J. Beck's CES Fireside

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by Levin

It's not just about coping, NorCal.

It's about what is best for the family overall. Just because a level-headed person can cope with staying at home for five years (if they have one child), seven years (if they have two), nine years (if they have three) . . . until all their kids are in school does not mean it is the best thing for that family in the long run. Those could be nine miserable years for the stay-at-home parent, and the parent's misery would take its unintended toll on the kids. Whereas, if the parent worked, perhaps the kids would also be better off overall. There are millions of happy, well-adjusted adults who went to day care. There are lots of emotionally beat up adults who had a depressed stay-at-home parent. In the latter situation, if the parent had worked, and would have been a happier person as a result, perhaps it would have been better for the kids in the long run.

I'm sure MikeWaters could enlighten us on this, but studies (and common sense) have shown that children's emotional health is greatly affected by their parents' emotional health. If the mom is happy, the kid is happy too.

My argument sounds like some sort of emotional economics; that's dumb. But I'm convinced there are some families out there where this is true.

In any event, I win our little debate: your burden is to prove that all families are better off if a parent stays home until all the kids are in school. That's impossible to prove; the British had as good a chance occupying all the colonies. I only have to provide one example where a family was better off because both parents worked (or would have been better off had both parents worked). I know several such families, and I suspect you do too.

What is the root cause of this parent's so called "miserable years" of raising their children?

"There are millions of happy, well-adjusted adults who went to day care. There are lots of emotionally beat up adults who had a depressed stay-at-home parent."

You sound like a liberal arguing for same-sex couples' right to adopt kids. The ones that say, well there's plenty of kids raised by a mom and a dad that have horrible lives, so why shouldn't gays get to raise kids? Surely they wouldn't do any worse? Give me a break.

I don't win anything. YOUR burden of proof is to prove that there are some people that under NO circumstances could ever be content, and have a satisfied life being the stay at home parent. I argue that ANYONE with the proper perspective, spiritual guidance, living the gospel, and support from their spouse can live a happy life staying at home to raise THEIR kids, and not outsource the raising of THEIR kids to someone else.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by Levin

And NorCal, you say that if both parents want to work, then they shouldn't have kids.

That is ridiculous. Just a few of the many responses include:

1. I'm sure a child would rather have a life in this world with two working parents than to never have had a life at all.

2. Two working parents can still raise very good kids, so it's better for society if they had them than didn't.

3. Most importantly, why deny parents the happiness of having kids just because they both want to work? Yours is a harsh sanction.

Have you ever thought of setting population control policy for the Chinese Government? I hear they're thinking of doing away with the one-child policy. Perhaps yours can take its place; it'd be much more effective.

That's right, that's what I say.

1. LMAO. Everyone that needs to be brought into this world will be, regardless of how many selfish couples decide not to have kids.

2. I NEVER said it's impossible for good kids to be raised in a family of two working parents. However, let's set the record straight. The parents aren't the ones that will be raising the kids, as you suggest. The primary care giver and "raiser" will be whoever is with the kids while the parents are at work.

3. Because this type of couple wants to have their cake and eat it too. Having kids is serious business. It's not just a hobby you do on the weekends, while someone else does the serious lifting during the daytime, while you are at work climbing the corporate ladder.

[NorCal Cat]

So tell me Levin, are you and your wife both working with kids, or do you come from a family of working parents?

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

SAHMs do a lot of plopping their kids in front of the TV. Which is more valuable? Interacting with peers and teachers or watching TV?

I used to be in the Norcal camp, firmly believing that kids raised by a fulltime Mom was by far superior. I am not as sure anymore.

Come on Mike, the assumption is the fulltime mom is a mom "who knows."

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

I hope this isn't the message you're really pulling from this talk. I'm guessing you're being facetious.

Good guess.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by Levin

I come back to my original point: I think some families are better off when both parents work b/c when mom is miserable, so are the kids; and if a professional pursuit completes a person in an essential, necessary way, and thus makes them happier and content, and thus a better parent, then I think the family of that parent is better off.

Nonsense! If someone needs a professional pursuit to be "complete" (whatever the hell that means) in an essential way, then their priorities are out of whack.
This is complete BS, and just means the person is too SELFISH to put their career aside, even for just a few years until the kids are in school.

One of the most fundamental purposes of our freaking existence on earth is to raise children in the gospel. No person with this priority straight in their head is going to go psycho because they stay at home with their kids for a few years.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

YOUR burden of proof is to prove that there are some people that under NO circumstances could ever be content, and have a satisfied life being the stay at home parent. I argue that ANYONE with the proper perspective, spiritual guidance, living the gospel, and support from their spouse can live a happy life staying at home to raise THEIR kids, and not outsource the raising of THEIR kids to someone else.

My argument is simple: For some families, there is a NET benefit if both parents work (my silly emotional economics argument). Thus, I don't have to prove that the miserable parent who must stay at home could not, with the right effort and attitude, live a happy life. Rather, I just have to prove that the combined well-being of the children and parents when both parents work is greater than the combined well-being of the children and parents when the miserable parent chooses to tough it out at home. I don't know how to measure these things, but my eperience, common sense, and the spirit tell me that it's true.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

I can agree with this. If motherhood makes a woman miserable, then I doubt God really wants her putting all of her energies into it.

What the hell? If motherhood, or fatherhood for that matter, makes someone miserable, then they shouldn't have kids.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

Nonsense! If someone needs a professional pursuit to be "complete" (whatever the hell that means) in an essential way, then their priorities are out of whack.
This is complete BS, and just means the person is too SELFISH to put their career aside, even for just a few years until the kids are in school.

One of the most fundamental purposes of our freaking existence on earth is to raise children in the gospel. No person with this priority straight in their head is going to go psycho because they stay at home with their kids for a few years.

You're hilarious; love the passion.

Anyways, your too binary. See the gray. Some people who wish to work and be parents are not SELFISH (is it better when we put it in caps?). See the great diversity of people and situations.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by Levin

ex-Ute, I agree that being taught correct principles (repeatedly) from the pulpit is essential. I just have the following people in mind when I read Sis. Beck's words:

1) Female history university student who is lit on fire by early American history; loves to learn and write about it; loves even more to teach about it. Ignore and just get married and have kids? Or try to work out a solution, like many have, to get doctorate, teach, and still be a good, loving, nurturing mother. But she hears "choices have consequences, and choose with eternal principles in mind;" i.e., put motherhood before profession. Whatever choice she makes she'll be guilt-ridden; unnecessarily so, in my opinion.

2) Female lawyers, doctors, accountants, whoever who love their work and thrive on the blessings that come from serving others, thoughtful concentration, problem solving, adult interaction, secular leadership, and yet who strive to be loving, nurturing mothers. They must feel guilt; they haven't made choices with eternal principles in mind.

Sometimes, I think the eternal principle is "to thine ownself be true," and for some women, that means teaching history and changing diapers. It's possible, you know. And their families will be better off in the long run. And I think we should offer encouragement to these women from the pulpit too.

These people can't postpone their careers for a few years because...?