Or at least, their working is not what makes them so.
I'm up in arms over a 1993 talk by President Packer that I just read where he repeats the "women should only work when they have no other choice" routine.
May I just say. I have a choice. Here it is.
1) Live in a tiny house/apartment downtown in a big city (thus saving on rent and only needing one car because of access to public transportation) that we would either not own or have no hope of reselling because of the condition that a one-salary price-range necessitates. Use government assistance for health care and utilities, perhaps even for food. Send the kids to an inner-city school district with high incidence of violence and higher dropout rates. Build no savings and leave Ben working into his 70s.
2) Live in a modest house we will own in 15 years in a small, relatively rural suburb, with high hopes to resell because it's a growing area. Pay for our own health insurance and utilities (but not cable TV or satellite because, well, I hate its influence). Buy healthy, whole foods that I can make into good, nutritious meals from scratch, knowing that they're not laced with additives and pesticides. Send the kids to a school with good test scores and dedicated teachers, most of whom grew up in the area and are personally invested in the school district because their kids attend. Pay off student loans and build savings to retire early.
Given the choice, I'll take number two. And I only have to work two days a week to make the difference. I think it's easy for Church leaders, speaking from the relative privilege that most of them have enjoyed during their lives, to miss this conundrum.
And yes, I know, if there were fewer women in the work force then men would make more because labor would be in higher demand and all that blah blah blah. But. That's not the way it is. And my leaving the work force will not make it so. And I'm not willing to sacrifice my children's future just so that I can have the "Stay At Home Mom" label. Especially when the difference is so easily made - the kids spend the days I work with family members and at school.
And yes, I know, the Church leaders have to speak generally so as to teach correct principles and let us be guided by personal revelation. They can't cover every exception. And yet. People (even leader-type people) in the Church tend to look down on us "working mothers," without much concern over the time and energy that we've put into working out a balance that works for us and, as far as we can tell, Heavenly Father.
So. Please, just let people work it out. Please don't make snide comments or put yourself up as the authority about The Right Way To Do Things. I don't criticize you for medicating your kids because you don't feel like dealing with them, for feeding them frozen or prepackaged foods, for choosing to not seek medical care in borderline cases in the interest of saving money....etc etc etc. It's your life, your choice, and I welcome you to it.
Now can you let me make mine?
Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
This difficult choice you outline is one reason I haven't written about this topic--except to encourage men to be providers.
Are you referring to this talk: "For Time and All Eternity"
I read it and don't see any shaming language or encouragement to judge anyone, nor have I seen it in my personal experience in the Church--although, to be fair, my wife doesn't get paid in money for her extensive hard work.
This week we were at a gathering with a stake president whose wife works as a nurse one or two days a week. Another wife works full-time as a teacher and administrator. Reactions from those present were very supportive with no hint of judgement. Similarly, I've seen no criticism of LDS women in academic studies in areas that lead to a careers completely unrelated to "nurturing."
As you point out so well, the real-life economics for most of us have changed dramatically over the past 30 years as incomes have stagnated, while costs of living have increased, as have the differences between good and bad schools.
I like your clear outline of your difficult choice. If you feel your professional work actually enhances your abilities as a mother, you are probably fully following Pres. Packer's comments.
This affects men who want to be "providers" in a very challenging way as well. I have actually heard quite shaming language from the pulpit directed toward men whose wives earn money. It is a status symbol, in and out of the church, to have a wife who doesn't need to earn money for her work. Most wealthy suburbs in the U.S. are full of stay at home moms.
In today's world, this single provider goal severely restricts the career choices for a man who wants to provide all the income for his family, live in the suburbs and send his kids to decent schools and have a little for music lessons or other items.
In fact, the majority of career options are off the table for men who want to be providers.
I do know a couple whose husband is a school teacher in Utah with more than 4 children who have a decent house in the suburbs and his is the family's almost-only income. But they are brutally, extremely frugal and the wife is happy with very little. The live a life in which all clothes are from thrift stores or extended family hand-me-downs, extensive gardening and canning, old vehicles and no cars for teenagers, very few extras, and camping-only family vacations. They are the ONLY one-income school teachers they know among numerous LDS teachers.
Historically, in agrarian societies, women worked quite a bit to contribute to their family's income--as did the children. But, because their children were working with them, this work was also an important part of nurturing.
We're not there anymore, and it's not coming back. But, nurturing and good motherhood can be an overall goal.
I believe the "do not judge" mantra is very important--as is the "do not feel judged." There are LOTS of areas in which this applies.
I also believe it is possible to pretend you have unselfish motives for your career, when deep down, your motives aren't as pure as you pretend.
Overall, I actually feel the kind of choice you've made can be a helpful one for a family. But, I do caution against making long-term debt decisions that mandate your continued work for many, many years. 5 years from now you may decide you want to spend more time with your family, but can't because you're stuck in debt obligations.
You know how I feel about this, as I am also a working mother out of the same necessity. And I know you very well, which means I know that your motives for working are indeed unselfish, contrary to what the previous commenter insinuated. After all, who on earth would choose a 4/4 teaching load over spending quality time with your kids?!
Strong Man -
The talk I'm referring to is May 18th, 1993, to the "All-Church Coordinating Council." He said "To point out so-called success stories inferring that a career out of the home has no negative effect on a family is an invitation to many to stray from what has been taught by the prophets and thus cause members to reap disappointment by and by."
In other words, he says "Don't talk about working mothers who still have good families, because then women will think that they can work and have good families, and we don't want them to think that."
That's shaming language. And of course in "your personal experience" you've not noticed it. The manipulative, passive-aggressive comments made by Church leaders (General and local) are directed at women like me, not men like you. That's why I notice them and you don't.
"If you feel your professional work actually enhances your abilities as a mother"
I don't, actually. My professional pursuits have little or nothing to do with my mothering. I simply feel that the two endeavors need not be mutually exclusive.
"I also believe it is possible to pretend you have unselfish motives for your career, when deep down, your motives aren't as pure as you pretend."
What the HELL? Do you know me? Do you know what my motives are? Are you my Bishop? Is it your place to even wonder about them? Especially in a comment on my PERSONAL (ie, not directed at a broad audience or even attempting to be directed to some general group, but instead maintained for my family and friends) blog?
"But, I do caution against making long-term debt decisions that mandate your continued work for many, many years. 5 years from now you may decide you want to spend more time with your family, but can't because you're stuck in debt obligations."
That's lovely advice for someone who has built a lifestyle dependent on two incomes....why don't you find them and offer it to them? Contrary to what you've implied here (where you all but accuse me of working so I can afford a McMansion and designer clothes), I've not entered into any "long term debt obligations" that require me to work....my working is simply out of a desire to pay down our mortgage and my husband's student debt faster than we would otherwise. So that he can retire at a reasonable age, we can travel and serve missions while we're still useful....you know, that sort of thing.
AL - Thanks! It's nice to see a supportive comment from someone who knows me and the intents of my heart. :-)
My comment was intended to be largely supportive. I gave a few personal examples of people, including local church leaders who work and it seems to be okay for them. I explained why I don't criticize women who support the family's income and don't make this a huge issue on my blog.
The quote above from Pres Packer about a "career" outside the home I would not interpret as applying to you anyway-working a couple of days a week isn't exaclty a "career."
If your job helps your kids go to a better school, live in a decent neighborhood, helps you fulfilled as a person, I would say it enhances your mothering to some extent.
Publishing a blog on the Internet and allowing comments encourages feedback from others. I know I've appreciated your constructive criticism.
I do welcome constructive criticism. I do not welcome shaming, accusations, and judgment.
And for what it's worth, my working two days a week may not be a high-power investment-type career, but it's absolutely a career. The nature of the work I have chosen (because I want to work and also raise a family) allows for that sort of flexibility.
Funny how you accuse me (on your blog) of focusing on semantics and then attempt (on mine) to do the same to defend President Packer's hurtful statement.
This might just be me, but I hate it when people are passive aggressive, like when someone declares they meant to be "largely supportive." Just sayin'.
I know, right? Sort of like saying "I was really nice when I was talking about women in general, I just got mean when I decided to pick on YOU! Come one, that was a totally kind comment, and it's really for your own good."
I'm glad that you dislike it as much as me.....makes me feel less like I'm over-reacting. :-)
Post a Comment