rebuke?

[Hypatia]

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/65013/

Did anyone else find Phaedrus' rebuke completely unwarranted? As a woman pursuing advanced degrees in a typically male field, I can attest that people use the proclamation as a tool to belittle ambitious women. I can't tell you how many times I've heard, "well, you are going to give up your career as soon as you get married, RIGHT?!" or, "how are you going to do all of that and have children?" or "you probably would be married by now if you studied something a bit more feminine," all because the proclamation tells them that women should stay in the kitchen and pop out babies (not what it says at all).

All the reader was asking was that the proclamation not be misquoted and used as a sexist tool to criticize his wife.

Ug. /Rant.

Hype

[Defy V]

Let's see what he said (I'm assuming Phaedrus is a boy because I haven't paid much attention to him/her yet) . . .

Phaedrus said:

Now for my rebuke. I think it very unwise to dismiss the Family Proclamation as a source for guidance in your decision. Especially, because this is a uniquely familial dilemma, and this is the revealed directive from the Lord on familial issues. You'll know what's right for your unique set of circumstances, as you look through the lens of the gospel.

I don't think Phaedrus was rebuking Tight Spot for not buying into the misquotes attributed to the Proclamation. I think he was rebuking Tight Spot for dismissing the Family Proclamation as a divine document, especially when it recommends flexibility in unique circumstances such as these. I doubt that Tight Spot has completely dismissed the proclamation, so Phaedrus may have been out of line for assuming that, but it can be hard for the writer to guess how the reader really feels about stuff.

And as another woman pursuing an advanced degree in a typically male field (I am the only woman in 4 out of my 5 classes), yeah, it's hard sometimes dealing with people. And it's easy to feel judged no matter what you do. Here I am, married and pregnant (oh surprise everyone, I'm 2 months along!) and not planning to work after I get my degree, and I feel like I have to have excuses for why I'm doing things the way I am. So I feel for you, even if it's for kind of the opposite reasons.

[C is for]

Congrats, DeeV, on the pregnancy. Only 7 months to go.

On that note, one thing I thought of while reading the question was "They do have at least 9 months to figure this out." Obviously I've never been pregnant, and there are lots of factors that must be considered before starting a family, but it seems this man's main concern is "How will we take care of the baby once it comes?" And considering how much lives can change in less than a year, I would try to move forward in faith that it'll work out the best way. Maybe they'll meet a ward member who lives in their neighborhood and can't think of anything she'd like better than to watch their baby. Maybe they'll find a daycare that works for them. Maybe work and school schedules will just happen to coalesce in the right way so they always have someone to take care of the baby.

So yeah. Those were my two cents on the question; I would note that I'm not criticizing the couple for being concerned about this issue (we'll just wait until I'm in a similar situation, though I'm not likely to be pursuing a career in something I'm passionate about, since that doesn't exist), but if they were asking me for advice, that's what I'd say. And then I'd offer my babysitting services.

[Hypatia]

But the thing is, the asker wasn't dismissing the document; he was merely asking it not be used to criticize his wife for pursuing her education. That's what makes Phaedrus' rebuke insulting.

[Carrapicho]

I was a little surprised by that rebuke as well. It seemed to me that Tight Spot was not "dismiss[ing] the Family Proclamation," but rather asking that it not be interpreted to mean that the Family Proclamation means his wife should quit her education. His reference to the part about adapting to individual circumstances made this clear to me.

[TheAnswerIs42]

On that note, one thing I thought of while reading the question was "They do have at least 9 months to figure this out."

As Sky Bones pointed out, that's not really true. Many women are immediately taken out of commission by nausea and exhaustion during pregnancy, so that gives zero time to sort out issues before all is thrown for a loop.

I think I can see what you are saying about the "rebuke" paragraph, Hypatia, because the asker really was just trying to defend himself against the "no woman should ever work" judgemental type of people. But to me, the big thing is looking at how small that paragraph is, and how supportive Phaedrus was in the rest of his answer. I was impressed by how encouraging and supportive he was, even though I have to say my first thought was "well, that seems like a bad idea." So maybe he put a disclaimer style paragraph towards the end to make sure they weren't taking things too far. So what. Sometimes I need reminders that answers from sources I dismissed are actually the right answers after all. (Here I'm referring usually to judgemental people that drive me crazy, not nessesarily the actual document.) We don't know this guy enough personally to tell.

[Defy V]

But the thing is, the asker wasn't dismissing the document; he was merely asking it not be used to criticize his wife for pursuing her education. That's what makes Phaedrus' rebuke insulting.

That's true. But it's a bit shortsighted to assume that anytime anyone quotes the Family Proclamation, it's just to yell at women who want to work. That may be the case more often than not, but to assume that's the only way people will "use" the Family Proclamation is, in a sense, dismissing it. (Sorry if that doesn't make sense . . . if you reread it a few times what I'm saying might get across).

My personal opinion: Tight Spot wasn't dismissing the document. But I can see how Phaedrus saw it that way. Whether or not Phaedrus should have said anything . . . well, Board Writers aren't perfect.

[Yarjka]

I just want to chime in that my wife and I were told numerous times that having a baby right now was not the right decision, but you know what, we did it anyways because we both felt it was what we should be doing. My daughter is a year and a half now, we still haven't put her in daycare, my wife works part time and I go to school more than full time (I teach as well as study). I've missed quite a few meetings, and my department hasn't been as understanding as I would have hoped, but overall things are working out. Priorities just get shifted--before having a baby, I would never have missed a single meeting, I usually attended special guest lectures and extracurricular activities--now I don't, but it's okay. Lots of people miss those for lots of reasons. Now we're actually considering having my wife go back to graduate school once I'm ABD. It might not work for everyone, but it can work.

[Digit]

ABD, All But Dissertation?

[Yarjka]

ABD, All But Dissertation?

Yep. It was a good two years before I found out what people meant when they said they were ABD. I thought it meant they had deferred or something. Now that I'm just about there myself, I figure it's time I start owning the acronym.

[Tao]

But the thing is, the asker wasn't dismissing the document; he was merely asking it not be used to criticize his wife for pursuing her education. That's what makes Phaedrus' rebuke insulting.

That's true. But it's a bit shortsighted to assume that anytime anyone quotes the Family Proclamation, it's just to yell at women who want to work. That may be the case more often than not, but to assume that's the only way people will "use" the Family Proclamation is, in a sense, dismissing it. (Sorry if that doesn't make sense . . . if you reread it a few times what I'm saying might get across).

My personal opinion: Tight Spot wasn't dismissing the document. But I can see how Phaedrus saw it that way. Whether or not Phaedrus should have said anything . . . well, Board Writers aren't perfect.

We don't know if the asker was dismissing or not, nor do we know Phaedrus' motivation. All we have is our interpretations of their words. I am not a female perusing an advanced degree, so I don't have the personal experiences and emotional ties that Hypatia has. I didn't see anything wrong with Phaedrus' 'rebuke' (though I'm not sure I would have termed it as such).

Looking at some interesting lines in the question: "I welcome any advice" ... "dropping out of school or even delaying is not something we can consider" ... "don't cite the Family Proclamation and tell me to have my wife quit her education". What could easily be read into his query is "We are looking at ways to make this work that don't include x". We have no way to know if this is because x is all they've heard and they've honestly considered it before deciding it isn't for them, or if something else is keeping them from considering all their options. Phaedrus' caution can be read as more of a reminder that sometimes the answer we immediately reject is the one we need to look closest at. It may very well be that she will have to delay her schooling, as 42 mentioned, if she happens to be one of the unlucky ones who is severely hampered by her pregnancy I doubt her PhD work is going to progress at the same rate as if she were not pregnant. Perhaps taking fewer credits, or having him shift to a night-shift job and seeing much less of each other, or some other option that they'd really rather not face is the advice that they most need to hear. Hard to say.

[Commander Keen]

/

[Hypatia]

After talking with CK, I think I need to clarify my point.

First, I don't think the reader was being snippy because I completely understand where he is coming from. See my first point.

Second, the reader specifically asked not that the document be dismissed but that the document not be used IN A SEXIST MANNER. So when Phaedrus went on his little rant, it came off TO ME as possibly sexist.

Third, this probably boils down to lots of misinterpretation. And I'm sure this writer is a great guy, wasn't suggesting he was anything less. Sure, I've misinterpreted questions in the past and been slammed by readers and writers alike (I remember one such debacle over some comments I made about secretaries and stay-at-home moms). No body is perfect but before one criticizes a reader, especially over a very sensitive issue, they ought to read the question fully. I could understand the rebuke if Phaedrus stopped reading at "please don't quote the Proclamation," and failed to read the last part, "in an attempt to criticize my wife."

[Genuine Article]

it's a bit shortsighted to assume that anytime anyone quotes the Family Proclamation, it's just to yell at women who want to work. That may be the case more often than not, but to assume that's the only way people will "use" the Family Proclamation is, in a sense, dismissing it. (Sorry if that doesn't make sense . . . if you reread it a few times what I'm saying might get across).

This is exactly how I felt. It seems like he's buying into the idea that that's what the Proclamation is saying, disagrees (and rightly so), causing him to mistakenly discount it as a reliable source of guidance. I wanted to tell the guy to give us writers some credit. No one on the Board espouses the idea that women belong barefoot in the kitchen, and yet he assumed that's what we'd try and tell him. It makes me wonder why he even asked us for advice in the first place.

[wired]

I love that Hypatia, and Sauron, and I all just come out whenever we vehemently disagree with something. Though I haven't seen and Sauron in awhile. I suppose I should ask a vehemently anti-OWS question.

[krebscout]

I love that Hypatia, and Sauron, and I all just come out whenever we vehemently disagree with something. Though I haven't seen and Sauron in awhile. I suppose I should ask a vehemently anti-OWS question.

He's having a pretty intense semester.

I like that DARE and Genuine come on just to say something snarky or tell a funny story (usually. The above comment excepted). And it feels like CK and Sky Bones come around only when somebody needs to defend the Board.

[Sky Bones]

Hey. It's kind of my job. (It's also true.)

[Marduk]

Yeah, any time anyone around here becomes a writer, they forget about us. It is very sad. (I'm looking at you, Gimgimno! And (other writer with new 'nym who doesn't want to be connected back here!))

On topic, I agree that the word rebuke was a bit of a strong one. Seems to me that it ought to be reserved for folks specifically in authority over said individual. I think this is a case of lost in translation on both ends; many times the Proclamation can be used to beat women over the head in a D&C 121esque way. The reader was afraid of that kind of response, and attempted to put a caveat in place to guard against it. That caveat was misenterpreted, causing a warning against disregarding sound doctrine.

I don't think anyone is at fault; that being said, both reader and writer could do with an increase of tact.

[wired]

I love that Hypatia, and Sauron, and I all just come out whenever we vehemently disagree with something. Though I haven't seen and Sauron in awhile. I suppose I should ask a vehemently anti-OWS question.

He's having a pretty intense semester.

I like that DARE and Genuine come on just to say something snarky or tell a funny story (usually. The above comment excepted). And it feels like CK and Sky Bones come around only when somebody needs to defend the Board.

I can understand that. I've been feeling swamped too. I usually do a very quick glance over the topics here to see if there's anything really interesting. Usually can't stop in but once or twice a week. Hope things go well for Sauron. Is he doing a masters, masters-to-PhD track, or a PhD?

[Portia]

In defense of Phædrus, it's not like The Family: A Proclamation to the World is either ambiguous or non-normative. In fact, it's the only textual document issued in my lifetime upon which Mormons can more or less agree that it's canon.

Like any text, it's subject to textual analysis; i.e., does "primarily" refer to the subject of the clause, or the predicate? In other words, are mothers primarily responsible for the "nurture" of their children (as opposed to fathers], or are mothers primarily responsible for the nurture of their children (rather than their "protection," or "necessities of life," or "recreational activities")? Same for the "fathers" clause. Both readings are defensible, but what isn't defensible in my opinion is ignoring common sense interpretations and even social mores because it tickles your fancy. Guess what -- I drink coffee and/or tea nearly every day, and I feel absolutely no moral drawback to that. Doesn't mean I'm going to go claiming that my choices are in accordance with Mormon theology.

It should not be some sort of news flash that the LDS church is very, very prescriptive and pre-Friedanian when it comes to gender roles and money-earning arrangements. I believe D. Todd Christofferson did mention recently that we ought not to be judgmental jerks in re others' families, but that doesn't mean that the "primary responsibilities" are going anywhere. I'm not the one imposing the purity test, here, but it exists, and how is a single thing Phædrus said undoctrinal? If they want a Church opinion, then the orthodox, the Church-believes-in-Industrial-age-family-units response is for the husband to work outside the home and for the mother to raise their child. If they want my honest opinion, then I think they should look into childcare provided by their university, have him be a stay-at-home-dad, and most of all, not have the kid for a few years! But this is MY opinion as informed by my personal politics and views on family life, and they are anti-informed by the Proclamation. I think Phædrus made the right call, here, from a theological standpoint, and if you don't like it, then base your family planning decisions on science or feminist thought or money, but don't go whining when your parents ask you why you're childless at 28. You're Mormons.