16 May
Mothers Working Outside the Home
Editors Note: While composing this post I thought that I was writing about this topic in a way that would clarify what I believe the doctrine of the LDS Church to be regarding mothers working outside the home. I tried to make it clear that I do not think that these statements about the importance of being home with children apply to women who aren’t married. Even more importantly, I attempted in my first paragraph to explain that just as I believe the LDS Church has standards such as the Word of Wisdom, only the members themselves who have a personal witness of the Word of Wisdom are held accountable for choosing to live by that standard. I do not believe that the statements below by Church leaders are meant to be a condemnation on all mothers who choose to work outside the home. What I do believe is that they are statements by men called of God to be witnesses of His will during these modern times and are meant to be the guidelines for which we as believers strive to live by when plotting out the course of our lives. In simple terms, if you aren’t LDS and you don’t have a testimony of these principles I don’t believe God will hold you accountable for them, just as He wouldn’t hold you accountable for not living the standards of the Word of Wisdom or other standards of the LDS faith.
By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed. The Family: A Proclamation To The World
Source
Several months ago I mentioned in one of my Formspring replies that I believed God intended for mothers to stay home and rear their children, that working outside the home should be the exception not the rule. What a stir this caused! I think it’s hard to hear someone say this if your own mother chose to work out of the home for reasons of personal gain or fulfillment, or if you are doing so yourself, or if you plan on doing so when you have children in the future. I cannot stress enough that a belief I have in one area does not cause me to judge you as a “bad” person for your own choices. If this were true, I would be condemning a whole lot of people who drink alcohol, use recreational drugs, or have sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage, for just as I believe God’s apostles and prophets have spoken out against mothers working outside the home for personal reasons instead of necessity, so too have they warned that the Lord does not want us using alcohol or having premarital sex. I try to seek out the teachings that I believe came from God and apply them in my own life, then work to spread the knowledge of those teachings to others, but beyond that I believe that God gave us free agency for a reason. We are all free to make the choices that guide our lives and it is up to God to mete out the consequences.
To give you an idea why I believe this about the role of mothers, a few quotes from our Church leaders, some phrases bolded by me for emphasis:
. . . 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 café. 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 wait. 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 accomplishments supreme, without peer, and you will be the envy through time and eternity. Spencer W. Kimball
We have often said, This divine service of motherhood can be rendered only by mothers. It may not be passed to others. Nurses cannot do it; public nurseries cannot do it. Hired help cannot do it; kind relatives cannot do it. Only by mother, aided as much as may be by a loving father, brothers and sisters, and other relatives, can the full needed measure of watchful care be given. Spencer W. Kimball
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 the wives to go out of the home and work, even though the husband is 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 he is able to secure may not be ideal and family budgeting may have to be tighter. . . . Sometimes the mother works outside of the home at the encouragement, or even insistence, of her husband. It is he who wants the items or conveniences that the extra income can buy. Not only will the family suffer in such instances, brethren, but your own spiritual growth and progression will be hampered. I say to all of you, the Lord has charged men with the responsibility to provide for their families in such a way that the wife is allowed to fulfill her role as mother in the home. . . . One apparent impact of the women’s movement has been the feelings of discontent it has created among young women who have chosen the role of wife and mother. They are often made to feel that there are more exciting and self-fulfilling roles for women than housework, diaper changing, and children calling for mother. This view loses sight of the eternal perspective that God elected women to the noble role of mother and that exaltation is eternal fatherhood and eternal motherhood. Ezra Taft Benson
It is time that the hearts of us fathers be turned to our children and the hearts of the children be turned to us fathers, or we shall both be cursed. The seeds of divorce are often sown and the blessings of children delayed by wives working outside the home. Working mothers should remember that their children usually need more of mother than of money. Ezra Taft Benson
In a personal way, I recall the experiences my dear wife and I went through after deciding the course I should take for my life’s work. I had taken some courses in pharmacy with the plan in mind of converting to a career in medicine. As many of us do, I changed my mind and engaged in another business, banking. We were blessed with steady employment, but I felt attracted toward the profession of law. This was a serious decision because I was married and had a family to support but after fasting and prayer and obtaining the facts as to the best way to proceed, I completed my undergraduate work and entered law school. I took classes at night because it was necessary to be employed during the daytime. These were not easy years for us, but desires are usually accomplished if we are willing to make a determined effort. Needless to say, I had the help and support of my wife. She remained a homemaker and cared for our children. What she gave in love, encouragement, frugality, and companionship was far in excess of any material contribution she might have made by taking employment. Our wives deserve great credit for the heavy work load they carry day in and day out within our homes. No one expends more energy than a devoted mother and wife. In the usual arrangement of things, however, it is the man to whom the Lord has assigned the breadwinner’s role. There are impelling reasons for our sisters to plan toward employment also. We want them to obtain all the education and vocational training possible before marriage. If they become widowed or divorced and need to work, we want them to have dignified and rewarding employment. If a sister does not marry, she has every right to engage in a profession that allows her to magnify her talents and gifts. Brothers and Sisters, we need to do everything necessary to adequately prepare ourselves for employment or careers. We owe it to ourselves to do our best, and we owe our best in providing for our families. Howard W. Hunter
President Benson has taught that a mother with children should be in the home. He also said, ‘We realize . . . 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’ (Ezra Taft Benson, To the Mothers in Zion [pamphlet, 1987], pp. 5–6). You in these unusual circumstances qualify for additional inspiration and strength from the Lord. Those who leave the home for lesser reasons will not. Richard G. Scott
Some years ago President Benson delivered a message to the women of the Church. He encouraged them to leave their employment and give their individual time to their children. I sustain the position which he took. Nevertheless, I recognize, as he recognized, that there are some women (it has become very many, in fact) who have to work to provide for the needs of their families. To you I say, do the very best you can. I hope that if you are employed full-time you are doing it to ensure that basic needs are met and not simply to indulge a taste for an elaborate home, fancy cars, and other luxuries. The greatest job that any mother will ever do will be in nurturing, teaching, lifting, encouraging, and rearing her children in righteousness and truth. None other can adequately take her place. It is well-nigh impossible to be a full-time homemaker and a full-time employee. I know how some of you struggle with decisions concerning this matter. I repeat, do the very best you can. You know your circumstances, and I know that you are deeply concerned for the welfare of your children. Each of you has a bishop who will counsel with you and assist you. If you feel you need to speak with an understanding woman, do not hesitate to get in touch with your Relief Society president. To the mothers of this Church, every mother who is here today, I want to say that as the years pass, you will become increasingly grateful for that which you did in molding the lives of your children in the direction of righteousness and goodness, integrity and faith. That is most likely to happen if you can spend adequate time with them. Gordon B. Hinckley
Now what of Jenna Cole? Isn’t it hypocritical of me to speak of all this while I’m in the midst of self-employment? First, I am flattered if anyone thinks I’m busy enough to qualify as someone you would consider to be working full-time. I’m not even sure I’m receiving enough inquiries to be considered part-time! The beauty of being self-employed is that I am able to dictate how much I work, when, and for how long. I can refer work to other photographers, quote clients longer wait times for product delivery before they book, and if at any time I felt as though I wasn’t devoting enough time to my motherly duties I can take extended breaks, or even quit altogether if I like. I don’t believe in that declaring that a mother shouldn’t work outside the home that Church leaders intend to convey the message that a mother shouldn’t work, or seek personal fulfillment through capitalizing on her talents. When speaking to my children about Jenna Cole I’ll be able to teach them lessons of self-discipline, pursuing one’s interests, improving one’s talents, prioritizing how gains are spent/invested, and working to succeed financially after an investment is made. If at any time my child needs me, I am able to stand up from the computer and meet his/her needs. I plan to shoot on the weekends as much as possible, leaving our children in the care of their father, providing them with valuable one-on-one time with dad. If he isn’t available, we’ll book a babysitter, just as we would if we were going out for date night. Counsel to stay home with children is not meant to be a sentence of house arrest.
I believe good women have been finding ways to stay home with their children and also pursue monetary gain on the side for centuries. It may have begun with acts as simple as gathering from the garden and trading with neighbors to meet their needs, churning butter and gathering up the children to sell it at the market on a Saturday afternoon, or weaving rugs and making clothes and running a small shop out of the home. Now we have Etsy and blogs and dSLRs. No matter what small business plans I might have, I’ll always be working to make sure that the needs of my children are met first.
As I believe these men to be messenger from God, I find the above quotes to be very powerful. They tell me that the most important thing I, or any other married woman, can do in this life is to seek the responsibilities of motherhood and work to fulfill that role. Though a career and the accolades of men that would accompany it would certainly be personally fulfilling, I’m more interested in pursuing the activities that I believe will garner the accolades of God.
Editors Note: Just thought I should clarify that when I typed “recreational drugs” I was personally thinking of cigarettes, but really, any drug not used for medicinal purposes would apply. And “sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage” should be read as sex with anyone except your husband, either before you are married or after, it does not refer specifically to someone who is married and has an affair.
Also:
I'm a farm-raised almost-crunchy stroller-pushing picture-taking lifestyle-blog-writing gastronomy-obsessed divine-seeking thrift-store-combing cheese-inhaling pavement-pounding laughter-sprinkling lover of individuality and taking chances.
I agree with you, and I really like some of the passages you have posted here. My opinion is based more on family psychology than Christian teachings, but I think that children need a parent home. I want to raise my kids, not send them off to someone else to do so.
To each their own, of course, but I think it’s best for everyone when “Mom” is a job title and not a secondary role.
1It’s a nice idea in theory, but sometimes it’s just not feasible.
For instance, my first husband left me. To provide for my children - there were two then and one was still in utero - I had to find a job after the baby was born. And even though I am remarried and have a stepdaughter, I can’t chain my husband with the financial responsibilities for three children he had no part of bringing into this world.
He is more than happy to do so and he has completely taken on the fatherly duties as my ex is not in the picture, but I don’t believe it fair.
And, aside from that, I hate housework. lol. I work (and I LOVE what I do - I’m a journalist full-time and part-time photog) and we split the chores.
2I really appreciate this post. I had to work while my husband was in school for a long time, and I really wanted to be home with my kids. Now they are much older, but when I was laid off last year, I chose to make it permanent. It is a struggle sometimes to adjust to the different budget, but everyone is so happy this way, and we have been blessed. I am finding numerous opportunities to help others as well. Many times I doubt whether it will work on a long-term basis, so I need qutes like these to remind me that there is a real reason for me to be here and not earning a paycheck.
3So well said Jenna, thank you for this!
4warning: long and rambling.
I wrote a post about this awhile ago, but from a different perspective. Funny how two LDS people can find enough quotes to support any argument. One quote I found was from a 2007 talk by Dallin H. Oaks (and his wife, who worked outside the home in the publishing industry. )It is long, but I think it is important.
“Women especially may receive negative feedback when they aspire to professional occupations. A young sister entering her late 20s wrote for advice. She confided that she had approached an ecclesiastical authority about studying law and he had discouraged her. We do not know her abilities or her limitations; the counsel she received may have been based on them or on inspiration peculiar to her circumstances. But her determination could be felt through the pages of her letter, and it was clear that she should be advised to reach the full level of her potential.
President Thomas S. Monson, as part of his message during the general Relief Society meeting held on September 29, 2007, told women: “Do not pray for tasks equal to your abilities, but pray for abilities equal to your tasks. Then the performance of your tasks will be no miracle, but you will be the miracle.”
(Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Sister Kristen M. Oaks. “Learning and Latter-Day Saints.”)
For you, you believe that being the primary nuturer of your children mandates being a stay at home mom, and that is great. Everyone should make the best choices for themselves and their family. But through personal revelation, another woman may have recieved a different answer, maybe even one to work outside the home. I think it is wrong to see another person’s revelation as a sin akin to smoking and drinking. There is no wiggle room on drinking. No one will get personal revelation that it is okay to drink. But, I think as the Oaks talk, and several (more recent!) talks suggest, we as woman are instructed to make the best choices for our families on an individual basis. Everyone should nurture their children, but how they do that is up to each family, and Heavenly Father. There is no one right way to raise children. Our church wouldn’t be able to grow if we only accepted one way as right.
Also, there have been lots of instruction from God to his children that is no longer relevant. We don’t offer animal sacrifices, we don’t practice polygamy. The Kimball quote you used is from 1984. We aren’t mothers in 1984 anymore! I’d rather look at President Hinckley’s talk on getting all the education you can, (2001? I think?) Dallin H. Oak’s and Sister Oak’s talk on men and women pursuing their goals, and trusting Heavenly Father to tell me what is best for my family. Of course I won’t throw out older teachings, but if there is new, better, or more updated/relevant information, I’ll take it.
Lastly, I do not want to be misunderstood: If you think being a stay at home mom is best for you, then I think that is wonderful. I think SAHMs in general are wonderful. Maybe I will be one someday. But motherhood is not like math: there is not one right answer. There are many, many right answers. I don’t take issue with you being a SAHM, I just take issue with anyone saying there is only one way to follow the prophet.
And that is all. Sorry for the novel.
Jenna Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
I have to respectfully disagree. I think sometimes in the Church we use the idea of personal revelation to our own advantage, or even more frequently the idea of modern revelation. We look at things like polygamy and see that at one time it was what God decreed, and then later God said that the practice should be abolished, and then we try to apply that to quotes like those used by Spencer W. Kimball and say that times have changed and his words no longer apply to our lives today.
I think with modern revelation we need to look at the purpose behind why something was given. Though our leaders have never outright decreed exactly why polygamy was put in place for the period of time it was, there are several very educated guesses one can make as to why. I believe one of those to be because of the deaths of many men due to war and persecution by the Church, leaving a surplus of women. Also due to population growth, the Church undoubtedly grew faster due to polygamy. And of course, I think that God sometimes commands things that test our faith and show our devotion to him when we are obedient. Whatever the reasons of God, they must not apply in our modern age because it is no longer His command.
I think the leaders have been very clear in saying that women leaving their children to work outside the home other than reasons of necessity (such as a feeling that childcare isn’t personally fulfilling for them or wanting more material things) causes damage to the family. Only for a small number of exceptions should alternate paths be pursued. I don’t think we should try to cast away the statement of old prophets by saying they no longer apply to us, as this seems like a dangerous area to venture into. This argument may hold true when it comes to discussing scientific research, but I think it should stay out of religious discussions. I would argue that a command of God stands until it is revoked by one of his servants, and that I have only seen statements on marriage that seek to clarify what was said by Kimball, Lee, and others, not change them.
Regarding your statement about the woman in her late 20s. I believe that Elder Oaks was speaking about a *single* woman in her 20s, not a mother. I think that the counsel I quoted in my post is directed at married women, and that single women should certainly be working to find a loving companion, but as Sheri L. Dew would certainly attest to, it’s important to prepare in case no suitable companion is found. Sister Dew is a wonderful example of someone who has excelled professionally and civilly and I think all would agree the Lord would not condemn her for the life she has led, but I don’t think that means that we should shy away from saying that the reasons we were sent to this earth was to be tested, marry, and have children. The Lord wants us to do what we can to succeed in all three of those areas.
Also, Dallin H. Oaks is on his second marriage, his wife Kristen who works in publishing was not married until they were sealed (as I understand it, I may be wrong.) They have no young children living in their home to care for. I do not believe that this example qualifies as one that we can cite as one where a General Authorities wife is doing something that seems contrary to something other Church leaders have said. I think she falls under the category of woman described by Howard W. Hunter “If a sister does not marry, she has every right to engage in a profession that allows her to magnify her talents and gifts.”
The older I get the more I hear the phrase “do what is best for your family” that seems to imply that there is no moral right or wrong, and that we need to seek out what we *feel* is best. As Latter-day Saints though, I think we believe that there are areas where it isn’t about what is best for us, but what is best as decreed by God. I think mothers working outside the home is one of those areas.
I tried to type this in a way that it didn’t come off as an attack, as it was not meant to be. If we were sitting together after RS ended and the topic came out I think I would say these same things to your face, with a smile, and hopefully we could have an enlightening conversation on the topic. I just didn’t want you to think I am singling you out personally and saying I think you are bad, I think the application of the principles of modern and personal revelation in this way is incorrect but I think it’s very common for LDS women to think this way. I, obviously, do not agree with the interpretation.
Katherine (a.k.a. Sparkles) Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
*I skimmed through the post and the comment, I think I read the basic points*
I was actually thinking about “well if God wanted women to stay home to raise their children, why did he bless women with so many talents that may benefit the entire family if she chose to use her talents outside of the home?”
It’s an interesting point of view to use biblical/religious reasons to choose to be a SAHM. I have met several dad’s who instead choose to be SAHF while their very talented and loving wives work full time and provide for the family, and the cohesiveness of the family bond is still strong and meaningful. My father was a SAHF for a period in my life- and by far I have many many wonderful memories of that 6m-1yr when I was 3.5 yrs old.
I think anyone who wants to choose to use religious reason to stay home rearing their kids is doing what speaks to their heart and what they feel is truly best for their family, so the more power to them.
For me, as a Catholic… I feel as though God blessed me and chose for me to participate in His work as a registered nurse. I feel God’s presence when I am at the bedside of families and children who are trying to get healthy again. I worked hard with God’s strength to get through a very demanding/rigorous Master’s program-& while I am pregnant now and my husband is supportive of my staying home, I find myself WANTING to work. I crave being back with the population I have chosen to serve. I have an incredibly supportive family who live close to home who REALLY want to be ‘stay at home grandparents’. ;o) So while I will stay home for at least six months with our new little one, I feel equally blessed to have a family who is also eager to participate in caring for our child that I can go back to work doing what I love (and feel is my calling) while simultaneously providing for my family. And that is what speaks to me and what feeds my personal faith. I don’t feel it is selfish of me to want to work. I find that by serving the under-served in the health care arena brings me closer to God, makes me a better person to my husband & my future children. While it means extra money I bring home, I don’t focus on that (though it’s a perk)- I focus on the aspect that serving those I help feeds my soul and reminds me of the unending compassion God has for all His creatures. I also find that by working and not being home with my child, I am not less of a mother/wife. I am blessed to meet so many diverse families that teach me so much about life & God’s lessons that it opens my eyes to God’s glory and will benefit my child’s life ultimately.
A letter from the Catholic Cardinal “On the Collaboration of Men and Women in the church and the world” states: ‘In this perspective, one understands the irreplaceable role of women in all aspects of family and social life involving human relationships and caring for others. Here what John Paul II has termed the genius of women becomes very clear.19 It implies first of all that women be significantly and actively present in the family, “the primordial and, in a certain sense sovereign society”,20 since it is here above all that the features of a people take shape; it is here that its members acquire basic teachings. They learn to love inasmuch as they are unconditionally loved, they learn respect for others inasmuch as they are respected, they learn to know the face of God inasmuch as they receive a first revelation of it from a father and a mother full of attention in their regard. Whenever these fundamental experiences are lacking, society as a whole suffers violence and becomes in turn the progenitor of more violence. It means also that women should be present in the world of work and in the organization of society, and that women should have access to positions of responsibility which allow them to inspire the policies of nations and to promote innovative solutions to economic and social problems…’ =it is clear that education and full participation of women are in line with Church teaching. The Catholic Church has no problem with a mother who is able to work for the benefit of her family and society, regardless of whether that work is in or out of the home (remember this is a personal decision for each family- what works for one may be disastrous for another, and the Church respects this)
John Paul II once expressed: “Thank you, women who work! You are present and active in every area of life-social, economic, cultural, artistic and political. In this way you make an indispensable contribution to the growth of a culture which unites reason and feeling, to a model of life ever open to the sense of “mystery”, to the establishment of economic and political structures ever more worthy of humanity.”
All of what I said is what influences MY personal decision making of staying home vs going back to work vs balancing the best of BOTH worlds (working part time). Again, this is just my personal take on how I am choosing to live my life for the benefit of my children, husband, & society at large….
Jenna Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
TH also had stay-at-home-grandparents and I know he really admires all members of his family who worked to make their living situation possible.
I really appreciated reading about the Catholic view on this.
Emmie Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Okay, I wasn’t going to chime in but I have too. When I went to BYU and I was very much single and I went to get my fast track form signed, I went to some dean who told me he gets a lot of grief from donors because they aren’t in the business of educating business women. I am so glad that I didn’t listen.
schmei Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Katheryn, you touched on part of the issue for me: as a Catholic, the pull of “vocation” is incredibly strong. I also feel called to serve a population that needs all the help they can get, and this is something my husband understands. I think if we’re making the “who stays home” choice, factoring in what I believe to be my calling will be a part of that choice.
You say at the beginning: “I cannot stress enough that a belief I have in one area does not cause me to judge you as a “bad” person for your own choices.” but then you end your post with: “I believe good women have been finding ways to stay home with their children and also pursue monetary gain on the side for centuries.”- So.. You don’t think I’m bad for working out of the home but I’m not good. I know what I am: confused as to what you’re really trying to say.
I think you’re taking a very convenient stance on your career as a photographer, comparing it to women who once sold vegetables. I also think you’re justifying it by saying you’re not really even part time, when it seems to me there is enough promotion of your business through out this blog that would suggest you would like more business.
You said that you would drop your photography business or whatever work you had going on if your children needed you- just like women who work outside of the home. I don’t know many good mothers who get a call saying their child is sick or in danger who would say “Could you hold on for a couple hours, I have this report I need to write.”
I love my husband and I love my child but I am much more than a wife and a mother. I am a person with autonomy and I believe that God has directed me in my path and will continue to do so. And if that leads me to be a stay at home mom, then that will be great. But if not I am confident that I am leading the life he has guided me to live.
Ellie Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
In Jenna’s defense, I don’t think she meant “good” like good versus bad. I at least read that as “smart and capable and dedicated to their families”, I guess the way anyone means when they say something like “good men and women”, etc.
I could be wrong, but that’s how I read it.
Meg Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Why are you coming to Jenna’s defense, as if she needs defending?
I’m sure if she felt like she needed to defend herself, she would.
I find it funny that she has a group of “defenders” ( I see comments that often say “In Jenna’s defense”). She is a grown woman who can articulate her thoughts very well and probably doesn’t need defending.
Katy Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Jenna doesn’t need defending, yes, but it’s *nice* to be reminded that not ev-er-y-body is out to dissect and scruntize every syllable of your thoughts; that there are those willing to think objectively and even help clarify sometimes, whether or not they agree with her position.
Jenna Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
I don’t think there is any reason to attack Ellie for her comment. She’s a longtime reader who has voiced both her discord and agreement in the past, and I don’t think there is anything wrong with other readers chiming in to voice how they interpreted certain statements. After all, we all can only interpret the way things are said by our own experience, and we are all limited in those experiences and viewpoints in some respect.
Two points I wanted to answer to.
The first being that maybe good and bad aren’t the right phrases to use because they sound so black and white. I believe one day we will be judged both for the sum of our choices, and for our understanding of God’s commands and how they apply in our lives. So God may have decreed that one shouldn’t do a certain thing, but that doesn’t mean that anyone without a necessary understanding of that principle gets thrown into the category of “bad” people. You cannot be condemned for commands or statements by God’s servants that you don’t have a personal witness of.
The other is in reference to your statements about being able to drop everything. You’re right, no mother would say she had to finish a report, but I think there are certainly situations where having a full time career forces one to choose between work and raising a family. Children may need extra help with school, may grow sick for an extended period of time, or may simply express to their mother that they really wish they were able to spend more time with her instead of the babysitter/daycare,etc. These are times when a woman has to make difficult choices between her career and her family.
And a secret about Jenna Cole? A lot of the stuff I’ve been doing lately has been for free! I’m not booking a whole lot of paid stuff, something I need to change at least a little bit if I ever want to pay off my investments.
Meg Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Why is it attacking when I ask a question to you or her? Hm.
Again, because I work outside of the home doesn’t mean I wouldn’t drop things for my children. Mothers are able to work and help children with school, be with their children when they are sick, and spend ample time with their children when. It is about the quality of time when children not the quantity.
An argument could be made that just because you are home with your son every day doesn’t equal up in quality to someone who isn’t.
Christiana (us meets uk) Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 8:22 am
Meg - Your tone, not content, is what comes across as attacking (to me). The “Hm.” note, implies tone that appears a bit sarcastic, snarky. Such that you want to say your piece, but not have anyone respond.
Jenna - I just wanted to point out that the Family Leave and Medical Act (FMLA) provides protection for working parents who need to spend time with a sick child (or family member, or if they have an extended illness). So, the government has legislated a level of protection that makes those choices easier for parents to make. Granted, this only answers the illness point but really, the majority of mothe’s seem to be members in a Tim Gunn army of “make it work”. I don’t believe the majority of working (or SAH) mothers would say “no” to their child’s request for help or quality time.
Lisa Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
It’s one thing to say that you would drop everything at work to come to your child’s aid who is sick or in danger-but what about dropping everything in your career to just be there for your child more if that’s what he/she needs? This is what I assumed Jenna was referring to when she said she would cut back on her photographer business if her child needed her. There’s a key difference there.
Diana Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 8:37 am
I have to agree that it seems awfully convenient for you to claim to be a stay at home mom, when you do work outside the home. Whether it is part time or full time, you do work. You have chosen an area to work where you can work less hours or take time off with ease, but you are working outside the home. I think it’s fantastic the choices that you are making to be home with T1 as much as possible, while still pursuing your talents. I think it’s great that you have found an area to work in, and a way to work that doesn’t (in your oppinion) conflict with your religious beliefs and practices. I don’t think that what anyone choses to do regarding work after having a child needs to be justified, but if you are choosing to work outside the home don’t call yourself a stay at home mother.
Diana Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 8:43 am
that last sentence should read “I don’t think that what anyone choses to do regarding work after having a child DOES NOT need to be justified, but if you are choosing to work outside the home don’t call yourself a stay at home mother.”
I closed the browser window after the first few sentences, because I felt like you were equating women who work outside the home to those who drink and have premarital sex. Like, if you don’t just “those people”, then why would you judge working moms?
This really offended me, so I stopped reading.
Then I came back a while later, and decided I wanted to keep reading, to see if maybe I just mis-heard your tone. Upon finishing your post, I’m no longer angry, but I also feel like you’re saying I’m not as good a mother as you, and therefore don’t think I’ll be reading your blog as much.
When my son was born, I worked 50-60 hour weeks as a newspaper reporter. I was also taking a full course load in college. I missed him terribly, but I was supporting us, and doing whatever I could to give us the best possible life.
Now, he’s 7, and I have a newborn daughter. I still work 50-60 hour weeks, but I do it mostly from home. While I’m editing portrait sessions and emailing clients and blogging, she’s on my lap, or in her swing beside me. When I’m on a portrait shoot or at a wedding, both kids are with my mother. That time away adds up to 25 hours a week, on average… about what it’d be for a part time job.
I do not, for one single second, feel like I’m being a better mom to my infant daughter than I was to my son when he was a baby. I am a woman in different circumstances. I feel blessed that the Lord has so greatly grown our business that I can work mostly from home, but if I was still in journalism, I’d still be a good mother.
I agree with the person above who pointed out that the Lord gave us many MANY instructions that don’t apply to our modern lives. Women on their periods don’t have to live outside the “camp”. Women don’t have to cover their heads. The list goes on and on.
I agree that if you have the means to be a SAHM, that’s absolutely wonderful… as long as you have a life outside your children. I think it’s a huge danger for women to never know anything other than home, husband, and children. How, then, would we be an example to our daughters?
I feel like I’m setting the example for my children that women are strong. They can be good wives, good mothers, good friends, and successful entrepreneurs… and faithful followers of Christ. All of those things, TOGETHER, make me a well-rounded woman.
And, in my opinion, it’s happy, fulfilled, well-rounded women that make the “best” mothers… whether that means working outside the home, or not.
I’m impressed that you took the time to write this post, because I know you expect backlash, and I don’t want you to think I’m jumping down your throat or anything. I just feel you should take a few more things into consideration… circumstances different than your own… before you apply such broad statements to what is “best”.
Megan Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
I don’t see how you could disagree with the statement that a mother staying home is “best.” I think a woman can still explore talents and hobbies while being a SAHM. She doesn’t necessarily have to be working to do so. And in the case that the goal someone might want to achieve requires you to be working, can that not wait until your child is at least in school so you can do that while they’re away?
How can someone taking over the duties of mother be better, for the child, than the actual mother?
I’m also not meaning to attack your response. I can see what you’re saying. But I do agree with Jenna on what is *best*
Chelsea McGowan Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
No one is taking over the duties of mothering my children. They are, for a handful of hours a week (less for the first grader), being watched by someone who loves them dearly. There’s certainly never any confusion as to who my children’s parents are.
Even IF I could financially swing being a SAHM until both my children are in school, I wouldn’t do it. That’s not the right choice for me. And, based on my belief that being a happy and fulfilled woman makes me the best mother for my children… I am making the best decision for my family.
- as a counterpoint, I’ve known far too many women who’s children would have been infinitely better off if the mom would at least work part time. Smothered children, with no understanding of how to act in social settings, because they’re always at home with mom… women who are stifled creatively, and lonesome for adult interaction… these things aren’t any better for children than a mother who works full time. Just another thought.
Katy Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
I truly don’t think you are trying to over-generalize the ‘problems’ of SAHMness…you’ve made your point well enough in other postings that I don’t think you relegate those last few sentences to the status of the norm for SAHM’s.
But I what I wish those that think working outside the home is the way to express yourself creatively or give your children social interaction lessons would realize is that women who makes these mistakes as SAHM, would also be this way in the working world. A dud of a mom would also be a dud of worker.
It’s not the environment, it’s the woman. It’s how she CHOOSES to view her days and her responsibilites. If she dreads the thought of interacting with her own offspring and finds them limiting to her potential as a women, that is the fault of her own perception. Another woman in the same circumstance can make that day a productive, happy one - it’s all in the attitude. As a full time mom, I find many days and weeks that we are at home very little! Children can learn social interaction from seeing mom interact with businesses, eating at restaurants, and numerous other activities moms do during a given week. Moms can arrange activities with other moms to provide not only social interaction for the kids, but for themselves as well! For me, half the time that I arrange friends/moms coming over - it’s for my benefit sometimes more than my kids!
As for being stifled creatively, it’s awfully convienant to blame that on the children (I’m guilty of that sometimes truth be told). The woman that feels stifled by the kids would also find other sources to blame her confined feelings.
A woman determined to have a well-rounded, creatively lived life can achieve this with - not in spite of - her children. In fact, that’s the lesson I’d rather teach my daughters (if I ever get anything besides boys that is
- - that being a good, creative, fun, mom is the epitome of a life lived to it’s fullest. It means I got to combine the all-important job of child rearing with those many opportunities to learn and grow WITH my children - not in absence of them.
Jessica Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Well said, Katy.
Chelsea McGowan Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
OH yeah, I didn’t mean to generalize. I’ve known some wonderful SAHM’s who were happy and fulfilled, who produced brilliant kids… my mom being one of them, for much of my childhood.
I was just trying to point out, as my old pastor used to say, “there’s a ditch on both sides of that road.”
Katy Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
I like that quote, Chelsea - I think I’ll remember that quote for the future because many times in life it is oh-so true.
Megan Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 8:03 am
Katy said exactly what I was thinking but didn’t find the words!
Evelyn Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Chelsea, the only thing about your comment(s) regarding SAHM is that in this response and other(s) throughout the comment forum you do seem to harp on all sorts of negative aspects of being a SAHM or being the child of a SAHM-with no acknowledgment of benefits. In many ways it came off as if you were really against them… I didn’t think that was your real intent, so I didn’t respond to them last night when I came upon them, but when one is really trying to show the ditches on both sides of the road, usually greater effort is given to be fair and balanced to both sides. Just a thought.
Chelsea McGowan Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
I didn’t make an effort to talk about all the positives, because that’s what the entire original blog post was about. The positives.
Obviously, SAHM’s aren’t awful. It’s a wonderful decision most of the time, and a huge blessing to a lot of families.
My only point was that it’s unfair to act like working moms are always damaging their families
Sophia Reply:
May 19th, 2010 at 9:45 am
Chelsea makes a good point here. The post does present SAHM’hood as the best, and the most positive, which is a valid viewpoint. She was presenting an alternate, and valid, view, debating the post, etc., so it only makes sense that she chose to point out negative/overlooked aspects of SAHM’hood
“We are all free to make the choices that guide our lives and it is up to God to mete out the consequences.”
If God didn’t intend for mothers to work outside the home, and while YOU don’t judge us for it, one day God will? In which case working mothers will still be seen as “bad” eventually? :\
Chelsea McGowan Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
I thought this too, Zoe.
I believe the Lord is going to judge us based on how well we portrayed the love of Christ to our children, and how we represent His name to the world… not whether or not we worked outside the home.
TH Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Not exactly Zoe, that statement is about personal revelation that contradicts the statements made through God’s prophets. This would really only apply to Mormons or others who have been given a testimony of this doctrine but then chose to do otherwise for a variety of reasons. What I’m pretty sure Jenna is trying to say is that it’s up to God to judge these people, because maybe they had good reasons or maybe they just didn’t feel like obeying the commandments - either way we don’t know, only He does.
As a last point, in the LDS faith we believe that God doesn’t hold people accountable for things they don’t know (or haven’t received a testimony of). So I believe that in the end there will be plenty of working mothers who won’t be judged by God one bit, while there will be others who will be judged because they made a choice to disobey his counsel. And the key pre-requisite to disobeying God’s counsel is knowing that the counsel actually did come from God. I hope this makes sense.
Marissa C Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 11:16 pm
Reminds me quite a bit of Catholic teaching actually
It’s fine to not agree with my interpretation.
Here is a major difference, said with a smile: I see both our interpretations (because your opinion is just as much an “interpretation” as mine) as RIGHT. Right in different ways, but right for both of us.
You see yours as right, and mine as wrong/dangerous.
Wouldn’t it be much more charitable (charity never faileth, after all,) if we trusted that each woman was making the best choices she could, and “doing the best she can” like President Hinckley said, instead of assuming that everyone who makes a different choice/interpretation is just doing it to avoid their responsibilitites, or trying to justify not doing Gods will?
I understand that you see your interpretation as a decree from God, and I respect that. I also see my interpretation as a decree from God as well. God gave us free agency not just so that we could sin, but so that we could make the best choices for us BASED on the promptings of the spirit, and our understanding of the scriptures/modern-day revelation. I agree that if I make a choice based on what just “feels” right to me, I could go in a bad direction. But if I make the decision based on what I think feels “best” AND the promptings of the spirit, AND Heavenly Father, then how can I err?
I suspect you will never think that we both could be right. But I do.
I believe that the gospel is one of progression, that we do not discard certain teachings, but that we add on and adpat. (That was what I was trying to say before.) We do not practice the Law of Moses, because we have the Atonement. As we have more revealed to us, we are more and more responsible for our spiritual growth, and must develop the skills to receive accurate revelation.
I think it is disturbing that you are so quick to disregrad personal revelation as an attempt to self-justify bad behavior. Sister Beck’s last conference talk clearly stated that personal revelation is the MOST important skill we can develop in this life-time. I suspect that may be because we have so many complex choices, and so many good and bad options, that we must rely on the spirit to make the best choices for us an individuals.
aaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddd yet another novel. Apologies.
Gogo Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
I agree with you.
And then I went ahead and expanded on that down below. Haha
I read this post with much interest. As always, I admire how open you are with your beliefs, even regarding such a polarizing topic.
I was hoping that you could clarify something that I found confusing. (I think it is just your phrasing, possibly?)
You say: “I don’t believe in that declaring that a mother shouldn’t work outside the home that Church leaders intend to convey the message that a mother shouldn’t work, or seek personal fulfillment through capitalizing on her talents. ”
This sentence seems to contradict itself. And I got a little confused about how your description of your photography business fit with the LDS ruling on work outside the home…
It seems to me that you are saying:
1. It’s a mother’s PRIMARY responsibility to nurture her kids
but
2. As long as she is making motherhood her primary responsibility, she CAN “work, or seek personal fulfillment through capitalizing on her talents. ”
I’d be curious to know if this is what you are saying… Because if so, it doesn’t seem to preclude women from working full time, as long as they are seeing to it that their children’s physical and emotional needs are being met.
But perhaps I misunderstood your meaning? The rest of your post leads me to believe that I misunderstood the section about your photography business… I was hoping you could expand on this a bit?
(I know even the kindest comments can sometimes come across as mean - so I really hope this comes across in the spirit of honest, interested curiosity!)
Ellie Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
I read that as things like volunteer work or part-time jobs while children are in school, etc. are acceptable, as long as the kids needs are being met.
Jessica Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Yeah, go volunteer, IN YOUR CHILD’S CLASSROOM!! Ok, I’m an early childhood educator…just had to get that out.
Parents have a huge impact on their child’s education when they show an active interest in what’s going on in school.
Katy Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
I taught too! I laughed at loud when I read that!
TH Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
This is my view, not Jenna’s, but I think the answer is a cautious yes.
First, your points 1 and 2 hit the nail on the head, nicely and succinctly put. Where the caution comes in is the interpretation of what a primary responsibility means. I think (personal opinion) that for most women full time work would interfere with the responsibility being a mom.
For full disclosure, my mom worked full time in Poland when I was growing up, and she did a marvelous job with everything. Really, I think things turned out better this way than had she stayed home. But looking at all that she had to do, I consider her superhuman. I can honestly say that I am sure I couldn’t do as good a job in her situation. I also know multiple women who are trying to do both full time work and being a mom, and it’s clear that it’s having an effect on the children.
This is the reason why I believe LDS church leaders are so directive about this subject. It’s so easy to cross the line of where a mother works too much. What’s worse, is that many of the effects are likely not seen immediately but many years after.
So while the LDS teachings don’t preclude women from working full time, it’s definitely a situation where one should make a very careful and prayerful decision if full time work is being considered.
Jenna Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 10:47 pm
Great job at asking a question without coming across as mean!
I’ll agree with what TH said and clarify that I meant to imply that one can pursue other endeavors in ways where childcare remains her primary responsibility. I’m not sure a woman who is working full time and has to answer to a boss can say that her primary responsibility at that time is to care for her children.
My mom started her business before my sister became a teenager, and in many ways she involved Shay, teaching her not only about photography, but business as well. My sister assisted on shoots, helped with editing, I’m sure gave her input on what my mom should buy next, etc (I was out of the house by the time she became really involved). And as someone currently caring for a child I can say that although this does take up a lot of my time I have naps and other times when I’m able to get work done and still spend plenty of time with him. There is only so much time I can spend staring down into his face telling him how cute he is, you know?
Life of a Doctor's Wife Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 7:32 am
Thanks TH and Jenna - that cleared things up for me!
Fascinating post and an equally fascinating response.
My problem with this way of thinking, is that if there were very few mothers/women working outside the home - our society & world would be a very sad, dark place. For example, the social work/counseling/teaching/nursing fields house a majority of women - because of their nurturing, mother-like qualities, their abilities to empathize and heal, and their emotional intelligence. If you stuck all those women back in a home - who will help the children without mothers? Who will fix the wounds that bandaids and kisses won’t fix? Who will take care of the elderly that need a soft hand and open heart?
Not that men *can’t* do these jobs (they can) but women are traditionally in these roles for reasons - they thrive at them - they excel in them. And their jobs make them better mothers, and being a mother makes them better at their jobs.
I respect you following the teachings of your church, of course, but I find it hard to believe that my God (who I feel is the same as your God) would want me to waste my natural abilities/talents of caring for others on my own children only - when I can have a much greater impact out in my job field.
Jessica Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
First of all, Jenna, WOW! This is quite a bold topic to discuss, but thank you for allowing all of us to get our brains turning and deciding how we view this important topic.
I feel like responding to everyone’s comments, but I wanted to say to you, Kay, that I whole-heartedly agree with you that women have a nurturing ability, which I believe to be divine, and I think women are of great value in those areas you mentioned (as well as many others- women are such a smart species, yeah? :). But wouldn’t it be WORTH it to wait until your children are at least in school to work full-time? And granted, many women never have children and they are great contributions in the workforce as well. I just think focusing on your children is such a precious time that you will never have again. You can always go back to work, and probably will, in most cases. But your children are only young and impressionable once.
Here’s where I come from: I’m Mormon. I have a degree in Early Childhood Education, and taught kindergarten for 3 years. I’m currently a nanny for family with 4 kids (under the age of 4…). My mother stayed home the majority of my time at home and my father was the main breadwinner (he worked outside the home though, and was quite involved as well). I realize I come from a VERY traditional, Mormon background. So did my husband; so it is expected that our roles will continue at least one more generation. Kids are resilient, and will probably grow up just fine. But for me, I just don’t understand why you would have kids if you don’t want to spend the time to raise them (and plus kids are so enjoyable! They make me laugh everyday and teach ME new things. So fulfilling). Someone mentioned they hold their baby while they do their work. That is great for you that you get to at least be present. But are you really PRESENT? Children require a LOT, excuse me, a TON of attention, TIME, devotion, patience, and ATTENTION, ATTENTION, ATTENTION. Just being there is not enough, in my opinion. Even SAHMs can get caught up in the business of household, friends, and not feeling comfortable getting on the floor and playing with their child. Why would you deny your child their greatest asset; YOU!
My sister had a son with her ex-boyfriend who refuses to help monetarily or any other way (she was raised in our church but hasn’t practiced for quite some time). So she is forced to put her son in daycare and work and live at home with my parents (who have to work). When I was dating my husband and she heard that he WANTED me to stay at home with our kids (which is what I want), she was amazed. I can guarantee she would now give an arm and a leg to be at home with her precious son. I hope she gets the chance one day to be with him more, because she is an excellent mother, really. She just doesn’t have much time to do the raising she wants to.
I also agree with Jenna (vs. Stephanie), that while personal revelation is certainly important, it does not negate what has been revealed to prophets. As in the quotes, there ARE exceptions (my sister being a single mother would be one), but trying to justify your situation to fit into those exceptions is not helping you or your family. I guess I’m just trying to say that I do believe mothers come to this earth armed with special skills and traits designed for their particular children, and don’t deny them your time and attention. Working full time is draining; I could never have come home from a day of teaching 50 kindergarten students just to run around with my own kids all night. Why stretch yourself so thin? There is time for full-time work later. I belive mothering our own children will be our greatest reward.
Julie Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
But what about jobs where you CAN’T take time off and go back? I’m a biochemist making new targeted therapies for pediatric cancer. My career — outside the home — may one day cure a child you love dearly. In science, because the technology is changing so much, I don’t have the luxury of taking off until all future children are in school full-time and then going back to work. It’s a well known fact within the field that more than a year out of a lab and you are officially out of science for good unless you go back for more education. So what about those future children whose lives I could save? I just ignore them because I’m supposed to quit and stay at home once I do have children? What if, someday, a small molecule I work on could save your child/grandchild/great-grandchild? Would you still think it best for me to stop working and be a SAHM instead of have worked on that drug?
Hannah Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
The thing is, Julie, that shouldn’t even matter anyway. It is your choice and it doesn’t make you a bad mother even if you worked in a shoe store. Or rather, it doesn’t make you a ‘not-good’ mother. It is a choice issue.
Katy Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
You know, Hannah is correct. It IS a choice. You chose such a demanding career (and a noble, applaudable one at that I might add!), but life is about weighing our choices with reality, not relentlessly shoving them together and hoping it all works out.
If a woman chooses demanding, no-time off careers, the consequence of that choice is that she can’t spend as much time with her children. That’s a consequence that all women have to consider when they choose jobs and whether or not they then will have children with those jobs in mind.
Hannah Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Where has Julie said that she has ‘no time off’? You are skewing what she said and what I said to serve your own agenda.
MY point was that her choice is not wrong. Not that her career was a choice that will come at the expense of her future children’s well-being. That was YOUR point, so please don’t skew my point to make yours.
Katy Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
I didn’t skew your point - I was fully aware of it. Just used universally correct notion that is often forgotten in this discussion - choice. We have choices and those choices have natural consequences (good or bad, right or wrong). I made no assertion that her children’s well-being was in jeopardy or peril, but that simply her relationship with her children is effected by her choices in demanding/not-so-demanding careers.
Jessica Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Well, Julie, I don’t really have an answer for you. I can’t say that I don’t want you to continue finding cures for cancer for children, because I deeply care about ALL children (especially since I don’t have any of my own yet). I guess that means what is obvious anyways; it’s your choice. I just know that I wouldn’t be able to be away from my kids. You might be able to do it all. Or, you might choose to sacrifice and be with your kids and get additional schooling later. I can’t make your decision for you, but I bet you’ll choose the right one for your family (whichever choice that ends up being). Good luck to finding a cure; how wonderful that someone like you IS smart and willing to do that!
kay Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Julie - it would be much more important for you to make sure your child has you available 24/7 and never learns to relate to other adults, self-soothe, or (GOD FORBID) depend on their father/aunts/grandparents/etc. while you do your important work.
Keep doing your work. I hope & pray that one day your findings may help my little girl, should she ever be faced with the horrible battle of cancer. I’ll be thankful you weren’t staying at home baking cookies or dusting the living room.
(And I have a sneaking suspicion that when you do have children, they will get the very best care available when you return to work & use your other talents to their fullest potential).
Jessica Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Kay, I can see from your sarcastic tone that you are probably not going to respond well to a comment from the other side. But saying that kids with SAHMs never relate to other adults is as much a generalization that you are so offended by with working moms. The SAHMs I see are heavily involved in play groups, take classes with their kids, set up neighborhood preschools, go to the park, etc. etc. And what makes you think the grandparents want to take on the responsibility of raising more kids? Their time is done. If you have kids, it’s YOUR responsibility. I’m sure most grandparents would watch your kids for an hour or two while you run some errands, but 40 hours a week? I find that very disrespectful to them.
Jenna Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 11:06 pm
Julie,
You’re right, you are in a place where you are genuinely making a difference for people and giving a significant part of your life to do so. I really admire you for what you do. I do find your situation intriguing, as I think you present an interesting paradox to my beliefs. Would it be fair for me to just say that if God wants the cure to cancer to be found that a man or single woman would eventually discover it themselves, thus you *could* become a SAHM instead and all would still be right with the world? I don’t think so. What if you quitting your job meant the cure was discovered 10, or 100 years later?
I guess for me it comes down to a deep seated belief regarding what I believe the ultimate purpose of life to be. (And I hope that this statement doesn’t come across as me saying that I think what you are doing has no value, that is not my intent.) I think as mortal beings we work to find ways to subvert the effects of mortality and live longer, live healthier, etc. While I think God wants us to be happy, healthy, productive, etc etc, I don’t know if I believe that the ultimate purpose in providing us with the opportunity to live on the earth is to figure out a way to eliminate all trials, which would include pediatric cancer. For whatever reason, those things are present, and certainly are growing opportunities for the individuals and families that experience them. I think it is possible for it to be good to accept that those are things to endure, but it can also be good to want to work to find ways to conquer them (i.e. it’s not wrong to want to find a cure for cancer). I just think that the purpose of life can be boiled down to living the commandments, working to be sealed in the temple to a righteous spouse, and bearing and raising righteous children. Those to me, are the ultimate goal that God has for each of His children and the statements by the Church authorities I used are an attempt to clarify to mothers in the Church how they personally can achieve those purposes.
I contemplated not writing this because I worry it’s going to come across as me saying that I don’t care if my little one gets cancer or that I think the efforts of those working to eliminate it aren’t worth anything. That is not the case.There are a lot of people who have you to thank for happier, longer lives. I just really value you as a reader and a person Julie and I would never want you to think otherwise.
Tiffany Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
I am really glad you replied to this, because I agree with you wholeheartedly. and I am glad you did it so nicely…me I think i would have been a bit mean. This subject is really black and white for me. THANKS!
Katy Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
When you choose to have children, why do some many have such a hard time taking those skills and applying them primarily to their families for a few years? Choosing to be a SAHM isn’t a life sentence! It means someday you can go back if you choose. For me, I’ve always told myself - - a job (in general) will a-l-w-a-y-s be there. There will always be need for nurses, teachers, and a million other occupations. But your children are only young once. That’s it. No do-overs, no going back and teachign and spending time. That is one of my primary motivations to be a full-time mom - - this is the only time in life I get to do that!
Gogo Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Well, first of all, Julie’s skills as a biochemist largely aren’t going to be applicable to her family life. This is true of many other skill sets that some women develop in the course of their educations and careers. Second of all, she has given an example of a career that won’t ALWAYS be there waiting for her should she take time off. A year off pretty much requires that she return to school in order to re-enter her field. Five or ten years would pretty much knock her out of it irreversibly. And to what end if she can happily and successfully raise her children and pursue her research?
Finally, biochemistry is far from being the only career in which taking time off completely for an extended stretch of time is basically a career ender. There are countless others. And if there are men AND women who are skilled and talented and driven to be successful in those areas, I want them there if they want to be there. Because I don’t think it makes any of them less parental than if they stayed at home instead. I think it just multiplies the ways in which they are making contributions to our society.
I struggle with this concept. I am thinking about converting to the church, yet I am also pursuing my doctorate degree at the moment. At the same time, I believe that women need to be home with their children. This is something that has been conflicting in my head for awhile, because while I believe that, I also feel like I need a “back up plan” just in case something happens with my husband. However, I am not married or even engaged. I don’t really know where I am going with this, but I think it is possible to “have it all” and have a good foundation and possibly even a job outside of the home and STILL be at home with your kids for the majority of the time. Who knows, though!
Jessica Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Kristine, I am totally impressed, first of all that you are getting your doctorate! I don’t think you need to feel like you have to choose between education/work and family, especially as a single adult. You CAN have both, even simultaneously for awhile if you have to. It’s encouraged in the church for BOTH men and women to get all the education they can. I wish you luck in finding the answers you need. (The church is true!!
Jenna Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
Kristine did you see the quote that Stephanie mentioned above? I think it could really help you:
“Women especially may receive negative feedback when they aspire to professional occupations. A young sister entering her late 20s wrote for advice. She confided that she had approached an ecclesiastical authority about studying law and he had discouraged her. We do not know her abilities or her limitations; the counsel she received may have been based on them or on inspiration peculiar to her circumstances. But her determination could be felt through the pages of her letter, and it was clear that she should be advised to reach the full level of her potential.
President Thomas S. Monson, as part of his message during the general Relief Society meeting held on September 29, 2007, told women: “Do not pray for tasks equal to your abilities, but pray for abilities equal to your tasks. Then the performance of your tasks will be no miracle, but you will be the miracle.”
(Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Sister Kristen M. Oaks. “Learning and Latter-Day Saints.”)
I hope you’re able to find something that works for you! I agree with Jessica, getting a doctorate is very commendable and I don’t think anyone could argue that it’s a bad thing for you to be doing at this time in your life. As someone who can’t even manage to finish her bachelors I consider you to be someone who should be admired.
Jenn Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Kristine, I just wanted to tell you…your Father in Heaven knows! If you want to know which direction is best all you have to do is ask. Kneel down in prayer with a sincere desire to know the truth, and your Father in Heaven will answer you. It may take time (for He does things on His timetable and not ours), but you will receive an answer! He loves you!
I read the first few sentences and I had to come back later to read the rest. I think you should bold the fact that those quotes came from your Leaders and not the Bible. At the end of the day what’s important is ones relationship with Christ and through that relationship with Christ we receive salvation. We then live to worship, praise and magnify his name.
I’m not one to negate others due to their faiths and their beliefs but I find it hard to read your religious blogposts because we serve the SAME God. And you quote these messengers with these one sided “RELIGIOUS” viewpoints and beliefs. Those are THEIR beliefs. The Bible says no such thing. So truly you shouldn’t say ” I believe God’ you should really just say ” members of the LDS faith believe”. It’s stark RELIGION that blocks others from understanding how good God is, how great it is to serve him and the great works he can do in ones life. They see all the rules of regulations of “RELIGION” and run for cover.
I’m not a bad mommy because I work, my husband is not a bad daddy because he makes less then me. And at the end of the day OUR God loves me eternally and unconditionally JUST as he does you. My God which I KNOW is also your God wont consider me a bad mommy for working, just you.
I don’t think I’ll be reading your blog anymore… I get too emotional.
TH Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Jasmine, you are correct that Jenna is sharing LDS beliefs in these Sunday posts, which we may not share with other Christian denominations. One of the core beliefs of our church is that God’s revelations did not cease with Biblical times (and that they weren’t limited to the Middle East in those times), and so many of our beliefs are actually not spelled out in the Bible.
I also don’t think she’s saying you’re a bad mom and that God will judge you as such. What I think she is saying is that if someone is LDS (i.e. believes that these men are prophets) and they chose not to heed this counsel, God would hold them accountable. At least that’s how I see it.
Hannah Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
I don’t think that this has been correctly articulated, though.
Jenna has created a dichotomy wherein she says she doesn’t judge and then essentially states that women (not just LDS women) who stay home and work from home are ‘good’. By virtue of that, those who don’t do this are ‘bad’. That is inherently judgmental and if I were a mother, I’d be just as offended as Jasmine.
I don’t always comment but I thought I should today so that you get more positive feedback!
I agree 100% with you on this issue. It is very sensitive indeed.
I once worked at a day care center (for 2 months and I quit-I couldn’t stand it!) Not one person could convince me that a mother working is better than her staying home. I saw too many kids cry every morning while being dropped off, acting up, or workers trying to soothe a fall…each time I had to think-what this child really needs is their mother helping them. No one can take the place of a mother and no one can serve your child with as much love as you (their mother) can.
I’m now a SAHM to my 6 1/2 month old. This doesn’t mean I’m not capable of doing something outside of the home, but my priorities are at home. I think I’m doing more of a service to mankind by raising decent children than anything else that could be done.
I hope others that agree with me will also give their support and not just the ones who disagree
Chelsea McGowan Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
I can see the merit in your decision… but I also hope you won’t use your child crying as a reason never to leave his/her side. Kids cry. It’s a fact of life. I don’t mean to sound harsh, but sticking next to a toddler 24/7 just because no one else is good enough to comfort them seems like a way to go stark-raving mad REAL fast.
Katherine (a.k.a. Sparkles) Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Hahahaha. I have to agree!!!
The Stay at home father I know, his kid cried ALL THE FRIGGIN TIME. The separation anxiety was sooooooo massively present.
And to tell you the truth- my friends were terrified of putting their kid in preschool, but it’s so important for kids to learn how to socialize and make friends. So the first day of preschool arrived and they dropped off their son. And LOW AND BEHOLD their kid up and ditched them! The kid who currently NEVER let’s his parents go to the bathroom alone, who cries when his parents leave the room, the kid who cries when his parents go to the MAIL BOX- yup he didn’t give them a second look and went along his merry way at preschool and didn’t flinch, blink, or shed a tear. He enjoyed it. I think his parents had a harder time letting him go than he had. And his dad stays home with the younger sister, while the 4.5 year old goes to preschool and has ever since last yr (twice a wk)! And the kid LOVES it.
whitney r Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
I don’t think she was saying that whenever a kid cries it should be their mother at their side. Because, your right, kids do cry and get hurt and no, mommy wont always be around.
But to also make her chicken noodle soup.
But, it’s the simple things. My mom went back to work as soon as we were all in school. There were quite a few times where I felt ill and needed to go home, but couldn’t because no one was there. I had to stay in school while feeling horrible.
I’m in a different circumstance than most and can stay at home with my kids. I want to. I choose to. And it’s a comfort to me to know that if my daughter (7 months now) someday needs to leave school I can be there to make her stay in bed and not watch T.V. (b/c, if your really sick than you don’t need to watch T.V. - that’s what my mom always said
Anyway, I guess I just agree about a Mother’s job being one that is irreplaceable. My husband cannot do what I can for my daughter. Neither can my Mother in Law (who is wonderful and loves my daughter probably almost as much as me). I plan on being what is always constant and secure and what she can always depend on in any circumstance.
Now, if for some reason my circumstances change than we will adjust. But I agree with Jenna that Mommies should be with their children. And if you want to work - wait a few years. What will it hurt?
Hannah Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
What about the financial strain? Not everyone lives in the US. I live in Australia, the cost of living is on-par with NYC and London. Sydney is the second or third most expensive city in the world in which to live.
I am pursuing photography as a career because I love it and because we plan to have a home-studio so I can be home with kids. I think the difference between Jenna and I is the following:
I don’t view working on a small business in the home as ‘less than part-time’. If it isn’t profiting, it isn’t a business, just an expensive hobby. My goal for my business is for it to be making $45,000 in take-home pay within two years. Long term, I want it to make $75,000.
I don’t think me running a business from home makes me a ‘good’ woman and women who don’t go it ‘bad’ by default. Jenna may not realise, but her categorising does exactly that and I can see why some women won’t be reading this blog any longer.
Jessica Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Hannah, I’m sorry you are so disenchanted with this blog after this. I think it’s wonderful to have a place to have discussions like this with people from Australia when I live in podunk America!
I do agree with Jenna, but I wanted to say that sometimes “good” can mean many things. At least in our religion (Mormonism), we talk about making choices between 2 or more GOOD things. So when Jenna says that it is a “good” choice to stay at home with your children, it does not equal “bad” for working moms. It simply means it’s a good choice. It’s like making a choice between 2 prestigious universities. Is going to Princeton instead of Harvard a bad choice? Couldn’t they both be good for different reasons??
Jenna Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 11:16 pm
Hannah I think there are many areas of the world where women staying home to be with their children is not possible. For most people in Poland, that is the case. When I was in Poland with my mom before I married TH we were talking with That SIL and used the term Stay at Home Mom. She had never heard of such a thing! When we explained what it meant she was completely blown away that such a thing was possible, as in Poland (at least in that area) both mothers and fathers are expected to work to survive, literally. She immediately turned to her fiance and said she wanted to move to America so that she could stay home with her kids.
I would never fault my SIL for working, just as I wouldn’t fault you for doing so. Also I wrote an extra note at the top of this post to help clarify some things that may help. Yet another post where I’m wondering if you’ll be back again
You’ve proved in the past though that you are quite tolerant and ready to look past our differences and I appreciate that.
Hannah Reply:
May 19th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
I only just got back to this - been a busy few days!
I was not personally disenchanted by this particular post - I was simply articulating that I can understand why working mothers who were reading were stating they were.
I love reading this blog - it is a totally different world and perspective for me. My constructive (hopefully) criticism these days is usually a matter of me sometimes feeling that you don’t always realise how your words might affect others. I know that you are not a malicious person (and often defend you!) which is why I continue to read despite our differences. I like different perspectives and appreciate them - which is why you will find that issues like your opinions on gay marriage don’t offend me. I feel like your religious beliefs and the whole idea are mutually exclusive. Whether I believe the government should ascribe to religious doctrine is irrelevant - I don’t judge you for believing what you do. Just FYI
I have read your edit and for me I really feel that this clarification makes the world of difference. I feel that if it is made clear that your choices and feelings fit within the parameters of LDS rather than religion/life in general - that the above post doesn’t seem judgmental at all. I won’t say the same for some other commenters though.
Honestly, I would love to be a SAHM. For me - running my own business is as close as I can get because Sydney is so hideously expensive.
Megan Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 8:18 am
I don’t see my comment as saying you should always be with your kid while they’re crying or that children should never cry. I definitely don’t want my child to only be able to be held by me or my husband. That’s why I make it a point to get out, go to play groups, have other people hold him, etc. just so he’s used to having attention that’s not from me. Also, learning to play on his own is important! I can’t always be there entertaining him-even when I am at home!
Children do not need to be enrolled in daycare or school to learn social skills. If you create those opportunities for them, they will learn.
Staying at home with children is a great concept. And it worked great until the 50′s-60′s. Great in the sense that it was feasible for women (I can’t tell for their personal feelings).
Nowadays it is often difficult for a family to meet both ends without both partners working.
Now from reading previous posts on your faith, obviously your church leaders encourage you to avoid and or pay off debt, and I guess maybe more than other faith. So maybe it is more feasible for LDS members to be able to have only one person working.
I struggle with the fact that the day a child will be born in our family I’ll have 3 months at most to take care of it at home. I come from a country where you have several month of paid maternal leave. It’s paid full time value in the beginning and it decreases as time goes. This allow women in my country to take care of their children.
Here? It will be 3 months unpaid unless I land some sort of amazing job with great benefits.
Would I like to stay home with my child? Yes I would. Will I be able to? Probably not because our personal finances and my husband’s job won’t allow it. He does a job he loves (he works in a private school for children who have Autism an Asperger Syndrom). He could pick a better paying job, but he has this gift of patience that allows him to help those children. So I’d rather work so he can use his talents for the good.
I appreciate Gordon B. Hinckley quote the most because I feel that it takes into consideration more of the reality of today, and the USA way.
The other thing I’d like to mention is that it’s quite practical for you with the kind of career/work path that you’ve picked to be a SAHM. But not everyone is gifted with homemaking sills that will allow them to work from home. And not everyone marries someone who can provide for a family out of one salary.
Finally, I personally find work necessary for me and my personal health. I’ve had to stay at home before, for a year, without a job because I choose to be with my now husband. And yes mind you I had no children to keep me busy.
15But I feel that it’s important for me to work, to feel that sense of accomplishment, to know that I’m also supporting our family and that I will be an example that way for our children to know how important it is to study, that there time in school has a very good reason behind it as well.
Hmm. I understand why people are offended by this, because you are being judgmental and saying that your way of doing things is better than other ways, but I think the impact of this post is neutered by the fact that it’s just “this is what my religion teaches.” So because I’m not Mormon, my reaction is a simple “well…..I don’t believe that.” It sorts of mutes the impact to just have your reasoning be “my church teaches this;” there’s no reason to really care about your logic if the reader isn’t Mormon.
(By the way, I don’t even think I am bothered by you saying that “good” women do things the way you do, because I think I’m just as judgmental and believe that I will be a better mother for working, having my partner be the full-time caretaker, and not raising my children in the Mormon church. It’s just an impasse, I guess.)
Kim Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
TJ, that’s exactly it. Jenna didn’t set out to write an objective argument as to why women shouldn’t work outside the home. She’s simply holding forth her own personal opinion about the Judeo-Christian god, galvanized by a lifetime of modern-day LDS instruction.
If she’d been raised in ancient Greece, she might be presenting her belief that Zeus prefers women who spin with flax, not wool. If she’d raised in 18th century India, she might be talking about her belief that Vishnu prefers women to sacrifice oxen, not pigs.
Jenna is a product of her environment, which just happens to be late 20th century Mormonism. In the greater context of the wide world with its many, many religions, hers is just another personal conviction, meaningless to anyone ready to dismiss it as such.
TH Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
TJ, thanks for saying this bluntly and clearing it up. I think a lot of people missed this point. I don’t want to put words in Jenna’s mouth, but she’d probably agree with you as well.
This is really a post about a religious belief, not social science, and the “good” here relates to Mormon mothers who have a testimony that the leaders are in fact prophets of God.
Katy Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
I love it when TH responds!! I’ve said it before, but he (and most men, like my husband) can remove the ‘oh I think I’m getting so offended’ aspect of it all and look at it rationally and thoroughly.
I think TH should comment more often (that is, if he dares enter this estrogen fest of emotions!)
Jenna Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Haha, we were just talking about this post and he said “It’s hard not to get worked up because all of your readers are women!” I think he wishes there were a bit more men to contend with when it came to topics like this, because he understands the way they think a bit better, being one himself.
Kim Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
If this indeed is the case, shouldn’t she place the word “Mormon” before “mothers” in each sentence where it occurs?
Then other Mormon mothers who don’t believe that God talks to LDS church elders (or who don’t believe that those elders are correctly interpreting God’s wishes) can take up the argument with Jenna.
As it stands, her post seems to be an indictment of working mothers of ALL faiths.
Hannah Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Exactly, Kim. If Jenna’s point is made with direct reference to Mormon women - than that should be made clear. To my reading, it was indeed applied to women in general.
Katy, the only reason you aren’t offended is because you come from the exact same viewpoint as Jenna.
I would not have an issue with this post if it made clear that it was about Mormon women and a particular community mindset. It doesn’t. It takes Mormon ideals and Jenna applies it to motherhood in general, including a ‘good’ versus bad generalisation.
Kim Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Also, I believe Jenna’s original Formspring reply referred to *women* working outside of the home. Not mothers specifically, and certainly not Mormon mothers exclusively.
I don’t know the exact quote (which by now is buried under several hundred more replies), but I remember correctly, she said she doesn’t believe God wants WOMEN to work outside the home.
I think Jenna could do a lot of damage control and possibly win back some defected readers if she simply said, “I believe God doesn’t want Mormon mothers to work outside the home” and left it at that.
Then anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the LDS belief system would have no reason to take umbrage. And those that do, well, they can take up the case with Jenna, church authorities, or both.
Jenna Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 11:22 pm
Yep, you’re right, while writing this post I realized I needed to make clear that I think this doctrine applies to women with children, not women in general, and certainly not women who don’t have children at home to care for.
I made sure to use the word mothers in this post specifically for that reason. I would modify that Formpsring answer for clarification if I knew where to find it.
Also wanted to note that I added a note to the beginning of this post to try to make things a bit more clear, specifically in regards to some of the points you’ve made.
Marissa C Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Yeah, but usually when you believe something, you believe it because you think it is right, and try and convince others that it is the truth. For Jenna to say only this should apply to just Mormon mothers would be weird and smack of a superiority/exclusivity complex.
Jenna Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
TJ your reaction of ” So because I’m not Mormon, my reaction is a simple “well…..I don’t believe that.” reminds me of the way I wish more people would react when we talk about the practice of baptism for the dead.
I talked things over with TH and added a note to the beginning of the post that might help make things a bit more clear?
Marissa C Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 11:27 pm
Well, that’s awkward-I posted that before Jenna replied. What I’m trying to say is I would find it weird for Jenna to say-”This is what I believe based on my religion and because I think it is right, but if you don’t ascribe to my beliefs, please take this to heart as a load of crap”
Jenna Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 12:07 am
I’m really having a hard time making myself clear today aren’t I?
I’m not trying to say that I don’t think that these things are true, in the way that (as you know) I believe the Church itself to be true, and to be the only true church on the earth, but that doesn’t meant I can’t also say that the consequences of these standards only apply to those who have a witness/understanding/testimony/whatever you want to call it, of the standards. It wouldn’t be very fair of God to condemn His children for disobeying principles they don’t have a true knowledge of, would it?
Want a good laugh?!
My brain moves way too fast and I just spent like 20min writing this upset comment only to realize I didn’t even read what you said correctly!! haha!!!
I thought you said ” casual sex WITHIN the bonds or marriage” and I was so upset that you were comparing working mom’s to people who cheat on their husbands. After sitting here and typing and editing and typing…and spell checking……I read it over…specifically the line I was quoting and THIS TIME I read it correctly. Oh..silly me! You said OUTSIDE the bonds or marriage. Well THAT is a whole other issues. That IS another thing that is a personal moral judgement call….unlike someone who is cheating..which most everyone thinks is wrong.
The point of my comment? I am an ADD blogger who needs to slow the heck down because I almost totally embarresed myself! Oh wait? I just told you what I did so I guess I still embarressed myself! LOL!
Thought this would make you chuckle so I shared 
whitney r Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
way to lighten the mood
As someone pointed out above, the quotes you’ve offered are from (human) church authorities, not God himself. I find it fascinating that anyone can claim to know the will of God.
“The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world.” - Georgia Harkness
Any God who has less love for a woman who pursues her dreams and fulfills herself professionally - all while being a good, kind person - is a small-hearted god indeed.
Jessica Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Agreed! I find it really sad that people use God and religion to tell people that are trying their best to live honorable lives that they are all wrong (whether moms that work outside the home or homosexuals, or which ever group is currently taking the brunt of human kind’s tendency to make-less-than) . God’s love should lift people up, not tear them down.
TH Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
The LDS faith does not believe that God has any less love for any of his children actually. We do, however, believe that he holds us accountable to his commandments, which means that he may not be pleased if someone disobeys his counsel even if it makes sense to do so.
About anyone knowing the will of God… I think your assertion is actually much bolder than what we make, as it dictates that people cannot know the will of God, which means that (1) he doesn’t have the power to send it to us or (2) you are certain that he has the power but he will not do it (which is self-contradictory, as you would have to know the will of God to make that statement).
We believe that God does in fact speak to men today, and that He speaks to us directly through personal revelation to help us know His will. You are correct that anyone may claim to receive anything from God, and many varying religions have done so for millennia. It is thus up to each individual to decide.
Kim Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
What exactly, then, are the “consequences God will mete out” to those Mormon mothers who do work outside the home? Do your church elders convey what God has told them about that?
Re: your middle paragraph, I don’t understand why it’s self-contradictory to assert the possibility of a god who HAS the power to make his will known, but does not.
TH Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
We believe that in most cases God does not specify his judgments regarding most transgressions. Some of the statements from LDS church leaders convey that those who chose not to live the commandments will not qualify for God’s help on this earth to the same extent as the obedient. This could specifically relate to being a mother and being inspired in how to best rear your children or being given the strength to endure difficulties.
Most importantly, in the final judgment, all our actions and thoughts will add up to someone who is or is not fit to live with God, and this would then become a small part of that grand equation.
Regarding my middle paragraph, you said that it’s fascinating that anyone can claim to know the will of God, implying that nobody does know. Assuming that God has the power, this further implies you are making an assertion that you know that God does not reveal His will to anyone. If you know this, you know part of the will of God, making the argument self-contradicting.
Kim Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Actually, I didn’t assert that I know ANYTHING about God.
I asserted the possibility of a God who does not reveal his will to anyone - not me, not LDS church authorities, not Jenna, not you.
That’s all.
Kim Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Wow, so in your spiritual view, a mother who works outside the home is deprived of God’s support and inspiration (love, in other words) as punishment?
I find that so sad, that you are motivated to obey (the interpretations of your church authorities) by fear of consequences. What a judgmental god you believe in.
Jessica Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
TH, you mentioned “some of the statements from LDS church leaders convey that those who chose not to live the commandments will not qualify for God’s help on this earth to the same extent as the obedient.” I’m not really sure what you mean by this unless you mean they are not receiving additional blessings? I am LDS, but I don’t agree with this statement as written. I truly don’t think anywhere in our religion does it teach that God abandons his children completely.
Kim; I understand you are not that interested in religion or our church, but keep in mind that there are over 13 million members of our church worldwide, and while we believe God himself is perfect, his followers are not and there might be some differences of interpretation along the way. The best place to find answers to your questions about our beliefs would be the church itself (mormon.org), or better yet, praying to God for answers.
Kim Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
Jessica, you want to be careful with that 13 million number. It’s a much debated figure, since it is so notoriously difficult for an ex-Mormon to remove their name from LDS church rosters when they leave the church.
Jessica Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Is it a much debated figure? That would be news to most LDS people. Have you actually heard of someone who tried to get their records officially removed from the church and had trouble?…because I really don’t think it’s that hard. People that stop attending tend to do just that…stop attending. And many, many return. I’ll try to “be careful” with that number, lol.
Jessica Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
I just wanted to say that the only reason I even stated the number was because I was trying to say there’s bound to be some difference in opinion amongst church members, since there are so many of us. Because people aren’t perfect. That was my point.
If you go to this link: http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/growth-of-the-church
the church explains that it’s not really claiming or trying to brag or anything like that with stating how many members it has (and neither was I, sorry if it offended you). It also recognizes that activity rates are different from that number. I think you would probably be surprised (as would I, from the opposite perspective), at what the number of “active” or “practicing” LDS members are. My sister is not practicing, but she still has her records on the church and if someone asks her her religion, she tells them she’s Mormon. So I don’t think it’s that offensive to say the number.
TH Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
Maybe I’m not doing this statement justice, but to me it’s pretty straightforward (as quoted in this post): “‘We realize . . . 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’ (Ezra Taft Benson, To the Mothers in Zion [pamphlet, 1987], pp. 5–6). You in these unusual circumstances qualify for additional inspiration and strength from the Lord. Those who leave the home for lesser reasons will not.”
I think both Kim and Jessica misunderstood my interpretation - I didn’t say that if one chooses to work outside the home one loses all of God’s help. I did say that one will not have his help *to the same extent* if one chooses to disobey his commandments.
To reiterate, this is very different than saying that a mother working outside the home is deprived of extra help. It only speaks of a mother who chooses to disobey God (which implies a testimony of the doctrine discussed in this post).
On your last sentence, I think all religions believe in a judgmental God. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine a God that passes no judgment, where there are no eternal or temporal consequences to one’s actions. In the statement I made, I spoke of his judgment regarding disobedience, which is the one area where I think all religions agree - he does pass some judgment if he gives you a commandment and you choose to disobey.
Lastly, you may really feel sorry for me, but the way you write it comes across as a condescending remark. You may vehemently disagree with my views, but I don’t think either of us wants to take this discussion down the “I pity you” path…
Jessica Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
TH, thank you for clarifying. I see your point now. If one intentionally disobeys God, then yes, His help would be at a LESSER extent than those who follow His teachings.
Yes, God has to be a judge. Somebody has to do it! But luckily he is merciful and has ways for us to change and become better people.
Kim Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
TH, you wrote “he does pass some judgment if he gives you a commandment and you choose to disobey”
Fair enough, but let’s be clear: God gave no such commandment. LDS church authorities did.
christiana (us meets uk) Reply:
May 18th, 2010 at 11:07 am
But - I think that for LDS people, the word of the prophet is the word of God. Just as for many other people the word of the men who wrote and transcribed the bible is the word of God.
That said, I consider myself a “freethinker” and not a member of either group that I mentioned.
(ps. I meant freethinker as in this classification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought Not just as someone who exercises critical thinking skills.
Katherine (a.k.a. Sparkles) Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
I just had a late lunch/early dinner with one of my closest friends who is a practicing Mormon. I think she gave me really good insight on a point several people made that can be easily cleared up- but I will not be able to re-state adequately so bear with me.
I think it would help out a lot if TH or TW or anyone else of the Mormon faith would explain how the prophets of your faith speak the will/teaching of God… because this gave me a better understanding of where TW was coming from. Mormons essentially believe the prophets are speaking God’s message from their revelations and that that is then deemed the will of God and accepted as true by Mormons… (I am really butchering this aren’t I?) So for those who are asking “how can you believe a prophet when the Bible isn’t saying such things” there in lies the disparity for those who aren’t familiar with the Mormon faith.
Does my question make sense? I think I needed to have it cleared up myself to fully understand this in order to see how being a SAHM is interpreted based on TW/TH faith.
Jenna Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
I think this point seems so obvious to me that I forget that it isn’t clear to those outside my faith (a big mistake since I realize I’m primarily writing to those who aren’t LDS). This post in particular has me thinking that if I want to tackle subjects like this in the future, I need to consult with some non-LDS people before the post goes live to see where I’m not being clear, or where I’m talking in a way that assumes people are familiar with things that aren’t commonly known by those outside the faith.
Jessica Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Katherine, your friend certainly gave you a good head start on what we believe. We do believe God speaks to prophets in our day in age, just as in the times of the Old and New Testament. Why would He abandon us when He was with the people of old? He hasn’t.
But what I think is SO critically important with that also, is we believe in personal revelation. God speaks to us individually also! He answers prayers! How amazing, right! So we take what our leaders teach (who we revere as prophets), pray about it to know for ourselves, and He will give us an answer (which come in different ways; through a feeling, through a thought that comes into your head, through another person, etc. Mormon.org might have some other information about how prayers are answered).
I think you are right; that it is such a huge difference between LDS people and the rest of the world and makes for some confusion. Which we have witnessed here!
But I love talking about it; I hope you find it interesting as well.
how convenient for you Jenna that you don’t consider your partime job of photography to be working outside of the home in the same manner as other working moms, particularly when it is obvious that you would like more and not less work. As you are someone who believes everything the male leaders of your church proclaim, as a feminist atheist I often do not share your viewpoint. Still, I have continued to read your blog. Now that T1 one is born, I realize I was very interested in following the story of your pregnancy and birth and that was sustaining me while I at times became frustrated with you. I’m done. All the best
19Well, there is one fact that applies no matter what the circumstance - full time mom, working mom, wishing-she-was-working mom, wishing-she-was-home mom - and it’s this:
Babies don’t stay little. Kids don’t stick around. They grow up and leave the house. That time marches on regardless of what you choose. Once that time is gone, it’s gone for good.
I for one know that I have talents and abilities that I could use to get employment outside the home. Boy, we’d sure have more money and I’d have a LOT more *me* time! Someone would praise me for my work - both verbally and by giving me a paycheck. But all that pales in comparison when I realize that my boys won’t be little forever. Their time with me is so frustratingly fleeting that I can’t help but want to spend this precious, small, gone-too-soon amount of time with them.
If it’s been said once it’s been said 100 times - the working world will always be there. I worked before we had children and I can go back to work tomorrow if I really wanted to. The time frame for working in the world is one that is much, much more forgiving. I’ve never understood why women wouldn’t want to take advantage of this unique time in their lives (at the very least while their children are younger) to teach, have fun, and cherish. These years of child rearing (whenever it is that you start a family) is a small amount of time in comparison to the whole sum of your life. As I said in another post, being a full-time mom is not a life sentence!
I don’t know what else to say. I hate being a judemental person - the older I get, the less fruitless that venture seems. But this I do know for myself: at the end of my life, I won’t regret that I didn’t have more money or have more time for myself. I won’t say ‘Gee, I wish I had put in more hours. I wish I didn’t have to spend so much time with those kids!’ Even with all the time I spent with my family, I’ll wish I had MORE.
I hope I can be content with a life that was lived as an intergral, central part of my family and that THAT is what I’m remembered for, not as an intergral part of the workforce.
Hannah Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Katy, some women simply don’t have the luxury of staying home. Keep that in mind - it is not always about ‘more money’ or selfish financial gain. Sometimes it is literally about making ends meet.
Even then, sometimes women DO want to work. That doesn’t mean they are selfish or don’t love their kids fully. You might not realise it, but that is exactly what the above comment implies.
Katy Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
You don’t have to remind me to ‘keep that in mind.’ My mom had to work after my parent’s split -and besides that, my view on what I prioritize in my life in no way dulls me to the knowledge that some women have no choice because of extreme poverty, death, or seperation from a spouse.
My statements don’t imply anything other than my perspective on a universal truth (that truth being that children grow up - time with them doesn’t last forever). REGARDLESS of what you choose for yourself, no one can escape the fact that children grow and there is nothing you can do to get that time back. My comments in these paragraphs, what was meant to express my desires/fears and how I reconcile that against the thundering on of time, was still twisted into a judgemental diatribe.
Just goes to show you that no matter what you say, if it doesn’t take on a humanism or moral relativism tone to it, you will be unwittingly corrected.
whitney r Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Katy,
I love your comment and wholeheartedly agree. I couldn’t have put it better into words myself.
Just thought you should know
Barb Reply:
May 18th, 2010 at 11:08 am
I don’t mean to interrupt this discussion, but I don’t believe Hannah twisted your comments into a judgement diatribe. You yourself imply that you are aware you are being at least slightly judgemental by simply typing
“I don’t know what else to say. I hate being a judemental person – the older I get, the less fruitless that venture seems. ”
I would have taken it as your personal opinion except for that reference.
Evelyn Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 10:06 pm
I am close to someone whose husband is a chef. He works 2 jobs and though I can’t say for sure, I believe he makes less than $30K a year. She is a trained teacher but stays at home with their 3 children. They have credit card debt that they have ever so slowly been hacking away at for the last 7 years. It is still enough to be a stress at times, but because they feel the importance of her being at home, she is. They have learned how to live within a meager budget and do so happily. While they do without many luxuries they enjoy some at times. They have made things like dance lessons a priority (for 2 years) and found ways to afford it by tweaking their budget. The point of this is, when there is a will there is a way. My dad was in the Navy for 20 years but never made officer and wasn’t in a highly paid position, yet my mom stayed at home with 6 kids. THere are some real situations when a woman absolutely needs to work outside of the home to supplement or fully support the family income, but in many cases, learning to live within a smaller income is possible.
Katy Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Very true! Okay - (I’m going to get attacked for this big time) but I think the arguement that a woman must work ‘out of financial necessity’ is often the go-to reason that actually masks an unwillingness to reevaluate financial priorities.
Of course I KNOW that truly for some people, they need two incomes to put food on the table and have basic, safe housing and there just isn’t any other way. I KNOW. But for others out there, simply reevaluating where money is spent and budgeting better could allow the family to have a parent in the home. It’s not easy and it’s not fun, but I think those that lump themselves into the “I have to work” category unnecessarily stigmatize those that it indeed true for. (like a teaching friend of mine…saying that she wished she could stay home but they needed her income to live and eat - all the while showing me the new home theater equipment and chairs they just purchased…but there I go again being all judgemental!! Actually, I really should watch that….)
Laura Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 1:20 am
Katy- my thoughts exactly!!
What is “making ends meet”, or “financial necessity”?
Is that paying your cable bill? Or having high-speed internet at your fingertips at all times? Or taking care of your iPhone bill? (I have one myself, but if that bill were keeping me away from my kids I would get a cheaper phone-without a data plan!) Is that eating fast food multiple times a week to feed your family? Or paying your mortgage on a house that is bigger than you really NEED anyway?
I just think that a lot of people decide certain things are “necessities” when they could really live on less and take care of their kids in the home.
Jenna, I think you are fabulous and brave to write a post about such a controversial topic! And I completely agree with you!!
I am getting married soon to my convert fiance, and I am positive that his family will look down on me for being a SAHM someday, but oh well! That’s not what matters.
Megan Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 8:27 am
I really liked these comments.
When my dad was in college, he originally wanted to be a math teacher. But, he and my mom decided they wanted a big family. A big family on a school teachers budget might have required my mom to work. SO they rerouted their plan. My dad went into a different field he was equally interested in, one that made more money, because he knew he wanted to provide for my mom to stay at home.
I think spouses need to work together to map out what they want and then set realistic goals to meet them.
Jessica Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Evelyn and everyone else, thanks for these comments. My dad also worked so hard at a job that sometimes paid well and sometimes didn’t (sales commission). He did that so my mom could stay at home with us because it was a priority for both of them (and it would be hard if your spouse wanted you to work; that’s tough). We went without plenty, but my parents budgeted and made it work and we had a very healthy childhood with plenty of interaction with people outside our family and even some extra-curricular activities. We see in society all these things we HAVE to have (even a dishwasher and washer/dryer are a luxury…that’s the school of thought I come from). It’s usually just a frivolous waste of money. I agree that budgeting so that a parent is in the home (preferably Mom), is worth it. A sacrifice, but worth it.
Sophia Reply:
May 19th, 2010 at 10:05 am
The problem with the statement “the working world will always be there” is that yes, it will be there, but if you have 3 kids and take off a decade, it might not want you- probably won’t want you, in some careers definitely won’t want you. There are huge numbers of statistics on the difficulty of re-entering the workplace, of the huge negative impact of the “mommy track”, of the negative perceptions employers have of women who try to return to the workplace with a 10 year hole in their resume.
Unfortunately, this is NOT the fault of the mother, it is the fault of our society, which talks out of two sides of its mouth. On the one side, you hear “family values/children are precious/etc.”, but the reality is on the other side- we have the highest rate of college educated women who do not return to their field, people have used the term “bleeding out” when describing the abysmal rate at which companies lose women because they don’t have family friendly policies in place, etc. The working world was built around men, and their schedules, and men, in their schedules, have never had to birth and breastfeed a baby!
I agree with you that women SHOULD be able to stay at home with kids and return to the workplace. But at the same time, so many careers are so fast paced- as one person stated, being a year out of the field basically means you’re a dinosaur- that it is not as simple as “you can always go back”. So, what would basically happen is that any mother who wanted to stay home with her children would have to choose her career based on ease of re-entry. That would substantially lower female participation in the more static professions, and a lack of female representation in law, medicine, and business would not be good for families, because research has shown that women are more likely to be concerned with families/women/children than men, which is natural because it effects them. The numbers on the EXPLOSION of family friendly policies after women were given the vote proves that unless women have a say and an active participation in the public sphere, a lot of times their needs are ignored.
My point is two fold- women who want to stay home should be respected and able to return, but at the same time we have to look at the reality of a world where careers that don’t have such stasis experienced a dramatic drop in female participation, which in turn could have negative consequences for many families, women, and children. A few other commenters have mentioned the pre-dominance of women as social workers, as family court judges, etc.
Katy Reply:
May 19th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
You do make a good point and arguement - it is a tad carefree of me to say ‘you can always go back’ when that’s not easy for all job fields. I tend to fall back to that idea for two reasons - - 1) I had grandiose plans growing up. Doctor! Astronaut! Lawyer! and I know I could have done those things and loved it, but as I got older, I also realized how important having a family was to me and how important it was for me to stay home with my babies (at least until my kids were about 5-6 I told myself). So much happens those first few years and I knew I wouldn’t want to miss it. So, I picked a profession that would have much easier time working back into if I so chose - - and that’s teaching. I’ll still have to get recertified, particularly if we move, but the ease of working back into teaching is quite a bit better. In fact, I would strongly argue that my teaching would now be GREATLY enhanced by having this experience of having children of my own and better understanding children and parents in general.
2) I hope this statement doesn’t come across as heartless as it sounds, but until society is changed in that woman can easily reenter the workforce in ANY occupation, women must decide work out what’s more important to them. If they choose a static profession, they have to consider the ramifications of having children - not only for the children, but for their career as well. Perhaps part time work can be persued or perhaps a slight change in the field will allow easier re-entry.
Until society changes in this way, we have to really evaluate and examine what our true priorities are and then find a way to make it reconcile with reality. I realize my comments on this topic (at least on a different thread) were a bit harsh the other day (I think I was having a bad day!:) I know this reconciling for all women will be a bit different, but FOR ME (as was the point of my original comment) the sacrifice is worth it because the time spent with my babies is so relatively small and so finite that I (*for myself*) cannot imagine missing it for anything. Money, opportunity, autonomy - nothing. But that is me, that’s the choice I’ve made. (can you tell I don’t want to get remotely grilled alive again - just want to kindly express my 2 cents
Oh, and as if this post wasn’t nearly long enough….another consideration all women who choose to continue working must consider is the impact a child with special needs may play in their life (can’t believe I didn’t mention this already). We were surprised to find out our first child has DS right after he was born. I had already made the decision to stay home and thank goodness because that first year would have been EXTREMELY stressful with all the doctor appointments and therapist visits (which still happen, but to a slightly lesser degree). I either would have been slightly resentful for this child ‘making’ me change my working plans or it just would have been way more stressful than it should have been had I continued to work.
Since life always has a way of changing our plans and surprises can and will happen, just something to give a little thought to. The same for moms who plan to stay home - you may have your heart set on it, but if your husband passes away or loses his job, etc., those plans may change. My point - - never think you can plan your life and that everything will just happen that way. We women have to be flexible, but since we are amazing, we can pretty much handle it.
(SORRY!!! That was long, EVEN for me).
Erin Reply:
May 19th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
I hear what you are saying about choosing a career that is easy to go back to (i.e., teaching) and that is also why I chose to get my PhD because I can get back into clinical work, teaching, and even possibly research given the new mommy grants if I ever choose to be a SAHM. BUT - what a sad, sad world if all of our doctors and lawyers and CEOs and senators are male. So very sad. It is hard to find an OB-GYN who took off 4-10 years until all of her kids were in school to return to work - it simply isn’t possible. It would be sad to see our medical system, judicial system, political system all filled with only men. Very sad. I’m glad that women make the choice to work. I’ve been a nanny to several working mom’s - (summer breaks, etc.) and I think they have all raised amazing kids - not despite or because of - being working moms. Just because they are awesome moms.
I have never ever had any desire to be a SAHM. I don’t think that a mother staying home with her children is “best”. As one comment said, how can I possibly disagree with the idea? Maybe it’s because my mother worked, and when somebody needed to stay home with us, it was my dad, and maybe it’s because, both as a teenager and as an adult, I have a much better relationship with my mother than any of my friends, who resented their stay-at-home moms for always being so involved in their lives that my friends felt like they didn’t have any space. I felt like staying home also hampered my friend’s mom’s perspective - instead of viewing them as full grown adults, capable of making mature decisions, my friends got treated like children. Maybe my view is simply too narrow, but I felt that those of us who had working moms had healthier relationships with them. I think it’s an idea that doesn’t get explored enough in the working mom debate.
Because of this, I find it interesting that you do not address what happens once children are in school, or older. Is it okay for women to find employment then, that they find fulfilling and makes good use of their talents? I think that it is this transition that is often most difficult for women - because as chlidren grow up, a woman who opts to be a SAHM experiences a true career change, and I don’t think that we, as a society, are particularly supportive of that.
I also would like to say that there are many fields where it is important that women, and mothers, work - for example, as a domestic violence attorney, I feel that being a woman helps me understand my clients, who are mostly women. I find that my co-workers who have children can even bring an extra level of empathy to the table, because they understand what our clients are going through when they are trying to keep custody of their children. I fully plan to remain employed full-time when I have children, because I genuinely feel that it is what I am meant to do - I feel that if I stay home with my chlidren, I make a difference in the life of two people. I feel that if I continue down the path I’m on, I can make a difference in the life of many, many more women who need my help; and I genuinely believe that my children will not suffer because of my choice.
The last thing I would like to say, and apologies for the very long comment, is that I don’t feel judged by you, Jenna, even though some have commented that they do. I genuinely believe that you don’t judge me for the choices that I am making, just like I do not judge you for the choices that you are making, so thank you for that.
Jenna Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 11:33 pm
You’re right, I didn’t make it clear that I think staying at home exclusively is important during the years when a child is young and at home all the time, but certainly after that I think any Church leader would agree that a woman does not have to diddle around in the home for the rest of her life pining after her children with nothing to do but wait for them to get home.
There are so many ways that a woman can contribute positively to society in ways that men cannot, and once children are out of the house more (which really starts to happen about 5 years after they are born!) I think that is the time to make that happen.
Thanks for your comment. I don’t know if you saw above, but I let another commenter know that I didn’t think you should be attacked for offering a viewpoint on an inquiry that may have been directed toward me. I appreciate you taking the time to share your ideas.
schmei Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Ellie, my mother is a juvenile court judge, and was a domestic relations attorney before that - the only female attorney in the county for a while. I agree with you that having women in these roles can make a huge difference for other women and children in distress.
Erin Reply:
May 19th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
I too disagree with previous commenters notion that SAHM is the “best” way to raise kids. My husband and I do not want that for our family and have a list of reasons why being a SAHM is not “best” for us - none of the reasons being financial.
A contrary perspective from someone with a stay-at-home-mom of four children: It’s not always best for everyone.
We certainly had a lot of attention, but it was from one MISERABLE mom who spent 18 years gradually losing her sense of self-identity in the interests of others.
I’ve seen her happier in the last four years of going back to school, working part time, and working full time than I EVER did as a child. And honestly, that example would have been better for me personally (and, dare I say, my sisters) than the discontent and resentfulness that was modeled. A sad example, but firsthand (and yes, my dad was a big part of the “sharing an equal burden” problem).
I’m of the opinion that there are ways to balance all things that are necessary if done right. I don’t intend to rear an infant and work full time, but nor do I intend to make parenting the entirety of my existence after I have children.
Jenna Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
I talked this over with TH as we went on a walk tonight, and I don’t know if I have a good answer. As a woman who enjoys being home it would be easy for me to be glib and say “life is what you make it’ or something just as trite, but I don’t think that fair to your mother or other women who feel the way she did.
After my recent breastfeeding issues I can certainly attest that though I may believe there is a gold standard to strive for, there are times when working to save your sanity as a mother will provide a better life for your children than that gold standard ever could. I certainly wonder if I chose using formula to save my sanity over a healthier son due to breastfeeding, but I don’t regret my choice because I’m so much happier when feeding time comes around again.
mlwindc Reply:
May 19th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
I was really happy to see this comment and reply from Jenna. I have an infant son and I am not a stay at home mom, nor do I want to be a stay at home mom. Before he was born, we made financial decisions that would permit me to be a SAHM, but once he was born, I knew that I wanted to go back to work. We found a loving and intimate daycare in which the woman who runs is absolutely worships the ground my son walks on and I go to work and do what I went to school to do.
My job is flexible enough that if I am not busy, I can leave at 2pm and go pick him up. I can also take a day off when he’s sick or to take him to all his doctor appointments. And when my old job became so miserable that I was unhappy while away from my son, I switched to another job that will hopefully be better professionally.
My SIL is a SAHM and sometimes things get *tense* because she very much so believes that a woman should stay at home with her kids. I do believe that mom’s care is the best care, but I don’t believe that a mom who is not happy = a family that is not happy.
Once might say that I am a bad mom because I don’t want to be at home with my son? I certainly hope not. Besides, the only logical response is to say that women like that should not have children and I challenge anyone to look at my happy, thriving baby boy who squeals as I chase him down the hallway and say it to my face.
That being said, I applaud you, Jenna, for sharing your thoughts on religion, etc. I often think it’s funny when people get SO ANGRY about what a blogger has said on their blog because the obvious response is to just stop reading the blog. No one is forcing you to do so, just like you aren’t forcing anyone to accept LDS beliefs. Being a mom is hard work and I’ve learned that arguing about these kinds of things and tearing other moms apart on these issues doesn’t accomplish anything.
Erin Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 11:38 am
Very well written. I agree with you!
hey jenna! or TH as i wouldnt b surprised if you’d stopped reading these comments.
first of all i appreciate you not being afraid to share your convictions and beliefs. many of us avoid the controversial bc we want to be liked. but we (as believers regardless of denomination) are a peculiar people are we not? it is not for us to fit in with the world….we are not of the world.
much love dear! that’s all……
23For what it’s worth, I completely disagree with you regarding this topic. The mere idea that women are only meant to stay at home and rear their children is ridiculous. Women, just as men, are meant to do whatever they please regarding their time in the work force. I am so glad that as a society we have evolved past the 1950′s and allow women the right to contribute to society in more ways than childrearing, cooking and cleaning. The idea that only women are capable of raising a child to be a good, contributing member of society is also preposterous. The fact of the matter is we are raised by a whole slew of different people and not all of them are family members.
I agree with another commentor, the fact that my mother worked outside the home has helped me have a more adult relationship with her. I went to work with her quite often and to be completely honest, her work ethic and her drive to succeed has instilled in me that same dive. The fact that she went to school nights just so she could earn her associates degree and work in a field that was both mentally challenging and financially supporting, imbued me with a sense of educational responsibility and a sense of worth in my education. The fact of the matter is, I am a better person because both my parents worked.
And now I am in a PhD program, fufilling every dream I have ever had for myself, and like Julie who commented above, I am doing important work. Work that can not be done at home and work that I can not bring a child to, so until I am able to secure that ever so comfortable professorship, I will be a working mother and more than likely my husband, myself and a whole slew of family members will be rearing my kids, and that works for me. Also, just as side note, to suggest that the only way it is okay for a mother to be receiving monetary compensation is by essentially arts and crafts is just insulting.
I believe that Jenna, you are doing what you believe to be best for your family, and I have a great amount of respect for that. However, the fact that you threw this viewpoint into the universe, say I’m not judging you, but God is, is just unfair. By standing so high and mighty, you are just putting down thousands of wives and mothers who are trying to be the best they can be in this world. A world that likely wouldn’t be the same (and liberties you wouldn’t currently be able to enjoy) if women hadn’t been allowed to work outside the home.
24I just want to point out that just about everyone (including it seems to me the LDS church) needs to reconsider their historical understanding of women “working” outside the home. It is a convenient fiction (It suits both progressive and conservative ideologies) for us to believe that women didn’t work outisde the home prior to the 1960′s; however this is not the case. there was a brief industrial period- say 80-90 years where a middle class developed and out of which the workforce became bifrucated into “outside the home workers”- factory workers, managers etc etc. and inside the home caretakers- normally women. However, the fact is that for CENTURIES when the basic needs of subsistence were what consumed most families- everyone worked. Pre-industrial revolution meeting the needs of food, clothing and shelter for the primarily poor population were the responsibility of all able bodied adults. Women farmed and cooked and canned and made clothes, and did everything to help PROVIDE for the family alongside their husbands. I just find this debate to be incredibly historically limited and therefore strong judgments on either side tend to lack nuance and perspective. I come from poor Irish peasants- both of my grandmothers worked outside and inside the home, and so did their mothers. Poor women have always worked inside and outside the home. It was and is a luxury for it to be otherwise.
Katherine (a.k.a. Sparkles) Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Good point. I was thinking bout this too. How can the LDS church’s prophets encourage women to be SAHM, when in fact pre-industrial times that concept probably didn’t exist because (for example) farming or tending home maker goods like sewing or canning of food not count as work? It’s a matter of course that women worked to some degree while being at home and rearing children since the beginning of time.
But you summed it up well what I was mulling over earlier!
Katy Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
I also enjoyed reading this historical reminder.
I believe it is common knoweldge in our church that discussion of working outside the home refers more to the modern day application of this idea ( for reasons that can be basically summed up in that you don’t want to be around your children all day or for even greater financial gain - not financial necessity)
Women that labored in and around the home in those pre-industrial times often labored WITH their children (especially in farming). Sure, their mothers didn’t sit around and do puzzles with them or schedule playdates, but they were still quite present in their child’s life/day.
Our workforce and what we need do to provide for ourselves as a society is an evolving thing - what leaders of our church counsel against is letting the workforce unneedlessly pull you from or prioritize the majority of your time above your children while they are in the home.
(p.s. I hope that made sense and didn’t incite undue offense. I’m sick of people taking offense to every little thing tonight, especially right now when I’m just trying to lend the LDS perspective to the discussion!)
Ellie Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 10:47 pm
An excellent point! Not to mention that our current concept of childhood and childrearing has also changed - a hundred years ago, it was extremely common for “other people” to raise your children, especially if you were rich (interesting how the dynamic has shifted so that only the well-off now can afford to have only one income!), but also, in a poorer family, the children were raised by their next oldest sibling while their mother ran the household. After the age of 3 or 4, children were put to work in the household or the fields or the store or wherever. They went to school but school let out before harvest so that the children could help their families. After the age of twelve or fourteen, girls could get married and start their own families. So really, the raising of the children happened in a very different way. The idea of SAHM is really a convention of the 50s designed to get women out of the factories to “make room for Our Boys coming home from the war!” I think we forget that a lot in this debate, so thanks for pointing it out.
christiana (us meets uk) Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 11:44 am
I just wanted to make one tiny point. That the cost of childcare compared to the income of the possible SAH parent is important.
If what I earn is equal to what I pay for childcare - why on earth would I work solely to pay someone to help with childcare? I could just pay myself, right?
Though really, I wish I had gone into a more lucrative career so the decision to SAH or work would be different! Instead, at present, it would be cheaper for me to stay home, than to work to pay for childcare.
ps. I have no kids, and am not preggers, I just looked into the numbers recently for my area.
Jessica Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Oh, I so agree with this Christiana! I discussed this in a class at college once; that between childcare, gas, splurging on lunches too often, and rewarding yourself for working so hard with unnecessary things…a working mom pretty much makes nothing! Another great reason to wait to go back to work until after your kids are a little older. Thanks for bringing this up!
christiana (us meets uk) Reply:
May 19th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
I mean, that obviously depends on your job, commute and personal reward structure. If I made more money - then I probably would have a lot left over after child care that would be beneficial to our family unit or, if the situation were reversed( my salary>his salary) my husband could stay home with the (imaginary) kids.
But, alas, I don’t, and so the equation for me (right now) works the way I mentioned above.
Sophia Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Thank you for making that point Ellie. I’ve suggested this book many a time, but I *love* “The Way we Never Were”. I also wish I could get my hands on some of the spreadsheets my Family and Sociology prof gave us. One fact that sticks in my brain is that around the Civil War, something like 50% of children under 13 had lost one or both parents. And, if one looks at the historical data of women working “outside of the home” it actually goes back to the 1800′s, as someone mentioned, with the advent of the industrial revolution. Prior to the exodus from the farms, there were no ideas of the “angel in the home”, men were given the responsibility of rearing children in morals, because women were often seen as too dull witted to be effective at instilling values in children. Also, a look at how difficult it was for women to keep their children in the rare instances a divorce was granted also flies in the face of the idea that, culturally, this SAHM thing/mother as ideal caregiver idea has always been ideal. I believe that a lot of our ideas about women and children have been romanticized by the short lived period in the 50′s when, for the first time, there was enough money/credit/GI Bills/post war boom to support an army of formerly employed war effort women going home to raise 3 kids in the ‘burbs.
As I stated below, I understand none of the references above are really relevant to the discussion, as Jenna’s beliefs understandably come from revelation from Church leaders and her own testimony of those revelations, but the above examples as well as the comment you made are a good summary of the problems I have surrounding the debate of SAHM’s. I can see the pros and cons of staying home versus working, but I can’t get on board with the woman staying home always if at all possible.
Oh, one more thought- this idea of the mother being the sole best nurturer in an ideal situation for a child is also very, very, very culturally specific, as others have pointed out. Many other cultures have more group oriented child rearing practices, and babies and children get love and support from more than just their bio mom. In some cultures and tribes, children are breastfed by whatever mom has a breast available, for example. Another thing to consider.
I have an editorial note and a general LDS question:
The note: You wrote “I would be condemning a whole lot of people who drink alcohol, use recreational drugs, or have sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage”
I’m certain you didn’t intend for this to affect your readership the way it did. On first-through-third reading, it honestly sounds like you’re equating working mothers with crack-smoking swingers. And my mother has always worked full-time. So my initial reaction was along the lines of “NOBODY talks about MY MOTHER like that!”
I’m picking up what you’re putting down here, but that was icky phrasing and I can see why people bristled.
The question: is there such a thing as an LDS stay-at-home dad? Would that just be a joke or something? Especially in this economy, I’ve known a few families where the dad’s laid off, mom’s still employed, and he stays home with the kids. The kids still have a parent around all the time… is this simply unthinkable?
Katy Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
I applaud you for rereading and not letting phrasing get in the way of meaning (not that I’m implying Jenna isn’t good at phrasing…she’s a great writer! But we *all* get misunderstood, especially on the internet).
A LDS stay home dad wouldn’t be joke, though admittedly I’ve never known one personally. Though we LDS people believe women more naturally employ the nuturer role that doesn’t mean men don’t possess it and can’t perform child rearing duties if necessary!
Hey, I think (and I think other LDS peolple would agree) that it’s just great for children to be home with *someone* that loves and cares for them and with whom they share a deep, anticipated life-long connection. If I had to go back to work, I’d strongly attempt to only do so if a grandmother, close relative, or very close friend would be willing to watch my child.
schmei Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
I agree that Jenna’s a great writer!
Jenna Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
As Katy said, I’m sure they exist but SAHF aren’t very common. One somewhat unique facet of the LDS Church is the belief that it’s either all right, or it’s all wrong (which I think is why we come across as so cultish). There are certainly other belief systems that are a bit more lenient when it comes to teachings, but in LDS theology one really cannot pick and choose what is to be practiced if the ultimate goal of God’s greatest gifts is to be achieved. Thus, though this idea of encouraging *all* mothers within the Church to stay at home with their children if at all possible may seem archaic to many, it is followed because we believe that the decrees came from God, and were conveyed by His prophets and apostles.
We believe that men and women have divine roles, and are blessed with innate talents to help fulfill those roles. Women were given gifts and talents by God that are specifically meant for rearing children, thus the reason why you don’t see many SAHFs in the Church, because we don’t see it as part of the “plan”, per se.
Senora H-B Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
My brother-in-law is a SAHF and is LDS. I actually know several men who are. In these cases, the wife had a significantly higer earning potential (like 3x the dad) and so they’ve chosen that path. I know that my BIL struggles with it at times because it can be quite alienating-especially when it comes to playgroups.
Still, this just WORKS for their family. He’s a great dad and she’s a wonderful mom. His wife is much more career-oriented than he ever was, so when it came down to crunching the numbers, they went for it.
I know my father-in-law really struggles with it (like maybe he’s less of a man because his son doesn’t support his family?), but I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with it. My BIL is the Elder’s Quorum president in his ward, so apparently the Stake President doesn’t think it’s wrong either!
schmei Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Thanks for your perspective, Senora H-B! Your BIL sounds like a cool guy.
Jenna and TH,
I followed you over to your blog from Weddingbee, (Go Mrs Avocado!), and, to be entirely truthful, in the beginning, I didn’t think I’d be able to keep reading.
I really struggled with some of your viewpoints, as we are just so different, in so many ways. Religious beliefs, certainly, and with that, many cultural beliefs.
But then I kept reading. And once I got past that, and instead, just sought to listen, and hear, and understand, I realized that I so enjoy reading and hearing you and your perspective.
While my relationship, my husband, and our family is perfect for me, and while I don’t agree with many of your viewpoints, I understand that it is defined from your church and your experiences.
And I think that you are a strong, independent, empowered woman - and anyone that thinks that LDS women aren’t so, just needs to read your blog. I admire the way you make decisions for yourself, and admire the way you are able to put yourself out there.
Yes, I don’t agree with this post. But I also don’t share your religion. And I admire you having the strength to share it. Thank you for writing. I’ll be reading.
Jenna Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
This comment was very much appreciated. Thanks! It was nice to read it tonight.
I never wanted this to be a “Stephanie vs. Jenna” point. I simply wanted to express that I am also an active member of the LDS church, with a different viewpoint. We both go to the same church, but interpret various talks, scriptures, and doctrinal points differently. I believe that is what makes our church special.
I really liked what Jessica said about both being “good choices,” but I do not feel like that is what Jenna meant. I am willing to give both Jenna and TH the benefit of the doubt, but tone wise, what I am hearing is this: If you don’t agree with Jenna’s interpretation on this topic, you either don’t (in fact) believe the prophet, don’t have a testimony, or are misusing your divine right to personal revelation for your own gains. There is no way both of us could be right, since Jenna is clearly the more righteous Mormon.
Maybe that tone is unintentional. While I am not offended at Jenna’s opinion, (I don’t even disagree entirely,)I am hurt by some of the implications in her at TH’s responses.
(ps I never know who to address in a blog comment. Just the author? The other commenters? No one? )
Jenna Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 11:53 pm
I think bringing up the fact that personal revelation can be misinterpreted is touchy because it implies that I think *your* personal revelation has been misinterpreted, something I think you and I both agree I am not qualified to comment on. It’s the beauty of the principle of personal revelation, what we receive is only relevant to us as individuals.
I have not yet conceded to your view though, as I don’t think they are backed up by any of the doctrine of the Church as I understand it. It shouldn’t necessarily be about one of us being right or wrong, it should be about trying to convey our viewpoints and how we came to those conclusions. I think in this matter specifically the Lord has set a standard, and that standard has been in place for many years, and no modern revelation has yet revoked that standard thus it must still apply to the women of today, just as it applied to the women of our mother’s day.
I also don’t think I’ve tried to convey that differing understandings of a principle reveal the righteousness of an individual. Rather I think different viewpoints reveal a persons individual interpretation of that principle, and I don’t think it’s wrong to disagree about individual interpretations. That’s why we have Church leaders, because otherwise we would go back and forth like this on just about every topic in the Gospel, trying to decide who is right and who is wrong. For many areas, that isn’t necessary because God let us know what His standard is.
I have certainly had my viewpoint affected and changed by comments left on That Wife in the past though, and I welcome you to continue commenting, whether on this post or in the future because I hope to not come across as someone who believes that I know it all, and no one is going to change my mind. I just need a bit more information to feel like I can say we both have the backing of our Church leaders in our views.
Hi, Jenna. I’ve been reading your blog for awhile, but have never commented. Congratulations on the birth of your son. He is precious and I know will bring you and your husband much happiness.
As I’ve been reading the comments concerning your post about stay at home moms, I am really sad because there is so much strife from the differing opinions. Some women have been really offended. I don’t think I read any “male” comments. In your editor’s comment at the beginning, correct me if I am wrong, but you said the post was intended for LDS women and women who are not LDS cannot be held accountable for the teachings if they are not enlightened. Obviously, a significant number of your readers are non LDS women. Did you know your comments would create dissension? What is the purpose of writing such a topic if you know many of your readers are non LDS women?
I’m a 57 year old woman who has stayed at home with my children. All my daughters work outside the home. None have children yet, but when they do the decision to work outside the home or not, is one between them, their husbands, and God. If my own mother had not gone to work when my brothers and I were teenagers, we would have never gone to college…..and my brothers would not have been able to provide for their familes as well as they do because of that college education for which my mother worked so hard.
I am sad to see women arguing with one another. I sometimes wonder if you knew your comments would create unrest? For example, the one about women working outside the home and what sounded like to me, equating that with premarital sex? Understandably, that comment was not well received.
I have tried to write this comment the best way I know. My purpose is not to upset you, but to ask you to think about how your comments come across to many women who read your blog faithfully. It seems to me that as women we need to nurture one another, not offend. Generally speaking, people respond much more favorably to a word softly spoken in love than one that comes across harsh.
Thank you for allowing me to comment.
Jenna Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 12:02 am
Sarah,
Thanks for writing. You’re right, this blog could use a little bit more male comments from time to time, although my husband does step in (he comments under the name TH) and does a great job of making sure I don’t get overly emotional and react poorly to the things that people say.
Though I certainly knew that this post would be controversial, I did not appropriately predict the specific points that would be brought up in the controversy and I realize this was my mistake. I think in the future I will work to seek input from those outside my faith because it is just not possible for me to put myself in a mindset where I interpret the things I say from a non-LDS perspective. I was raised LDS and so I never had any other viewpoint, you know?
In my editors comment in the beginning I was attempting to say that the post was written to help people understand a statement the LDS viewpoint on mothers working outside the home, as its something I had mentioned briefly before and it garnered a lot of interest. I had hoped to help make things clearer, but I fear that writing this post has only done more harm than good. We have been counseled not to give milk before meat, and I think the concepts taught here are not easily understood by those outside of our faith because of the great number of other factors that come into play with them, such as a belief in revelation given by men of God just as was revealed during the times of the Bible.
I’m always trying to work on my tone, to find ways to convey my viewpoints in constructive ways instead of ways that belittle. I’ve made many mistakes in the past and I hope to improve. Comments like yours, and those above, are helping me to do so. Hopefully I can find a way to keep writing about topics such as this one without offending everyone who takes the time to read what I’ve written!
Ok I really wasn’t going to post, because well, I personally don’t live in the 1800′s (just my opinion), but I couldn’t take it anymore, so here goes….
I get that overall the Moron religion or at least Jenna’s and TH “chapter” belive that all moron women who have kids should stay home. But TH already admitted that his mom worked during his childhood, so does that mean your mom has sinned and will not be going to where ever “good” morons go when they die? (sorry TH I don’t mean to offend you saying your mom is going to heck)
And also how is it just fine for TH SIL to work in Poland? You all are moron, which means you should ALL have the same beliefs, if truly the idea of a SAHM comes from your teachings???? So how is ok for certain moron moms to work and not others???
It just seems to me that you are talking out of both sides of your head, so to speak.
Laura Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 1:43 am
Okay first of all: It’s Mormon. or LDS. NOT moron.
Second of all: Jenna and TH’s “chapter” or Mormonism is mainstream Mormonism. There are some breakoff sects, like RLDS, and FLDS, but Jenna and TH are just LDS.
I think that people are trying to say (I’m trying to not speak for them, just to clarify a point.) is that the belief of the LDS faith is that in most situations it is best for mothers to stay at home with their children. But it will not always be possible.
This quote that Jenna posted from Ezra Taft Benson explains LDS beliefs about this: ‘We realize . . . 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’.
Maybe in Poland, the circumstances do not allow for women to stay at home with their children. Obviously if it is a concept that has never even been heard of by Jenna’s SIL, then it probably just isn’t feasible there. God understands this. TH was also raised in Poland, so the same situation applies to his mom as applies to his sister.
Okay, I don’t normally comment on these controversial posts, and I hope I didn’t completely butcher this comment. I just feel very strongly about this topic and am feeling unusually bold tonight. TH or Jenna, please correct me if I am wrong!
Angela Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 10:20 am
Oh MY! I soooo didn’t mean that, you are totally right.
I am so sorry to everyone on this blog, it was late and I didn’t re-read the post, I didn’t in ANY way intead to insulate anyone and I truly didn’t mean it that way.
Again to everyone, I am sorry!
Kelli Nicole Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
One thing, TH is the only LDS member in his family, and he didn’t join until he was a teenager. His sister and mom are not Mormon.
Evelyn Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Poland may be different than others, but my experience with former Soviet states is that there is an expectation that women work a full-time job outside the home. It seemed quite rare to find homemakers/SAH moms in that region of the world.
I definitely do agree that parenting/motherhood/being a SAHM should be taken more seriously. For all the work that goes into it, it most definitely is a job! For women like my mom, the problems start when you can’t just (continuing with the job metaphor) be promoted, or take a sabbatical, or choose a new position, or change industries. I have no idea how women manage to balance work, child-rearing, and home life when I can barely make one work, but I say that if they can and if they find that path fulfilling, then more power to them. But I have complete respect for women who have chosen the path of dedicated motherhood in the way that you have described it. We’re all so different, I just can’t concede that there is one “right way” for all of us.
31I’m confused. You don’t think mothers should work outside the home for fulfillment or income unless absolutely necessary, and yet you take photos for fulfillment and (eventually hopefully) income and you blog for fulfillment and you’ve stated hopefully eventually income from ads. I’m sure you’d say that child rearing is still your primary priority. I’m sure the vast majority of working mothers would say the same. So how is your case the exception again?
32I agree with this post, and don’t agree with it at the same time.
I was fortunate to stay whome full-time until my youngest was 1 1/2, and then I went back to nursing school part-time. I didn’t start working full-time until my girls were 4 and 6.
I made the decision to go back to work for financial reasons. My husband was working two jobs, and on his nights home, I was teaching piano lessons to make ends meet. Between our work and piano teaching schedules and church activities, we had NO time together as a family. None. My husband would often leave the house at 6 AM and not get home until after the girls were in bed. My girls had me around all the time, but they never saw their dad.
We both decided that what we were doing wasn’t healthy. Yes, my girls had me around, but they were missing having the vital influence of their father. It wasn’t worth it. We decided that it was better for me to work full-time as a nurse (three nights/week) and have family time 4 nights a week than continue doing what we were doing. It has been the BEST thing for our family. I miss my girls-and yes, there are times I miss field trips or had to have a friend grab them from school until either my husband or I could be there-but they have such a better relationship with their father now. We have more family time together. We never even had a weekend together because my husband was working his second job, and now we routinely spend Saturdays having fun family time (or doing yard work!).
So, what I’m trying to say, is that sacrificing the role of the father (by working two jobs or working full-time and then going to school) wasn’t worth it to us. We believe that children need BOTH parents avilable to them. I am thankful that I had the time at home when they were babies, but feeling like a single mother to do so was exhausting!
Sophia Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 11:20 am
I appreciate that you made this point Melissa! What is the most uncomfortable to me about the idea that children need their mothers full time is the attendant statement it makes about fathers- bring home a paycheck, see us on nights and weekends, and you’re being a great Dad, whereas in order to be a great mom one must have child rearing/care as a primary responsibility. To me, it downplays the equal importance of fathers. Now, I understand the point is that the roles are different but equal, but I don’t understand how a man working full time and seeing kids nights/weekends is ideal because he’s fulfilling his role, whereas a woman doing the same thing is not ideal.
Jessica Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Thanks Melissa, for this comment. I definitely think your family was an “exception” not the rule, and that your situation required action. I’m glad your girls get time with both parents and you get to see your honey!
There are way too many comments for me to read them all, but since I’m assuming you read all of them Jenna, I’m going to reply.
I agree with you whole heartedly. It’s not always perfectly possible, but my mom was able to do it with four kids and my dad made very little money being self employed, and it is what I consider THE most important decision and BEST decision my mom ever made. So I’m going to do it too. That’s all I can say.
34Why is everyone getting so worked up about a comment someone made on the internet? Jenna’s comments weren’t condemning people for their choices and I didn’t find them to be judgmental in any way. Of course I can’t say the same for many of the comments written by readers…
She simply stated that her religion teaches a certain thing and she believes it is right. Where is the harm in that? Now let me say that I am an atheist and I don’t believe any of what Jenna said above, but it also doesn’t offend me. She has her beliefs and I have my non-beliefs.
I guess all I am trying to say is RELAX!!! This is just the internet. If you are going to get overly offended over someone’s LDS views then you probably shouldn’t be reading a blog written by an LDS woman. Just sayin’…
Sophia Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 11:16 am
Haha, that should be a slogan somewhere “RELAX! It’s just the internet”
Evelyn Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Well said! =)
I’ve often felt the need to remind responders that what is offending them is what they are inferring and not what Jenna is directly saying. When one has read enough of Jenna’s blog it’s rather easy to see that she doesn’t have malicious intent, even if they perceive her statements as rude/mean/judgmental.
Disagreeing with her is one thing, attacking is quite another.
LDS women don’t really pursue traditional careers; they always feel their place will be in the home, and that is ok. It’s not any different than any of the other women out there who feel their place is to raise children. It’s not a life I’d choose. I feel like I can do both-I need the motherly instinct of raising my children and the satisfaction of working in the particular career I do. And I have to say, it is a shame to work with LDS men who look down upon me for being in their field, though. They put their sexist views out there and unfortunately, it doesn’t belong in a mixed company workplace. Even a male dominated one. It doesn’t sound like TH is like that, but I know people like that and it makes me sick to work with them.
Also, I think it’s MUCH easier to pursue being a SAHM when your husband actually has a good career. I know a lot of men who simply can’t make ends meet because they don’t have well paying careers and lack the education to move into a field that can fully support a full family. Most people I know simply cannot do it on their salary. The wife’s mom stays home and watches the babies so she can contribute to the family financials. Otherwise, there is simply not enough money to pay the bills.
Personally, for our household, I’d rather work my 40 hours a week and have my husband work 40 hours a week, than me stay home all the time and my husband work 80 hours a week. I really want the balance of the TWO of us raising our children-not one raising and one providing. I grew up in a traditional household and it worked for my parents but i don’t want it. My husband grew up with a working mother (dad walked out on them) and he turned out just fine. My mom started working when i was 13 and she was HAPPIER than she was before. I remember my mom when she was a SAHM and when she was after. She was much happier afterwards, and I know I’ll be the same.
No matter what you choose, children turn out ok. There are lots of messed up kids who had SAHMs and lots of messed up kids who had working moms. You can only do what feels right for your own family and your own views. Obviously if you have traditional views about being a SAHM, you won’t find a career satisfying. And if you don’t have traditional views, you won’t find being a SAHM satisfying. I don’t see why it’s any big deal!
Gogo Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Um, “LDS women don’t really pursue traditional careers, they always feel their place is in the home”? Nope. Incorrect.
First up is myself. I am an LDS woman and within the next year I will be graduating from a prestigious college (I feel silly noting this but I think it’s relevant to your point) and then pursuing graduate studies in midwifery and public health. With a strong emphasis in healthcare as it relates to national development and widespread poverty.
Then there are all the LDS women I know. My best friends include an econ/english double major, an econ major moving on to law school and a possible mba, a pre-med student, and a financial manager at Goldman Sachs. That’s a short list. Plus, I cannot (seriously) even count the number of LDS women I am friends or acquaintances with who just completed their masters degree.
And that’s just accounting for my peers (women in their twenties). Not even getting started on the careers and academic achievements of the older women in my life.
I have to say I am really sorry for the sexism you feel you’ve encountered from LDS men you work with. I have no doubt that you have had experiences like that with LDS men. So have I. Also with non-LDS men. We really live in a society that is still so sexist. It’s sad. It is also absolutely counter to the doctrines and teachings of the gospel. And not all LDS men are like that. I don’t even think most of them, in my experience. My boyfriend, for example, is LDS and a self-avowed feminist.
Jessica Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
I have to agree with Gogo. LDS women have lofty dreams like anyone else; they may choose to sacrifice those dreams for a time for their greatest dream, their family. But that doesn’t mean we’re just dumb broads who smile and say yes to everything our husbands demand. As Jenna demonstrates, we are intelligent women who make conscious decisions.
And just because my mom was home during the day and my dad worked doesn’t mean my dad didn’t do plenty of raising. But a father’s role is different. Children need both parents for different reasons, but I do think the mother especially is crucial during a young child’s life. But you’re right, BOTH are important.
Hmm, I didn’t read all of the other comments. I will say, and I do mean this in a respectful way, I can’t wrap my head around the idea of relying on quotes from old men as to how I should live my life.
I am a woman and I will make my own decisions as to how I will live my life, and my boyfriend would find the notion of me not deciding how I wanted to live my life completely ridiculous. We will do what works best for our future family even if that means my future husband might stay home, who knows, our earning potential is the same.
I plan to work my whole life. I believe my calling is to be a lawyer and that is not mutuality exclusive of being a mother. I think that I am showing my future daughter can be whatever she wants.
You know I love you, I just disagree!
Jenn R Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Word! I’m with you, Emmie. This quote especially bothered me: “you will be the envy through time and eternity.” Envy? That seems like something the Bible generally wants us to avoid…
Love you, Jenna, but couldn’t disagree more. Yes, staying home to raise children is an honorable career and good for kids, but I don’t think the home is only place that God needs or wants us.
I’ve read through all the comments, and it seems like this post sparked a lively discussion!
The two things I take away from this are-
1) I disagree with about half of the post, on the basis of my own personal interpretations of history, child rearing, different cultures, and my own experience and beliefs.
2) I think this post did *exactly* what people were asking Jenna to do- question after question was posed asking Jenna to explain why *she* believes women should stay home with their children, and this post does just that. Jenna explained why she believes what she does, and because it is based in the teachings of the LDS Church, I’m not surprised that I disagree with a large portion of it, because I do not subscribe to that belief system. I think a commenter named T.J. spoke to this as well.
I also have to say that I love the discussion between Stephanie and Jenna, and it reminds me of the different viewpoints shared on Feminist Mormon Housewives.
38Currently my mother is supporting my parents income. The economy led to my father being laid off of the position he thought he’d retire in.
She’s a small business owner. If she hadn’t continued wiht her education and gotten two masters degrees while we were in jr. high and high school — they’d be in the poorhouse right now.
She did all that while working.
She’s not divorced or widowed, but they are providing for their life and they are happy. And my dad is able to look for something fulfilling instead of get a job as a pizza boy and sell their house.
So I obviously feel different. And that women can nurture with a profession.
Then again, I come from liberal Mormon families where almost all the women in my family worked. I place a high value in education — I’m the third generation to get a graduate degree.
After spending the past three years putting a husband through law school - working full-time and post-poning a family in the process — I’ve learned that I’ll never be a SAHM. I don’t think it is for everyone for sanity.
But that is my family. My family nurtured me to value education and to be fulfilled in the home and through work and play and all sorts of things.
I don’t think I’m going to hell because I can find a bunch of quotes to support me too. But I will always carry a good share of Mormon guilt with me. Won’t we all?
39i respect both women who work inside or outside of the home! (or both). im going to direct my opinion on not just this post but most of your religious posts about the LDS religion. honestly, when you talk about your religious beliefs, you state that you are open-minded towards other people’s belief and state that you are only basing your opinions on the LDS faith. however, most of your religious postings come off as “i’m better then you, holier then thou.” even to mormons… but i am guessing you do not intend to come off that way..(my FH family is LDS, so i know quite a lot about your religion- going to church, meeting with missionaries, going to LDS camp, visitng temples (of coarse i wasnt able to go in-but visited the visitng center!lol) maybe you need to look at what you write from a non-mormon/3rd party bystander view. it might help you to undertand different opinions/views regarding anything/everything in life. coming off like this really diminishes your arguement and has people focus on your judgemental attitude and it throws disregard to your stated opinions on the desired subject. I dont want to sound harsh or get into your views are wrong, mine or right dilemma.- point is your doing what is right for YOU and your family- doesnt mean that is is right for EVERYONE- therefore posting comments stating “All women should….” comes off as arrogant and that you (as in your opinions) and your LDS faith is the only right viewpoint in the world, which is not the case. For example, i work as a superviser in a group home with the mentally challenged individudals. Are 3 guys at our group home, only know us as their “family” we take care of them, love them, provide for them we are in a sense thier “parents”. i cant imagine being discouraged to not work therefore not being able to help these lovely individuals whom have brought so much happiness to my life and i hope taht i am positively affecting their life (Which i see that i am everytime they give me a smile or greet me at the door when i get to work.) i cant think that god/mormon religion/prophets/book of mormon/bible would really discourage me from working there under a hazy belief that leads into personal interperation that everyone must decide on thier own. i really hope this doesn’t come off as rude or terms of your view point is wrong- certainly i am not saying that- its your decision just please try to think of other people’s view points when you paraphase. btw i love reading your blog- even if some posts i totally disagree with- thats what makes life intereresting and complex.
40i know that this comment will just get lost-131 and counting! but i’m making it anyway. i’m LDS and i agree with a lot of what jenna said. however, i don’t agree with her statement in the comments that the lds church is either “all right” or “all wrong”- suggesting that there are no gray areas. i think she even proves my point with the quotes she used. the kimball quote- “mothers come home!” is pretty black and white. but the more recent hinckley quote- “do the best you can” shows that even church leaders have recognized some gray area in terms of stay at home motherhood. it went from “do not work outside the home, period” to “if you must work outside the home, do the very best you can.” thats a whole lot of gray.
also, jenna is (and i do think she should preface her posts as such) speaking on her views on being lds. she does not represent all lds people. i wouldn’t even consider her particularly mainstream, because i know a lot of lds people who are not as socially conservative, or believe that it is “all right” and “all wrong,” myself included.
41I am LDS and this subject is so black and white for me. it is hard to wrap my head around all of these comments. Jenna I am glad you stick to your beliefs, keep it that way!! when I got married and started having kids there wasn’t even a thought, i knew I would be a stay at home mom and that is what my hubby wanted to. even while he was going to school full time. but i a also grew up as a farmers daughter witha stay at home mom, (farmers don’t always make the most money). we never had cable, or internet or high end clothes but we had food on our table, a roof over our head and parents who loved us dearly. and we had what we needed and then some!! I think you can make things work with a lot less money then some people think!!!
42I want to chime in here because I’m an LDS woman pursuing a PhD. I didn’t marry my husband until I had completed my MA and the first year of my doctoral program. Even before we began dating and were married, I spent hours praying about and researching whether I should continue on in my chosen field. At each juncture (entering my MA program and then completing that degree), I received a very clear confirmation of my decision to continue. I have since received what I believe to be multiple confirmations of the choice to continue on with my PhD.
Now, does this mean that I can’t be a good mother? I don’t think so. I think that to do my best work as a mother (in the not-so-distant future, I hope), I’ll have to sacrifice certain things. For example, I already know that seeking (and gaining-all hypothetical of course, given this ridiculous academic job market) a position at a research university will probably not be the best way for me to fulfill my role as a mother. However, if I choose to work in a smaller university where, to be quite frank, I will have a much greater potential to have an impact on students anyway, I will have significantly more flexibility in terms of class scheduling and university service.
I think that something else I will need to sacrifice to do my best work as a mother is being with my babies 100% of the time. I know that there are plenty of women who relish being with their children and even thrive while doing it. I envy those women. However, I already know and am peace with the fact that I will not be one of those people. I need breaks from people (big or small) and I need time to focus on my interests for my sanity. I hope that my pursuing a PhD and working in my chosen field will permit me those breaks and help me give 100% during the time I am with my children.
My husband and I spent a lot of time discussing my previous decision to pursue the PhD before we ever got married. I had to be certain that he was on board with my decision because I suspect that there will be times that both of us will not be able to care for our children because of our future jobs. Not only was he on board, he has been my unfailing cheerleader through the most grueling aspects of obtaining this degree (weeks on end of exams, pilot studies for dissertation projects, etc…).
I know that my decision isn’t 100% in line with what was quoted above. However, in our (my husband’s and my) individual circumstance, this is right for us. God gave me my intellect and the capacity to be a good teacher in my chosen field as well as the capacity to be a nurturer and (I hope) to bear children. It’s my job as an LDS woman, a wife, a mother, and a daughter of God to figure out how to balance my given talents with the teachings of modern-day LDS prophets.
But, gosh, I wish we could all support each other in our decisions without being judgmental (I mean this in general, not about this discussion which has been refreshingly civil, in most cases).
43Like all of Jenna’s good (and, coincidentally, “controversial”) posts, this one has had me thinking long after I read it.
I realized that, if I had read this 5 years ago, before I was married, I would have probably flipped my lid, unsubscribed, etc. The longer I’m married, the more I realize just how many tiny negotiations go in to the day-to-day of being a family - and we’re only a family of 2. Adding kids to the mix will mean more decisions, more discussions, and more variables that will make us just a bit different from any other married couple.
Considering this makes it a lot harder to judge a mother/wife who makes markedly different choices than the ones I make. There but for dozens of small negotiations over time go I.
Thanks for the food for thought, Jenna.
44I’m also going to raise my hand and say that I am an LDS woman who does not agree with this (Jenna’s) interpretation of our prophets’ words and council. I think that Stephanie has outlined a much more accurate framework in which member’s are meant to understand the principles of family and parenthood and how that relates to work outside the home.
I think Jenna, that your main difficulty here arises in labeling as ‘doctrine’ the counsel that mothers stay at home to care for their children. The doctrine in these and many other talks from both male and female church leaders is that our families and our children must be our highest priorities, and that beyond ensuring our own salvation there is little more that we can do that will please our Father as much as magnifying our calls to be parents. The ‘counsel’ is that the best way to accomplish this is usually for the mother to stay at home with the children. In all of the quotations you presented and in the more recent quotations from President Hinckley that Stephanie posted, there is a clause that clearly recognizes exceptions to this. Whether you and your family might not be best served by following this counsel, whether you are an exception, is for you to decide with your Heavenly Father and your spouse. i.e. through personal revelation.
I think your treatment of personal revelation in your responses to Stephanie’s comments is unsettling. You seem sadly dismissive of the results it will yield for those seeking counsel on this issue. Especially if it turns out that their personal counsel from God confirms that the best way for them to live out the doctrine of making family their first priority isn’t to follow the counsel that the mother stay at home. You seem insistent that there is a good chance this revelation is not in fact revelation at all, but is the individual’s “misinterpretation” - a tool that is being used to serve their purposes and not God’s. I think this is the wrong perspective. Personal revelation is the most important spiritual gift we have available to us. We are always directed to seek our own confirmation of the doctrines and counsel given by our prophets. This isn’t just a faith building exercise. This is also because each of us, inside and outside the church, have been placed on a path in life that is wholly unique. Some of the counsel may not apply to me. And that is ok. That is as God intended. We are to follow all of his commandments, not every aspect of the advice given to us by leaders on how to do that.
Yikes! This is getting long. But I have a couple other points to make about what you’ve said on this topic.The next one I’d like to address being your response to the point Julie made about her work as cancer researcher. Because you don’t adequately address the paradox you identify. You just step aside from it and note that you think it’s ok that we all suffer sometimes (I agree). This doesn’t deal with the issue Julie raised, which is that she is doing valuable work and work that may not be able to be done the same way by someone else. Why shouldn’t she continue to do that work post-children? Isn’t her situation possibly one of the ‘bests’ in the ubiquitous mormon “good, better, best” choice game. Clearly this scenario applies to many other women as well. Including LDS women. There are also many fields in which being a mother and woman make one more valuable in that field. Someone already mentioned work as a family lawyer who handles issues of domestic abuse, but you can add to that those work in various types of therapy, physical and especially mental, as advocates and community organizers. Midwives. It all comes back to personal revelation and what God KNOWS to be best for you and your family.
Finally, I think you’re maybe a little too unaware of your own bias. Your childhood was one in which it was both possible for your mother to stay home and something it seems like she choose to do without much personal struggle (my impression from what you’ve said, clearly I could be wrong). You personally don’t have ambitions and passions in arenas of work that require you to be out of your home in order to accomplish them. The areas in which you find yourself creatively, intellectually, and even professionally fulfilled are conveniently home-based (blogging, photography). The personal revelation you have received in your life directs you to follow the counsel that it is often best for mothers to stay at home. You don’t have the experience of being told otherwise. You also have a husband who’s current and future income will always likely enable you act on this without undue strain/sacrifice. I imagine all of these factors strongly color your perspective and, at least, they certainly come across in the way you write about this. The way you write about it also leaves me doubting if you truly see the significance of these biases in your beliefs.
Kristine Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Thank you for writing this. It was really good for me to read that not all LDS women have the same views on staying at home! Not that I am against stay at home mom’s, but I also think that this day and age, it is a lot less common, and there are definitely reasons for this! Thanks for writing!
Sophia Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
This really made me think Gogo, and I think it’s a good point. Is it easier for Jenna to be fulfilled as a SAHM because the other things that fulfill her easily fit around being one? I think that’s a valid question.
As other have stated, it is far harder to be a content, fulfilled, SAHM when your passions and ambitions are not easily taken care of on a flexible schedule. Many careers have a well known “mommy track”, wherein even one year off can be a death knell for any meaningful progression in the field.
In conjunction with all of this, I have to say that one of the problems with dividing into working mommies and working in the home mommies is that it prevents us from being able to demand that the workplace recognize that women have valuable contributions to make, and yes, women also get pregnant. Many Western European countries have effectively- IMO- handled this dilemma. And, from a study done amongst the top 14 economically competitive countries, solid family programs like a year’s paid leave, guaranteed return to work, paid daycare, etc., does not have to break the bank, and it’s better for mommies, daddies, and babies.
I’d love to see the discussion be one of “why is the workplace, in general, so male biased?” instead of “well, just leave the workplace, tend to your children, and try and fight to come back”
christiana (us meets uk) Reply:
May 18th, 2010 at 11:31 am
This is a GREAT point Sophia - because right - it is incredibly hard to return. I’d love to see a conversation on the (historically) male bias in the structure of work places.
Additionally, men aren’t given many of the same “benefits” when it comes to the girth of a child. I’m sure fathers want to be home with their partners and new babies too!
Sophia Reply:
May 18th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Exactly! I know many fathers who have expressed a wish for paternity leave! In many countries fathers can take up to 6 months paternity leave. The countries adopted such policies after reviewing studies showing that when fathers are involved in their kids’ lives early and often they are more invested in the family, and as a result there are less divorces and more harmonious homes. I like policy making like that
I’m not quite sure how relevant my thoughts are to the discussion. Nevertheless, I’m going to contribute them, even if they are a bit scattered. I guess I just like to share my opinion. In case that hasn’t yet been noted…. ;D
Before transitioning to “SAHM” I worked as an Executive Assistant while also assisting two departments. I was a valued employee and I *felt* valued. It’s not an exaggeration to say that at least daily I received compliments from 2-3 employees about the quality and efficiency of my work and invaluable-ness to the company (not proper English, but hopefully that makes sense…). Then I had my daughter and became a stay-at-home-mom. There was no way that my husband and non-verbal infant could provide me with a similar amount of affirmation regarding the importance of my role and work at home although I know they both felt and do feel that gratitude (even if my now almost 2 year old doesn’t quite realize it…. It is evident in her actions, behavior, etc.). Then, 12 weeks into my new “position” we moved to a foreign country where I didn’t know the language, any people, and had extremely limited resources for occupying my time (because we had to travel light I didn’t bring any books and the only access to online was the laptop my husband used for research—which was his full-time job). To say that I felt bored at times could be an understatement. Despite all these combined factors contributing to feelings of “un-fulfillment” I was able to become, and am, a fulfilled woman. I think sometimes when we have certain feelings, rather than discern and consider where they are coming from and work them out, we return to that which is most comfortable or that which we know will provide us with the feelings we desire (such as fulfillment).
There isn’t much that is easy about being a SAHM. While I have many opportunities to be delighted by my daughter and in my home, the challenges are endless. Regardless of all the difficulties that are inherent in this role, I have found—and I believe most, if not all, mothers can find—fulfillment in the role of full-time mother. It may take time and effort, but it is possible. Also, it should be noted that our experience and happiness in any position, whether in the work-force or at home is often related to our attitude.
There have been comments made regarding the fulfillment found in challenges at work or in education and the endless learning… I wonder what those who don’t stay at home have imagined of the job of a stay at home mom. To those who don’t know what to imagine: I find myself constantly seeking enlightenment and learning new skills on a variety of subjects. The role of a stay-at-home-mom is not limited to playing with and disciplining children, cleaning the house, and cooking. In all actuality, these responsibilities barely scratch the surface of all that a SAHM does. SAHMs are also often gardeners, dietitians, nurses, counselors, financial managers/experts, bankers, taxi-cab drivers, organizers, researchers, librarians, event coordinators, etc. All that I do contributes to creating an environment where my daughter (and husband) feels safe, loved, and affirmed. Maybe I have a severe case of undiagnosed ADD, but I have learned to love the challenge of balancing all the roles and the quickness with which they change—I am very rarely bored! Every day is a balancing act as I juggle and walk a tight-rope. My enlightenment and learning is not limited to the roles which I balance for my own & my family’s sake. Staying at home provides ample opportunity for personal development in a vast arena of subjects. I can make the time to learn more and read up on current events and things of a political nature while also developing talents or discovering new ones. I have been able to find various communities of women whose backgrounds and experience are unique and very different from my own and I find myself constantly enriched by their companionship as they acquaint me with their different life experiences, resources, understandings, etc.
I know that there are some readers who are probably more familiar with this topic, but the little bit I know has caused me to sometimes wonder how familiar the women of my generation are with the ERA—The Equal Rights Amendment? As I understand, the ERA movement was rigorously fought during the 70s. I believe it was during and just after that time period that there was a huge movement of women to the work place. Conversations with a few women who continued to stay at home (and their husbands) has led me to come to my own conclusion about one of the side-effects of this movement… Women who stayed at home were often caused to feel like “lesser” beings. They were often treated like what they were doing was not work (thus many women began saying they *worked* in the home) and was not valuable. Many of those women were caused to feel inferior and uneducated because of their “lack” of tangible contribution to society, the workplace, the women’s movement, and/or the family income. Imagine what would happen when circumstances changed and one of those women who had been staying at home returned to school or work? And was very successful in either or both endeavors?? She would feel a sense of vitality, energy, fulfillment, etc. Not just because of the work, but because she was finally proving the society that had been judging her so harshly that she wasn’t worthless like they’d been saying she was. My own mother was a SAHM and absolutely loved it. There were times that it was hard on her (my dad was in the Navy so she endured many periods of single-mom-ness) but I never felt like she hated her role, quite the opposite. She too reveled in the opportunity to go to school and further her education, and *I* (she’s never said this) can’t help but feel that part of it was because she was having the opportunity to prove society wrong about her capabilities.
Being a SAHM does not mean one is relieved of work. It never has. Despite what others have said regarding the “newness” of the SAHM role, it really ISN’T new. Women worked in factories during the Industrial Revolution and that era, yes, but I do believe that before that time many women either worked with their family on a homestead or farm, or in a family business. In both those places the mother often had her children alongside her. She taught them what she was doing and taught them how to contribute to the farm, home, business, etc. Everyone worked and contributed, but they did it together. The mother’s influence was still ever-present, and I believe that is the essence of the benefit and encouragement for LDS women to be SAHMs, to enable their influence to be ever-present and constantly felt for the benefit of the family, especially the children.
Katie Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Women working as “SAHM” prior to the twentieth century looked entirely different from the being a SAHM in our time. Running a household involved making your family’s clothing, cooking (including making your own everything! Butter, cheese, etc), laundry (which took an entire day out of the week), etc. On top of this, many women worked in an agrarian family where they were effectively putting in many hours a week doing farm chores while a neighbor, extended family member, or another child watched the children. I think it’s a bit bold to call these women “SAHMs”.
On another note, (sorry, social studies teacher here!) the ERA never passed because it was only ratified by 35 of the required 38 states. I’m not sure what bearing this has on women being disparaged for staying at home, however, since it was simply a proposed amendment to guarantee equal rights for women. Have I misunderstood your argument?
FWIW, I’m an agnostic feminist who feels that I’ll probably continue my work as a teacher once I have children (but we’ll see what happens!). I firmly believe that being a SAHParent is simply a different schedule than being a parent with an outside job, and would never “look down on” somebody who stays at home with their children. I feel like you that prior economic and community models that emphasized community and family togetherness were probably healthier in many senses and better for everybody (much less alienation from others and your own work), but I’ll maintain that I am extremely grateful that advancements in attitudes towards women working have opened up that opportunity for women many times over.
In a nutshell, working outside the home with kids is hard work. Being the parent who stays at home is hard work. The end
Evelyn Reply:
May 19th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
I’m really short on time (and energy!) these days, so sorry for the long time to respond…
I was definitely aware that the ERA never passed, but I think the fact that it didn’t pass doesn’t mean it didn’t have an impact on that era or the future. It had 10 years to be ratified by the required number of states (and some are even trying to extend that deadline-saying it’s not relevant-and still trying to have the amendment passed. I think it’s one of those that keeps being brought up.) From what I know and understand, the ERA was a heated issue and I think it’s fair to say that it was one of those things everyone was aware of at the time. This is totally my deduction, but I think the discussion surrounding the topic did a lot to shape attitudes regarding women working and what kind of working is best for women, empowers women, contributes to the women’s movement, etc.
I guess my point with bringing it up was to comment on the women, presumably mothers of my generation, who others commented weren’t “satisfied” with their role as a SAHM. I do believe there are/were women who are unsatisfied with that role, but I also believe that some of our perception of lack of satisfaction on their part was because of the pressures our mothers felt from society (whether they recognize those pressures as influencing their level of satisfaction, or not).
Also, just to note, I am/was aware of the types of work a wife & mother had to contribute to the home centuries ago, but I think previous comments either only focused on factory workers or equated their work to being an out-of-the-home mom. I do maintain my opinion that although the mother had to do much more for the household chores and her involvement in the family livelihood was probably much more involved, the amount of time she had with children by her side (most often helping with chores) is more comparable than different to that of a SAHM.
You’ve said you don’t a mother who is employed and has a boss has the flexibility to put mothering first. I have a boss (who has a boss who has a boss,etc) and when I have my baby I get a full year off with 50% of my salary paid. I have family sick days if my kid is sick. I have flex time so I can leave and arrive late/early if something urgent comes up with the kids,etc. If you have committed to shooting a wedding all day and evening Saturday and your kid needs you, what kind of flexibility do you have Jenna?
Ali Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
sorry, I meant you’ve said a mother who is employed and has a boss HASN’T the flexibility….
christiana (us meets uk) Reply:
May 18th, 2010 at 11:38 am
Ali - that is fantastic that your office is structured like that. I wish many more were! Sadly, mine is not. But since I hate my job anyway, maybe I’ll find an office like yours in my next endeavor!
I have to say just two things:
1. I am grateful for the comments calling into question the widely held belief that women entering the workforce is a modern day issue. Mothers in prior generations had to manage both full time work and childcare simultaneously (and often children had to work as well!).
2. I am so thankful that I live in a time, place, and economic situation (this is so key. I hate to disparage anyone’s beliefs, but the median family income in the US in 2004 was $44k. This may be feasibile in some corners of the US, but is not in many) where either situation is (tentatively) a possibility for me- AND for my future partner. I’m a feminist, and incredibly thankful that my partner and I should have a good chance at having choice in this respect when the time comes
Sophia Reply:
May 18th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Yes! So often women entering the workplace has been manipulated conveniently into something “those feminists” caused, but in reality women have worked outside the home- or, inside the home, with precious little “one on one quality time” for far longer.
My own great-grandmother has often remarked on how “weird” it is that mothers these days spend “so much time” with their children. As she said, there was no way she’d get anything done, between the gardening and the sewing and the cooking from scratch and the cleaning!
Also, Jenna, thank you for your frankness and ability to openly discuss your beliefs. I appreciate your efforts to better articulate your intial post and consider others’ opinions. It’s very refreshing
49Jenna,
I know I’m late to the party, but I just wanted to say I read your blog because you are interesting. Not everything you say is “PC” or meant to please and I like that. As a lawyer and the daughter of a corporate executive mother, I disagree with your opinion, but I’m not offended in the least. Please don’t censor yourself too much in the future. Your strong opinions are part of the draw of That Wife!!
50