are married to non-professionals (including myself). This isn't any kind of value judgment against them--I don't wish my wife was a professional. But I have to ask myself, did I avoid such women?

How many women marry in college and IMMEDIATELY give up their aspirations so their husband can finsih college faster or some-such?

BG, I think your take on this is different from what he's getting at. What you mention here: the value of education for its own sake is actually embraced in the LDS culture, at least ostensibly. In fact, it's the perfect plan for many a future SAHM who enters BYU. Or the SAHM who goes back for the master's degree in something, once the kids are in school, but still with no real career plans.

Whether he's trolling or not, I still think its an interesting topic. Many would shy away either because they don't see what he describes or because they don't see it as a problem. Sadly.

I generally ignore non-LDS lecturing me on how I am wrong about LDS culture.

I may be wrong, but at least I have a basis to be right.

Who doesn't want a SAHM back at the home? I wish I had one.

My ward does have a few professional women, some single and some married. More fit into the category of women who either didn't even finish school (stopped to leave to the husband's professional school) or who didn't really work.

I took some time a couple of years back to try to help a woman who was a new BYU law grad. She had finished her degree and elected to take the next 9 months off to go on her husband's rotation (he's military med school). She never took a bar and didn't seem too worried about it. I told her how important it was to look for work NOW because the longer she waited, the harder it would be to get on the ladder. She never did get a job, and now she has a baby, and I wonder if she'll ever practice law. Not that she has to, but what's the point of going to law school if you don't want to use the degree. Strikes me as a poor investment.

Which reminds me that I have several times been asked whether I went to law school "for fun" (as in, for education's sake, I suppose). Again, that's a very odd comment to me.

But you really can't openly pursue a career as a woman in the LDS church. You just can't. It doesn't fit the doctrinal message. It's not your role. No, it's not forbidden, but it's not the way it's "supposed" to be.

you seem to think that a SAHM doesn't need a law degree.

There are some kinds of technical training that would seem to be a waste if you never used it as a SAHM--like going to truck driving school. Or learning the ins and outs of the engineering of heating and cooling in skyscrapers.

There's a line somewhere--and I'm not sure where it is--where you have to wonder about the investment of time and money (and that's a two-sided thing--schools benefit when their alums do well, so the school is investing in the student, esp. when spots are limited like BYU law).

Are you open to a recent BYU grad lecturing you on how you're wrong about BYU culture? Because I don't see what you're seeing, and I still have the stench of Provo emanating from my cap and gown.

I would guess that Mike would say that you are a Utahn and because BYU culture = Utah culture, you are unable to notice anything that is a problem.

People don't find what they never look for.

In the real world, more than 50% of medical school applicants are female.

Do you think that at BYU, the % is even in the same ballpark as 50%?

try this: go to a big, competitive law school. meet other LDS students there. report back on the demographics. how many are women? how many are married women? how many are married women with children?

then look at the larger student population. it will probably be more than 50% women, and it won't be hard to find some that are married and/or have children.

I want to take back something about my brother-in-law: I said that he was not attracted to professional-type women.

Well he is currently dating an LDS asst. professor of literature. So there goes that theory.

I'm not sure that I know any LDS female physicians. Not a one.

In College Station, I can think of one LDS female professor. Maybe there are more, but I am not aware of them.

In my ward I can think of only one semi-professional LDS working women--she's an accountant.

Let's face it, it's just not common. I'm afraid it might be common for the young women who grow up to be professionals to leave the church.

A waste seems like the wrong term. My point about law school in particular is that it's expensive, and it is meant to funnel you onto a particular path (as with many professional schools, I realize). It's more like an entry ticket than an education. Sure you learn things, but you're building your resume there as much as you're building your mind.

So its a poor investment if you don't build on it after you finish law school. I would say that about anyone who goes and then opts out (and there are plenty of these, both sexes). Law school is easy to attend because you don't need any particular background to get in, and many unfortunately don't think that through before they've invested big.

But in the larger conversation, it goes back to my initial point about ambition. We are not raising our daughters to strive to achieve. Instead, we laud their sacrifice.

Far be it from me to say that it is a great achievement to be a lawyer, or that it is a noble pursuit.

I like what one of my female LDS friends did--she applied for law school, but turned it down to be a SAHM. I think just the knowledge that she had been accepted into the school of her choice (which she widely publicized, I believe) was good enough for her. That she could have gone down that road if she wanted, but that she chooses not to. She had proven something to herself.

Life is short. We all have a lot of choices. More choices than we admit to ourselves. There is a place for SAHMs and I think they are awesome. There is also a place for professional women who are briefly SAHMs when kids are young, or are not SAHMs at all.

yes, you make your feelings about lawyers clear. fine.

and yes, we all have choices. but for a young, devout, LDS woman, do you think her choices are the same as a non-LDS young woman? or an LDS young man? Do they many of them freely choose SAHM, or is it a default?

It is not my intent to disparage any SAHMs. I agree it is a difficult, important, praise-worthy job. I'd love for any woman who wants to choose that to be able to do it, and do it well. I just wish I felt like it was really chosen and not just defaulting into what is expected (for most if not all who do become SAHMs).

Let's face it--SAHM-hood is the province of the well-off.

The veneer of 20th century feminism has been rubbed away, and smart, talented women are not ashamed to proclaim themselves SAHMs. It's a luxury that not all women can afford.

Because of cultural expectations, LDS women are more likely to go the SAHM route, and LDS men are more likely to select women that want to go this route. Is there a place carved out for women who do not fit this mold, that they too can feel accepted?

Ah, I must not be looking, then.

That's crap, Mike.

Zoobs only care about a few things. This is not on the list of those things.

Then I'm not a zoob. I care quite a bit about this particular thing. I've had conversations with several of my female friends at the Y about education, raising a family, and this very topic, especially now, as a number of them are graduating. I find your characterizations to be inconsistent with what I have seen on the ground. I also find your assertions to be tainted with hubris. Why is it that when it comes to understanding how women at BYU think, a woman can't understand, and a BYU student can't care, but a doctor in Texas can see it all?

What, specifically, do you not see? Mike is a bit all over the place here so I am not sure which issue you are arguing.

When you have managed to upset the feminists, the non-feministists, the LDS, the non-LDS, the zoobs, and the non-zoobs, you are probably close to a real nugget of truth.

Either that or you're as wrong as is possible.

Except no one has offered a cogent rebuttal.

I've merely stated the obvious.

I'm not upset. I just think you're wrong. And when feminists, non-feminists, LDS, non-LDS, zoobs, and non-zoobs think you're wrong, it does not necessarily follow that you are right.

No doubt you are preparing your brief.

In the meantime, we will scratch our heads wondering what you are talking about.

Before I "prepare my brief," as you say, let's depose for a bit.

You say there's an entire cadre of LDS girls with no intention of becoming educated or using that education in a vocation. Do you believe there is a higher percentage of such girls than is typical? How much more? So much so that it crosses the threshold of institutional repression? To what degree would it need to be reversed to duck back under an acceptable threshold?

1. yes, higher percentage, when adjusted for parents income (i.e. social class), and esp. father's education.

2. Significantly more.

3. I know for certain there was institutional repression when I was at BYU. It's harder for me to speak to now, given that it is a decade later, but given that the fundamental aspects of the parent organization are not different and that cultures and educational institutions change very slowly, it would be shocking to me if there has been a sea-change.

4. I don't know that I am asking it to be "reversed". I am asking for a safe place for girls that don't fit the SAHM mold, in both the church and at BYU. If you do not prepare your daughters for the negative messages they will get at BYU, shame on you.

This is not anything different than I have been saying for years.

Okay. I'll concede on points one and two, that there is significantly greater tendency for girls to eschew education knowing that they are going to be moms. I don't think that is a tendency unique to LDS women, but given the emphasis on family, I'll agree that it is more prevalent.

I also agree with you on part of point four, that the tendency does not necessarily need to be reversed. It may even be a good thing, all things considered.

But let me ask that you further elaborate on point 3. What was the nature of this institutional repression? How did it manifest itself? Who were its primary conveyors? What happened to those who tried to buck the trend?

There is a long history to my informal investigation of this.

I will just say that it started with looking at the list of people from BYU admitted to medical school, and seeing this growing list I noticed that there were almost no women on the list. I can't remember the total number--130 people or so, maybe more. There were 3 female names.

I'm not going to share my entire history here, but suffice it to say that I became extremely confident, as I poked around further, that women were being discouraged from going into medicine at BYU.

You have to be very naive to find this surprising.

Mike, I've already agreed that there is a greater tendency for LDS women to stay at home instead of go on to get educations. What I am not seeing is women being discouraged from pursuing an education and enduring institutional repression if they try to do it. I have friends and family members who are going on missions, getting masters and doctoral degrees, and using their education in the workplace. Some of them didn't get married because the opportunity never arose; others had legitimate offers on the table and turned them down to pursue opportunities. Still others got married, had or are having children, and are STILL pursuing education and career. The response to these women from friends, family, and mentors around them has overwhelmingly been support for these women who are following their dreams.

What I see and hear from these girls RIGHT NOW is a very different picture from the one you are painting. Maybe I am unaware of what kind of repression these girls have had to face; if so, enlighten me, please.

Yes, you are unaware. You see only the world you want to see.

I spoke to many women who provided me with the specifics of how they had been actively discouraged.

Then enlighten me. Please.

My experience shows me something different than what your experience shows you. I'd be happy to hear your perspective. I'm not just going to take your word for it.

For reasons that I do not care to explain, I do not wish to discuss how I came to know things, what I did about it, and the aftermath.

I don't know that overt institutional oppression exists at BYU as Waters describes, but I had similar thoughts when I was at BYU too. I think if you look at women in your ward, you will note that there are very few professional women around, far fewer than you would expect given the education levels of most people in your wards. Whether that is a result of pressure applied at BYU or general church pressure (or whether the pressure at BYU, if any, is the result of general church pressure too), is certainly debatable.

The idea that the church's culture creates tremendous pressure against women choosing professional careers, but somehow BYU exerts NO institutional pressure--think about that idea for a minute. Even if you didn't know anything about BYU, didn't know any examples, didn't know any names or circumstances, how likely is that to be true?

Very good. Thanks.

My reason for not wanting to explain has nothing to do with AA.

I was naive enough to think that I could do something about it.

In the end, I decided not to act, because I thought it was unfair for the few to be punished, when the many were guilty.

So instead of tackling the many, I gave up, and moved on with my life. Leaving, no doubt, enemies seething in the wake.

Were they individual episodes? Isolated incidents? Were there recurring players?

I'll concede that there are incidents where bright, capable, and talented LDS women with bright futures were discouraged from pursuing their dreams and encouraged to be a stay at home mom instead. I'm not convinced that such episodes are so common as to constitute institutional repression, nor that such women will inevitably face it.