J. Beck's CES Fireside

[Levin]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

What I don't understand is when a couple CHOOSES to both work full time, instead of having one person home with the kids. I see this as essentially letting someone else raise your kids, because the kids are spending the vast majority of their waking hours with a non-parent. This is not raising a family, but out-sourcing it to someone else. If one of the parents is not willing to stay home with the kids, then don't bother having any.

Do you think that there are some women out there who make better mothers when they are able to work than if they stayed at home full time, resulting in a net benefit to the children? I do. Maybe that's why in some families both parents work.

But then, you ask, why doesn't the father stay at home? Well, because he too is a better parent when he's able to work (the self-confidence that comes with providing for the fam, the adult interaction, the creative productivity at work, etc.).

But I also believe that children build up huge emotional reserves when they have a parent raise them full time, even if that parent gets cranky, irritable, and at times depressed from the isolation and frustrations that can come with staying at home.

Which situation is better for children: (1) both parents work, both parents happy; (2) one parent works, stay-at-home parent unhappy.

Perhaps you think the stay-at-home parent should just suck it up and things will get better. Let's say that parent perseveres and comes to tolerate/like being at home. What about when that parent is 60 and they get the huge ache that comes with wasted talent and unfulfilled dreams? The ache will come.

Because it's so complicated is one reason why we should just support parents in their thoughtful decisions, whatever they may be.

For each family, we can't know what's best. For society as a whole, we do know what's best. We teach the latter while offending the former; hence the need for extra sensitivity, kindness, and enthusiastic support at the ground level.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

What I don't understand is when a couple CHOOSES to both work full time, instead of having one person home with the kids.

Here is my question:

Is this sort of thing really a problem among Mormons? I don't think so.

Sis Beckisms are what happens when stay-at-homers want to validate their decisions by attacking those who choose a different path. The whole thing is kind of silly, especially since the OVERWHELMING majority of Mormon parents are very careful to spend time with their children, and Mormon women traditionally have had less formal education. (Example: In my dad's medical school class in Utah in the 70s, there were 98 white males and 2 women. Both women were imports from out-of-state who got full scholarships in an attempt to increase diversity. Even for the 70s, this was pitiful.)

Advocacy of a life path reminds me of certain people I know who went to Yale. In my experience, many of them remain huge advocates of spending a fortune for a Yale education because that's the path they chose, when they also could have obtained a great education by working hard at a good state school.

Why can't the question be a matter of how the kid is being treated, rather than a question of whether mom is in the home? My mom took care of my sister's kids while my sister worked, and her kids are fantastic. My sister made a careful decision, and my mom was supportive, and everything worked out fine.

Another example: Lessons about divorce at Church. In my experience, usually these lessons end up being about why it's bad to get divorced, instead of being about how to have a happy marriage. I think divorce is generally the result of an unhappy marriage, so why not talk more about ways to make marriages happier instead of about why not to get divorced.

This stuff always ends up bass-ackwards in Church because people oversimplify complicated, controversial topics. One might argue that it's impossible to include all the asterisks in a talk. I'd say that if a statement requires lots of asterisks, then don't make it. All you have to do is emphasize good, general principles and allow people to govern themselves. I don't think suggesting that women must be in the home is a good general principle. I think a good general principle would be to emphasize that children must be given care, love, and attention--preferably by family members, and by parents as much as possible.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I think a good general principle would be to emphasize that children must be given care, love, and attention--preferably by family members, and by parents as much as possible.

Your general conference talk would put me to sleep in two seconds.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Levin

Your general conference talk would put me to sleep in two seconds.

I'd include stories. You should read some of my stories sometime.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I'd include stories. You should read some of my stories sometime.

I have; tall tales; I'm still sleeping.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by Levin

Do you think that there are some women out there who make better mothers when they are able to work than if they stayed at home full time, resulting in a net benefit to the children? I do. Maybe that's why in some families both parents work.

Sounds like load of crap to me, and an excuse to not stay home. However, if the mom truly cannot handle staying home, then the dad can stay home with the kids. Either way, if whoever works can do their fair share in helping with the kids when they are home, and the parent that stays home is given opportunities to get out of the house on weekends, etc. MOST level headed people should be able to cope.

But then, you ask, why doesn't the father stay at home? Well, because he too is a better parent when he's able to work (the self-confidence that comes with providing for the fam, the adult interaction, the creative productivity at work, etc.).

Solution is simple...don't have kids! If you are going to both choose to work, when you don't need to, that is just being selfish. People out of the Church choose not to have kids all the time because they are too busy working, playing, travelling, etc. At least they don't have kids, and leave their rearing to someone else. If you're not willing to sacrifice, especially during the first few years of your children's lives, then don't have them.

But I also believe that children build up huge emotional reserves when they have a parent raise them full time, even if that parent gets cranky, irritable, and at times depressed from the isolation and frustrations that can come with staying at home.

Agree.

Which situation is better for children: (1) both parents work, both parents happy; (2) one parent works, stay-at-home parent unhappy.

Perhaps you think the stay-at-home parent should just suck it up and things will get better. Let's say that parent perseveres and comes to tolerate/like being at home. What about when that parent is 60 and they get the huge ache that comes with wasted talent and unfulfilled dreams? The ache will come.

No, I disagree with your premise that situation 2 must exist. I disagree that there are people that could NEVER be happy staying home with their kids the first few years. Remember, I never said I believe BOTH parents should stay home full time until every kids is out of the house. This would also prevent your scenario of a parent at 60 having the ache of wasted talent. Although I don't know how anyone in their right mind can think that spending their time raising their kids was time wasted. Again, I go back to such people shouldn't have kids in the first place.

My wife is an extremely talented artist. She stays home full time now, but once the kids are all in school, she will start her own business and work while the kids are in school.

[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.

[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.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Levin

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.

There is a lot of wisdom in this.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

There is a lot of wisdom in this.

The same applies for the husband.