Housewife Or Working Woman?


Melissa569
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Alana

Most women I know in church who are homemakers, also have side 'jobs'. Sometimes these jobs produce an actual income, sometimes not. They include things like tutoring, photography, music programs for kids, nursing, selling makeup or candles, etc. Some of these jobs take them out of the house, and some don't. Most of these families would be fine without the extra income. I'm a day care provider, but I still consider myself first and foremost a homemaker. Then again, no matter who makes more money, my husband is still the 'provider.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Many women in my ward are stay at home moms.

My wife works and always has, we did get married later in life though (mid - late 30's)and we are both converts.

We are looking forward to an early retirement (which both of us working allows us to save for) - if the economy doesn't completly tank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

crazy potato-- Well yes you can live in a smaller place, but that doesn‘t always solve the problem. For example, it would be kind of awkward for all your kids to share a bedroom with mom and dad, even up into their teens… You do need to finance a place where its at least livable for everyone. And these days, even the smallest places can be pretty expensive. We live in a TINY little apartment, just barely big enough for the two of us… We live within bus, bike, or walking distance of hubby’s work, because we can’t afford a car. And this tiny apartment (the only place we could find near his work) still costs A LOT with how little we earn. We barely feed ourselves. And that’s just for me and him, no kids, no car to finance. With me working from home too. If we had kids, we probably wouldn’t even be able to have our own place at all, because of the extra expense.

talisyn-- I know how you feel about the whiny husband thing, lol. I work from home because all my (non-active Catholic) husband ever does is complain about having to pull in the majority of the money. Complain that he’s not rich. Complain that we never have as much money as he wants. Complain that he even has to work at all! Or that he can't just retire young and buy a big mansion. I hear nothing but those constant complaints, every day, and every night. He doesn't want kids, because we're not rich, and he doesn't want to provide for kids as a working-class man.

See, he's having trouble adjusting to working class, lol. His family was doing EXTREMELY well back in his home country-- they had servants, a big house, and everything! But then his father died (his father was a world-class chef, even catered to the King of Saudi Arabia for a while!). Now hubby is the man of his family, and expected to pull in all the income. We completely support his mother and 2 younger sisters who live back in his country (they don't work, because their beliefs are similar to our church's, only less negotiable, lol). Unfortunately hubby can’t cook to save his soul! Lol. So he came to America for work. He's been here for several years. Getitng used to all these working American women-- he's really frustrated now that his sisters don't work. He would really prefer that I be earning just as much as him, if not more. Or even ALL the money, as he joked one time that he would love to be a stay at home husband, while I worked, lol. So sometimes its not about following what the gospel or the prophets say. Especially not when you are supporting 3 other women in another country, or when your husband doesn‘t even believe in the LDS gospel.

Edited by Melissa569
Link to comment
Share on other sites

crazy potato-- Well yes you can live in a smaller place, but that doesn‘t always solve the problem. For example, it would be kind of awkward for all your kids to share a bedroom with mom and dad, even up into their teens… You do need to finance a place where its at least livable for everyone. And these days, even the smallest places can be pretty expensive. We live in a TINY little apartment, just barely big enough for the two of us… We live within bus, bike, or walking distance of hubby’s work, because we can’t afford a car. And this tiny apartment (the only place we could find near his work) still costs A LOT with how little we earn. We barely feed ourselves. And that’s just for me and him, no kids, no car to finance. With me working from home too. If we had kids, we probably wouldn’t even be able to have our own place at all, because of the extra expense.

I work from home because all my (non-active Catholic) husband ever does is complain about having to pull in the majority of the money. Complain that he’s not rich. Complain that we never have as much money as he wants. Complain that he even has to work at all! His family was doing extremely well back in his country-- they had servants and everything! But then his father died (his father was a world-class chef, even catered to the King of Saudi Arabia for a while!). Now hubby is the man of his family, and expected to pull in all the income. We completely support his mother and 2 younger sisters who live back in his country. Unfortunately he can’t cook to save his soul! Lol. So he came to America for work. He would really prefer that I be earning just as much as him, if not more. Or even ALL the money, as he joked one time that he would love to be a stay at home husband, while I worked, lol. So sometimes its not about following what the gospel or the profits say. Especially not when you are supporting 3 other women in another country, or when your husband doesn‘t even believe in the LDS gospel.

Melissa,

There is the Proclamation and then their is your own family. If you feel that you would be below poverty if you didn't work, then of course you have to be reasonable. And the Proclamation is also not so that we can look down our noses at people that don't "appear" to be following it. Personally, if I were in your situation, I would look at a long term goal of moving to a more affordable area and getting your husband a better education so that he can earn better money. In the meantime you could work, and explain to him that his future children are so precious to you that you desire to be their at-home mom. At the end of your life, you will care more about how well you raised your kids and how they turned out than whether you were poor or not. There are lots of women who if their hubby gets laid off, go to work. Obviously this is out of necessity. But it should be with the mindset of temporary while hubby looks into another job or another field, gets better training or education, etc.

The Proclamation is a leap of faith for a lot of people. I think going on one income is scarier for some than others. Kids are so expensive, but it is like tithing. If you are trying to live the Proclamation and don't know how you can live on one income, but really try your best to do so, I believe the Lord makes up for it and blesses you, just like he does with people who pay tithing when they have little money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I am still seeing here is that people are looking at those women who work and are saying, "Well you may need to or want to work but you SHOULD be living like this." Whether you feel it is or not this is making a judgment. You see someone living in a way that you have not chosen to live and you try to urge them to live the way YOU feel they should live. And this judgment is made without knowing their circumstances, without knowing what is causing them to be where they are in life.

Is having a mother at home better for her children? Yes. But is it always an option? No. And that is the point, instead of looking at the mothers who can't stay at home and judging them we can find ways to support them and possibly make things easier for them. Often a mother working is not a choice that she has to make, often it is something she has to do. And even when it is a choice there is a very good chance that she has thought long and hard about that choice and why she is making it. Telling her what she should do doesn't help her it only makes her feel judged by someone who really doesn't understand.

Currently I have to work, I don't want to work, but to live in the house that we have I do have to work. We moved to the suburbs so that we could live in a lower cost area and in a smaller house, I have an hour commute to work every day, my husband currently has a two hour commute. And yet all our attempts as living in a cheaper house still result in us having to both work. And this is where many people find themselves. Maybe not in our exact situation, but in similar ones. Ones where the wife has to work, or they may be in a marriage where the husband is not a member and really doesn't understand why they can't work. Sometimes if working keeps your marriage together you have to do what it takes to keep your marriage together.

Again I want to reiterate, the Proclamation does not say anywhere in it that a woman must stay at home. It only says that her primary role is to nurture her children, and it does not go into how that nurturing is to be done. Will that nurturing be better if she is at home with them, chances are yes, but if that is not an option then she should do the best she can with what options she does have. And she should not have to deal with others in the church telling her what she should be doing, just because they read something into the proclamation that is not there. Not when they do not understand where she is coming from and what is happening in her life.

Edit:

As a side note, having read the proclamation just yesterday to refresh my memory I see the proclamation as an announcement to the world of what our church believes a family is, and what makes up a family. It states our beliefs on marriage and on couples and on procreation. It is more of a statement about our belief in heterosexual marriages than a statement of how we should live as husband and wife.

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. 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.

Emphasis mine. I want to point out the line that says, "Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation." What do you think individual adaptaion means? I believe that it means that if disability death or other circumstances come about that a family might have to change the way they raise their family. It might require a mother to enter the work field, it may mean that she can not be a stay at home mom. And for that she should be supported, not brought down.

Edited by Tarnished
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I am still seeing here is that people are looking at those women who work and are saying, "Well you may need to or want to work but you SHOULD be living like this." Whether you feel it is or not this is making a judgment. You see someone living in a way that you have not chosen to live and you try to urge them to live the way YOU feel they should live. And this judgment is made without knowing their circumstances, without knowing what is causing them to be where they are in life.

Is having a mother at home better for her children? Yes. But is it always an option? No. And that is the point, instead of looking at the mothers who can't stay at home and judging them we can find ways to support them and possibly make things easier for them. Often a mother working is not a choice that she has to make, often it is something she has to do. And even when it is a choice there is a very good chance that she has thought long and hard about that choice and why she is making it. Telling her what she should do doesn't help her it only makes her feel judged by someone who really doesn't understand.

Currently I have to work, I don't want to work, but to live in the house that we have I do have to work. We moved to the suburbs so that we could live in a lower cost area and in a smaller house, I have an hour commute to work every day, my husband currently has a two hour commute. And yet all our attempts as living in a cheaper house still result in us having to both work. And this is where many people find themselves. Maybe not in our exact situation, but in similar ones. Ones where the wife has to work, or they may be in a marriage where the husband is not a member and really doesn't understand why they can't work. Sometimes if working keeps your marriage together you have to do what it takes to keep your marriage together.

Again I want to reiterate, the Proclamation does not say anywhere in it that a woman must stay at home. It only says that her primary role is to nurture her children, and it does not go into how that nurturing is to be done. Will that nurturing be better if she is at home with them, chances are yes, but if that is not an option then she should do the best she can with what options she does have. And she should not have to deal with others in the church telling her what she should be doing, just because they read something into the proclamation that is not there. Not when they do not understand where she is coming from and what is happening in her life.

Edit:

As a side note, having read the proclamation just yesterday to refresh my memory I see the proclamation as an announcement to the world of what our church believes a family is, and what makes up a family. It states our beliefs on marriage and on couples and on procreation. It is more of a statement about our belief in heterosexual marriages than a statement of how we should live as husband and wife.

Emphasis mine. I want to point out the line that says, "Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation." What do you think individual adaptaion means? I believe that it means that if disability death or other circumstances come about that a family might have to change the way they raise their family. It might require a mother to enter the work field, it may mean that she can not be a stay at home mom. And for that she should be supported, not brought down.

Tarnished, every time this subject gets brought up in Relief Society, it seems that all the women who have to work feel like crap, guilty for working when they shouldn't feel that way, and crying because they feel like they are not doing the best for their kids. We are not talking about those women, married or single, who work to bring in needed money. We are not talking about childless women who work, or single women, etc. We are talking about a general guideline. But also, I think that it is not only to reinforce our belief in heterosexual marriage, but how to make the family unit the strongest. There is council for the family to work together, do wholesome activities together. The emphasis is on what makes a family and how to make it the strongest. The hard reality is that lots of people are unable to live in a happily married home, with a father and mother that love and respect each other, father provides, mom nurtures, etc. This is an ideal that we all hope and strive for and is not possible for everyone all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tarnished, every time this subject gets brought up in Relief Society, it seems that all the women who have to work feel like crap, guilty for working when they shouldn't feel that way, and crying because they feel like they are not doing the best for their kids. We are not talking about those women, married or single, who work to bring in needed money. We are not talking about childless women who work, or single women, etc. We are talking about a general guideline. But also, I think that it is not only to reinforce our belief in heterosexual marriage, but how to make the family unit the strongest. There is council for the family to work together, do wholesome activities together. The emphasis is on what makes a family and how to make it the strongest. The hard reality is that lots of people are unable to live in a happily married home, with a father and mother that love and respect each other, father provides, mom nurtures, etc. This is an ideal that we all hope and strive for and is not possible for everyone all the time.

But we are talking about those women. When you bring up the topic of working women, which is what this thread is all about, you are talking about those women. And when you claim that women should stay at home and not work based on the Proclamation you are talking about those women.

Thank you for your comment, it is a general guideline, and that is what I am trying to get at. As much as the happy little home with a husband working and a wife taking care of the children at home is our goal and our ideal it is still an ideal, which doesn't always work for every family. What I am trying to say with all of these post is this: We need to remember that this ideal is still just a guideline, and if there are people out there who can not fit into this ideal for whatever reason we need to show our support for them.

Those women in your Relief Society should not feel guilty, they should not end up crying. Too often we focus so hard on instructing on what the ideal family should be that we don't voice the other options out there, we don't voice the role of a woman who has to work, we don't voice the role of a woman with no children. We leave them to sorrow for what they don't have.

As a woman who has struggled for 10 years with infertility I can say that lessons on the family can be painful, and often members who have that happy family don't even think about those who don't. They roll on and crush beneath them all those who don't fit the mold. And that is an awful thing to do. As important as the family is I think we also need to be aware that there are people who need to hear the voice of those who can't have children, who have to work, who have those non-perfect families. Because otherwise you are left on the outside with despair, feeling unloved and not understood. And from experience, that is a terrible place to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we are talking about those women. When you bring up the topic of working women, which is what this thread is all about, you are talking about those women. And when you claim that women should stay at home and not work based on the Proclamation you are talking about those women.

Thank you for your comment, it is a general guideline, and that is what I am trying to get at. As much as the happy little home with a husband working and a wife taking care of the children at home is our goal and our ideal it is still an ideal, which doesn't always work for every family. What I am trying to say with all of these post is this: We need to remember that this ideal is still just a guideline, and if there are people out there who can not fit into this ideal for whatever reason we need to show our support for them.

Those women in your Relief Society should not feel guilty, they should not end up crying. Too often we focus so hard on instructing on what the ideal family should be that we don't voice the other options out there, we don't voice the role of a woman who has to work, we don't voice the role of a woman with no children. We leave them to sorrow for what they don't have.

As a woman who has struggled for 10 years with infertility I can say that lessons on the family can be painful, and often members who have that happy family don't even think about those who don't. They roll on and crush beneath them all those who don't fit the mold. And that is an awful thing to do. As important as the family is I think we also need to be aware that there are people who need to hear the voice of those who can't have children, who have to work, who have those non-perfect families. Because otherwise you are left on the outside with despair, feeling unloved and not understood. And from experience, that is a terrible place to be.

Tarnished,

I really feel like you are judging me. You seem to think that because I have strong opinions of trying to follow the Proclamation, that I am looking down my nose at everyone who doesn't appear to be doing so. It makes me sad that you assume so much about me and I really don't know where you are getting it from. Your infertility for 10 years is really sad, but guess what? I went 8 years of infertility myself and I will never forget that pain in my heart and all the people that assumed I was so into my career that I didn't want kids. When I state my opinion, it is generalizations. Why would you assume that I am then taking my opinions and pointing my finger at other people? Do I need to share more dirt about myself when making my generalizations so that I don't appear self righteous? Because I don't feel that is necessary.

BTW, if you ever want to PM me about infertility, I am here for you, but I get the feeling that you would think that I would start preaching to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tarnished,

I really feel like you are judging me. You seem to think that because I have strong opinions of trying to follow the Proclamation, that I am looking down my nose at everyone who doesn't appear to be doing so. It makes me sad that you assume so much about me and I really don't know where you are getting it from. Your infertility for 10 years is really sad, but guess what? I went 8 years of infertility myself and I will never forget that pain in my heart and all the people that assumed I was so into my career that I didn't want kids. When I state my opinion, it is generalizations. Why would you assume that I am then taking my opinions and pointing my finger at other people? Do I need to share more dirt about myself when making my generalizations so that I don't appear self righteous? Because I don't feel that is necessary.

BTW, if you ever want to PM me about infertility, I am here for you, but I get the feeling that you would think that I would start preaching to you.

I don't assume anything about you. I never have. But I do notice that you tend to make assumptions from things that you read. Such as the proclamation. What I have a problem with is when a viewpoint is expressed as true fact when it is based on a person's interpretation of something. For example the proclamation says nothing about a mother working or not working, it is something you have read into it.

Please don't assume that I am judging you, I am not trying to do any such thing. But I do have friends who are in situations that require them to work and I know what they go through at church. And because of that I will stand up and point out that the church suggests and advises that mothers stay home, but it is not a commandment, and it is not something where we should tell people what they should or should not be doing. It is just not our place. If they feel that they need to stop working they will. There are enough lessons on it to give them the hint.

Please stop reading things into what I have written that I have not actually said. If I did not say it, then don't assume it. If I think you are looking down your nose at people then I will say so. Like I have said in another post, I am very careful wording posts to you or even posts where I think you could think that I am speaking to you because I know of your tendency to read things into posts that are not there. Trust me, if I intend to say something I will not dance around it, I will say it out right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't assume anything about you. I never have. But I do notice that you tend to make assumptions from things that you read. Such as the proclamation. What I have a problem with is when a viewpoint is expressed as true fact when it is based on a person's interpretation of something. For example the proclamation says nothing about a mother working or not working, it is something you have read into it.

Please don't assume that I am judging you, I am not trying to do any such thing. But I do have friends who are in situations that require them to work and I know what they go through at church. And because of that I will stand up and point out that the church suggests and advises that mothers stay home, but it is not a commandment, and it is not something where we should tell people what they should or should not be doing. It is just not our place. If they feel that they need to stop working they will. There are enough lessons on it to give them the hint.

Please stop reading things into what I have written that I have not actually said. If I did not say it, then don't assume it. If I think you are looking down your nose at people then I will say so. Like I have said in another post, I am very careful wording posts to you or even posts where I think you could think that I am speaking to you because I know of your tendency to read things into posts that are not there. Trust me, if I intend to say something I will not dance around it, I will say it out right.

Placing my quotes at the top of your post and then talking about judgemental, self-righteous, gossipy women tends to make me feel singled out. And if you think I read things into posts that are not there, that is fine, that is your opinion. It is a two-way communication and in written form, is the very least effective method of communication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have two sons, 7 and 5. My husband and I would both feel the need and desire to be nurturers and providers. I want my sons to know it takes more to being a father than going out to work and pay the bills. And I want them to see how we both can be there to feed them, share activities with them, etc. We both work part-time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a talk I just read but I can't find it, about women getting educations in case they need to work. I think it was by President Benson. He said that women should not put their educations before the family for " just in case" situations."

I'd like to see a reference for that if you can find it. I did find this from President Hinckley:

LDS.org - New Era Article - Words of the Prophet: Seek Learning

A couple of excerpts:

In this day and time, a girl needs an education. She needs the means and skills by which to earn a living should she find herself in a situation where it becomes necessary to do so.

Set your priorities in terms of marriage and family, but also pursue educational programs which will lead to satisfying work and productive employment in case you do not marry, or to a sense of security and fulfillment in the event you do marry.

Seems to me he's saying that eventhough marriage and family have priority, an education is encouaraged whether you get married or not, even if it is for a "just in case" situations. The church teaches us and expects us to be self sufficient, I don't see why that wouldn't apply to women as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see a reference for that if you can find it. I did find this from President Hinckley:

LDS.org - New Era Article - Words of the Prophet: Seek Learning

A couple of excerpts:

Seems to me he's saying that eventhough marriage and family have priority, an education is encouaraged whether you get married or not, even if it is for a "just in case" situations. The church teaches us and expects us to be self sufficient, I don't see why that wouldn't apply to women as well.

This talk was in reference to women putting off marriage and children for educations, not against women being educated. It was just kind of a common sense type of mention. I can't find it because the talk was not about education, but on a totally different subject. I really wish I could remember. My understanding was he was saying that, let's say a woman is already married with children and no bachelor's degree. She should not be pursuing a bachelor's degree full time, on the event that her husband loses his job, but should instead be tending to her husband and children full time, with educational goals not overbalancing her obligations to her family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Placing my quotes at the top of your post and then talking about judgemental, self-righteous, gossipy women tends to make me feel singled out. And if you think I read things into posts that are not there, that is fine, that is your opinion. It is a two-way communication and in written form, is the very least effective method of communication.

I am sorry that you felt this way, it was not my intention. And yes you are correct written communication is a very ineffective method of communication. Spoken word can be misunderstood so it is no surprise that written words are misunderstood when we cannot hear the other person's inflection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to think that because I have strong opinions of trying to follow the Proclamation, that I am looking down my nose at everyone who doesn't appear to be doing so.

CP, I say this with all respect. You do sound like that. I've noticed that in many of your posts on many many threads that you state your position and then you tend do get very defensive (on a personal level) when people disagree with you. As has been said, written communication is not the most effective. You may want to consider re-reading your posts (or having your husband read them) before actually posting to a thread, so as to avoid this problem. I've noticed that Tarnished is always very careful about how she says things, and that her posts, while on the long side, are typically thoughtful, respectful, and non-defensive. I know I myself am guilty of often posting before reviewing, but I've noticed that it's been a consistent thing for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CP, I say this with all respect. You do sound like that. I've noticed that in many of your posts on many many threads that you state your position and then you tend do get very defensive (on a personal level) when people disagree with you. As has been said, written communication is not the most effective. You may want to consider re-reading your posts (or having your husband read them) before actually posting to a thread, so as to avoid this problem. I've noticed that Tarnished is always very careful about how she says things, and that her posts, while on the long side, are typically thoughtful, respectful, and non-defensive. I know I myself am guilty of often posting before reviewing, but I've noticed that it's been a consistent thing for you.

Wingnut, and Tarnished,

I think I will take this to another thread or a PM. I think that frequently, when there is a hot-button topic, like this one, these threads start going off topic wth people going back and forth at each other, and I feel that this is where we are headed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the Church teaches the general rule and of course then is up to us to see if we are the exception or not and act accordingly. It's easy for us to speak about it in a country like the US, what about South America, Africa and so many other (very poor) areas in the world where there is really little choice but to have a second income? It doesn't have to be one OR the other.

Also I think many people forget this part of the proclamation:

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The responsibility is of both!

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.

So we BOTH help each other in our responsibilities. So yes, each one has particular roles HOWEVER does not mean they are exclusive and the other partner does not get involved, as the statement said BOTH are OBLIGATED to help one another in these responsibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the Church teaches the general rule and of course then is up to us to see if we are the exception or not and act accordingly. It's easy for us to speak about it in a country like the US, what about South America, Africa and so many other (very poor) areas in the world where there is really little choice but to have a second income? It doesn't have to be one OR the other.

Also I think many people forget this part of the proclamation:

The responsibility is of both!

So we BOTH help each other in our responsibilities. So yes, each one has particular roles HOWEVER does not mean they are exclusive and the other partner does not get involved, as the statement said BOTH are OBLIGATED to help one another in these responsibilities.

True.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is having the mother stay home with the children the best choice? Not always. I know a few mothers that are not nurturers, that have very little patience, that shuttle their children between nana, granny, auntie...where they DO get the attention, care, love they deserve. I have seen fathers that were more natural at "mothering" their children than the mom. So, I think we should not have such absolute, this is the only "right" way to do something mentality...which often leads to thinking that they are wrong, while I am doing what is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is having the mother stay home with the children the best choice? Not always. I know a few mothers that are not nurturers, that have very little patience, that shuttle their children between nana, granny, auntie...where they DO get the attention, care, love they deserve. I have seen fathers that were more natural at "mothering" their children than the mom. So, I think we should not have such absolute, this is the only "right" way to do something mentality...which often leads to thinking that they are wrong, while I am doing what is right.

God knows everyone's hearts and circumstances, not me or anyone else. If you are doing your best to keep your family intact with love, support, work and friendship for each other, that is more important than specifically who works and where and when. I think that kids can benefit from both parents being interactive with them. I see a big difference in my kids when my husband is gone for long periods of time (military). They really need us both, not just me. I think the proclamation is inspired and something for every family to pray about and try to follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me nurturing your children is very difficult to do as a mother if your child is in daycare, or when your husband is playing the stay at home dad role, or by the time you come home your scrambling to make dinner at 6pm only to eat at 6:30pm baths at 7:30pm and finally bed at 8pm. I did this for years with the children and it broke my heart. It still breaks my heart. Sure each person can choose how they want to live their lives but those years slip by so fast and to me it's worth downsizing and spending less so the children AND my husband can reap the rewards of having their wife/mother at home.

Edit: Forgot to add the outrageous costs of summer camp! If you have 2, 3, 4 kids it's through the roof! If you are at home they can be home with you all summer and you can take them to different little field trips once a week. There are many activities you can find that are even free.

Now for some women who seem to find more joy in working rather than being at home the wife might be very irritated if not working. She doesn't like the role and/or she would not want to entirely fulfill it.

For a wife and mother who is able to stay at home it is most rewarding. To be there for your children at any time. To care for them when they are at home sick. To see you when they come in the door from school. To shuffle them to their activities. To run errands or make important calls for your husband/family during the day. Helping your children after school with their homework while making dinner from scratch then by the time your husband comes home (if he comes home a normal hour) with the house orderly, hot homemade meal on the table, and the kids situated you can sit as a family and spend the next few hours enjoying time together. The couple of years I got to stay at home and fulfill my role as a wife and mother were the most rewarding years of my life.

I do not agree that it is cultural or social belief. I believe it is how God created us. We are created different as man and woman not only physically but in every which way.

See, this is the thing... the post above is the common "this must be the life of a working mother" thought.

But... with the advent of the computer, this is starting to be old-school thought. I'd say about 80% of my company (number is a logical perception, not scientific proven fact) can do some of their work from their home computer.

I'm an extreme case. I can work 100% of my responsibilities from anywhere with a 3G signal and within an hour of a power outlet (I can buy the extended life battery to make it 3 hours, but it's heavier and I haven't had need for it). Here are the places that I have worked before - the doctor's office, the hospital (while my son is recovering from surgery), the soccer field while my son is in soccer practice, the MMA place, the community pool, the splash park, everywhere my sons have gone for bday parties including Chuck-e-Cheese, friends houses, etc., the elementary school, the piano studio, my front yard, my back yard, the airport, the hotel, and other places I can't remember.

Now, think of what the common perception is of Stay-at-home-moms... they need to not have a job so they can clean the house, have dinner ready when husband comes home, have clothes always clean and neatly pressed, take children to doctor's appointments, etc.

Those aren't really something the mother HAS to do for the children to be nurtured. For example: I hire a cleaning company for my house - I hate cleaning and I do a poor job of it. So, instead of cleaning the house, I'm in my home office working. What's the difference as far as nurture is concerned? Nothing.

My kids BEG me to go to summer camp. Good thing I got some money to send them there.

But yes, I'm there... for anything they need at anytime they need it. Yes, it takes a lot of patience to raise kids... but, because I don't have to do things I'm not good at, I have a lot of time and energy to spend on things that are important - like teaching them how to avoid the bad stuff on the computer... because, just putting "blocks" on a computer is not teaching the kids. They're not always at their own computer - they can be at a friend's computer who has none of those fancy "blocks"...

So, SAHM is awesome, if that's what you want. Working Moms are awesome too, if that's what works. As long as you are "nurturing" your kids properly. So, figure out what your kids REALLY need to grow physically and spiritually, and give it to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the council given to husbands in regards to work is applicable here. Forgive me if I get it wrong, but I seem to remember a prohpet telling us that "No amount of success at work will compensate for failure at home." The council being that men, who are charged with taking care of the family financially, should not do so at the risk of missing out on family commitments. So, I wonder, how much more so does that apply to women who are charged with the nurting of the family?

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the council given to husbands in regards to work is applicable here. Forgive me if I get it wrong, but I seem to remember a prohpet telling us that "No amount of success at work will compensate for failure at home." The council being that men, who are charged with taking care of the family financially, should not do so at the risk of missing out on family commitments. So, I wonder, how much more so does that apply to women who are charged with the nurting of the family?

:)

Good point, Ranman. And that's what people always forget... you go to work to take care of your children. If the children is not thriving because of your work, time to do something different... this goes for both men and especially women.

Here's an applicable story:

There once were 2 classmates who graduated from Harvard Business School. One went on to rule Wall Street working 60 hours a week sometimes more, making millions of dollars. The other one went to Mexico, penniless, and spends his time sleeping on a hammock or fishing all day.

The Wall Street guy ragged on the fisherman because he thinks his classmate is throwing away his opportunity for success! So the fisherman asked his classmate, "Why are you busting your buns in Wall Street?". His classmate replied, "I'm working this hard so that when I'm 65 years old, I can retire, move to Mexico, sleep in a hammock and fish all day!".

See the moral of the story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the council given to husbands in regards to work is applicable here. Forgive me if I get it wrong, but I seem to remember a prohpet telling us that "No amount of success at work will compensate for failure at home." The council being that men, who are charged with taking care of the family financially, should not do so at the risk of missing out on family commitments. So, I wonder, how much more so does that apply to women who are charged with the nurting of the family?

:)

President David O. McKay said it: "No other success can compensate for failure in the home."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share