I just read an article about how it's impossible for many families to afford the mom being home with the kids. Yet I don't really know any lds moms who work.I'm sure it's little bit different outside of UT and the US.

I was simply wondering when you got married as a TBM, did the bishop tell you that you had to be a stay at home mom? Or was it your parents/husband, or your personal choice? My mom told me that there was no question that she wouldn't stay home with us while we were young and historically it's the men, who should support. Women's job is to raise kids.
I feel like more and more girls of my generation actually wants to have a successful career - at least that's what they say. But I still see very smart girls, graduates, who could easily work at least part time, while their husband is going to a very expensive grad school. But they don't.

Now don't get me wrong, I think raising kids is very important, but I see Mormon ladies, who would be better off, if they had something else in life besides kids.

They'd be happier and better adjusted and by extension better moms if they were out with other adults and producing a product that was actually valued by society as measured in a pay check.

No, we all know children really aren't valued in society. Take it from a teacher.

My oldest brother and his wife, along with my oldest sister and her husband, who are all in their mid-to-late-forties, were told by the same bishop (they were in the same ward) that the wives needed to be at home with the children while the husbands completed medical school. Both couples ignored the bishop and worked roughly half-time, and tried to coordinate work schedules so that they could trade babysitting as much as possible to minimize the time the babies spent with anyone outside the family. Their bishop did not like that they ignored his directive. they all had callings that sucked, which they thought was probably because of ignoring the bishop's recommendations, but they'll never really know.

For some young couples with one spouse in grad school (medical and dental school, some MBA programs, for example; if the spouse still in school is getting a PhD in English literature, the assumption might not be quite so realistic), there's a logical assumption that eventual income will be sufficient that they can afford the greater debt incurred by not having one spouse work full-time once children are in the picture. The future income obviously isn't a 100% guarantee, but it's a reasonably safe bet, particularly with decent life insurance and ideally some sort of disability policy as well.

Having very young children in daycare while parents either are in school or working full-time is obviously a reality for many families. I personally don't think it's optimal for anyone, and I don't understand why anyone who has a choice would go with that option when children are very young; if being at home with kids bothers a person all that much, why even have them? I do understand how full-time daycare is a necessary evil for many families who cannot get by without the full-time income of both spouses. I also understand why a stay-at-home parent might want to work part-time; being with the children constantly causes some parents to be a bit stir-crazy or otherwise stifled. I'm not convinced that part-time day care [as long as it's high-quality childcare] is in any way damaging to young children. Infants probably do best if their germ exposure is limited for the most part to one family other than their own. Otherwise, part-time daycare is good for children in many ways, and if a parent would prefer not to remain at home full-time, it's probably mutually beneficial.

goldrose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was simply wondering when you got married as a
> TBM, did the bishop tell you that you had to be a
> stay at home mom?

Yes, he did.
But then I told him that since I'm male, that wasn't going to work out.

All kidding aside...my mother was given lots of grief for taking a job after she divorced my father (at the bishop's request). To her credit, she didn't believe him when he told her that "the Lord will provide," and she got a job anyway. Given that she had just obeyed the bishop when it came to divorcing my inactive/unbelieving dad, I was stunned to see her ignore the bishop's counsel like that.

But I'm sure glad she did. Dad always supplied more than he had to in alimony & child support, but keeping up 2 houses on his salary wasn't easy, and we needed mom's income.

I always knew I'd let my wife decide if she wanted to work or not. My goal was to make enough so that she could stay home with the kids if she wanted, but if she wanted to work, she certainly could. She mostly has (worked), and has had a terrific career that she enjoys (working with special needs kids). And we never consult any bishops :)

Hie,
I thought you were gay?
Maybe I got that from the atheist thing?

It's probably the cross-dressing that confused you...

want to preserve the post war 1950s way of life for their flock --not in terms of period like the Amish but in morality and what they see as the best way of living.

Unlike Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon I don't think they are soley motivated by greed or fraud as they grew up with the religion but instead by a sense of duty and legacy and this is how they internally justify running a corporation masquerading as a religion.

I can't understand this: "To her credit, she didn't believe him when he told her that "the Lord will provide," and she got a job anyway."

Why on earth would anyone believe that? Do bishops think the landlords will accept "blessings"? It just doesn't make sense to me that anyone would advise anyone to sit at home and wait for the Lord to provide. What are y'all gonna eat in the meantime, while you're waiting for your reward for your faith? I cannot wrap my brain around that.

The other thing in this thread I can't wrap my brain around is trying to juggle grad school or professional school with infants/babies. Why does it all have to be done at once? Oh wait, the Lord will provide, right?

SMH

SCMD, You brought up a good point:

.
"...if being at home with kids bothers a person all that much, why even have them?"


The way society structures (accepts without question) work "rules," which in reality is not a thing carved in stone, though we behave as if it is, only one of those who chose to have the children is designated to be "the" lone SAHParent. IMHO, the first thing that needs to adapt is the acronym itself.

We allow those who hold the gold, that gold hoarded from the workers who produce the wealth, to set these dysfunctional "rules," and we are indoctrinated and drenched in the (faulty) belief that these unhealthy options "must be true." "This is how it is, and how it must be."

If one wants children, wants to and is able provide for them, also wants to participate in rearing them, these can all be shared objectives and tasks - and joys and sorrows. The walls that define our possible contributions to both production in society and "roles" of responsibilty to and for our children are an unhealthy (for all) extension of control. These unhealthy walls for human behavior screw with all family members involved.

Name the 40-80 hr/wk at-work dad who doesn't envy the 24/7 SAHM, or the 24/7 SAHM who doesn't feel resentment for her lack of options and growth. - Or the kids who don't need the presences (mind, body, spirit) of both parents.

We are trying to fit round pegs into square holes, and blaming the pegs that they don't fit. Many think that "equality" is a "feminist" issue, but I would hold that it would greatly benefit men (fathers) to take an unindoctrinated, realistic view of the current state of the situation.

If anyone questions that, look at how men are treated in court, and then ask why. "Well, for god's sake, don't you know you have been *assigned* to be the "providers" in the situation?" Not pc to say it straight out like that, but it *is* the reality under which we are governed.

This is a situation that is controlled entirely by those who "make the rules" failing to "empower women." Few. consider that it would also "empower" (free) "their" men (to make choices), a thing to be avoided, right?

It is rarely the individual at fault for the faults in the design. Dads, moms and kids all suffer under the current "rules."

You make good points.

For almost 3 years, I shifted my work to mostly be from home, and was the "stay at home dad" to my two (then three, with a brand new baby) kids. Mom got up early and went to work, I got the kids ready, made the meals, did the laundry, (mostly) cleaned the house, ran the errands, drove the kids to school/sports, and for the first six months of her life, took care of the newborn.

I wouldn't trade that for the world. I don't think my kids would, either. We all got to know and appreciate each other better. And I still got work done. It was overall *harder* (more hectic, more difficult to schedule, etc.) than getting up and going away to an "office" every day...but priceless.

Thanks, Hie. I think that if more dads had the opportunity, the world could be a better place. Before technology, kids grew up with both parents, and though the "job" roles were there, boys working with dad and girls working with mom, they learned, toiled and played together. Ideally, it was a joint effort with shared goals, roles and effort.

In today's world, if a woman can't pull a "man's wages," she is most likely the one decided to stay home, where she falls even further behind in terms of competitive hires. Then, there's even smaller opportunity to switch roles. Everyone gets burned out with what they perceive as the short end of the stick.

It's not just that moms stay home. The same factors that go into that means that dads often can't afford to. Everyone loses.

And, I'm sure you're correct in believing that your kids wouldn't trade the opportunity all of you had for the world.

"Aye, there's The Rub..."



If I didn't get that out, it would fester...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2017 08:22PM by elderolddog.

We all thought it, but I thought it would be BYU Boner who rubbed one out...? :)

Gotta be over 75% of the populace, even here, who didn't immediately think what you and I did when we say the name... It's not a big deal, and doesn't bear on intelligence, just what was emphasized in the curriculum.

Fie, do you go out of your way to rub people the wrong way?

Married late 90's. I was not told to expect to be a SAHM. Unfortunately because of life circumstances I'll be one until the day I die. Utah actually has a higher percentage of women working outside the home. Of my TBM siblings and inlaws, all of them are NOT stay at home moms.

Found out I hated it. I needed an outlet. I got a job 2 nights a week and every other weekend at the hospital my husband worked at. I'd take the kids to him at the hospital just as he was getting off work and I'd work late.

It saved my sanity and our daughter finally started liking her dad. AND then when he left us, I had a good job that I was then doing at home. I've worked on and off in an office, but I had the option of doing one or the other, so when my kids needed me, I was here. I drove them to school every day and picked them up. If they were home when I was working, they'd lie on the bed in the room I was in and watch TV and movies (as I usually have something on while I'm working).

I liked being able to contribute and also have my "own money." I hated feeling like it wasn't my money. I was raised to WORK by a farmer. I sometimes think I'll be really bored when I retire. I get a lot of satisfaction out of working.

I was raised in the churh to become a stay at home mom. It was instilled in me that education wasn't needed, I was going to marry and raise kids. (and be supportive to hubby)

After divorce I did work (had to) but they were shitty jobs mostly. I didn't have diploma's and such.

I got lucky to get a break about 10 years ago, when someone gave me a chance and that started the ball rolling.

I now have a job that I love. I'm growing and learning and advancing. I now hold a semi-leadership position over a 10 people team. I have fantastic co-workers, a fab Team leader and a great coach. I can't believe how much satisfaction and joy I get from working. (I only have this stupid exam to pass..)

Back in the days I thought that would never happen. That wasn't for me. I was to clean the kitchen and prepare more meals.. I never thought that I'd be valuable, that I actually had skills.

I will respect anybody's choice but at this point in my life I think being a SAHM is a waste of intellect and keeps you small and isolated. And I blame the church for doing that to me.

Now the pendulum has swung the other way. SAHM's are considered inferior. As mentioned above, " a waste of intellect".

Kids are treated like dogs - throw them some food, play with them a few minutes a day, and send them to doggy daycare.

And school can babysit them and provide free breakfast and lunch.

I get it that some women don't like being with their kids. But most I see do, including my daughters who graduated college with honors, but prefer being with their kids.

I once tried to be a good feminist and pushed them to get educated, but one day overheard them saying they just wanted to have babies instead of getting degrees for which they lacked interest. Peer pressure and all.

I keep wondering where are all these women who feel trapped and oppressed at home and prefer the workplace.

My wife has a teaching degree, but only taught a few years and hated it, so quit. Now she won't work. She also mentioned the other teachers told her they wished they could quit, but wanted the retirement.

Wife of guy at work just finished master's degree, racking up $60,000 in debt, and now declared she would rather stay home with kids.

His brother's wife is social worker who refuses to work more than a few hours a week - she mostly likes to read at home.

Another guy at work keeps trying to find his wife a job, but she isn't interested.

Guy I know spent over $100,000 putting his daughter through prestigious engineering school, and now she's not interested - just wants to be with kids.

So I guess we want to deny biology and pretend men and women are designed the same. No more inclination in women for nesting behavior and nurturing children, despite doing so for millions of years.

So fine if you want to choose to work, but as mentioned above, how about giving the men the same freedom to choose. I once decided to take a few years off from working and was shamed by many, and threatened with divorce.

Was pondering further the notion that SAHM is a waste of intellect.

Seems if you get a job teaching other people's kids, you are an intellectual.

If you stay at home and teach your own kids, not so.

In other words, you are not to be responsible for your own kids.

We have taught our kids endless subjects as we raise food and animals and cut and burn wood and build and fix stuff, and teach them about history and freedom and government and how to read, write, spell and do math, and basic courtesy and responsibility.

Chemistry, biology, horticulture, management, nutrition, finance, animal science, veterinary science, psychology, etc, etc.

I am often surprised to hear my kids quote some lesson I gave 20 years prior, and had forgotten I ever mentioned it.

Anyway, if you don't think raising kids requires any thought, you might be lacking imagination.

I could see a wall and spend an hour lecturing about it. How it is constructed, how to get it square, how to do drywall and mud, how to paint, whether it is a support wall, outside wall with insulation, R values, etc.

We are told more and more that our kids are to be taught only in government school, and parents are to be less and less responsible. Which is why the young men I hire at work are increasingly unprepared.

When my wife taught 5th grade, when kids came into school in the morning, they were forced to march through a breakfast line. Somebody making good money selling food in schools. But by pressuring kids to eat at school, they are telling parents they don't need to feed their kids.

Apparently parents who are government educated, cannot figure out how to fry an egg and make toast. Which is less than 50 cents.

Yes! +1

Your black and white thinking seems a bit odd to me to be honest.
My kids are not treated like dogs the way you describe it. And neither are any of my friends' and coworkers kids. And quite frankly, I resent the implication.

When I was a sahm I felt isolated, lonely and often bored. I felt like I was literally on the sidelines of life. And lecturing my kids about how to build a wall or the history of laundry detergent couldn't change that.

I am a much nicer, happier mother now that I get to use my brain in a different way.

Here in the Netherlands it is pretty common by the way for the mom and dad to both work part time. So as to share child rearing and household stuff. Kids grow up fast, and yes they will benefit from lots of time with parents while very young, but once mine started school I was left alone at home most of the day, feeling lonely and isolated.

And a big part of me now being scared and emotional facing an exam is the having felt stupid and isolated for so long. That is not solely because of being a sahm, but it did contribute.

Freeman never fails to provide a mysogynistic post. If you try to reason with him, you'll basically be talking to a post.

I'll not bother again then. haha thanks for the warning.

Well, I know of two teachers whose husbands are stay-at-home dads. So there is that. Outside of Mormon circles, it does happen.

I chose to be a SAHM and I would have chosen it regardless of what the church said. I'm educated and never felt like spending most of my time with the people who I love most was beneath me. It's been a pleasure. I feel that I'm lucky. But I'm also a homebody and love doing things around the house...cooking, baking, yard work, housework etc. But I know being a stay at home parent isn't for everybody for a variety of reasons.

I made the decision to be a SAHM mostly because of my own childhood experience. Both of my parents worked long hours and weren't home much. Much of the responsibility for housework and younger siblings fell upon me. I wanted something different for my own children.

My children are older now and I recently returned to work a few days per week. But I honestly miss the time when my kids were young and my days were filled with walks to the park, play dough, baking cookies, reading stories and nap time.

Incidentally, I don't believe that the church values SAHMs in the way it says it does. The church encourages SAHMs only as a way to keep women in their place and to meet the goals of the church. Encouraging women to be SAHMs is not about what's best for children. It's about what's best for the church. If the church really cared about children, it wouldn't pull mothers and fathers away from their kids as much as possible with time consuming callings, meetings, temple attendance and tithing requirements.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2017 12:07AM by want2bx.

It's possible to do both. My sister-in-law was a SAHM for about a decade while her kids were young and my brother was traveling a lot for his career. But she did spend most of her life working at full time jobs -- first as a social worker, and then as a pre-K teacher. Her kids were able to attend the very fancy private school where she taught for a drastically reduced tuition.

I think that most women are best served by spending a good chunk of their lives working at jobs that pay well. It enables them to be able to support themselves in event of divorce or the early death of their spouse (which happened to my mom.) It provides a financial cushion during times of recession and/or the job loss of a spouse. It gives wives self-esteem along with retirement credits and funds.

I know of one mom who spent a lot of time at home raising her four boys. Later, with the help of her sons, she founded her own successful company. I know of another mom who was eventually able to telecommute 4 out of 5 days per week.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2017 08:05AM by summer.

yes exactly.

I just wish that I had had an education and maybe some work experience before I started to have kids, so I wouldn't have to start from scratch at 40 yrs old..

Oh well.

I think we should let women decide for themselves whether they should work or not as children need a mother in the home or someone who cares for them. Too many kids are endangered or molested by people who do not give a crap about them and society is in real decay because families do not put children first. How does any one know what is best for a mother? Some women love to be at home and have to put up with idiots telling them they should be working and neglect their kids. When you have children you are the only source of security they have and no wonder so many kids are troubled.