Daughters In My Kingdom

[Moliere]

My sense is that what you and Moliere are talking about is a lot less common in Utah and other places were the Mormon population is very dense. Just one more reason for you to not ever move there, sir.

You are probably correct, although in my current neighborhood there is a large percentage of SAHMs. I guess you just feel less guilty working when you don't go to the same church as your neighbors.

Our YWP at one point during a testimony meeting said that she felt her calling in life was to have a career.

[Mrs. Funk]

In my experience, nurturing isn't as binary as some of the quotes discussed in this thread seem to indicate. I've observed that there's a spectrum of nurturing behavior and there's no absolute point at which women are more nurturing than men.

I'm also a bit puzzled by Sister Beck's conflation of the terms "nurturing" and "homemaking." Nurturing a child isn't a mere list of household tasks, nor is homemaking a strictly female activity. If anything, the process of making a home together is something that requires the time and attention of both spouses.

After my mom died, I watched my dad painfully try to fulfill all the roles we kids needed—breadwinner, primary caretaker, chauffeur, and the hundred other hats parents don. It was far from an easy time for us all, though I imagine that it would have been ameliorated if he had acquired basic cooking skills before thrown into single fatherhood and had been used to fulfilling some of the tasks our church designates as "female." (No, really. My dad is one of the smartest men I know, and he could never remember to drain the water for boxed macaroni and cheese.)

I think it's important to prepare both male and female children to take care of themselves—how to cook, clean, do laundry, change a tire, balance a budget, pay bills, live within one's means, and a panoply of other skills. These are life skills not strictly in the domain of one gender or other. Ideally both parents contribute to the nurture and upbringing of their children. How each parent contributes will obviously vary from marriage to marriage, but mothers certainly don't have the monopoly on nurture.

In short, I think nurturing ≠ homemaking, and mothering ≠ nurturing by default.

[Mrs. Funk]

Somewhat relatedly, what do you make of this document, handed out at BYU's Women's Conference? It seems to have kernels of truth surrounded by a whole lot of weird.

[byu71]

It is my sense that a "hard core" group tend to think such things are important. Like the "tea party", they tend to be more active and vocal and represent the so called "base".

While I think the majority recognize that and only pay attention to the "really" meaningful teachings in the church not the cultural stuff.

Kind of like the Catholics and birth control. I am somewhat surprised we gave up on pushing that birth control was evil long before the Cathlics have come to that conclusion.

[UtahDan]

I'm assuming that there are fewer career women in Utah than there are other places. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

[NorthShoreCoug]

As a stay-at-home dad of 17 years, I'd find this stuff laughable if it weren't so tragic. My girls run into this all the time in YW. They've learned to keep quiet during these lessons as they've been shut down time and again when they bring up the dynamics of reversed roles.

We have a good sense of humor about it in church circles though. An EFY counselor related this story to me. At EFY one year, the campers were asked to tell something about each of their family members. My daughter said, my mom graduated at the top of her class, has a near perfect memory & is an officer at one of the world's largest companies. And my dad is a housewife and married over his head.

We have a somewhat similar couple in our ward. The wife is in her last year of residency as an anesthesiologist, and during her residency, he has been a stay at home father (although he does work some to supplement their income). He takes his young children to "lunch at the park" days with the SAHMs and their kids, and seems to very much enjoy his role as the primary caregiver. Great family. Our 13 yr old son recently faced surgery, and she sat down and talked to him and to us about what to expect for nearly an hour. I home teach with him, so I'll have to ask him if they receive much flak about their role reversal.

[creekster]

I'm assuming that there are fewer career women in Utah than there are other places. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

As you know this topic has been brought up several times on this and other boards. And each time there is sigtnifcant anecdotal evddence presented by board memebrs that many working women hold positions of infleunce over YW and the RS in their wards. I know this becasue, among other reasons, my own wife has been YW president (twice) and RS president and has a career and we have lived for over 20 years in an area in NorCal that is probably the sort of plavce you would consider having a dense mormon population. So while your sense might be right, it also might just be your bias.

[UtahDan]

As you know this topic has been brought up several times on this and other boards. And each time there is sigtnifcant anecdotal evddence presented by board memebrs that many working women hold positions of infleunce over YW and the RS in their wards. I know this becasue, among other reasons, my own wife has been YW president (twice) and RS president and has a career and we have lived for over 20 years in an area in NorCal that is probably the sort of plavce you would consider having a dense mormon population. So while your sense might be right, it also might just be your bias.

This raises an interesting question. Is a career woman more likely to get a leadership calling because the skill set she gains in the workforce makes her better suited to it? Or are women who pursue careers despite culture and teachings which do not encourage it more natural leaders?

[creekster]

This raises an interesting question. Is a career woman more likely to get a leadership calling because the skill set she gains in the workforce makes her better suited to it? Or are women who pursue careers despite culture and teachings which do not encourage it more natural leaders?

No idea. I was thinking about this as I posted. IN our ward our last four YW presidents have alternated between SAHM and career women. Our last four RS presidents have also seen 2 SAHM and 2 career women. The biggest difference I have noted in their styles of leadership is the SAHM is less likely to delegate; the working women must delegate to get things accomplished and it tends to bring more people into the service loop, which I think is a god thing. But it is a subtle difference not always noticed.

[NorthShoreCoug]

I don't know about your ward, but in my ward both groups are just an outstanding group of people...and to me is really evidence that you can be smart, capable, good role model sort of regardless of what choice you make. It seems like so many people want to fit it into an either/or category with one clearly being superior depending on which side you are on and to me that is the most dangerous.

I'm with you on this.

My wife is a SAHM, and has been since our first child was born. Furthermore, we even have done some home schooling with our kids. Just the formula to make her into an insecure hater of career women who are neglecting their children, I suppose. Yet we rarely talk about the whole SAHM/career woman dichotomy, at least in terms of which women in the ward are which, and then demonize those who have chosen a career. My wife has served as ward primary and relief society president, and is currently the stake primary president, and I had to think about it to realize that one of her counselors is a SAHM, and the other is a career woman. Her, and I, have opinions about these issues and discuss them from time to time, but use them to calibrate our own lives against our ideals, not to judge others. There are amazing and capable women who make both choices - it almost makes me cringe to even type out what seems so obvious.

[UtahDan]

My sense is that what you and Moliere are talking about is a lot less common in Utah and other places were the Mormon population is very dense. Just one more reason for you to not ever move there, sir.

I just read back up and realized that this was not meant to be in response to the quote from Drum that was above it. It was meant to be in response to his previous post and was directed only at the idea that there are lots of career women in leadership where he is.

I definitely, definitely agree that there are outstanding women in the home and in the workforce.

[DrumNFeather]

I just read back up and realized that this was not meant to be in response to the quote from Drum that was above it. It was meant to be in response to his previous post and was directed only at the idea that there are lots of career women in leadership where he is.

I definitely, definitely agree that there are outstanding women in the home and in the workforce.

Honestly, I think that the one thing that might be getting lost here that may be even more paramount than vocational choices of the leaders and leadership abilities is how much they care about the youth they are called to lead. One of the worst things is a disengaged leader that is unreliable and uninterested. I think the youth can tell when someone truly cares about them and has an interest in them versus someone just showing up (or not) and doing their calling (or not).

[Solon]

Somewhat relatedly, what do you make of this document, handed out at BYU's Women's Conference? It seems to have kernels of truth surrounded by a whole lot of weird.

Mmmmm. Chocolate chip cookies.

Mrs. Funk is right that there's some good stuff in that document, but certain baseline assumptions about what women should be doing are really surprising to me.

In addition to the section I quoted in this thread's initial post, the DIMK book presents an idealized version of the Relief Society as having always been under priesthood leadership and authority. While I don't fault the writer(s) for avoiding nuanced history, the overall effect (IMO) is to diminish the effects and impact of strong female leadership.

As with the DIMK book, this isn't a case where we can say, "well, that's outdated now." This is current teaching. This is what LDS leaders have determined that women are supposed to be hearing about who they are and what their roles in life, church, family, etc. should be.

Women deserve better. They really do. They can handle grown-up issues.

[Scorcho]

I live in the ultra liberal Bay Area, and even our ward would be in complete shock and meltdown if it were announced that the Young Women's Activity this week was Rifle and Handgun Shooting and meanwhile the Young Men were making Macaroons and taking a marriage compatibility test.

Most of the parents would probably just laught it off, but there would be a few that would be rattled and making appointments to meet with the Bishop.

I may have just accidentally figured out a way for someone to get instantly released from a YM/YW leadership calling. I'll be keeping that safely tucked away should the need ever arise.

[marsupial]

In my experience, nurturing isn't as binary as some of the quotes discussed in this thread seem to indicate. I've observed that there's a spectrum of nurturing behavior and there's no absolute point at which women are more nurturing than men.

I'm also a bit puzzled by Sister Beck's conflation of the terms "nurturing" and "homemaking." Nurturing a child isn't a mere list of household tasks, nor is homemaking a strictly female activity. If anything, the process of making a home together is something that requires the time and attention of both spouses.

After my mom died, I watched my dad painfully try to fulfill all the roles we kids needed—breadwinner, primary caretaker, chauffeur, and the hundred other hats parents don. It was far from an easy time for us all, though I imagine that it would have been ameliorated if he had acquired basic cooking skills before thrown into single fatherhood and had been used to fulfilling some of the tasks our church designates as "female." (No, really. My dad is one of the smartest men I know, and he could never remember to drain the water for boxed macaroni and cheese.)

I think it's important to prepare both male and female children to take care of themselves—how to cook, clean, do laundry, change a tire, balance a budget, pay bills, leave within one's means, and a panoply of other skills. These are life skills not strictly in the domain of one gender or other. Ideally both parents contribute to the nurture and upbringing of their children. How each parent contributes will obviously vary from marriage to marriage, but mothers certainly don't have the monopoly on nurture.

In short, I think nurturing ≠ homemaking, and mothering ≠ nurturing by default.

I agree with Sister Funk, especially on the bolded part. At least in my experience in the church, housework for boys was always framed in the context of so they can take care of themselves on their mission... Not so they can grow up to be self-sufficient adults. Likewise, education and careers for girls was always framed in the context of a back up plan in case you don't get married or if something happens to your husband.

Females have not cornered the market on nurturing. In fact, I think my own father has more nurturing instinct in him than my mother.